Wednesday, 30 April 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the decision of the Honourable The Minister for Education Senator Ryan not to provide Commonwealth Recurrent Funding for the proposed extension to Secondary School in 1987 by the Illawarra Christian School be reversed. Your petitioners request the Senate to protect the freedom of choice of parents wishing to educate their children in a Christian Secondary School by providing Commonwealth Recurrent Funding for the extension to Secondary School by the Illawarra Christian School. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 772 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that your petitioners:- Request that the Hawke Government: Remove the mining veto from the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. by Senator Kilgariff (from 68 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we oppose the deregulation of housing interest rates without adequate safeguards to protect homebuyers. 2. That we condemn the Government for breaking its unequivocal promise not to deregulate these interest rates. 3. We express our concern that the Government's decision will cause undue hardship to many Australian families. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to reverse its decision and re-impose the interest rate ceiling. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 194 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights because: This Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as:- The right to own your own home and other property and not to be deprived of it without just compensation. The right to insulate our children from radical forms of education and the right to choice of schools. The right to a referendum for constitutional amendments. The right to True freedom of speech. The Bill gives dangerous, unlimited powers to an unelected Human Rights Commission with no appeal, no legal representation and closed hearings. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote to reject the Bill, believing that such a Bill should only be determined by the people at a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 991 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in January 1983 the Latvian born nursing sister Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was arrested by the Soviet authorities and subsequently sentenced to sixteen years in a strict regime enforced labour camp with an additional three years in exile. She had been charged with maintaining contact with Baptists abroad and for being in possession of a copy of the 1975 Helsinki Accords and of having a list of the Soviet Union's transgressions of them. Since Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was only exercising her rights as guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Soviet Union is a cosignator, your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the Senate will intercede with the Soviet authorities on her behalf and so secure her early release. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal System in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 16 citizens) and Robertson (from 14 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: 1. In this aging Australian society children are our most precious resource. 2. We request that any changes to the Child Care Act should ensure the protection of these children by providing for quality care by mothercraft nurses or other trained child care professionals. 3. We urge that funding provided under the Child Care Act should ensure the maintenance of the present standards of 75 percent of award wages and conditions for approved child care professionals. 4. We also ask that available child care places be provided according to the needs of the children rather than through restricting access according to the work-related needs of parents. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: that the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill 1. offer nothing more than is already available under law, 2. deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners request that the Senate should: completely reject the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 11 citizens) and Robertson (from 11 citizens). Honourable the President, and members of Senate in Parliament assembled Parliament House Canberra, ACT We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia express our concern at the proposed Australian Bill of Rights legislation and therefore call on the Senate to reject that legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray: by Senator Brownhill (from 249 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Knowles (from 13 citizens) and Robertson (from 68 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 are concerned at the likely adverse impact of the Australian Bill of Rights on the fundamental rights we Australians have already won. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled reject the Australian Bill of Rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from five 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 so-called ``Australian Bill of Rights'' which is now before the Senate, is an inherently dangerous piece of legislation. Furthermore, it takes away many of the basic and important rights Australians now have. It is a blatant attempt to engineer social change according to a given ideology without the people having any say in the matter. It should be settled by a referendum. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled reject the Australian Bill of Rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, humbly pray that the parliament act to outlaw the practice of the large petrol companies also controlling petrol retail outlets in competition with independent petrol distributors and retailers who they supply, thus acting in a position of unfair competition, and leading to the large companies exerting unconscionable pressure on those independent distributors and retailers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 98 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smo-king tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 149 citizens). Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petitioning letters from 47 and eight citizens respectively and a petition from 12 citizens, which are not in conformity with Standing Orders as they are not in the correct form and do not contain a prayer at the end thereof, reques-ting that the Australian Bill of Rights 1985 be rejected: P.O. Box 85 Cardiff 2285 9th February 1986 Senator Michael Baume, C/ Parliament House, CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Sir, During the next session of Parliament I understand that the proposed Bill of Rights will come before the Senate to be debated. We the undersigned would like to voice our protest at the proposed Bill for the following reasons: 1. Due to the haste with which this legislation was passed through the House of Representatives in view of the fact that it affects adversely areas of immense importance to liberty and freedom. 2. Because it is based upon the United Nations International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights which has been rejected by the United States of America and Great Britain but was accepted by the Warsaw Pact countries. 3. Because our Australian Constitution states that ``whereas we the people'' give you the government these rights. The Constitution limits the rights and power of the government. The proposed Bill of Rights reverses this totally and states that ``we the government, give you the people these rights''. This totally reverses the nature of government in this country. Our rights are now protected by current legislation, Common law and the present Constitution. 4. Because it transfers the power of interpretation of legislation from the Parliament of Australia (the democratically elected institution) to the Courts (an un-elected body of people). 5. Because the Bill of Rights will be administered by the Human Rights Commission which is an unelected body of people with powers which are outside and not subject to the normal processes of law-no appeal, closed hearings, no legal representation. We therefore request that you vote to reject this proposed Bill of Rights. 9 Exhibition Pde Mt. Pritchard 2170 24th March 1986 Senator Baume Parliament House Canberra Dear Senator, We wish to express to you our alarm at the proposed Human Rights Bill, now before Parliament. Rather than preserve the legal and human rights of Australians, now in operation, this Bill lays the way right open for tyranny and abuse of these rights. It is a Bill which has received no public debate, insufficient Parliamentary debate, and bears all the hallmarks of being hastily put together. The far reaching effects of this Bill could be devasta-ting to the time-tested and highly-valued system of justice in this country. It is most worthy of note that the Bill is being received gladly by the leaders of totalitarian governments, but has been rejected by the democratic parliaments of Great Britain and United States of America. This nation should, in fact, MUST, also reject the Bill. We urgently request that you vote against this Bill, in its entirety, when it comes before the Senate. PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED BILL OF RIGHTS Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls upon the Federal Government to produce its fringe benefits taxation legislation, in view of the fact that it is now eight months since it was first announced that it intended to introduce such a tax; (b) views with grave disquiet the deleterious effects of such a tax on the motor vehicle industry, particularly with respect to employment stability in this, and allied, industries; and (c) condemns the Government for the confusion and anxiety which it is causing within charitable institutions for its refusal to provide an unqualified commitment that these charities will be exempt from the fringe benefits taxation, despite the repeated calls by the Federal Opposition and concerned charities to provide such an assurance that they would not be burdened by inappropriate taxes. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That Orders 100C and 100D of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders, as contained in Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as Amended (Amendment), (being Export Control Orders No. 7 of 1986) and made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That Order 111A of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders, as contained in Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as Amended (Amendment), (being Export Control Orders No. 7 of 1986) and made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the stress and hardship being experienced by Canberra residents who require elective surgery and who have been placed on waiting lists due to the inability of the Federal Labor Government to address the problems confronting our public health services; (b) draws particular attention to the plight of physically disabled children who require corrective surgery; and (c) calls upon the Government to take immediate action to alleviate the unacceptable situation within the Australian Capital Territory. Senator VIGOR(South Auatralia) —Pursuant to notice of intention which I gave on 16 April 1986, I withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 3, standing in my name, for the disallowance of sections 54 and 59 of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority Ordinance 1985. I seek leave to make a brief statement explaining the matter. Leave granted. Senator VIGOR —When I first looked at the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority Ordinance I found quite a few oddities amongst the provisions. Consultation with the various unions confirmed my suspicion that some of the sections were completely out of date. Unfortunately the first time that virtually all the union officials had heard of the ordinance was when my office contacted them. They expressed varying degrees of incredulity and suspicion about several sections, which were largely the ones that I had noted. They certainly had misgivings about the manner in which the ordinance had been put together, particularly the lack of consultation, which is not conducive to a good industrial relations atmosphere. I moved to disallow sections 54 and 59, which deal with employees on probation and the setting of qualifications for staff vacancies. There were problems with staff possibly not knowing that their period of probation had been extended and with inappropriate qualifications being set for vacancies. After discussions, the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) wrote to me about these and other matters connected with the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority Ordinance. I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurances that proper procedures must always be carried out in relation to probation and staff recruitment, and I therefore withdraw my notice of motion for disallowance of these sections. In order to save time I seek leave to incorporate the Minister's letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Senator D. Vigor The Senate Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 My Dear Senator HEALTH AUTHORITY ORDINANCE 1985 My purpose in writing to you is firstly to give you an assurance that the prime objective of the above Ordinance was to give effect to the new broadly based ACT Health Authority as modelled by my colleague the Minister for Health, Dr Neal Blewett, and secondly to clarify for you the position in regard to those provisions of the Ordinance about which you have expressed some concern. I am also aware that the ACT Trades and Labour Council has expressed similar concerns about those provisions of the Ordinance which deal with staff conditions of employment. Contact was made with Mr Charles MacDonald (Secretary of the ACT Trades and Labour Council) earlier this week and arrangements made for him and other union delegates to meet with Authority officers to discuss those concerns. I understand that the outcome was quite positive and that agreement was reached to establish a working group comprising TLC delegates and Authority officers to advise on the final form of those parts of an updated ordinance, which refer to staff conditions of employment. Consultations will also be held with the Hospital Employees Federation which, as you know, is not affiliated with the TLC. I do wish to emphasise that the Ordinance was prepared primarily as enabling legislation to allow the new Authority structure to be put in place. The former Ordinance was used as its basis, and it was recognised that some clauses, particularly those that related to staff and conditions, needed review. The former Authority specifically declined to update these provisions during the transition stage so that the new Authority and its boards with wider membership as well as staff associations and other community based organisations could have the opportunity for input. To assist you in considering your position in relation to specific sections of the Ordinance, I have set out below my comments about those sections and the advice I received from the General Manager of the Authority. My comments also cover those sections subject to disallowance motions by Senator Reid. Section 11 You indicated a desire to amend Section 11 so as to provide for local political representation on the Authority. The government made a conscious decision to avoid overt politicisation of the Authority or the Boards which had caused some conflict in the past. The objectives and membership of the Authority and its boards emphasise broad ranging community participation in health services. My colleague the Minister for Health discussed this issue with Senator Haines and it was agreed that the absence of local political representatives would not be reason to move disallowance. Section 45 (g) Our colleague Senator Reid has lodged a notice of motion for disallowance of this paragraph. It provides that the Authority shall not appoint a person as a Visiting Medical Officer or a Visiting Dental Officer if that person has, in the opinion of the Authority, been guilty of unprofessional conduct. As it is the role of either the Medical Board or the Dental Board to find a doctor or dentist guilty of unprofessional conduct I am advising Senator Reid that I will raise no objection to the disallowance of this paragraph. I might add that I am advised that the disallowance of Section 45 (g) in no way diminishes the excellent professional standards which the public is entitled to expect of visiting Medical Officers in public hospitals. Section 52-Appointment of Officers You indicated that para 52 (2) (c) was of concern. This paragraph deals with the capacity of the Authority to satisfy itself that a potential appointee is a fit and proper person for appointment. It is unchanged from the superseded Ordinance and is identical to the standard set by the Public Service Act. In these circumstances I do not consider that it requires amendment. Section 54-Appointment on Probation You mentioned para 54 (4) (c) as needing alteration. This provision is unaltered from the superseded Ordinance. The Authority's administrative procedures ensure that a probationary period could never be extended or annulled without advice to the probationer. In the case of annulment, paragraph 54 (b) provides that reasons for such action must be given. There is provision for appeal against any adverse decision under Section 54 via Section 69. I attach, for your information, a copy of the form used by the Authority, and indeed by the whole Australian Public Service, for Probation Reports. You will see that Section 11 of that form provides specifically for the probationer to comment on the assessment if he or she so desires. Accordingly, I consider Section 54 of the Ordinance to be satisfactory in its present form. Section 59-Filling of vacant positions Your concern related to the power of the Authority to interpret sub-section 59 (2) so as to prescribe matters other than educational qualifications as necessary to fill vacant positions. This could not occur. The Section merely provides a capacity for the Authority to prescribe educational qualifications as necessary in a Health Authority which employs large numbers of technical and professional staff. It could not be used for any other purpose and in fact is used to ensure that the qualifications required by the Authority are similar to those required in the Public Service. This Section is unchanged from the previous Ordinance. Sections 61, 62 and 65 to 69 I understand that you are particularly concerned about the lack of reference to the Merit Protection Review Agency in the provisions relating to promotion appeal and disciplinary matters. The relevant provisions are Sections 61 and 62 and 65 to 69 inclusive. The General Manager of the Authority has advised me that several months ago the Authority decided that staff employed under the Health Authority Ordinance should be covered by the Merit Protection Review Agency procedures. Following this decision the Authority wrote to the Director of the Merit Protection Review Agency seeking his agreement to this arrangement. Discussions were held with the Director of the Merit Protection Review Agency, Mr P. Gifford, last night and he has expressed the view that in extending services to Statutory Authorities it is his Agency's policy to deal first with those organisations who have expressed a wish to be so covered. In respect to the ACT Health Authority Mr Gifford has agreed to have discussions with the Authority and the relevant unions before the end of April 1986 with a view to effecting the transfer of responsibility to the Merit Protection Review Agency by 1 July 1986. In the meantime, to enable the Authority to continue to handle promotion appeals and disciplinary matters it is essential that Sections 61 and 62 and 65 to 69 are retained. You have my assurance, however, that the necessary amendments to enable the Merit Protection Review Agency to handle promotion and disciplinary appeal matters will be in place within the next six months. Sections 63 and 64 As you point out these provisions dealing with tenure of office and excess officers are out of date and have been overtaken by the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. The Australian Capital Territory Health Authority is a prescribed organisation under that act. I would therefore raise no objection to the disallowance of both these sections if a disallowance motion was put forward in respect of Section 63. You have already lodged a motion of disallowance in respect of Section 64. Section 76 Senator Reid also gave notice of motion to disallow this section. It provides the Authority for a hospital patient to elect to be treated as the private patient of the doctor of choice. Now that the Department of Health is to issue a revised Medicare Directive to the effect that privately insured patients entering public hospitals will be automatically classified as private patients, unless they opt to be treated as Medicare patients, the provisions of Section 76 are unnecessary. I therefore have advised Senator Reid that I will raise no objection to the disallowance of this section. Section 81-Secrecy The intention of this Section is to impose the same standards on non-medical staff of the Authority as are imposed on medical staff by their own professional ethics. The provisions relate to disclosure of information concerning the affairs of any other person, or the provision of documents to other persons, except in the performance of a duty under the Ordinance. The provision is not intended as a measure to prohibit all discussion on Authority affairs, although normal public service standards on public comment would apply through other legislation, guidelines and codes. Yours sincerely GORDON SCHOLES Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. I add that the Minister has set 1 July as the goal for the Merit Protection Review Agency to take over the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority's promotions, appeal and disciplinary processes. In the light of the Minister's written assurance that the necessary amendments will be in place within six months, I shall withdraw my objection to sections 61, 62 and 65 and 69 by writing to the Clerk of the Senate. The Minister has indicated that he will not mourn the loss of section 63, which proposed quite unreasonable powers for dismissal of employees between the ages of 60 and 65 years. We will proceed with that disallowance. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the 25 per cent fall in new motor vehicle registrations in the 1986 March quarter, with the month of March falling 33 per cent, to bring the worst March registrations figure for 12 years; (b) notes that the reduction of 43,431 units in the March quarter resulted largely from the Federal Government's changed tax arrangements on fringe benefits which are aimed at raising $320m in the coming financial year; (c) notes that the Government revenue lost through sales taxes and other taxes and charges as a result of the fall in new registration totals $150m in the March quarter alone, wiping out in three months half the total revenue of the fringe benefits tax budgeted for next year. (d) recognises that a continuation of this trend will mean a considerable net loss to revenue which will arise following the introduction of the fringe benefits tax; and (e) calls on the Government to reconsider its proposed fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles, not only for the sake of the motor vehicle industry and its employees, but also in order to protect the Government's revenue. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —Mr President, I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Inquiry 1986-First Report-Commonwealth Grants Commission. 2. Australian National Airlines Commission and Ansett Transport Industries Limited-Joint Report-Consultations Held During 1985-Airfares and Passenger Revenue Load Factors and Aircraft Utilisation-Pursuant to sub-clause 7 (11) of the Airlines Agreement Act 1981. 3. Australian National Airlines Commission-Financial Statements 1984-85-covering the Operation of Passenger Air Services on Trunk Routes and the Total Operation of Air Services-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to clause 13 of the Airlines Agreement Act 1981. 4. Ansett Transport Industries Limited-Financial Statements 1984-85-covering the Operation of Passenger Air Services on Trunk Routes and the Total Operation of Air Services-together with the Auditor's report-pursuant to clause 13 of the Airlines Agreement Act 1981. 5. Future Directions for Commercial Radio-Interim Report: AM/FM Conversion. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-The Government has endorsed the major recommendations of the report of the Review of the Repatriation Hospital System, chaired by Dr Ian Brand, which was tabled in Parliament on 11 September 1985. I commissioned this review in March 1984 seeking recommendations to correct deficiencies in resources, buildings, equipment and staff and to identify the requirements for the further development of the hospitals and related services to an ageing veteran and war widow population. The Government has confirmed that the repatriation hospital system will continue operating as a separate and independent unit for veterans and war widows for the foreseeable future but has agreed to the review's recommendations that planning should commence now with the States on rationalisation of services and for the eventual integration of repatriation hospitals with State health systems when they are no longer needed for Commonwealth purposes. The Government has agreed to the recommendation that standing committees of senior State and Federal officials be established to advise on total departmental-State relationships in the health and hospital arena. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will be seeking the co-operation of State Premiers to implement this initiative. Several States are commencing major structural reviews in the nursing area. The need for a nursing career structure review to be undertaken in the Commonwealth area is accepted. The Public Service Board, in close co-operation with my Department and the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority and, as necessary, other departments and authorities and involving relevant staff associations, will be undertaking this review immediately. The Brand review considered that there was sufficient evidence to suggest an interim increase of 6 per cent in overall staffing numbers in the repatriation general hospitals but admitted that it had neither the resources nor the time to determine specific numbers of additional staff, their classifications and locations. The Government has acknowledged that there is a need for an increase in staffing for the repatriation hospital system and the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Finance will be undertaking an immediate review of human resources, with the involvement of staff associations, to determine the numbers, classifications and locations of extra staff. This review will be separate from the review of Australian Public Service nursing career structures but will take into account any changes flowing from that review. These immediate reviews will provide the Government with the basis for provision of resources to improve the treatment standards in repatriation hospitals and assist in reducing the numbers of referrals to non-departmental hospitals. I am concerned that these reviews be not delayed and that conclusions are reached as soon as possible. To this end and to put in train the Government's decisions in relation to the Brand report, a task force of senior officers is being established in my Department. Mr R. Somes, a principal adviser with the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, will be transferring to the Department of Veterans' Affairs to head this group under the senior executive service temporary assignment program. These decisions, together with the increased funding in the 1985-86 Budget for repatriation hospitals, particularly in the areas of specialised equipment and capital works, confirm the Government's commitment to upgrade repatriation hospitals to meet the needs of our veterans and war widows. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.15) —Quite frankly, the Opposition considers that the response of the Government and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), as expressed in his statement on the report of the Review of the Repatriation Hospital System, is thoroughly unsatisfactory. This report, made to the Minister in June of last year is 246 pages long and has 236 recommendations. The Minister's response is written in little over two pages of foolscap and, in fact, seems to address, so far as I can ascertain, only six issues. It begins by saying that the Government `has endorsed the major recommendatons of the report'. However, the truth of the matter is that when one reads on through the statement to see in what way the Government has endorsed the major recommendations one sees that the Minister has ducked most of the major recommendations. As I said, he has in fact referred to only about six issues. It is clear that without further elaboration from the Minister the veterans' organisations will need to give this report very close scrutiny, in view of the Minister's misleading statements about the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. The statement, as far as we are concerned, is couched in language that is unclear, and I think the veterans' organisations also will find it unclear. I suggest that one thing which is clear from the statement is that the Minister has no influence within the Cabinet. He has had to resort to generalities and rhetoric in order to cover the fact that he has been unable to get through the Cabinet many of the recommendations made in the Brand report. Let me refer to one area in particular, the area of nursing, which the Minister appears to address in his statement. He refers to the need for a nursing career structure review to be undertaken in the Commonwealth area and says that the Government accepts that. He also says in regard to financing: The Government has acknowledged that there is a need for an increase in staffing for the repatriation hospital system and the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Finance will be undertaking an immediate review of human resources . . . Let us look at what the report says. It says that the disparity in wages between nursing staff employed by the repatriation general hospitals and those employed in the State systems should be urgently addressed. In other words, we really have to look at the problem of nursing wages for the reason that the Federal nursing award is about 10 to 20 per cent below the Victorian State award. We know that the Government is talking about a British nursing recruitment program, but the truth of the matter is that until such time as the Government fixes up the Federal nursing award nurses will be leaving the veterans hospitals en masse. That was established when my colleague the Liberal-National Party shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Tim Fischer, visited Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital in Melbourne on 17 March this year. He ascertained that of the 504 beds in that institution 133 were closed due to the severe shortage of registered nursing staff employed under the Commonwealth award. Notwithstanding the fact that 371 beds were open, he was officially advised that up to 50 veterans a week, of whom 20 would fall into the category of requiring essential rather than elective surgery, were being turned away from the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital. This had been going on for some time at that stage. Indeed, the Minister was asked a question about that matter on 20 March and did not give a satisfactory response. It is clear that one of the great problems here is the prices and incomes accord. The infamous accord of which this Government is so proud is creating a major problem for nurses employed under the Federal award in Australia. The Heidelberg and Concord hospitals are suffering greatly because of this Government's inability to do anything about the wages of nurses, thanks to the accord. As honourable senators will know from what I have read, the Minister has totally failed to address his mind to the problem and has not been able to persuade the Cabinet to apply its mind to the disparity in wages between the nursing staff employed in these institutions and those employed under State systems. That is but a simple example of one of the problems that arise from the 236 recommendations contained in this report and the thoroughly inadequate response by the Minister. I note that the Minister has arranged for Mr Somes, a senior officer, to be transferred to his Department under the senior executive service temporary assignment program to head up a task force. I wish Mr Somes well. I hope that Mr Somes will be more sympathetic to our veterans than the Department has been in the past. One would hope that the adversary role adopted by the Department to its client veterans will now cease. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.21) —The Australian Democrats welcome the statement made by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) with regard to the repatriation hospital system. I raised this issue in the last debate we had on the veterans' entitlements legislation and urged the Minister to declare as soon as possible what the Government intended to do with the report of the Review of the Repatriation Hospital System, which was chaired by Dr Brand, in terms of the additional resources that are required for that system. I think most people who have any dealings with veterans' affairs understand that Australia is now entering a period where the vast bulk of veterans-that is, roughly 320,000 veterans from the Second World War-are in their early sixties or slightly older. Medical statistics lead us to believe that the increasing greying of the veterans' community will place enormous pressure on hospitals which will treat the war related disorders and disabilities from which veterans suffer. Our repatriation hospital system will be required to pick up and assist in this respect. The Minister's statement is a short one. I feel that many people in the veteran community will be looking for details which are missing from this very short statement. I would like to point to two items in particular that are mentioned in the statement. The Minister talks about the continued operation of the repatriation hospital system as a separate and independent unit for veterans and war widows. He then uses the phrase `for the foreseeable future'. The Minister then says: . . . the planning should commence now with the States on rationalisation of services and for the eventual integration of Repatriation hospitals with State health systems when they are no longer needed for Commonwealth purposes. I suppose forward planning is always desirable. However, I would have thought that any changeover from the repatriation system to a general hospital system is such a long way down the track as not to warrant inclusion in a brief, two-page note of what the Government intends to do in this area. Surely it is important to give an unequivocal guarantee that the repatriation hospital system will remain as a separate and independent unit for as long as it is required for veterans' purposes rather than-to use the phrase that is used in the statement-for Commonwealth purposes. The veteran community is very concerned that the State systems would be unable to deal with particular areas of medicine, such as geriatric medicine, that are essential in repatriation hospitals. Many hospitals in the State systems would be unable to meet the requirements of such a specialised area and this would lead to a lessening in care for veterans. So the Australian Democrats certainly welcome the statement, as far as it goes, that the Government, as a matter of policy, now says that the repatriation hospital system will remain for the foreseeable future as a separate unit available to veterans and that specialised care will be provided for veterans. The other item I raise, which takes up the bulk of this statement, refers to the staffing resources which are needed to meet the increased demands now facing repatriation hospitals, demands which will increase in the very near future. However, in reading the statement I am unable to find what decision the Government has made. On page 2 the Minister states: The Brand Review considered there was sufficient evidence to suggest an interim increase of 6 per cent in overall staffing numbers . . . but admitted that it had neither the resources nor the time to determine specific numbers of additional staff . . . The Government then goes on to say that it will undertake a review to determine that provision, but no commitment is made in this document to the essential element of the Brand report with regard to staffing; that is, that there is now sufficient evidence that there should be an interim increase of 6 per cent. The Government has not committed itself in this statement to picking up the initial increase of 6 per cent. It says it will look at what needs to be done, but I would have thought that the veteran community in particular was looking for a commitment from the Government to the initial interim measure of a 6 per cent increase. Where that actual staff would then go obviously has to be decided on the result of the review that the Government has announced in this statement. But why undertake a review when in fact we are not told whether or not there is any commitment to increase staff? When I first read this statement it seemed to me that the Government had agreed with the Brand suggestion of a 6 per cent increase, but when I read it again I saw that there was no commitment, merely a suggestion that these decisions, together with increased funding in the area, confirm the Government's commitment. But when one goes back to look at what these decisions are, they amount to no more than that a review will be undertaken. I hope that that might have been an oversight in the way this statement is written because, after all, I would have thought that is the whole point of the Minister making a statement with regard to the review of the repatriation system insofar as it bears on the staffing problem. I cannot see in the statement where the other matters of the Brand report have been rehearsed in any detailed way, so I assume that this report is only about the staffing problem. When we limit it to that we do not see any decision taken by the Government to increase staff, merely one to look at where there are possibilities of increased staff. Yet as the Brand report very clearly points out, there is already sufficient evidence to suggest at least a 6 per cent increase. I hope that the Government will respond immediately to the query I raise because I know that the veteran community has been pressing the Government on that item since the Brand report was delivered to the Government late last year. I hope that the veteran community will not have to wait any longer to see whether the Government is actually committed to that particular increase. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to the Resolution relating to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I move: That Business of the Senate, Order of the Day No. 1 (Orders 111A and 100A of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders-Motions for disallowance), be discharged from the Notice Paper. I move this motion because the two orders which are the subject of the disallowance motion were repealed by new orders which were made on Monday last and laid before the Senate yesterday. The disallowance motion would have no effect because it relates to orders which have been repealed. However, lest anybody who reads Hansard is confused up to this point of time, recognising that I have put down a notice of motion for disallowance of further orders, let me say that these orders are those that have become affectionately known as the Mudginberri orders pertaining to the Government's responsibility to provide meat inspectors during that dispute and any subsequent dispute. As indicated in the motion, the two orders in respect of which we moved for disallowance have been repealed, so this motion takes those off the Notice Paper. However, the notice of motion I put down previously gives notice of motion for disallowance of further orders which were laid before the Senate yesterday, and that will be debated later on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Sheil for Senator Reid) agreed to: That the Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion Nos 1 and 2, standing in the name of Senator Reid for the disallowance of a paragraph and section of the Health Authority Ordinance 1985, be postponed till a later hour this day. Consideration resumed from 29 April. Clause 38 (Warranties in relation to the supply of services). Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.32) —I indicated yesterday, when we were discussing a number of other matters with relation to the Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986, that we would be moving an amendment with regard to clause 38, which is the clause which amends section 74. This is the clause that has probably excited most interest in this chamber, and it has attracted attitudes lined up much more on ideological bases than those on probably any other clause. Essentially, our amendment is to exempt qualified architects and engineers from the ambit of the new legislation, and we do that for a specific reason. Senator Durack commented yesterday that more and more professionals are incorporating, and that this is particularly true of architects and engineers. This is not our main reason for moving this amendment. In amending the Trade Practices Act through clause 38, the Government is attempting to bring to bear, I suppose, a greater responsibility on the part of professionals in their dealings with their clients. This measure will not do what a number of people have suggested it will do-place an excessive burden on most of those professionals so that if they do not achieve some whimsical desire which may or may not have been made known to them by the client, they will somehow be in dereliction of their duty and will be hauled before the nearest court, and as a consequence, of course, their personal liability insurance is going to skyrocket, costs to the consumer are going to increase, and all sorts of nasty things, including the end of the Western world as we know it, will occur. In fact, that is a nonsense, and I think that most people who are alleging it realise that it is a nonsense. Doctors will not be expected to cure patients in every case, nor will lawyers be expected to get all their clients off. Nothing of this sort has happened even in the United States, where people are far more prone to litigation on vexatious and frivolous issues than we are here. The issue with regard to architects and engineers is we believe that they fall into a special category as far as their relationship to their client is concerned; that is that, while they come up with designs, specifications and so on in accordance with whatever a particular client wishes, in the implementation of those specifications, designs, contracts and so on a fairly significant third party intervenes. As I said, we do not subscribe to the general argument that has been put in this place over the last few months of debate-that professionals generally should be exempt in the manner in which they have been in the past; that there is somehow a God-given difference between trades people and professional people that allows the professional to have oversight of his or her actions while the tradesperson has to be covered by the law in a more specific way. In the case of architects and engineers, we believe that the complicating factor of that third party that I mentioned is a reason for amending the legislation as far as the provision of services by those two categories of professionals is concerned. The particular cause of concern to us is, as I said, the intervention of a third party. A builder, for example, can ignore or deviate from specifications in such a way that the end result is not what was contracted for or expected by the client, and can do so in a manner which is not always readily apparent to the people who may have cause for complaint at the end. Unravelling who caused what problem is a big enough difficulty when one is dealing even with such things as an ordinary suburban home, let alone with multi-storey buildings, bridges and what-have-you that are dealt with on a regular basis by architects and engineers. To imply that the architects or engineers are absolutely responsible and that if a building or whatever turns out to be unfit in some way for the purpose they are wholly responsible is to place a far more onerous provision on them, I would have thought, than is placed in any other dealings between another group of professionals and their clients or patients, or whatever they want to call them. The effect of this amendment being accepted would simply be that architects and engineers would be covered by the common law, as they are at the moment, and that they could then battle their way through the sorts of problems that occur if windows pop out of multi-storey buildings or bridges fall down, as they have in the past. I just hope that the Committee sees fit to support the amendment, for the reasons that I have put. I move: Page 35, lines 1 to 10, leave out the clause, insert the following new clause: Warranties in relation to the supply of services ``38. Section 74 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting in sub-section (2) `(other than services of a professional nature provided by a qualified architect or engineer)' after `services' (first occurring); and (b) by omitting sub-section (3) and substituting the following sub-section: `(3) A reference in this section to services does not include a reference to services that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred under- (a) a contract for on in relation to the transportation or storage of goods for the purposes of a business, trade, profession or occupation carried on or engaged in by the person for whom the goods are transported or stored; or (b) a contract of insurance.'.''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.38) — The Government is not disposed to accept this amendment. To the extent that there is any justification for it, it would certainly not appear to be the grounds just advanced by Senator Haines, which are based on the practical reality that there is very often the interposition of a third party between architects and engineers and their clients. The existence of that third party in the case of an architect-for example, a builder-does not in any way affect the character of the legal relationship between the architect and the client. There may be practical difficulties in untangling the respective responsibilities and determining whether something is a design fault or a fault that is attributable rather to execution, but that, of course, is a recurring problem in real life and it does not in any way undermine the character of the legal obligation which at the moment, as a matter of common law, the architect has directly to the client. It should not affect the course of this particular debate, which is about whether that common law obligation should be given statutory expression and perhaps slightly rewritten to include in sub-section 74 (2) the concept of fitness for purpose. A better reason for considering that architects and engineers perhaps do not need to be covered by this statutory provision is an argument based on a United Kingdom Court of Appeal case in 1975 which indicated, if it is indeed good law, that the scope of the duty or obligation of professionals such as architects and engineers at common law does extend to this wider criterion of warranties of fitness as to purpose. In that sense, they might be more exposed to liability at common law than other categories of profes- sionals. The case in question is Greaves and Co. v. Baynham Meikle and Partners, 1975, 3 All England Reports at page 99, where the United Kingdom Court of Appeal held that there was an implied term that a warehouse designed by a structural engineer would be fit for the storage and transportation by fork-lift truck of oil drums on its first floor, where that purpose had been known to the structural engineer and it was clear that the building was needed for that purpose. The argument would be that section 74 (2) of the Act imposes no more liability than does the law of contract as articulated by the Court of Appeal in the Greaves case. So far, perhaps, so good, from the point of Senator Haines's argument, and the Government did have some willingness to accede to Senator Haines's representations on the basis of that consideration. However, a further consideration that must be resolutely borne in mind in these matters is the one I advanced yesterday in debate on an earlier amendment, and that is that the common law is not in itself an absolute guarantee, even where applicable, as perhaps here, that the obligations will in fact exist, because it is possible to contract out of a common law obligation. That is the problem about relying wholly on common law grounds of liability when one is talking about professional and other categories of responsibility. It is the case that, except perhaps for some limited residual operation of the concept of fundamental breach, about which, again, I will not burden the Senate with a lecture, apart from some potential residual operation of that particular doctrine in this area, but necessarily of very limited scope, the reality is that professionals, like anyone else, can contract out of liability for negligence, and some of them do, whereas they cannot contract out of liabilities under the Trade Practices Act by virtue of the existence of section 68, as I said yesterday. I have established that while it is certainly claimed by both the architectural and engineering professions that they do not as a matter of practice contract out of liability, that as professionals they accept a proper liability, and while I do not contest that as a matter of practice that does generally occur, nonetheless the opportunity is there for them to do so. I am also advised by the Trade Practices Commission that there is nothing in the architects' code of ethics to prevent them contracting out, and in the engineers' code of ethics there is also nothing directly to prevent them contracting out, although some of the more generalised expressions of principle that appear in that engineering profession document might be construed as at least inhibiting them from so acting. The bottom line in all of this remains that at the end of the day there is simply no reason for treating any particular group, either the professions as a whole or some particular sub-category of professions within that larger group, any differently from anyone else. As I said yesterday, if a concreter who is employed to pour foundations for a coastal house but does not render services fit for that purpose can be subject to liability under section 74 (2), there is no reason why an architect employed to design a house fit to stand the pressures of coastal winds and so on should not also be liable if that house does not meet that purpose. There is no reason for that kind of exemption. Senator Haines —I did not say that they should be. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, but the honourable senator is saying that they should not be liable by virtue of anything in the Trade Practices Act. What I am saying is that the liability which presently exists as a matter of common law is a liability that can be avoided. There is no reason why any group of professionals should have the capacity to avoid liability, if one is being serious about implementing nationally codes of conduct, as it were, for the protection of consumers relating to services as well as goods. There is no justification for singling out any particular group as appropriately the recipient of a higher vote of confidence than someone else. It is invidious to distinguish doctors and lawyers as less worthy of confidence than are architects and engineers. I am not making any particular assault on the architectural or engineering professions in what I am saying, but simply making the point that the case has not been made for treating them differently from anybody else. It is for those reasons that the Government resists this amendment. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.46) —The example that Senator Gareth Evans has raised about concrete contractors and architects pouring foundations and designing houses respectively for coastal areas is not appropriate to the cases I was raising. Clearly, should something happen to a house in the way he has raised, it would be fairly easy, I would have thought, to find out whether it was the concrete pour or the design that was at fault. It is not always so easy and that was the point I was raising, notwithstanding frantic wind-up signals from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) at the time in order that we could get through this with some expedition. Certainly there will be areas where one can pinpoint clearly which of the people involved-the designer or the people putting the design into effect-were at fault. It is far more likely that there will be far more areas where it is not so clear. It seems to me, I repeat, that there is an unnecessarily onerous burden on those professionals where there are interposing events and people-tradesmen and other professionals-which make it worth while putting in this sort of exemption, notwithstanding anything they may or may not have in their codes of ethics, which is another matter entirely. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.48) —The Australian Democrats have moved a further amendment to the Government's amendments to the Trade Practices Act dealing with the delivery of professional services. As we debated this matter at some length last evening, the issue that emerged from the Government's amendments was the very wide increase in the responsibility or liability which will be imposed on professional persons. They will expand the liability which professional people have had for centuries under our law, namely, to exercise reasonable skill and care, having regard to their professional expertise and the skills which they have been trained to use and which their experience requires them to be able to use. A very high duty of care is imposed on professional people because of the reliance on their skills by their clients. The law has recognised that and has enforced it for a very long time. Indeed, professional people are now subject more and more to claims for damages. These days professional people are careful to cover themselves with professional indemnity insurance because of the effectiveness of the existing law. The Government is now saying that it can improve on these responsibilities and liabilities of professionals and will amend the Trade Practices Act to widen that liability to cover a situation where a person makes known, either expressly or by implication, the purpose for which the professional service is required. In that event, as Senator Evans has pointed out, an implied liability may be imposed by this Act. Any such implication cannot be excluded by agreement; it will be implied that the services will be reasonably fit for the purpose that has been made known to the professional. The particular obligation that is thereby imposed by the client on the professional cannot be excluded by agreement. A fantastic requirement might be imposed, in which case virtually the only thing the professional could do is refuse to act at all in the circumstances, because if that requirement is imposed by legislation there will be another objective test as to whether or not the services are reasonably fit for that purpose, or are of such a quality as might reasonably be expected to achieve that result. The Opposition is totally opposed to the imposition on professional people of this additional very wide and uncertain obligation. The debate we had was to endeavour to exclude professional services from this amendment to the Trade Practices Act. Last night the Democrats voted with the Government to defeat the Opposition's amendment because the reality is that they do not understand the effect of this provision. Indeed, they seem to think, from what I can gather from what Senator Haines has said in previous debates and said again last night, that the obligation will be not much different from the existing obligation. I sometimes think that the Democrats believe that this liability which will be imposed on professionals is the same as the existing liability. That is not the case. The Government is not arguing that; it is arguing that the obligation on professionals should be extended in this way and should impose these further uncertainties and liabilities on professional people generally, preventing them from being able to contract out of such great responsibilities. If this amendment is passed-the Opposition attempts have been effectively defeated by the Democrats' support for the Government's amendments-there will be enormous problems in getting adequate insurance cover in many cases. If that cover is obtained it will be at very much greater premiums which obviously will be passed on to the clients of professional people. We want to make it perfectly clear that the Democrats are supporting this great expansion of liability of professionals and the increase in the cost of professional services which will result. Many professionals will refuse to accept these sorts of burdens at all by simply refusing to act or, as Senator Sheil pointed out last night, with his medical knowledge will refuse to carry out innovative procedures which may be desired or required by a patient with a full knowledge of the risks involved. The Medical Defence Union Ltd in New South Wales, which was referred to by Senator Michael Baume, has also pointed out that there will be this restriction on the type of medical services that doctors will provide as a result of this ridiculous and totally unnecessary expansion of the liability of professional people. The Australian Democrats have supported the Government on that issue and have refused to vote for the Opposition's amendment, and the result is on their heads. Because of the usual intellectual bankruptcy of the Democrats, which is constantly revealed in this chamber, and because they want to be nice to somebody-they are always anxious to be nice to somebody-they have accepted the argument that has been advanced by architects and engineers. They have tried to single out these people as being in a different capacity from all other professional people. I do not understand why the Democrats have singled out architects and engineers and suggested that they should be exempt from these rigorous additional burdens that will be imposed upon all other professional people. The argument that Senator Haines advanced this morning is absolute nonsense. To say that only architects and engineers have third parties interposed between them and the ultimate delivery of the service to the client is rubbish. Doctors particularly are subjected even more so to the intervention of third parties in very delicate situations. This occurs with hospital treatment for which they cannot be responsible from minute to minute. It all depends on nurses, nursing aides and other paramedical staff. The argument that has been put forward is intellectually bankrupt and is a classic example of the Democrats' attitudes. Certainly architects and engineers may be placed under a greater threat than other professionals by this amendment to the Trade Practices Act for two reasons, both of which I mentioned when I spoke last night. In the first place, architects and engineers very often operate under a corporate structure these days. The engineers particularly have been in the vanguard of the movement for professionals to practise under a corporate veil rather than on personal liability which has been the traditional role for professional people's operations. That movement is now widening in the professional community. There may be more architects and engineers practising under the corporate veil; but that is not a sound argument for singling them out, because other professions are moving in that direction. That has also been pointed out in the letter to which I referred from the Medical Defence Union in New South Wales, which stresses that doctors are operating increasingly in that way. The second and perhaps a better reason for singling out architects and engineers is that they are more likely to feel the effects of this extended provision of the Government's amendment. That amendment is probably more applicable to them in that they are constantly being subjected to their clients' saying `We want a building for a particular purpose'. That situation arises more commonly in these two professions than it does in others. The danger for other professionals is that this legislation will not be applied only where there is an express statement of purpose, but also where there is an implied statement of purpose for a service. Therefore, it is very dangerous for all professionals. There may well be an argument in regard to architects and engineers. They were the first people to perceive the problem of this amendment and to make representations. Certainly that was so in my case. Perhaps there is more real concern that this poses a greater threat to architects and engineers than to other professionals. However, from the Opposition's point of view there is clearly no justification for simply singling out architects and engineers above other professional people, all of whom are under some threat or other, all of whom will have some additional liability-to a greater or lesser extent-imposed upon them. However, the Opposition's view on this matter is, as I said on another intellectually bankrupt amendment put forward by the Democrats to this legislation, that we are thankful for small mercies. If some people can benefit from the Democrats' intellectual bankruptcy by achieving some amelioration of this draconian and unnecessary burdensome legislation placed on the business and professional community of this country, the Opposition will support it, even though we think that there is no intellectual justification for it. We believe the Democrats should be condemned for not seeing the significance of this legislation and for not supporting the Opposition in its efforts to achieve a rational and intellectually sound basis for opposing the Government's amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.01) — Faced with this formidable coalition of the intellectually bankrupt and the opportunistic, the Government has no alternative but to capitulate. I make it clear that we do not do so with any enthusiasm and we believe that this is an amendment which should not be carried. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 39 to 45-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 45a. Senator HAINES(South Australia) 11.03)-I move the amendment circulated in my name: Page 38, after clause 45, insert the following new clause: ``45A (1) After section 74G of the Principal Act, the following section is inserted: Liability of manufacturer or importer in respect of certain defective motor vehicles `74GA (1) In this section- ``authorized service agent'', in relation to the manufacture of a motor vehicle, means a person authorized by the manufacturer to effect repairs to the motor vehicle for the purposes of the express warranty given by the manufacturer in respect of the motor vehicle; ``motor vehicle'' includes a motor cycle. `(2) This section applies in relation to a motor vehicle where a consumer has acquired the motor vehicle in circumstances in which an express warranty given, in or in relation to trade or commerce, by a corporation that is the manufacturer of the motor vehicle is applicable in respect of the acquisition. `(3) Where this section applies in relation to a motor vehicle, a consumer becomes entitled to a remedy under this section in respect of that motor vehicle where, while the relevant warranty is still in force and within one year from the date on which the motor vehicle was first supplied to a consumer- (a) on not less than 4 occasions, an authorized service agent has been given an opportunity of remedying a particular defect to which the warranty is applicable (whether or not the authorized service agent is the same person on each occasion) and the defect has not been satisfactorily remedied; or (b) the motor vehicle has been out of service for more than 30 days (whether in a continuous period or not) by reason of any defect or defects to which the warranty is applicable notwithstanding that reasonable and prompt steps have been taken to enable an authorized service agent to attend to the defect or defects. `(4) Where a consumer who is entitled to a remedy under this section informs the manufacturer, or an authorized service agent, in writing, that he wishes to avail himself of that remedy and arranges for the surrender of the motor vehicle to the manufacturer or an authorized service agent, the manufacturer shall, at the option of the manufacturer, either- (a) supply to the consumer, without charge, a new motor vehicle substantially the same (except as regards defects) as the motor vehicle concerned and covered by a warranty corresponding to the original warranty on the surrendered vehicle; or (b) make a payment, in accordance with this section, of an amount equal to the amount that was, in the transaction by which a consumer first acquired the motor vehicle, treated as the cash price of the motor vehicle, less a fair deduction for depreciation having regard to the distance over which the motor vehicle has been driven and any damage to the motor vehicle not attributable to defects covered by the warranty. `(5) A payment by the manufacturer in accordance with paragraph (4) (b) shall be made to, or divided among, the person or persons who have a legal interest (including a security interest in the motor vehicle concerned at the time of its surrender and, if there is more than one such person, in such shares as are agreed among them or determined by the Court in accordance with this section. `(6) If the manufacturer is uncertain as to the person to whom a payment should be made or as to the proper shares of persons in such a payment, the manufacturer may pay the amount into the Court. `(7) The Court may, on the application of any person interested, make such orders (including mandatory injunctions) as it thinks necessary and just for giving effect to this section, including orders (a) for the just disbursement of moneys paid into the Court; and (b) for declaring, or adjusting in such a manner as is just, the rights and liabilities of persons arising out of transactions in relation to a motor vehicle surrendered in accordance with this section or in relation to moneys paid by a manufacturer under this section. `(8) Where a new motor vehicle is supplied by a manufacturer to a consumer in accordance with paragraph (4) (a), the same rights and liabilities exist in and in relation to the new motor vehicle as existed in relation to the surrendered motor vehicle. `(9) Where a manufacturer supplies a new motor vehicle or makes a payment in accordance with this section, all rights and title in the motor vehicle originally supplied vest in the manufacturer, free from all securities.'. ``(2) The amendment made by sub-section (1) applies in respect of motor vehicles first acquired by consumers on or after the day fixed for the coming into operation of this section.''. This amendment inserts new clause 45a to deal with what are affectionately-or perhaps not so affectionately-known in this country as `lemon cars'. I will certainly be interested in hearing the Minister's enthusiastic rebuttal of this proposed amendment because when the issue was first raised some years ago Senator Gareth Evans told me that the Australian Labor Party would not embrace it with any enthusiasm at that point, although it was very sympathetic to the problem, because the entire Trade Practices Act was under review. The entire Trade Practices Act has now been reviewed. That review has brought forth the amending Bill that we have been debating for some months, and still there is not protection inherent in it for people who, having bought a car, discover that it is so full of faults that it is basically a dud or a lemon and that they are getting no joy from either the dealer or the manufacturer when they take it back for servicing or fixing . I first raised this issue in 1982 because I was receiving an increasing number of complaints in my office about the rather cavalier way in which some dealers and manufacturers were treating consumers who had purchased a new car in good faith and who seemed to be spending more time at the dealer's workshop than they were spending enjoying the use of that new car. I said at that point that this was not an attack on all the importers, manufacturers, distributors or dealers of cars, most of whom are conscious of the need to maintain the integrity of the brand name of the car they are importing, manufacturing or dealing in by giving prompt, efficient and effective service on a car which is proved to have some fault or another. The various State consumer affairs departments have noted over the years that manufacturers are increasingly offering genuine assistance towards the rectification of mechanical or paint faults or other problems that have originated from manufacture. Most dealers, I am pleased to say, also take that responsible attitude. However my files, and I am sure files of other people, indicate that there are still some who are not prepared to take their responsibility seriously, notwithstanding that there are a large number who do take their responsibility beyond the warranty period. Those files are not full of frivolous or vexatious claims by people who have bought faulty cars. In the main they are from people complaining that some authorised service agents are simply not prepared to accept fully their responsibilities-in some cases even during the warranty period, but in many cases outside it-using the warranty period expiration as justification for not performing the sort of service or replacement and so on that they should have done in the first place. The people who are complaining to me are getting tired of being blamed, in effect, for the problem, of being fobbed off with excuses such as `all cars of that make and model make that noise', or `it does not make the noise when we drive it', which implies that there is something the matter with the driving skill of the person concerned. They are being told that they ought to ignore it because it will gradually wear itself in and it will all go away. The sorts of irrational excuses that people are being met with are simply not good enough. It should not be almost impossible in modern day society to get compensation in circumstances where a genuine complaint exists, and to get that compensation either by way of reasonable, prompt and adequate service from the dealer, or in some other form. The Americans have certainly confronted this issue in a number of cases and it has not been the end of the car industry there. America has come up with some reasonably restrictive and not unreasonable circumstances under which compensation needs to be made to the consumer. I will not go into the sorts of dreadful things that happen to people, unless I am pushed in a little while to do so, because I realise that we are running short of time. This legislation, in effect, will mean that a motor vehicle purchaser would be entitled to redress-if the warranty on that vehicle is still in force and within one year from the date on which the vehicle was first supplied to the consumer-in the form of a new motor vehicle or financial reimbursement after depreciation had been taken into account. The consumer would be entitled to redress if, on not fewer than four occasions, a particular defect to which the warranty is applicable has not been remedied, or if the motor vehicle has been out of service for more than 30 days, whether in a continuous period or not, by reason of any defect to which the warranty applies. I do not think that is unreasonable given that there are still a number of dealers who are irresponsible enough to hope that they will gradually wear down the resistance of the consumer so that they do not keep coming back to have it fixed, so that they give up and simply drive the car-assuming it is driveable-in whatever state it is in. Let me repeat that the amendment I am moving today is not an attack on the manufacturers, the importers, or the majority of dealers, but I argue that it will compel those who do not already do so to act in a socially responsible manner. In other words, it will force them to do what the majority already do. Sub-section 74GA (4) gives manufacturers and not the consumer the option of choosing between the supply of a new vehicle and the making of a refund. This appears to be the position under similar State laws in the United States of America, and I find it a reasonable one to give to the manufacturer. Although I note that the United States Federal law relating to consumer products generally provides that the warrantor must permit the consumer to elect either a refund for or a replacement without charge of such product or part, in this instance I think it is reasonable that the manufacturer should have the option, especially when we take into account that a comparable car may not be available where a new model has come out. Furthermore, the depreciation or damage may be such as to make it unreasonable that the manufacturer should be required to provide a new car. Sub-section 74GA (7) has been included because it is difficult, if not impossible, to foresee and provide for all the problems that can arise out of the making of a refund or the supply of a new motor vehicle. It therefore seems to be appropriate and wise to vest in the Federal Court wide powers to declare or adjust rights and liabilities. By imposing legal obligations on manufacturers and importers, I believe the amendments before the Senate today will basically reduce the element of risk currently entailed when a consumer purchases a new motor vehicle. The amendments will protect consumers by imposing a real social responsibility on manufacturers and importers. I believe we can no longer sit back and allow some people to be taken for a ride by a few unscrupulous dealers and perhaps irresponsible or negligent importers and manufacturers in this country. While many voluntarily behave as they should, a number do not, and I believe that in this instance it is time the law protected the consumer of new motor vehicles. My amendments will, I hope, achieve that aim and I commend them to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.13) — The Government recognises that with motor vehicle purchases that most consumers make or will become involved in at some time, which do usually represent a significant cost, the consumer should be given a reasonable protection from unfair conduct and be provided with statutory warranties in relation to defective products. There is no difference at all in that fundamental outlook between the Australian Democrats and ourselves. However, we do not believe, as presently advised, that this product-specific amendment that the Democrats are proposing is really necessary. The very basis of Divisions 2 and 2A of the Trade Practices Act as it now exists is the protection of consumers against unfair treatment by manufacturers or importers and sellers of goods which arise from that unequal bargaining power. The Government's commitment to restoring and enhancing the previously understood operation of the consumer protection provisions of the Act, and to improving the Act's ability to protect consumers and reputable business interests, is clear from the amendments that are contained in the Trade Practices Revision Bill we are now debating. We are prepared to go on looking at alternative means by which the problem, if it is shown to be of sufficient magnitude, can be tackled. Before one looks at an amendment conferring rights in relation to a particular product-in this case, lemons, or defective motor vehicles-there should be a critical examination of the incidence of the problem, of the need for remedial action, given the other provisions in the legislation which are now being beefed up by the other amendments we have been debating, and of alternative forms, not just legislative, of remedial action it could take. Let me spell out a couple of those points in a little more detail. The Trade Practices Act at present implies conditions and warranties as to, for example, fitness of purpose of goods, including goods such as motor vehicles, their merchantable quality, and availability of service facilities, repairs and parts. If a supplier breaches a condition or warranty under the Act under section 75A, the consumer may seek a recision of the contract; that is to say, in effect he or she may return the vehicle and receive the purchase price back without any loss or damage sustained. In addition, the consumer has the right to take action up to three years after his or her problems arise, not within a year of the date of supply, as in fact is proposed by Senator Haines's amendment. The present Act also imposes civil and penal sanctions on suppliers who, for example, make false or misleading statements as to the exclusion or effect of any condition of warranty or the price of or the need for goods and services. The present Act does not in general extend to commercial vehicles, reflecting its character here as a consumer protection measure rather than a business regulation measure at large. However, the amendments which are contained in clause 5 of this Bill will ensure that the Act covers all motor vehicles, commercial or otherwise. The Government recognises that consumers may not be as aware of these rights as they could be, or should be. I guess this is one of the central points in Senator Haines's contribution to this debate. We are currently considering proposals to increase consumer information and education to rectify this situation. It should also be said that there is some legislation in the States and Territories specifically regulating motor car traders. The possible effects of this amendment on that legislation need to be carefully considered together with the question of whether the Commonwealth should intervene in this area, given that existing State and Territory legislation. It is not a question of being absolutely inhibited from such intervention but it is a question of practical necessity. That is a matter that needs to be addressed. What I am saying on behalf of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is simply this: The Government is prepared to consider additional measures to deal with defective motor vehicles, including possibly further amendments in time to the Trade Practices Act. However, we would need to be satisfied that a problem exists which the existing law is not adequate to handle and which is appropriately dealt with by legislation rather than other means. I should further say that the Government's disposition in all these matters is to look not at product specific legislation but rather legislation that would apply to all products. The framework of the Act, which is cast in those terms at the moment, is, we believe, basically sound, and much of this soundness does come from its general application. We will not lend our support to this amendment but we will further examine the matter of defective motor vehicles to gauge whether there is a problem and, if so, the extent of the problem. If a problem is revealed which requires attention the Government will look at solutions to it through a combination of measures which certainly may include other amendments to the Trade Practices Act but also include encouraging industry to take remedial measures and increasing consumer information and education. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.18) —I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) for the limited words of comfort he gave about the manner in which the current Government amendments are likely to assist people who have bought new motor vehicles that do not do what they want them to do or go where they want them to go in the manner that they would like them to do it. However, I take some umbrage at the comment that the Government will continue to see whether there is a problem and whether it is of sufficient magnitude to do anything about it. The fact of the matter is that there is a problem here. However small the number of dealers and manufacturers involved may be it is nevertheless a massive problem for the people who are caught by owning one of these cars that simply turn out to be a Monday car, a dud or a lemon, or whatever anybody else wants to call them. Purchasing a car is one of the major costs that any consumer faces. Consumers deserve much better than the cavalier treatment they sometimes receive. It is not enough for the Government simply to promise to go on looking at the matter and to take whatever steps may be necessary if a problem appears to exist, and appears to exist in sufficient magnitude. We are dealing with an item which on average costs people between $10,000 and $20,000. For most people, that is not an insignificant purchase. I think they have a right to assume that, with minor details aside, they are going to be able to drive that car in comfort and safety and to have whatever faults come up in it dealt with adequately, quickly, responsibly and efficiently. When I first raised this matter in 1982 I gave as an example an American situation which was, at least in part, responsible for producing changes in the American Act. I want to repeat that example here partly because I think it is a very good one and partly because I do not want to be put in a position of actually specifying an occurrence relating to a particular dealer, manufacturer or importer in Australia. I want to keep it as general as I can. This particular American example is not dissimilar to some which have occurred here in Australia and, indeed, which have prompted one New South Wales driver actually to purchase a number plate that has `LEMON' for its first five letters. He drives around in his imported car with his number plate for all to see. He had problems that were at least as serious as the one I am about to cite. He got caught up in a dealer change of hands problem that left him and his family quite severely affected. The particular man in America fought for 18 months a vain battle to have his car repaired satisfactorily. The faults he complained of included the car collecting seven inches of water after a rain storm, the electrical system failing repeatedly, the paint peeling, the parking brake pedal coming off, the manual transmission repeatedly popping out of second gear and going into neutral, and an assortment of lesser faults. Senator Crichton-Browne —Was this a new car? Senator HAINES —Yes, it was a new car. Senator Messner —Was it under warranty? Senator HAINES —Yes. Despite the seriousness of his complaints the car sat in the dealer's car yard for transmission repairs for 135 days over a period of 18 months. As I said, it was his case which led to one State in America passing its own specific legislation to ensure that manufacturers, distributors and authorised agents accepted the fact that their responsibility to a customer went beyond merely selling a person a car. While, for a variety of reasons, I do not want to take up any more of the Committee's time in dragging out the sorts of concerns that I have on file, this example is by no means something so extraordinary or so exaggerated that it has not happened or could not happen again in Australia. Since the Government is not going to indicate its immediate concern in this matter I can only hope either that the Opposition will do something or that the Government, in the event of the Opposition not supporting the amendment, will be a little more enthusiastic and do something more to help people who purchase a car that turns out to be a lemon than simply say that it is going to continue investigations to see whether there is a problem and whether it is of sufficient magnitude to warrant attention. After all, the reason that the Minister fobbed me off on behalf of the Labor Party some years ago was that it would be investigating this issue, among others. I would say that the current trade practices amending legislation does not go as far as it should in protecting the hundreds of people in this country who are suffering frustration, anger and economic loss as a consequence of their irresponsible treatment at the hands of some dealers, some agents and some manufacturers. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.24) —The amendment proposed by the Australian Democrats dealing with the so-called lemon, namely the car that just does not seem to be able to be made to work as it is supposed to, is a very good example, on the one hand, of how hard cases, as it is said, make bad law and, on the other hand, of the desperate desire of the Democrats to be nice to somebody and to please anybody who comes along and pitches them a hard luck story. Again, we have an example of a Democrat proposal with little principle or consistency. Sure enough, it is very irritating and very upsetting for people when they buy a pro-duct-one which they may have saved hard for and which they may cherish very much-to find that it really does not operate in any sort of a satisfactory way and that they cannot get satisfactory redress for that, in some cases, no matter how hard a dealer may try to improve it. There seems to be no reason at all in principle why the legislation should specifically apply to a car. The problem could relate to a whole range of products. There is no reason why we should have special legislation that deals only with cars. Certainly, hard luck stories seem to arise in respect of motor cars. However, the problem must be very rare when one considers the large number of motor cars, to say nothing of the large number of consumer products generally, that are dealt in. Sure enough, such problems are very upsetting for the person who suffers. They also make good headlines when a journalist gets hold of them. We know that headlines really set the Democrats aflame; they encourage them to introduce legislation to fix up a problem. This is another pathetic example of parliamentarians, particularly the Australian Democrats, waving a wand and putting forward legislation so as to make them feel good. Senator Sanders —Pass laws for the good of the people. Senator DURACK —The Democrats' amendment enables Senator Sanders to rant and rave as he does on every subject that makes him feel good. It is a classic example of the misuse of Parliament and legislation. We are talking about a problem which is comparatively rare. We cannot use legislation to fix up every rare problem that arises. In fact, this legislation is extremely badly drafted. Senator Sanders —If that is the best you can do, sit down. Senator DURACK —The honourable senator can get up and make one of his ranting speeches when I have finished. We will all have to suffer it. However, I do not propose to compete with my noisy colleague. The fact of the matter is that the amendment is so badly drafted that it does not simply deal with the lemon situation at all. It applies to used cars as well as new cars. It simply refers to a particular defect, which might be of a most minor kind, that is not rectified by the dealer after the vehicle has been returned on four occasions. That does not satisfy the description of a lemon at all. For a variety of reasons-I have outlined the main ones-the Opposition will not support this amendment. Question put: That the clause proposed to be added (Senator Haines's amendment) be added. The Committee divided. The Chairman-Senator D. J Hamer Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Boswell, R. L. D. McKiernan, J. P. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Newman, J. M. Collard, S. J. Parer, W. R. Colston, M. A. Puplick, C. J. G. Cook, P. F. G. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sheil, G. Evans, Gareth Short, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Teague, B. C. Grimes, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O.W. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G,Hill, R Zakharov, A. O. Jessop, D. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Progress reported. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.35) — Mr President, the Committee debate has been adjourned in order to enable Senator Newman to make her maiden speech. In order further to facilitate Senator Newman in this respect, as she would be entitled to speak for only 15 minutes, I think, under the Standing Orders governing first reading debates, I move: That so much of the Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Newman from speaking for 30 minutes on the first reading of the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and associated Bills. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a first time. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Newman, I draw attention to the fact that this is the honourable senator's first speech in this chamber. I ask that the normal courtesies be extended to her. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.36) —There can have been few senators standing as I am today who have not done so with great pride coupled with humility. I am grateful that my Party chose me to replace Senator Peter Rae and I look forward to the challenge eagerly and with great enthusiasm. The Senate generally does not receive great publicity, but from the few short weeks I have spent here I have already seen first-hand how valuable it is in its constitutional roles of representing the States and as a House of review. I have already taken my place on an Estimates Committee and on the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I believe that the useful work that can be done in both these places is not widely enough understood outside the Senate. I must pay tribute to the work of my predecessor, who has now become a Minister in the Tasmanian Government. His time in the Senate was distinguished by his work to ensure the preservation of the rights of the States, his work regarding quangos, and his committee work which helped to bring about the National Companies and Securities Commission. I do not believe it is customary in this place to pay tribute to one's spouse. But in fact my selection for the Senate places me in a very select group. Only two other women have followed their husbands into the Federal Parliament, Doris Blackburn and Dame Enid Lyons. Dame Enid Lyons, in following her husband into the Federal Parliament, made history by being the first Australian woman in the House of Representatives and the first woman to be a member of the Executive Council. She, too, was a Tasmanian and followed a husband who had served his country well. My husband has served his country with honour, first as an Army officer, including active service in battalions in Malaya and Vietnam, and then for eight years as a Federal Minister. As I look across the chamber at the Ministers opposite, I can already see the toll which high office takes in this country. It took its toll on my husband's health and forced his retirement. I am proud to have been selected as a senator for Tasmania and the example which my husband set of service to his electorate, his State and his country will be always before me. I hope I can one day claim the love and respect which his constituents came to hold for him. Predominantly my Tasmanian constituents are miners, fishermen, tourism and forestry workers, farmers and farm labourers, and people who work in small businesses and factories. They are not necessarily the people one would expect to send five Liberal members and five Liberal senators to Canberra. But they have been doing that now for ten years. And why are they doing it? It is well known that Tasmanians are very politically aware. They would need to be! They have more politicians per head than any other State in Australia. But they expect a lot of their politicians and they keep a close eye on them. They expect to have ready access to them and they expect to see and hear from them regularly. They are also extremely sophisticated as voters. They enjoy a State system of multi-member electorates, and a system of voting which encourages the representation of various views at the same time as allowing a wholesale change of membership of both major parties while returning the Government to office, as happened recently. These sophisticated voters, after years of voting Labor in both State and Federal elections, have changed to my Party and stayed there for over a decade. Tasmanians sometimes feel themselves to be `the Irishmen' of the nation-the butt of the nation's jokes. Tasmanians are frequently thought of as different from the rest of Australia. But as an adopted daughter of Tasmania and very proud to be so, having lived throughout Australia and overseas, I can assure the Senate that in many respects they are very representative of the men and women of our nation. In the provincial cities, the country towns and country areas, there are citizens whose attitudes and aspirations very closely resemble those of my Tasmanian constituents. They may be regarded as conservative. They have a strong belief in the family, in their right to work and reap the reward, and in helping their neighbour. They are concerned about defence and in the education of their children. They are concerned about the conservation of their State in a balanced manner. They largely work in small businesses and on the farms, and they are worried at the direction we are headed. My Party stands for the free citizen-his initiative, understanding and acceptance of responsibility. My Party rejects the doctrine of the all-powerful state. My Party believes that improved living standards depend on high productivity which can only be achieved by free and competitive enterprise. We believe in the citizen's freedom to worship, to think, to speak, to choose, to be ambitious and independent, to acquire skills, to seek and earn rewards. When we consider the movement throughout the country towns and rural areas of Australia for a new Australia based on these aspirations, one thing is clear. These are the aspirations of my constituents. This is why Tasmanians continue to support my Party. Contrary to the belief that Tasmanians are `different', it is very evident that they are typical of `non-metropolitan' Australia. In many ways they have shown the way to the rest of Australia in rejecting the socialist alternative. The welfare state does not know best. Australia was settled and established by people who had to battle to make their way and who expected to enjoy the fruits of their labour. They expected to take responsibility for themselves and their families, and we here are probably all old enough to remember old-timers who were too proud to accept assistance either from their friends or from the Government-even when they should have done so. But where is that attitude now? In some parts of Australia we have a generation or more of people who have grown up expecting the world to provide them with a living. What sort of pioneers would they have made? What sort of nation would they have produced? We have fathers who will not provide for their own children, legitimate or illegitimate. We have community groups who once would have raised the money for their project but who now automatically go to government for funds without making any attempt to help themselves. We have industries which automatically look to government for subsidies to keep them from the cold wind of competition. The nation has been gradually encouraged to live beyond its means. As taxpayers we all complain about the burden of taxation. An industry has grown up to feed on the nation's desire to pay as little tax as possible. It's not just the wealthy who avoid taxation. Avoidance embraces a wide span of our community. Measures had to be introduced to try to deal with small contractors, especially in the building industry, who were operating in the cash economy. The weekend builder continues to thrive. The farm labourer prefers `cash behind the barn' to award rates and taxation. The heavy involvement of government in all our lives inevitably leads to heavy taxation, which in turn leads to dishonesty, avoidance and evasion. We have come to accept as normal that government should be involved in so many areas. For too many years we have believed that if the end was justifiable it was desirable that government was involved. I ask: Why? Why must it always be government? Are we not an educated and civilised people? If a desirable end is attainable, can it not be attained by community groups, industry groups or individuals without the expensive hand of government being introduced? Should we not have been saying two things loudly and clearly for years: Is this legislation really necessary? Is this expenditure really justifiable? Government interference and the burden of taxation, which inevitably go hand in hand, must surely have been less if the legislators and the nation had been automatically asking these questions, instead of automatically assuming that government knows best. It would also have been less if politicians had not been encouraged to buy their votes at an ever-increasing price. Pork-barrelling has become too expensive for us to afford any more, especially when it appears that nothing which is handed out can ever be taken back. What are the unavoidable duties of government? The primary duty of any government must be to see that its citizens are protected from external aggression and internal violence. In times of peace no nation ever wants to spend on defence, but the lessons of history teach us that to prevent aggression a nation must be seen by any potential aggressor to be strong. As any housewife knows, a small budget, if well spent, can be more productive than a bigger budget wasted. I am convinced that the money now being spent on defence, with good housekeeping, could see us better protected than we currently find ourselves. Throughout our history we have believed that we must have powerful friends to supplement our own efforts to protect ourselves. It disturbs many Australians today to see members of the Government take actions which would diminish our friendship with our allies. With the ANZUS Treaty in jeopardy at the hands of our New Zealand neighbours and sympathetic members of the Australian Labor Party, with recurring difficulties with our most powerful Asian neighbour, Indonesia, I await with concern the publication of the Dibb report. The reliance we place on our allies and our ability to go it alone will all be matters which I expect will be addressed in the Dibb report and I therefore do not intend to enter into speculation on those areas here. But fundamental to our defence capability will be the use we make of the money allocated to defence. The big ticket items will be heavily dependent upon the future direction after Dibb. The training of the men and women needed to operate these `big ticket' items is a continuing matter and also a large cost item in any defence budget. The part which must frighten all who know the implications is the alarming wastage rate we are suffering of middle-ranking officers and non-commissioned officers who have had up to eight years training and who are being lost to the services after only a few years service. The cost of continually retraining their replacements is a terrible waste of scarce resources. For operational reasons, serious and urgent attention must be given to deal with the causes of this wastage. `Conditions of service' is a phrase which is bandied about but given very little attention. It does not seem as worthy of headlines as battleships and bombs. However, as one young man told me the other day: `I left the Army when my six years were up because it's not a job for a married man.' That young man was a driver who had been trained to drive everything one can drive. The Army must then start again with another youngster and lose him once he acquires a wife. Why is it not a job for a married man? Of course, separations are an integral part of service life; and because they are integral, no effort should be spared to minimise and compensate for the problems caused to domestic life by defence service. There are still over 90 Australian servicemen living in houses without a hot water system or sharing a communal laundry without a hot water system. The Department of Defence has assessed 13,147 married quarters as being sub-standard; this in fact is over half of the total married quarters. Barracks for single men which were temporary in the 1950s and should be condemned and torn down are still in use. The funds which were allocated earlier this year are too low to help today's service families and will never be sufficient to catch up with the need. Housing areas are frequently located in areas which are unattractive to locals. Little effort is made to improve the locale or to provide and maintain attractive housing areas. With the heavy involvement of the Department of Housing and Construction in the provision of service homes, there is little hope of providing attractive and adequate housing for our service families at a price the nation can afford. The average cost of a service home taken over the whole of Australia is $97,500. I realise that this includes high cost housing in inaccessible areas. A private company has offered to build project homes in groups of five or more at a price of less than $20,000. This, perhaps, is a graphic example of the need to avoid wastage of what funds are available. Is it any wonder that our married quarters are inadequate in number and sub-standard in quality? With frequent removals, every Army family stands to lose. They lose because any allowance payable is always lagging behind actual costs and because the need for new curtains, new carpets, new school uniforms and books just is not co-vered by the allowances. The heartbreak of damage and theft during removals and the problems of children adjusting into new schools are simply not being compensated for. Where they can be assessed in financial terms, allowances at least should keep abreast of costs. These are only a few of the matters of concern in the area of conditions of service which support the young man's claim that it is not a job for a married man. We have just had a big splash with a $2.5m advertising campaign for reserve recruiting. That campaign has been stopped. The target was 26,500 men and women in the Army Reserve by 30 June 1986. The Army Reserve currently stands at 23,722 personnel. After nine months and $2.5m we have had a net loss of 547 personnel. Those figures are the raw or gross figures. The effective strength of reserve units is considerably less. It would be very instructive for the Government to tell us what are the effective figures, what is the figure which each unit regards as being its effective strength of members on the books who actually turn up for training. We have a very worrying morale problem throughout the Services in both the regular and reserve forces. A re-allocation of the defence budget to place more emphasis on retaining the men and women we train is urgently needed. I turn now to another area of true government responsibility-the protection of the rule of law and the preservation of the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth. Despite the conventions concerning maiden speeches, I have to say that this Government seems to have a fine contempt for the rule of law. It is a matter of great concern to me, and obviously to many people in Australia, that an attempt to limit the rights of the citizen before the law is now being pushed through the Parliament as a Bill of Rights. It is a mockery and a tragedy. A citizen's rights are being limited by this Bill. Under this legislation the citizen will also be prevented from having legal representation, from knowing the nature of the complaint against him, and from appeal to the courts. This Bill is, of course, yet to be debated by the Senate. I think perhaps the Government has underestimated the opposition to this Bill which is to be found throughout the nation. People everywhere are angry that the citizen's right to the rule of law is being eroded by government, whose duty it is to protect it. As a senator, I cannot fail to express my deep concern at the increasing trend of the Government to manipulate the Constitution to its centralist advantage. The progress of this nation to nationhood was long and rocky, and bought at great price by the colonies, which saw the need to go into the 20th century as one nation. In order to get the agreement of all the States compromises were reached and the Constitution as finally agreed gave protection to the role of the constituent bodies who formed the Federation. I remind the Senate that Australia is a federation and that, no matter how inefficient a federal system can be, it is the system that governments have to work with. Only last week the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, was visiting Tasmania and telling Tasmanians that if the stance of the State Governments did not change the Commonwealth would consider overriding the State. It is not just the governments of Tasmania and Queensland which have spoken out over their concern on the directions being taken by the centralist government in Canberra. The Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, told the Perth Press Club after his election recently that `decisions were being taken in Canberra without consultation and without proper appreciation of the problems faced by individual States'. He said: Federalism will become the dominant issue before the turn of the century in political circles and it will cause great trauma unless people of goodwill at all levels are able to address problems with a little less self-interest. The Commonwealth Government's recent tendency to misuse its foreign affairs power to overcome the rights of State governments is a matter of great concern. It may not be widely known outside Tasmania, because the dams debate received such one-sided reporting on the mainland, that many Tasmanians who were against the dam closed ranks with the Tasmanian Government when the issue became one of whether the decision should be taken in Canberra or in Hobart. From the beginning of Federation this country has required government involvement in education. Fierce have been the battles over whether that means education for all. I fear that they are not yet behind us. The increasing involvement by Federal governments in education-an area which has largely been a State responsibility-presents us with problems. Formerly, the States received their funds and distributed them as they saw fit and were answerable to their electorates. Increasingly, Federal governments decided, often for laudable reasons, that funds should be tied for specific purposes. We have now nearly reached the stage where Federal mother knows best and the States are irrelevant. It is desirable that certain basic standards of achievement should be set by the States for all Australian children, and such matters as a uniform starting age for the children in a mobile society would be valuable. But I question the need for the Commonwealth to be reaching down into each school in the land and to tie up valuable resources into constant evaluations and accountability procedures. It is not the proper role for the Commonwealth. Let the States monitor their schools, government and non-government. It is they who are best able to judge the needs of their own States and who are most directly accountable to their constituents. It is the Commonwealth's role to see that the taxpayers' education dollar is spent equally on every child, regardless of race, sex, religion or preference for non-government education. I turn now to an area of government responsibility which has become such a large part of the Federal Budget and which is arousing such a concerned and continuous debate-social security. Government must look after those who cannot look after themselves. But I quote from Dame Enid Lyons's maiden speech made in the House of Representatives in September 1943: In the matter of social security one thing stands out clearly in my mind. Such things are necessary in order that the weak shall not go to the wall, that the strong may be supported, that all may have justice. But we must never so blanket ourselves that those fine national qualities of which I have spoken shall no longer have play. I know so well that fear, want and idleness can kill the spirit of any people. But I know too that security can be bought at too great a cost-the cost of spiritual freedom. How, then, may we strike a balance? That question faces us today with even greater force. In 1943 the tax paid by the citizen was 19 per cent of an average wage and that was in wartime, with all its expenses. Today it is 24 per cent. In 1943 the social security vote was 16 per cent of the Budget. Today it is 26 per cent. We must support the aged, the invalids, the unemployed and the children whose fathers fail to support them. As a founder of two women's shelters and a former practitioner in the family law area, I well understand the problems of disintegrating families. But is it right that in the Family Law Act we actively encourage the courts to allow for the eligibility for benefits to be taken into account in determining maintenance payments? Should we not support families in another way? Should not spouses support their own families? Should not the government see to it that they do? Children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, must be raised above the poverty line. But the cost of doing so should primarily be that of the parents, and only in the last resort, not the first resort, should it be paid for by the taxpayer. This is only one area of the social security system which is giving concern. It is a constant topic of conversation outside the political world. People realise the need to protect the weak, but there is an increasing sense of alarm at the growing burden. Already, 23.1 per cent of the population are eligible for concessional medical fees, and that does not include all pensioners and all unemployed people. In 1970 that figure was 9.4 per cent. Only 10 years ago it was still approximately half of today's percentage. On the other hand, people throughout the nation are aware of cases of fraud and cases of double-dipping. While figures are bandied about as to the total amount of fraud, and they all vary, the fact remains that there are people ripping off the system. My own experience would not be unusual when as a farmer I often had great difficulty in recruiting casual labour. I paid award rates, deducted tax and kept proper records. People on government pensions or benefits, as well as the people who wanted to evade taxation, were not prepared to accept work on those conditions. Other industries employing casual employees have similar experiences. Whether we have the Australia Card or whether we have an improvement in the taxation file system, some method must be found to reduce the misuse of the system. We on our side of the chamber may be painted as hard-hearted reactionaries, but I remind the Senate that it was Liberal-Country Party governments that introduced many of the benefits which are in place today. My concern is that it seems to have become unfashionable to suggest that elimination of waste, reduction of misuse and careful welfare housekeeping are desirable and attainable. It is the taxpayers of Australia who foot the bill, and we cannot afford what we do not earn. The Tasmanian miners, fishermen, forestry workers, farm labourers and people who work in small businesses and factories recognise that there are some jobs which government does for which they must pay. They must pay for defence, the enforcement of the law, the education of their children and the protection of the weak. But increasingly they are getting angry. They are rebelling against governments which know best, which spend their money as if it belonged to government, not the people. There is a vast surge of people outside who want to be left alone to run their lives, their families, their small businesses and farms without government interference which distorts everything and without having to pay for a massive bureaucracy which inevitably goes hand in hand with big government. Our big government is dominated by an overstrong union movement and together they have taken this country into the largest deficit and the highest interest rates in this country's history-factors which will send our farmers and small businesses broke and remove all chance of our young families owning their own houses and our needy and our aged citizens living in dignity. If ever there were reasons for doubting that `Big Brother knows best', there are good reasons now. Mr President, I have tried to make my maiden speech a review of the areas which I believe are crucial to the good government and the future of our country. There are, of course, other areas which also are important to us all but which I have not touched upon today. We have certain areas of government, however, which are absolutely vital for the survival of our way of life. Our defence, our federal system of justice, the education of our children and the protection of our needy are surely considered basic by us all. In my future service in the Senate they are areas to which I will give particular attention. They are areas which I know concern my constituents in Tasmania. We must never forget that whatever we do in this chamber affects the lives of our fellow Australians. It is with humility that I pledge myself to their service. I thank honour- able senators for their courtesy. Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Clauses 46 to 47-by leave-taken together. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.05) —by leave-I move: (4) Page 38, clause 46, before paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: `(aa) by omitting from sub-section (1) `3 years' and substituting `7 years';'. (5) Page 39, clause 47, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 79 (6), leave out ``3 years'', insert ``7 years''. The amendments to clauses 46 and 47 of the Trade Practices Revision Bill are directed at extending the time which can elapse between some person recognising that he or she has in some way been wronged by somebody under the trade practices legislation and the commencing of an action. The main reason for moving the two amendments together is that they are both basically similar. The first amendment proposes that the time allowed for bringing civil action in the case of a wrong under the Trade Practices Act shall be seven years instead of three years, as is the case with the Act as it stands. The second amendment allows for the penalties associated with the wrong also to be brought into force for a period of up to seven years after the wrong has been discovered, rather than just the three-year period which is proposed by the Government. One might well ask why one should want to extend that period. Basically, all of our normal statute of limitation requirements are in fact for seven years. In this case, to allow only three years puts a distinct limitation on people wishing to bring any type of action under the Trade Practices Act. That is why I have moved my amendments. No real administrative burden is put upon anybody by this requirement. Under other legislation, medical and tax records have to be maintained for a period of seven years. This means that material available at the end of three years would still be available at the end of seven years for handling any defence that may be raised by a company that may have been thought to have defaulted. To date, in most States where there is legislation covering litigation under their trade practices or consumer injury legislation, the statute of limitations is, in fact, six years. In New South Wales and Victoria there is also the provision that if material facts arise after that period people will have one year from the date at which those facts became available or became reasonably knowable to them in which to start litigation. It may not be possible to demonstrate a scientific link in three years. That is one of the reasons why I have taken up this issue. This is particularly so with pesticides. It has taken up to four or five years to establish the relation between the withdrawn morning sickness preparation Debendox and birth defect cases in the United States of America. Injuries may be latent and persons may not be aware of them, as in the case of asbestosis. I know that the Government may respond that under this Act people in fact will have three years only from the time at which an injury becomes known. The fact is that that person may not be able, at the time of crisis when the injury becomes known, to connect it with a particular product. Indeed, this is the main point for my believing that in this area we should follow what I believe is normal practice in the rest of Australian law and we should have at least a seven-year period. A person may not be able to identify who was responsible for any loss through injury. The commercial transactions and arrangements which happen in the case of certain products may make it very difficult to know that. Particularly relevant today is the case of the Dalkon shield. The Dalkon shield is an intra-uterine birth control device, or an IUD, made of plastic. It is oval in shape, with small fins extending from the right and left sides, and a tail string to facilitate its proper placement and removal. In fact, the Dalkon shield was developed in the 1960s and initially was marketed by the Dalkon Corporation, which sold about 27,000 of these devices before it sold the rights to A. H. Robins. Some years afterwards, between 1971 and 1974, a number of injuries were noted that were associated with the Dalkon shield, particularly because of various changes that had been made to the product such as the addition of copper and copper sulphate to the plastic material. Because of various processes that the A. H. Robins company followed, it was not until 1974 that certain injuries were sheeted home to that product. The facts about the wicking properties of the multi-filament string which was used to put the IUD in place and to remove it really emerged only some years after the event. A. H. Robins had collected all of its internal documents on bacteria conduction matters in 1974 and had withheld them from the courts. This meant that a period of at least four years went by before anything could be done. Liability for importers under the Trade Practices Act arose only in 1978. Hence, very few Dalkon shield actions can be brought in Australia under the Trade Practices Act. However, if they could have been people would not have had the fact base that had been built up in the United States. Hence they could not have carried on their cases and under this area of the Act the statute of limitations would have protected the company from prosecution. Aboriginal women in South Australia have been injected with depo-provera. They may not realise the link if they suffer various problems as a result of those injections-a link that has been recognised overseas. This situation exists now. What is the Government doing about it? While laboratory tests may lead to the removal of products from the market-place, it may take quite a while for their effect upon humans to be established. Some laboratory tests in the United States have been shown to be fraudulent. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories had some real difficulties in saying that its chemicals were safe when tests pointed in the opposite direction; and this came out in the courts after a period longer than three years. The facts showed that there was a link between exposure to those chemicals and injury. Such evidence was not available within three years. Under the Act such an injury would be recognised, but the fact that one needs to tie it to a product has not been recognised. That is a real deficiency. The medical profession might tend not to believe the victims in these cases, and it would be very difficult for the consumer or the sufferer in those cases to bring court cases to effective fruition. I suggest to both the Opposition and the Government that it is only natural justice that we should allow a reasonable amount of time for actions to be brought in each of these cases. The seven year period which has been recognised in other areas of the law should be the recognised and reasonable delay allowed for people seeking redress under these provisions. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.15) — As Senator Vigor has said, this amendment would extend the period for a consumer taking action against a manufacturer or importer under the Trade Practices Act from three years to seven years and would also extend the period for prosecutions to be brought in relation to a contravention of Part V. The three-year limit in section 74j conforms with the time limit under section 82 for bringing an action for damages in respect of a contravention of Division 1 of Part V and the proposed limit under section 79 for commencing prosecutions in respect of such contraventions. The Government believes that that three-year limit in section 74j is adequate, especially as the three years does not begin to run until the consumer first becomes aware or, as Senator Vigor acknowledged, ought reasonably to have become aware that the goods did not comply with the relevant warranty. There is an outside limit of 10 years, so that the action has to be brought within 10 years of the original supply of goods to the consumer. We believe that is basically a fairly generous time frame so far as the affected consumer is concerned. We believe that the three-year time limit is adequate not only in relation to section 74j but also in relation to the prosecution provision in proposed section 79. There the current limit, as has been said, will be increased from one year. That time limit was proposed in the Green Paper and widely accepted. The Trade Practices Commission certainly supports the Government amendment. The particular reason why a seven-year time limit is not considered appropriate in relation to prosecutions is the hardship that would be caused to a defendant in formulating a defence to such a criminal prosecution after such a long period. As to the justification for extending it to seven years in respect of civil litigation and civil liability, it ultimately comes down to a matter of judgment as to how long is a reasonable period, bearing in mind not only the interests of the consumers but also the reasonable and legitimate interests of business in having some certainty and there being an end at some time to the prospects of litigation. One can well acknowledge the force of what Senator Vigor has said about latent defects that might show up and injuries being caused as a result of the intake of some good or access to some good some time before and one not being aware of that causal connection. One can appreciate in particular the force of some of the examples he has given of that phenomenon at work in various places around the world in recent years. I simply say to him that for latent defects or latent injuries any time period is necessarily arbitrary. Senator Vigor may be able readily to find cases where the seven-year time frame he indicates is itself arbitrary in denying a remedy to someone in respect of whom a defect has shown up eight or nine years after the event. In that respect it becomes a matter for argument and judgment as to what the appropriate time limit should be. Given the clarity of the rule that time begins to run only after the injury is known or ought reasonably to have been known; given the fact that there is an outside limit of up to 10 years from the time of supply of the original goods; given the needs not only of consumers but also of business; and given the practice that prevails rather erratically as far as statutes of limitations are concerned, where it is by no means clear that the six years that one usually has from the accrual of a cause of action is any more generous than the provision in the way it has been written in the Trade Practices Revision Bill-given all those considerations, the Government believes that the choice it has made is appropriate. We are comforted in that respect by the reaction we had from all relevant potential interests to the floating of that particular proposal in the Green Paper two years ago. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.20) —Senator Vigor raised the question of the Dalkon shield. I imagine that the injury referred to by Senator Vigor would have occurred by reason of the fact that the intra-uterine device engendered-if that is the right term-infertility. It could be quite a period of years before this injury-if that is a proper definition in accor-dance with the legislation-could be known. It may be beyond the three years laid down in the Trade Practices Revision Bill. Under those circumstances it seems reasonable that a person ought to have available some remedy for the type of advice that is given. It has been indicated clearly in papers in professional journals that a large percentage of those people attending for in vitro fertilisation treatment in the United Kingdom did so by reason of infertility caused by tubal occlusion and that the majority of those cases resulted from `contraceptive' advice given by the medical profession or family planning associations, to have IUDs inserted, or to have an abortion, or from the provision of contraceptives enabling a promiscuous lifestyle leading to sexually transmitted disease. If infertility emerges arising from that advice, surely the persons who adopted that advice from the professionals ought to have available some remedy. As I indicated, it would be unlikely that the results of that advice would be known within three years. I did not raise this question-Senator Vigor did-but I think it is a matter that the Committee should take into consideration. On a different question, I take the opportunity to ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) whether there is anything in this legislation or in any of the amendments, either adopted or proposed, which would enable the rather un-Australian type of litigation that may develop in the United States of Ame-rica to develop in this country. I refer to propo-sals that there ought to be available in Australia suits for wrongful birth or wrongful life. I raise that as a very serious matter because I believe that very few persons in Australia would regard this particularly un-Australian type of suit as appropriate. Indeed, many people in North America regard it as particularly inappropriate. I wonder whether anything in this Bill, or any of the amendments made or proposed to the legislation would enable such suits to be taken in this country. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.25) — On Senator Harradine's latter question, I believe the answer is clearly no. All that is essentially involved here is a recasting of the existing common law duty of care, but giving it statutory force and extending its range a little in terms of this concept of fitness for purpose and generally in other ways giving a variety of other protections to consumers. There is nothing I can see in the Bill that would in any way give aid, comfort or nourishment to the kind of adventurous litigation which has become the norm-and many people would say regrettably-in the United States. As to the first point Senator Harradine made in support of Senator Vigor's arguments about latent defects, all I can say is that it is really a matter of balance and judgment as to how one weighs the chances of these sorts of things occurring against the risks of uncertainty that would be involved for business if this time period became the norm. I suppose it is always possible for Parliament to legislate to extend a period of limitation or a time restriction of the kind contained here and do so for some specific subject matter that comes up and seems to cry out for a remedy of this kind. I suppose if Parliament were to do so we would get the usual yowls about retrospective legislation and changing liabilities that did not previously exist. I am not sure that those yowls would have much force when one is talking about a purely technical defence that is available and would thus be removed. I do not particularly want to open up that mare's nest, except to say that if a case of overwhelming force should subsequently appear, crying out for a remedy and the removal of the restriction that is contained here, that argument would then be considered on its merits. The general policy must be one that is not quite as generous to potentially afflicted consumers as Senator Vigor would want. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.28) —I rise with some disappointment because I believe that my proposal is eminently reasonable and in the interests of all Australians. Senator Gareth Evans —You believe that about all your proposals. Senator VIGOR —That is why I am in Parliament. I am here to represent and help my constituents. I believe that the Minister has such a case that needs special legislation-and it is the one I raised by way of example, the Dalkon shield. For some time I have been trying to get litigation in place to handle dangerous and hazardous products on the market, and in fact I will try to put up next week a private member's Bill to this effect. The major problem we have with the Dalkon shield is the period over which information about the shield has become publicly available. In fact today is a very important date for the Dalkon shield. It is the last day in the United States of America on which it will be possible to put a claim against the company, A. H. Robins, which made the shield, because that company has gone to ground and is hiding itself behind the United States' very generous bankruptcy laws. This will leave a large number of Australian women completely unable to claim. Because of Senator Evans's statement about the possibility of a really important case coming up which requires this type of legislation, I will seek leave to have a notice incorporated in Hansard-I have not had the chance to show it to the Minister because I had not intended to incorporate it-which has been put out by A. H. Robins and which says that today's date, 30 April, is the last day on which claims for injury may be filed as a result of the use of the Dalkon shield. The Dalkon shield was introduced into Australia in the middle of the period when the difficulties were appearing in the United States. It continued to be sold in Australia for up to three years after it had been positively proven to be harmful to people in the United States. How do we differ from them? I believe there is real international banditry involved here, and I seek leave to incorporate the notice which shows that a number of Australians will be disadvantaged by the decisions made in the United States courts which will mean they cannot pursue the makers of the Dalkon shield. Leave granted. The notice read as follows- IMPORTANT NOTICE-THE DALKON SHIELD The manufacturer of the Dalkon Shield-an intra-uterine birth control device (I.U.D.) available during the early to mid 1970s-is advising women who may have used the device of the procedure for filing a claim if they may have been injured or may suffer injury in the future from use of the product. A U.S. judge has established a date after which no further claims of injury may be filed as a result of use of the Dalkon Shield. That date is April 30, 1986. If you intend to assert a claim against the manufacturer of the Dalkon Shield, you must do so on or before April 30, 1986. This applies to people who may have been injured because of use of the Dalkon Shield, who may have used the Dalkon Shield but not yet experienced an injury, or may have been injured because of another person's use of the Dalkon Shield. To make a claim, you do not need a lawyer. You should send a letter or postcard with your full name and complete address with a simple signed statement that you are making a claim to: Dalkon Shield P.O. Box 444 Richmond Virginia 23203 U.S.A. You will then receive a questionnaire which must be completed and received by the Court by July 30, 1986. For further information, please contact Peter Brownlee or Sue Harris at Burson-Marsteller Pty Limited on (02) 27 3571 or Max Miller at A. H. Robins Pty Limited on (02) 534 1000. Senator VIGOR —I would urge the Government and the Opposition to support this amendment because the period of seven years does not put any extra load on the companies concerned. They have statutory requirements to keep their records for seven years, so mounting a defence is not a problem. It is not a three-year period, which is a statutory requirement under the taxation laws, it is seven years. Therefore, all the records must be there. I believe that this will not put any extra load on the corporate sector and it will be much better for the consumers. I believe that seven years is the optimum figure for this particular statute of limitation. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Vigor's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Haines, J. Mason, C. V. J. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Vigor, D. B. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Newman, J. M. Collard, S. J. Parer, W. R. Colston, M. A. Puplick, C. J. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Durack, P. D. Robertson, E. A. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sheil, G. Foreman, D. J. Short, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.40) —At the second reading stage I raised an issue to which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) responded. I thank him for that response. I accept the points that he made with regard to the lack of a conspiracy. I generally find conspiracies very difficult to uphold because of lack of organisation to get them running. However, I would like to raise again the question of whether the Government sees this Bill as in some way appropriating money. I refer here to division 165, `Administrative', sub-division 3, `Other Services', of the Attorney-General's Department estimates under which the money was appropriated for the purposes of clause 73. When the principal clause, clause 170, came before the House of Representatives, there was no accompanying message from the Governor-General. My last question on this is in response to the basic defence of the Minister that this was an abundance of caution. I question precisely why any caution at all is required, let alone an abundance of it. As I understand it, section 53 of the Constitution is not justiciable. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.42) — Senator Macklin has asked me very good questions. I can see their point and do not have any difficulty with them. I think, with the utmost respect to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, whose views on these matters I respect, that there has been not only an abundance of caution, but an overabundance of caution in this matter. I have a lot of difficulty in seeing this Bill properly describable as an appropriation Bill or one in respect of which the provisions of section 53 are to be regarded as applicable. There is nothing hanging on this. The only point I make, apart from Senator Macklin's reputation for perseverance, is in the sense that it is clear that, whatever the other kind of Bill this is, it is not an appropriation Bill appropriating money for the ordinary annual services of the Commonwealth such that it would be beyond the capacity of the Senate to amend it. Therefore some of the more comprehensive conspiracy theories that were being advanced earlier disintegrate, I believe, on closer analysis. I shall let Senator Macklin revel in his triumph in this matter. The closest thing I can offer to a total capitulation on this issue is that I will raise it through the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel because I think it reaches the point of absurdity. This has been in accordance with past practice and I do not in any way offer any critical comment about parliamentary counsel in this respect. They have been behaving as they have always behaved, but sometimes that might not be the most sensible way to behave. There are occasions when things ought to be done for the first time. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.43) —I take this opportunity to express the Opposition's total rejection of this legislation and its continued opposition to it. In view of the very lengthy debates that have been held on this Bill and the fact that we got a bonus of two second reading debates because of the Government's splitting this legislation after it had already been in the Senate for some time, I do not propose to make a speech again, but I express the Opposition's total opposition to it as a whole. At the Committee stage the Opposition hoped that the Australian Democrats might support some of our amendments which would at least have ameliorated the increased burdens that the legislation places on the business and professional community and the vast increase in ministerial discretions of an almost unheard of kind in this day and age. However, because the Democrats have not supported our attempts to oppose this Bill, and because they continue to support this type of legislation, and in view of the lengthy debates and the fact that we are about to break for lunch I will not be calling a division on behalf of the Opposition to register yet again our opposition to this measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and arises from his interview by Michael Schildberger this morning and his justification of the prices and incomes accord and the benefits that he says that has brought to Australia-after which, in response to a question, Senator Button said: I think anybody who thinks about it recognises that gradually we have to free up some of the provisions of the accord. He went on to say: I see that as a necessary development into the future, and I think a lot of other Ministers do too, and I think the ACTU would. I welcome that statement from the Minister. I ask him whether he could indicate to the Senate what areas of the accord he thinks can or should be freed up. I ask him also whether this is under consideration by the Government. Senator BUTTON —Those honourable senators who were paying attention at Question Time about 10 days ago will recall that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me a question on a similar matter. In the course of that answer I said much the same sort of thing as I said on the Schildberger program this morning. I think that the important points about what I said this morning are as follows: First of all, I was asked what areas of the accord I thought should be freed up in terms of wage flexibility. I declined to answer that question because, as I said, it is a matter for consideration by the Government as a whole. I also made the point that it is a matter for consideration in conjunction with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I think that those two points are important because the distinction between this Government and the former Fraser Government on the question of wage policy is that there is now a prices and incomes policy in place in this country. That policy has been arrived at by a process of negotiation with the trade union movement. Nothing in the statements which have emanated from the present Leader of the Opposition has suggested that that policy would ever continue into the future. In fact, in his own words, he predicts five years of industrial chaos if the wages policy which the Opposition was considering a few months ago were adopted. Not only is the present Leader of the Opposition in the process of predicting industrial chaos if the Opposition's former policies were to be adopted; one has only to look at the record of 1982 to see what sort of industrial chaos we had then in terms of levels of industrial disputation and to see the level of wage increases in 1982 compared with the moderate wage increases which have taken place since. The position which I adopted this morning was simply to say that this matter has to be constantly under consideration by the Government-and it is. In answer to a question in the House of Representatives on 15 April this year, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations made a point very similar to the point which I now make. In the course of that answer he quoted from the report of the examiner for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Senator Chaney —This is starting to sound like a dorothy dixer. Senator BUTTON —I must say, in deference to all honourable senators, that dorothy dix questions sometimes have a degree of stupidity about them. That is true about the question just asked of me. Senator Messner —Ask Senator Maguire. He knows. Senator BUTTON —I am not saying for a moment that dorothy dix questions asked by members of this Government have a stupid quality about them, but that is the way dorothy dix questions are sometimes characterised outside this Parliament. That is the characterisation which I put on Senator Chaney's question. Mr Willis quoted from the OECD conclusions about the Australian wages system, which said: While one would expect a flexible wage structure to aid labour market adjustment it is not clear how important this is in practice. Even in a situation of a relatively inflexible industrial wage structure labour mobility may occur smoothly on the basis of expected life-time earnings and availability of job opportunities. In a particular reference to Australia the OECD went on to say: In countries pursuing consensus policies to achieve aggregate wage moderation care is also needed to ensure that attempts to substantially increase relative wage flexibility do not compromise this goal. It is those sorts of factors which the Government of course has to take into account in looking to the future. I might also add that the Business Council of Australia, in expressing a view on this matter, as a result of a survey of employers, commented: . . . the operation of the current wage fixing principles was not a major causal factor in the development of labour market skill shortages. . . Where shortages have emerged, wage flexibility and remuneration differentials are not a major contributing factor. Accordingly, there is little justification for `freeing up' the system solely on the grounds of trying to alleviate shortages of labour in a relatively narrow range of specific occupations. . . I have declined to answer that part of the question directed to me by Senator Chaney in respect of what areas of flexibility the Government is currently considering. I think that matter is appropriately the subject of an announcement by the Government when final conclusions have been reached. In respect of the other parts of the question, I make the comments which confirm what I said this morning and which confirm what other Ministers have said. Senator FOREMAN —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce is no doubt aware of car industry sales figures which indicate a downturn for sales in the first months of 1986. In light of these downturns and the uncertainty of fleet orders because of proposed changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act, will the Minister state what part of this sales downturn is attributable to the fleet sales component of these figures and when the legislation on car fringe benefits taxation will be tabled? Senator BUTTON —I believe the answer to the final part of the question is early next week at the latest. In respect of the other part of Senator Foreman's question, in a sense his question covers some points which I answered yesterday in reply to a question. I made the point then that there are a number of reasons for the downturn in car sales in the opening months of 1986. Of course, amongst those reasons is the fact that 1985 was a record year. It is believed that there was considerable pull forward into 1985 because of a variety of factors but particularly because of the introduction of unleaded petrol legislation to operate from 1 January 1986. I think that there are a number of other factors which have been adverted to in debate in the Senate. Senator Messner —Interest rates. Senator BUTTON —Interest rates undoubtedly are a factor. However, another factor is the change to the wholesale tax regime for motor vehicles which was made last year. As I have pointed out on previous occasions, it was made as a result of an Auditor-General's report which simply pointed out that over a number of years, including the years of the Fraser Government, the proper wholesale tax regime has not been implemented and the Auditor-General required that that be done. This Government acted in accordance with the Auditor-General's decision on that matter. Secondly, I make the point that in previous years there has, of course, been a so-called fringe benefits tax in respect of motor vehicles, but this was never effectively implemented by the previous Government. It is because of that that the Government has pursued the course which it has now adopted in terms of a fringe benefits tax and because of the very big blow-out in fringe benefits as distinct from salary or wages income which attracts the income tax provisions. All of those factors have to be taken into account. I said yesterday that the prospect of the fringe benefits tax on cars has obviously caused some decline in car sales, some of which will be temporary and some of which will be more lasting in effect. However, in answer to Senator Foreman's question about whether one can identify at this moment the effect on the market of the fringe benefits tax, I say, as I said before, that it is not realistic to make an estimate on the proportion of that downturn which is caused by the fringe benefits tax. Of course, it has never been so. The position has always been that the effects of the fringe benefits tax are highly speculative. A lot of the factors depend-if I might lapse, contrary to my usual eloquence in these matters, into bureaucratic jargon-on behavioural effects which cannot be determined with certainty. I am sorry for that temporary lapse into professional erudition but I think that is a good way of describing the speculative nature of estimates in this matter. Senator ARCHER —I would like to ask a question of the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer to the statement by the Minister for Health, dated 8 April 1986, in which he undertook, in relation to the drug offensive, `A commitment' at the drug summit `by all governments to funding of $100m over three years-over and above existing funding'. Can the Minister confirm the statement by Dr Blewett that the funding for the law enforcement aspects of the drug offensive-specifically the $10m for extra staff and the $7.2m for improved computer capacity-is not the same funding promised by the Prime Minister before the 1984 election and, therefore, before the drug summit, and is in fact an additional commitment? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will have to take that question on notice. I will give the honourable senator an answer as soon as possible. Senator BLACK —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of claims by some producer groups that farm wages have risen to unacceptably high levels? Further, is the Minister also aware of a call by the Deputy Opposition Leader, reported in the Brisbane Courier-Mail, for direct wage fixing between individual employers and workers? In view of the substantial evidence that many families of farm workers would live in poverty without government assistance, how does the Government view the wages spiral allegations and does the Minister agree that the policies advocated by the Deputy Opposition Leader could have disastrous consequences for the rural work force? Senator WALSH —If experience both in Australia and abroad is any guide, there is, I think, no reasonable doubt at all that the policies of the Opposition Leader would lead to higher wage outcomes than have actually taken place under the accord in the last few years, with the inevitable higher inflation and other macroeconomic effects that that would have. A number of points should be noted in regard to the earlier part of the question. Firstly, wages paid on the farm constitute about only 5 per cent of farm costs. In an indirect sense, of course, wages are a much more significant component of total farm costs because of the reason I mentioned earlier. Even though it may be superficially attractive to some people who believe that the rate of wage increases of agricultural workers may be lower under a non-centralised wage fixing policy, it follows that the wage outcomes in almost all other areas of the economy would be higher. Because wages paid off the farm have a much greater effect on total farm costs than wages paid on the farm, the net effect of that on agricultural costs would be that the Opposition Leader's policies would lead to a higher cost for agriculture than do this Government's policies. For example, in 1982-83, the last year in which the discredited former Treasurer brought down a Budget, farm costs increased by 11 per cent. That figure fell to 6 per cent in 1984-85 and it is expected that it will fall to only 3 per cent in 1986-87. So, since Mr Howard ceased to be Treasurer, the rate of increase in farm costs will have been halved every second year if the forecast is fulfilled. Moreover, looking more generally at low incomes in the countryside, whether they be low farm incomes or low non-farm incomes-there is, of course, a good deal of evidence to show that income levels in smaller country towns are not distorted to the same degree as the recorded level of farm income may be-a significantly higher proportion of workers have very low incomes. In that context it is important to note that under this Government's policies-again associated with the accord-the social wage has increased. For example, since we are dealing with very low income families, the family income supplement rate paid to working families has been increased to $16 for each child. That is something which has, I expect, helped some low income farm workers who are in permanent employment, a larger number of farm workers who are in temporary or seasonal employment on farms, and also a significant proportion of people who are actually farm proprietors. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is it a fact that the world's nuclear industry apparently does not have established methods to extinguish a graphite fire such as the one in the Chernobyl nuclear plant? Is the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's reactor at Lucas Heights fitted with combustible graphite control rods similar to those at the Chernobyl plant? If not, is the control rod material combustible? In view of the age of the Lucas Heights reactor, how effective would its containment vessel be in the event of a major cooling water loss at that reactor? Senator GARETH EVANS —Full details of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant have not yet been made available by Union of Soviet Socialist Republics authorities. However, it does seem clear, from all reports to date, that the accident involved, as Senator Mason has intimated, a fire in the graphite moderator in the core of one of the four reactors at Chernobyl. The International Atomic Energy Agency understands that there has been some melting of the core but at this stage it is not yet clear whether that is as a result of heat from the nuclear reaction itself or rather from the burning graphite in the moderator. Graphite can be a problem material in nuclear reactors and its use as a moderator was the cause of the 1957 fire at the Windscale No. 1 reactor in the United Kingdom. However, British authorities were able successfully to extinguish the Windscale fire with no significant lasting consequences. I think it should be clear for those who are minded to treat the USSR event as symptomatic of what is likely to happen in nuclear reactors around the world that the particular combination of a graphite moderator with a light water-cooled design is unique to the USSR. While the United Kingdom Magnox and advanced gas-cooled reactors are graphite moderated, the coolant is gas rather than water. It is only in the USSR that one has that particular combination. It is also the case that in the United Kingdom, as elsewhere outside the USSR, there is quite an elaborate system of protection through containment buildings, which clearly was not the case with the USSR reactor. As to possible methods for dealing with the accident at Chernobyl which Senator Mason asked about, it is difficult, in the absence of specific details of the accident, to comment on that. As I have indicated, the only previous accident of this kind was successfully handled. I understand-and there have been media reports about this-that the United States has already offered technical assistance to the USSR in relation to this accident and the USSR is also reported to be in contact with nuclear authorities in other countries. As to the question of comparisons with the high flux Australian reactor at Lucas Heights in Australia, the situation is this: The construction of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's research reactor here is entirely different from that of power reactors at Chernobyl, with heavy water, which, of course, is not combustible, rather than graphite being used as the moderator here. The only graphite which is contained in HIFAR is a neutron reflecting layer which is outside the reactor vessel. This particular graphite layer, I am advised and verily believe, is not exposed to sufficient fast neutron flux levels or, in less technical terms, is not subject to conditions of heat and radioactivity which could conceivably cause that graphite to ignite. It also should be said about the HIFAR reactor here that its containment building does represent one of the safety systems of the HIFAR reactor and, as such, it is tested at six-month intervals to ensure its integrity. The fact that the reactor is 25 years old has no bearing on the integrity of the containment under those circumstances. The containment has been carefully maintained and, where necessary, upgraded, and in fact is more effective now, I am told, than when it was originally installed. As to the final part of the question about loss of water coolant and HIFAR, a number of studies have been undertaken over the years to determine the consequence of a possible loss of coolant accident associated with the operation of HIFAR. These studies demonstrate that in the unlikely event of such an accident the existing HIFAR safety systems, in conjunction with the 1.6 kilometre buffer zone around the HIFAR reactor, would provide a very high level of protection to members of the public. It should also be noted in this respect, just to finish it off, that HIFAR operates at a power level of only about one three-hundredth of that of the Soviet power reactor-ours is just a research reactor; very small by comparison-and it is not a pressurised system. So anyone minded to get very excited about the Lucas Heights system by comparison with what has happened in the USSR has, I think, no basis at all for such a comparison. Senator ELSTOB —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to an article in the Australian on 23 April in which Italy's top millers were reported to have been critical of the level of contamination in the Australian wool clip, and to have called for a dramatic improvement in the classing standards for the clip? Does the Minister accept these allegations of excessive contamination? Does he believe they will adversely affect the export performance of the industry? What action will the Minister consider taking in this regard? Is the Minister satisfied with the classing standards administered by the Australian Wool Board? Senator WALSH —I am vaguely aware of the article to which Senator Elstob referred. I am in no position to verify or refute the allegations that are contained in it. I will ask Mr Kerin whether he will ask the Australian Wool Board to investigate that specific complaint and bring back a report on it to see whether, by reasonably objective standards, it could be justified as a valid complaint. However, having said that on the specific case, the complaints about classing standards of Australian wool and contamination go back certainly for as long as I can remember and probably a good deal further than I can remember. There is nothing new about such allegations. I think it would also be generally agreed by people who follow these complaints that they have not always been justified-occasionally they may have been-and there is certainly widespread suspicion out among wool growers that such complaints are virtually ritual complaints coming from customers as part of the psychological bargaining process, I suppose. I will ask Mr Kerin to procure a report from the Wool Board on that specific complaint. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and arises from an article in the Melbourne Sun of 28 April suggesting that 38 child care centres face a money crisis. I take it from the article that there appears to be some negotiation going on between the Commonwealth and the States and that the Labor Government in Victoria seems to want the Commonwealth to take over the financial responsibility for its 38 child care centres. I ask the Minister: Has the Labor Government of Victoria approached the Commonwealth seeking the transfer of funding for its child care centres to the Commonwealth? Has the Government in Victoria threatened to close the centres should the Federal Government not take up their funding, which is at present a Victorian responsibility? What is the state of any negotiations on the matter and what are the circumstances which led to this newspaper article, an article which must have caused considerable distress to parents with children in the centres? Senator GRIMES —I am surprised I am not, but I am not aware of the article referred to by Senator Peter Baume. As for the matters raised by him, the Commonwealth Government has been approached by the Victorian Government to take over the Victorian Government pre-schools which it has run over the years. I was first approached probably two years ago on this matter. We have not agreed to do so. Neither the Victorian Government nor the Minister involved at the moment, Mrs Caroline Hogg, have threatened to close all these centres if the Commonwealth does not take over the funding, although they believe, quite wisely, I think, that there should be a rationalisation of the children's services in Victoria, as there should be in other States. I do not know the circumstances in which this article was written, but I will certainly look up the article and find out the circumstances in which it was written. What I do know is that in Victoria in recent weeks and months there have been several articles of this type, some of them claiming that there would be widespread closure of child care centres in Victoria if the present changes to funding were introduced. That has not happened. In fact, new centres have been opening; I have opened new centres there in recent times. There have been articles claiming that fees would rise to astronomical levels in Victoria. That has not happened. That is not to deny that we have not got a problem with some child care centres in Victoria where the costs are very high-much higher than they are in some other States. At the moment, officers of my Department are discussing with officers of the Victorian Government and have been for some time the future of the Victorian-run centres. We have not yet reached an agreement. I suspect that some of the centres which are clearly viable may be able to be converted in the Commonwealth-State agreements. Some which are not viable-they are too small or are in inappropriate housing-may in fact not continue at all. I hope that the expansion of the children's services program in Victoria, as in other States, will pick up any backlog that is created by those circumstances. At the moment discussions are taking place. I am under no threat from the Victorian Government. I find the present Victorian Minister does not operate that way. Senator Button —As distinct from? Senator GRIMES —As distinct from some others. Certainly at one stage there was an attempt in Victoria to flick pass, as it is known in Australian rules, the responsibility for the funding of these centres to the Commonwealth, but as an old rugby league player and Australian rules player I see that sort of thing coming a long way off, and it did not happen. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. It has been reported that the Union of Christmas Island Workers has criticised the Government in recent times over the handling of the future of Christmas Island. This has caused some unease to potential investors, the inference being that the sovereignty of the island may be passed to Indonesia. Will the Minister comment on these allegations? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that some criticism has been made about the future of Christmas Island. There is understandable concern by the Union of Christmas Island Workers as well as by those from whom the Government is hoping to attract some private investment in the Island. The Government is fully committed to the long term future of Christmas Island, bearing in mind that there will be a time when the phosphate will no longer be a profitable enterprise. However, it is committed to maintaining the mining operation while it is profitable on Christmas Island, and that will be for as long as possible, as well as moving towards economically viable non-mining enterprises on the Island in lieu of the earlier activities associated with mining of phosphate. However, if statements are made which create unease amongst the workers and also amongst the future investors, the future of the island is placed in some jeopardy. There is no truth, for example, in the view that the Government is interested in establishing a military base on Christmas Island, nor is there any truth in the view that Australia is interested in handing over the island to Indonesia. We would be well advised to have some confidence in the capacity of the committee which has been established to look at the complex issues about the future of the island, recognising that the Government is, as indeed the previous Government was, committed to planning for the future viability of the island. That means establishing a climate that will enable all parties concerned to be adequately catered for when the mining operations cease. To that extent any comment that places those sorts of objectives in jeopardy is to be deplored. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. With the hardening of the Australian Government's position towards Indonesia, can the Minister now inform the Senate what will happen to discussions on the joint development zone-which of course, holds such great prospects for oil exploration-which discussions were to be held in May but were cancelled yesterday by the Indonesian Government? What effects will the cancellation have on the future of Australian resource development in the area? When now is the JDZ agreement likely to be finalised? Senator GARETH EVANS —We were advised yesterday that the talks scheduled for next week were not cancelled but deferred. The present expectation is that they may be resumed as early as next month. Under those circumstances I think it would be quite premature to sound the death knell to that particular co-operative exercise. It is important for Australia's long term liquid fuels energy future that we be able to explore and hopefully then develop the oil fields which are reasonably thought likely to exist in the Timor Gap area. It is very much in the interests of both countries, not just ourselves, that that exploration and hopefully development take place. I believe that over the course of the next few months it will be possible to maintain some significant progress on the particular exercise which we have been very successfully embarking on over the last year of negotiating and resolving that very difficult and sensitive issue. It is clearly only on the basis that the solution to the problem is in the interests of both countries that a successful outcome will be reached. I would imagine that it is on that basis that it will be perceived, not only here in Canberra but also in Jakarta, that it is in the interests of both countries that those talks resume and that that constructive process proceed as soon as possible. It is my expectation and the Government's expectation that that is what will in fact occur. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of a reputed survey carried out by the Federal Opposition into the distribution of the drug offensive booklet which the Opposition claims demonstrates that the national campaign against drug abuse is a flop? Does the supposed survey represent, as South Australian Liberal Senator Vanstone is quoted as saying, a major setback for the campaign? How does this obvious attempt by the Opposition, from members of both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, to undermine the campaign sit with the attitudes of their State colleagues such as the Premiers of Queensland and Tasmania, who have thrown their support fully behind the campaign? Senator GRIMES —I did see in one of the Sydney afternoon papers yesterday a claim by Senator Vanstone that, as a result of the findings of a survey by the Opposition parties of the distribution of the drug offensive booklet, the whole project was a failure and we all ought to give up and go home, or words to that effect. The first thing I should point out is that the booklet is only part of the overall campaign, which, as Senator Crowley has said, is part of a campaign by both State governments and the Federal Government-governments of Labor, Liberal and National Party persuasion-to do something about the drug problem in this country. Also as part of that program there will be changes to the rehabilitation, treatment, education and law enforcement mechanisms which are obviously essential in the drug campaign. I understand that the honourable member for Gilmore, Mr Sharp, is chairman of yet another task force set up by the Opposition-the Drug Enforcement Task Force, I think it is called. It seems to me that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is very wisely giving his back benchers something to do by setting up endless task forces which are running around the country stirring up trouble, as in this regard. It is interesting to me that from the word go Senator Vanstone and Mr Sharp seem to have been determined to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to discredit the efforts of the Federal Government and the State governments and to do everything they can to demonstrate that the State and Federal governments are failing in this regard. Senator Vanstone and Mr Sharp in this case first of all did a telephone survey. A telephone survey is notoriously unreliable in any case. The second thing they did-- Senator Vanstone —You ought to know. You used it in the phone-in. Senator GRIMES —If Senator Vanstone wants to help the drug pushers in this country, for whatever reason, she can go ahead and do so; she can denigrate-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to address his remarks to the Chair and to ignore the interjections. Senator GRIMES —Mr President, through you, if the good senator opposite wants to denigrate the efforts of the State governments and the Federal Government-governments of all persuasions-in this regard and therefore help the drug pushers of this country, let her do so and let Mr Sharp, a member of the House of Representatives from New South Wales, do so. Senator Michael Baume —That is a McCarthyist approach. Senator GRIMES —I cannot believe that I am hearing Senator Michael Baume. Senator Michael Baume, who put more people into penury than anyone else in this country, has the cheek to get up here and criticise this Government and other governments-- Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. I doubt whether I need to draw it to your attention, Mr President, but the Minister has made a totally offensive remark with respect to Senator Michael Baume. Senator Michael Baume —And untruthful. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw his remark. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw the remark. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to ignore the interjections and answer Senator Crowley. Senator GRIMES —I will. I would refer honourable senators opposite to Harry Truman's famous statement, but if they do not wish to remember Mr Truman's statement they should stop their silly interjections. Senator Chaney —You cannot remember it yourself. Senator GRIMES —Yes, I can. Senator Chaney knows about the heat in the kitchen. The Opposition task force conducted a telephone survey of 500 people throughout this country, obviously carefully selected, because I understand from the survey and Mr Sharp's statements that task force members particularly rang people in outback areas where there is a notoriously bad postal service and postal delays. They have denigrated not only the State governments and the Federal Government but also Salmat Direct Marketing, which is distributing these documents. All I can say is this: If any government or any organisation is to distribute 5.4 million pamphlets, obviously some will go astray. The Government and the people distributing the pamphlets were aware of this and set up arrangements whereby the distribution could be monitored. The distribution has been monitored. There have been areas in which it has been drawn to the Government's attention that in fact people did not get their booklets. In those areas the efforts of the Government and Salmat supervisors have in fact ensured that those gaps have been filled. People can also ring a toll free number and the booklets will be quickly made available to them. What we have here, in fact, is a highly selective survey by an Opposition group whose sole motivation seems to be to denigrate not only the effects of the distribution of this pamphlet but also the whole offensive, which I repeat is a combined effort by the Queensland Government, the Tasmanian Government and all the other State and Territory governments. In continuously denigrating this effort, instead of making constructive criticisms and suggestions as to how the situation might be improved, these Opposition members are just spending their time rubbishing and monstering the whole program. In a matter as serious as this, I think that is a stupid way to go about things. If Senator Vanstone and Senator Michael Baume, with his vast experience in this area, wish to make constructive suggestions to the Government, I suggest that they should do so. If they do not want to deal directly with the Federal Government, why do they not make suggestions to their National Party friends in Queensland or their Liberal Party friends in Tasmania? However, they do not choose to do this. They choose to conduct phoney surveys and to set up phoney task forces. If their efforts on this task force are as accurate as their efforts were in the well-publicised task force on waste-the waste watch group-I am afraid that they will only be treated with contempt by the rest of the community. I repeat that everybody wants an effective effort in this regard. Everybody will accept constructive criticism and a positive approach, but people will not accept the knocking and the continuous denigration that we have heard from Senator Vanstone and Mr Sharp. Senator Chaney —Mr President, on a point of order-- Senator GRIMES —If they want to continue to do this, they ought to explain to the general public in this community why they are assisting the drug pushers in the way they are. The PRESIDENT —Order! I call Senator Chaney on a point of order. Senator Chaney —Mr President, the Minister has now finished his answer and sat down. My point of order was that he was debating the question. Senator SHORT —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that a recent meeting of so-called liberation movements convened by and held in Libya from 15 to 18 March was attended by a Kanak delegation from New Caledonia, a West Papuan OPM delegation, a delegation from Vanuatu, a Maori delegation from New Zealand and a New People's Army delegation from the Philippines? Is he aware that, amongst other things, the conference discussed what were described as `the Kanak struggle' and `the problem of the Australian Aborigines' and declared its absolute support for the liberation movement in New Caledonia and certain other islands? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in the International Herald Tribune of 7 April 1986 that Australian intelligence sources are aware that Kanaks sent to Libya for military training have viewed demonstrations of guerrilla tactics and received weapons training? I ask the Minister whether the Government is concerned about the spread of Libyan influence in the South Pacific region. What action is it taking to curb this dangerous and destabilising situation? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Foreign Affairs brief I have on this subject is a couple of weeks old and may need supplementing by some further information. I can say at this stage that the Government has seen reports to the effect that an agreement has been signed establishing a so-called revolutionary committee involving Libya, the Vanua'aku Pati in Vanuatu, the Free Papua Movement and the FULK faction of the New Caledonian National Liberation Front-FLNKS. According to the reports, which were based on an article in the FLNKS weekly newspaper, Bwenando-that may subsequently have been supplemented by some other media reports-the agreement was signed in Vila and adopted at last month's conference of liberation movements in Tripoli. The information that I have, dated 14 April, is that, at that stage anyway, the Government had received no conclusive evidence in substantiation of that. As to the general question of our attitude towards such developments, I can say that the Australian Government has consistently expressed the view that it would look with considerable disfavour on any activities by Libya which could provoke instability or lead to the use, or threat of use, of violence and terrorism in New Caledonia or elsewhere in the region. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It follows the critical comments made by Senators Macklin and Lewis after the tabling by the Minister this morning of a statement on the Review of the Repatriation Hospital System. Is there any substance to assertions that the Government seeks to fob off the responsibility for repatriation hospitals to the States, or that it is dragging its feet in implementing the review recommendations? Senator GIETZELT —I was somewhat surprised at the criticism that was levelled by Senator Lewis following my making a statement today in respect of the future of the repatriation hospital system. The Brand report is the third such report that has been prepared by governments in the last decade. Two of the three obviously were prepared in the period of the previous conservative Government. They all came to somewhat the same conclusions about what should happen to our repatriation hospital system. Firstly, it was never the intention of this Government to fob off the repatriation hospitals on to the States, but all of those reports came to substantially the same conclusion; that is, that the rationale for separate repatriation hospitals would disappear over time. I was able recently to get unanimous agreement from the State Health Ministers to the establishment of a working party for the purpose of bringing into being an arrangement whereby the repatriation hospitals would, over time, be integrated with the State hospital systems. I was pleased to find support for that proposition from all of the political parties represented at the Australian Health Ministers Conference. The Government recognises-I hope that the Senate also does-that the veteran population in the next 25 years will drop from about 600,000 to about 100,000. There will therefore be a need for the Government to take into account the demographic changes as well as the fall in the veteran population so that we are able to provide for the veterans an option which currently is not available to them in the majority of cases. That is to say, those veterans who live far removed from repatriation hospitals will be given the option of using either the repatriation or the state system when agreement is reached with the States. An interdepartmental committee will be established, comprising representatives of my Department, the Commonwealth Department of the Treasury and the States, to work towards a process whereby veterans and their spouses will have the opportunity to be admitted into State hospital systems under proper financial arrangements and in a way which will not disadvantage either the States or the Commonwealth. It seems to me that that plan, which was a key recommendation of the Brand report, had some relationship to the position of the conservative governments, which would not bite the bullet and were afraid to make that important decision about the future of our repatriation hospital system. The States were able to see, when it was explained to them, the advantages that they would have in taking over the repatriation hospitals, perhaps in the year 2000 on an agreed arrangement whereby veterans would have the opportunity to go into a repatriation hospital or a local State hospital at the expense of the Commonwealth. That, of course, is a vital aspect of the Brand report, which has been adopted by the Government. Another point of criticism that was made this morning by Senator Lewis was that there was no reference in my statement to very many recommendations in the Brand report. Of course, I referred only to the major recommendations in the ministerial statement, but I can inform the Senate that 61 of the 236 recommendations have already been implemented, another 136 are being implemented and the remainder require formal Government approval before action is taken. The Government is therefore committed to retaining the repatriation hospital system for as long as is necessary, to modernising and to providing it with all the facilities to carry out its obligations to veterans. Senator VANSTONE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister's promise in the National Agenda for Women that the Government would appoint `a special women's health resource person to co-ordinate development of policy', that is, health policy for women. Firstly, is or was the appointment ever necessary? I ask this in light of the public comments made by the newly appointed head of the Office of the Status of Women, Ms Brooks, to the effect that everything is under control because there is adequate competent female staff in the Department of Health to undertake that task. Secondly, if the Government regards the appointment as necessary, given that five months have passed since the promise was made, when will advertisements be placed and when will an appointment be made? Thirdly, who speaks both publicly and politically for the Prime Minister on this issue of the status of women? Is it the recently appointed head of the Office of the Status of Women or the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women? Senator RYAN —It is certainly the case that the Department of Health has a number of senior and very competent women. In fact, the Deputy Secretary, Ann Kern, who would be known to many honourable senators opposite, is one of the more outstanding public servants and, of course, is one of the most senior women in the Commonwealth Public Service. So I think it is quite true, as Senator Vanstone's question implied, that the attention given to the development of women's health policy would be expert and sympathetic. Whether or not my colleague Dr Blewett considers it necessary to make an additional appointment to bring in some additional expertise in the development of the women's health policy is something which I shall ask him about. I am not aware of his intentions in this regard. It may well be that he is waiting until the policy has developed to a certain point and then he will judge whether it is necessary to make an additional appointment. I do not have any details about his intention in that regard, although if he has made a commitment in that direction, I am sure he will be pursuing it. Certainly, the area of women's health is one that has received a great deal of attention from this Government. A major national women's health conference was held in Adelaide, I think, some months ago, and it was extremely well attended not only by women in the bureaucracy whose job it is to advise government, but also by women involved in the delivery of health paramedicals, women involved in the management of community health centres, and consumers of special women's health programs. I know that my colleague Senator Rosemary Crowley, who is a health expert, was at that conference. The matter of the development of women's health policy is well under way, but whether Dr Blewett still considers it necessary to make an appointment of a special health expert to bring the policy together is something which I shall have to ask him about. Senator Vanstone also, in a way that I did not find quite connected to the first part of her question, asked who speaks for the Prime Minister on women's policy. Perhaps Senator Vanstone is not yet totally familiar with the role of the bureaucracy in relation to policy. It is the role and the responsibility of bureaucrats at certain levels of seniority to explain government policy. It is not their role to make a political defence or explanation of government policy. I suppose that they do that most frequently within the bureaucracy in their dealings with other bureaucrats. But, from time to time, senior bureaucrats make a speech in a public forum, or they are asked questions in a public forum, and they are entitled to answer them. I am sure that Senator Vanstone was referring to the fact that some comments of a factual nature were made by Ms Brooks, who is the First Assistant Secretary in charge of the Office of the Status of Women within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, concerning matters raised by Senator Vanstone during her address to the Women's Electoral Lobby conference. That is an entirely appropriate course of action for a senior public servant to take. Matters of fact such as the appointment of a women's health adviser and the development of the proposal that State governments be asked to co-operate in removing unnecessary regulations preventing the development of work-based child care are appropriate matters for a senior public servant to explain in a public forum. On the other hand, the political defence of a government's program is the responsibility of the members and supporters of that government. Senator Vanstone will also be aware that my contribution to the Women's Electoral Lobby conference included such a political defence of the Government's program-one that is very easy to make, given the outstanding record of the Government in this area; but one which is my responsibility to make. I realise I have spoken for some time, but I hope I have explained for the elucidation of Senator Vanstone the difference between the role of public servants in explaining policy and that of Ministers in advocating and defending it. Senator VANSTONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for her courteous explanation of the difference between the role of the public servant and that of the politician with respect to fact and policy. I suggest that she may care to send-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to ask her question. Senator VANSTONE —Will the Minister make that explanation to those working in the Office of the Status of Women so that they too will clearly understand this difference? Secondly, with respect to the first part of my question, is the Minister telling me that it is a matter of fact that this appointment will proceed or is it a matter of fact that the Minister will check with the Minister for Health? In either case, why did the Prime Minister make his promise if both the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now extending her question beyond the area of a supplementary question. Senator VANSTONE —I will rephrase the question. Is it a matter of government policy, as outlined by the Prime Minister in his speech in November on the National Agenda for Women, that a health co-ordinator would be appointed? Will the Government make such an appointment, and will it do it soon? Senator RYAN —I thought that I had said quite clearly to Senator Vanstone the first time I answered her question that the matter of the appointment of that special co-ordinator is something that I shall have to ask Dr Blewett about. Senator REYNOLDS —I refer the Minister for Education to the recent visit by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, to north Queensland tertiary institutions. Is the Minister aware of the type of reception that Mr Howard received? Is it a fact that the Leader of the Opposition refused to admit that tertiary fees would be part of Liberal Party policy? Is the Minister also aware that Mr Howard is considering forcing young unemployed people to undertake education courses before they can become eligible for the dole? Does the Minister see this as a cost-saving proposal? What is her reaction to the proposal? Senator RYAN —I did hear some news reports of Mr Howard's visit to north Queensland. Apparently he spoke, or attempted to speak, to some students in one of the north Queensland tertiary institutions. I was rather amused to hear also that he announced that he intended to make frequent visits to campuses because he believed that there was a great deal of potential support for Liberal Party policies among the under-25s. I was rather surprised to hear that speculation, because, given that one of the policies that the Liberals apparently intend to unveil shortly is the reintroduction of tertiary fees, I would have thought that he would have been very unwelcome on campuses throughout Australia and, indeed, that he would find some difficulty in getting access to them. I also wonder whether Mr Howard, on any future visits to campuses in north Queensland or in any other part of Australia that he might care to make, would care to explain to students whether, if he is going to force unemployed young people who are on the dole to undertake education courses, he would be prepared to pay the dole to all students. If he is prepared to do that, I wonder whether he will explain how the many hundreds or, perhaps, even thousands of millions of dollars involved would be a contribution to more responsible public expenditure. I also expected that the students would ask Mr Howard, as indeed I have asked him and my colleague Senator Walsh has asked him, but with no reply, how he considers that the provision of education places for unemployed young people as well as the granting of the dole can be seen as a cost-saving measure. My colleague Senator Walsh has made a preliminary assessment that the cost of providing extra education places into which young unemployed people would be forced would be in the vicinity of $600m. I understand that that costing was worked out on the assumption that the unemployed would go mainly into technical and further education places. Of course, if they were to go into college or university places, the costs would be very much higher. It is not our policy to force young unemployed people to do anything; it is our policy to assist them to find employment. Of course we have had a very good record in doing that. At the same time it is very much our policy, and one which we have pursued energetically and effectively, to persuade young people to stay in the education system or to go back to the education system rather than to stay unemployed in a situation where they have very few skills and the youth labour market is very weak. We have taken a number of steps, including a drastic increase in the secondary allowance scheme and regular increases in the tertiary education assistance scheme-a program of increases to both those benefits which will make them the equivalent of the dole. These measures have already resulted in greatly increased participation in upper secondary years, particularly by disadvantaged young people, and a rapid expansion of the number of young people in higher education. I suggest that these measures, along with the traineeship scheme, which will also provide young people with some income, some work experience and skill training, are much more constructive and acceptable to young people and much more likely to result in a real and dramatic reduction of youth unemployment. If Mr Howard cannot understand that and thinks that spending $600m on extra places to force young unemployed people into further studies is some sort of cost saving measure, and if he is unprepared to announce the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia of reintroduction of tertiary fees and privatisation of tertiary institutions-two measures which would achieve only a drastic reduction in access by the kinds of young people who are likely to be unemployed and a lowering of quality in our tertiary institutions-he is at liberty to run around the campuses of Australia and try to attract support on that basis. I would be absolutely amazed if he got anything other than very vigorous opposition from students on any campus in Australia. I conclude by saying that my colleagues on this side of the chamber and I would be very interested to see the fate of Mr Howard should he venture onto the campuses of Australia with these ludicrous policies. Senator GRIMES —Four sitting days ago Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me a question about the reason for the removal of Dilantin from the pharmaceutical benefits list. I now have the following information from the Minister for Health: Parke Davis Pty Limited manufactures Dilantin-phenytoin sodium-an anti-convulsant used in the management of epilepsy. Alternative brands to Dilantin are not available because the drug is subject to bioequivalence problems and the therapeutic dose range is close to the toxic dose level. In effect, Dilantin is a drug for which there is no direct substitute. Price increases for the drug were granted in July 1985, when the average increase was 11.18 per cent. The increases for the pediatric suspension and the capsules were those sought by the company and a pro rata increase was granted for the tablets. In December 1985 Parke Davis advised that it would unilaterally increase prices by some 25 per cent from 1 March 1986. The company decided to take this action due to the claimed unsatisfactory price increases obtained for its total range of pharmaceutical benefit products during 1985. The pricing bureau could not recommend any further increase because no additional cost data had been provided since the July 1985 review and because the present prices represented a reasonable margin on the cost of the goods. The margins are higher than those previously enjoyed by the company. Dilantin continues to be listed under the special patient contributor arrangements. Patients pay between $1.11 and $1.57 for the product. The alternatives would be to accept the manufacturer's proposed price or to delist the product. If the product were delisted, the patient would be required to pay the full dispensed price to continue using the product. The price would range from $11.50 to $15.50. When the amendments to the National Health Act were passed in 1985 to allow for a special patient contribution where a drug manufacturer and the Government could not agree as to the price, members of the Opposition supported this move. Senator Peter Baume referred to it as a sensible procedure which seeks to deal with price disagreements between the Government and drug manufacturers. The honourable member for Moreton, Mr Donald Cameron, also said that the provision in last year's amendment to cope with pricing disagreements between drug companies and the Government was a sensible procedure. It is as a result of that procedure that we now have this situation with Dilantin. It is not insignificant that the first drug on the pharmaceutical benefits list which has resulted in a dispute between the Government and the manufacturer is Dilantin-a drug which cannot be substituted, is widely used, and is produced by a large pharmaceutical company of this type. The Minister and I hope that this matter can be settled in the near future. In the meantime, unfortunately, some people will have to pay between $1.11 and $1.57 for their prescriptions, but this is far more satisfactory than that they should have to pay between $11.50 and $15.50. It is a far better solution to the problem than delisting such an important drug. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator TATE —In this morning's Canberra Times, in an article on page 1 headed `Murphy: new police inquiry', the following paragraph appears: Mr Groux was an important witness in the 1981-82 Royal commission into the Australian meat industry, and, early in the development of the Murphy affair, in September, 1984, gave a statement to Senate investigators critical of a policeman who had earlier been involved in the meat inquiry and who later worked on aspects of The Age tapes. This paragraph appears to refer to the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, which was in operation in September 1984. As the former Chairman of that Committee I have caused inquiries to be made in relation to this matter. No statement by any person by the name of Groux was placed before that Committee. The former Secretary of the Committee has advised that he did not receive any statement from, or speak to, any person by the name of Groux. The senior and junior counsel and the solicitor who assisted the Committee have each advised that they have no recollection of receiving any statement from, or speaking to, any person by the name of Groux. I am advised that the documents of the Committee contain no record of any statement being received by any person by the name of Groux or any contact with such a person. The article also refers to certain diaries of Mr Clarrie Briese. As former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, I indicate that neither of those Committees had access to any such diaries. I am advised that none of the staff of either Committee had access to any such diaries, nor did the senior or junior counsel or the solicitor assisting the recent Committee have any such access. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the personal explanation. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. During Question Time the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, alleged that I was responsible for putting people into penury. This is totally false and is a repetition of similar allegations which he has previously been required to withdraw on several occasions. In response to repeated invitations on such occasions, the Minister has been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of this deliberately false allegation, which now represents a blatant abuse of the privilege of the Senate, and I invite him to repeat these allegations outside this chamber. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —I seek leave to make a short statement on the same subject. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I merely wish to say that on this occasion, as on any previous occasion when I have made any comment about Senator Michael Baume, it has been in response to an offensive interjection by him. I do not make such statements under any other circumstances. I have said many times in this place that if people want to play that sort of game, I will join in; if they do not want to play it, I will not. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —by leave-During Question Time I was misrepresented by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) and Senator Crowley. The particular representations to which I refer were that I had made the comment that the drug offensive initiated by the Government was a flop and that the whole project was a failure. I strongly dispute that representation and, as a means of disputing it, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the Press release which was issued on the survey on which the Press reports are based. Leave granted. The document read as follows- STATEMENT BY SENATOR AMANDA VANSTONE, SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA Drug Offensive not reaching the street Senator Amanda Vanstone (Liberal South Australia) said today the Government needed to get its act together with respect to the drug offensive. Senator Vanstone said that the message in the drug offensive booklet was clearly not getting through. She said ``This is glaringly obvious from the results of a telephone survey done in the Adelaide metropolitan area''. Senator Vanstone is a member of the Coalition Drug Task Force and had the survey done in South Australia to contribute to a national assessment of the booklet which is being distributed. ``If these results reflect a national trend then the Government will have to rethink its tactics and allocate money to the front line rather than glossy advertising'', she said. Senator Vanstone revealed that only 21 per cent of respondents had fully read the booklet. The remaining 79 per cent had either not received it, not read it or only partly read it. 45 per cent of respondents say they have not yet received the booklet. ``If retailers took this long to distribute their sale catalogues the sale would be over before most people knew it had even begun'', she said. ``A staggering 62 per cent of respondents are still unaware of the 008 information hotline'', she said. For further information contact (062) 72 6756 28 April 1986 Senator VANSTONE —Further allegations were made that the Opposition and I in particular were not prepared to make a positive input into this matter. I simply place before the Senate my view that, as a member of any Opposition, it is my role and that of the Opposition as a whole, to peruse government activity and to make comment when that government activity is not up to scratch. I do not regard a comment that the Government is not delivering in the manner that it should as being negative. I do not see how such a comment could be regarded as saying the drug offensive is a flop, nor do I see how it could be interpreted as saying the whole project is a failure. Additionally I make the point that any member of parliament who fails to scrutinise government activity and fails to speak out when he or she believes that the Government is not living up to its task is not doing his or her job. The claim was made in Question Time that the survey from which I quoted was biased and that particular areas were selected for it. I am speaking purely for my Press release and the survey that I had conducted in South Australia. No particular area was selected. In fact, as honourable senators will see when they read the Press release in Hansard, a telephone survey was done in the Adelaide metropolitan area. No attempt was made to select particular rural sectors, nor was there was any attempt to select particular areas in the Adelaide metropolitan area. The phone numbers were chosen on a random basis. I note the Minister's comment that it was unfair to claim that people who had not had the booklet were missing out because they could get it by ringing a toll free number. I refer the Minister to the Press release, which indicates that in South Australia 62 per cent of respondents to this particular survey still do not know what that number is and therefore they cannot ring it. I further note the Minister's comments that telephone surveys are notoriously unreliable-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is tending to debate the issue. I remind her that she has been given leave to make a personal explanation and I would ask her to confine her remarks to that personal explanation. Senator VANSTONE —I simply say that I stand by the Press release that I issued and that it was part of an unbiased survey. That is indicated by the fact that the Government's own public relations people rang up to find out what we had done. I am pleased to note that the Government admits the unreliability of telephone surveys. Perhaps it is better if I save my other remarks for future media comments. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —by leave-I apologise to Senator Vanstone if she believes that I said that she had said that the drug offensive was a flop. If she looks up the Hansard tomorrow she will find that I was referring to her and the Opposition as a whole. In fact, the Opposition put out a statement, signed by Mr Sharp, chairman of its Drug Offensive Task Force, and the first sentence of that statement says: The survey has shown that the Government's glossy drug offensive booklet has been a flop. The question I answered today referred to an article in the Sydney Sun which quoted Senator Vanstone. The headline on that article said `The drug booklet, a $100m flop'. It went on to say: Liberal senator Amanda Vanstone, a member of the Opposition's coalition drug task force-- That was the same task force that put out the statement which said that the campaign was a flop, and I understand that Senator Vanstone's remarks have dissociated her from the Opposition's Press statement- said that the message in the drug offensive booklet was clearly not getting through. Mr Sharp went on to say in his statement that the book was superficial, shallow, short on information and a misuse of taxpayers' money. He implied that the booklet cost $100m when in fact the whole program is costing $100m. I make the point that in this world, where so many of us use polls, where industry and government use polls to determine what is going on, we must be very careful about the methodology we use. The last method I would use-and I suggest to Senator Vanstone that it should also be the last method she or her staff should use-is to get on the phone and randomly ring around and expect to get sensible answers. That methodology-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is clearly debating the matter. Senator GRIMES —That methodology would clearly be laughed at by experts and by non-experts like Senator Button and myself. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.15) —I seek leave to make a ministerial statement on the Prime Minister's official visits between 15 and 28 April 1986. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I also seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Between 15 and 28 April the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made official visits to Washington, London, Brussels, Rome and Athens. A principal purpose of these visits was to draw attention to the contemporary crisis in agricultural markets and to secure agreement on both short and long term measures needed to deal with that crisis. Immediately prior to the Prime Minister's departure the Minister for Primary Industry tabled the Government's statement on economic and rural policy. This is the most comprehensive and important rural policy document ever tabled by an Australian government. Despite the politically inspired efforts by some to diminish its significance, that statement is destined to remain on centre stage as far as rural policy is concerned for a long time to come. The Government has clearly indicated that the farm problem must be addressed from both the income and the costs side. Both sides were addressed in detail in the statement. In reporting to you today the Prime Minister will focus on the income side, particularly in relation to international markets. The crisis in world agricultural trade has been brewing for a long time. The level of consumer transfers and subsidies to European farmers has been escalating for well over a decade. In many of the world's other major producing and consuming areas, protection of agricultural producers has similarly been unchecked by any semblance of order in the international trading system. Previous rounds of Multilateral Trade Negotiations have failed to address seriously the causes of our corrupted international agricultural trading system. Those causes lie fairly and squarely in the agricultural subsidy practices of the major consuming and producing countries. The consequence for Australian agriculture has been a persistent, insidious erosion of our position as a major non-subsidising supplier of farm products. This has occurred despite the strong comparative advantage we have in agriculture-despite the fact that our farmers are among the most efficient in the world. European farm stocks have been at very high levels even before the 1980s. During the 1980's the combination of European export subsidies and American farm policies resulted in a sharp downturn in the US share of world markets and the emergence of the United States as a stock holder of unprecedented proportions. It was against that background that the United States enacted its 1985 Farm Act. That Act is unambiguously aimed at disposing of surplus stocks on the world market at low prices and with the aid of export subsidies. Its enactment has escalated what can only be termed as a trade war between the United States and Europe. Australian farmers are caught in the crossfire of subsidy and countersubsidy as the treasuries of the United States and Europe wage an irrational battle with each other, using their own taxpayers' and consumers' money. It was because of the seriousness of this situation-or the nation as a whole as well as for the rural community-that the Prime Minister embarked on his trip to the United States and Europe. His overseas visit has been aimed at two specific objectives. First, he has been drawing the attention of world leaders to the fact that the world agricultural trade war is dangerous and that it is in nobody's best interests. Second, he has been trying to win sensitivity for Australia's position as a non-subsidising supplier, to minimise the damage being wreaked upon us while the trade war continues. In the United States he met with President Reagan, Secretary of State Shultz, Agriculture Secretary Richard Lyng, and congressional leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In Britain he met with Margaret Thatcher, Agriculture Minister Jopling and Secretary for Trade Channon, along with other Ministers and senior officials. In Brussels, meetings were held with EC President Delors, Commissioner de Clercq and Commission officials. He continued his discussions with the Prime Ministers of Italy and Greece, along with senior Ministers and public servants in those countries. Key points that he made to all of these world leaders were as follows: First, the crisis in world agricultural trade is so serious as to warrant immediate world attention. This must be a major issue for the leaders meeting shortly at the Tokyo Summit. Second, agriculture must be accorded high priority in the forthcoming round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, under the General Agreement on tariffs and Trade. There is a need for fundamental reform of the rules governing world production and trade for farm commodities. Third, there is a need for reform of the agricultural support and subsidy policies in many countries. In the EEC 60 per cent of the returns from agricultural production consists of subsidies paid by consumers and taxpayers. The cost is around $70 billion per annum. The common agricultural policy is costing Europe up to one Million jobs through its effect on the European manufacturing sector. The economic costs of the US farm program have not been fully documented, but they are extraordinarily high. In many other countries income and employment is much lower than it otherwise would be because of excessive agricultural protection. Fourth, there is an immediate need for the exercise of strong restraint in agricultural production, price support and export subsidisation. We do not have time to wait for the MTN Round before beginning to restore sanity in world agricultural trade. Fifth, Australian farmers are innocent victims, losing around $1 billion per annum in world market returns as a consequence of the CAP alone, let alone the impact of the agricultural policies in other countries. Our farmers' incomes are at the second lowest level in real terms recorded, and look set to fall another 20 per cent in 1986-87. Sixth, the Australian economy as a whole is suffering from the atrocities being inflicted upon our rural community. We rely on the rural sector for almost 40 per cent of our export earnings. In contrast to Europe and the United States, we export around 80 per cent of production of our four major agricultural export commodities (wheat, wool, beef, sugar). We clearly cannot afford to join the irrational world agricultural trade war. Seventh, in all the circumstances there is a demonstrable need for the exercise of sensitivity in relation to Australia's position. This applies both in the administration of the US Farm Act and in the conduct of the Common Agricultural Policy. He is pleased to be able to report that the broad thrust of our case has been accepted in both North America and Europe. President Reagan and President Delors, along with the leaders of Great Britain, Italy and Greece, agree that the current world agricultural regime is intolerable. In both the United States and Europe he received support for the view that agriculture must be given a prominent position in the forthcoming Multilateral Trade Negotiations. There is also strong agreement on the need for the immediate exercise of restraint on agricultural subsidies and disposal of surplus stocks pending the outcome of the new round. He believes that there is also a good measure of understanding of Australia's particular circumstances and of the effect the corruption of international markets is having on our rural community and on our economy as a whole. In relation to the United States Farm Bill, I have been able to build further on the assurances given to the Minister for Trade during his visit in February. In particular the United States Administration has assured him that: the Export Enhancement Program will be administered on a targeted basis, aimed essentially at markets of subsidising exporters. Recipients under the EEP will be encouraged to maintain their normal level of imports from traditional non-subsidising suppliers such as Australia; sale of beef in association with the whole herd buyout scheme will be handled in a way which seeks to minimise disruption in Australia's export markets; we should continue to receive access to the United States beef market at least at the levels consistent with the operation of the existing Meat Import Law; Australia's traditional share of the United States sugar market is being protected and our concerns in relation to the cotton and rice programs have been noted; the consultative process covering bilateral agricultural matters will be extended to include Australia's concerns in the implementation of US export subsidy and surplus stock disposal programs. Periodic meetings between our respective Trade and Primary Industry Ministers will be central to that continuing process. In Brussels he was also given some specific assurances in relation to the management of the Common Agricultural Policy. Most importantly however, he has been able to restore, and significantly extend, the consultative arrangements between Australia and the EC, within which these issues can be further addressed in the future. Key outcomes of his discussions with the EC were: the Andriessen agreement, under which the EC has agreed not to subsidise sales of beef into our six major Asian/Pacific markets (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and Papua New Guinea) has been reaffirmed. This was most important given the request on the United States Administration under the Farm Act to dispose of 200 million pounds of beef outside the US market. the EC is committed to continuing to respect the minimum price provisions of the International Dairy Agreement; there will be discussions later this year to try to find an alternative basis for dealing with the arrangement between Australia and the EC on so-called `balance sheet' beef. Certification procedures under the proposed veterinary directive relating to growth promotants will be the subject of consultation with Australia at an early date; a new consultative framework, consisting of four components, has been agreed for future conduct of Australia/EC relations. These elements are: high level Ministerial talks covering the full range of agricultural commodity and trade issues are to be resumed at an early date; a basis is to be established for formal liaison on respective approaches to the new MTN round during the lead-up to the new round and for its duration; an EEC mission in the field of technological research and development, including agriculture, will visit Australia in May or June; continuing discussions will be held at official level between our delegations in Europe and in Canberra on all trade issues between the EC and Australia. Mr President, the Prime Minister will not attempt to delude Australia's rural community by pretending that he has resolved the world agricultural trade crisis. He has not been able to change fundamentally the policies of the USA or the EC. Those policies will continue to corrupt markets and to depress prices for a considerable time to come. He believes however, that he has been able to add some impetus to the urgency with which these problems might be addressed by world leaders. He has highlighted the burgeoning costs of allowing the present absurd situation to continue. Only time will tell whether the problems of agricultural trade are given the high profile that they deserve in Tokyo, and in the MTN Round. Only time will tell whether the world's leaders, and the political processes in major producing and consuming countries, will resolutely face the intractable farm trade problem. Whatever time reveals, however, there is one thing that it will show. This is that no Australian Government has worked more determinedly, more comprehensively or more effectively in its efforts to have these matters properly addressed. In the meantime, the Prime Minister has been able to win some sensitivity to Australia's position as a non-subsidising nation. A proper reading of history will show that this mission has brought Australian farmers some respite. We have been able to establish some guidelines within which existing policies in the United States and Europe will be administered. These guidelines provide a framework for ongoing dialogue. We have a set of benchmarks against which we can seek redress, in the inevitable circumstances where the specific actions of others interact with the cold hard commercial world to damage our interests. The recently announced subsidised wheat sale to the Yemen Arab Republic would be a case in point. While Australia can expect to maintain its 400,000 tonnes contracted sales to that market, the avenues for dialogue established during the Prime Minister's visit to Washington will be utilised with a view to minimising further subsidised competition from the United States in the additional market that has opened up as a result of the Yemen decision to open a new flour mill. The structure of personal relationships and the consultative mechanisms that have been established through his visits are of enduring significance. These relationships and mechanisms provide a sound foundation for further determined efforts to bring about change in the world agricultural trading system, and to restore the fortunes of our rural community. Let me make this pledge to rural Australia. The Government will do all that is humanly possible to carry on the fight for a fair go for Australian farmers in the world economy. The Treasurer has had these matters uppermost in his mind during recent meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the OECD. He has sought a firmer foundation for more widespread and stronger growth in the world economy. He has sought a proper place for agriculture on the MTN agenda. The Ministers for Trade and Primary Industry have already made frequent representations overseas on behalf of rural Australia. We are already trying to build a coalition of likeminded countries, at both a bilateral and regional level, to pursue agricultural trade reform. Official discussions are proceeding in many countries at our initiative. This week we are participating in high level meetings with significant agricultural exporting countries in Uruguay. The Minister for Trade will be attending a meeting of Trade Ministers in Seoul in June and will go on to Canada for a meeting of wheat exporting countries. He will inaugurate a new, formalised dialogue with USTR Yeutter soon after. The Minister for Primary Industry will visit the US, Europe and other countries in June. The Government's approach to international agricultural trade and diplomacy has been clearly set out in the statement on economic and rural policy. As indicated in that document, we will shortly be convening a high level official group to map out a more comprehensive bilateral agricultural trade strategy. Finally Mr President, let me say that Australian farmers continue to face serious problems. We have addressed them comprehensively in our statement. We will act upon them comprehensively in the months ahead. It is our sincere hope that the rural community as a whole, and the leaders of farm organisations in particular, will join with the Government in working constructively to seek and implement practical solutions to the problems we face. Australia's rural problems are problems shared by the nation as a whole. While the major purpose of the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, London and other capitals, was to discuss the problems confronting Australia's trade in agricultural products, he took the opportunity to review a wide range of other matters. ANZUS President Reagan and the Prime Minister reaffirmed the importance of the ANZUS ties between us which are fundamental to Australia's foreign and defence policies. They also have important implications for the security and stability of our region. In reaffirming the importance of our security arrangements under ANZUS, the Prime Minister also made clear to the United States that, notwithstanding the current difficulties between New Zealand and the United States over ANZUS, Australia intended maintaining its bilateral defence co-operation with New Zealand. The United States has already indicated that, if New Zealand proceeds to enact its proposed anti-nuclear legislation, the United States will review its security commitments to New Zealand. In his discussions with President Reagan, the Prime Minister reiterated Australia's firm view that, whatever may occur in the security relationship between the United States and New Zealand, the legal framework of the ANZUS Treaty should be left intact, and the security relationship between Australia and the United States reaffirmed. In the President's words: `Australia is a responsible ANZUS ally, an important trading partner and a trusted friend'. In his departure statement at the White House on 17 April, President Reagan confirmed to the Prime Minister that, whatever New Zealand's decision, the United States commitment to Australia under ANZUS is firm. Further discussions on matters related to ANZUS will take place at the Australia-United States ministerial talks which are scheduled to be held in San Francisco in August. Terrorism In the light of recent instances of terrorism and the United States military action against Libya, it was inevitable and appropriate that the Prime Minister should discuss these issues with political leaders in Washington, London, Rome and Greece. He made it clear that the Australian Government unequivocally condemns terrorism. We deplore the loss of innocent lives and the poisoning of relations among States which result from terrorist outrages. In his statement to Parliament before he left Australia, he said that the Government counselled restraint by both Libya and the United States. The Government does not accept that violence, in particular terrorism, is a solution to the complex problems of the world. Senators will be aware that Australia drew the attention of the United Nations Security Council to a number of possible measures open to the international community to further the possibility of a peaceful solution. To those who have criticised such action as unrealistic, I would respond that the Government takes pride in the fact that Australia sought to play a responsible and constructive role in the Security Council in the face of the prospect of an intensifying cycle of violence. Regrettably the Security Council has so far been unable to take any positive initiative. An essential condition for progress is a genuine and binding pledge by Libya to terminate its Government's direction and export of, and support for, terrorist activity against civilians and civilian targets. Such a pledge should make possible a reciprocal commitment from the United States to refrain from recourse to armed force. The Australian Government accepts that there is a substantial body of evidence of Libyan direction of and involvement in international terrorism. While in the United States, the Prime Minister put it to the President and others that it would be in the best interests of all that that evidence should be made publicly available. East-West relations and arms control His discussions in Washington also covered the prospects for progress towards effective arms control and disarmament. He confirmed Australia's support for the United States-Soviet summit process and the deep concern of the Australian Government and people that the Geneva arms control negotiations have still not achieved any significant progress towards the conclusion of agreements to reduce nuclear armaments. The United States side reassured me of their commitment to continue negotiating seriously and in good faith. At the request of President Reagan, Ambassador Paul Nitze, Special Adviser to the President on Arms Control, briefed the Prime Minister in Rome on the President's provisional thinking, before taking a final decision, on continued United States adherence to the SALT II agreement. Ambassador Nitze was in Rome as part of his assignment to brief the Heads of Government of European allies of the United States on President Reagan's views on these issues. The Prime Minister's discussion with Ambassador Nitze was part of the continuing process of consultation between Australia and the United States on major arms control and disarmament questions. Although SALT II has not been ratified, both sides have publicly undertaken to adhere to its provisions. The United States has previously made clear its concern about Soviet compliance with the SALT agreements. The Prime Minister advised Ambassador Nitze that the Australian Government appreciates United States concerns about Soviet compliance with aspects of the SALT II Treaty and the ABM Treaty and believes that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has a case to answer. We remain of the view, however, that continued United States compliance with the SALT agreements is of great importance, especially as the United States seeks to ascertain Soviet intentions during the Summit process in the year ahead. The Prime Minister has since written to President Reagan in these terms. South Pacific In his discussions in Washington, both with the Administration and with Congress, and also in London, he outlined the objectives of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. He explained that this Treaty represents the strongly held aspirations of the countries of the South Pacific, including Australia, to prevent the manufacture, acquisition, possession, testing and stationing of nuclear weapons in our region. He made it clear that the Government regards it as a responsible arms control measure which enhances regional security and marks a positive step forward in the international search for peace and disarmament. He also emphasised to the United States and United Kingdom governments that the Treaty fully respects rights guaranteed under international law, specifically recognises the sovereign right of parties to determine access to their ports and airfields, and is completely consistent with Australia's responsibility under ANZUS. Indeed we would not have entered into the Treaty unless this were so. He urged both governments to sign the Protocols of the Treaty. In addition, while in Washington, he took the opportunity to welcome the increased attention now being given by the United States Administration to the fisheries concerns of South Pacific countries. South Africa In both Washington and London, the Prime Minister's discussions covered the tragic situation in South Africa where there is an urgent need to find a peaceful means of abolishing the abhorrent apartheid system. He reiterated the Australian Government's concern that time is running out for a negotiated settlement with moderate black leaders. It was significant, I think that the urgency of the situation was readily acknowledged by the United States Administration. The Prime Minister also discussed in both capitals the work of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, which is seeking to encourage dialogue between the South African Government and the various racial groups with a view to the peaceful establishment of a non-racial, democratic and representative government in South Africa. In accordance with the communique issued after the last Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Nassau in October 1985, Heads of seven Commonwealth governments, including Australia, will meet later this year to consider the report of the Eminent Persons Group. The report is due by 30 June and the Australian Government believes it is very important that the meeting take place as soon thereafter as possible. Italy This was the Prime Minister's first official visit to Italy. He was delighted to confirm the strong ties of friendship between our two countries and to pay a special tribute to the contribution which the Italian community has made to Australia. He had valuable talks with Prime Minister Craxi on a range of international issues of importance to us. A very important part of his meeting with him was for them both to sign the Australia-Italy Social Security Agreement which provides comprehensive social security coverage for people moving between the two countries. People in Australia and Italy who will benefit from the agreement include those who have lost pension rights by ceasing to be Italian citizens or by leaving Australia before being granted pensions and those who have not spent sufficient time in Australia or paid sufficient contributions to the Italian scheme to qualify for payments. In addition to our discussions about the Common Agricultural Policy of the EC, the place of agriculture in the forthcoming MTN Round and our bilateral trade relations, he also took the opportunity to discuss with Mr Craxi Australia's Bicentenary celebrations. He emphasised how much we looked forward to a major involvement by Italy, pointing out that ten countries have established national bicentennial committees. The Prime Minister was pleased that Mr Craxi said that such a committee would be established in Italy, combining the government and private sector, to try to maximise the degree of Italian involvement in the Bicentennial celebrations. He is now hopeful that as part of Italy's participation the Amerigo Vespucci, one of the world's finest sail training ships, will be able to come to Australia in 1988. In the course of my visit I extended an official invitation to Mr Craxi to visit Australia. The Prime Minister is delighted that he accepted and he hopes it will not be long before the visit takes place. He also mentioned to Mr Craxi that we would be very pleased if an Italian Minister were able to visit Australia when Italy is participating in the America's Cup, at which time we look forward to welcoming many Italian visitors to Perth. At the same time our joint working group on trade will meet for its third meeting in Perth. This will follow the second meeting due to be held in Rome next month. The Prime Minister's visit also provided the opportunity to acknowledge the splendid work undertaken by Australian Italians through the Southern Italian Earthquake Committee in rendering assistance to the areas ravaged by the Italian earthquake of 1980. Mrs Hawke had the pleasure of opening the Child Development Centre at Avellino. The construction of this Centre was funded through Australian contributions. Call on the Pope In Rome, the Prime Minister had an audience with His Holiness, Pope John Paul the Second. Pope John Paul indicated to him the affection he holds for Australia and the enthusiasm with which he looks forward to visiting us later this year. The Prime Minister informed him of the intense preparations being made for his visit and of the very warm welcome he will receive from the Australian Government and people. Greece The Prime Minister had the great pleasure of making his first official visit to Greece, a country whose people have also made a most important contribution to Australia. In Athens, he had the benefit of interesting and fruitful discussions with Prime Minister Papandreou and also made a courtesy call on President Sartzetakis. His visit coincided with ANZAC Day and served to remind us of the strong friendship between our countries forged in two World Wars, when Australians and Greeks fought side by side in defence of liberty and democracy. Again a major focus of his discussions was the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Communities, the need for trade in agriculture to receive a prominent place in the forthcoming multilateral Trade Negotiations and the opportunities for increased bilateral trade with Greece. In respect of bilateral trade, Mr Papandreou suggested that we examine the scope for an economic and technical co-operation agreement between our two countries, to which the Prime Minister responded positively and this matter will now be examined in more detail at an official level. In addition, the Prime Minister mentioned the Social Security Agreement which he had just signed with Mr Craxi and indicated that he was happy to see continuing consultations with the Greek community in Australia and subsequently the initiation of work aimed at concluding a similar agreement with Greece. He also sought the co-operation of the Greek Government in establishing a national committee linking government and private sectors to promote and plan the participation by Greece in our Bicentenary. Mr Papandreou responded positively and such a committee will be established. This will be an especially welcome reflection of the very valuable role played in our development by the Greek community in Australia. Mr Papandreou accepted the Prime Minister's invitation to visit Australia, having previously visited us as an exile during the role of the junta. The timing of his visit, to which Australia will be looking forward enthusiastically, is now a matter of discussion between them. The Prime Minister's visit to both the United States and Europe has he believes firmly established in the minds of both the American and European political leadership the seriousness of the contemporary agricultural trading crisis and the need for effective action to deal with it. No instant remedies are available, but comprehensive longer term approaches and medium term responses have been identified. The Prime Minister is satisfied that he has also raised within the countries visited sensitivity to Australian interests. This heightened sensitivity should inform the administrative decisions of the major trading nations. At the same time, he is confident that his visit has served to strengthen the friendly relations that Australia enjoys with the United States, Britain, Italy and Greece. These relations in their different ways are each very important to Australia and will continue to be developed and consolidated by this Government. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 30 April, from Senator Chaney: 30 April 1986 Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- ``That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for changes to the proposed fringe benefits tax because of its adverse impact on the Government's car plan and the threat posed by the tax to thousands of jobs in the vehicle industry.'' Yours sincerely, FRED CHANEY Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.17) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for changes to the proposed fringe benefits tax because of its adverse impact on the Government's car plan and the threat posed by the tax to thousands of jobs in the vehicle industry. I am not surprised that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) does not want to stay and listen to this debate since we are supporting his case against the case of his Cabinet. This is not the same motion as the one moved in the Senate three weeks ago on the same subject matter. At that time we asked the Government to abandon its fringe benefits tax because of the threat to jobs which it posed. We did not get the support of the Australian Democrats in that move, but in the light of the support that the Australian Democrats are prepared to give to some modification of the tax to ease the impact on the car industry, today we are seeking the opinion of the Senate on this matter in order to urge the Government to change its stance. It is the right time to bring forward this motion, for two reasons. The first is that it it is now quite apparent that the car industry is suffering very badly from a combination of factors which have been discussed in this place on a number of occasions. I will return to that a little later. The reality is that we have a very substantial drop in car sales and car registrations in the first quarter of this year. In the last few days we have had the latest statistics brought out by a commercial statistical service, IDAPS, which are reported to show that there has been a fall in the number of registrations of almost 33 per cent from last year's record levels. Let us look at the section of the industry which is most important to Australian manufacturing-passenger cars. We find that passenger car registrations in the last month showed almost a 30 per cent drop from March of last year. There can be no doubt that it is no longer a matter of theorising and prediction. There can be no doubt that the industry is suffering a very significant downturn and that we are in a situation where the Government still has an opportunity to influence that in a positive way. We know that because the second reason for making this a pertinent or timely motion today is that the Government has shown an inability so far to bring the relevant tax legislation into the Parliament. We have had a number of predictions that it would be in on a number of different occasions. The latest prediction we were given was by the Leader of the Government in the Senate when he was still in the chamber at Question Time about half an hour ago, when he said that the tax legislation would be brought in early next week at the latest. That followed the prediction of a few days ago that the legislation would be introduced today. The reality is that the fringe benefits tax legislation, and indeed much of the Government's tax legislation, has been stalled because of the Government's difficulties in drafting legislation which it now knows will cause great damage to Australian industry and considerable injustice to some sections of the Australian community. I think that some elements of the Government's tax package are still not widely understood. Most of the Australian community will be appalled if the Government proceeds with its proposals which will impose heavy tax burdens on, for example, voluntary organisations. Organisations which carry out the charitable, educational and health and welfare tasks in our community will find themselves saddled for the first time with Commonwealth income taxes because of this Government's fringe benefits legislation. Today we are dealing merely with one narrow aspect of the Government's tax proposals-its generally anti-business tax proposals-and its impact on Australia's central manufacturing industry, that is, its car and associated parts manufacturers. We say that at this time, when the Government still has a chance to vary its legislation, and when the impact of this proposed tax and other adverse factors are showing up so clearly, it is time for the Senate to express its opinion and it is time for the Government to change its mind. When John Howard assumed the leadership of the Opposition he made the point that the Opposition would not be afraid to agree with the Government on those occasions when it thought that the Government was right. That principle was stated very clearly by John Howard, but it was not a new principle. One of the illustrations of our preparedness as an opposition to support what we had thought of as government action which is in the national interest was our support for the Government's car plan. The Minister, Senator Button, brought that car plan down a couple of years ago. It was a car plan which made quite significant changes to the structure of Government regulation of that important industry. It is a car plan which, in all its major aspects, has had the continuous support of the Opposition. We therefore are particularly concerned that the Government's car plan, which to this point has been seen as something of a success, is being put under threat by the Government's own actions. The Minister is not at the table and is not able to be with us for this debate. I understand that the first Government speaker will explain that he is in Cabinet. It is a sad thing that we are moving a motion which reflects the view of the industry's Minister himself. We are not putting a view that is adverse to Senator Button's view of this matter; we are putting a view that is adverse to the position that the Government has adopted over the objections of the relevant industry Minister. It is an unfortunate feature of the previous debates that we have had in this place that Senator Button has had no support from his back bench in his attempts to do something about a decision which is clearly wrong. There has been no attempt by Labor back benchers to bolster the very proper case which has been put forward by trade unions, by the Labor Government of South Australia, and by the industry itself, both the dealers in vehicles and the manufacturers of vehicles. Instead, we have seen a pathetic backing up of the Keating-Government line on this very damaging tax. I hope that the fact that Senator Richardson is going to lead for the Government in this debate-we are told that he is an influential back bencher-might lead to some change. We might see some semblance of support for industry, for the trade unions and for the Government of South Australia in the contributions which are made by Labor senators in this debate. I am pleased that Senator Foreman will be involved. His interest in South Australia and his interest in the vehicle industry ought to lead him to give some support to the Minister and to the case which is being put forward by the Opposition on this occasion with the support of the Australian Democrats. I hope that the example of Senator Georges being threatened with expulsion from the Party will not prevent Labor senators from at least speaking their minds on this very important issue, and that we might see something better than the rather pathetic defence of Mr Keating's position in the last debate. Debates on the car industry need to be seen within the context of the wider debate on industry policy generally. The Opposition has on many occasions been prepared to support some of the statements which have been made by Senator Button with respect to the future of manufacturing industry in Australia. I would commend for the attention of people who are concerned about the future of Australia and the future of our manufacturing industry, some of the Press coverage of last weekend on this issue. There was a very lengthy article, for example, in the Australian newspaper which largely revolved around an interview with Senator Button. There was another excellent article on a speech given in this place by Senator Sir John Carrick on the Builders Labourers Federation legislation which related to our trying to come to grips with some of the fundamental problems of Australian industry. We are in an odd situation. We have an industry Minister who is putting forward many ideas which are relevant to the needs of manufacturing industry, and who is admitting that the solution to the problems of manufacturing industry involves many changes, including an end to demands for greater protection from the Government, an end to many of the traditional roles of the trade unions in manufacturing industry, basic reforms to our education system, a greater understanding at the cultural level of what manufacturing is about, and so on. It is rather strange that in the midst of this message we get the Government itself taking action which is totally contrary to the sort of direction which the Government has tried to set in its car plan and which the Opposition has been prepared to support. I would support the view that we need very substantial changes in Australia if we are to successfully compete with the rest of the world in manufacturing industry. But the sad fact is that the creation of those changes-and many manufacturers are trying to co-operate in that process of change-is being impeded by the Government with its taxation policies. The particular policy we are talking about at the moment, the fringe benefits tax which will affect company cars, is a classic case of the Government pursuing completely contrary directions in its policies. It really is a very sad day for the Government and for Australia when we get to the situation where there is that sort of internal conflict of policy. It is a matter of enormous importance to us because if we look at what is happening in world trade we will see that Australia is getting itself into an extremely gloomy situation. We have an unusual reliance on the export of primary production and the products of our mines. We have a situation where we have relied very heavily and successfully in the past on those exports. The reality is that world trade is changing. We are now moving to a situation where the trade in those primary products in which we have specialised is a diminishing and less valuable share of world trade. The great increases which have occurred in world trade have occurred in manufactured goods. We in Australia are simply not part of that game; we are simply not part of that action. I think that the last trade figures showed that about 18 per cent of our exports were in manufactured goods. That is an extraordinary contrast to the percentage for most trading nations. It is the explanation of why we are falling further and further behind in international trade. It is extraordinary, if we compare us to other countries. In 1982 Australia had 22 per cent of its exports as manufactured exports. In the same year Brazil had 39 per cent; Spain had 71 per cent; and Uruguay had 32 per cent. We are in a situation where we are at the bottom of the league. The industrial economies with which we normally compare ourselves have 73 per cent of their exports in manufactured goods. Because manufactured exports are growing, that is the area that we have to look to if we are to solve the very pressing problems that we have with respect to our balance of payments that are putting us in a financial strait-jacket, in a policy strait-jacket, and in an economic strait-jacket. We are talking about matters which go to the heart of the future welfare of Australia, and I think that it is a tragedy that the Government's own attempts to come to grips with that in, for example, the car plan are being sabotaged by its ridiculously greedy policy with respect to taxing business, which is totally counterproductive and which is undermining the policies on which this Government's industry policy is based. In summary, we have a situation in which the Government is preaching sense in the narrow area of direct industry policy, but it is totally inconsistent in its other actions. It persists with the accord and the inflexible labour market, it persists with policies which damn our exporters, and it persists with policies which ensure that our manufacturers will not be internationally competitive. All of that is relevant to this debate because the car industry is central to the health of our manufacturing industry at the moment. It represents a classic example of what is required. We have a small domestic market with a very large number of manufacturers involved. The present car plan is gradually removing the protective barriers that that industry presently enjoys and there is a very heavy requirement on Australian manufacturers to get more competitive and to get more competitive quickly. We now have a situation where, as the Government admits, a whole series of pressures are diminishing the prospects for the car industry and the sales which are essential to the car industry. Those factors, which have been mentioned again in the Senate today, include high interest rates, steep increases in the price of cars because of the devaluation, and new statutory requirements, for example, the requirement that cars be made to work on unleaded petrol, and so on. What the Government is doing is adding to this mix a totally new tax which will severely reduce the prospect of sales of Australian made cars. We really are in some sort of cloud cuckoo land when the Government allows that sort of policy mix to develop. It is dramatically necessary that the Government should be prepared to revise this tax. It is the Opposition's view that the tax should be totally done away with. We believe that there is a whole series of anomalies tied up in the Government's proposal, ranging from the imposts which are going to be put on the voluntary section I mentioned earlier and the fact that voluntary workers using cars that belong to charitable organisations will cause those charitable organisations to incur a tax liability, through to this section where we find that demand for cars on the part of business is being depressed and the whole car plan put at threat. We are not seeking in this motion to ask the Senate to impose the Opposition's tax policy on the Government. What we are asking the Government to do is to modify its tax policy to reduce the impact of these tax changes on an industry that is struggling for a whole range of reasons. It has gone from a period of record sales which have given the industry a chance of survival and improvement into a period where sales are being depressed at a very rapid rate. We think the Government simply must make changes to take that into account. I want to make it quite clear that in putting forward this motion again we are not seeking to prescribe to the Government precisely what it should do. We are not saying that it should make a particular reduction. We are saying that it should do something to reduce the burden that is being imposed on companies that would otherwise buy cars. We are saying that the Government must, at the very minimum, phase in this tax, and that preferably it must reduce its impact on a permanent basis. It is the view of the industry itself that the Government stands to raise a much higher amount of revenue from this tax than was originally predicted-an extra couple of hundred million dollars. At the very least the Government should be shaving off any excess revenue it stands to gain if it retains the formulas announced many months ago. I will refer quickly to some of the statistics which are causing so much concern to the Opposition, as they are causing concern to the industry, to the trade union movement, and to the Labor Government of South Australia. In the case of the automobile dealers, they have issued figures in the last few days that suggest that of the 36,000 people employed in dealerships there is a short term prospect of 10 per cent of them losing their jobs. In dealerships alone some 3,600 jobs will be lost in the short term. If we look at the figures brought out by the manufacturers, we see that they suggest the manufacturers will lose some 3,000 jobs, but with an overall job loss of about 10,000. They are predicting that this tax alone will cause a loss of 35,000 sales in 1986. That is a set of estimates on which I am prepared to rely. However, I remind the Senate that the trade union movement has been far more gloomy in its predictions as to what effect the tax will have on the industry. The vehicle unions have suggested to the Government that as many as 25,000 jobs could be lost because of this tax. We have an unusual situation here. We have a unanimous view which is being pressed on the Government by industry, by trade unions, and by at least one State government. We have a view which has been supported consistently by the Opposition. We have a view which more recently has been pursued by the Australian Democrats following their consultations with the industry that there is a need for a reduction in the impact of this tax. It is a great shame that the Minister is not in the chamber to participate in this debate but has to be in Cabinet. This matter is so important that it is a pity we have not got the Minister here to explain again that in his view this tax is damaging to the industry and that in his view it is a tax that should have been changed. I am not sure how the rules of Cabinet government work any more when Ministers can come in here and make these statements, but the reality is that we have Mr Keating and the Treasury maintaining a line against the wishes, I believe, of all interested parties and all people who objectively have tried to assess what the impact of this tax will be. I do not think this is a time for Mr Keating to try to maintain the line just for the sake of maintaining the line. I think it is time the Government accepted that there are very severe negatives for Australia in the tax proposals to be imposed on motor vehicles and the commercial users of motor vehicles. I think it is time for change. I hope the Senate will support this motion and that we will be able to convince the Government and the Treasurer that they should do something to amend this iniquitous tax. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(3.35) —As all honourable senators will be aware, the matter which is the subject of the matter of urgency today has already had a run through the Senate in a matter of public importance, it has been the subject of many questions at Estimates committees, and numerous questions have been asked at Question Time over recent weeks and months. Senator Button has on every occasion answered those questions and, in the case of the recent matter of public importance, of course, he led for the Government. However, as we speak today there is a Cabinet meeting taking place and, as Senator Button has carriage of the submissions which are going before the Cabinet meeting, he has to be there. Those submissions are important to his portfolio and he regrets his inability to be in the chamber. That is why I, a humble back bencher, stand here before honourable senators leading for the Government. However, I did discuss with Senator Button some of the matters I knew would be raised today, and on his behalf I can make a couple of observations. The first and most obvious, which I think would be known to Senator Chaney and the Opposition, is that later on this week there will be further discussions between Senator Button, the Treasurer Paul Keating, and the industry. Senator Button and the Treasurer wish to make it clear that the Government is still looking at this question, that the door is still open to change, and that the Cabinet will have to consider the outcome of the deliberations between the industry and those Ministers later on this week. As Senator Chaney mentioned, it is expected that the legislation will be in the Parliament next week, by which time back benchers will have had an opportunity to put their views to the Government when the matter comes before Caucus. I am delighted to hear Senator Chaney refer to our back benchers as pathetically backing up Paul Keating. From all I have read in the newspapers in recent times, that is something I have not been doing a lot of. I read that Mr Keating and I have a chill in our relationship and that I am not supporting him at all. I intend, immediately I get a copy of Hansard, to send Senator Chaney's contribution to Paul Keating with the relevant part underlined just so he knows what my real role around here is. However, as I said, by the time the legislation gets back here the back benchers in the Government will have put a view to the Treasurer and to Senator Button. I might say that, like many other senators, I have been lobbied by the industry. I was lobbied when introduced to them by a South Australian member of parliament who has been active in recent weeks and months in putting his point of view to the Government-a point of view shared by many. As Senator Chaney said, and as Senator Button readily concedes, the position so far adopted by the Government on this matter is, to quote him, so as to be exact, `not his preferred position'. However, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is, contrary to what Senator Chaney said, alive and well. Obviously in the end the Minister will do all he has to do to implement Government decisions. In opening the Government's side of the case there are two points that need to be made. The first is that, whatever the Government does, whatever it may decide, 1986 cannot be as good a year for the car industry as 1985 was. As we all know, 1985 was a record year. The results were far in excess of those for previous years, for a number of reasons to which I will refer later. However, when one comes off a record year, things cannot possibly be as good. The second thing that must be made clear is that there will be a fringe benefits tax. The Government will not walk away from its commitment to a fringe benefits tax. As I said earlier on, what the Government is still looking at, and what has still to be covered in discussions later on this week between the relevant Ministers and industry representatives, is what form the tax will take and how much it will be. That there will be a fringe benefits tax is definite. No one, including Senator Button, wants to walk away from that commitment. I would like to take the Senate through why the Government has that commitment and why it believes it cannot walk away from it. When we came into government a few years ago we were faced with a tax system that was haemorrhaging dramatically. There was no doubt that the burden, day by day, was increasingly falling on those forced to pay pay as you earn tax. The major burden which they shouldered had shifted from those who were able to get all of the fringe benefits. One did not have to get a fringe benefit to get a benefit at all in that sense. There was also massive tax avoidance on a scale previously unknown. I recall that Mr Costigan referred to tax avoidance as a growth industry as heady as any since the days of the Victorian gold rush. So this is not something that I have made up. Obviously, when one considers the bottom of the harbour scheme and all of the other schemes that were allowed to flourish, we inherited a tax system that was in a mess. We set about rectifying a system which had been allowed to decline and decay, as this one had, with courage and determination. This is something that the Liberal-National Party coalition, with John Howard, the former Treasurer, now at its head, had failed to do in all of the years that it held power. We set about the issue logically; we set about it by consulting with all of the community. We all remember the tax summit at which there was widespread consultation. However, at the end of the day we have to look at the fringe benefits tax and the urgency motion we are debating today against the background that I have outlined-that is, the Government came in, saw a tax mess and set about rectifying it. The White Paper on taxation reform that the Government released last year showed that we were losing some $700m a year in benefits paid to employees by way of the provision of motor vehicles, free lunches, school fees, housing allowances and so on. The phenomenon of fringe benefits may have been around for some time but the extraordinary and rapid rate of its growth in the last decade was the reason the Government was forced to act. The reality is that it was rising at 25 per cent a year in terms of lost revenue to the Government. That is something with which the Government could not live. No respectable government could. It is not a matter of being anti-business if one wants to change the system; it is a matter of trying to introduce some equity into the system. It may be all right to have the free car, the free lunch, the school fees and the housing allowances. The problem was that the ordinary Australians-the millions out there who did not have access to these benefits-were subsidising those who were able to get these benefits. This Government had to do something about it. I can recall in this chamber a few weeks ago hearing cries about what a terrible thing we had done to the hospitality industry and how many thousands of people had lost their jobs because of the hospitality tax. Of course, the figures over recent months have shown that job vacancies in the industry have grown and that there are not enough people to fill them. The Government approached this matter by looking at improving the equity of the tax structure. It had to remove these anomalies; it had to remove all of the avenues and the loopholes that the smarties had been able to use. The overall objective was not to increase the revenue obtained from companies but to make sure that income substitution for tax minimisation purposes did not occur and was effectively done away with by encouraging a move back to cash remuneration and by ensuring that non-cash benefits were taxed as income. Just to show how much that meant to the Government in terms of its tax plans, the White Paper estimated that about $280m a year would be lost in tax on company cars. The Government expects to collect only $320m in the first year of operation of the fringe benefits tax in 1986-87. So the car component of the fringe benefit tax is very high. It is easy when one is in opposition to say that such a tax should be scrapped. We notice so often that promises are made easily from the other side of the chamber. However, the reality is that if we want to maintain the integrity of the tax package, if we want to maintain the integrity of what the Government has done in its last couple of Budgets and what it intends to keep doing-that is, keeping budget deficits down-we cannot just forgo hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. We have to work out what can replace revenue lost in this way. I have looked and looked, and searched and searched, but one can never find how this Opposition would replace any of the billions of dollars in promises that it has made, nor can we find what it would do to replace any tax on the vehicle industry. I might say that I was encouraged when I looked today for the first time at the wording of the matter of urgency because I saw that the Opposition had changed from its position a few weeks ago of abandoning the tax to now just seeing a need to change it. I thought to myself that at last Senator Chaney and his colleagues have woken up. However, what happened, of course, is that Senator Chaney destroyed all of those illusions that were built up in my mind. I was crushed when I heard that the only reason he agreed to the proposal to look at the change rather than abandoning it was, hopefully, to get the Australian Democrats on side. I thought that there would have been more principle and more intellectual thought in Senator Chaney's decision than merely that-merely lousy old-- Senator Robertson —That was naive, Senator. Senator RICHARDSON —I have to concede now that that was naive on my part. I am disappointed in myself for ever thinking it was possible. Nevertheless, the Government, in the course of the last 12 months, has listened to the industry and made changes. If we look at the original White Paper and plan that the Government had for this tax we find in the final announcement at the end of the day that considerable concessions had been given to the industry in the tax package. Companies now face two options in determining tax liability on company-owned cars. Standards have been set. The first option relates to a statutory rule, if one likes. As a second option, people can go to the log book method if they believe that their car has a high proportion of business use. Having seen all of the arguments put by the trade unions and the industry, the Government made those concessions and, as I have already stated, is currently looking at whether or not there will be further concessions and whether or not the tax can be altered. However, for all of the reasons I have outlined, it is not looking at abandoning the tax. This is something it cannot look at because our commitment to equity in the tax system remains as strong as ever. We do not intend to walk away from that commitment. The difficulty is that for all of those years when the tax structure was ignored, when tax evasion was allowed to run rampant, when the burden increasingly fell on ordinary Australian families instead of where it really ought to have been, the people opposite who were in government at the time did nothing about it. They did nothing because they could never take the hard decisions. They could never take something away from those who had a benefit. Paul Keating and Bob Hawke showed the courage to do it last year. I, and all of my colleagues, support them in that. We are now looking at the level at which those taxes ought to be pitched. If we are going to take a tough stand on the Budget-and Paul Keating and the Government have made it quite clear that they will; a much tougher stand than the $9.6 billion deficit than the Opposition was prepared to leave us with-the Cabinet has to remain firm and has to protect the integrity of the tax package. Let us look at some of the surveys, given that their contents have been quoted to us by Senator Chaney, to see the damage that the fringe benefits tax will do to the industry. It is obvious that the Opposition, for political reasons, has fanned, exaggerated and multiplied the effects of such a tax. It is also obvious that the industry, in coming to the Government to try and get what it sees as some needed changes, has seen fit to make an ambit claim. It has also made sure that some of these figures are great indeed. The survey of the Australian Graduate School of Management released on 28 March this year reveals some fascinating facts and figures. For instance, half of Australia's company car fleet managers think that the Government's proposed fringe benefits tax will have little impact on their purchasing decisions. The Graduate School of Management found that there was no support for assertions of massive job losses. Three-quarters of large fleet company managers indicated that they would not change their practice of offering cars. The survey concluded that only 4 per cent of respondents said that they would stop providing cars as a result of the tax. That is backed up further by an article in yesterday's Chanticleer column in the Australian Financial Review which referred to the Martec survey-Martec being an independent and respected consultant to the automotive industry. This article explained why there has been a drop in the market this year. We saw on the front page of the Australian this morning an article about a very large drop. The reality is that 1985 was a record year for all sorts of reasons. It should not be forgotten that when the Government came to office the car industry, for which Senator Chaney now pleads, had been the subject of a pretty deaf ear for years. In the period 1975 to 1983, when members of the Opposition were in government-they do remember those years; I hope they can live on the memory for a long time because I do not think they will experience the practice again-they have to remember that 20,000 jobs were shed in the car industry. When the industry pleaded with the then Government to do something about that, it chose, as usual, to do nothing. It finally got around to organising a plan, announced in 1982, which was to take effect from 1985. There is no doubt that since the 1960s the competitiveness of the industry has declined significantly. I would have hoped that that is unable to be disputed. The reasons for that decline are many and varied, but it is pretty obvious that the Liberal-National Party coalition Government which ruled Australia for 24 of the previous 30 years was only ever able to patch up short term solutions. It could never look at the direction of the industry; it could never face up to what was happening in Japan. All it could ever do was hand out a bit here and hand out a bit there and hope that it would get through another election. In those 24 years there was never any hope of the industry seeing some sort of concrete vision of where it might go or what might happen to it. Therefore there were rising levels of protection, allegedly to save jobs, and a continuing shedding of jobs in the industry over that period, culminating in 20,000 jobs being shed in the eight years before we came to office. To use a word Senator Chaney used earlier on, that performance is pathetic. Nothing was done in those 24 years. Our Government came to office during 1983 and saw what a mess the industry was in. It was able in the short space of 12 months to come up with a car plan which it announced and put into effect. It started to do something about increasing efficiency in the industry and gave it some hope of survival. Since that car plan has been announced honourable senators have not seen the industry screaming and complaining about it; all they have seen is the creation of an Automotive Industry Authority which has been able to co-ordinate what the industry, the unions and the Government think should be done and to act as an honest broker consulting with all of those groups. Its objectives in promoting efficiency and export awareness have worked. Because of that policy and because of the enlightened plan which Senator Button came up with, which was welcomed by the industry, there was a record year in 1985. We cannot keep record years going and therefore there had to be a downturn. In conclusion, in our period of government our record has been first class because of the car plan. We have nothing to apologise for. We are still talking to the industry and honourable senators will see the results and the fruits of those discussions over the next week. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.55) —We are debating an urgency motion proposing that there should be modifications to the Government's proposed fringe benefit tax on motor cars. The Australian Democrats support this motion. We believe that there is an urgent need for modification to the Government's original proposal for taxing motor cars. The reasons we believe there is an urgent need for modification, I hope, will be made clear during my remarks. I was very pleased to hear Senator Chaney say that the Opposition's attitude is that it is the Government's responsibility to make those modifications. That is also the Democrats' view. We certainly do not think it is our responsibility as a political party, or the Opposition's responsibility, to tell the Government what modifications should be made, but it is apparent to us that modifications are necessary. I was also pleased to hear Senator Richardson say that the Government still has an open mind, is still prepared to consider the matter and in fact is doing so with the industry later this week. The facts are that there are three fundamental sectors of our economy on which our economic prosperity depends. Whether we like it or not, we are dependent on the car industry, the home building industry and the farming industry. If any one of these sectors of our economy turns down or is depressed for any reason, the whole economy is affected. If these three sectors of our economy turn down together, disaster is facing us fairly and squarely. The Democrats believe there is a very real danger that this may, in fact, happen-that the three vital sectors of our economy may turn down in concert. We already know that the farmers are complaining bitterly about their position. We have seen forecasts that the home building industry expects a downturn during the next 12 months. Hopefully the Government has attempted to do something about that downturn and it will not be prolonged. But it is inevitable there will be some downturn. As Senator Chaney pointed out, there is already a 31 per cent drop in new car sales for the month of March. I think there has been a 33 per cent drop for the quarter, and we have just been told today in the Press that there was a 31 per cent drop in March. So that sort of trend has to be averted. It is, therefore, vitally important that the Government carefully assesses the impact of this new fringe benefit tax on motor cars so that it does not have the effect of hammering the industry down further. There are very cogent reasons why the Democrats are concerned that the Government has miscalculated the effect of this tax on the industry. First and foremost, there is a great discrepancy in the figures. We find that the car industry has come out with one set of figures and the Treasury has come out with another set of figures. If one looks into those figures carefully, one finds that the argument revolves around the number of pool cars or the number of cars that are garaged during weekends. Those cars, of course, do not attract the Government's tax. The discrepancy between the number of pool cars, as the jargon goes, is 100,000. The Treasury says there are 100,000 fewer cars to be taxed than does the industry. If one does a little bit of simple arithmetic and assumes that there is a flat tax on all motor cars of, say, $1,500, which is what the industry recommends, and one multiplies that by the 100,000 discrepancy in the figures, one finds there is a difference of $150m. I submit that this Parliament and the Government could not readily accept a proposal based on statistics where there is such a wide discrepancy. The Government's first responsibility to the Australian people, surely, is to get agreement between the Government departments concerned and the industry so that we can assess what effect this tax is going to have on overall revenue. Until the Government can get agreement on the basic statistics-the number of cars to which this tax will be applied-it is very difficult to debate just what is going to happen to the industry. Once the Government has got agreement between those three bodies as to the basic statistics, we believe the Government should carefully re-assess this proposed tax on the basis of figures that are agreed to by the industry and Government departments, including the Treasury, and then look at the effect of the tax in three vital areas. The Government must be sure that, firstly, the tax will not act as an incentive that depresses the market for Australian made cars. Secondly, it must ensure that the tax does not torpedo the 1984 car plan. Thirdly-this is important to the Democrats-it must come up with a modification which is neutral in revenue raising; in other words, it will not raise more or less money in total than was originally budgetted for by the Government in the overall tax package. Why are these three areas or criteria so important? First of all, we have already heard estimates of the effect on employment if this tax has a depressing effect on Australian-made motor cars. The employment figures have varied from a loss of 10,000 jobs to a loss of 25,000 jobs, but that sort of loss of employment would be an absolute disaster at this point in Australia's development. It would be a disaster as far as the management of the economy is concerned. The second thing the Government must ensure does not happen is that the 1984 car plan is torpedoed. The 1984 car plan is important. It was the first time an attempt was made to get a coherent long-term plan for the automotive industry. It is a plan that has the support of all three political parties-the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia and the Democrats. It is a plan that has the support of the trade union movement and the industry. If this tax introduces a new factor that upsets that fundamental long-term car plan, we are back to where we have been for the past 20 years in the automotive industry in this country-we are back to ad hoc solutions and letting the industry rip without any real government directions. It is also important from our point of view that, whatever modifications the Government makes, they are revenue neutral. This is important because, as we have already noticed in the media, there are vested interests in the community, both in the Labor Party and certainly in the Opposition ranks, which would look for an excuse to torpedo the whole tax package. There was a conference over the weekend which drew attention to the fact that maybe the Government could renege on its promise to reduce marginal rates of tax, particularly the top marginal rate of tax which the Government has promised to reduce from 65 per cent to 49 per cent. Of course, the Opposition has said that it wants to see the whole tax package abandoned, particularly the capital gains tax. The Democrats believe that there is need for tax reform in this country. We have been at great pains to tread a very fine line between putting maximum pressure on the Government to ensure that the changes to the tax package did not impact unfairly or unevenly on any one sector of the community, and ensuring that the Government was not given an excuse to abandon the whole tax package, particularly the very necessary reductions in marginal rates of tax that are crippling incentive in this country at this stage-marginal rates of tax which mean that tradesmen and ordinary Australians are taxed at rates which applied originally to millionaires. There has to be reform. We believe that, with the initiatives we have made and with the pressure we have applied to the Government, the package is now in a form that should proceed. We do not want there to be a fundamental change, particularly insofar as the revenue raising aspects of the package are concerned. Although we claim that the tax package is now reasonable, it is interesting to note that we have supporters in this contention. An editorial in the Age on Monday, 2 December, said: The changes to the package arising from the Democrats' pressure appear to be a sensible improvement, with which both the Democrats and the Government should feel pleased. The editorial went on to say: The Liberals have adopted the rather weak-kneed and opportunist policy of opposing only `the nasties' in the tax package. The Democrats have at least pursued a consistent line and achieved something-in fact, 80 per cent of what they had sought. We believe there are some very real advantages in the tax package that are equally distributed right across the community now. We believe that the proposed capital gains tax is in a mild form and is one that will not impact unfairly. But that we need a capital gains tax is, as far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, indisputable if we are to crack down on tax avoidance. We have been able to ensure that the family home was not included in capital gains tax. We have been able to ensure that losses were taken into account and deducted against gains, that the tax would not be retrospective, and so on. I do not want to go through it all. There has been a lot of work and negotiation, and it would be a great tragedy if an excuse was given to the Government for it to renege on the package at this stage. However, we believe it is critical that there are modifications to the fringe benefits tax as it applies to the motor industry, particularly as there are such worrying signs as to the future strength of the economy in the three vital areas that concern its prosperity. In summary, we say that the ball is fairly and squarely in the Government's corner. We believe it is vital that the Government modify the fringe benefits tax, but it is up to the Government to say how it should be done. We know the industry has come up with suggestions about a flat rate of tax on various categories of motor car. That may be the way to go or it may not. That is for the Government to assess. But it must modify its package in a way that preserves the three vital criteria-that it is revenue neutral, that it does not impact on the 1984 car plan, and that it does not act as an incentive for buyers to move away from Australian-made motor cars. The Democrats do not believe that the 1984 plan is the final answer to the motor car industry in this country. We would like to see the Government now look at the long-term view. There is no reason why, say over a ten-year period, the Australian industry could not produce an Australian-designed car with an Australian engine designed to use fuels that are in abundance in this country, such as natural gas. It would be a very simple matter for the Government to lay down criteria now for such a project. It would give the industry time to design and develop such a car, and then, as the 1984 plan proceeds along its course, the industry would be ready to take up the challenge of something which is specifically Australian, which is exportable, which is fuel efficient and which faces up to the fundamental problem that sooner or later we will run out of Bass Strait crude oil. When that happens, under this suggestion, we would have a motor car that could run on an alternative fuel. We should look 10 years ahead, and now is the time to do that. In the meantime, we should make sure that we do not face disaster with massive unemployment in the motor industry. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.10) —I support the motion that has been moved by Senator Chaney, which is also being supported by the Australian Democrats. I think all of us on this side of the chamber appreciate the problems facing the motor car industry and the need to restructure that industry, and we all support the general thrust of the Button plan that has been referred to during this debate. The problem as we see it is that the Button car plan will be seriously jeopardised because of the fringe benefits tax to which we are referring. The tremendous publicity that has been given in recent times to the downturn in sales of motor vehicles gives weight to the concern that we have expressed during this debate. Last year when the fringe benefits Bill was debated in the Senate I referred to the fact that 1985 would be long remembered as the year of the Hawke Labor Government's taxation mess. I said that it would be long remembered for the Taxation Summit, which revealed the disorder and disunity of the Hawke Ministry. I finished by saying that the Bill was a result of the confusion and ideological vindictiveness of the Hawke Government towards small business. I note that Senator Richardson referred to the restaurant and catering industries. He said that the Government's imposition did not seem to have any effect on those industries, but that is not so. Many small businesses and small restaurants have certainly felt the pinch as a result of the taxation measures that have been thrust upon them by this Government. I also said that I believed that the Bill was a disastrous one; however, the people of Australia had voted the Australian Labor Party Government into power, for better or for worse, and they would realise next year that it would be for the worse. Here we are in the next year, 1986, and the people are beginning to realise what a disastrous policy this fringe benefits tax proposal in particular is. Even the Labor Government in South Australia has come out very strongly in oppo- sition to the tax. I notice that an article in the Adelaide News of today's date states: Drop car tax, says Bannon. A 25 per cent drop in new car sales sparked a renewed call from the Premier, Mr Bannon, today for an urgent rethink by the Federal Government on its proposed company car tax. Mr Bannon said the tax should be substantially modified, or abolished if its impact continued to seriously damage the car industry and cause job losses. He referred to the fact that the State Government had made submissions to the Federal Government, that he had spoken to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and Senator Button about the matter and that `up to 4,500 jobs in the car industry and associated industries are at stake in South Australia if the tax goes ahead in its original form'. The article also pointed out that General Motors-Holden's Ltd has reduced its work force by 500 workers in South Australia alone since the beginning of the year because of the fall-off in sales-a huge 26 per cent in the first quarter of the year. That is what the South Australian Labor Government thinks about this fringe benefits tax. I hope that the Government will be encouraged to revise its thinking on the way in which it is to be imposed. Not only the State Government in South Australia has shown an interest in the matter. It is natural that the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia is beginning to understand the effects of this particular taxation measure. I feel sympathetic to Senator Foreman, who is very interested in that organisation, because I think he will be asked to attempt to defend what I regard as an indefensible, foolhardy policy of this Government. As we have heard, the motor industry has recorded its worst March sales in 12 years. Registrations have fallen by almost 33 per cent from last year's record levels. According to the survey that was carried out professionally for the motor industry, registrations last month fell by 32.9 per cent, a fall from March 1985 of 21,469 vehicles. The sales for the year to date are down by 25.3 per cent. I understand that 40 per cent of car sales involve fleet cars. In particular, the Falcon and Commodore ranges of vehicles would be largely affected. Earlier this month I opened the international motor show in Adelaide and talked to some industry executives there. One firm in Adelaide had noticed a downturn of 60 per cent with respect to fleet car sales. I think this is symptomatic of the psychological effect this measure has already had on this industry, even before it is due to be brought in, in July. I believe that there is time for the Government to reconsider the way in which the taxation is to be imposed. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries recently issued a Press release, the details of which would be well known to the Government. It states: The FCAI does not object to the taxing of employer-provided cars. It is essential, however, that the major adverse effects listed- by the Chamber- are reduced. I will not go through that list at present. The Chamber goes on to say: This can be done if company car tax rates are at more affordable levels and do not exceed the revenue objectives. The Chamber requests the Government to reassess the heavy and damaging penalties which will be placed on the automotive industry if it proceeds with the company car tax in its present form. I am encouraged by what Senator Richardson said-that the Caucus has yet to examine the proposals put forward by the Ministry. I hope that, in the light of the statements that have been made here today and in the light of the concern that is being expressed nationally with respect to the slump in car sales, some serious modification of the measures will take place. The impact of these fringe benefits taxes can only be estimated. The Treasurer has claimed that he will raise, I think, $350m from the tax, but he has never substantiated that figure. The Government refuses to produce any tangible evidence of where that money is likely to be raised, although other organisations have attempted to do so and have given a pretty accurate idea-as accurate as can be-of the devastating effect that this can have, is having and will have on the motor industry in Australia. One thing is certain: The proposal for a fringe benefits tax on company-provided cars is harmful to the vehicle manufacturing industry. It is harmful at a time when the industry is experiencing many other difficulties, many of which have been induced by this Government. I stated earlier that estimates of the impact of the tax vary. The Vehicle Builders Employees Federation estimates that up to 25,000 jobs in the industry will be lost as a result of this new tax. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries is more conservative, estimating that about 10,000 jobs will be lost. Of course, jobs will be lost outside the industry. For example, the Automotive Dealers Association of Australia has predicted that some 3,600 employees in the retail trade will lose their jobs in the initial stages of the introduction of the tax. I have a note from the Australian Automotive Dealers Association on a survey of retrenchments it carried out. The points it makes are as follows: The Association has completed a survey of dealers concerning potential retrenchment of employees in that industry. Currently, approximately 36,000 persons are employed in dealerships associated with sales of passenger motor vehicles to fleet, business and commercial operations. Potential retrenchments in this segment of the industry will range from a minimum 5% to a maximum 30%. However, the Association believes that initially retrenchments will be around 10 per cent, or 3,600 employees. If the Government had counted on obtaining fringe benefits tax of, say, 11 per cent of the 35,000 vehicle sales that will be lost in the first year-it will be 25 per cent per year thereafter-the revenue will be reduced in the first year by something like $56m. The problem and the revenue lost are compounded should 10,000 workers lose their jobs because they would not be paying income tax and there would be another reduction in government revenue of about $50m. Should those workers and their families, unhappily, be forced on the dole, there would be a further impost on the Treasury of about $75m as a result. The Federal Treasury would net $169m and not $350m, as the Treasurer is now predicting. The Treasury would also lose the revenue from sales tax on 35,000 new vehicles. It would lose considerable excise and sales tax on oil products, and, of course, the State governments would likewise lose revenue from stamp duties, registration fees, and insurance revenue. Some estimates put the net income to be derived from this tax as low as $49m. So for a mere $49m, and perhaps the endorsement of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party, the Treasurer has seen fit to throw out of work at least 10,000 workers in the car building industry, plus thousands of others in the retail industry and associated businesses. He has seen fit to undermine the cost effectiveness of manufacturing vehicles in Australia, at a time when the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) is attempting to put into effect his car plan to rationalise the vehicle building industry in this country. Both those matters are serious. The loss of work will mean that the lives of thousands of Australians will be seriously affected, with far-reaching economic effects on a wide range of other businesses. Likewise, the disruption to the car manufacturing industry will have far-reaching effects on many commercial activities, including the steel and aluminium industries, which are already reeling from the effects of the fringe benefits tax on company houses. Inflation in Australia is twice that of the worst affected of our trading partners, and many times that of West Germany, Japan and the United States of America. It is largely being driven by the public sector and, in particular, by Government economic policies. So we cannot afford to jeopardise further an industry which is of such great significance to Australia. Senator Siddons pointed to three industries that are very important to Australia, namely, the farming industry, the housing industry, and the motor vehicle industry. The first two have been suffering as a result of impositions placed upon them by the Government. It would be very serious indeed if the motor vehicle industry were to suffer as a result of the introduction of an indiscriminate fringe benefits tax. As I have already stated, this is regarded as a very serious matter in South Australia. The State Government is very concerned about it. I hope that this Government will have regard to the very sensible submission put to it by the Bannon Labor Government and that it will have regard to the seriousness of the matter of urgency we have moved today. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(4.25) —The Opposition has moved this matter of urgency today because it feels, in its words, that the Government's car plan is a threat to thousands of jobs in the vehicle industry. There is, of course, another threat in this taxation package which it is not at all keen to bring to the surface. The threat, naturally enough, relates to tax avoidance. The payment of non-taxed income to certain privileged income earners is a burden to the rest of the community. The Opposition believes, or seems to believe, that certain high income earners have rights of which, naturally, the vast majority of wage and salary income earners should be deprived. It is hardly surprising that members of the Opposition get up here and defend one tax rort after another. They are, of course, protecting some unsavoury practices which this Government has had the courage to challenge. The Opposition wants to protect its natural constituency-the tax avoiders. I say protect because when Opposition members were in government they showed reluctance to tackle tax avoidance. They were soft on the issue and, despite their seven years in office, the industry flourished. Now in opposition they come in here time and time again to defend every tax rort that is under threat. Let us look at what their real concerns are here today. The spirited defence they offered of tax-free lunches is rather symptomatic of their stance. They believe that the Sunday lunch in a plush restaurant ought to be a legitimate tax deduction. No doubt members of the Opposition will get up here and defend the private school fee component of some high income package as well. The inescapable fact is that in a civilised society taxes have to be paid, no matter how painful that process may be to some. The fact is that, in the words of Franklin Roosevelt, taxes are the dues we pay for living in a civilised society. The Opposition seems to want to change the phrase `the dues we pay' to `the dues they ought to pay'-namely, the legitimate wage and salary earners who do not have the luxury of tax free income as part of their income package-so that we can live in a civilised society. The point must never be forgotten that taxation is a burden for all income earners which must be fairly shared. The benefits of living in a civilised society are likewise there for all to share. It is, therefore, right and proper that the tax burdens should fall upon all members of that society and should not be avoided by a privileged section of the community. One point that is certain is that one person's tax avoidance is another's burden. The tax that is avoided has to be paid by others. In this way tax avoidance is stealing-stealing from every legitimate taxpayer an extra amount of money that rightfully should be his or hers. One other anti-social practice which needs to be exposed here, and the Opposition is doing this well, is the defence of tax avoidance. To this end it stands condemned by the vast majority of legitimate wage and salary earners who can see for their own eyes that members of the Opposition shed tears for tax avoiders but did very little to halt the growth of this unsavoury practice when they were in control. The tax package that was developed during 1985 was an attempt to regain some justice and fairness in taxation. As a consequence, employer-provided non-taxed benefits were to be taxed. If an employer provides a benefit as part of an income package, that benefit should be taxed. The provision of cars, as with the provision of free private school fees, credit cards, expense accounts, and all the rest of it, are simply ways of avoiding tax. The problem in the vehicle industry, which the Opposition now seems to be latching on to, is the effects of the tax package on motor vehicles and any impact such a proposal may have on the Button plan. Quite clearly the tax package in its present form is defensible in the interests of the community at large. My concern with the fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles is not with an application of the principle. If a motor vehicle is supplied as part of an income package for personal use, in my view it should be treated as income. However, in this particular area some special conditions arise. Firstly, the level of tax to be applied has been seen by some in the industry as a problem. Unlike the straight provision of private school fees, which involves a clear monetary amount, the provision of a car involves private as opposed to employer use. For this reason it is important that the Government get the formula correct. The principle of fair taxation is sound and so too must be the implementation. I must express a concern with the car plan in its present form, because the stakes are very high. At stake, of course, is the vehicle industry itself, which is already experiencing a decline in 1986. Such declines have an abnormal impact on South Australia. Dealing with the last point first, it should be noted that approximately 40 per cent of all new vehicle sales are fleet sales. Of all new vehicles sold, South Australian car plants are responsible for the production of 25 per cent of Australian vehicles. If one adds to that the fact that South Australia has only 8.3 per cent of the population, some simple arithmetic says that any impact on vehicle sales will hit South Australia three times as hard as the national average. South Australia has already experienced problems in this area. The impact of the Chrysler rationalisation and the closure of the General Motors-Holden's Ltd plant at Woodville have already hit South Australia. One of the suggestions that have been made is that a significant downsizing of vehicles may result from this tax. The shift would be from six-cylinder to four-cylinder models. The fear is that the shift would be from locally produced models to imported ones. The impact of such a shift, if it were on a grand scale, would seriously undermine the Government's car industry plan or, as it is widely known, the Button plan. The basis of the Button plan is high volume sales of locally produced motor vehicles. Two options which could be exercised would prove disastrous. There could be a shift to imported models or fleet purchasers might not renew fleets at all. No doubt what the Opposition wants to lay at the feet of the Government is that all of the decline in sales so far this year is the fault of the proposed new tax. The sales figures of 685,000 units for 1985 involved not only greater consumer confidence because of the economic improvement but also people buying in advance of more costly lead free models and before the impact of the depreciation of the Australian dollar on vehicle prices. Certainly there is no doubt that sales figures for 1986 will probably be lower than in 1985, which was a record year for many reasons and would be hard to duplicate in 1986. Moreover, a significant downturn in sales or a shift to imported models will have employment impacts in the vehicle industry. As to the extent of this impact, we have all sorts of wild and woolly figures which the doomsayers opposite wish to latch on to. The one thing that is absolutely essential is that the Government give serious consideration not to the principle of this tax but to how such a measure can be implemented. It is essential for the vehicle industry, to which this Government has shown every commitment in the Button plan, that this tax structure not create an environment in which locally produced models are unduly or savagely hit. Furthermore, if such changes take place, South Australia-a State that has already paid part of the price of the vehicle industry restructure-will be severely hit. The point remains, though, that the Opposition is not interested in helping the vehicle industry, except in that it promises a convenient mask for the defence of what is really at stake-tax avoidance for its high income constituents. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.35) —The Senate is debating as a matter of urgency the need for changes to the proposed fringe benefits tax because of tax's adverse impact on the Government car plan and the threat posed by the tax to thousands of jobs in the vehicle industry. We have heard from the South Australians Senator Jessop and Senator Foreman and we are now about to hear from the Victorians, as I am to be followed by that old battler Senator Cooney. Whenever the Government has some sort of matter of public importance and it does not know who else to call on, it calls on the old warrior Senator Cooney because he is a barrister of long standing and can handle a brief, no matter what the Government gives him, even an impossible brief. Unfortunately, his colleague Senator Foreman was unable to handle a brief in the same way. I do not blame him, because I understand that Senator Foreman is a former member of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia and he must be worried about his-- Senator Messner —He is still a member. Senator LEWIS —He is still a member, of course. He must be very worried about what his colleagues will say to him about the effect of the fringe benefits tax on their jobs. Senator Foreman was unable to answer the facts and figures produced by my colleague Senator Jessop; nor did he even attempt to make any response to the statement by his State leader, Mr Bannon, who is reported in the Adelaide News of today as demanding that, as a result of the 25 per cent drop in new car sales, the Government should drop the car tax. My fear as a Victorian-I hope Senator Cooney will respond to this-is that General Motors-Holden's Ltd will stop manufacturing vehicles in Australia. I understand that that prediction has been made by a large number of people in the motor vehicle industry and that there are signs around Australia, and particularly in properties being put on the market, which indicate that General Motors-Holden's may give away the game in Australia. I do not know where the vehicle building industry and the back bench Labor senators will be if and when that happens, but it is a grave fear. This fringe benefits tax has resulted from the terrible National Taxation Summit which was held last year. As a result of union activity we ended up with the nasties, and this one is one of the nasties. We said at that time that it was a nasty that would cause grave difficulties to manufacturers in Australia-and here it is. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, is the Minister responsible for the implementation of the car plan. He has indicated that as far as he is concerned-I will quote Senator Richardson, who quoted Senator Button-`the fringe benefits tax is not my preferred option'. I would agree. It is interesting that Senator Button has not taken any part in the debate today. The explanation was given-I have no doubt that it is true-that he had to attend a meeting of Cabinet. But this debate has already gone on for almost an hour and a half and I presume that it will go on until about 5 o'clock. I would have thought that at some time between 3.15 and 5 o'clock Senator Button could have found time to come into the Senate to tell us why the Government's fringe benefits tax ought to continue. On 29 May 1984 Senator Button detailed to the Senate a car plan with the central aims of: . . . holding down the price of cars, the reduction of job losses in the short term, the provision of job stability in the industry and long term viability for Australian vehicle and component manufacturers. That plan had the substantial support of the Opposition. But the headlines in the newspapers today are `Car industry stalls to a 12 year low' and `car sales slump by 25 per cent'. The stories go on to detail the sorry fact that the motor car industry has recorded its worst March sales in 12 years. New car registrations slumped by 25 per cent in the year to 31 March, and according to the latest IDAPS figures, passenger vehicle registrations are down by 24 per cent. The fall has been far in excess of the gloomiest predictions made for the industry with the March 1986 figures being down one-third-33 per cent-on the March 1985 figures. Fleet and company buyers, traditionally the mainstay of the market, as mentioned by Senator Foreman, appear to be staying away in droves. The manufacturers place the blame on the Federal Government's proposed fringe benefits tax, claiming that it has scared off fleet buyers, or at least made cars a less attractive investment. While I accept that, I stress that the truth is that all the Government's economic policies are damaging the industry through many measures. It is almost as if the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and this Government are determined to attack a number of our major producers-manufacturers in general and primary producers. Today we are debating the effect of this iniquitous tax on the vehicle manufacturing industry, but I might mention in passing that this tax equally imposes additional serious burdens on primary producers. Its consequences have not been thought through. It is not Senator Button's desire, but the fact is that this tax is being imposed by Senator Button's Government. Today in answer to a question he gave as a reason for the fall in car sales the introduction of unleaded petrol. I suggest that that was a decision which could have been deferred for the industry or that perhaps even another solution could have been found. I believe that there were other solutions. In particular there could have been some sort of system of registration of vehicles going into Melbourne and Sydney, because it is only those two cities which face the problem. Another reason given today by Senator Button as a cause of the fall in car sales was interest rates, but high interest rates are part of this Government's policy; so it is this Government's policy which is creating that difficulty for the industry. Other reasons given were the change to the wholesale tax, which again is being implemented by this Government, and the falling value of the dollar. Again, this Government's policies have caused the massive devaluation. Now we have this fringe benefits tax added to the change in the sales tax, the massive devaluation of the dollar and the record interest rates. The result has been that prices of cars in Australia have risen by as much as 60 per cent for some imported models and by more than 10 per cent for popular locally produced models. Because of the fringe benefits tax, the cost to companies of providing vehicles for their employees will rise by as much as $1,200 per car per year, which is an increase of about 29 per cent. That is an additional burden on companies providing vehicles for their employees. Unions, manufacturers and State governments all forecast massive reductions in the workforce as a result of this Government's actions. The South Australian Government estimated that 4,500 jobs in that State were at risk. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries has estimated 10,000 jobs at risk Australia-wide and the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia has estimated that 25,000 jobs are at risk. Whichever figure is accepted, it is clear that many thousands of jobs will be lost in the industry. Of course, as I have already mentioned, we have unleaded petrol, which has added up to $350 to the price of a new vehicle. Notwithstanding all of those things, the real nail in the coffin is the fringe benefits tax. The National Institute of Economic and Industrial Research, which did a study for the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, the Department of State Development in South Australia and the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation, believes that there will be a total reduction in vehicle sales in 1986 of 90,000-35,000 of which would be attributable to the new taxes imposed by this Government. The report indicates that there will be massive losses of volume sales of Falcons and Commodores. The Button car plan is clearly under threat and it appears that Senator Button has been rolled in Cabinet. Senator Jessop —He has put his finger on the destruct button. Senator LEWIS —Yes, he has. In March this year he was quoted in Business Review Weekly, in an article about changes to the fringe benefits tax on cars, as saying: I think you will find we've arrived at a satisfactory solution. There is no doubt that Senator Button would not say that today in the light of the evidence produced by the March figures. It is not only the vehicle industry which is suffering, but manufacturing industry itself must also feel the chill winds of the funeral director Treasurer that this country now has. So must the vehicle component industry, manufacturing industry generally-- Senator Jessop —And the car salesmen. Senator LEWIS —And car salesmen, as Senator Jessop reminds me. Automotive dealers recently conducted a survey and they estimated that retrenchments initially will be 10 per cent or 3,600 employees throughout Australia, and in some areas they believe that retrenchments will be as high as 30 per cent. There is no doubt that this Government is pursuing policies which, far from making Australian industry more competitive, enterprising and profitable, which is what Senator Button wants to achieve in the manufacturing sector, are placing millstones around the necks of manufacturers with taxes on employment and industries and support for ambit claims by militant unionists. Employers simply cannot afford the increased costs and taxation burdens which are being imposed by this Government and still remain competitive. The infamous accord has the Government locked in with the ACTU dictating ruinous policies. Recently, in a paper which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) tried to keep secret, Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon said: It is necessary for the Government to face economic realities-- and I suggest it takes note of what he said-- The truth is that at the present moment the taxation and economic policies of this Government are a bit like the Mad Hatter's tea party-half right and half wrong. The trouble is that the half wrong part led by the Prime Minister and Mr Keating and the ACTU has rolled the half right part led by Senator Button, and the result is that we are faced with economic disaster in this industry, the manufacturing industry and our primary industry. Where is the support from the Government's back benchers? After all, Senator Foreman and other back benchers should be in there supporting Senator Button. But no, what are they doing? They are glibly following the Keating-Treasury taxation line. Those Treasury officials have all those sorts of policies lined up; they have drawers full of policies like this, all designed to extract money from Australian taxpayers. That is the problem with this Government-it has allowed itself to be led by the nose by Treasury officials who say that the solution to the problem is to take more money from the taxpayers of the nation. That is not the solution to the problem. The solution is to reduce the Government's expenditure, and the primary reason that Mr Keating and other members of the Government have rolled Senator Button over the car plan is their failure to exercise discipline and restraint in government expenditure. We have the highest level of taxation in our history, the highest level of real interest rates in at least 60 years, the lowest value of the Australian dollar since World War II, a public debt in excess of $7,000 for every man, woman and child in the nation, and inflation which is twice the average of other Western nations and four times that of Japan and West Germany. I draw attention to the fact that the inflation rate in West Germany is heading towards the zero figure while ours is up at 9 per cent per annum. Yet this Government's insatiable desire for more revenue continues and it resorts to ever more complex and inefficient tax measures to satisfy its demands without any regard for the future or long term effects such as taxes, and I beg the Government to do something about this fringe benefits tax before the motor vehicle industry of Australia collapses. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.50) —This is a most interesting debate because the area of difference between honourable senators who have spoken is limited. I suppose it can be labelled as a debate that has endorsed in the most resounding terms the policies of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who represents the policies of this Government on the car industry. I make it clear from the start that the only point the Opposition has picked up is the question of fringe benefits taxes. Everything else has been blessed by the Opposition and by the Australian Democrats-and bless them too. This situation may be unique-I have not read through the Hansards over the years. On how many other occasions has this chamber been so united in its praise of a senior Minister of this Government, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button? The one area of disagreement is the fringe benefits tax. Let us look at the fringe benefits tax and see where we go with it. Senator Foreman, in a great speech, indicated that it is part of the tax package. But, says the argument, if we impose a fringe benefits tax on the motor industry, the whole industry will collapse. Presuming that to be the situation for the moment, it is perhaps a sad commentary on the motor industry that the one thing that can bring it to its knees is people who receive the fringe benefit of the free use of a car having to pay tax on it. Senator Foreman raised the point that if the remuneration were paid by way of cash then tax would have to be paid on it, but because the remuneration is paid by way of a fringe benefit through the use of a car it is suggested that tax should not be paid on it because, if it is paid, the car industry will collapse. Leaving aside the economic consequences of that, what is the morality of it? If a person is remunerated by being given the use of a car instead of by wages, he does not have to pay tax. If that same remuneration is given by way of cash, he or she does pay tax. The reality is that a self-employed plumber who pays for his own vehicle and for the private use of that vehicle does not get tax concessions, whereas the person living next door who works for somebody else does get tax concessions. The Opposition and the Democrats say that that ought to be allowed because the wider benefit is what results from that situation. Is that in fact so? First of all, and here I must agree with Senator Siddons, the statistics that are put forward are not confirmed one way or the other. I agree that those statistics ought to be well established, but the Opposition does not take that position. It says that the statistics being as rubbery as they are does not really matter because it is going to use them to show that there ought to be no tax in the situation of which I have spoken and which Senator Foreman so lucidly explained. Is it fair to use rubbery statistics, statistics that have not been established, to support an argument that one section of the community should get benefits that another section does not? That is the question that has to be asked and has to be examined closely. The next matter put forward for the Opposition was by Senator Siddons who expressed it perhaps more lucidly than did any other speaker. He said: `This is bad. This tax ought to be modified. True enough we have to get taxes, true enough the Government has to make expenditures but we simply say, along with the Opposition, that the fringe benefits tax the Government will get from the use of cars is wrong'. We ask: `What should we do? How should we collect the taxes? How should we finance the various government expenditures that have to be undertaken?' The answer to that was: `You work it out'. It would have been better, perhaps, when Senator Chaney brought this debate into the House-it is a very proper debate to be brought into the House-and people spoke well and lucidly on this subject, to say: `This is what we say. These fringe benefits are affecting the motor car industry so seriously and we will now show you the way forward'. But that is not the position taken. The position honourable senators opposite put forward is that the car industry is going to be affected by this tax, the Government must work out something. It must go to some other sector of the community and hit it. It must make intrusions elsewhere. The Oppposition does not tell us where to go, but as soon as we make those intrusions elsewhere-and this has been implicit in what has been said-the Opposition will be in here to condemn us. It is agreed that this Government has done very well in this area. For example, Senator Lewis talks about the infamous accord, but of course the accord was operating last year when the sale of motor cars was at its peak. There has never been a greater number of cars sold in any year than in 1985, when the accord was in the full flowering of its operations. So if we are going to look at the number of cars sold and say that that is the test of whether the accord is working, clearly up until now the accord has been working very well. What has happened to make that situation change? We can look at things in a certain way and quote statements in the Senate which give an impression which may suit the argument. Some quotes have been made from the Australian Financial Review of today, Wednesday, 30 April 1986. It was pointed out that the fleet company buyers appear to be staying away from the market. It is put forward that the manufacturing lobby has blamed the Federal Government's proposed fringe benefits tax, claiming that is has scared off fleet buyers, or at least made cars a less attractive investment. Another paragraph from page 1 of the Australian Financial Review which was not quoted states: But 1985 was a very good year, and factors such as the introduction of unleaded petrol make it difficult to decide whether the sales slump is a short-term cyclical variation or suggests the market is contracting because of a harsher economic environment. The significance of the paragraph that was not quoted is that many factors have to be looked at. Simply to rush in on the fringe benefits tax as the panacea for all problems is just short-sighted. With great respect to the Opposition senators and to Senator Siddons, who all made great speeches, what they are really saying is this: `We will pluck out one element from a variety of elements and say that is the one problem that faces the car industry'. True enough, honourable senators opposite have spoken about unleaded petrol, but all in very muted tones. What those opposite are really saying is that the problems in the car industry are due to one thing and one thing only-the proposed imposition of a tax on a form of remuneration which those opposite say should allow one group of people to benefit over and above others. That is the proposition they put forward, and that sort of proposition gives this Government some concern because it wants to treat people fairly as far as the imposition of taxes goes. If these other terrible consequences follow, or look as though they will follow, modifications may have to be made. As has become quite apparent, particularly during Senator Richardson's speech, the Government is prepared to look at all those factors. However, even if the Government does make all those modifications which Senator Chaney and Senator Siddons asked for, nevertheless the fact remains that this is a very unhappy situation. It is an unfortunate situation when the only way in which the motor vehicle industry in this country can be saved is by giving tax concessions which will impose an unfair burden on other parts of the community which do not enjoy those fringe benefits. If that is the situation surely it is time that industry in this country looked very closely at itself and looked at the degree of efficiency with which it runs and the initiatives it has taken to see whether perhaps it can lift its own game. It becomes a very sorry state of affairs if that is indeed the situation. I think it is interesting to look at the newspapers in light of what Senator Lewis said about rumours of General Motors-Holden's Ltd closing down in Victoria. I have looked at the Australian and the Australian Financial Review. I have looked at them again since Senator Lewis suggested that there are rumours afoot in regard to closure. There is certainly no such suggestion in those two papers. It is a story which ought to be run to ground very rapidly, either by having it confirmed or by having it completely put to rest. That sort of thing will not help industry or the security of people employed in the industry if it has currency for any length of time. Certainly if one looks at the publicity about the matter there seems to be no sign of such a closure other than from the people with whom Senator Lewis has spoken. Something that should be repeated-it is something which Senator Foreman said and which I think Senator Chaney candidly admitted-is that we are dealing today with a narrow part of the tax package. It has to be remembered that this was part of an overall tax package of which, Senator Siddons candidly said, the Australian Democrats approve. When we look at the overall tax package we see that, although some people may be affected, and affected adversely, others will be affected to their benefit. For example, a tax package will give tax cuts to some. It will give tax cuts to those who really over the years have been most subject to the sorts of taxes that have been imposed so far. The pay as you earn taxpayer has suffered as a consequence of the sorts of concessions that other taxpayers have been able to get through arrangements and through both legitimate and illegitimate methods. Therefore, when one looks at this and says that there is an imposition of tax that will affect some people adversely, that is only half the story. As I have said, people who have suffered very badly over the years will get relief. Of course, in September or whenever the tax cuts come through there will be more money available to buy not only cars but also other goods in the community. That will increase the amount of material that manufacturers have available to sell. Finally, as time is drawing to a close, I think a point should be taken from Senator Chaney's speech. He said that it is to the manufacturing sector that we should look in the future. I think that is correct. It is a matter of developing policies in the country which will help the manufacturing sector. In circumstances in which rural production will not take so much of the market overseas as it used to do and in which the products of mining are not so attractive as they used to be in introducing income into this country, it is the manufacturing group that has to be looked at. It is certainly clear that this Government is very devoted to the fostering and development of the manufacturing industry. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.05) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate on the motion which I moved, which states: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for changes to the proposed fringe benefits tax because of its adverse impact on the Government's car plan and the threat posed by the tax to thousands of jobs in the vehicle industry. In particular I thank Senator Don Jessop from South Australia and Senator Austin Lewis from Victoria for their support of the motion. Indeed, I thank Senator Siddons from the Australian Democrats for indicating that the Australian Democrats also will support the motion. I do not wish to recanvass the arguments which were put by those who supported the motion, including me, but I want to make some brief comment on the reasons that were put forward by Government speakers for opposing the motion. I think the most consistent thread of opposition that came through in the debate was based on support for the Government's tax package and for the fact that this was an element of the tax package which was presented in very complimentary terms by Australian Labor Party speakers. Honourable senators opposite seem to have forgotten the birth of the tax plan and the rather grubby circumstances under which it came into account. They seem to have forgotten the rather questionable circumstances and qualities of the Government's tax plan. What happened was that the Government set out fundamentally to reform the Australian tax system. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) produced a White Paper. The Treasurer pronounced that he had a preferred option. That preferred option was one that substantially recast the taxation system in favour of having a much heavier reliance on a broad-based indirect tax. As a part of a broadening of the tax base there was also a series of new business taxes. What happened to this glorious proposal of the Treasurer's was that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went off with representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. They took out the broadening of the tax base in so far as it introduced a new broad-based indirect tax and left intact only those elements of the tax package which placed new imposts on business. We all understand why the Prime Minister did that deal with the ACTU. He did it because the politics was that he was not going to have an imposition of taxes on workers, so why not put all the increased taxes on to business? If one looks at the White Paper on tax and the papers that the Government produced about the tax package one will find that the changes that the Government proposes raise in a full year something over $1,300m of tax. Virtually the whole of that comes from employers. Sure, that makes political sense but what we are now running up against is the fact that it does not make much economic sense. This particular element of the tax package, this particular impost on employers, is simply another way of reducing employment in Australia. It is a job destruction tax package and it might be described in terms of being very noble-- Senator Walsh —Tell us about the restaurants. Tell us about the jobs lost in the restaurants. Tell us about the 8,000 jobs. Senator CHANEY —I am not interested in the interjections of the Minister for Finance on this matter. His colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) admits over and over again in this place that the new tax will have an adverse effect on the industry and employment in the industry. Senator Walsh —Tell us about the 8,000 jobs. Senator CHANEY —I really am not interested in the Minister's interjections because I think his own colleague Senator Button is a much more reliable informant on these matters. I agree with what Senator Cooney had to say. There are limited areas of difference in this debate. I am just sorry that the speakers from the Australian Labor Party showed none of the real concern for the industry that has been evidenced by the Minister, whom I thought they might have supported. I am sorry that that element was totally missing from the debate. Senator Richardson made the one comment which I think will cause some cheer. He suggested that the door is still open for change. The Opposition also welcomes that possibility. I hope that in the time that remains between now and the introduction of the fringe benefits tax the Government will revise its proposals. The Opposition will be fully in support of revision. Although we will continue, of course, to oppose the tax generally, we certainly will support the idea that it should be revised in some way. I do not know what authority Senator Richardson had to make the statement that he did but I hope he is correct. Senator Foreman really devoted his speech to trying to suggest that the whole argument was one about protecting high income earning people from tax. That over-simplification is, of course, denied by the very clear arguments that have been put here; it is denied by the statistics which are now available and which show that the industry is suffering; and it is denied by the actions of his own Minister, Senator Button. I want to mention a couple of other points in regard to what was said by Senator Cooney. The honourable senator suggested that the debate was difficult because, to use his expression, `we were all stuck with rubbery statistics'. I can only say that whilst it may have been true that the debate up till Christmas was one which was in the realms of prediction and therefore where the statistics were of necessity estimates of future activity and, as a result, by definition could be regarded as rubbery, we are now in a situation where we are assessing the first quarter's figures for 1986 which show a very considerable decline in sales and in registrations. We are no longer dealing with theory; we are dealing with uncomfortable fact. Jobs are under threat today, both in industries which service the car industry and in the manufacturing sector. In those circumstances I am sorry to say that we have got beyond rubbery figures. We have got to the situation where there is a genuine problem which the Government simply has to face. The suggestion that this tax package is one which has the general approval of the Australian Democrats is, I suppose, a suggestion that Senator Cooney was entitled to make because I think, in the broad, that that point was made by Senator Siddons in debate. I can only say that it is not the view of the Opposition that the tax package that has been brought down is fair. I have tried to indicate in a very brief way why we think the tax package is a case of a genuine tax reform package having been hijacked by the trade union movement. Only now is the trade union movement, through unions such as the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia, seeing some of the very unfortunate side effects of what happened last year. The situation is that a significant impact is being made on an industry which is centrally important to industrial activity in Australia. The Opposition has been generous in its support of the industry Minister in those areas where it believes that he is behaving correctly and in the national interest. We would agree that in some important respects he has tackled long term structural problems in a way which has warranted our support. We have done no more than assess the national interest and ensured that our voices and our votes follow our assessment of that interest. Our deep concern here is that the Government's own actions are sabotaging some of the positive elements of industry policy. I want to close the debate by saying that I think the most significant, difficult and serious challenge that we face as a nation is in fact to revive the industrial sector of our economy so that we can take part in a competitive way in world trade, so that we can do something about the balance of payments crisis which threatens to engulf other areas of policy in this country. I think this is a central problem for this Government; it will be a central problem for the next government. I regret that in this tax package we are seeing conflict with the Government's better elements of policy. I hope the Senate will support the motion. I hope even more that the Government will comprehend what we are about and will change the policies which are causing some destruction. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I am pleased to rise today to say a few words on the first report of the Cocos Islands inquiry which is being carried out by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The Commission has been asked by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to conduct an inquiry relating to the level of services and standard of living enjoyed by the Cocos Malay community. This inquiry is being carried out following the decision of the people of Cocos Island to integrate with Australia. That decision meant that the Cocos Malay people acquired the rights and privileges of Australia and in consequence accepted the obligations that these rights and privileges imply. The rights and privileges referred to are principally the right to certain Commonwealth benefits and the right to vote in Federal elections. Following the decision of the island to integrate, the then Minister for Territories, the Hon. Tom Uren, undertook in early 1984 to see that appropriate measures would be taken to raise services and the standard of living to comparable Australian levels within 10 years and the Commonwealth Grants Commission would be used to review these standards. This report stems from that undertaking. As one of the three Federal members representing the people of the Cocos Islands, I welcome moves to see the standard of living of those people brought into line with those applying in the rest of Australia. As honourable senators would well know, the Cocos Islands are included in the Northern Territory for the purposes of the people of the islands voting in Federal elections. The point has been made that the ties of the islands with mainland Australia are stronger with Western Australia than the Northern Territory. However, constitutional considerations prevent the islands from being attached to a State for voting purposes, and the Northern Territory was therefore chosen as the electorate which would take in the Cocos Islands. Cocos Islanders now have representation in both Houses of Parliament and participate in Federal elections. Our experience in the Northern Territory has made us familiar with the problems of distance from centres of government, and in the Territory there is certainly an appreciation of the need to ensure that territories enjoy living standards comparable with those of the States. Indeed, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has been called upon by the Commonwealth to determine the levels of funding to be provided to the Northern Territory. In doing so, it has had cause to consider the costs involved in providing services in the Northern Territory which are not appreciably different from those provided in the States. I might say that the successful development of the Territory since self-government was introduced in 1978 has in some measure been as a result of the insistence of the people of the Northern Territory that the Grants Commission be the arbiter of its financial arrangements with the Federal Government. I have a great deal of confidence in the capacity of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, having seen it in action over the last few years, to determine what action and assistance will be required by the people of the Cocos Islands to ensure that they achieve parity with Australian living standards. Briefly, I return to the constitutional problem associated with the attachment of the islands to a State, and make the point that a slightly different question will arise if the Northern Territory is successful in making its bid for statehood. Will the Cocos territory become part of such a new State, and perhaps even return a member or members to the new State legislature? This is, of course, a matter beyond the inquiry of the Grants Commission, but it will be a very important consideration when the time does come to determine how it will be resolved. Returning to the report, I note that the Commission proposes that the level of services to the Cocos Malay people be defined in the following terms: Services should be provided for the benefit of the Cocos Malay community at standards that are not appreciably different from the standards of the services provided by the Australian Government (or by State and local governments) to remote communities in other parts of Australia and at a cost to the community that is considered to represent a reasonable effort after taking into account the economic and other circumstances of the Cocos Malay community relative to the community used as a standard and the contribution made by that community. Considering the level of services provided to some rural areas within Australia, this definition might not hold all that much promise for the people of the Cocos Islands. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.19) —I rise to speak on the first report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I welcome the approach adopted by the Commission to proceed directly to the preparation of a draft report-that is this report-outlining its preliminary conclusions on the inquiry and its tentative response to the matters raised in the terms of reference, and to circulate this draft report for comment by the parties to the inquiry. I believe that that approach will tend to reduce the regurgitation of submissions that some people would have made had the Commission gone the longer way round. At present only some 400 Cocos Malay people live on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It would seem that such a small number of people would not attract much debate within the Parliament. However, there is no doubt that people from both sides of the chamber have a deep concern for the Cocos Malay people who live on those islands. I am sure that I speak for members of the Government as well as for members of the Australian Democrats and the Opposition when I say that we are concerned for them. In particular, I am concerned that they are being led into a role of dependency on our social security system. I see that Senator Walsh is in the chamber. I hope he will take this to heart, because I know this is the sort of thing which concerns him. When I was on the islands last year I was disturbed to see that the copra plantation is now being attacked by a beetle because it is not being properly managed. Each mature islander is required to collect 100 coconuts each week. They can just wander around, pick up 100 coconuts and bring them in. That is a very moderate task, but there is no one around managing the copra plantation-in other words, clearing up the debris and the old coconuts around the trees. The result is that this disastrous beetle is now getting into the coconuts. The coconut plantation is less than 25 years old and is perhaps one of the most modern plantations in the world today. In Vanuatu and similar areas most of the coconut trees are in excess of 75 years of age. So there is 50 years of cropping at least in those coconuts. It is a matter which is not being properly attended. As I indicated, it is much easier to be dependent upon the Australian social security system rather than to enter into some active economic attempt to become self-sufficient. There is no attempt to become self-sufficient that I could see, although some building is going on in regard to the replacement of housing. There is not even an attempt by the islanders to grow their own foodstuffs and provide themselves with food. Why should they? After all, at present Australia is flying in all the necessary foodstuffs, clothing and all other requirements. In accordance with the Government's arrangements, these products are being sold to the people without the cost of air freight being added, and they are being sold at what is described as an Australian rural town price, or some such definition. Senator Crichton-Browne —All the products are duty free. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Crichton-Browne says, all the products are duty free, so they are very cheap. These people have lost their boat building skills. A beautiful wooden boat was purpose-designed for the islanders by one of the Clunies-Ross engineers who was living on the island at one stage. He purpose-designed this boat for them. The islanders have not built one of those boats for about eight or nine years, so that skill is being lost. There is a desperate need for some economic inducement to be brought into the factors operating one these Islands. I ask the Minister and this Government to apply their minds to inducing some economic factor which might encourage these people to attempt to be more self-reliant. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.23) —I commend the report on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands inquiry to the Senate and fully endorse the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission contained in the report and the remarks made by Senator Lewis. In 1984, the Cocos Malay people who live on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands voted to join Australia through an act of self-determination under United Nations supervision. They received an undertaking from the Australian Government prior to this vote that the Government would help the Islands to become more self-sufficient economically by broadening the Islands' economic base and that within 10 years the Government would take steps to raise services and standards of living on Cocos (Keeling) Islands to levels comparable to those in Australia. As Senator Lewis said, there are approximately 400 Cocos Malay people living on Home Island. The Australian Government administration and departmental employees, with their families, are segregated on the only other populated island, that is, West Island. Enormous anomalies exist between living standards on the two islands, not least because Government officials are fully employed, whereas a considerable proportion of the Cocos Malay work force are not fully employed and, as Senator Lewis has said, are dependent upon what social security system there is. The main source of income of the Cocos Malay people comes from Australian Government activity on the islands. This income may well decline when the current housing program is completed. Thus, the future well-being of the islanders depends very heavily on employment initiatives which have yet to be conceived. The disparity in living standards between the Cocos Malay people on Home Island and Australian Government employees and their families on West Island has led the Commission and the islanders to propose that the Government would fulfil its pre-self-determination promise to the Cocos Malay people by giving them comparable living standards to those enjoyed by non-local residents on West Island. However, the Department of the Treasury has objected to this, ostensibly hiding behind some rather unconvincing technical objections. I suggest that the real reason is that Treasury considers that public servants on that particular island enjoy a much higher standard of living than average Australians. In my view, to prolong such an obvious local discrimination between racial groups, however it may be caused, must result in envy and ill-feeling in the local people when they face stresses resulting from the pressures of modern Australian living. It is indeed a wise move by the local administrator, local Cocos Malay people and the Commission to adopt as their standard of Australian living the example of the Australian public servants who are based on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. In this way a source of future friction between the islanders and the Australian Government will be removed. The Australian Government is committed to achieving parity of living standards for the Cocos Malay people with Australians on the mainland by 1994. That leaves only eight years before they must face world scrutiny on their good faith. Three or more of these years will pass by until the Commonwealth Grants Commission completes its inquiry-this report is just the first part of it-into how this will be achieved. Yet another year at least is likely to pass while administrative procedures can be set up. Hence, in the end only four years will remain to complete the full program and to introduce the Australian way of life into this isolated community. I fully endorse the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission that a three-year program be undertaken immediately before the final reports in 1989 so that changes can be introduced gradually and not hurriedly, in the final three years, after the Government has had time to consider the final report. Time is of the essence, as the wheels of administration are apt to turn very slowly, especially when Government expenditure is necessary. I believe that we should not bow to the Treasury pressure to wait until the last minute. So while commending this report to the Senate, I urge the Government to finalise the terms of reference as soon as practicable. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(5.27) —In the short time available I would like to refer briefly to a couple of points already made relating to so-called dependency of the islander community on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I point out that no unemployment benefit is paid to anyone in that community at the request of members of the community because they are seeking to avoid dependency. As a result, they are, in fact, living on very low incomes. Regarding food costs, I point out that the same subsidisation applies to the people who live on West Island, who are very well paid and getting a tax free and duty free income. So it is a very different matter from what was implied by Senator Lewis. I also point out that this is not a draft report. I think there is some confusion there. The report on the Cocos (Keeling) inquiry refers to a draft report but this is, in fact, a first report. A previous draft report has already been circulated and discussed. I am speaking today because as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources I recently had the opportunity to visit the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Although we were there on another matter, the visit gave me the opportunity to experience, to some extent, life on the Islands, and, more importantly, to have some lengthy discussions with the Islanders. I would like to note the respect that I found amongst the community leaders for Mr Justice Else-Mitchell. The way in which the inquiry was carried out and his willingness to consult in a co-operative way and to take time over that consultation was very much appreciated. This report has been eagerly awaited by the leaders of the Island community, who I note are referred to in this report as Cocos Malays. That is not their preferred name because in fact the only permanent Islanders are those people of Malay extraction, but that was many years ago. The report discusses at length the question of how a standard of living can be set as an aim. In fact, the Commission determined to defer that decision until 1989 and to consult in the meantime with the Department of Territories and other interested parties and to visit the Island, probably on an annual basis, to see developments there. I found it difficult to understand the Treasury comments about this matter, which are quoted at some length in the report. Indeed, I wonder whether the Treasury officials have very much knowledge of the history of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands or the situation that applies there at present. I do not think one can look at Cocos without looking at its history. Its history is very relevant to the situation there now because Cocos has gone from what was virtually a feudal society, to put it at its kindest, a few years ago to one where there is full Australian citizenship. There are no adult members of the community who have had anything like what we would call an adequate education. Most of the community leaders, in fact, cannot read or write, and that is an indictment of the previous regime under the Clunies-Ross family. There are people there who can relate what it was like to work for plastic tokens, what it was like to be punished if one spoke to outsiders without the permission of Mr Clunies-Ross. I think that needs to be borne in mind when discussing the present situation. There is a massive deficit, in social terms, to be made up. For example, I was surprised to find recently-I think this shows the general lack of understanding back here on the mainland about conditions-that Islanders are ineligible for a secondary allowance because they are not taxpayers. These people would not be taxpayers if they lived on the mainland because their incomes do not reach the taxable level. However, mainlanders are not denied benefits because they do not pay tax. I am pleased to say that the Department of Territories is looking at that anomaly, now that it has been pointed out, with a view to solving the problem. There are other inequities that are evident, particularly in education and health, and I am pleased to note what the Commission said-to save time I will not read it-about departments and others working towards a better situation over the next few years. It is not going to be easy, for the historical reasons I have mentioned, to solve the long term economic problems of the community. Even the problem of the coconuts is not as simple as Senator Lewis suggested because we had expert advice that the coconuts are not of good quality and that the soil is probably not very suitable for a high yield anyway. The only reason it was an economic proposition before was because the people were not being paid, or were not being paid in the terms that we understand. The Commission is clearly aware of the economic and social problems. I welcome the report and hope that its recommendations on the way the departments should proceed, not only towards the review in 1989 but also towards the Government's aim of raising the standard of living to Australian levels by 1994, is well heeded and acted upon. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.34) —Following the vote by the Cocos Malay population on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for integration with Australia in an act of self-determination, Australia made an undertaking that the standard of living of the Cocos Malay people would be raised to the Australian standard within a period of ten years. This first report on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands by the Commonwealth Grants Commission is in response to a letter by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) of August 1984, as I recall it, to the Grants Commission asking that it inquire into that reference. That is totally and wholly desirable, but whether it ought to be the task of the Grants Commission to set out what might be described as a socialist blueprint is another matter. What comparable standard one should use is a further matter. The Minister's letter, in its terms of reference, specifically envisaged the possible adoption of the standards of a comparable community in an isolated part of Australia. What that isolated part of Australia might be is, of course, anybody's guess. The Chairman of the Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission suggested that the town of Laverton in Western Australia ought to be the model upon which the Commission based its recommendations. Senator Zakharov —It is hardly isolated in the same way. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is not isolated in the same way, but it is isolated with the same disadvantages and liabilities. However, ultimately the Grants Commission decided that a comparable community ought to be that of West Island, which is part of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands but is that part on which the whites reside as distinct from the Cocos Malays, who are quite separated and quite segregated and who live in splendid isolation on Home Island. Frankly, if the Commission is to use West Island as a model upon which it structures the lifestyle and the standard of living of the Cocos Malays, I could not think of a worse comparison. In fact, as the Treasury said in its submission: While the desires of the Cocos Malay community should be taken into account in choosing a standard, the standard chosen should also be acceptable to other Australians, particularly those in other remote communities. It submitted that West Island was not typical of other remote Australian communities in that it was a `Public Service town' and, as a result, the standards of government services provided were higher or involved greater concessions than those provided to other remote communities. Of course, that is absolutely the case. I think that by any standards West Island is a very bad example. The real challenge for the Grants Commission is to find a definition of `standard of living'. My primary concern is that Home Island will end up as a classic example of a social welfare community with the local people lacking in skills, occupations, initiative, incentive or a substantial future. If the standard is to be based on the West Island model, that is absolutely certain to be the case. To my knowledge there is not a single person employed either on West Island or on Home Island who is employed by other than the Commonwealth Government or the local co-operative, which in turn is funded by the Commonwealth Government. When the building program runs down, that level of employment will drop away dramatically. It is sad to see what has been a healthy, robust economy deteriorate. The world market for coconuts is responsible for that, but perhaps the coconut plantations at Cocos ought to be not dissimilar to the rural economies in Australia and be provided with some sort of short to medium term assistance. Perhaps the answer, in many respects, is tourism. It is an idyllic island. Provided that tourism is sensibly and carefully approached with a sensitivity to the environment and the people of the Islands, it seems to me that that is a worthy way of achieving some sort of income. I fear, frankly, that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will end up very much like the Torres Strait Islands, where the local people rely exclusively upon social welfare benefits. The one blessing, of course, is that because they are of the Islamic faith, they do not rely on alcohol as some sort of compensating crutch. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.39) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Australia should be the country with the most well developed aviation industry in the world-we have vast distances to travel and we have good flying weather-but unfortunately, this is not the case. Aviation in Australia has been hamstrung by two factors-one is the dead hand of the Department of Aviation bureaucracy and the other is the two airline policy. The joint report of the Australian National Airlines Commission and Ansett Transport Industries Limited deals with the two airlines policy. The paper involves consultations on passenger revenue load factors and aircraft utilisation during 1985 and it points out that during 1985 regular consultations were held at an operational level to minimise the impact of fluctuations in passenger demand on aircraft utilisation. Nowhere does it say anything about consumer convenience or lowering fares. What both Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans Australia Airlines are concerned about is keeping their aircraft utilisation at a very high level so that they can make more money. We have heard much in this place and outside it about parallel schedules and how they cause inconvenience and overload facilities. It all has to do with keeping the aircraft full for profits. We desperately need some competition. East-West Airlines Ltd is trying to furnish that competition. East-West is not taking any passengers away from Ansett and TAA. It is in fact creating new passengers, people who have not flown before, because it is giving a cheap, fast and enthusiastic service. People working for East-West believe in what they are doing. East-West now wants to buy three new Boeing 737s from the Boeing company in Seattle. It has Federal and State approval to run a service in Queensland, but it cannot get the aircraft. Why can it not get the aircraft? It is because on 1 April Ansett applied to the High Court of Australia for an injunction to prevent the Federal Government from giving such approval. Ansett was later joined in that matter by TAA. What we desperately need in this country is deregulation. Deregulation, according to Ansett and TAA, will lead to aircraft crashes, lack of service in remote communities and higher fares; but in fact the opposite is true. In the Canberra Times of 15 April 1986 a visiting United States economics professor was quoted as saying: The deregulation of the airline industry in the United States had had a favourable impact on services to small communities and the fares charged . . . Professor Clinton V. Oster of the University of Indiana pointed out that about 500 small communities in the United States had regular airline services and a study of 300 of them had shown that a better service had followed deregulation. Deregulation has not caused any increase in aircraft accidents in the United States of America. It has, in fact, caused increased services, lowered fares and increased employment in the aviation industry. We desperately need that sort of go-ahead thinking in Australia. The Government, however, is loath to bite the bullet. For one thing, the Government is not keen to take on Sir Peter Abeles and Mr Rupert Murdoch. For another thing, the Government has a vested interest in protecting TAA. It is high time the burden of high air fares and inconvenient service was lifted from the backs of the Australian people. It is time to dump the two-airline policy. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —The time allowed for the consideration of Government papers has now expired. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —Pursuant to standing order 109, I amend Notice of Motion No. 115 to read as follows: That the Senate notes- (a) the continuing uncertainty in the community caused by the failure of the Federal Government to introduce into the Parliament proposed taxation legislation affecting the following matters: Subject Date of announcement Resource Rent Tax ... 18.4.84 Discounted and deferred interest securities (DINGO bonds etc.) ... 16.12.84 Interest Withholding Tax on discounts and Hire Purchase charges ... 14.12.84 Non-cash business related benefits given to non-employees ... 4.2.85 Income averaging for sports persons ... 4.2.85 150 per cent deduction for research and development expenditure ... 29.5.85 Fringe benefits tax ... 19.9.85 Capital gains tax ... 19.9.85 Imputation system of taxing company distributions ... 19.9.85 Foreign tax credit system ... 19.9.85 Provisional tax to be payable in instalments ... 19.9.85 (b) that the effects on incentive and industry of the proposed legislation on fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax will be devastating and will detrimentally affect the course of the Australian economy. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 17 April, on motion by Senator Cooney: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 9 April, on motion by Senator Cooney: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.44) —This report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee was made after consideration by that Committee of the Artificial Conception Ordinance 1985. That Ordinance was considered by the Committee under its terms of reference and on 13 February this year the Committee Chairman, Senator Cooney, gave notice of a motion for disallowance of the Ordinance to enable it to be properly considered. The Committee obviously gave the Ordinance a great deal of consideration and was not in a position to report to the Senate until the final day upon which the Senate could disallow it. The Committee then gave notice of its intention to withdraw its notice of motion for disallowance. Obviously, any member of the Senate could have taken over, as is the custom, that disallowance motion. I was considering taking that action, but I believed that it would not be appropriate since the matter would have been, as it were, lumped on to honourable senators without their being given an opportunity to give mature consideration to the issues involved. The more I think about the question, the more I agree with what the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee has said; that is, that these issues deserve searching consideration by the Parliament. What are the issues raised by the Artificial Conception Ordinance? They are issues of absolutely vital importance not only for those children born by virtue of the procedures described in the Ordinance but for the whole of this nation. The procedures outlined by the Artificial Conception Ordinance are defined in the interpretation clause, clause 3. They are: (a) artificial insemination; or (b) transferring into the uterus of a woman one embryo derived from an ovum fertilized outside her body. Those are the procedures with which this determination is concerned. It is concerned only with the parentage of the children born as a result of those procedures. The fact is that the parentage of those children is a very important matter not only for those children but also for the law. In the Artificial Conception Ordinance the biological parent is presumed not to be the parent of the child. I understand the argument that has been advanced for that proposition. I am also aware of some arguments that have been put forward for the other proposition. Suffice it it to say that I am completely aware of the arguments that are put forward in favour of the proposition which has exercised the Government's mind in this regard. However, we are dealing with the effects of procedures the nature of which this national Parliament has not come to grips with-for example, artifical insemination by donor. I have not heard a debate in this Parliament on that question. It has simply been left to the scientists. As has been stated in the professional journals, we are simply applying to human beings the science that has been developed for animals. Suffice it to say in the very short time that I have that there has not been intelligent discussion at legislative level on these very important questions. This Ordinance is an attempt by the Government to pick up some of those pieces and at least to define, for the purposes of the law, who are the parents of the children who are born as a result of those procedures. I have previously spoken in the Senate about how we are avoiding a comprehensive debate on the fundamental implications of ordinances of this nature. I said that introducing piecemeal amendments in isolated ordinances or Bills was certainly not the way to deal with such fundamental issues. I am pleased to say that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has acknowledged that problem in its report, as it has done on previous occasions. I have a fistful of examples of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee stating that it is contrary to democratic principles for the Government to deal with major matters of national policy by way of subordinate legislation. Indeed, on this occasion, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, on page 6 of its report, states: These issues deserve searching consideration by Parliament. It suggests that one vehicle for the consideration of these issues could be the debate on the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentations Bill 1985 after the report has been brought down. I do not quite agree with that proposal, because that Bill deals only with the question of experimentation on human embryos. It does not go into the other questions. Nevertheless, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee emphasises the need for a thorough-going debate on these questions and the need for them to be determined by substantive legislation and not by subordinate legislation. Other aspects of the Ordinance are of concern. For example, as is pointed out on page 22 of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee report, the Ordinance applies to de facto couples. A woman in a de facto relationship is under the same definition as a married woman. Again, that definition is something that has slipped through by regulation and it was not determined after a thorough-going debate by this Parliament. Every honourable senator should be aware of the justification advanced by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that the removal of legal responsibility may facilitate better record keeping by eliminating the legal consequences of the eventual identification of genetic parents. However, I really do not think that the Attorney-General could have understood what he was signing when he wrote his letter to the Committee as detailed on pages 52 to 55 of the report. The Attorney-General stated: . . . the Ordinance may in fact encourage proper record keeping and participation in AID and IVF programs because it removes concerns which a potential participant may have in relation to future responsibilities for the child born as a result of their donation of gametes. As the Committee has rightly pointed out, the complete severance of the links between the genetic donors and the resulting children in the future affects the legal and biological definitions of incest. The Committee warns that it could create a variety of emotional and physical risks for the offspring of persons who were artificially conceived. Despite the claim of the Attorney-General-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Georges: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(5.55) —I rise to complete my remarks on the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare on dolphins and whales in captivity. Although there are a dozen good sections within the report, there are three which I find I am unable to support. I support the dissenting report, but I go even further than that. The main report recommends that we no longer capture whales or dolphins, because they are now breeding in captivity, that we no longer import any and that we gradually close down the dolphinaria that already exist in Australia. The dissenting report disagrees with the final recommendation and says that regulations can be formulated to continue running dolphinaria in this country. It recommends that no more licences for dolphinaria be issued, and that no more dolphins or whales be imported. I do not see why we should deny ourselves or the whales or the dolphins the opportunities that would exist if we captured more, providing we were able to look after them, or if we imported them. The last time I was speaking on this issue I described to the Senate the enormous affinity that exists between whales and dolphins and man. I told honourable senators that I had had a swim with some whales and dolphins. I found that they take great care of one and would not harm one for the world. I recounted how in the past they had been able to pilot ships quite safely in and out of ports. I remember I cited the case of Pelorus Jack, who used to guide ships in the Cook Straits. I referred to the many stories in The Killers of Eden about whales that had helped the whalers operating out of Eden. I imagine that it would be perfectly easy to introduce a set of regulations that would ensure that these animals were not exploited adversely. For example, we could work out how much sea space they need in dolphinaria. Their feeding could be taken care of. The quality of the water, the condition of their bodies, their feeding, their breeding and even the hours they work are all facets that could quite easily be regulated to see that they are not adversely affected by capture. One thing I point to is the general thrust of this report, because many reports coming out now are opposed to our contacts with animals, be they farm animals, pets or animals in circuses, zoos and rodeos. I think that the people who look after these animals will have to become more vocal and will have to be able to explain and justify their contacts with animals to ensure that they are not exploited adversely. I go further than the dissenting report. I say that we should be able to issue more licences for dolphinaria. We should be able to import dolphins and whales, and we should be able to breed more dolphins in Australia. Debate (on motion by Senator Cooney) 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 Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The primary purpose of the Bill I am introducing today is to amend the law relating to partial take-over bids. The Bill also makes certain other amendments to the law relating to the disclosure of substantial shareholdings. I am introducing this Bill pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme The Formal Agreement executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978 provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth/State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration regulating companies and the securities industry. The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. The Northern Territory Government has now joined the co-operative scheme and is in the process of drafting legislation to apply Commonwealth companies and securities legislation. In accordance with the Formal Agreement, this legislation has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. If passed by this Parliament, it will have the effect of automatically amending the corresponding State companies and securities legislation. Outline of Proposals Subject to some modifications agreed by the Ministerial Council, this Bill will implement recommendations made by the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee (CSLRC) in its report on partial take-over bids. The CSLRC reported to the Ministerial Council following consideration of public submissions on a discussion paper on partial take-over bids issued in March 1985. The takeover amendments in the Bill are essentially about equity amongst all shareholders in a target company-they are not part of the broader debate whether we have too many or too few takeovers in Australia. The Bill should not be read by the investment community as a signal that the Government has adopted a general anti-takeover position. The Government recognises that the takeover process, which involves the maximisation of returns on assets employed, is a crucial ingredient of a healthy economy and long term growth in output and employment. The amendments are not designed to prohibit partial takeover bids but to remove the problems identified by the CSLRC in relation to pro rata partial bids. Since the announcement of the proposed reforms in December 1985 the Ministerial Council has received strong representations from both business and employee groups that the amendments be enacted as soon as possible, without the usual exposure of draft legislation, because of a possible spate of pro rata bids launched in an endeavour to pre-empt the proposed legislation. I draw your attention to some of the more important proposals contained in the Bill. Partial Take-Over Bids At present, a bidder may make a partial take-over bid by making offers for a specified proportion of each shareholder's holding (a proportional bid) or for all or a part of the holdings of each shareholder up to a specified maximum proportion of the capital of the company (a pro rata bid). I understand that most partial bids in Australia have been structured on a pro rata basis. The Bill will confine partial bids to proportional bids. This will reduce both the coercive pressures on shareholders to accept partial bids and the uncertainty faced by a shareholder as to the number of shares which will eventually be bought by the bidder. The Bill will deem prospectively any existing pro rata bid at the commencement of the legislation to be a proportional bid. The Ministerial Council considers that this approach is justified on the grounds that the proposed legislative changes were announced in early December 1985 and because of the concern and belief in the market place that a large number of pro rata bids would be launched before the enactment of the legislation in an attempt to pre-empt the proposed reforms. The Bill also addresses the problem of pre-bid escalation agreements. Under such agreements, pre-bid sellers obtain the advantage of selling their shares to the bidder as well as participating in any premium later offered under the bid. Other shareholders do not enjoy such benefits. Under the Bill, any escalation agreement entered into by a bidder in the 6 months prior to a bid may not be triggered by higher prices offered under the bid. This rule will apply whether the bid is a partial bid or a full bid. The opportunity has also been taken in the Bill to clarify the existing policy underlying s. 25 of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980. That policy is that there can be no so-called `multiplier effect' permitting a larger proportion of acceptances to be made in relation to an original block of shares where the offeree shareholder accepts a proportional bid and then sells the balance of his shares in the target company to another person, who in turn accepts the offer for a proportion of the shares he has purchased. In addition, a company will be entitled to include in its articles a provision requiring a shareholder plebiscite before a partial bid may proceed. The Ministerial Council believes that such a shareholder plebiscite will reduce the coercive pressures on shareholders to accept a partial bid. Disclosure of Substantial Shareholdings Shareholders who acquire interest in 10% or more of the voting shares of a company (that is, a `substantial shareholding') are required to notify the company and provide detailed information about those interests. Subsequent changes must also be notified. A survey of market participants conducted by the National Companies and Securities Commission indicated that these provisions, by requiring detailed notification each time the smallest change in a substantial shareholding occurs, are creating a major paperwork burden for companies and shareholders while often providing information of little or no value. The Bill contains amendments to the companies legislation to impose a threshold below which a change in the level of a substantial shareholding need not be notified. The amendment will require a change to be notified only where it involves the acquisition or disposal of interests in 1 per cent or more of the voting shares in the company. This will remove the burden of disclosing and recording insignificant changes and at the same time assist the provision of more meaningful information to the company and shareholders. Financial and Regulatory Impact Statement The changes made by this Bill should not have any financial impact on Government revenues and expenditure. The proposals on partial take-overs can be expected to improve the position of the small shareholder although the benefits are difficult to quantify. The proportional bid route is not `costless' for the bidder to the extent that it does increase his risks. However, it is impossible to quantify such costs. The proposals on the disclosure of substantial shareholdings should result in cost savings to companies. The Government commends this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) 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 Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes various amendments to Customs and excise laws to implement government decisions which, in particular, alter the arrangements relating to concessions on goods re-imported after repair or renovation, provide for the termination of compulsory maturation for brandy, whisky and rum and remove a sex discrimination provision in the Excise Act. A number of other amendments of a technical or administrative nature have been included in the Bill and I will provide brief details of the more important of these in a few moments. The provisions of clauses 16 to 18 which introduce new procedures into the Customs Act for concessions on goods re-imported after repair or renovation follow the Government's acceptance of the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations contained in its Report on Re-import Concessions dated 16 November 1984. That report recommended a number of new arrangements for re-imported goods, the bulk of which were implemented on 22 November 1985. At that time it was announced that the proposals affecting concessions on goods re-imported after repair or renovation would be delayed until necessary amendments could be made to the Customs Act. It would be useful if I were to first outline the measures which were implemented on 22 November 1985 by way of Customs tariff proposals. From that date any goods or parts of goods re-imported without change to their identity have been eligible for duty free entry if all taxes and charges payable on original entry have been paid and not refunded. This duty free eligibility applies to re-imported goods or parts irrespective of the length of time the goods have been overseas, and irrespective of whether the goods or parts had entered the commerce of another country or changed ownership. Additionally goods re-imported after being repaired or renovated are now assessed for duty on the repair value only and the rate of duty applicable is the rate applying to the parent goods if there has been no change in the identity of the parent goods. Finally, any goods repaired overseas, or replaced, under a specific warranty may be re-imported duty-free. The provisions of this Bill complete the re-import package by authorising the Comptroller-General of Customs to make a commercial tariff concession order which will permit duty free entry of goods re-imported after repair or renovation if it is established that the repair or renovation is not capable of being performed in Australia in the normal course of business. Provision is made for orders to be made in respect of repairs or renovations to particular goods or particular repairs or renovations to a class or classes of goods. The Comptroller-General also has the discretionary power to refuse to make an order if the making of the order would be likely to have a substantially adverse effect on the market for any goods or services in Australia or would not be in the national interest. Concessions for goods repaired overseas have operated for many years but have lacked the precision and simplicity proposed by the new arrangements. The new arrangements are to be inserted into part 15A of the Customs Act, which contains the provisions governing the administration of the commercial tariff concession system. By utilising the established commercial tariff concessions system in that part of the Act the Government believes that Australian repairers will be given a much better opportunity to demonstrate their capacity. Applicants for the concessions will need to fully document and support their applications. If a prima facie case is established, notification of a proposal to make the relevant tariff concession order will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The concession order will only be issued if after 28 days following publication, no objections to the order have been received. The provisions of Part VI of the Bill propose to terminate the compulsory maturation requirements for brandy, whisky and rum as currently contained in the Spirits Act. I should emphasise that the termination will not take place until 1 April 1990. Following a review of regulations applicable to spirituous beverages the Government announced on 4 May 1984 that the compulsory maturation of the spirits would be retained at that time but that the issue would be examined with a view to abolition in three to four years. The Government's examination of the issue, which involved, in particular, health and quality standards, revealed a significant divergence of industry opinion on the question of compulsory maturation. Firms with a tradition of producing matured spirits favoured retention while other interests suggested that the market, and not government regulation, should be the determining factor. The Government considers that removal of compulsory maturation will allow producers to prepare unmatured products if the market dictates such a requirement. Production of matured products could continue, commanding whatever price the market would pay. Removal of the requirement is also consistent with the Government's policy to remove unnecessary business regulation. It should be noted, however, that States and Territories, which are currently responsible for food and beverage standards in Australia, still require maturation under State and Territory law. Further, some investment in wooden casks has been made for maturation purposes. In view of this, we have decided to postpone termination until 1 April 1990. This will, we believe, provide more than adequate time for any necessary adjustments to be made within the industry. The amendment proposed in clause 24 of the Bill proposes to bring the Excise Act into harmony with section 40 of the Sex Discrimination Act. If the Excise Act is not amended as proposed, section 40 of the Sex Discrimination Act will render search of persons under the Excise Act unlawful. The amendment therefore proposes that where persons are to be searched for the purposes of the Excise Act they are only to be searched by persons of the same sex as the person to be searched. Section 104 of the Excise Act currently restricts searches of females by a female searcher but would permit a female searcher to search a male person. I now turn to the more important amendments of a technical or administrative nature. Part II of the Bill proposes to amend the Coal Excise Act to now provide that the excise duty imposed by that act is to be paid on the amount of coal sold by a producer as shown on the invoice document provided by the producer to the purchaser. The legislation currently requires excise to be paid on the quantity of coal produced and removed from mine. In today's operations some producers have difficulty in complying with this requirement, since beneficiation or raw coal to meet higher quality standards often takes place at locations remote from the producer's mine. This contrasts with the situation in the industry at the time the excise was imposed in 1949 when practically no beneficiation took place. The amendments will align the Act with current industry practice and will have no effect on the amount of duty paid by the producers. The proposed administrative amendments in Part III of the Bill amend the Customs Act as a consequence of the introduction of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1985, currently before the Senate. That Bill proposes to protect Australia's heritage of cultural objects and extend certain forms of protection to the cultural heritage of other nations so as to enable Australia to accede to the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import or export of cultural property. Regulations under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act will specify the material to be controlled. The amendments now proposed to the Customs Act provide the necessary authority for officers of Customs to seize cultural objects as notified by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment when those objects are subject to the control of the Customs. Finally, the significant technical amendment in Part V of the Bill proposes to bring the provisions of the Excise Act into line with the Customs Act provisions which relate to entry of ship's and aircraft's stores. The proposed new section 58d of the Excise Act makes provision for the regulations to exempt goods from the requirement of entry as ship's and aircraft's stores in certain circumstances. It is intended that exemptions will apply, for example, in cases where stores are removed and placed on board aircraft under Customs supervision and permission. Financial Impact Statement The provisions of this Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) 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 Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The main purpose of this Bill is to incorporate into the Excise Tariff Act 1921 a number of excise tariff proposals requiring enactment following tabling in the Parliament. The Bill also proposes to introduce a new item into the Tariff Act as a consequence of the introduction of inwards duty free shopping at international airports and to vary the excise duty concessions available to vice-regal persons following a review of existing arrangements. Clause 3 of the Bill which operates from 23 May 1985 abolishes the excise duty on wine produced with added sugar and introduces revised definitions and restructured tariff items dealing with brandy, whisky, rum and liqueurs. The item relating to wine produced with added sugar was introduced in the 1930's for the purpose of inhibiting the manufacture of wine made by adding sugar before fermentation. State legislation prohibits this practice, rendering the provision in the excise tariff redundant. The new definitions and restructured tariff items relating to brandy, whisky, rum, and liqueurs stem from a detailed review of legislation covering wines and spirits undertaken jointly by the food standards committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth government departments. The provisions in this Bill bring the Excise Tariff Act into harmony with new standards for wines and spirits accepted by the Government and being adopted by State governments. The changes in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill alter the excise duty rates on manufactured tobacco and on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) with effect from 20 August 1985 and 1 October 1985 respectively. Progressive increases in the tobacco duty were foreshadowed in the 1983-84 Budget when measures to progressively align the excise rate for tobacco with that applying to cigarettes and cigars were announced. The increase in clause 4 of the Bill represents a further step towards elimination of the difference between the relevant excise duty rates. The increase in the excise duty on LPG in clause 5 is made in accordance with the Government's LPG excise policy. Briefly that policy provides for the LPG excise rate to be calculated on the basis of 60 percent of the amount by which the weighted average price for naturally occurring LPG exceeds $147 per tonne. The average price is calculated as a weighted average of the price received from exports and local sales of LPG. The proposed new item 21 of the Tariff as contained in clause 6 of the Bill is part of the legislative package necessary to facilitate the introduction of inwards duty free shopping at international airports in Australia. The provisions of item 21 will remove the excise duty on any excisable portion of the limited quantity of airport shop goods available as passenger concessions if purchased at inwards duty free shops. The bulk of the legislative package was passed by the Parliament in the budget sittings last year. It contained amendments to the Customs Act, the Excise Act and various sales tax laws. Amendments to appropriate regulations are being undertaken separately and it is proposed that the total legislative package come into force on 1 May 1986. Inwards duty free shops which will be located at the airports between the disembarkation area and the Customs barrier will sell only alcoholic liquor, tobacco products and perfume to passengers arriving on international flights. The duty concessions available to passengers will not alter. They are currently 1 litre of alcoholic liquor and 250 grams of tobacco products. There is no specific limit on the amount of perfume eligible for the duty concession, provided the amount does not represent a commercial quantity. Finally the provisions of clause 7 of the Bill alter the excise duty concessions available to vice-regal persons and their staff. The provisions propose to remove the concessions on articles for the personal use of vice-regal persons, and articles for the official or personal use of staff members who are not Australian citizens. The existing concessions date back to when Governors and their staff were nearly always appointed from outside Australia. This is now not the case and the Government therefore believes that there is no longer any justification to continue duty concessions on goods for personal use or on goods for staff members who are not Australian citizens. There is no change to the concessions available on goods for the official use of the Governor-General or State Governors or members of their families. Financial Impact Statement The alterations contained in clause 3 of the Bill have no direct financial implications. Increases in the Excise duties on tobacco and LPG as set out in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill are expected to result in increases in revenue of $3.75 million in 1985-86 and $5 million in a full year in the case of manufactured tobacco and $18 million in the case of LPG in 1985-86. The introduction of inwards duty free shops is expected to benefit airport concessions revenues by about $5 million in a full year. The alterations to the vice-regal concessions will have minimal financial implications. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the sixth report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986, the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill 1986, the Australian Capital Territory Council (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986, the Grape Research Levy Bill 1986 and the Grape Research Levy Collection Bill 1986. I also lay on the table the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 6 dated 30 April 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.04) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- BARLEY RESEARCH LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1986 This Bill provides for an amendment to the Barley Research Levy Act 1980 to increase the maximum research levy rate to 75 cents per tonne. The operative rate within this maximum is set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation representing barley growers of Australia. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Minister for Primary Industry announced in February 1985 the Government's intention to encourage rural industries to raise the level of their research contributions to 0.5 per cent of their gross value of product (GVP) within five years, and reaffirmed the Government's commitment to match expenditure of the levy contributions from industry dollar for dollar to that level. This followed a thorough review during 1984 of rural research and the contribution of the Rural Industry Research Fund Scheme to this effort. The Minister made further comment on the need for Government action on rural research in his second reading speeches on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Bill 1985 on 20 March 1985 and the Rural Industries Research Bill 1985 on 17 April 1985. The Barley Research Levy Act is one of the few rural industry research levy acts in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5% of GVP level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to barley industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry considerable flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. From the industry's point of view passage of the Bill will ensure that a request by the industry for an operative rate increase, which is effected by regulation, is not delayed by the pressure of legislative business in the Parliament at the time the request is made. No additional budgetary outlays will result from the amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for an operative rate increase above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching budgetary outlays. Last year the barley industry sought, and was granted an operative rate increase to 35 cents per tonne. This raised the industry's contribution to its research program to about 0.24 per cent of its GVP. I take this opportunity to compliment the industry on its positive support of this applied research scheme, which is aimed at increasing profitability of producers. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. DRIED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1986 This Bill provides for an amendment to the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971 to increase the maximum research levy rates to $5.00 per tonne of dried vine fruits and to $30 per tonne of dried tree fruits. The operative rate within this maximum is set by regulation on the recommendation of the Dried Fruits Research Committee. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Dried Fruits Levy Act is one of the package of Research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5 per cent of gross value of production (GVP) level, and for which I have brought forward amendments here today to bring the rates up to that level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to dried fruits industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. No additional budgetary outlays will result from the amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for an operative rate increase above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching Budgetary outlays. Last year the dried fruits industry sought, and was granted an operative rate increase to $1.50 per tonne of dried vine fruit, $7.50 per tonne of dried plums and $5.00 per tonne of other dried tree fruit. This raised the industry's contribution to its research program to about 0.14 per cent of its GVP. I compliment the industry on its positive support of this applied research scheme, which is aimed at increasing profitability of producers. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. LIVE-STOCK EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1986 This Bill provides for an amendment to the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977 to increase the maximum research levy rate to 20 cents per head for sheep, lambs and goats and $2.00 per head for cattle and buffaloes. The operative rates within this maximum are set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. The Levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Live-stock Export Charge Act is one of the package of Research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5% of Gross Value of Production (GVP) level, and for which I have brought forward Amendments here today to bring the rates up to that level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to live-stock and meat industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. No additional Budgetary outlays will result from the amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for operative rate increases above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching Budgetary outlays. The current operative rates generate an industry contribution to its research program of about 0.16% of its GVP. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1986 This Bill provides for an amendment to the Live-stock Slaughter Research Levy Act 1964 to increase the maximum research levy rate to 15 cents per head for bobby calves, 20 cents per head for sheep, lambs and goats, 50 cents per head for calves and $2.00 per head for cattle and buffaloes. The operative rates within this maximum are set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act is one of the package of Research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5% of Gross Value of Production (GVP) level, and for which I have brought forward Amendments here today to bring the rates up to that level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to livestock and meat industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. No additional Budgetary outlays will result from the Amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for operative rate increases above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching Budgetary outlays. The current operative rates generate an industry contribution to its research program of about 0.16% of its GVP. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. MEAT CHICKEN LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1986 This Bill provides for an amendment to the Meat Chicken Levy Act 1969 to increase the maximum research levy rate to one cent per chicken hatched. The operative rate within this maximum is set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Meat Chicken Levy Act is one of the package of Research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5% of Gross Value of Production (GVP) level, and for which I have brought forward Amendments here today to bring the rates up to that level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to chicken meat industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. No additional Budgetary outlays will result from the Amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for an operative rate increase above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching Budgetary outlays. The current operative rate generates an industry contribution to its research program of about 0.05 per cent of its GVP. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1986 This Bill provides for an amendment to the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971 to increase the maximum research levy rate to 50 cents per head. The operative rate within this maximum is set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Pig Industry Research Committee. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Pig Slaughter Levy Act is one of the package of Research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5% of Gross Value of Production (GVP) level, and for which I have brought forward Amendments here today to bring the rates up to that level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to pig industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. No additional Budgetary outlays will result from the Amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for operative rate increases above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching Budgetary outlays. Last year the pig industry sought, and was granted an operative rate increase to 20 cents per head. This raised the industry's contribution to its research program to about 0.17% of its GVP. I compliment the industry on its positive support of this applied research scheme, which is aimed at increasing profitability of producers. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972. The Act imposes levies in milk and butterfat production for the purposes of funding dairy research, promotion and to finance the operations of the Australian Dairy Corporation. The Bill will increase the maximum rate of levy for research purposes. The present maxima are 1.2 cents per 100 litres whole milk or the equivalent rate of 30 cents per 100 kilograms of butterfat. The Bill provides for these rates to be increased to 10 cents or $2.50 respectively, the increase will give scope to the industry to have its contribution to research raised progressively by regulation up to 0.5 per cent of its gross value of production (GVP). The Minister for Primary Industry announced in February that the Government had adopted the objective of raising the level of industry contribution to rural research to 0.5 per cent of GVP within five years and to match that contribution dollar for dollar to that level. The Australian Dairy Research Committee, supported by the Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation, has requested that the Minister for Primary Industry seek the increase in the maximum rate of levy which is the purpose of this legislation. Research activity has an important role in enabling an industry to adapt to change. This is particularly relevant for the Dairy Industry which must accommodate itself to those few remunerative markets that have not been destroyed by subsidised dairy products, particularly from the European community. Increased research effort is also required to assist the industry to continue to improve its production efficiency, to develop new products and to compete with the producers of other countries on export markets and on our own domestic market. Dairy industry contributions to research have been about 0.05 per cent of GVP over the last three years; that is one tenth of the Government's objective over five years. It is now evident that there has been under investment in research and development in this industry, and there is an urgent need to increase the contribution to assist in improving its viability. The Australian Dairy Research Committee has had to draw heavily on its non-matchable reserves to finance its 1985-86 research program which is at a level of expenditure on research activities no higher than in 1984-85. In addition to providing for a much increased research program in the future, an increase in the levy will provide funds to rebuild these reserves. The industry has moved immediately to increase its contribution to research. It has requested an increase in the operative rates to two cents per 100 litres whole milk or 50 cents per 100 kilograms butterfat. An amendment to the regulations will be sought when the new maximum rates are incorporated in the Act. In the meantime, action has been taken by regulation to increase the operative rates of levy to the permissible maximum in the current legislation of 1.2 cents per 100 litres of whole milk and the equivalent of 30 cents per 100 kilograms of butterfat. It is rewarding that the industry has responded to the Government's objective and taken positive steps towards achieving substantially increased funding of research. The amendments proposed in the Bill will have no impact on budgetary outlays for the Commonwealth in 1985-86 because the 1985-86 Government contribution to the Research Program has already been approved. Assuming the operative rates are increased from 1 cent to 2 cents or its equivalent, there is a potential budget revenue increase in 1985-86. At the level of production recently forecast by the BAE this revenue increase would be some $330,000 in 1985-86. In a full year and not taking into account any reduction in production, the increased revenue would be about $600,000 making a total revenue from levy in a full year of the order of $1.2m. The Commonwealth commitment to match expenditure from the increased levy revenue will arise in 1986-87 and future years. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.05) —We are dealing with the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill, the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill, the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill. Jonathon Swift once wrote: . . . whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together. He was basically saying that anybody on the land who could increase production was better than all the politicians. These levy amendment Bills are all about encouraging research, to increase production, whether it be livestock or grain. As I indicated, there are seven Bills. They are routine Bills which come before the Parliament periodically to increase the rate of levies applicable to each particular industry. I will not go into the full details of each Bill, but I will give the maximum amounts by which the levy can be increased. For barley it is 75c per tonne; dried vine fruits, $5 per tonne; dried tree fruits, $30 per tonne; dairying, 10c per 100 litres of milk, or $12.50 per 100 kilograms of butter fat; livestock export, 20c per head for sheep, lambs or goats, or $2 per head for cattle or buffaloes; livestock slaughter, 15c per head for bobby calves, 50c per head for calves, 20c per head for sheep, lambs or goats, and $2 per head for cattle or buffaloes; meat chicken, 1c per chicken hatched-I do not know of any chickens that are not hatched, but that is the terminology in the Bill-and pig slaughter, 50c per head. This legislation will take the levies up to 0.5 per cent of gross value of production. Currently the operating rates vary between 0.1 and 0.2 per cent of the gross value of production. Those rates do not rise automatically-the increases are made as the industry requires and requests of the Government. The increases are handled under these pieces of legislation by regulation. On top of that, the Federal Government subsidises on a dollar for dollar basis up to 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production. As has been indicated as recently as today in the report of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the other place, we are facing a corrupt world market situation. For many years the European Economic Community has been dumping subsidised products on world markets and on some of our traditional markets. We are currently facing the situation of the United States Farm Bill allowing the United States to do that same thing. We have learnt recently of a sale of 50,000 tonnes of wheat to our traditional market of North Yemen. Significantly, that sale was concluded on the day the Prime Minister left Australia for the United States of America. That is certainly one of the problems which is facing Australian producers of livestock and grain in this day and age. That has been the case for some time; successive governments have known about it and have tried to come to grips with it. The Prime Minister has recently undertaken a trip in an effort to come to grips with that situation and to draw the attention, particularly of the United States, which has been a friend of Australia, to what the United States Farm Bill could do to our producers. Many of us have spoken to representatives of the United States Government and drawn their attention to this problem. We have pointed out that as well as encroaching on our traditional markets, the United States is itself a traditional market for many of our products. Primary industry is not subsidised in our country and it must compete on a free market basis wherever it can sell its products in the world. The overall situation facing our producers could have quite a deleterious effect on their returns in the near future. This levy Bill provides money for research, and we hope that some of that research money will also go to promotion, packaging and presentation. It is no use our making the best products in the world or being efficient within the farm fences if we cannot sell our products because they are not packaged or promoted properly. I understand that part of the money raised by this levy will go towards that promotion and packaging. There would not be one person on either side of this chamber who would argue with the fact that the Australian primary producer is efficient. That does not mean to say that continued research is not necessary in order to provide better crops, better strains of livestock, and better counters for diseases amongst all types of produce. It is necessary that our research be kept up to date and that we are fully aware of world trends in research and in the handling of particular diseases or pests. I cite one instance that occurred recently in Australia-the biological control of groundsel, an introduced weed, which has caused great problems in some country areas. This is particularly so in south-east Queensland, where I have my farm. However, after many years we have released a gall wasp and, while it does not destroy outright the groundsel plant onto which it is released, it certainly prevents that plant from reproducing. That is just one small instance. There are many other pests, both plant and animal, which are bedevilling our primary producers, and coming to grips with these is part of the total scene of making our producers more efficient so that they can compete. One of the big problems facing our primary producers now is the drought which is manifest right through the eastern States. Once again there has been a complete failure of our wet season. I do not know the country areas of New South Wales and Victoria as well as I know Queensland, but I understand that there is very little likelihood of any winter grains being planted this year. I am sure that my colleague Senator Brownhill, who knows that scene better than I do, will speak about that. On top of all this we have the Government's imposts. Just about every financial statement or Budget the Hawke Government has brought down since it came to power has had a deleterious effect on primary producers. My colleague the honourable member for Gwydir, Mr Ralph Hunt, has indicated that the cost to primary producers since the Hawke Government has been in power is $442m. Our primary producers can compete against almost anything, but when a government takes to them with a big stick, as the Hawke Government has done, it is pretty hard. No Bill on primary industry can go through without mention being made of this Government's attitude to primary producers. Other imposts which this Government has introduced in its various budgetary measures and which affect the manufacturing industry also affect primary producers. The automatic indexation of excise, even though it is rebatable to the farmer, is certainly an impost on the transport operator. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in answer to a question today, recognised that even though costs might be one thing within the farm gate and even though a farmer might be very efficient, once the product leaves the farm gate he has no control over it and the added costs there are a further burden. It is quite significant that, as I have indicated, a primary producer can be very efficient but the people who handle his produce beyond the farm gate end up making more money out of handling that produce than the farmer who produced it originally. There are many problems facing rural producers today. Those have been outlined by myself and many of my colleagues in the debates that have taken place in this chamber. The primary producer's terms of trade have declined by 37 per cent over the past 10 years. The return on capital for primary producers this year is estimated at minus 6 per cent. There are plenty of problems. Having said that, I point out that primary producers still contribute greatly to this country's economy. Even with our present massive current account deficit, primary producers are still responsible for about 40 per cent of our export income. So it is essential that proper research be done-that is what these Bills are all about-and that this Government recognise the imposts it has put on primary producers and starts to look at easing that burden, thus enabling those producers to become more competitive on world markets. The Opposition supports these Bills and wishes them a speedy passage. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.17) —We are debating the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and a number of other levy Bills relating to primary industry. The levies are raised at the request of the industry for the purpose of the development and research of the products involved. From time to time these various Bills come before us to increase the percentages. I wish to look briefly at some of the spin offs of this research and to give a couple of current instances related to the last Bill on the list-the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1985. I mention the current efforts by the Australian consortium to export dairy products to Asia by the development of a special milk to suit non-Caucasian tastes. That consortium, which includes the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Australian Dairy Corporation, Sumitomo Chemical Company, Milk Laboratories (Australia) Pty Ltd, APV-Bell Bryant, intends to market lactose-reduced milk powder to Asia. Many Asians find that the sugar or lactose in milk is difficult to digest, so the consortium has developed the process here in Australia to break down the sugar-lactose content. This lack of tolerance to the lactose in our milk has obstructed this country's plans for some time to move milk surpluses and in particular to increase our dairy exports in the markets to which we believe we should be exporting, namely, the Pacific Basin and the South East Asian countries. This milk powder is being manufactured at the Drouin Co-operative Butter Factory in Victoria, which has constructed a multi-million dollar plant to process the new product, and I understand that currently a consignment of some 16 tonnes of lactose-reduced powdered milk is being shipped to Singapore. The Australian Democrats wish the consortium all the best in this new export trade, which I think epitomises the type of new ventures that primary industry in Australia is undertaking and will be required to undertake in the future. It is not sufficient in primary industry, as it is not in secondary industry, merely to rest on products which are tried and true. We are faced with changing tastes, changing demands and the need to develop and seek new markets. It is important to look, as the consortium has done in the dairy industry, at the problems in a clear way, and at some stage stop wringing our hands and saying that everybody else is being nasty, and see whether there are opportunities, with vigour, ingenuity and investment, to expand our export trade by developing alternative products. Research can identify the gaps in the overall marketing of our primary products, as it has, for example, in the milk industry. The hindrances to the expansion of the milk trade have been looked at and deliberately removed from the products. To give another example, many consumers still believe that milk contains as much as 20 per cent fat when in fact in Australia the average is about 4 per cent. This type of information could provide a basis for educating the consumer about the nutritional values of milk. This, coupled with better packaging, could produce, here in Australia and in similar markets overseas, another basis for the expansion of our product. We have to admit that there are changing tastes and demands. Health conscious people are obviously looking at the fat content in milk. We have to provide them with information which is real and genuine, so that they do not have to move away from nutritional products which have formed the basis of a staple diet. These products can then be consumed in the knowledge that they are not causing any harm to health and that they are nutritional. It is not good enough simply to say that we will leave things as they are. We have to pay very close attention to the changing needs and desires in the market. The Australian Democrats believe that increased research is essential if we are to maximise these opportunities. It is not just productivity we need to improve the situation, but we need to improve our marketing. It is no good producing more and more commodities for overseas markets that are already glutted with and corrupted by the types of things that Senator Collard talked about, particularly the types of subsidisation regimes that are in place in the European Community and in the United States of America. Clearly, we need to plough funds into identifying new markets. As Julian Cribb said in the National Farmer, in one of his very incisive editorials, we need to `supplement our rather inflexible statutory marketing structure with incentives for small companies and individuals to claw out their own markets and beat our competitors to the punch'. If we are talking about the fact that this is a free enterprise society, that is the type of thing we are talking about. Part and parcel of the approach that Julian Cribb has urged, would be to increase the proportion of processed and manufactured foodstuffs and industry materials. The Democrats have always strongly supported the idea that research committees should have a majority voice of producers. The rationale for this belief, which we have put consistently to the Senate, is that it is the grower representatives on those research committees who are most likely to know the current concerns of growers, the current demands for research and the directions for future research. More importantly, any research that is undertaken can be of value to the industry only if it is implemented. Research on its own is utterly useless. The communication of research means that we need to have people who know what research is being done and know the people who are going to be consumers of that research. Therefore, we believe that the grower representatives on research committees act as salesmen in the area. They communicate the type of research that is being done, the benefits that that research has for the individual producers. Those producer representatives are listened to. They are, after all, representatives of the producer bodies. They are not from some outside group seeking to tell people what they should do and what they should not do. Before we go down the track of changing those research committees and having on them what we consider to be experts we should look at the fact that research must be implemented and used. That requires a selling job. Far too much research done in Australia sits in articles, books and conference papers and is never implemented. We need more innovative research, but also we need that research to be implemented. We should not move away from having on those committees those producer representatives who play that vital and very important role. There are a number of research and marketing challenges for each of the commodities that we are discussing this evening. We trust that the increased levies provided by these Bills will be used effectively to develop market opportunities, not only in Australia but also in what we believe is our natural market, the Pacific Basin and South East Asia. The major problems remain in terms of international trade with the European Community and with the United States. Recognising those problems, we still need to see what we can do with those massive impediments which currently operate. Another matter of concern is that 60 per cent of all arable land in Australia is currently threatened by soil erosion. The loss of top-soil in many parts of Australia is disastrous. There is a growing concern that widespread adaptation of practices such as retaining crop cover and stubble will significantly reduce the volume of sediment lost in flood flow. In my own State, as you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President, a very large majority-about 80 per cent is the most recent estimate I have seen-of farmers are retaining stubble in an attempt to reduce erosion. These types of rapidly changing practices in agriculture demonstrate clearly that there is not such a massive gulf between the people in Australia who call themselves conservationists and the people who call themselves primary producers or farmers. The interest of both groups in this major area of conservation is identical; that is, the conservation, the protection and the recovery of the top-soil for current farmers and for future farmers. With the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill there are growing concerns. We have had some spectacular victories in recent years in the brucellosis and tuberculosis campaigns. They have proved very successful because of the co-operation of all producers in Australia. We must make sure that their efforts are not pulled down by the lack of efforts of people around them. In research that is being done we need to emphasise herd management, nutrition, and stock death due to the protein deficiencies, which is a particular problem in north Queensland and the Northern Territory. The waste and inefficiency resulting from herd mortality, particularly of calves, is a serious problem, as shown by the statistics. Fairly obviously this demands closer investigation and, again, innovative research. I think it is doubly important that those people carrying out the research do so with regard to the demands of the people in the industry in relation to the problems that arise and the problems they are facing. At the moment Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientists are researching a method of painless, hormonal castration of farm animals, something which I am sure Senator Brownhill, who is to speak next, will have a great deal of interest in, being a member of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. I know that that is an area which that Committee has been looking at and working on. I refer also to the Victorian deer breeding industry. A recent research investment by a Victorian company has in fact given Australia a remarkable world lead in venison production. This is quite extraordinary for a country which in fact has only gone into that industry in very recent times. Again, I think it shows the innovative approach that primary industry producers in Australia are able to take and the opportunities that are available to many primary producers. I mention also the agricultural chemical development branch of the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and its development, in particular, of a new sunflower seed with a better oil quality for the margarine industry. Here, we have the example of a request from a particular manufacturing industry, a feed-back to a government department and the development of a product specifically designed for that particular industry. These co-operative types of ventures which, in the past, have put Australia in the lead in many areas of primary industry are continuing. I believe that they need to be fostered. Again, it is money which comes through the levies raised by the Commonwealth Government that assists us to carry out these types of research. While often it is easy in the media to have a little bit of a poke and a bit of a laugh at some of the types of research that go on, I think it is also very important to remember the enormous contribution to the economy that researchers make. I think that even only those very few examples which I was able to give-due to lack of time-show that. There are still some areas of concern. The Australian Democrats are particularly concerned that the Federal Government does not shift too many of its resources in CSIRO from research in agriculture to research in manufacturing. Undoubtedly the pressure must exist as a result of the proposed commitment of the national technology strategy to move the Australian economy away from high bulk, low value-added exports towards high value-added goods and services with a high unit value and a low volume. We believe that pressure ought not to take us so far away that the types of innovative research to which I have alluded will in fact be seriously hampered. By and large the Federal Government, through these levies it raises, is the major funder-and will remain the major funder. I think we have to recognise that the tradition in Australia is that governments have always taken that role. While many people seem to suggest that that might be socialist, it is fascinating to see that in this area Australia has always relied on public moneys to produce those types of researches in the primary industry area. I think we need to be very careful when we are talking about low government. Some comments in this regard were made today in a maiden speech and have been made previously in regard to a variety of other matters. I think that if one is not willing to nominate the areas which one wants to cut out, I think that some of these research areas may be the first ones to get the chop. I think that would be absolutely disastrous in terms of our primary industries. I hope that when people wish to talk about low government, they might specify which particular area they want to chop so that we know precisely what we are talking about. I believe that unfortunately research often becomes a low priority because people often cannot see the benefits immediately or they do not take enough time or effort to follow through the research efforts as they flow through to production and then through to the economy. I have only one other item that I wish to raise. It concerns the procedures adopted by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation with regard to the voting procedures on levies. Considerable concern has been expressed, by the Livestock and Grain Producers Association in particular, to the effect that the existing methods used in fact make it almost impossible for growers to reject a levy increase. I believe that this situation really is not conducive to good relations within those areas. I think it is far better, in terms of the vital importance to research, that there always be a continuous and voluntary support by the industry for the levying of funds for research. I think that if we move to the point where we are suggesting that it is almost impossible for the growers themselves to desist from raising those levies, we will get to a point of compulsory levying-such that without industry support the research effort could be brought into disrepute. I do not think that there is anything in it for the Government. I do not think there is anything in it for the industry. I hope that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in his response, will address that particular problem. I will wait on that response and possibly then raise this matter again during the Committee debate. I believe it is an important issue. Hopefully, the Government, having that in mind, might be able to look at altering arrangements so as to take away that obvious feeling of resentment that is now rising, at least in the LGPA, with regard to the levying procedures. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(6.36) —I rise to support Senator Collard in the remarks he made in leading for the Opposition in this debate on the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and allied Bills. Each of these Bills provides for increases in the maximum rate of levy on produce for research activities, broadly to a level of about 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production. In most cases the operative rates of the levy are between 0.1 and 0.2 per cent of the gross value of the product. These Bill do not automatically raise the operative rates but they provide for levy increases-as required by the industry-to be set in consultation with the industry. The levy payments up to the operative rate will be matched by the Government. This is a self-help operation by the industries involved. These are industries that produce so much of our export income and that give all Australian's a good standard of living. However, let us look at some of the incentives and assistance that have been taken away from the rural sector in the last few years by this Labor Government. In fact, this is the Government that when it came to office did not maintain the existing drought arrangements in 1983. This cost the farmers in hardship when they were seriously drought affected. In fact, in some cases the Government asked for the money back. In June 1983 the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) announced an increase in rural adjustment funding-only to have it reduced in the 1984-85 Budget by about $18m, or more than 40 per cent, to a reduced figure of about $24.8m. The impact of the 1983 Budget was to increase the meat inspection services by some 200 per cent. The Government gave only $20m for wool promotion after promising $28m. This was the Government that cut back on the petroleum freight subsidies to country areas. It removed tax concessions for the clearing and cultivation of new land and swamp drainage. It removed the sales tax exemption on fuels and lubricants and tied the excise to rises in the consumer price index. What happened in the 1984 Budget? The indexation of diesel fuel rebates for off-road users was not implemented until February 1985. This cost farmers some $25m. Of course, barley growers, whom we are discussing in the debate on the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill, are large users of fuel. The Government's fuel policies are definitely hurting those particular growers. The Government crucified the wine industry, just to mention another industry, by the imposition of the 10 per cent sales tax and a reduction in duty on imported wines from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. This was also the Government that changed the national disaster funding so that in my State of New South Wales the trigger base amount was raised from $10m to $18.49m before Commonwealth financial intervention came into place. This also put more burdens on the State before the three-for-one Commonwealth funding became operative. All this time the plight of farmers has been totally ignored. At the moment New South Wales is very dry with some areas probably in a drought situation. Assistance for research for industries such as the livestock industry will be of no value if farmers cannot afford to feed their stock. I imagine that farmers who are listening to this debate at the moment will be wondering whether the Government will produce a drought package this year. This is all very relevant to funding for research, which is the subject of this debate. The rip-off continued in the May mini-Budget of 1985. Since the Labor Government came to power in 1983 it has removed some $440m from the rural sector in its Budgets and mini-Budgets. Decreases in government spending in rural Australia serve only to increase the cost burden to individual farmers in the long term. Research funding will become irrelevant if these problems are not addressed. The statement made only in the last week or so by the Minister for Primary Industry that world prices are the problem epitomises the Federal Government's continued failure to focus on the inadequacies of domestic economic policies over which it has direct control. Mr Kerin should have concentrated his statement in this area. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should have done a little more in his recent trip around the world to make sure that Australia has a better say in the United States of America which has recently dumped its produce in places such as North Yemen. I do not know whether our wheat growers are very happy about what has happened in that respect. Likewise, I do not think our rice growers would be happy about rice being dumped in Papua New Guinea. It may be that world prices are contributing to the current rural crisis in Australia. But surely the repeated raids on the primary industry portfolio by the Hawke Government since 1983 have served only to compound the farmers' problems rather than alleviate them. Budget outlays for primary industry amount to 0.5 per cent of the total budgetary outlay. The cost to Australian farmers of the manipulation of the exchange rate is estimated to be $750m in a full year. The fuel excise has been increased by 157 per cent since the Labor Government came to office. It is only now, several months after the drop in world oil prices, that the Government has replaced the fuel excise rebate which it took away in one fell swoop. We have been told in the recent statement of the Minister for Primary Industry that, because primary production represents less than 10 per cent of economic activity in Australia, there is no way the Government is going to redesign our entire economic policy for the sole benefit of a single sector; that is, the primary industry sector. This is a sell out, considering the fact that Australia's rural exports provide approximately 40 per cent of this country's export earnings. The Government claims that the success of the economy and the labour market implies that there be `minimal inflation, strong economic growth and international competitiveness'. To say that the Hawke Government has had success on these issues is a long way from the truth. Our inflation rate of 9.2 per cent is more than twice that of our major trading partner, Japan, and over five times that of the United States inflation rate. The Hawke Government has relied on the forecast rate of economic growth to get it out of the economic quagmire. It has failed us. The artificial support afforded the Australian dollar via domestic interest rate policies has served only to weaken the Australian rural exporters' international competitiveness rather than enhance it. Why should the farmers of this country have to wear the effects of this piecemeal monetary policy approach when all along they are striving to increase their efficiency and gain much needed foreign exchange via the export of their produce? Here again, exports will be helped by a research levy on barley and on the other produce which is the subject of the legislation before us. The balance sheet indicates that since 1983 the Australian Labor Party has taken away $440m and has given back some $100m to the primary industry sector. This does not compare very well with the $120m that the Government recently gave to the banks for the building sector. Why has not the Minister for Primary Industry told other Cabinet Ministers that high interest rates caused by this Government's support of the Australian dollar are sending primary producers to the wall? Let us hope that the primary producers of this country do not have to suffer this unsympathetic government much longer before it vanishes to the history books. As Senator Collard intimated when leading for the Opposition in this debate, we support the research Bills that are now before the Senate. I hope that the Government addresses itself to some of the other problems that face rural communities. As I have said before, if it does not this great country will not have the industries or the expertise of people on the land to carry us forward in the future. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(6.46) —I rise to support the comments that Senator Collard made on behalf of the Opposition in relation to the group of Bills before the Senate. I join with him in supporting the thrust of the legislation which has been proposed by the Government. We are, of course, talking about the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and allied Bills which are concerned with rural products and all of which propose to increase the maximum rate of levy which can be applied for research purposes in accordance with the provisions of the relative principal Acts. The Bills propose an increase in the maximum rate of levy to be applied for research into the relevant products. All of the Bills would have the effect of increasing research contributions to about 0.5 per cent of the current gross value of production of the industry concerned. Of course, the operative or actual levy rate remains unchanged and will not be affected by the proposed amendments. The amendments have the virtue of facilitating action on any request by the industry for an operative rate increase made by regulation and thereby will avoid delays caused by the pressure of legislative business in the Parliament at the time a request is made. I believe that one of the difficulties that industries in Australia have when they get involved with government, particularly with levy payments and the like, is that parliamentary, governmental and bureaucratic delays lead to unconscionable delays in payments or receipts by industries. The method being proposed in this package of Bills is, therefore, commendable to the extent that it will reduce those delays. I also note that no additional budgetary outlays are going to result from the amendments. Rather, the Bills will enable the Government to agree to an industry request for an operative rate increase above the current maximum which would then generate additional matching budgetary outlays. These Bills are important because they relate to the whole area of research in the Australian rural sector. I am glad to see the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, at the table during this debate because these Bills are really about our research and development per se and, therefore, are also about the future competitiveness of the Australian economy, though, of course, directed in this instance to the rural sector. I believe that the importance of research and development for Australia's future cannot be overstated. The Economic Planning Advisory Council stressed this importance in its recent report on technology and innovation-a report which is an excellent contribution to literature and the debate on this subject. Of course, this has been done in many other places. It is one of those issues that attracts bipartisan political support in terms of its importance. We may differ from time to time on the best method of increasing research and development in Australia, but there is no question at all that we are agreed it is important that it be increased. We need to look much more than we have at the priorities that we as a nation accord to the different areas of research effort. Recent examples have been cited of millions of dollars of government funding going into research projects which I think many people would argue are not as essential as some of the other areas which are being starved of research funds. For example, there are research funds for such topics in universities at the moment as the sociology of housework. I am sure the sociology of housework is an important subject, but I doubt that it is as important as putting funds into research for the development of the rural sector of this great nation of ours, a rural sector which is vital to the lifeblood and future of our country because it still provides not far short of 50 per cent of our total export earnings. If we as a nation were to suffer a further decline in an already disastrous overseas trading position, the problems confronting Australia would be even greater than those which confront us at the moment. I will turn to those in a moment because they are very considerable indeed. I welcome these Bills and I hope that they presage an attempt by the Government to undertake a much greater scrutiny of public funded research. I trust that the Government will heed that warning when these Bills are enacted. However, there is another issue which bears directly on the efficiency and competitiveness and in directly on the research effort of our agricultural rural sector to which I would like to draw particular attention. I refer to the Government's overall domestic policies and their impact on farmers and the industries that service them and the climate in which they must operate. We have heard a great deal lately about the impact of this Government's policies on the farmer; the high inflation rate we are experiencing, which is having a catastrophic effect on the rural sector; high interest rates; increasing levels of taxation and regulation and the toll this is having on the rural sector and on the economy as a whole. The increase in the inflation rate in Australia, announced last week at an annual rate in excess of 9 per cent, is perhaps the most serious economic statistic that has come out of the Government in recent months. It means that inflation is now decidedly on an upturn, but even more significant is the fact that our upturn is occurring when inflation is still falling in other countries of the world. The disparity between the level of inflation in Australia today, relative to the average inflation rate of our major trading partners, and indeed the rest of the Western world through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, on average is greater than it has been since statistics on this international comparative basis were recorded, with the exception of a minor period in 1961. So far from the Government being able to point to a good economic record in perhaps the most important area of responsibility for government, namely, keeping control on costs and prices, this Government has a worst record, relative to our trading partners and the rest of the Western world than any other government in our history. Most people in the community, particularly those buying homes, small businessmen and farmers know full well that the record levels of real interest rates we have been experiencing in Australia in recent times add another quite crippling burden to economic activity in this country and to the problems of most people in our community in terms of maintaining their standard of living. Those sorts of things have a fundamental effect on the nation's competitiveness, on the competitiveness of the rural sector, and on the real effect, impact and value of the research funds to the rural sector, which we are debating in this legislation. The less competitive we are in terms of our overall policies, the less effective is the rural research effort we put in. Not only the man on the land is suffering as a result of this Governments's quite unfair and discriminatory policies but also the industries that service the rural community. Recently, I visited a small factory in Swan Hill, in the Mallee area of my own State of Victoria. A small business, very proudly called Grizzly, produces a new, very highly innovative and unique disc plough. It might be expected that research and development assistance would be forthcoming for an enterprise such as this that promised improved and cost effective ploughing techniques for Australian farmers. It is a very innovative, dynamic, well thought out and researched and managed company. After protracted negotiations, a great deal of paper work, and cost in time and effort by that company the negotiations came to nought and the research and development assistance that appeared to be likely to be forthcoming did not eventuate. When additional transportation costs of $3,000 are added to the cost of these unique disc ploughs in getting them to Western Australian and Queensland farmers, one realises the enormity of the problem facing some of the industries, particularly industries based in rural areas which are servicing and supporting the rural sector as a whole. The transportation costs of $3,000 per disc which amounts to 10 per cent of the selling price of the product, imposes an enormous additional burden. The additional transport cost is high essentially because of the regulatory and other economic policies of this Government. Thus the manufacturer is severely disadvantaged and, therefore, the client user of the product-namely, the farmer-is also disadvantaged in terms of adding still further to the cost squeeze facing the man on the land. Senator Brownhill —The Government has its sticky fingers in the pockets of the income producers. Senator SHORT —That is entirely right. I believe that one of the biggest indictments that can and must be made of this Government is the fact that it has taken no steps to ease the fundamental problem facing the rural sector of this country, namely, a very vicious and ever increasing cost squeeze. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being near the hour of 7 p.m., to enable the Australian Broadcasting Commission to put the news to air, under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(7.00) —The seventy-fifth conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was held earlier this month in Mexico City. As the leader of the Australian delegation I shall be presenting a report on the delegation's activities and initiatives at a later date. However, a short remark is in order to express gratitude to the Australian Ambassador in Mexico City, Mr John McCarthy, and his staff for the outstanding assistance they provided during the delegation's visit to Mexico. On the two previous occasions when I led the Australian delegation, my task was made easy because of the co-operation of all members of the delegation. The same situation prevailed on the visit to Mexico. But on this occasion, my duties were made even easier because of the Australian Embassy's assistance. Members were provided with extremely competent administrative, secretarial and interpretative services. The Embassy staffed a room in the hotel in which the delegation was staying. Ms Beverley Morrisby from the Embassy worked long hours in that room assisting delegates and accompanying persons. I have no doubt that each member of the delegation was grateful for the assistance of the Ambassador and his staff. I am also sure that all members were impressed by the Embassy's ability to accommodate special requests which, in several instances, called for assistance which went well beyond the normal call of duty. When the Australian delegation to the IPU visited Togo last year, it had no assistance from an Australian post. The nearest Australian representation was 200 kilometres away in Lagos. It was a baptism of fire for me as leader and, I expect, for the Secretary to the delegation, Mr Tom Wharton. Administratively, the contrast of the Togo visit with our visit to Mexico could not have been more marked. Our Australian embassies and high commissions do far, far more than assist Australian citizens who happen to be in their area of responsibility. Yet until an Australian citizen living or travelling overseas experiences some type of difficulty, particularly in a non-English speaking country, the importance of our overseas posts is largely unrecognised. In the 11 days I spent in Mexico City, the stresses of living in that country became all too apparent. There are adjustments to be made in terms of the standard and quality of living, there are the problems of poverty, an uncertain and unstable economy and visible reminders of the still recent tragic earthquake which devastated the city centre. It is remarkable that, under these conditions, the Australian Embassy maintains such high morale and an excellent standing with the Mexican Government, both of which were evident to all members of the delegation. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention that the delegation benefited greatly from the Ambassador's advice on the current major political, economic and social issues confronting countries of the Central American region, and Mexico in particular. After the Ambassador's briefing, members of the delegation had a sound perception of the problems in that area of the world. There are dangers in mentioning specific people who assisted the delegation because it is possible that others who did assist may not be mentioned. If that happens, I apologise for the omission. In addition to Mr McCarthy and Ms Morrisby I would, however, like to mention Ms Beris Gwynne, the post's First Secretary; Mr Bruce Cowled, the Second Secretary (Consular and Administrative); and Mr David McLachlan-Karr, the post's Third Secretary. Their assistance was invaluable and was greatly appreciated. In Mexico City there is a striking statue of which the Mexicans are particularly proud. It is called The Angel. It is in this respect that I wish to make special mention of the assistance provided by the Embassy's three drivers-Andres, German, and Salamon. Those who have experienced the Mexican's frenetic style of traffic would understand that I am not overstating the case when I say that the Embassy's drivers were our guardian angels. On behalf of the Australian delegation I commend the Ambassador and his staff for their co-operation during our visit. The high regard the delegation holds for Mexico and its people is in no small part due to the Embassy's outstanding level of assistance. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.04 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Customs Act-Notice 1986 No. 3-Rebate payable for diesel fuel purchased on or after 17 April 1986, dated 17 April 1986. Defence Act-Determinations 1986- No. 18-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowance. No. 19-Education Assistance Overseas and Others. No. 21-Child Allowance and others. Excise Act-Notice 1986 No. 4-Rebate payable for diesel fuel purchased on or after 17 April 1986, dated 17 April 1986. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister, describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Public Service Act-Determinations 1986 Nos 17, 24. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 787) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 23 January 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Community Services received a copy of the submission to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations from the National Council of Health Organisations in relation to Nursing Manpower Planning; if so are there any officers from the Minister's Department part of an Inter-Departmental Committee formed to report on the submission. (2) What other action is being taken in relation to the submission. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I have received a copy of the National Council of Health Organisations' submission to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations concerning Nursing Manpower Planning. An Inter-Departmental Committee has not been formed to report on the submission. However, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has co-ordinated a response following consultation with relevant departments, including my Department. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is meeting with the National Council of Health Organisations to discuss action resulting from the submission. (2) My colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will advise what further action is being taken in relation to the submission. (Question No. 894) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: Will the Attorney-General, in view of the Federal Government's recognition of the need for a Family Court Judge to be based in North Queensland to serve the decentralised population of this region, urgently investigate procedures for introducing a Federal Court circuit in Queensland to serve the need of communities which are distant from Brisbane. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: At present there is insufficient Federal Court work in North Queensland to justify a regular circuit. In July 1985, at the request of legal practitioners in North Queensland, the Federal Court arranged sittings at Townsville. The sittings were not held as no applications were filed for hearing there. There are two Federal Court judges located in Brisbane to whom applications can be made if a matter in which the Federal Court has jurisdiction arises for hearing in North Queensland. An application was recently made to the Court for a matter to be heard in Townsville from 18 to 21 March 1986 and this was agreed to. Section 32A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 enables the State Supreme Courts and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to hear and determine any application in respect of a matter pending in the General Division of the Federal Court that may be made to a judge of the Federal Court sitting in Chambers. Section 32A is designed to overcome difficulties that might arise in those places where a Federal Court judge is not readily available and an urgent application to the Court needs to be made. (Question No. 962) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Does the Commonwealth lease a building at 6-8 Baillieu Court, Mitchell, Australian Capital Territory; if so, was the building specially modified to meet requirements of the Commonwealth. (2) Which Commonwealth agency is to occupy the building. (3) When did the lease payments commence. (4) What is the monthly lease payment. (5) What is the anticipated date of occupancy by the Commonwealth agency on whose behalf the building was leased. (6) What is the reason for any delay between the commencement date of the lease and the date of occupancy. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The building owner modified the building at his own expense. (2) The National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA). (3) 1 September 1985. (4) $7,445. (5) The building has been temporarily occupied since 23 October 1985 by the Department of Aviation, pending occupation by NFSA. The date of occupation by the NFSA cannot be determined at this stage. (6) The space was originally to be leased for storage purposes. A far more complex requirement arose when a fire at the National Library forced the NFSA to consider the Mitchell premises for both staff accommodation and storage. My Department is currently engaged in discussions with the NFSA to determine the cost effectiveness of the revised proposal and to identify other options. In the meantime, the Department of Aviation, which had a requirement for temporary storage space, has utilised the Mitchell premises. The Department of Aviation occupied the building within seven weeks of the lease payments commencing. (Question No. 963) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Does the Commonwealth lease a building at 16-28 Woolley Street, Dickson, Australian Capital Territory; if so, was the building specially modified to meet requirements of the Commonwealth. (2) Which Commonwealth agency is to occupy the building. (3) When did the lease payments commence. (4) What is the monthly lease payment. (5) What is the anticipated date of occupancy by the Commonwealth agency on whose behalf the building was leased. (6) What is the reason for any delay between the commencement date of the lease and the date of occupancy. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The building has not been specially modified, however fit out of the premises is required. (2) The space was originally required to accommodate the proposed National Airports Authority, now known as the Federal Airports Commission (FAC). The requirement was subsequently withdrawn. Negotiations are continuing with a view to finalising arrangements for an alternative Commonwealth occupancy. (3) 1 May 1985. (4) $3,063. (5) See answer to question 2. Anticipated date of occupancy by an alternative client department or authority is September 1986. (6) See answer to question No 2. (Question No. 978) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) In what ways does Government policy on Aboriginal broadcasting in Central Australia affect the nature and economics of providing the Remote Commercial Television Service (RCTS) and remote public television services in South Australia. (2) In what ways have Government policy announcements over the past 2 years demonstrated that Aboriginal broadcasting and new satellite services policies have been co-ordinated. (3) Is the South Australian Government providing a 75 per cent subsidy for Self Help Satellite reception facilities in communities serviced by the Outback Areas Community Development Trust, and that the South Australian government has indicated it expects the Commonwealth to offer equivalent subsidies for Aboriginal communities such as Ernabella. (4) Will this level of subsidy, or anything like it, be forthcoming from the Commonwealth. (5) Was the Department of Aboriginal Affairs consulted over the choice of `mandatory communities' for the delivery of Remote Commercial Television Services. (6) Is the Department satisfied that the selection made adequately reflects the needs and concerns of the significant Aboriginal population living in RCTS service areas. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Government policy on Aboriginal broadcasting in remote Australia is based on the recommendations of the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications. In relation to Remote Commercial Television Services the Task Force recommended that: licensing provisions for remote area commercial services should recognise the special interests of the remote Aboriginal population in particular there should be provision for Aboriginal access and for definition of programming and advertising standards which recognise Aboriginal cultural interests localism policies should be reinforced to ensure greater sensitivity of commercial broadcasters to their Aboriginal audiences. In respect of television generally, the Task Force recommended that Aboriginal communities wanting to do so should have the capacity to switch off incoming programs and opt for local insertion, subject to the necessary legislative provisions. These recommendations have been endorsed by the Government as a basis for policy development. In respect of RCTS hearings, the recommendations have been brought to the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which has indicated that special conditions or windows may be applied to RCTS licences to ensure that provision is made for Aboriginal programs. This will not substantially affect the nature and economics of providing Remote Commercial Television Services, but will have an influence on programming decisions. (2) The Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting was commissioned by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Communications to look at the issue of Aboriginal broadcasting and communications in the light of developments in satellite services. The Task Force published its findings in August 1984. The Government's response to the Task Force Report was announced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on 27 November 1985. The Commonwealth Government has continued to provide funds to support Aboriginal broadcasting initiatives and to provide policy coordination through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. An Implementation Task Group has been formed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Communications to give effect to the Government's policy on Aboriginal broadcasting. Continuing consultations are held with organisations such as the Public Broadcasting Foundation, the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia, the ABC's Aboriginal Programs Sub-Committee and Aboriginal broadcasting organisations on developments in Aboriginal broadcasting. Officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have appeared before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's Remote Commercial Television Service Licence hearings on two occasions, and the Department has financially supported Aboriginal organisations to represent Aboriginal interests before the Tribunal. (3) The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was informed of the South Australian Government's commitment to subsidise self help satellite reception facilities in outback areas in the context of discussions on the application by Imparja Television Pty Ltd for the central zone Remote Commercial Television Service licence. (4) Discussions are continuing between the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Communications on the provision of satellite television reception facilities for remote Aboriginal communities. Twelve of the largest of these communities will receive ABC television reception under the Remote or Underserved Communities Scheme being implemented by the Department of Communications. It has not yet been decided what assistance will be provided by the Commonwealth Government to extend television reception to other remote Aboriginal communities. (5) The list of 37 communities at which retransmission facilities are to be established by the RCTS licensees was developed by the Department of Communications according to the following criteria: the community lies within the likely RCTS Service Area; the community has a population of at least 1,000; and the community has a National (ie ABC) transmitting site available for sharing. I am informed that these criteria recognised the economic fragility of the RCTS service, and sought to minimise the financial burden placed on RCTS licensees while nevertheless extending the service to the largest practicable number of people. Additional selection criteria would have resulted in unreasonably heavy expenditure on the part of RCTS licensees and may have jeopardised the establishment of an RCTS service. (6) Most of the towns listed to receive RCTS retransmission facilities have sizable Aboriginal populations who will receive a commercial television service through the facilities provided. The needs of the remote Aboriginal population were addressed by the Task Force on Aboriginal Broadcasting and Communications. The Task Force recommended measures to introduce television to Aboriginal communities on a planned basis. Most Aboriginal communities are too small to be included among those to receive facilities from the RCTS licensee. The existing RUCS program does not extend to these smaller communities. Discussions are continuing between the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Communications on the provision of television to remote Aboriginal communities. (Question No. 982) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: (1) Does the Commonwealth lease a building at Drake Centre, Civic, Australian Capital Territory; if so, was the building specially modified to meet requirements of the Commonwealth. (2) Which Commonwealth agency is to occupy the building. (3) When did the lease payments commence. (4) What is the monthly lease payment. (5) What is the anticipated date of occupancy by the Commonwealth agency on whose behalf the building was leased. (6) What is the reason for any delay between the commencement date of the lease and the date of occupancy. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The building has not been specially modified, however fit out of the premises was required prior to occupation by two Commonwealth agencies. Fit out work for one of those agencies has now been completed. (2) The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC); and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). (3) 1 May 1985. (4) $42,092. (5) NOHSC commenced occupancy on 12 April 1986. It is expected that ACIAR will take up occupancy on 16 May 1986. (6) It is normal in the ACT for some time lag to occur between the commencement date of a lease and the date of occupancy. Building owners are unwilling to defer the commencement date until such time as fit out works proposed by the Commonwealth have been completed. In the case of the Drake Centre lease, fit out of the premises could be expected to take from six to eight months. This time is required for user requirement brief documentation, tendering, contract arrangements, and the construction of fit out. Other factors that contributed to delays with the Drake Centre lease were: Changes made by the clients to their user requirement briefs. Client disputation regarding space allocation. Queries by ACIAR concerning the estimate of cost for fit out of the premises. (Question No. 995) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) How many premises within the Australian Capital Territory have been leased by the Commonwealth Government, its agencies or statutory authorities, since 1 January 1984. (2) What is the annual lease payment on each of these premises. (3) What date were lease agreements signed. (4) What date did occupancy commence. (5) Which premises are still unoccupied. (6) For what purpose are the leases required. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(6) Details of all acquisitions of land (including leases) made in accordance with the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 are tabled in both Houses of Parliament in accordance with section 7 of that Act. Since 1 January 1984, a considerable number of acquisitions have been undertaken in the Australian Capital Territory and I have separately sent the honourable senator copies of the documents as tabled in both Houses and details of acquisitions not yet tabled. Acquisitions made outside the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act by agencies or authorities not covered by that Act are not known to my Department. If the honourable senator would like further details in relation to individual leases she may of course request same. Subject to the extent of work involved for the Australian Capital Territory area of my Department, where resources are currently fully extended to meet ongoing operational demands, I will endeavour to provide any additional information she seeks. The honourable senator currently has a number of questions on notice concerning specific leases arranged by my Department and the answers are tabled herewith. Senator Gareth Evans —On 13 September 1985 (Hansard, page 530), Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me, as Minister representing the Attorney-General, the following question without notice: I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General which follows the questions raised earlier by Senator Reynolds and Senator Chaney. I ask Senator Gareth Evans whether he is aware of the statement of the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, that the Family Law Act should be amended to require the Family Court to ignore social security benefits in determining maintenance. If he is aware of that statement, does he not agree that the point of it is that the Government has in prospect the setting of maintenance, rather than the collection of maintenance, which was the matter being discussed in the other answers this morning? If the Government proposes the amendment of the Family Law Act and the setting of maintenance by the Court, will the Government allow its members a free vote on any provision in the Family Law Act, as was the case when that provision was inserted in the Murphy Bill? The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 12 September 1985 my colleague the Minister for Social Security indicated in an address to the Australian Council of Social Services his view that the provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 allowing a court, in awarding maintenance, to consider the availability of social security benefits, were in need of review. This issue does, as the honourable senator points out, relate specifically to the setting of the amount of maintenance to be paid rather than to the collection of maintenance. I should point out, however, that the effectiveness of collection does have an impact on the size of the order that courts will be prepared to award. As the Senate was informed on 20 February 1986 (Senate Hansard, p. 723) in debate on a related issue the Government considers that there is a need to clarify the wording of the Family Law Act to ensure the proper interpretation of the relevant provision of the Act, and proposes to do this when the Act is next substantively amended. The question of a free vote is one which will need to be determined in the appropriate way when the amendment is presented. (Question No. 829) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 43. (2) Aboriginal Development Commission; Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies; Aboriginal Land Commissioners; Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account Advisory Committee; Northern Land Council; Central Land Council; Tiwi Land Council; Alyawarra Aboriginal Land Trust; Angarapa Aboriginal Land Trust; Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust; Amoonguna Aboriginal Land Trust; Beswick Aboriginal Land Trust; Central Desert Aboriginal Land Trust; Daguragu Aboriginal Land Trust; Daly River/Port Keats Aboriginal Land Trust; Delissaville/Wagait/Larrakia Aboriginal Land Trust; Haasts Bluff Aboriginal Land Trust; Hooker Creek Aboriginal Land Trust; Iwupataka Aboriginal Land Trust; Jabiluka Aboriginal Land Trust; Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust; Katiti Aboriginal Land Trust; Karlantijpa South Aboriginal Land Trust; Karlantijpa North Aboriginal Land Trust; Lake Mackay Aboriginal Land Trust; Ltalaltuma Aboriginal Land Trust; Marra Aboriginal Land Trust; Narwinbi Aboriginal Land Trust; Ntaria Aboriginal Land Trust; Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust; Rodna Aboriginal Land Trust; Roulpmaulpma Aboriginal Land Trust; Santa Teresa Aboriginal Land Trust; Tiwi Aboriginal Land Trust; Uluru-Katatjuta Aboriginal Land Trust; Uruna Aboriginal Land Trust; Waanyi/Garawa Aboriginal Land Trust; Warrabri Aboriginal Land Trust; Wirliyajarrayi Aboriginal Land Trust; Wurralibi Aboriginal Land Trust; Yingawunarri/Mudbura Aboriginal Land Trust; Yuendumu Aboriginal Land Trust; Yunkanjini Aboriginal Land Trust. (3) The general public may use the review procedures available under what is commonly called Administrative Law package save that the Aboriginal Land Councils and Land Trusts are exempt agencies for the purposes of schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. (4) All the authorities listed above except for the Aboriginal Land Commissioners and the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account Advisory Committee are bodies corporate and may be sued in their corporate names. The Attorney-General's Department has advised that, unless an authority is statutorily protected, it is liable for the torts of its servants committed in the course of their duty. Where employees, acting in the course of their duty are incompetent and, as a consequence, loss is suffered by a member of the public, it will commonly be found that the act or omission which was seen as incompetent was also tortious. For example, incompetent driving would probably be tortious. In the absence of a denial of liability the negligent giving of erroneous advice is tortious where the advice is given by a person having a duty of care to one who suffers foreseeable damage as a result of reasonably relying on that advice. Many other forms of incompetence would also be tortious, but each case would need to be considered on its own facts. None of the authorities listed in answer to part (1) of this question is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. (5) Three concerning the Aboriginal Development Commission. The delay between listing and hearing is approximately three months. (6) The Aboriginal Land Commissioners are given the same protection and immunity as Justices of the High Court in the exercise of their functions as is appropriate to the quasi-judicial nature of their function under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account Advisory Committee is an unincorporated body which exists solely to advise the Minister in connection with making payments out of the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account. (Question No. 977) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) When did the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs become aware that the Central Zone Remote Commercial Television Service had been proposed as an Aboriginal Bicentennial project? (2) When did the Minister become aware that the Australian Bicentennial Authority was prepared to support this project? (3) What level of support was being offered? (4) What role does the Minister have in the selection or approval of Aboriginal Bicentennial projects? (5) Have there been delays in the processing of Aboriginal Bicentennial project submissions as a result of the administrative procedures used in either the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or the Australian Bicentennial Authority? Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs met with representatives of the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association on 30 September 1985 to discuss their application for the Central Zone Remote Commercial Television Service licence. Information provided at that meeting indicated that CAAMA had approached the Australian Bicentennial Authority for funds to assist in establishing a commercial television service in central Australia as a Bicentennial project. (2) The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs met with Mr J. Kirk, Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority on 20 February 1986. At this meeting Mr Kirk informed the Minister of recommendations made by the National Aboriginal and Islander Program Assessment Panel on Bicentennial funding for Aboriginal and Islander projects. An application from Imparja Television Pty Ltd was among those considered by the Panel. (3) Imparja Television requested a grant of $2.5 million. (4) The Australian Bicentennial Authority invites comments and advice from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on Aboriginal and Islander proposals put before it by its Aboriginal and Islander Assessment Panel. (5) Decisions on Aboriginal and Islander proposals are for the Authority itself. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs provides advice and comments to the Authority to assist it in making its decisions. The Minister is not aware of any delays caused by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the processing of Aboriginal projects put to the Bicentennial Authority for funding. Senator Grimes —On 16 October 1985 (Hansard, page 1322 and 1323), Senator Townley asked Senator Ryan, as Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Is it true that jobless New Zealand immigrants cost Australia some $64m per annum in unemployment benefit payments; is it true that the unemployment rate for New Zealand immigrants in Australia is almost twice as high as the rate for the rest of the community; when will the Government recognise that Australia can no longer afford to accept New Zealand's unemployed and apply to New Zealanders the same immigration restrictions as apply to citizens of other countries and how much is being received by Australians in New Zealand by way of unemployment benefits? On 12 February 1986 (Hansard, page 178), Senator Townley asked me as the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs if, in view of the large number of people coming to Australia from New Zealand, many of whom immediately receive unemployment benefits, the Government intends to continue with its open door policy with New Zealand. If it does, he asked if statistics could be made available on the number of New Zealanders who have come to Australia over the past five years, the number who have received unemployment benefits and the cost to the Australian taxpayer of those benefits. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senators' questions: Since 1920 there has been an Arrangement between the Governments of Australia and New Zealand to facilitate the movement of both Australian and New Zealand citizens to and from each other's country. The Arrangement reflects the close historical, cultural and trade links between the two countries. The Arrangement is supported by all major political parties. Shortly after coming into office the Hawke Government reviewed the Arrangement. Taking everything into consideration, including the recently signed closer Economic Relations Agreement, it was decided it was in the interests of both countries to maintain the Arrangement. At the same time the Government decided to keep the Arrangement under review. At June 1984 the number of New Zealand-born residents of Australia was 183,000. The movement of New Zealand citizens across the Tasman under the Arrangement over the past five financial years is set out below. The statistics are derived from the stated intentions on passenger cards that permanent or long term arrival or departure is proposed. PERMANENT OR LONG TERM MOVEMENT TO OR FROM AUSTRALIA OF NEW ZEALAND CITIZENS UNDER THE TRANS TASMAN ARRANGEMENT Arrivals Departures Net Gain 1980-81... 32,573 10,009 12,564 1981-82... 23,500 11,466 12,034 1982-83... 14,305 13,457 848 1983-84... 11,711 11,623 88 1984-85... 19,229 8,729 10,500 Source: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Minister for Social Security has advised that the latest figure on the number of unemployment beneficiaries in Australia who were born in New Zealand was 11,035 at November 1985 and that the estimated annual liability for these benefits was $60m. The Minister for Social Security has further advised that the cost of payments to Australian-born unemployment beneficiaries in New Zealand is not available. In December 1985 the unemployment rate of New Zealanders was 8.9 per cent, compared to 7.7 per cent Australian-born and 8.5 per cent overseas-born. (Source-Australian Bureau of Statistics Bulletin, ``The Labour Force, Australia'', December 1985)