Thursday, 1 May 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 the Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Senator Messner (from 14 citizens). To the Hon. President and members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap may be terminated by either Government on one year's notice from 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated one year from October 1986. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled: The Petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of:- 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McKiernan (from 11 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 distributers 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 distributers and retailers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 65 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 Senator Knowles (from 16 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent upon the President proceeding to the placing of business on Monday, 5 May 1986, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Chipp moving a motion to give precedence over all other business to the following motion: That the Senate notes- (a) the implications to life and the planet of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in the Soviet Union; (b) the possible contribution to this disaster by Australia in exporting uranium; (c) the possibility that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe; Senator Michael Baume-To Russia? Senator CHIPP —I know the honourable senator would much prefer to debate Mr Groux and trivia like that. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator continue with his notice of motion. Senator CHIPP —I was interjected upon, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Please ignore the interjection. Senator CHIPP —I do not seek your protection, Mr President; I would prefer to protect myself. The PRESIDENT —I am trying to protect the Senate, Senator. Senator CHIPP —My notice of motion continues: (d) the possible eventual danger to Australia in the event of any disasters; and (e) the need to close all uranium mines in Australia. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the irresponsible action of the Soviet authorities for not informing neighbouring countries of the massive disaster at Chernobyl immediately it took place, thereby placing many thousands of people at risk; and (b) calls upon the Federal Government to make an official complaint to the Soviet authorities. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the warning by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia (Mr R. Johnston) on 30 April 1986, that `large current account deficits may be with us for some time', that, as a result, `monetary policy may be called on to play a greater role than I consider to be desirable', and that the overall stance of economic policy would have to be tightened if the expected improvement in the current account was further delayed; (b) recognises that this is a clear warning to the Federal Government that it is relying too much on a policy of high interest rates and that it should switch to greater emphasis on fiscal policy, particularly a large cut in Government spending, and on wages policy, clearly involving a reduction in the excessive increases in labour costs under the Government's Accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions; and (c) calls on the Government to act on these warnings by the Governor of the Reserve Bank about the inappropriate nature of the Government's present economic policies, by introducing a mini-budget immediately aimed at cutting Government spending, reducing the disastrous and record level of inflation relative to our trading partners and reducing the excessive level of interest rates that result from its over-reliance on monetary policy and its refusal to take serious steps to hold down Government spending and labour costs. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —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. Young Australia - Part A Background to Reform-Part B Priority One in progress-reports 2. Outlook for the Aviation Industry-an information paper. 3. Canberra Commercial Development Authority-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 24 of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority Ordinance 1974. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. [COGNATE ORDERS: PRESCRIBED GOODS (GENERAL) ORDERS: 111A] Motion for Disallowance Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.08) —I 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. As I have indicated in previous debates-I have debated this matter previously with many other honourable senators-this matter has become affectionately known as the Mudginberri debate, and the orders have become known as the Mudginberri regulations. In other words, the Government has brought in regulations to get around the fact that it was sorely bruised in the Mudginberri dispute and that the Federal Court of Australia has since ruled that the Minister for Primary Industry has an obligation, not a discretion, to provide export services where that is necessary for our export products, in this case meat, to be inspected and have a certificate before being exported. The motion that I have moved and the one I am yet to move will disallow Prescribed Goods (General) Orders 100c, 100d and 111a. Order 100c is so-called staff safety provision, 100d is the cooling-off and negotiating period provision, and 111a is an all embracing cop-out for the Minister, a rewrite of the old national interest provision. When this matter was debated before and the motions for disallowance were moved, I postponed the debate so that negotiations could take place between the industry and the Government. Those negotiations have taken place and the industry is not satisfied with the result. We in the Opposition are but reacting to the industry concerns about the rewriting of these regulations. In other words, the words have been changed but the Minister still has plenty of opportunities to cop out, to use discretionary power, and sees himself under no obligation to provide those very necessary services. The Order 100C which concerns staff safety, is, I suppose, a real cop-out. In other words, the Government is saying that it has no faith in the rule of law in this country. I understand as well as anybody else, and probably more than a lot of other people, what potential violence can mean in a situation such as the Mudginberri situation. However, having said that, one can understand that if this regulation were allowed to stand there would be greater potential for violence because we would see the heat of an industrial dispute rise astronomically. People should realise that if that happened and the whole situation degenerated into violence, the Minister would have an immediate cop-out. We do not agree with 100C; that is one of the regulations we are moving for disallowance. As I said, there is all the protection in the world, under civil law, for people in the case of violence in such a situation. The police are available, but I suggest that on occasions such as this the Government seems reluctant to bring in the police. In this particular incident we had picketers breaching all the Government's own regulations and camping in Kakadu National Park. Nobody else would be allowed to do that. No one else would be allowed to camp there, breaking down the flora in the area. Any other person would have been arrested and removed straight away. Yet there was a reluctance right from the start by this Government to use the police to remove the picketers and so allow the meat inspectors to get on with the job. As I have indicated, 100D is concerned with a cooling off or negotiating period. Honourable senators can imagine that if that regulation were allowed to stand the cooling off could take a considerable time-I suppose any time that the Minister may wish. In the meantime a meat works could be going broke, men could be laid off, and our meat not exported, with the result that other countries would pick up those export markets. Order 111A is a rewrite of the old national interest provision, which really is the ultimate cop-out. Under that order the Minister could use almost any excuse not to provide the very necessary meat inspection services which are essential before our products can be exported and accepted by other countries. So for that reason, and for all the other reasons I have indicated in past debates, the Opposition is not in agreement with the regulations that have been brought in. We allowed time for consultation. That consultation has taken place and the industry is not happy. The industry has indicated to us and, I believe, to the Australian Democrats that it is not happy with these provisions. The industry believes that there is an obligation-the Federal Court has indicated that there is an obligation-not a discretion to provide these services. I would have thought that in a time of the massive current account deficits that this Government is facing it would be doing everything possible to enable exporters to export, so putting us in a more favourable position. I would have thought that a government so founded on and so governed by the union movement would have embraced an opportunity for management and workers to sit down and talk, as happened in Mudginberri, look at their situation and decide on work conditions. Workers could be paid a good wage based on their productivity and at the same time the owner of the meatworks could make a reasonable profit. Thus both the owner and the workers would enjoy the benefits of such an arrangement. I would have thought that a government with the history of this Government, based as it is on the trade union movement, would have embraced that course without equivocation. Yet, the old diehards in the union movement could see that their power would be broken and more power would go back to the people on the work floor. They could not abide by such an outcome. So the Government has once again bowed to the wishes of the union leadership and has not taken into consideration one little bit the feelings of the people on the work floor. For all those reasons I have moved the first motion standing in my name. The motion will be debated cognately and I will move my second motion at a later time. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.16) —In this motion for disallowance we are really debating the double standards of this Government. Through these regulations the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is proposing to change his responsibilities for providing meat inspectors to an export meat firm which may be experiencing difficulties because of industrial action. There are two new sets of regulations before the Senate. One makes minor changes to the Export Meat Order No. 448 whereby the application for the services of meat inspectors is no longer made directly to the regional office but now to the Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry. This may seem to be a small change but it is significant in the light of other regulation changes which are more disturbing. The other change adds two new orders. Order 100a is entitled `handling of applications'. It is worth noting exactly what it says. The Order reads: The Secretary may, in determining whether to make the services of an authorized officer available, being services referred to in an application made by the occupier of a registered establishment under orders, have regard to- (a) the availability of authorized officers for performing services at the place and time described in the application; (b) such other considerations consistent with good management practices as he thinks fit, including the welfare and safety of authorized officers; and (c) the general interests of the agricultural and fisheries export industries. Honourable senators will see that the first change is not insignificant since, under the new arrangements, applications for meat inspectors will not go direct to the regional office but to the Secretary to the Department. Of course, that means centralisation of authority. That centralised authority now has a discretion-an option-whether to provide meat inspectors or other officers as required or not to supply them as the Secretary thinks fit. These powers are wide and vague enough for any excuse to be found for not sending the requested officers. There is a similar new additional discretion for the Minister for Primary Industry in new Order 111a, entitled `Directions by Minister', which reads: Notwithstanding anything provided in orders, where the Minister considers that it is desirable, taking into account the national interest, that a decision which may be made by the Secretary under orders is made in a particular manner, so as to achieve a particular result, the Minister may direct the Secretary to make that decision in that manner or in such manner as will achieve that result. What do these new regulations mean? They mean that the Minister may override courts of law, such as the Federal Court of Australia, by saying that he is not obliged to provide officers when requested because he is `taking into account the national interest'. They provide him with a perfect cop-out to make deals with trade unions and to preserve the disastrous accord. How did the need for these regulations arise? Of course, we all know of the Mudginberri dispute, a dispute at a small abattoir in the Northern Territory. We know that the workers were very happy about a system of payment based on productivity rather than the antique and costly tally system which is used elsewhere and which has forced many abattoirs to close. We also know that their union, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, objected to this satisfactory scheme, expelled the Mudginberri workers from the union and set up a series of pickets which were ruled illegal by the Federal Court but which brought the work of the abattoir to a halt because the meat inspectors refused to cross the picket lines. We know that the Minister for Primary Industry ordered the meat inspectors of his own Department on four occasions to cross the picket line and to carry out meat inspections at Mudginberri. The inspectors refused. There was a simple solution for the Minister under the circumstances to circumvent loss of meat export sales from Mudginberri. A request went to the regional office of meat inspectors. This request was passed on to the Minister to authorise and license Northern Territory meat inspectors to act as inspectors for the Commonwealth. This could have been done immediately to allow for the export of Mudginberri meat. But the Minister refused to license new meat inspectors and the result was a lost contract to export meat to Taiwan at a value of $2.5m and a loss of other contracts as well. Mudginberri is a relatively small concern, with export contracts valued at $5m a year. But the abattoir has been successful and efficient in bringing down the costs of cattle handling from $140 a head to about $40 a head through its system of productivity payments instead of tally payments. On 19 December, the Federal Court of Australia ruled: We are of the opinion that there was no discretion, but a duty to provide inspectors, and that the applications for inspectors made on behalf of Mudginberri should have been considered on that basis. I recommend the reading of the judgment of the Federal Court to all honourable senators. It makes very interesting reading and is available in the Library. We can now see the reasons for these new regulations. The Minister does not want to be in a position where he is obliged to provide meat inspectors on request; he wants to keep in sweet with the unions; he needs discretionary powers so that he can abrogate his responsibilities in the name of the national interest. The trouble with these regulations is that they are likely to have far-reaching and disturbing effects. They create a dangerous precedent. If the Minister can change the regulations so that he no longer has a duty to provide services, why cannot all other Ministers follow suit? When will we see regulations which will allow another Minister a discretion rather than an obligation to send the police across a picket line? Will another Minister have a discretion, not a duty, to send in fire-fighters? It is simply another example of the Government abrogating its responsibilities in order to kowtow to union pressures. The Mudginberri dispute was a classic example of trade union action against efficiency and cost control. Remember, the cost of cattle handling under this system, which is thoroughly liked by the workers concerned, was cut from $140 per head to $40. This dispute has cost Mudginberri and its workers and has also cost the community in lost sales overseas. If these regulations are passed, they will allow a Minister to sidestep his responsibilities-and this at a time when we have to borrow $1,000m a month in order to support our current standard of living. This is a step away from economic efficiency. If the AMIEU had known that the Minister would honour his responsibilities and was certain to provide meat inspectors, the union would not have bothered to picket Mudginberri in the first place. These new discretionary powers available to the Minister will encourage more and more illegal pickets, with disastrous results to our meat export trade, which for beef and veal is worth at least $1.1 billion a year or 4.5 per cent of our total exports. If we allow these new regulations to go through, the unions will be set on the road to destroying this important export trade. It is urgent that unions be brought back and kept under the rule of law. These regulations, if passed, will enable the Minister to manipulate the law in the name of discretion. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.25) —The Opposition's disallowance motion refers to Prescribed Goods (General) Orders 100C and 100D, and in this cognate debate we are also considering 111A.1 and 111A.2. It is interesting in this debate that two things seem to have been overlooked. The first, is that the export orders we are dealing with cover all inspection processes. They do not look at meat in particular but at meat, grain, eggs, dried fruit and a whole range of matters. The second, is the very easy way in which, in any political debate, ill-will and bad motives can be directed to anybody who happens to hold an opposing view. That is a pity, I think, because what we are attempting to do here is to look at something with regard to the provision of a service to export industries. What we ought to be trying to do is make sure that what is in place in terms of regulations is what we feel is most appropriate for the export orders and for the economy, taking into consideration a number of subsidiary matters with regard to the staff who have to fulfil that particular essential service. I do not think it is all that useful to throw around accusations as Senator Hamer did, as they do not seem to me to go to the matters in hand. I look first of all at 111A and 111B. The problem with these orders stems essentially from the notion of the national interest. I must admit that I found it very difficult to conceive of situations where one might, in fact, perceive the national interest to be so involved. I suppose, if one worked hard at it, one could come up with some but we are, after all, talking not in the area of defence or security where one may wish to take actions, but rather in the area of the provision of a technical essential service where in the so-called national interest we are not going to take actions. I admit that the operation by omission in terms of the national interest must be seen to be a very small area and one, I think, that one would be hard pressed to come up with. The various propositions that one would want to refer to would refer to the possibility of widening industrial disputes and the possibility that the removal of these inspectors may be seen as a method of not provoking further industrial disputes in other parts of Australia which might be more damaging to the economy than the original one. That is probably the area that we are looking at. If that is the case, I find difficulty with the notion of having this in subordinate legislation. I know that the Government has said in its explanatory statement in regard to these orders that it is not unusual for a Minister to have such power. Indeed, if one looks at that in a broad sense, that may very well be true. In fact, early this morning I found three Acts made by the Fraser Government which have almost identical propositions in them, but those powers are in the Acts themselves. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) might be able to come up with something better than the Department of Primary Industry came up with last time. He will know that none of the items raised in the last debate referred to this particular operation we are talking about here. I have not been able to find where these types of regulations have been provided for in subordinate legislation. There is an important point in that regard. If there are no new items other than the ones that were rehearsed during the last debate, I do not believe that it is an appropriate course in subordinate legislation to engage in an activity of giving a Minister such wide-ranging discretions as are contained in these particular regulations. I think it is much more an item for substantive legislation than for regulation because the way it is worded, indeed, is quite wide. It is worded such that, where the Minister considers that it is desirable, taking into account the national interest, that a decision which may be made by the Secretary under the orders is made in a particular manner, so as to achieve a particular result, then following consultation, the Minister may direct the Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry to make such a decision. In other words, the hinge point is that the Minister is merely required to consult. That is a relatively simple matter. He does not have to take into account the consultation in any shape or form. Having engaged in that consultation and having taken into account the national interest, which, of course, he is able to discount, essentially the Minister will do something that he considers to be desirable. So this is a very wide-ranging provision. I believe that it ought to be debated as part of substantive legislation and certainly not as part of delegated legislation. I return to orders 100C and 100D in which we are confronted with two other different propositions. For the sake of completeness, it is important to mention that the Government has divided this division up. Order 100A deals with the availability of staff which is certainly acceptable to everybody. Order 100B deals with occupational health or safety, and that is also acceptable to everybody. Essentially, those two orders overcome the problem that is involved in a very rigorous interpretation of the Federal Court's decision with regard to the requirement to provide inspectors unless it is impossible to do so. Orders 100A and 100B avoid that situation. They also avoid placing a significant impost on the industry. It is probably for that reason, if for no other reason, that the industry is also very happy with 100A and 100B. If the rigorous interpretation of the Federal Court decision with regard to that impossibility ruling were to be carried out, undoubtedly a significantly large number of inspectors would have to be provided to achieve the 50 per cent recovery rate required as a matter of policy and that would add significantly-possibly between $1m and $2m-to the industry's bill. I return to orders 100C and 100D. Order 100D really gives quite a wide discretion. The comments I made previously on order 111 can be applied in part to 100D. However, I find that 100C is the most difficult order. This relates to the protection of officers from violence. That is a situation that we have to look at seriously. We have to take into account the protection of officers and their families. Undoubtedly, in these types of industrial disputes, tempers would run pretty high and one would find that the notions of physical violence and intimidation, although not necessarily an acceptable part of those industrial disputes, are certainly an understandable part of them. When people's livelihoods are on the line tempers undoubtedly run high. We have to be very careful with regard to the disallowance of 100C. I have endeavoured to look at 100c from the point of view of how it will be made operational and what other protections are available for officers and their families from any risk of physical violence or of intimidation. I say again that the wording is widely put. For example, the word `intimidation' is one which presumably could have an enormous range. The definition surely must cover psychological intimidation. If it does not there would not be much protection for families from threatening phone calls. Looking at the question of psychological intimidation, probably the favourite word in any dispute is `scab'. Presumably it is not illegal to call anyone a scab; at least I am not aware that it is illegal. However, it does indicate an attitude on the part of trade unionists to the people that are said to be scabbing. The use of that term indicates subsequent retribution with regard to employment practices and the way that the unionists react to those people on the job. Thus, it could be seen as a fairly tough word and its use might be said to be intimidation. If the word is read in that way and if I have not stretched the point too far, presumably the secretary would know that on any picket line the word `scab' will be used of anyone who is trying to cross that picket line and hence he would be able, because of the risk of that word being used, to withdraw services. In almost any case where there is a picket line, the secretary would be entitled to withdraw those services. It is in that wide reading that we find a great deal of concern in the industry. Let us look at the legal situation in relation to the first part-the threat or the risk of physical violence. Undoubtedly an officer would not be considered to be acting improperly if he did not attend work in the face of physical violence. I cite the case of a bank clerk who hands over someone else's money when he is confronted by a gun. In those circumstances that bank clerk would not be considered to be thieving and no court would ever convict him. In other words, it is surely not contained within the contract of any inspector that he must submit himself to physical violence. In those circumstances, it does not seem to me that we need anything other than the protection of the common law and the other statutes relating to grievous bodily harm or inflicting bodily harm. There is a panoply of laws already in place for the protection of people. It is also a requirement of the police force that if a risk of physical violence is there-and I remind honourable senators that with regard to this particular regulation advice must be sought from police officers-it follows that the police have an obligation to protect. Hence if they have an obligation to protect, we do not need the regulation. The police are already under an obligation to carry out that protection. If the police are not present at the site then presumably they do not consider that there is a risk of physical violence. If they thought there would be physical violence, they would be there. In almost every conceivable circumstance of the picket line example, we would be confronted with a situation in which either there were obligations on the police to provide protection or there was no obligation on the part of the inspector to submit himself to physical violence. Hence an inspector would be excused from engaging in that activity. In support of the contention I put forward, I refer to the Commonwealth's application for leave to appeal in relation to the Federal Court judgment we have already heard about today. In the discussion of that, Chief Justice Gibbs commented about violence. His comments seem to support the type of proposition I have just put. The Commonwealth Government's legal representative put the proposition that would have meant that the Commonwealth Government had a responsibility to provide a service in a situation where violence was threatened. Essentially that is rehearsed in order 100C-that is, the regulation itself. In other words, Chief Justice Gibbs could almost have been commenting on 100C when he said: The Commonwealth would in such a situation be bound to protect the inspectors in the course of their duties. In other words, the Commonwealth has an obligation to protect inspectors from risks of violence. He further commented that to do otherwise would be to suggest that the Commonwealth Government should bow to any act of lawlessness that happens to affect it. Those two comments are well taken. Firstly, the Commonwealth already has an obligation and hence does not require 100C. Secondly, to include 100C seems to suggest that the Commonwealth should bow in the face of lawlessness-which I do not believe this Government or any other government would wish to espouse. With regard to that aspect, I merely refer to the Government's very strong and commendable action against the lawlessness exhibited by the Builders Labourers Federation, and the willingness of this Government to adopt unpalatable solutions with regard to that union. This Commonwealth Government already has, within the last couple of weeks, made a very strong stand against lawlessness on the part of unions, and I would have thought, then, that it is in complete agreement with the proposition put by Chief Justice Gibbs in his refusing to allow that appeal to go ahead. For those reasons, I believe that to disallow 100C is a responsible course to take. The breadth of 100C would go almost to the point of allowing anything to occur and allowing that essential service to be withdrawn under almost any imaginable circumstances that would arise in an industrial dispute. Hence the Australian Democrats, on the basis of those propositions, would accept the Opposition's motion for disallowance of 100C, 100D and 111. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.42) —I rise to support Senator Collard, who moved on behalf of the Opposition the disallowance of two orders before the Senate. At the outset I declare that I have a financial interest in the export of beef, but my interest is minor and insignificant compared to the national interest here. As Senator Hamer said, the meat and veal trade for Australia is worth $1.5 billion a year and provides 4.5 per cent of our exports. At a time when we have a huge balance of payments problem and a huge overseas debt, every cent we can earn from exports is vitally important. The ability to earn money from primary products, which make up nearly 40 per cent of our exports, gets less day by day. Part of that is due to the fact that countries that formerly could not produce food from their own resources can now do so, but part of it is due to the negligence and the incompetence of this Government. We can see that very clearly in the meat markets, in the way that we lost the market in Korea and in our diminishing share of the Japan market; and various other export markets which have not been maintained, and certainly not developed by the present Government. We have to be a reliable supplier to maintain these markets. That turns on the quality of the product we are providing and reliability with respect to time. If we have a contract, we have to meet it. Part of being a reliable supplier also turns on having an inspection service so that we can guarantee the quality of the beef that we are exporting. The inspection services are provided, under a monopoly, by the Commonwealth Government. If we have a monopoly, we have certain obligations and responsibilities-and this Government failed to recognise and honour these at the time of the Mudginberri dispute. We had the Full Federal Court of Australia pulling the Government up and making it recognise that it had a obligation, since it had the monopoly service with respect to meat inspection, as a sequel to Mudginberri. This morning, the Opposition is trying to make the Government face up to those responsibilities and to honour them. In the light of the Full Court decision the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) brought out some orders which in effect allowed him to decide when those services of meat inspection were provided. They came broadly in two parts. They provided a loophole for the Minister to act and a loophole for the Secretary to the Department to act. Basically, those grounds were that if the unions did not like what was going on, the Minister could withdraw the service. Quite properly, the Senate rejected those orders. The sequel to that has been the provision of a new set of orders. I do not propose to go through them. Previous speakers in the debate have done so. Essentially we are back to the position we were in before. We have a Minister who defines the national interest and makes a great spiel about it. But basically when the Minister talks of the national interest he is talking about the union interest. The union interest simply is not the national interest. The Minister makes quite a thing about the safety of his officers. That is a very proper concern for a Minister. But the proper approach is to remove the cause, the threat to the safety of the officers. We have long passed the time in our society when people could physically intimidate and use physical violence against other members of the community. After all, the Senate is involved in the longest debate we have had since Federation on human rights. Surely, if we have a concern for human rights, it follows that we can settle differences between various sections of the community without resort to physical violence and intimidation. If the Minister is concerned about the safety of his meat inspectors, the correct thing for him to do is to ensure that the police force removes the bully boys of the union movement from the picket line. Section 45d of the Trade Practices Act prevents secondary boycotts. But if the Minister goes outside into the Australian community he will learn that outside the union movement, the Australian community does not accept the right of unions to impose a primary boycott. Let me put that in simple terms. If the unions want to go on strike, that is fine. No one minds people joining unions. That is one of their basic entitlements in this society. But we have reached a stage in Australia today where, if people do not want to work and others do, there is no longer community support for the right of a primary boycott-the picket line of unionists who stand on the footpath and deny access to other people who wish to go into a place either to take their place in the work force or to deliver goods and services to that industry. It will take a very long while for a Labor Government to recognise that point but it happens to be a fact in the community in which we live today. The practical application of it is that, if the Minister has a problem of safety with his inspectors, he puts in the police force and gets rid of the troublemakers. The unions do not have the right to live beyond the law. I cannot physically assault Senator Grimes with impunity even though he does not agree with me. Precisely the same argument applies to people in the industrial field. If they do not get on they do not have a right to intimidate or stand over others. We have to grow up and take this point to its practical conclusion. The Opposition is quite opposed to these orders. They reflect a lack of moral integrity on the part of the Minister in that he will not face up to his obligations and see that this essential service for Australia, which must be provided if we are to maintain our meat markets, is maintained for the national interest. Senator PARER(Queensland)(10.48) —I support the motion of disallowance moved by Senator Collard. By way of background, the Federal Court of Australia held in the Mudginberri dispute that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) did not fulfil his ministerial obligations to provide meat inspectors. By not acting, he was aiding and abetting militant officials of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in an effort to destroy the jobs of people who had made a legitimate arrangement with the operator of a particular abattoir. That arrangement guaranteed higher productivity and higher wages to the men employed there. The problem for the AMIEU was that it saw that arrangement as the breakdown of an out of date tally system which, if allowed to occur, would flow on to other abattoirs and affect the latter day Luddite approach of too many radical union officials in this country. Senator Robertson —That should go down in history, that one! Senator PARER —Unfortunately we are not talking about history; we are talking about the present. Under new order 100c, one of the orders to which we are opposed, the Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry, in determining whether to make an inspection service available, may have regard to the need to protect staff members and their families from violence which may result from being directed to attend a place for inspection duties. As this has already been canvassed by my colleagues, I will not go into it in a lot of detail, except to say that I find it appalling that a person cannot go about his normal duties without the protection of the law which every other person in society expects. As we know, the trade union movement in this country has the attitude that it is above the law, that it does not have to fit within the law, that it can do things others cannot do. The other order to which we are opposed, order 100d, entitles the Secretary to make a temporary determination, in effect, without withholding services for a fixed period to facilitate the early resolution of an industrial dispute. This is very blatant. All it means is that the order will enable the forced capitulation of an operator. There is no other reason for the existence of that order. Order 111a empowers the Minister to direct the Secretary to make decisions in what he calls the national interest. Again, there is only one purpose in that; that is, to stop the flow on of productivity improvements to the rest of the industry. As Senator Macklin has outlined, any reason can be given for relying on the national interest to withhold the provision of meat inspectors. All in all, I have felt that the reintroduction of these orders was not fair dinkum; that if the Minister for Primary Industry was acting in the interests of the industry and looking towards improving our productivity and our balance of payments, he would have directed these orders to one or two areas. One would have been-I can understand this-the inability of the Department to perform because of, say, a frivolous request. For instance, it would be foolish for an operator to ask for 100 meat inspectors and so on. That point could easily have been covered. The other point I think would have been better covered by a type of force majeure provision. For example, if meat inspectors were called to a particular site and were unable to get there because of a flooded creek or other reason, that would be perfectly understandable, but a simple force majeure provision would have covered it entirely. Finally, it appears that the time has come for meat inspections to be carried out by National Association of Testing Authorities-approved private sector inspection groups, as is the case with other export commodities throughout Australia. These work very well. They are in competition with one another. If a person does not show up or does not perform, the solution is very simple: The other bloke is called in. I therefore support Senator Collard's motion. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.53) —I cannot see any mention of Mudginberri or of any other particular issue in the terms of these orders. Senator Collard —Well done. Senator COONEY —If Senator Collard can point it out to me there will be a free meal for tonight over the most pleasant bottle of wine. Order 100c states: 100c. The Secretary may determine whether to make the services of an authorized officer available, being services referred to in an application made by the occupier of a registered establishment under orders, and may, in making that determination, have regard to the desirability of protecting each authorized officer and members of his or her family from the risk of physical assault. Those who oppose this order say: `No, we are not going to give that protection to the officer or to the children. We refuse to give that protection under this order'. That will be the effect of disallowing-- Senator Withers —You are not talking to a Richmond jury. Senator COONEY —That is all right. I have given that away. It used to be South Melbourne until it was purloined by Dr Edelsten. Senator Macklin says that the Minister for Primary Industry ought to send the police to the establishment in question. With great respect to Senator Macklin, that is the most unusual proposition I have heard for a long while. It is a unique proposition that a Federal Minister or a Federal secretary can direct State police and it is a unique proposition that a Minister of a State can direct the police. The police force is an independent body paid by the State, by the taxpayers. Some might say that that is an area in which we could make some savings. Senator Withers —Is that true in New South Wales? Senator COONEY —It is absolutely true. Ministers cannot direct the police as to what to do. Senator Macklin —I did not say they could. Senator COONEY —Senator Macklin has said: `I will deny this protection to these people because the police ought to do something'. Why should the police do something? Senator Macklin says that the police ought to do it because the Minister says so. The fact of the matter is that there is no obligation on the police to go to an establishment where violence is threatened. In fact, there is no obligation on the police to move unless they have knowledge of an offence that has been committed. Senator Macklin —There is an obligation. Senator COONEY —There is no obligation for the police to attend. Senator Macklin is wrong about that, with the greatest respect. Senator Robertson —Don't forget he comes from Queensland. Senator COONEY —I suppose so. I thank Senator Robertson. All I can say is that in regard to any normal State, any other State, Senator Macklin's analysis is absolutely wrong. He is now proposing to deny these people the protection that would otherwise be available to them. Well, that is a decision that Senator Macklin has made. Order 100d.1 states: The Secretary may make a temporary determination not to make the services of an authorised officer available, being services referred to in an application made by the occupier of a registered establishment under orders, if the Secretary believes that such a course will lead to the early resolution of an industrial dispute . . . What has now been said here is: `We do not want an end to a dispute, no matter what industry it is in. We do not desire to end the dispute if it means holding off these officers for a period'. Senator Macklin says: `No, let us be gung ho about this. Let us enter the valley of death. Let us charge, come what may'. It is heady stuff, and Rudyard Kipling would no doubt be more than impressed with that approach, but whether it is good for this country to be led down this path is very much another matter. It may or may not be a responsible course when we consider that if a dispute is in the process of being resolved, if it is about to have a proper resolution, that resolution will be destroyed, postponed or otherwise affected because this Senate was unable to create a situation whereby people could be held back while the dispute was being settled. Senator Collard —What about the inability at Mudginberri? Senator COONEY —That is the trouble. Senator Parer talked about the Luddites of the past. I remind Senator Collard that we cannot live in Mudginberri forever. Here Senator Collard is saying that, where a dispute can be solved and where an element of settlement of that dispute is the withholding for some period of these inspectors, he will nevertheless not let that be an element in the settlement of the dispute. He is denying that as a part of the mechanics upon which that dispute may be settled. Again, that is real Rambo stuff. Senator Macklin —More Crocodile Dundee, I think. Senator COONEY —I will accept that correction; it is Crocodile Dundee stuff. Senator Brownhill —I cannot see anything here about Crocodile Dundee. Senator COONEY —No; that will no doubt be moved as an amendment later in the proceedings. Order 111a.1 states: Notwithstanding anything provided in orders, where the Minister considers that it is desirable, taking into account the national interest, that a decision which may be made by the Secretary under orders-- Senator Sheil —What is the national interest? Senator COONEY —It continues: . . . following consultation with each relevant industry body, whose views the Minister shall take into account, direct the Secretary to make that decision in that manner or in such manner as to achieve that result. Everybody knows what the national interest is, although it varies in definition from person to person. An honourable senator opposite asked what `the national interest' means. Again, I offer anybody a free meal over a great bottle of wine if at some stage in the very lucid debates in this House that person has not used the term `the national interest'. What it actually means is another matter. If one takes into account the national interest, what has been said by the disallowance of this regulation is that the desire to put people through such a process, to have police lines, to have a very vigorous confrontation, overcomes the desire to take into account the national interest. That is exactly what the regulation means: That those opposite are setting aside considerations of the national interest because they consider, for whatever reason, that it is more appropriate to take the vigorous Rambo style of approach to industrial relations. That is what they are saying. Regulation 111a.2 states: In this order, `relevant industry body', for the purposes of a proposed direction in relation to a matter, means a body which represents, at a national level, the interests of the occupiers of registered establishments which are likely to be affected by decisions. Even though that is taken into account, people cannot bring themselves, in the national interest, to take an approach which may resolve disputes. Those opposite would create a very rigid system which people cannot go outside. Such a rigid system would be very bad, particularly in industrial relations. No doubt that will be debated again and again, but if a rigid system were created in which people were forced into certain positions and were constrained by the most draconic of strait-jackets into such positions, there would not be settlement of disputes. All honourable senators know that. That is the great tragedy. Discretion would have been left. An area would have been created in which people could move, first, to look after the meat inspectors, who, after all, are the people who will take the brunt in this matter, not us. Regulations could have been put forward to protect them. Honourable senators opposite are denying regulations put forward in the national interest to help resolve industrial disputes in the only way that is ultimately possible. The effect of the argument throughout has been that because there was an industrial dispute the resolution of which those opposite believe was achieved in the wrong fashion-rightly or wrongly, but legitimately such points of view can be taken-regulations which have general application throughout the industry are denied. To take that approach simply on the basis of a single incident seems, with great respect, to be fairly short-sighted. It is most unusual, because most honourable senators opposite are very long-sighted and broad in their vision; but this time they have confined themselves too much. That is most regrettable. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(11.04) —I think that Senator Cooney is the third Labor senator to speak in this debate. This is the second time that the matter has been discussed here. Senator Cooney was described here the other day as being an old war-horse that the Australian Labor Party sends in to bat whenever it is on a sticky wicket. He does very well. That last contribution was a most entertaining romp. I can understand how he got involved not only with Rambo but with Crocodile Dundee and the charge of the Light Brigade through the valley of death. I happened to be on the bus that was driving through Kakadu National Park with a group of National Party senators. We were inspecting the Ranger uranium mine. By the way, we had a permit to travel. We came across the Mudginberri picket. It was the most pathetic-looking picket that I have ever seen. It was certainly a desecration of the Kakadu National Park. We immediately took action to report the picketers to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). That was the first time that the whole situation was brought to the knowledge of the Australian public. We were able to warn people of this militant union action that was having such a detrimental effect on their fellow workers, as has happened with so much other union action. Senator Robertson —Fancy you being interested in the workers. That is a laugh. It would not be Pendarvis you are worried about? Senator SHEIL —I am pleased that Senator Robertson is listening. Senator Robertson —But I know something about it; that makes a difference. Senator SHEIL —All right, we will talk about what the honourable senator said, because apart from Senator Button, who replied to Senator Collard in the original debate, Senator Robertson was the only Labor senator who spoke. I think he spoke in the end more in exasperation than anything else. He made a few points. He condemned the Pendarvis family and their behaviour. Senator Robertson —I did nothing of the sort. I did not condemn Pendarvis. Senator SHEIL —The honourable senator did; he condemned the Northern Territory Government for its actions. He said that most honourable senators had read their speeches and were trotting out old union-bashing speeches that they had kept in their bottom drawers. He also condemned the National Party as not being representative of rural interests. Senator Robertson —That is correct, too. I must have made a good speech. Senator SHEIL —I have just had it handed to me. The only substantive point that the honourable senator made was that the regulations had been introduced because of an inadequacy in the legislation found by the court. That is just not so. He said that the Government had taken action. He tried to defend the Government's action in the Mudginberri dispute. He said that four times it had asked its staff to cross the line. It had stopped the pay and allowances of the three officers involved in causing the dispute. Not only that, he defended the union's action very heavily and seemed to blame everyone else and be quite prepared to support the union's disobeying of court orders. Senator Robertson —That is not quite right. Senator SHEIL —I will read from the Senate Hansard, 19 March 1986, page 1228: The decision not to cross the picket line was made not by the Federal Government but by the union involved, the Meat Inspectors Association. It is perfectly proper for members of a union to take a decision in an industrial situation which they believe they ought to take. That is in the face of the court decision telling them to get back to work. The honourable senator used the same quotation as did Senator Button. I will read it from Senator Button's speech as he read it a little better than did Senator Robertson. Senator Button said, as reported on page 1217 of the same Hansard: In making the amendments the Government of course recognises that discretionary powers exist in other Commonwealth legislation where services are provided by government authorities. I do not quite see the relevance of that. He continued: The Federal Court said, without expressing a view one way or the other: `. . . that for practical reasons (it may) be desirable that the duty be . . . qualified; if so it would seem to be a . . . matter for the Minister to make an appropriate order'. So the court has not expressed an opinion and has not ordered the Government to do anything. It just expressed a view. That is all I will say about that. Another point that Senator Robertson made was that the Northern Territory Government had provided $2m to buy the meat from the Pendarvis family and store it in Darwin and some months later-note that, because there would be an enormous cost-supplied it back to Mr Pendarvis for the same money and did not charge him for the cold storage of the meat in Darwin. He seemed to think that that was fair compensation for Mr Pendarvis. He seemed to think also that the Northern Territory Government had operated as a subversive authority in undermining the union's power. After all, in this case the fundamental dispute concerned the undermining of the union's authority to be the sole negotiator for wages. The whole dispute starts from that point. No one could deny that the Pendarvis family lost quite a deal in cash in this dispute, but it has won an enormous victory in other areas. Curiously, about a month or so ago I was in the little town of Biloela, which has a meatworks that was undergoing a strike similar to the Mudginberri one. Once again there was illegal use of pickets. Not only that but the picket had actually threatened physical damage to the inspectors who tried, during one whole day, to get into the meatworks to inspect the meat because of the likelihood that the meat would go off. The meatworks had only a cool store and was not able to freeze the meat. I drew this matter to the attention of the Government. The Government said: `We are in the middle of changing the regulations to give the Minister the discretion as to whether he supplies meat inspectors'. This was when the Minister, as a result of a decision of the court, was in a position of being obliged to provide meat inspectors. Obviously this was a move by the Minister to absolve himself of that responsibility. The unions were then on the move to expand this type of illegal use of picketing powers to the Bowen meatworks. It became obvious then that all the small meatworks in Australia would be subjected to this sort of union pressure. In other words, a concerted campaign was about to be launched. It is because of that that the Opposition and, thankfully, the Australian Democrats, who for once are doing the right thing, are determined to oppose the attempt to remove responsibility from the Minister. We want to put the job fairly and squarely back on him so that meat inspection services are one of the obligations that he has to satisfy. Therefore, I support Senator Collard's motion. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(11.13) —I would like to make a couple of very quick points. I support Senator Collard in this debate. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his speech of 29 April stated: . . . the issue is still being clouded by the emotionalism attached to Mudginberri and by political considerations of the organisations concerned. Also I congratulate Senator Cooney on his attempt to bring emotionalism into the debate and for his attempt to tell us all about the movie he saw last night. Mr Kerin does not want to be in a situation in which he has to provide export inspection services once a picket line has been established. However, I think that as the Minister for Primary Industry he has a duty to the country and to the industry to do so. That situation will apply under our motion. Finally, there are four critical areas at stake. I would like to quote from what another person said earlier in the debate: The first is the capacity of a government to provide essential services which it must, by law, provide. The second is the capacity of a government to act independently of the commands and power of the ACTU. The third is the freedom of the individual Australian worker to negotiate his own conditions of employment outside the direct involvement of the unions. The fourth is the freedom of Australian industries to conduct their business free of government and trade union domination. I thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for allowing me to make these few remarks. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.15) —I ask Senator Brownhill who made the remarks he quoted. Senator Brownhill —Mr Hunt. Senator GRIMES —That makes it all different. It is my duty as Manager of Government Business in this place to do the first darg every morning. I therefore end up listening to some interesting debates, and this morning's debate has been one of them. Senator Withers —You will be able to write a new clinical casebook. Senator GRIMES —Yes, I will. This morning I have heard honourable senators talking about old war horses getting caught on sticky wickets. I have heard honourable senators talking about Rambos being involved with Crocodile Dundee. Honourable senators have certainly taken a mixmaster to the metaphors. God knows what else has happened here this morning. We have heard two sorts of debate on the other side of the chamber. My friend Senator Cooney was sorely provoked into joining this debate. He referred to members of the Liberal and National parties as members of the Rambo brigade. Basically they said that they did not like these regulations because the Government was doing what it always does, which is to cave in to the trade unions and do their bidding. At least Senator Macklin on the other side pointed out that if one read the newspapers this week and last week and saw what was going on with the Builders Labourers Federation one would realise that we are being criticised by other people for union bashing. I suppose if the Government is being criticised on both counts, as it is, it cannot be doing so badly. The Opposition's general argument was that the Government was caving in to the trade unions and that the Minister for Primary Industry wanted the right to do the bidding of the trade unions and did not want to be in a position where he had to go counter to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. I suppose that is typical of the sort of thing we get from the other side. Of course, we heard some interesting arguments. I remember Senator MacGibbon in particular saying that it was absolutely out- rageous for the Minister to claim that he wanted to take into account the national interest in his application of these regulations. Senator MacGibbon said that it was a cop-out and that the Minister should, under no circumstances, use this cop-out. However, then he said: `I want to declare my self-interest in this dispute because I earn a bit of money from meat exports, but the most important thing is the national interest'. He did what all politicians do in this place. They stand up and wave their arms around-I suppose I am one of them-and say what is important is the national interest. However, when someone else uses that argument we say: `You can't do that; it is a cop-out. You cannot use nasty generalised terms such as that'. They are the sorts of debating points we hear from honourable senators such as Senator MacGibbon. Senator Macklin supports the disallowance. I can count and therefore will not keep honour- able senators very long. Senator Macklin pointed out that in fact the Government was not just kowtowing to the Australian Council of Trade Unions or any other trade union group. He gave some examples. He gave what I thought were some pretty reasoned points as to why he went along with the disallowance of the orders. We therefore see one group of honourable senators opposite supporting the motion for political reasons and another group at least attempting to give principled reasons for what it is about. Senator Macklin said that he opposed regulations 111A.1 and 111A.2 because they were wrong in principle. He said that such provisions should have been in principal legislation and not in subordinate legislation. He said that he could understand that people would want to use the reason of national interest but that, in fact, if one wanted to do that one should put it into the principal legislation. I suppose that is a fair enough argument. In fact, it is an argument that has been accepted by the Minister for Primary Industry. Senator Macklin said that if the concern expressed that ministerial direction should be provided in the principal Act rather than in orders and subordinate legislation were the only concern despite the fact that the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances did not have any problem, he would certainly be agreeable to amending the Export Control Act 1982 and repealing the relevant orders at that time. But he pointed out that he was doing what had been done in the past and what other governments had found to be appropriate and, maybe some people would say, expedient. If Senator Macklin holds to that principle strongly I suppose he will vote for the disallowance of these orders and there is nothing I can do about it. However, I think he should have thought about whether it was worth while going to this extreme. Senator Macklin found order 100d a bit broad. Other honourable senators opposite seem to believe that this is a dreadful example of kowtowing to the trade unions. I think we should remember, as the Minister has pointed out, that most industrial disputes in this country, particularly most industrial disputes involving meat inspection staff, are in fact local disputes of a short duration which are resolved by the conciliation process at the local level. I think it is very unwise to suggest that there should not be a cooling off period, which is what order 100d provides, or that it is not up to the Minister, even after consulting with the industry, to provide for a short cooling off period. Such a suggestion would inevitably lead to our doing what apparently people on the other side are perfectly happy for us to do. The police will come in and the dispute will be inflamed not only at the local level but also at a national level. What is a local dispute will be turned into a national dispute. Inspectors will be forced to work regardless of the circumstances and regardless of the merits of the case and the action that has been taken by the people on strike, the employees who are involved in the industrial dispute. That is the very sort of thing that has caused such a problem in industrial relations in this country. That is in fact a recipe for a disastrous industrial situation. This sort of approach in fact takes out of the hands of the Minister and out of the hands of the people with whom the Minister may be consulting, including management and owners, any flexibility and in fact leaves all the flexibility and all the power in the hands of the unions. If that is what the Opposition wants to do, go ahead and do it. However, I think it is madness and stupidity. It is the sort of thing that under the Fraser Government led to all of the airlines being out; it is the sort of thing that led to all the air traffic controllers being out; and it is the sort of thing that led to the mad disputes that we had in the late 1970s and early 1980s because of what Senator Cooney has called this Rambo-like attitude in which people bare and beat their hairless chests and turn a local dispute into a national dispute. That is absolutely stupid. Senator Sheil —But in both Mudginberri and Biloela the courts had told them to go back to work-in both cases. Senator GRIMES —The Minister actually did that in the Mudginberri dispute. However, what I am talking about here is a local dispute which involves a bit of strife. It is clearly a local dispute and a local issue. The Minister, in consultation with management, is able to say: `Look, we will have a cooling off period. We will not demand that the meat inspectors cross the picket line and cause all sorts of strife because this is going to be over in a day or two'. The Opposition wants the Minister to say to the meat inspectors and the coppers: `In you go'. In that case a local dispute will be turned into a big brawl which becomes a national dispute. If that is what the Opposition wants to do, okay. But that is stupid; it is stark raving mad. I think the same argument applies to order 100c. Again, in a dispute of the Mudginberri type, the Opposition is asking the Minister to say to the meat inspectors: `Go in there, irrespective of whether or not you are going to get a thump under the ear'. The Opposition is asking the Minister to send in the police in what is a highly emotional situation. Again, the whole dispute would be expanded. That is the sort of industrial relations that we have had in the past. That is the sort of industrial relations situation which led to the highest number of disputes and man hours lost in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This is not happening now. In the last three years the number of man hours lost through disputes has been at a record low level because, among other things, we have a sensible approach to industrial relations. The disallowance motions will obviously go through. I remember being in the French Senate and an old French senator saying to me: `Many times in this place, Monsieur le Senateur, my opinion has been changed by a brilliant case and brilliant debate, but never my vote'. I think it is a pity that that is what is going to happen here. The Minister has tried to take a sensible approach to a difficult situation. He has tried to provide regulations which, of course, he needs to interpret and apply sensibly. No one is arguing about that. Ministers and governments can do stupid things with regulations which are brought down in this place. Of course, these regulations, as with any legislation, require sensible application and interpretation. I can understand that those who take the view that what this Government is about is just doing the bidding of the unions will make the sorts of speeches they have made today. I believe that that view is demonstrably wrong. I do not believe that most of the people who put that view today believe it. I believe that Senator Macklin's arguments may be arguments of principle. However, they are wrong in principle and involve a wrong application of principle. I think it is a pity that the Opposition has taken such a view of these regulations. The Government and the Minister obviously will have to consider what their approach will be when the orders are disallowed. However, if they are to be disallowed, so be it. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.26) —in reply-I would like to comment briefly in closing the debate. I might take this opportunity to try to win myself a free dinner, although I might have to pay for the bottle of wine. Senator Cooney said that Mudginberri has not been mentioned. I remind Senator Cooney that the orders were brought down in response to a court judgment in regard to a Minister's responsibilities following what had happened in the Mudginberri dispute. The Federal Court of Australia said that the Minister had an obligation and not a discretion. These new regulations were brought in as a result of this judgment to give the Minister, as we have said in this debate and in previous debates, an out. Senator Grimes said that disputes such as the one at Mudginberri could escalate. He said that there was just a bit of strife at Mudginberri. I might remind honourable senators opposite the workers at the abattoir did not put up the picket line at Mudginberri. They will find that the picket line was certainly put up by people from outside the meatworks and probably by people from outside the Northern Territory itself. A group of meat workers recognised that the meatworks could not continue if it operated in the way it was being run. As a result, they decided to sit down with their employer and work out a suitable set of conditions and salaries whereby they could be pretty well paid and the operation could be viable. That happened. The employees of the meatworks were receiving very good wages and the employer had a chance to make a profit to enable the meatworks to keep going. An outside group of people, albeit members of the employees' union, from outside the meatworks and even from outside the Territory, put up the picket line. Coincidentally, as I mentioned in a previous debate, the meat inspectors involved in this dispute once lived on the site of the meatworks. However, some months prior to the dispute they were moved from that site, for what I now see as cynical reasons, to the Jabiru township. As a result, it was imperative that they cross the picket line that was put up by people from outside the area in breach of the Kakadu National Park regulations. So let me make the point quite clear that a suitable arrangement had been reached between the workers and the employer. The workers were not on strike and they did not seek the assistance of anybody else in their union or in any other union. So this situation has arisen. In those circumstances the Federal Court of Australia found that the Minister had an obligation, not a discretion, to provide the necessary inspection services. In the light of that we believe that these orders which have been brought down have provided a cop-out. I understand the feelings of Senator Macklin about 100c, and indeed I share them, but I still believe that under the civil laws of this land anybody whose health or life is under threat does have the protection of the civil authorities. That is how it should be. The example used by Senator Grimes of somebody who is likely to get a thump under the ear if he goes into the meatworks I think is covered under 100B, which we are not seeking to disallow. Senator Cooney, Senator Grimes, myself and just about every other honourable senator have referred to the national interest. It is as broad as it is long. It probably varies from Minister to Minister. But this situation, as I indicated in my previous remarks, gives the Minister a cop-out. Mention was made of the cooling off period. For how long do we have a cooling off period? I appreciate the necessity for a cooling off period and I appreciate the necessity for discussions and the fact that that can work; but in an incident such as the one that provoked these orders and the original arguments, for how long would we go on? The cooling off period could go on for ages and ultimately a meatworks, an industry, or whatever could be brought down financially so that it would never open again. There has to be some point where a Minister says to his employees: `You have an obligation, otherwise this industry will go to the wall and men will lose their jobs'. It is on that basis that we are opposing these orders through the motion I have moved. Question put: That the motion (Senator Collard's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Macklin, M. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G. Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Siddons, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Vigor, D. B. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Grimes, D. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Walters, M. S. Evans, GarethReid, M. E. Richardson, G. F. (Senator Button did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Missen). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Collard) agreed to: 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. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.40) —When the debate on these Bills was adjourned yesterday I was speaking about the fact that the rural sector was suffering crippling problems at the hands of this Government because of the lack of action by the Government to ease the fundamental problem facing the rural sector of this country-namely, a very vicious and ever increasing cost squeeze. The Government's decision to disallow various tax relief measures for farmers and its existing high interest rate policy which has crippled not only the rural sector but also small business in Australia generally, has as I said yesterday prevented many rural producers from reaping the benefits of technological innovation, which to an important degree is what the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986, the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1986, the Live-Stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1986, the Live-Stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986, the Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill 1986, the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1985 are all about. I mentioned yesterday a small entrepreneurial engineering firm in the country centre of Swan Hill, in my own State of Victoria, which makes innovative and specialised disc ploughs-a company by the name of Grizzly Engineering Pty Ltd. Because of the policies of this Government in the area of taxation and other areas, that firm has suffered a drop in sales and interest repayment increases that are equivalent to no less than the wages of four employees each week. The impact of these types of policies by the Government has been borne out by figures released recently by the Trade Machinery Association of Australia. Those figures show that tractor sales have dropped by 52 per cent in the first quarter of this year and grain harvester sales are down by 40 per cent. Indeed, in the past year, agricultural machinery manufacturers in Australia have shed staff to the tune of 40 per cent, and total costs of the rural downturn to the agricultural machinery industry, from reduced sales, are around $70m. It has been widely reported that the purpose of the recent jaunt by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the United States of America was to promote the interests of Australian agriculture, yet no sooner did he leave the United States than we learnt of the fruits of this exercise-Australian wheat growers have lost a market in North Yemen, worth more than $36m, to their United States counterparts. In the past 15 years Australia has been the total supplier of wheat to North Yemen, a trade averaging some 300,000 tonnes of wheat per annum. The United States now, through its subsidy arrangements under its export enhancement program, has effectively cut off this valuable source of Australian wheat sales. It is no wonder that the rural community in Australia is amazed, concerned and disgusted with the Hawke Government's rhetoric of consensus and fine-tuned diplomacy at the expense of Australia's rural producers. This episode is characteristic of the failure of the Australian Labor Party and the Hawke Government to recognise that they can no longer deflect the plight of the rural community on to international causes. The plight of the rural community in Australia is due primarily to domestic causes and causes which are directly related to the economic policies of this Government. It is time, obviously, for the Government to put its own house in order. The fact of the matter is that the rural economy is facing a decline in international competitiveness, just as the Australian economy as a whole is facing a decline. It is highlighted though, in particular, by deteriorating balance of payments and balance of trade figures. The current account deficit in our balance of payments has almost doubled, from $7.3 billion in 1983-84 to an annual rate of $14 billion after the first nine months of 1985-86. An historic event is reflected in those figures-the Hawke Government is the first government to oversee a current account deficit greater than $1 billion in a single month. The Government has done that not just in a single month but in six out of the last nine months of this financial year. A major factor in our deteriorating balance of trade is that our goods for sale on the international market are too expensive. Quite frankly and quite simply, we are no longer competitive. the Hawke Government is primarily responsible for this. First, the wages policy in the name of the accord promises to increase labour costs by a minimum of 13 per cent over the next 12 months. Our annualised inflation rate is now 9.2 per cent and there is every indication that we will be back to double digit inflation during the next 12 months. The latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts are that unit labour costs of our major trading partners will be around 4 per cent and, with inflation, even lower than that. Our inflation rate is now more than twice the OECD average and more than five times that of Japan. Today, at 2.4 times the OECD average, Australia's relative inflation performance is worse than in any 12 month period since 1961. Even in 1961 it was just a temporary blip. If one excluded that blip, our relative inflation performance over the last 12 months has been the worst since comparative figures for Australia, other Western countries and OECD countries were first collected. We have the worst inflation rate on a relative basis that we have ever had in our history. No wonder our economy is going downhill and no wonder we are becoming increasingly uncompetitive in the world scene. This wider reality is the fundamental cause for the wide range of increasing costs facing Australian farmers and service industries, causing their products, as I say, to be too expensive relative to those of their overseas counterparts. During the lifetime of this Government, major costs for farmers and the industries that serve them have increased dramatically compared with those of our major trading partners. I have already mentioned the differentials in wages and in inflation, but I will mention a few other areas. In the area of interest rates it is disappointing and, indeed disastrous for Australian entrepreneurs, such as the small innovative company Grizzly I cited as an example, to learn that their Japanese counterparts are paying 5 per cent interest on their loans while the Grizzlys of this world-the Australian manufacturers-are paying around 20 per cent on their loans from the banks. The story is the same for farmers. Indeed, over the period 1980 to 1984 interest rates have increased by 45 per cent. Another increase which has been receiving publicity lately, and which leaves everything else in the shade, is the 55.1 per cent increase each year in the coffers of the 20 largest unions in Australia for the past six years-a cumulative increase of something like 500 per cent. When one compares that with the cost pressures and the income receipts or the rural sector and the private sector as a whole in Australia, the comparison becomes even more startling, stark and of concern. Another area of concern on the cost side is transport costs. They have increased for Australian producers by 52 per cent over the past six years. In Canada, one of our major competitors in the rural sector, transport costs have increased by 37 per cent, compared with our 52 per cent increase. In the United States of America, over the same period, transport costs have actually decreased by 18 per cent. These comparisons reflect the fact that the Australian farmer, small businessman and entrepreneur are being grossly damaged and disadvantaged by the policies of this Government. They reflect the fact that Australians with entrepreneurial spirit are being stifled by a government which either blames the other fellow-the international community-or refuses to recognise the warning signals and acknowledge that unless costs are reduced and incentives restored, Australian living standards will continue to decline. Australia will not see an expansion in its research and development activities unless a climate that encourages and towards people is established. Given the fact that the Government's policies in that area are working in the opposite direction from what is needed, the important benefits that would emerge from the legislation that we are now debating will be greatly diminished. The Government must get its level of spending down so that the high tax burden can be reduced. The Government must change its high interest rate policy. More flexibility must be introduced so that due consideration is taken of the capacity of producers to absorb increases in wages. We can no longer afford to pay wages that feed inflation, increasing costs and, inter alia, declining competitiveness. Only when a climate of reduced costs and stability has been engineered will we see real inroads in the development of Australia's research and development program. The Opposition is totally at odds with the Government on the question of introducing changes in the Australian environment that are necessary to draw out and derive the benefits which legislation of the type we are now debating is supposed to provide. As I understand from the Press recently, the Labor Party's slogan for the next election will be `fairness'. The Labor Party should tell that to the Australian farmer and producer. When it comes to the rural sector, the word `fairness' is not in Labor's dictionary. What we will do when we return to government is produce a more competitive and cost conscious environment which will allow the rural sector to grow and have the opportunity to flourish. That will involve a strategy which is totally alien to that which this present Government pursues. The strategy that we will follow involves a freer labour market sensitive to the ability to pay of individual industries and enterprises. We will introduce a taxation system which, far from clobbering every producer, be he rural or otherwise, who wants to get up and have a go to produce more wealth within the economy-the path that Labor has so relentlessly pursued in the past three years-will reward effort and initiative and will not discriminate against jobs, exports or business in general. We will tackle the question of the balance of power between unions and employers and other groups in our community in order to restore our position as a reliable supplier. The overwhelming increase in the last three years in the balance of power in favour of the trade union movement and in particular of certain militant trade unions is one of the root causes of the problems we now face. As I have intimated and as the Opposition has many times stated, we will also reduce the costs and restrictions on rural and other producers in this country by removing excessive government control and regulation. These things are absolutely vital if our rural sector is to prosper and if we are to derive the benefits from technology and research and development, without which we will continue to slip further down the scale of international living standards. Economically viable rural industries are vital to the living standards of all Australians, no matter where they live, whether they be rural or metropolitan Australians. This Government has neglected that fundamental point. It is the key point of difference between the Government and the Opposition. It is a point on which the Opposition will be placing primary emphasis when it returns to government. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(11.56) —Today the Senate is considering the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and various allied Bills. Each Bill provides for increases to the maximum rate of levy on produce for research activities, broadly to a level of 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production. In most cases the operative rates of levy are between 0.1 per cent and 0.2 per cent of the gross value of the product. These Bills do not automatically raise the operative rates. They provide for increases in the levy as required by the industry to be set by regulation in consultation with various industries. Levy payments up to the operative rate will be matched by the Commonwealth and the benefits accrued through our export earnings will go to all Australians. Research is important in all industries, not only in rural industries. No doubt research helps farmers to improve their techniques, but I must say that, by and large, our farmers are amongst the most efficient farmers in the world. They operate at the lowest cost of product at the farm gate. They also operate their farms at one of the lowest cost capital values in the Western world. Yet the farm sector is receiving some of the lowest returns to capital. This is sad because I do not believe that one can overemphasise the importance of primary industries to the Australian economy. I want to use the debate on these Bills to talk about some of the problems that all rural industries are experiencing. All too often this Government has shown a tendency to highlight the so-called glamour industries such as tourism, mining and high technology. But when all other industries have been fully exploited or have simply expired, we will still need our pastoral and agricultural industries, irrespective of the low image which they have in the eyes of this Government. Compounding the problem is the fact that many people think of agricultural industries as being heavily subsidised, even though the reverse is the truth. Whilst agriculture funds a substantial part of general industry assistance elsewhere in the economy, assistance to the farming sector comprises only a small part of overall government subsidies. Basically, increases in farm costs are well in excess of upward movements in the consumer price index. They are jeopardising the viability of our agricultural sector. When one considers that 35 per cent of family farms will have a zero or negative income this year and that the average income per family farm will be only about $7,600, one realises that a great number of rural people are living below the poverty line. Senator Elstob —You would make more out of peanuts, would you not, Senator? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I say to Senator Elstob that we do not grow peanuts so I do not make anything out of peanuts. It will be very difficult to make money from the soya beans and maize that we planted because we had a very dry season in Queensland and we will be lucky if we meet our expenses. I found a cutting from one newspaper in which Mr Ian McMaster, who is the retiring leader of the South Eastern Queensland Graziers Association, said that rural industry was averaging an income of only $4,270 a year with 35 per cent of farmers facing nil income with no access to meaningful security benefits unless they walked off their properties. That is very sad. He maintained that 12,000 family units were at risk, meaning that the properties would be sold up. Contrary to what the banks were saying, this trend had already started and many more producers were being refused carry-on funds. The family is the basic unit of society and we do not want to see rural families disintegrating because of the tremendous financial problems confronting them. I am sure that Senator Elstob, as Chairman of our Standing Committee on Social Welfare, would be the last person to want to see that happen. Mr McMaster went on to say that the future of world agricultural trade and the political and seasonal outlook for rural Australia were `abysmal'. That makes me feel very sad indeed. Primary producers are not helped by the fact that they have to pay income tax from the first dollar earned. That action was taken by this Government and I consider it to be most unfair. Every other section of the community has a tax threshold of about $5,000. To illustrate this I cite the case of two people who live on the land in our area. They have incomes of little more than $3,000 after they have paid all their expenses. Out of that, from the first dollar, they have to pay $1,200 tax, which seems to be so unfair that I can really hardly believe that it is true. There are many factors that have contributed to the problems of rural Australia since this Government came to power in 1983. For example, look at the increase in interest rates. No business or farm can survive with interest rates of 20 per cent or more. Indeed, no family trying to buy its own home can afford the increased payments necessary because of rising interest rates on home loans. Regrettably there is a vast difference between the 20 per cent in Australia and interest rates in the United States, Germany and Japan which range from 5 to 9 per cent. Now, of course, we have inflation riding high in Australia. It is up to 9 per cent, although I heard Senator Short say in his speech that it was 9.2 per cent. In overseas countries which are our competitors on the world market inflation is falling and in some cases it is down as low as 2 per cent. Rural Australia cannot afford the high fuel taxes imposed by this Government. Farm fuel budgets are 20 per cent higher than they should be. Although there is a full rebate on diesel excise, petrol makes up about 40 per cent of the fuel used on farms. All the rural industries mentioned in these Bills-dried fruits, barley, livestock, chickens, pigs and dairying-all need and use fuel. We all know that when the world price of petrol was rising the Government put up petrol prices; now the world price of fuel has fallen the Government will not pass on the fall to motorists. On 14 April I asked a question in the Senate of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), inquiring whether he was aware that since January 1983 excise duty on fuel had increased from 6.155c a litre to more than 15c a litre. I asked him whether he thought that that was as good as income tax at around 30c in the dollar. In his answer-and Senator Evans is pretty good at giving long answers-he finished up by saying: When one buys a gallon of petrol, one is buying something more than petrol-one always has in this country and one still is. One is buying defence, health, social security, services to the States and all the other things on which the Government spends money. Obviously this Government uses fuel to help its budgeting along. The Government budgeted for a total of about $9 billion in oil revenue this financial year. Even after the latest oil price fall, it is now looking at a total revenue of $9.4 billion. It is amazing to me that in America petrol is 23c a litre, whereas in Australia, depending on where one gets one's fuel, it ranges between 40c and 50c a litre, which is twice as much as in America. Senator Kilgariff —In the outback it can cost 60c a litre. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Senator Kilgariff says that in the outback it can cost 60c a litre, so there is certainly a very great difference. America has done the right thing by its fuel consumers. I must point out to the Senate that when one lives in the country one uses more fuel. In the towns and cities one can travel by train or bus but in the country there is not the same opportunity. In fact, the further out one lives, the more fuel one uses at increased prices. All transport costs are higher because of increased fuel prices. This difference is obvious when one goes to the supermarket to do the shopping. One only needs to look at the supermarket advertisements in big city papers. These ads say `Prices slightly higher in country stores' and often it is not just slightly higher either. On our son's property in central Queensland, when the two big tractors and the one medium size one are in use, the cost of fuel is $1,000 a day or $6,000 a week. Farmers working the big wheat and barley properties also have exorbitant fuel bills. I suppose that would also apply to those folk who grow cotton, and I have seen large amounts of cotton being grown on the Darling Downs. One could mention any of the products that are grown-these farmers all have exorbitant fuel bills, although there be a slight improvement with the reduction in the excise on diesel. The high cost of fuel in Australia means that our rural producers are unable to compete fairly on world markets. That of course is another problem-the world markets. When I was overseas last year I went to the European Economic Community to discuss the problems of the sugar and other rural producers in Queensland. The EEC and the United States subsidise their rural producers of grain-including barley-sugar and beet, to name a few. What happens here in Australia? Just recently this Government presented to Parliament a farm package which is, I believe, a real disappointment. The total package is valued at $108m or around that amount. I suppose that we should adopt the attitude of being grateful for small mercies. However, when one considers that the Labor Government has ripped off $442m from the rural sector by taking away 40 tax concessions and benefits, one realises that this Government does not really care for rural Australians. In fact, I believe that once again it is illustrating its motto `The greatest good for the greatest number'. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has said that no government can ignore the contribution of the rural sector to our society and the economy. Sad to say, I believe that this Government has done just that. One tax concession that was removed by this Government was that for water conservation. In a dry country like Australia, a great part of which is suffering from drought, it is imperative that tax concessions be allowed to farmers who wish to conserve water. I believe the same remarks apply also to the Government's cancellation of the bicentenary water resources program. Sometimes when we have plenty of rain and there are floods, we see the water all disappearing out to sea. It is such a shame that we are not able, because we do not have the money, to dam up many of our rivers. Many rural industries affected by these Bills know how important water is. It would take me too long today to deal with all the tax concessions that have been removed by this Government, thus making life harder for the people of rural Australia. Among those that I would like to mention are the doing away with the tax averaging and the disallowing of tax rebates for clearing and fencing. These are all very necessary improvements to farm properties. I looked hard to see some of the benefits contained in the farm package brought down recently by the Minister. Certainly it is good to know that there is some relief in the change from tariff to bounty assistance for agricultural machinery used for soil preparation and cultivation. There is a minimal change as far as agricultural chemicals are concerned. I understand that the Government has delayed a decision on this matter until it receives the Industries Assistance Commission report. I hope that the report will be favourable to primary producers. I believe that a package to help primary producers should have contained a statement to the effect that a capital gains tax would not be proceeded with. The Minister for Primary Industry told the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association meeting at Horsham on 23 October 1984 that he would oppose in the strongest terms any new capital gains taxes and death duties. On 9 April last he said: My objection to a capital gains tax is the same as probate in that it has the effect of rendering the rural sector in the long term less viable. The family has to sell part of the property to pay probate or capital gains tax. In the package that was brought down recently, Mr Kerin said that the capital gains tax is in the farmer's long term interest. It seems to me that Mr Kerin has been telling rural Australians, and farmers in particular, complete untruths. I mentioned this the other day by way of a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). I asked: `Is it the Government's policy to bring in a capital gains tax?' Senator Button did not answer whether it was the Government's policy, he just berated me for saying `nasty things' about Mr Kerin. He said Mr Kerin was the best Minister for Primary Industry Australia had ever had. I was in Wagga recently speaking to 3,700 people, mainly women, although there were some men there. If Mr Kerin could have heard the very poor reception received by his representative on that day he would not have been very pleased, and I do not think Senator Button would have said that rural Australia would agree that Mr Kerin was the best Minister for Primary Industry Australia has ever had. Senator Messner —But that is all Senator Button could say. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Yes, being a member of that team, I suppose that was the idea. Instead of assistance such as that which overseas producers receive by way of subsidies, all our rural people seem to get is a hit on the head. Our rural producers will find it hard when they feel the effect of the subsidy just given by the United States to its farmers. It has subsidised a 50,000 tonne wheat sale recently to an important traditional Australian market, North Yemen. The United States was able to undercut the Australian tender because of the subsidies provided by that Government. Our Government does not do that for our primary producers. The latest information is that rice will be subsidised into Papua New Guinea. Our cotton producers are experiencing crashing world price structures due to subsidised exports from the United States. What about the barley, dried fruits, and meat industries that are the subject of the levy amendment Bills we are considering today? Our rural producers certainly are not being helped by the fact that there is so much subsidisation of farm products by the United States and by the European Economic Community. Only three days after the rural package was announced Mr Kerin claimed publicly that he had only just realised the full threat of the Farm Bill. We need a rural package that is more relevant to the devastating trade threats that farmers are facing. I do not know how our farmers are expected to compete against the subsidised nations when we find the unions continually wanting more and more wages for their workers. Of course, the Government agrees with the Australian Council of Trade Unions' demands. I have often said that the ACTU is the de facto government of Australia because so many decisions of this present Government have to be referred to it for approval. If the 3 to 4 per cent productivity claim goes through and superannuation becomes compulsory, our efforts to compete on the world markets will be set back even further. The Government needs to take into consideration that agriculture contributes 40 per cent of our export income and employs one million people, yet, the tax package discriminates against investment in this vital industry. The Government must promote investment and productivity, and not discourage it. I cannot talk about the problems of rural Australia without mentioning the help needed for the sugar producers in Queensland. This Government has offered some price support in its rural package, but with the increased sugar prices in the world markets-I am glad to say this has happened-there will not be the same need over the three-year period for such a large amount of support. It has taken this Government a long time to take this action, while the Queensland Government responded three months ago with help for the sugar industry. Sugar has played a vital part in Australia's export income over many years. The industry deserves better treatment than that accorded to it by this Government. There is no doubt in my mind that much more real financial help is needed to all rural industries to stop many thousands of primary producers walking off their properties. Some small farmers have debts of $100,000. Some of these farmers will fall into a financial abyss from which they are unlikely to recover. These people have not taken a gamble in the hope of achieving windfall financial gain. They have simply tried to achieve greater economies of scale-I suppose as a result of research-by expanding their enterprises, even though long term returns to farm capital have been less than 2 per cent per annum and I regret to say, this year will average minus 6 per cent. This year, for every net dollar of income earned by farmers, another $14 will be created along the economic chain. It is regrettable that the farmers will receive only this small amount of money. It makes me wonder what is the point of boosting the research effort when we have a tax package that is aimed at destroying the incentive to produce, when the Government refuses to pass on the full benefits of falling world oil prices, when it has taken $442m directly away from farmers in three years, and when interest rates are being artificially propped up to save the accord mark II of the ACTU, with an inordinate cost being paid by farmers and small business enterprises in particular. Not only should we be debating research Bills of this nature to try to improve productivity, but also the Government should be doing all it can to help our rural industries improve their productivity and become viable on the world markets. I support the remarks of my Leader, Senator Collard, and commend these Bills to the Senate. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(12.19) —I wish to say a few words about the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill and the associated Bills. The words will be few because the Bills before the Senate obviously have the support of everyone, their details have already been gone into, and everybody has indicated that they will be passed unanimously. Understandably, people have ranged over a wide range of topics covering the rural industries, the rural sector generally, and the Government's economic policies. I do not want to speak on them at length because those sorts of things are only indirectly related to the Bills. I will take up some of the points that have been made. Senator Bjelke-Petersen said that the Government's tax package had killed incentive. That proposition has been put, but if one looks at today's Australian Financial Review the evidence in an article on the front page would tend to disprove it. The article states: Research and development in Australian industry is undergoing a resurgence verging on a boom despite the gloomy picture painted by the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Far from languishing in an R and D trough, some businesses are as much as doubling research expenditure, according to industry managers and new figures from the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. The article then explains why EPAC should have been so gloomy. It turns out that it was so gloomy because the figures it was using were from the 1981-82 era, which was the era before this Government came to power when the Fraser Government was still the Government of this country. Since this Government has come into operation, private research has boomed in contrast to the situation under the previous Government. That would seem to disprove the cries that have been going on throughout this debate about the economic policies of this Government deflating the part that private enterprise plays in the economy. On page 34 of the Australian Financial Review of today is an article headed `$A on brink of US74c hat trick'. It indicates that this criterion of strong economic health-- Senator Collard —But the United States dollar is not all that strong. Senator COONEY —Let us take it this way. Until recently, speakers in the debate were saying that because the Australian dollar was falling against the American dollar the economy was going badly. One cannot suddenly abandon that argument and say that now that the Australian dollar is rising against the United States dollar, that is no longer a criterion one can look at. Senator Collard —It is rising against a falling United States dollar; so it is not all that flash. Senator COONEY —It might not be. All I am pointing out is that one can go through all the various criteria of what is economic health and what is not and pick out some to prove one's case. The sorts of criteria that were picked out until recently now indicate a healthy Australian dollar. I turn to the rural package that has been put forward by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). It is a most innovative and a most `happies' policy. It deals not only with the economic aspects of the rural sector but also with its other aspects. Mention was made previously of Senator Elstob as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. In this package attention is devoted to the rural sector and to non-metropolitan residents generally insofar as welfare issues are concerned. If one reads through the package, one can see the great initiatives that are about to be taken and the great advances that have already occurred since this Government came into operation. I mention the depreciation of the dollar. In 1982-83 the rate of farm inflation was 11 per cent a year. It was reduced to 8 per cent in 1985-86 and is forecast to be 3 per cent in 1986-87. The package talks about wage moderation which has helped to lower prices. When, in trying to help the rural industry, an attack is made on other sections of the economy, those represented by the trade union movement, an unhappy division is likely to arise which would be best not created. It is invidious to suggest that reducing the living standards of one section of the community would help others. There is no evidence that that would be so. There is no evidence that real wage rates are rising, as is alleged. Wage levels have been maintained. The rate of wage increases has fallen dramatically under this Government. The debate on these Bills has been used as a means of discussing much wider issues. When one considers those wider issues, one finds that this Government already has done much. The rural policy that is now being put forward will do much more. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.25) —I rise to support my colleagues in this debate on the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986, the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1986, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1986, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986, the Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill 1986, the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1985. My colleagues have taken this opportunity to send a message to the Federal Labor Government that it is not doing enough for the man on the land. This has become much more apparent over the last few months. The Bills which are before us provide for increases in rates of levies required by the industries to be set by regulation and consultation with the various industries. The levies upon the industries concerned are then put back into the industries in the form of research funds. The Opposition has no argument with measures which will enhance our rural industries and we do not propose to impede the passage of these Bills. However, we take the opportunity to make the point that the Federal Government is generally falling down on the job where primary industry is concerned, which is unfortunate. Only two weeks ago the Federal Labor Government launched its rural package. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) claimed that the package would help the farmers and pastoralists of Australia get themselves out of the dreadful situation in which many of them find themselves nowadays. Many of them have huge mortgages and pay escalating interest rates and unrealistic wage costs-all in the face of subsidised competition from the European Economic Community and now, it would seem, from the United States. The farmers have told the Hawke Government what they think of the Kerin package which was going to solve all their problems. They have clearly indicated that it is just not good enough. It does not even begin to address the problems of farmers, who have rejected the package outright. In rejecting the package outright, one sees how desperate farmers are, because these days farmers would seize upon anything that would assist them. Quite obviously, the package will be to their detriment. It does not even begin to address the problems of farmers, who, as I say, have rejected the package outright. I ask honourable senators to consider what our rural sector is facing. Interest rates are at their highest for 50 years. Many rural people now, for various reasons, are paying interest rates up to 23 per cent, particularly to stock firms. One wonders how on earth any business can remain active when it is paying such huge interest rates. Fuel prices have risen. Although Labor has made some concessions on off-road diesel, the full flow on effect of the drop in world oil prices has not been passed on. Labour costs have diminished the competitiveness of our primary producers. While all this is happening the Federal Government is looking for new ways to hit the man on the land financially. Rural assistance packages have a very hollow ring when one considers that just around the corner the Federal Government plans to introduce-at least it is talking about it-a capital gains tax. There is much debate now about the fringe benefits tax to be paid by employers. That the Federal Government is even considering the introduction of such taxes is quite unbelievable in the face of reports that 70,000 families face being forced from their land. This figure comes from a report in the Bulletin of 22 April which is headed: `Rural realities spell doom for 70,000 farm families'. The preface to the article states: Life on the land in future will only be for the shrewd, the adaptable and the business-orientated, experts tell Nigel Austin. And the gloomy prediction for all Australians, reports Andrew Clark, is that they must adjust rapidly to avoid becoming economic `white trash'. I guess there is not too much the farmer of today can do to become more shrewd. He certainly has had to do so to survive. To become more adaptable is extremely difficult when one considers the problems of overseas markets and the cost of production these days. Being business oriented, I suggest that most farmers and people on the land these days are business oriented. They would have to be to survive. A graph in the Bulletin of the same date indicates the Australian primary industry slice of the economy. The cumulative share of gross domestic product in 1800 was 55 per cent. Over the very many years from 1800 to the 1980s it has fallen to 6.4 per cent-an incredible fall. In the year 2000 it is expected to be 5 per cent. One can see that the future of the farmer and our primary industries is in considerable jeopardy. All these difficulties faced by rural producers to which I have adverted-taxation, high wages, interest rates and the like-are within the power of the Federal Government to act upon. On top of that, we have the problems of strikes by wharfies tying up port facilities and shipping and other strikes which have an enormous effect on our private industries and products. Many of our biggest international trading partners continue to hedge their bets by placing orders with our competitors overseas. Many are wary of Australia because of these strikes and our inability at times to deliver the goods. To ensure that they are not held to ransom by wharfies, shipping strikes and so on, they buy a lot of products from our international competitors. As a result, we lose the sale of many of our products. One more matter to which I referred the other day, and which I must raise again because it is having an adverse effect on our primary producers, is the drought which is well and truly entrenched in the Australian scene. Honourable senators may have seen the article in the Australian of 20 March this year which was entitled `Climatic Shift Leaves Sunburnt Country Dying of Thirst'. That is a fairly dramatic title. On reading the article it is clear that we are facing a very dramatic problem. According to the article, a drought review by the Bureau of Meteorology National Climate Centre for the three months to the end of February classified south-western Queensland northern South Australia and bordering areas of the Northern Territory as seriously rain deficient. This classification means that in 90 per cent of past years these areas would have expected more rain than they have received in the comparable period this year. The rain situation has not improved since February in most of the areas I have mentioned and in other parts of Australia. I will mention that in a little while. The drought is very widespread. The article describes the meteorological occurrence know as the El Nino phenomenon which reverses the normally cold water currents of the South American coast resulting in warm current anomalies. This leads to the suppression of winter and spring rains in eastern Australia and, for that matter, in inland Australia. The last dramatic El Nino effect was in 1982-83 and corresponded with a severe drought on the Australian continent. We can well remember that time. Bob Hawke claimed that he had saved the day, presumably because he thought that he had broken the drought. The article goes on to say that climatic conditions over the Pacific basin indicate that Australia might be facing another El Nino phenomenon. As I have mentioned, there are already areas of Australia suffering as a result of serious rain deficiencies. The Northern Territory is one of them. Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and particularly inland Australia are in dire straits. As at 17 March, 51 properties in the Northern Territory were declared to be drought affected. They are distributed as follows: Two in the Victoria River region, 11 in the Barkly Tablelands and 38 in the Alice Springs area. These are pastoral leases, cattle stations of considerable size, and they make up a vast area of land. Properties are assessed on the adequacy or inadequacy of summer rains and assistance is provided in the form of concessional carry-on loans, destocking freight assistance, feedstuff freight assistance and restocking freight assistance at the end of the drought. This is given in association with the State and Territory governments. In addition to the 51 properties which have already been declared drought affected, numerous other claims are presently being processed. The situation is also severe, as I have said, in other areas of Australia. I have mentioned South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. I realise that drought relief schemes operate in those places but, frankly, the schemes are insufficient. It is up to the Federal Government to bring further relief to these people who are in dire straits because of the drought. I wish to raise again a couple of matters which are very pertinent to the issue of assisting farmers, graziers and others on the land. These matters are an income equalisation scheme and the abandonment of proposed additional taxation. To deal with the latter first, I simply say that the proposed capital gains and fringe benefits taxes will discourage farm investment and make the already heavy burden of the man on the land all the more difficult to bear. As for the income equalisation scheme, I have raised this matter on a number of occasions in the past. Without wishing to labour the point, the scheme should be reintroduced. It should be looked at urgently. The scheme was abolished in 1983 when the present Government came to office. I imagine that the scheme was abolished as a result of the breaking of the drought. But this was no reason to take it away. Now that we are again in the grips of drought the time has come to reintroduce the scheme. It operated to allow pastoralists in years of drought, when forced to destock, to spread the income generated in the destocking year over subsequent less productive years for taxation purposes. It was introduced because farmers forced to destock would generate uncharacteristically high incomes in destocking years and would therefore incur a very high taxation liability. In subsequent years, having sold off the means of income production, pastoralists would have a very low income, if any. The scheme allowed the destocking money to be placed in a fund which could be drawn on over following years and taxation was paid on the money as it was withdrawn and spent. This scheme had the benefit of enabling farmers to have some funds at the end of the drought with which to restock. It did not enable avoidance of income tax. It merely meant that income could be spread over a number of years to avoid excessive taxation in destocking years which had been brought on by the drought. I urge the Federal Government to reinstate the provisions of this scheme immediately. Destocking is already under way on many properties. It looks set to increase as feed becomes increasingly sparse and the land and stock deteriorate further. One can only have considerable compassion for the people whom we are discussing in the debate on the Bills. Considering the number of people who live on the land and the importance of primary industry to Australia, we need something other than just mere words-and we seem to have plenty on this subject-or if there are to be more words, they should be balanced with action to relieve the people who desperately need our assistance. Of course, that is very obvious when one sees the delegations and so on that come to Canberra to demonstrate before the Federal House. I do not believe it is characteristic of men on the land to down tools and, at considerable expense to themselves, travel large distances to demonstrate. I do not think it is part of their character. It surely must bring an awareness of the difficulties of the situation when one sees so many thousands of people prepared to do this and come to Canberra to beg for some recognition of the plight they are in. It is really in the hands of the Federal Government to do more. Farmers and other people on the land can do only a certain amount, and I believe they are doing this. I believe that the Federal Government must recognise this even more so than it is doing at present because, quite obviously, the rural package is insufficient. There is need for a further review, a further look at how the people on the land can be saved. When one looks at the various articles being written on the problems of the industry one sees the beginnings of a move from the land. Surely it is not the wish of anyone to see that happen. We do not wish to see any more people coming to the cities to live on the dole or in an endeavour to eke out a living. Surely their future and the future of their children is on the land. We have the responsibility to see that their children and their children's children are able, through assistance, to remain on the land. Debate (on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2.00 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.43) —I rise to comment on a very important matter, one whose importance the whole Senate will share. I refer to the incident at Chernobyl near Kiev in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in which a nuclear reactor apparently has melted down. The matter is one not only of concern to the Russian people but also of world concern. It is a major accident in itself. It signals, in my view, some very significant messages not only to the Russians but to all the world's nations and to every individual. Of all things it is a graphic reminder that the release of massive radioactivity into the atmosphere, wherever that release occurs, cannot be localised or contained in any region but will spread across national and international borders and ultimately will move into the cosmic mix. That is the message of Chernobyl. It is the message to which we should direct ourselves. Of course, we all very greatly regret the deaths and injuries of Russians who were at Chernobyl at the time or, indeed, anywhere associated with either the explosion or the fall-out. We all express our sympathy to the Russian people. Russia has itself asked for and, I think, has received the assistance of Western technology. We would all want to give that. We will all be watching too the monitoring of radioactive fall-out across the European land mass. We all pray that its consequences will be either negative or minimal. This in itself is the very message of Chernobyl. In a time of very great emotions aroused by such an accident and a time of natural apprehension, we all tend to make quick judgments, and more so when there is difficulty in obtaining real information about what is happening. Therefore we should try to get objective judgment. There are two main questions to be asked: How did this particular disaster happen? How can any future incidents be avoided? These I will address later. Fundamentally, I think there is an even more global message, and it comes, ironically, in this International Year of Peace. The Chernobyl meltdown, however major in its current perspective, shrinks into relative insignificance when viewed against the explosion anywhere in the world of a single nuclear missile. Let us make the dimensions perfectly clear. We are talking, of course, of any one of the some 50,000 nuclear missiles that are in the stocks of the five nuclear nations of the world. If we are, rightly, so horrified by the lethal effects of a single power-station meltdown, how much more apprehensive should we be about the possibility of even a single military nuclear explosion, used in a war atmosphere, anywhere in the world? I am not speaking just of an intercontinental ballistic missile, but of an explosion of the massiveness of an intermediate weapon or even of what are euphemistically called theatre nuclear weapons, weapons which it has been thought might be used in Europe. I put to the Senate that Chernobyl is in itself a global message; it is a reminder that there can be no limited or contained nuclear war, that even the smallest of nuclear disasters has international consequences. It is not, therefore, simply an accident in an electricity generating plant-that in itself must, of course, be examined fully and I intend to comment on it-but a reminder to every living person of the terrible dangers of radioactive fall-out. There can only, therefore, be one message: We must work as strongly as we can to outlaw all nuclear weapons-the biggest and the smallest. We are, we are reminded by Chernobyl, a very frail global village; we are very frail indeed. We are reminded of how frail is our ecology; we are reminded graphically that at this moment in some parts of Europe, I think Poland and elsewhere, the people are being told that they must not drink the water out of the dams, drink the milk from the cows that have grazed on the grass that may be affected by fall-out or eat the vegetables. That in itself is just a mini-glimpse of the reality of nuclear war in itself, whether attempted to be limited or in a wider field. We are learning a number of quite important messages, but the overriding message is clear: It is vital that the super-powers reach agreement on nuclear arms reduction, with verification and surveillance and with the ultimate goal of absolute abolition of all nuclear weapons. That, if I can use the in phrase, is the megamessage of Chernobyl. It is a message which could very easily be temporarily obscured in concentration on the nature and consequences of a civil accident in itself. Let me turn to that nature. Inevitably, those who oppose the mining and export of uranium and the development of nuclear power-stations will see Chernobyl as a justification of their arguments. I think they will be proven to be wrong and that their arguments are in fact out of time and impracticable. Others will seek to blame the disaster upon inadequate safety precautions by the Russians. They will point to the good record in the Western world over the last 30 to 40 years of safety in nuclear reactors; they will not dodge Windscale and its accident or Three Mile Island but will point to the containment of those accidents in themselves. That will have some strong support in facts. But I put it that neither argument is good enough in this situation. Neither case can be allowed to rest there. Nuclear reactors are in this world to stay and to increase in number, although, of course, Chernobyl will set back their development for some time. The International Energy Agency sees no substitute at all for the proliferation of nuclear energy in the next three decades. Oil and coal, however in glut at the moment, are not seen as being substitutes, and we must always remember that the acid rain and the greenhouse effects from oil and coal are themselves ecologically disastrous and must be contained. We must never think that they are not themselves presenting major health hazards to the world. The fact is that the world's major industrial nations, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, are committed to nuclear power. If we abolished all nuclear power stations, which cannot be done, that would not in any way divert a body of people, if they were so determined, from making a nuclear weapon. They do not need nuclear power stations. It has to be said repeatedly that none of the material from the nuclear power stations is suitable in itself for making weapons. The fact of the matter is that the enrichment level of uranium for a nuclear power station is some 3.7 per cent compared with 90 per cent for a weapons enrichment plant, so do not let us have some idea that if we do not have nuclear power stations we will not have bombs. Do not let us have any argument to the effect that if we do not mine or export uranium that will save people from getting hold of fissile material and making bombs. The fact of the matter is that every country and every ocean in the world has uranium in bountiful supply and anyone with that intention can get the material itself. So there is no solution in that proposition. What must we learn from Chernobyl? We must all turn our full scientific scrutiny to every nuclear power station that exists in the world and examine it for any possible safety defects. Above all, we must examine it not simply for the defects that may appear to be emerging from Chernobyl. One of the great dangers is that we see an accident and then look for the details of that accident in other matters while, in fact, other defects are emerging. It may well be that the absence of a containment housing in Chernobyl was one of the major reasons for the dispersal of the radioactivity. It may well be that the particular graphite moderator system in Chernobyl was wrong. But we are not looking at that alone; we must look at everything that may be a defect. We must not simply say: `It has not happened to us so it cannot happen'. I talk of a world scene. In my judgment, there is a need for full and frank scientific discussions on an international level-international conferences and scientific seminars to bring out the details. There is a need to look at the International Atomic Energy Agency and to equip it with the full power not only to do what it now does, to examine whether any reactor is adding to nuclear proliferation of weapons, but also to look at the safety details and to report in a global fashion. No nation can simply say that it now has the total responsibility for its own nuclear station since the cosmic effects have been demonstrated. We have to look at our own role in this area. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the various physics departments of universities in Australia have an enormous amount of information and knowledge about this whole subject. I believe that fundamental to the solution to this problem-I invite the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to examine this-is the need immediately to set up in Australia an expert task force drawn from the Atomic Energy Commission and from our universities. We should equip that task force with the power and the responsibility to collect all information about what has happened at Chernobyl, about the fall-out of radioactivity over the European land mass and about the various accidents that have happened in reactors around the world. It should have the power to look at the International Atomic Energy Agency to see whether we can give it more power to ensure that safety factors are being observed. I regard it as absolutely fundamental that we in Australia should not just sit here getting caught up in what will be the ugliest nonsense-all sorts of pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear arguments-when the real situation is that Chernobyl has sent us a message about the universality of radioactivity and the need for us all to act quickly. I invite the Australian Government to set up an expert task force to be given full powers to make a detailed report which ultimately comes into the Parliament so that this Parliament and the people of Australia can have an intelligent and informed debate on what is now the subject of a debate of natural melodrama and great inaccuracies. I invite the Government to look to that purpose. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.57) —I have enjoyed listening to Senator Sir John Carrick, who preceded me. I wish to raise one particular point with respect to the accident that has happened in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I ask: Where are all the greenies? Why are they not outside the Russian Embassy as they would be if this accident had happened in the United States of America? We can turn our minds back to the Three Mile Island accident and the public commentators and lobbyists who made much of the United States' incapacity to keep its nuclear business under control. We do not see the same complaints with respect to the USSR. The topic that I wish particularly to address today is the public image of Parliament and, in particular, the Senate. The public image of Parliament is not good. One does not have to be bright to express that view. My concern is not so much with the public image of Parliament but particularly with the public image of the Senate. I have for some time expressed the view that the House of Representatives is not called the lower House without good reason. Therefore, I am particularly concerned to see that the public image of this chamber of Parliament is raised. I believe that we should all be turning our minds to ways of improving the image of the Senate, not only with young people, the electors of tomorrow, but also with the people who are voting today. I accept that our life-line to the electorate is the media. We can achieve some level of communication in our electorates without them, but by and large members of the public judge the Government and the work of each House by what they see on television, hear on the radio and read in the newspapers. If we wish to see an improvement in our image, it is my view that we must be prepared to initiate positive steps to encourage a fuller understanding of our work. It seems obvious that we must do this with and through the media. I have used the adjournment debate on more than one occasion to make comments on the role of the media and have on each occasion pointed out that, without prostituting ourselves to the media, we must work with them and they with us. Accordingly, I have what I believe is a positive suggestion, namely, that the Senate organise an annual prize or award for outstanding reporting of the Senate. Such a prize or award would need to be something that was seen a prestigious acknowledgment of achievement rather than a buy-off. Accordingly, details of any such award would have to be worked out with members of the Press Gallery committee so that in no way were there rules of court, if one can put it that way, and so that any cherished guidelines or ethics of the media would not be interfered with in any way. A number of questions would have to be sorted out. Would such an award, for example, be made only to the printed media, or would the electronic media also be eligible? The guidelines for selecting the winner of such an award would have to be carefully worked out. Would we be looking, for example, to make that award to the best article that appeared in the previous year, or would we be more inclined to look for a series of articles that reflected more properly the work of the Senate? Would we be looking for articles on the role of the Senate or covering things that happen in the Senate? There are obviously different styles of journalism and these are the things we would need to consider before instituting such an award. Nonetheless, I believe that if we want our image to improve we will have to take some constructive steps towards that. Some people may say: `If you each lift your own game, naturally the media reporting of the Senate will improve'. I am not at all sure that that is true and I see nothing wrong with offering an incentive to journalists to consider seriously the manner in which they report the work that we do, not only in the chamber but also in committees. As I am on the topic of the media in general and their reporting, I ask that honourable senators, if they have not already read a particular article, seek it out and read it. I refer to an article in the Age on 7 April 1986 by Michelle Grattan, headed `Are the media being fair to John Howard?' In this article Ms Grattan canvassed a number of points, but the main point she wished to make was that the media should be turning their minds to the question of comparative standards, which should be applied in reporting both sides. I hope that the comments I wish to make will be received in a bipartisan way, so I will not go on and pick out the pro or negative Howard aspects thereof, but I think the article does raise some serious questions to which we all should turn our minds. One particular aspect is raised. I quote a section of the article: Once Howard-or any other leader-begins to slide, the media pressures operate to push him down further. Bad publicity generates bad polls which generate bad publicity. There comes the smell of blood. A fashion of `knocking' Howard has developed. Justified criticism gets beaten up. Tactics and appearances come to be seen as more important than what the man is saying, strategy more crucial than substance. Those comments would apply whether Howard was Leader of the Opposition, whether the Opposition had a different leader, or whether the Liberal and National parties were in government and we were talking about a Labor Opposition Leader. This article does not tell us anything new, but it does invite us to reconsider our attitude and the media's attitude to the way in which the media can influence the attitudes of the community, not only to leaders but to the role of Parliament in particular. The problem that I have with the media is the manner in which I believe they comment on both chambers in Parliament. I put it to honourable senators that the media really are a bit like football commentators. They are constantly reporting on tactics, and it is my view that they should give some attention to reporting on substance. I put it to the Senate that, if the Opposition asks a question and the Government successfully avoids answering the substance of that question, the reporting tends to be along the lines that the Opposition has failed to draw the Government on a particular issue, or it may be reported that Government tactics have out-manoeuvred Opposition questions and attacks. There is a place for this sort of reporting. The capacity to have good tactics in parliament is one that should not be ignored, but I ask: Where is the reporting on the substance-the investigative journalism that in itself questions the Government, rather than giving that role completely to the Opposition? I do not deny that that is a major role of the Opposition, I simply deny that there is no place for the media to take up this task. If the media leaves the questioning of Government all to the Opposition, in my view they are failing in a fundamental role. I have a number of friends who are journalists, and have had a number of lengthy discussions with one of them over this matter. My friend says that it is not the media's role to be in opposition, but that they should just report on the theatre and the tactics thereof. I could not disagree more. I accept that the media do have a role to report on the tactics, but I express the wish that while the Labor Party is in government, and in future when the coalition is back in government, the media will take up for themselves in a much more substantial way the role of questioning Government. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(1.07) —I want to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to speak about some serious concerns I have about the Government's stated defence objectives and whether they are being funded in a way that allows the Government to obtain those objectives. I do not wish to debate the matter of whether we are spending enough on defence, whether we are buying enough capability or anything like that. I have always made it very clear in this Senate that I do not believe we do spend enough on it, and I cannot help wondering whether the rapidity of change in our relationships in the region in the last two weeks has not caused all those analysts who live in fantasy land in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence, and who preach the doctrine of no foreseeable threat for the next ten years, to reflect on the fallacies that they have been promoting. But it is not my intention today to talk about that. I want to look at the objectives that this Government has set with respect to new defence purchases, because I do not see that it has a hope of attaining those objectives within the budgetary parameters it has defined. I hope it does, but as I see it there are some very real reasons to be concerned that it will not be able to buy the new equipment that it has agreed to. We constantly have to buy equipment for the defence forces, we are involved in some major programs at present and it is very clear that we will have a whole lot more major purchases in the future. The importance of this analysis of what is going on is that we are nowhere near the end of the road; we are only at the very early part of something that, quite clearly, is going to extend for 20 or 30 years. We are at present operating under a doctrine that we can cut short our operational efficiency in order to put money into new equipment and that at the end of the day we will have an increase in capability. I have no quarrel with that doctrine, but it all turns on the length of time that we give up to our present operational capabilities. If it is for three to five years it is one thing; if it seems that it will run on for 15, 20 or 30 years, as I think it will if we follow this trend, it is another matter altogether. To put into perspective the scale of expenditure, I point out that the Estimates that appeared before the Senate last year for the August 1985 Budget, for the fiscal year 1985-86, dealt with an expenditure of $6,535m for the Department of Defence. In the Estimates that came through a couple of months ago, anticipated expenditure for the Department was increased to $6,702m. The Defence vote can be considered in a general sense as going in two directions-first for personnel, and secondly for equipment. Under personnel costs we deal with the pay for servicemen and servicewomen, their training, food, clothing and housing; and the cost of their exercises for operational training-for fuel and ammunition. The other part of the vote-the non-personnel part-goes to buy new equipment, to replace equipment that is worn out or obsolete, and equipment which will give us new capabilities. For many years now the Defence vote has been organised on a continuous or rolling basis of a five year defence plan. The Department sits down in consultation with the Cabinet or the Executive and the Departments of Treasury and Finance and comes forward with a plan for the next five years as to how the money is to be spent. This is a management system which covers its current costs, meets the new obligations that can be foreseen and tries to avoid unforeseen expenses. In the final year of the Fraser Government, the five-year defence plan-the 1982-87 one prepared by that Government-provided for an average real rate of growth in defence outlays of 6.3 per cent. When the Hawke Government came into power in 1983 it abandoned the 6.3 per cent figure for the five year defence plan and substituted a 4.5 per cent real growth figure, and in May 1985 the 4.5 per cent was lowered to 3.1 per cent. On page 17 of the Report on the Forward Estimates and Budget Outlays and Staffing 1986-87 and 1987-88, published in November 1985, we find that that figure which was dropped to 3.1 per cent for the five year defence plan in May 1985 has been revised. The report states: . . . adjustments to reflect the currently approved planning guideline for annual real growth of 3.75 per cent. This is an increase on the underlying real rate of growth, 3.1 per cent, provided for in the 1985-86 Budget. Without any fanfare, the Government has lifted its estimate from the 3.1 per cent set in May 1985 to a figure of 3.75 per cent of real growth. We can draw a very clear deduction from that. If the bean counters in the Department of Finance and the Department of Treasury agreed that the 3.1 per cent figure for real growth had to be raised to 3.75 per cent, the Department of Defence had an acute problem with funding the purchases ahead. As everyone in this Senate knows, Treasury and Finance do not give up readily. Let us go back a few years to look at the same document for March 1983. On pages 30 and 31, dealing with the commitment of new funds to the Department of Defence, the Report on the Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays reads: Precise funding levels are determined annually. Contractual commitments and project commitments (i.e. where a project has commenced and expenditure has taken place, but where contracts for some aspects of the remaining works may not have been finalised) exist in the capital equipment and capital facilities elements of the program to an extent which would mean that a real increase of less than 3 per cent in funding in 1983-84 would lead to some reduction in normal service activity levels. In other words, the Department was saying that a 3 per cent growth in 1983 was the bare minimum we could accept. The Department has obviously done a lot of work and analysis on this over the years. The problems that face the Government come from several sources: The effect of inflation and the way inflation has driven the exchange rate down have provided a demand for more funds. The other factor has been the earlier than scheduled delivery of equipment purchased under foreign military sales contracts. This Government has claimed that over its three Defence budgets it has averaged 3.3 per cent in real growth, and it takes great pride in that. But it is very important to point out that that 3.3 per cent increase has really come through the unscheduled forward deliveries of equipment basically bought from America. In the first Budget the Government has a growth of 5.6 per cent in the Defence vote, but that came about because $80m came through the unscheduled FMS sales. Last year, under the 1984-85 Budget, this Government's second Budget, equipment purchases ran $213.5m over the estimate, yet the total Defence budget overrun was only $205m. So $8.5m was an unscheduled cut out of the personnel sector, insofar as I defined it, of the budget. Of that $213m of the equipment overrun, it was estimated that $160m came from the exchange rate changes and $62m from advanced FMS sales. Dealing with the provision of capital equipment, of the 1982-83 budget the proportion for new capital equipment was 17.4 per cent. In 1984-85, that 17.4 per cent had risen to 25.9 per cent as a consequence of inflation and devaluation. The basic assumption, as I said, that the Government is operating on is that we can buy new equipment, take a bit of a cut in our current operational capabilities for couple of years and then pick it up later on. That is a valid assumption only if it is for a short and finite period. But I would argue that, clearly, the new equipment costs are going to run for the next 20 years at least. If we are to have a reduced capability for that period, we will end up with very little operational capability in the defence forces. That capability is being cut in a number of ways. We have had a cut in absolute numbers. Last year the Services were reduced by a figure of 1,049; 523 from the Navy; 460 from the Army; and 66 from the Air Force. That was done from a very meagre base of service personnel. Operational training has been restricted, as has expenditure on fuel and ammunition. Expenditure in that area has been cut to a figure that all servicemen agree is at or below what we need to maintain an adequate level. Let us look at the financial planning in the five-year defence plan. The 1984-89 five-year defence plan, which is a product of this Government, provides for $8 billion for new capital equipment. Sixty per cent of that capital equipment was ordered and in train before the five-year defence plan was written up, which is more or less the normal practice. My source for these figures is a paper entitled `A Look at the Future' by Mr Motem. It originates from a defence information seminar given in Brisbane on 19 October 1984. Of that $8 billion, $3 billion was provided for equipment that was not already in the program, equipment that the Department could see that it needed. That $3 billion was provided on a base of five years, with an expenditure of $58m for 1984-85, $235m for 1985-86, $530m for 1986-87, $940m for 1987-88 and $1,180m for 1988-89. In a tight budgetary situation it is necessary to maintain a sequence. It is very important that if we agree to a program we spend that money within the prescribed time. If we fall behind for 12 months, two years of three years, we will reach a situation where the expenditure is so enormous that we cannot cope with it. This Government has deferred making purchases that it agreed to make, such as the purchase of helicopters for the FFGs. Those were deferred 12 months and came into a later fiscal year. The Royal Australian Air Force replacement helicopters is another example. They should have been purchased last year. They may be purchased this year, but it may well be that the decision goes past 30 June so that that big expenditure falls back two years. For 1985-86 the five-year Defence program called for an expenditure of $235m, yet we find on page 83 of the Budget Statements for 1985-86 there is the statement that `an additional $77m is provided for expenditure on new projects to be commenced in 1985-86'. In other words, the Department has called for $235m and is writing only $77m worth of new work. That illustrates my concern, we have an identifiably large number of big ticket items in the year ahead. One is the new destroyer program to replace the six present River class. It would take at least $6 billion to replace our present capability alone. The FYDP program provides for only $200m for fixed-wing aircraft. We recognise that we have to buy airborne early warning aircraft for the Air Force. That figure alone is in excess of $400m, and there is no space for that in the program. We have provision for only $200m for fixed-wing aircraft. In summary, I do not think there is enough money for the years ahead. We just do not seem to be maintaining the rate of expenditure that the Government set itself for its five-year defence plan. If we do not maintain that rate of expenditure against the time scale the Government set, we will get to a position where we will have such huge expenditures that we simply cannot cope with them. If we cannot cope, we cannot maintain the capability we have. I have a great concern that is recognised by the Government. It is one of the reasons why it set up the Dibb inquiry. The terms of reference for that inquiry state: 3 (a) to undertake a review of the content, priorities and rationale of defence forward planning in the light of these strategic and financial planning guidance endorsed by the Government; It is clear from the statements made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) that the financial guidance amounts to 3 per cent of gross domestic product. On the evidence we have today, 3 per cent of gross domestic product will not maintain in the foreseeable future the capabilities we have today. I think we are moving into a situation where the Government will have to cut capabilities to live within that 3 per cent budget. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(1.22) —I wish to address some remarks to the current crisis in the area of Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. I think it is indeed deplorable that the Soviet Union did not give its own people, let alone its neighbours, acknowledgment of this accident as soon as it occurred. The secrecy which has surrounded the accident for three days and which continues is deplorable. Although it is doubtful whether a lot of preventive measures could have been taken, part of the whole problem with the nuclear industry is still that it is shrouded in secrecy and the Soviet Union certainly must take a great deal of responsibility in this current crisis for keeping the world and its own people in the dark about what exactly is going on there; what caused the problem; what levels of radiation are emanating from that plant, which is still out of control; what emergency measures might be put in place for the people in the area. Honourable senators can imagine what it would be like living in the area around Kiev at the moment. With the winds taking the nuclear cloud around western Europe, many people are indeed in danger of their lives or if there lives are not in danger in the immediate future, in danger of the illnesses which can result from caesium iodine and strontium 90 being in the atmosphere and taken on the winds. I think that we need to look very carefully at the whole of the nuclear industry. Twenty-six countries have nuclear reactors-there are apparently 374 reactors on line at the moment-and there is therefore an enormous amount of movement of nuclear materials all around the world. There is not adequate control over the movement of such nuclear material, whether it is weapons grade material or the material for so-called peaceful purposes. In fact, a great deal of weapons grade material goes missing as nuclear material is transported from one country to another. I think that we need to be aware of the fact that there is a very close link between the nuclear power industry and the nuclear weapons industry. If we look at the history of the nuclear power industry, we see that it was promoted from the early 1950s, close on the heels of the Manhattan project, when the proponents of the nuclear weapons industry needed a respectable front for their military activities. They also needed the plutonium, which is a by-product of the nuclear power industry, for use in their nuclear weapons industry. There was a great deal of subsidy going on on the part of the Government of the United States of America in those early days of the nuclear power industry when it was advertised that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter. That has been proved to be false. It is indeed a very expensive form of energy, apart from being a very dangerous one, but it got its original economic kick-off because it was so highly subsidised by the proponents of the military uses of uranium. That link cannot be denied and it is an area in which I believe the Australian Government is not responsible. The Government's current reiteration of its commitment to fuelling the nuclear industry in the light of this Chernobyl disaster is morally contemptible, and I would think that surely even the most avid proponents of the nuclear industry will be rethinking their claims of the safety of nuclear power in the light of this recent disaster. Claims about the peaceful uses of Australian uranium are a nonsense. Even if we could prove that the use of Australia's uranium was confined only to the nuclear power industry, that in itself would be bad enough. But, of course, we cannot prove that that is the case. Once Australian uranium enters the nuclear fuel cycle there is no knowing where it ends up. It may end up in terrorist bombs or in the bombs of the superpowers. Even if it is used only in nuclear power generation that, as I said, is too dangerous for us to be involved with. The nuclear industry is riddled with accidents. Some of the most well known ones, including the accident at Windscale and the Three Mile Island accident, could have resulted in the same accident that has just happened in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. They were near meltdowns. In the cases of those accidents the experts were befuddled; they did not know what to do. We heard from one of the engineers at the Windscale plant at the time that they sat around and twiddled their thumbs for a couple of hours when it was underway. They really did not know what to do and finally they poured water on the fire, not knowing whether that would actually inflame it further or whether it would have the desired effect of putting it out. When, in fact, after 12 hours it did put out the fire they all breathed a sigh of relief. But it was a huge gamble that they took; they did not know that it would work. It did work in 1957, but those involved were just very lucky that it did. They did not have the technology; they did not know for sure that it would work. The point that I am trying to make here is that there is not adequate provision for accidents or emergencies of this kind in the nuclear power industry. It has been a matter of luck rather than good management that the plants at Windscale and Three Mile Island did not melt down. There have been many other examples. There was a severe accident in Kyshtyim in the Urals in 1957 and the area is still highly contaminated. People who drive through that area in the Urals are advised not to stop, not even to wind the windows of their cars down, just to keep going because the area is still so highly contaminated. So when the Soviet Union says that this is the first accident in the nuclear power industry, that is not true. It should come clean and admit that it has had other accidents, including that one in Kyshtyin in 1957. There have been hundreds of accidents related to the nuclear power industry, which have been very carefully listed by Senator Ruth Coleman. We are very grateful to her for that list, which she continues to keep up to date. It is a very valuable document but it is a damnably long list of nuclear accidents. For Australia to claim that we have a responsibility under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to provide uranium I think is missing the whole point about the morality of this debate. Environmentally, nuclear power is unsafe, and it is no longer economically viable. Since the Three Mile Island Accident in 1979 in the United States of America there have been no new orders for nuclear reactors in that country. The economists' predictions that 2,000 nuclear power plants would be operating by the year 2,000 have fallen far short of their targets. They realise that economically the plants are not viable. For years the anti-nuclear lobby has said that the waste problem is enough reason for the nuclear power industry not to go ahead, because no provision is made for the radioactive left- overs of that industry. Now we can add to that the fact that in the case of any emergency there are no adequate precautions. There are no emergency procedures which can be put in place, which can be guaranteed to contain a nuclear accident of the kind that is operating at the moment in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. Some people will argue that it is because the Soviet technology is behind. Some will argue that it is because the particular reactor there did not have a containment dome. Those two things may be true but in the case of a meltdown, containment dome or no containment dome, the bottom falls out of a nuclear reactor and that creates such an enormous amount of energy and such an enormous explosion that the roof lifts off as well. The fact that there is no containment dome there perhaps meant that the radiation emanated from the plant earlier than it would otherwise have done. But if there had been a meltdown at Three Mile Island or at Windscale, exactly the same problems would have emerged. The containment dome is no provision against a meltdown. It is what people in the anti-nuclear lobby have been saying for years is likely to happen. Now, if it has happened-we are not even sure of the extent of the damage because it is shrouded in such secrecy-it points to the fact that the risks are too great in the nuclear industry. Millions of people live under the cloud of that possible accident happening at any one of the 374 nuclear reactors which are in operation in the world at the moment. Senator Peter Baume —Up to that point you would have had our agreement. You lose us there. Senator VALLENTINE —I think that any one of those reactors has the possibility of a melt-down, because the technology itself gets out of control so easily. There is not adequate provision. Western scientists have been called in to try to help with that problem and they have not managed to solve it yet. As far as I know, the fire still rages and radioactive contamination is still pouring forth from that reactor despite the fact that Western technologists are trying to give some assistance. I believe that Australia's involvement in uranium mining should stop immediately in light of this accident. I believe that the Labor Government should take note of this accident and rethink its policy. I hope that it will do that at the Australian Labor Party Conference in Hobart in July. Apart from that, we should also consider the existence of Lucas Heights, admittedly a very small research reactor which is encased in a dome. Of course, it is a different type of reactor from the one which is suffering this problem in the Soviet Union at the moment. But the fact remains that there is a possibility of a meltdown at any nuclear reactor anywhere in the world, no matter its size or its type. There is that possibility and, of course, people in the Sutherland Shire who live in the vicinity of the Lucas Heights reactor are very concerned about the leaks which emanate from it periodically. It is not safe as it is operating at the moment, and it should be shut down. I also want to draw attention to the fact that we invite into our ports nuclear reactors on board submarines and warships of the United States Navy, possibly the United Kingdom Navy and maybe the French Navy. It does not matter whose Navies they come in with, whether they be Soviet, Chinese, French, British or United States; it is the nuclear reactors on board those ships which pose an environmental danger to the people in the ports that they visit. I am just going to give the Senate a short list of some accidents which have happened with nuclear generators on board ships. The first couple concern Soviet accidents. In September 1981 a nuclear submarine operating in the Baltic had an emergency and was towed to Soviet waters under cover of darkness. Several sailors died from severe nuclear radiation poisoning. There is not a name attached to that submarine accident. This information, by the way, has come from the Central Intelligence Agency. Obviously, because of the secrecy which surrounds all things nuclear, it has not even got the full information. The next accident is better documented. In 1966 a nuclear reactor on board the 17,000-ton icebreaker Lenin suffered a sudden catastrophic accident, a meltdown killing up to 30 people and injuring many more. The list of accidents on United States submarines, aircraft carriers and other ships which are nuclear-powered is also very long, although not of melt-downs. That has not occurred on United States ships as yet. Again, I think we have been lucky that that has not occurred. That possibility exists anywhere a nuclear power reactor is in operation. In 1980 150 gallons of radioactive coolant was released on board the ship USS Hawkbill contaminating five workers, two internally. In 1982 there was a spill of 50 gallons of low-level radioactive water during maintenance of the USS Sam Houston resulting in the contamination of one individual. In Brisbane in July 1983 an American nuclear warship, the USS Texas, limped out of Brisbane with a gaping hole in its stern after backing into a wharf while trying to turn around in the Brisbane River without the help of tugboats. There was no release of radioactive contamination in that case, but it shows that accidents can happen with these ships and that, because there are nuclear reactors on board, it is very dangerous to allow them into our ports. In 1963, USS Thresher, a nuclear-powered submarine, experienced reactor problems and sank off the coast of New England with 129 men on board. In 1959 a sodium-cooled reactor on board USS Sea Wolf was replaced and dumped in the Atlantic Ocean releasing 33,000 curies of radioactivity. In 1959 there was an explosion and fire in the reactor on the submarine in which one man was killed and three men were seriously injured. In 1975, the sub-tender USS Proteus dumped reactor coolant into Harbour at Guam. Radiation levels 50 times the federal limits were recorded in the area. These are the kinds of ships which come into Australian ports frequently and into Western Australian ports very frequently, and far too often. In fact, they should not be coming in at all bearing either nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors. Emergency procedures are kept under raps. There is an emergency procedure, I believe, for which the State emergency services is responsible, but it is not public. The people who are involved do not even know what emergency procedures they should be taking. They are not trained in dealing with any emergency which might arise and therefore there would be a case of total panic in a port in which an accident occurred on board a nuclear-powered submarine or ship. People just do not know what the risks are and they do not know what to do in the case of an emergency. A committee has been set up consisting of representatives from the Western Australian police, the Western Australian Department of Emergency Services, the Western Australian Premier's Department and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Its proceedings have been kept secret since it started work on an emergency plan in 1976. I have tried repeatedly to get a copy of this plan. What is the point of having an emergency plan if it is so secret that even the people who are involved do not know how to deal with an emergency which might arise? There would be total chaos and confusion. A more responsible attitude was taken by the civil defence services in New Zealand. In 1979 they put out a leaflet warning people what to do in the case of an accident when the USS Haddo visited New Zealand. They talked about assembly points and decontamination centres. These are the sorts of things that people in ports visited by warships should know. Of course, they sound extremely scarey, as indeed they are. If people had the information, I believe that they would not be allowing the visits of such dangerous ships into out ports. One particular line in a leaflet put out by the Civil Defence service in Auckland in 1979 was-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(1.37) —At a time when relationships between Australia and Indonesia are a little strained, when a single event can lead to unfortunate massive overreactions from both sides, I wish to draw to the Senate's attention a flagship of good will in an institution that has undoubtedly drawn the people of both nations closer together. I refer to the Australian Language Centre in Jakarta. The building of bridges and the understanding and learning of the cultural backgrounds that lead to attitudinal positions are essential if we are to come of age in our relationship with our second nearest Asian neighbour. This archipelago nation of over 13,000 islands, spreading 5,000 kilometres from east to west, is the fifth most populous nation in the world. It is in both nations' interest to foster relationships, to look towards what has been achieved as far as co-operation is concerned in the past and to build on those positive projects that have taken place rather than placing undue emphasis on the negatives and on confrontationist positions. I think we should acknowledge that Indonesia has enough problems of its own and acknowledge that it has achieved a great deal in the immediate past. Much of what has been achieved has been based on the sound principles of its Pancasila. As an aside, I think we have to be careful that we do not allow segments of the Press to dominate the thrust and directions of our foreign policy. The Australian Language Centre was officially opened by the Prime Minister in June 1983. It is remarkable that the co-operation of the Indonesian authorities has been excellent and has assisted in making this centre so successful. There have been a variety of statements as to the nature and objectives of this Australian Language Centre. In fact, it has been variously described as an aid project, a training institution and a visible Australian presence, as well as an English language resource centre. At the moment the Centre, as has been the case since its inception, is funded and administered as an aid project by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Essentially, the Centre is a training institution in that the majority of its activities are directed to the teaching of students on courses. It also has a visible role of an Australian presence at the centre of Jakarta. It is currently under the directorship of Miss Rena Kelly, who has had extensive experience as a lecturer in English language teaching. The Australian Language Centre is a unique venture of ADAB. Despite inception problems it has very quickly achieved a reputation for high quality services in English language training in Indonesia. It is, in effect, an outpost of Australian educational expertise, and the demand for the ALC services has been a useful barometer of the strong interest in Indonesia in gaining access to Australian technical assistance and educational services. As an aid project, I think we all have to acknowledge that this language centre is somewhat of an anomaly in that it is not sited in a host counterpart institution. As a training institution, on the other hand, it represents the best of Australian resources in education and it has a bright future. I take this opportunity of suggesting that perhaps the time has come to change the heirarchy and the funding from one of an ADAB aid project to one which is administered either through the educational office in Australia or through the Department of Trade. I believe that it has now come of age and it has a valuable role to play. As a flagship, it has been essentially successful in Indonesia. I would like to see similar institutions developed in other countries throughout the whole of South East Asia, because more and more people not only in Australia but also in South East Asia recognise and accept that Australia is part of this region and that the Australian destiny lies with Asia and with the Pacific. I think we should acknowledge the following words from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore: If the relationships between the peoples of Asia and of Australia can develop and grow in mutual regard, they would be a most powerful influence in shaping this sense of shared destiny and nudge our peoples towards constructive and co-operative purposes. I believe that we have to build on what has been developed in this Australian language centre in Jakarta and I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) whether she can give encouragement to developing similar centres in the major countries of the whole of South East Asia, because that is where our destiny lies. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.43) —I am induced to join this debate by the very notable contribution of my colleague Senator Sir John Carrick and by the interesting comments of Senator Vallentine. I have travelled in Europe on a number of occasions and have noted a continuing and distressing change each time I go there. I have noticed increasing levels of pollution in Belgium and Germany. I am advised that the trees across Europe are dying. I am advised that in Scandanavia 2,000 lakes have been destroyed by acid rain. Part of this acid rain is the result of the emissions from coal-fired power stations. I am advised that in Canada 1,000 lakes have been destroyed in terms of the flora and fauna. I know that power generation carries with it risks, whatever the source of generation, whether it is coal-fired power stations, oil-fired power stations or nuclear stations, and it is right that we should today be talking about the Chernobyl disaster-its extent, what can be done about it and what we should be doing. Indeed, I have had expressions of concern from within my community. I had a telephone call last night from a retired engineer, a man with whom I play bowls each week. He rang me to ask had we considered the use of the inert gas, argon, because that was a gas which he had used in not dissimilar situations in industry to stop certain fires. People are concerned. If my colleague Neil Falconer would phone me last night from Sydney because of his concern, I imagine many Australians are concerned. One of the issues for us is to ask: What form of power generation should we be pursuing? What form of power generation is going to be best for us? There is no such thing as safe power generation. Coal-fired power stations carry with them enormous risk. There is a risk in obtaining the coal. There is the loss of life of miners in direct trauma and the very considerable loss of life which I saw from the dust diseases of the lung-emphysema, silicosis and the other pneumoconioses which are part of the life of the miner-and there are the emissions from the power stations which cause not only the effect to the environment, the destruction of the flora and fauna, but also deaths. The American Medical Association has estimated that 50,000 Americans die each year from acid rain or the effects associated with acid rain. If I go back to Europe this year and travel through the Schwartzwald, I will find a loss of the trees in this great forest, and expressions of great concern. When I was in Germany last year I was struck by the levels of pollution and asked the locals what it was due to. They blamed it partly upon their form of power generation. So it is all a question of relative risk. It is quite clear that what has happened in this nuclear plant is a disaster by any standards. What we have to ask, in terms of relative risk, is whether that is a cause for re-evaluating nuclear-powered generation as a mode of power generation or re-appraising our approach to it. I am disposed to think that in spite of the disaster at Chernobyl and our distress at the loss of life and our continuing distress at what appears to be an uncontrolled situation, that the generation of power by nuclear means-nuclear power generation-is probably still the safest and best available. I should probably say that it is the least unsafe. It is my view that we have underestimated the costs both to health and to the environment of traditional forms of power generation. Let me place that against the background of saying that I share the concern expressed by Senator Vallentine. I would not like to see any disaster to our environment or to our people but I do not accept Senator Vallentine's conclusion that because these risks are there we should turn away from nuclear power generation. I believe the alternatives are worse. I raise one other matter. This concerns a matter relating to the Office of the Aged. I wonder whether the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) will pass this on to Senator Grimes's office, as it is a concern. The Office of the Aged properly and commendably decided to carry out some community consultations in Victoria. On 9 April, over the signature of Marie Faulkner, the Director-it was signed on her behalf-it sent an invitation to various groups to meet for consultations on 22 April. This letter was sent by mail and was received by the peak organisation in Victoria, the Victorian Consultative Council on Rehabilitation, on 15 April. It was received on 15 April; it referred to consultations which were planned for 22 April, and the Victorian Consultative Council on Rehabilitation then had the problem of how to advise all the people who would be interested in the consultations that they were occurring, how to get the invitations to them, how to get the information back to the Office of the Aged and how to try and set people up when it had at the most a week to organise these matters. This was against the background of the very slow mail deliveries in Victoria. Indeed, it sent some of the material out by mail. We know that one organisation received the material on Monday, 21 April. So we had a commendable initiative being taken within the Department of Community Services, but because the method used was to depend upon the mail, it was like sending the information by runner. By the time the material arrived, there was no time left in Victoria to make adequate arrangements, certainly not in time for the organisations involved to be informed and to get their representatives to the meeting. I therefore commend to the Office of the Aged either better planning so that the material goes out sooner or, if a decision is taken late and the Office wants the matter carried out within a couple of weeks, some method other than Australia Post, in light of the present state of Australia Post's capacity to function quickly. I suggest, for example, that the office use the modern electric telephone to get in touch with people directly to let them know that it plans these consultations and would like their presence. If it does so, it will avoid much of the stress that has occurred in Victoria, which was made known to me by a consultative body and by people who have been approached. They simply did not have time to avail themselves of this offer from the Department of Community Services. It could be done better and I believe that it should be done better. Sitting suspended from 1.50 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate who has already given me an answer, yes. I am just checking the question because that answer will actually do for the first part of the question I wanted to ask him. In his absence yesterday, Senator Richardson spoke on his behalf during an urgency debate. The honourable senator specifically said that he was speaking on the Minister's behalf. He told us that Senator Button and the Treasurer would be having further discussions with the vehicle industry on the fringe benefits tax. To quote Senator Richardson: `The door is still open to change'. He also said that Cabinet would have to consider the outcome of those discussions later this week. In the light of the reports in several of today's newspapers, I ask the Minister: `Did Cabinet last night review the fringe benefits tax?' I will give him a chance to correct his answer of yes, which he has already given. If so, did it agree to any change in the tax? Is the door still open to change or has it been slammed shut in advance of tomorrow's talks between the Ministers and the industry? Senator Chipp —Why don't we all get together and roll Treasury? Senator BUTTON —And have fun. I am aware that Senator Richardson spoke in the Senate on this matter yesterday. I believe he did it very well. The answer to the first part of Senator Chaney's question is yes. Cabinet considered this matter last night and there will be no change in the proposed fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles. Senator TATE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation aware that recent reductions in the barrel price of oil have brought about a reduction in the price of aviation fuel of approximately 8c per litre or approximately $2,500 per tank of fuel in a normal aircraft? Is the Minister aware that this reduction saves airlines up to $600 on a return trip from Hobart to Melbourne but that no reduction in air fares has occurred? Can the Minister request the Independent Air Fares Committee to review fare schedules in the light of this information? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Tate asks a fairly logical question about the effect the reduction in the price of petroleum products should have upon air fares in Australia. There has been a reduction of approximately 8c per litre in the Prices Surveillance Authority's maximum endorsed price for the industry. However, I am advised that the price being paid by individual airlines would depend on the contracts they have negotiated. I gather from the advice that the Minister has given me on this matter that it does not follow necessarily that there will be a reduction in air fares. The details of airlines' fuel supply contracts are commercially confidential and guaranteed. The amounts saved per flight and per airline would depend upon the aircraft type being used. Under the provisions of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981, which, incidentally, was introduced by the previous Government, a review of the level of air fares applying at any time can be undertaken only on the receipt of a request from an operator or at the discretion of the Independent Air Fares Committee which would take independent action. There is no provision for the Committee to be otherwise requested to undertake a review of air fares offered by the airlines. Of course, we are confronted with the difficulty that the Government is not able to take any initiative in this matter. However, the Independent Air Fares Committee can take variations in fuel prices into account. I would imagine that if market forces, in which the Opposition has such faith, operate correctly, fuel prices ought to be considered by the Committee in line with its responsibilities to examine from time to time air fares in the Australian aviation industry. Currently, the Government would refer the matter to the Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation because of the implications which arise out of the decrease in price. The Government would hope that the Independent Air Fares Committee responds to what is happening to the price of petroleum products and take some independent action in this respect. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to Senator Walsh both in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer and as Minister for Finance. I refer to reports that union funds total $118m and that unions are now able to offer a wide range of benefits to their membership, including denticare, home loans, holiday homes, et cetera. Do these fringe benefits arise out of employment? If so, will they be taxed and who will pay the tax? If not, does the Government realise that this will aid tax avoidance in that it will mean that tax free benefits-- Senator McKiernan —Oh! Senator LEWIS —I am sure that Senator Walsh will understand this even if other honourable senators do not. I remind him that tax free benefits paid through an association, whether incorporated or otherwise, which is allied to the employment would provide a tax loophole through which one could drive a train. Senator WALSH —I did see some reports yesterday along those lines. I really am not able to confirm the veracity of the reports. However, as I understand it-and I will check this with the Treasurer-the employer of people employed by unions will be subject to a fringe benefits tax the same as any other employer. I gather that Senator Lewis is talking about union membership. My understanding is that they would not be subject to any fringe benefit related tax. Nor, I believe, would the members of a co-operative association-which is a reasonable analogy because as members of a co-operative they would receive trade discounts on purchases at a co-operative retail store-be subject to it. I think that is a reasonable analogy. I will check it out with the Treasurer. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I draw the Minister's attention to the decision of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal of New South Wales to penalise an Anglican, Dr Peter Tralaggan, for acting in accordance with his conscience in refusing to let his home unit to an unmarried couple. Is it a fact that as from 1 August 1986 the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act will operate in a similar fashion in States, including Tasmania, so as to require a person with a similar widely held conscientious belief to defile his or her conscience in order to observe the law? If so, what does the Government intend to do to overcome that situation which, since its publication, has been widely condemned by people, including Anglican Bishop John Reid in Sydney, Archbishop Dr David Penman of Melbourne and Dean Lance Shilton? Senator GARETH EVANS —I answered a question earlier this week on the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act as it affected married couples and discrimination on the basis of marital status. I made it clear that the law as it now stands, and will continue to apply in the States and elsewhere, does prohibit advertisements and attempts to confine the letting of accommodation to people of a particular marital status. There are exemptions in respect of people living in close proximity to the person specifying the requirement in question. If it is a domestic relationship, there is no obligation that this particular rule against marital discrimination be observed. But when, as I would assume is the case in this instance, all that is involved is the letting of accommodation, it is the case that the law prohibits discriminating against people on the basis simply of their marital status or lack of it, as the case may be. That was a matter that was fully debated in this Parliament and that remains the consideration that will continue to be the law. If one allows people to have conscientious personal beliefs in the way in which they discriminate on the basis of marital status, where does one draw the line in relation to those bigots around the place who would claim conscientious beliefs as inspiring and justifying their discrimination on the ground of race, colour, religious belief or any of the other categories of discrimination that have been regarded by this Parliament on cross-party lines as being unacceptable? It is very difficult indeed to try to incorporate conscientious objections criteria in this particular way. The final point that does need to be made-perhaps I should have made it earlier in the week in answering this-is that on the basis of information I have seen from the Human Rights Commission it appears that there are very few complaints that are made on this particular ground. But to the extent that complaints are made, I think they have almost invariably to date been able to be resolved by the ordinary conciliation processes under the existing Human Rights Commission Act and would not appear accordingly to be the kind of issue that justifies the drum beating that Senator Harradine is now endeavouring to give it. Senator HARRADINE —I ask a supplementary question: In view of the Minister's answer, does he therefore describe the comments of Archbishop Penman, Bishop Reid and Dean Shilton as being bigoted in this instance? In respect of the debate in the Parliament, were members of the Opposition given a conscience vote on my conscientious belief amendment? If not, why not? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is raising another question in the second part of his supplementary question. I will allow the first part of the supplementary question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not suggesting for a moment that Archbishop Penman or anyone else who may have commented on this-- Senator Harradine —You referred to bigots. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator was not listening. If he was listening he was cynically manipulating it for sordid schoolboy debating reasons of his own. What I said was that if aid, comfort and nourishment were given to those wishing to claim conscientious objection rights in relation to marital discrimination it would, under those circumstances, be very difficult indeed to deny a similar right to claim conscientious beliefs by certain bigots. Senator Harradine —That is wrong and you know it. Have a look at the transcript. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator should check the transcript of what I have just said. I think he will be obliged to eat his words. Senator CHIPP —I ask the first question today concerning the Chernobyl disaster. Senator Ryan —Hero. Senator CHIPP —I am sorry to go to trivia from the last ball-tearing question about sex, but if Senator Ryan will forgive me I think this is a shade more important. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy: Firstly, has the Government any updated information on the extent of the damage and loss of life so far and on possible scenarios for the next 48 hours? Secondly, is there any danger of the other two reactors melting down or catching fire? Thirdly, is it possible that a small but very dirty nuclear explosion could occur in this situation? Fourthly, does the Government still believe that nuclear energy is safe and that Australia still has an obligation to foster the use of nuclear energy? Finally, does the Government still believe that Australian uranium is good and somehow separate from nasty, accident-causing uranium, especially given the fact that Australian uranium has gone to Finland and then to Russia for processing? Senator GARETH EVANS —Union of Soviet Socialist Republics officials have regrettably not yet issued any substantial details of the calamitous accident at Chernobyl. There is still considerable confusion over the situation at that site and confirmed details as distinct from widely media reported details of damage and loss of life are simply not available at present, but I will certainly keep the Senate informed as further information does come to hand. Senator Chipp —There is no reliable information. Senator GARETH EVANS —Not as to the full extent of the damage and the matters that everybody is most acutely concerned to focus on, which are the extent of the loss of life and the precise nature and extent of the damage which has occurred. I am aware of media reports that United States satellite photographs have shown a second reactor at the site as being now on fire. However, the publicly released Landsat photos of the site, which are the only ones we have seen, do not show sufficient details to confirm this. The four reactors at the site are constructed in two pairs. I am advised it would be unlikely for damage to spread from one pair to the other, although it is not inconceivable that within the one pair there could be some overlap and that may be what has happened; we do not yet know. As to the question of the possibility of a nuclear explosion which Senator Chipp adverts to, I am advised that there is no possibility whatsoever of any nuclear explosion whether big or small, or clean or dirty, resulting from the damage to the reactors at Chernobyl. As to the general question of the safety of nuclear power, as I noted in my response to Senator Sanders's question on Tuesday, the safety record of the nuclear power industry until this accident had been very good, especially in comparison with other forms of electricity generation and other large scale industrial processes. It is too early to tell what the final results of the present accident may be. As to possible implications for nuclear power generally, as I noted yesterday, this type of power reactor is quite unique to the USSR and it is the case that its safety systems would simply not meet Western standards anywhere else in the world. Clearly there has been inadequate information available to countries affected by this accident, and the Government is considering what steps can be taken internationally to improve emergency reporting arrangements for nuclear accidents. I might mention in parenthesis in this respect that I did hear what Senator Sir John Carrick had to say on this subject in his contribution to the public interest debate at lunchtime. I will certainly give close consideration to his suggestions in that respect. The question of international reporting arrangements and international responses to situations of this kind is a question that I raised yesterday with the Japanese Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Kohno, who was in Australia yesterday but who has in fact been recalled to Japan this morning in order to deal with these questions in that country. There is undoubtedly an emerging international sentiment that something better needs to be done to fill the defects in the reporting and response system that have been shown by this accident. I do not believe this accident has affected Australia's position in relation to uranium mining and export. As I stated on Tuesday, I believe we do have an obligation to supply uranium to those countries dependent on nuclear power for a substantial proportion of their energy needs. Senator Chipp —A moral obligation? Senator GARETH EVANS —A moral obligation, a legal obligation and a treaty obligation. I am sorry if it offends Senator Chipp, but they are the terms I have stated and which I repeat, provided-that is a very important proviso-those countries satisfy the requirements of Australia's nuclear safeguards policy which is among the most rigorous if not the most rigorous in the world. Senator Chipp —Does Russia? Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me conclude my answer by coming to the question of Australian uranium possibly ending up in the Soviet Union. Under Australia's nuclear safeguards policy no Australian uranium is supplied to the Soviet Union. Senator Chipp —Direct? Senator GARETH EVANS —Directly. Nuclear safeguards are quite distinct in that respect from the issue of nuclear safety. That ought to be understood. It is the case that Australian uranium supplied to Finland is enriched in the USSR on an all-in all-out basis which ensures that all Australian origin nuclear material is returned from the USSR and accounted for by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I might mention in that respect that the USSR has one of the only-there are only four in existence-commercial enrichment sources available in the world. It is on that basis that the Finnish uranium is dealt with. There is nothing more sinister to it than that. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question. In view of the latter part of the Minister's answer, I ask him a very simple question: Can he rule out unequivocally the fact that no Australian uranium was used in this particular plant in which the explosion occurred? Senator GARETH EVANS —I repeat that any Australian uranium which may go to the USSR for enrichment-sent there by Finland or, indeed, for that matter, by other Australian uranium customers-does go into the USSR on an all-in all-out basis. Against that background, on the basis of that explanation, the answer is essentially, yes, I can guarantee that no Australian uranium stays in the USSR. Senator COATES —Is the Minister for Communications aware of the poor reception of the new Special Broadcasting Service Channel 28 in the Hobart suburb of Taroona? What can be done to ensure an improvement in reception for the people concerned, especially as Hobart generally has apparently welcomed SBS television so enthusiastically? Does the Government have any plans to this end, and how soon can implementation of those plans be expected? Is Taroona the only part of Hobart suffering a general problem in the reception of SBS? Senator WALSH —I do have a note about this. I am advised that the topography of Hobart makes television reception extremely difficult. The Department of Communications is aware that in a number of areas around Hobart reception of commercial and national services operating on very high frequency channels is less than adequate. There were initially concerns that the SBS, using the UHF band, would not adequately cover Hobart. Every effort was made to ensure that the transmission facilities provided to the SBS were the best that could be accommodated on the Mount Wellington site. A comprehensive survey of reception in Hobart is yet to be completed, but preliminary reports indicate that the Service is providing high quality reception to most parts of Hobart, including many areas where the reception of VHF services is normally inadequate. Unfortunately, Taroona is an area heavily shaded from the Mount Wellington site. It is expected that, while the reception may be marginally better than VHF reception from Mount Wellington, it will not be adequate and a translator will ultimately be required. Senator KNOWLES —The Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations would have noticed the comments by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, that the failure of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to grant a productivity increase would destroy the accord. Would the Minister not agree that this is placing undue and unreasonable pressure on the Commission to tow the Government and union line, thereby placing its independence in jeopardy on the matter of productivity increases? Senator WALSH —I am not aware-nor, so far as I know, do I have a note on that-of Mr Willis having made that statement, but I do not deny that he did. Not being aware of it, I do not think I can comment other than to say that, if the accord were to fail for any reason, I believe it would be a very serious blow to the welfare of Australia and to our continuing economic recovery. I base that assessment on recent experience in Australia and overseas. Recent experience in Australia-as recent as 1981 and 1982-has shown us that when the centralised wage determination policy was abandoned by the Fraser Government in May 1981 at a time of reasonably high economic growth it was followed by a wages explosion of 13 per cent in 1981 and 14 per cent in 1982. Under conditions of reasonably high economic growth there is no reason whatsoever to believe that that experience would not be repeated if the accord were to break down. Moreover, and perhaps more significantly, in the United Kingdom, which does not have the sort of economic growth that Australia has had in the last few years, which has been reducing the unemployment rate, in spite of an unemployment rate rising above 13 per cent, wage outcomes relative to the inflation rate have been higher than in Australia and those unionists who have managed to remain employed, in fact, have gained real wage increases. That is in spite of unemployment levels in double figures and rising. Senator COOK —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to an article in the Courier-Mail on April Fool's Day in which the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, is reported as backing the submission of the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair, to the Remuneration Tribunal seeking an increase in salary and allowances? Can the Minister quantify the additional Government spending which would be involved if such a submission were successful? Has the Minister considered drawing to the attention of the coalition's Waste Watch Committee such an example of potentially profligate and wasteful government spending? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have seen the Courier-Mail report to which Senator Cook referred. I have already acted on his suggestion that the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee be informed of this example of potential profligate and wasteful government spending. I can also tell Senator Cook that the cost of meeting Mr Sinclair's request, demand or whatever it was is of the order of $28,000 a year. I wrote to Senator Baume, the chairman of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee, on 9 April. In that letter I said that I was responding to Mr Howard's invitation to provide the Committee with information which would identify and highlight areas of profligate and wasteful government spending and that I thought this was a prime example of such a case. I received a reply from Senator Baume on 23 April-- Senator Elstob —Which Baume was that? Senator WALSH —Michael `Patrick' Baume. On 23 April Senator Baume replied that he regarded such money as well spent, which shows us that there is no limit to the self-indulgence of Senator Baume, along with Mr Sinclair, which I suppose is not really surprising given that both of them have a record of having been caught with their fists in the till, so to speak. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will withdraw that remark. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator REID —Is the Minister for Finance aware that officers of the Reserve Bank of Australia are unable to obtain information on their superannuation entitlements? Why is the Government procrastinating over the question of approval of the amended terms of the Reserve Bank Officers Superannuation Fund? Is the Minister aware of the difficulties that the delays are causing officers, particularly those with many years of service who are contemplating or approaching retirement? Senator WALSH —I am, in a general sense, aware of the matter Senator Reid raised. I apologise for not being able to recall the precise details but I will supply an answer either orally shortly or in writing. This matter is before me and I am considering it. I apologise for not remembering the precise details because I am considering the implications of the proposal-implications regarding a greater reliance on lump sum payments rather than pension payments, as any movement in that direction, of course, is at variance with the Government's general policy on retirement incomes. I cannot recall the details but I will supply an answer. Senator McINTOSH —Is it a fact that the Minister for Community Services has been approached by members of the South Australian Parliament to revoke recent changes to the Child Care Act? If so, what would be the effect of any such changes? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have been approached by members of the South Australian Parliament-members on both sides of the South Australian Parliament, in fact-to revoke or amend recent changes to the Child Care Act. The effect of such changes would be to limit our capacity to increase the number of child care places available and to continue the practice of providing an excessively high subsidy to those who are well off in the community, while being unable to assist those who have disadvantages, particularly economic disadvantages but also disabilities and peculiar disadvantages such as the Aborigines have. It would also limit our capacity in future years to contain the costs in child care centres. I can understand the members of the Liberal and National Parties in South Australia writing to me about this matter, because they traditionally support people who are better off in the community. I have some difficulty in understanding why all members of my Party in South Australia, except the Premier, Mr Bannon, wrote to me. I have written a reply to them, pointing out that I think they have misunderstood the situation. I particularly could not understand statements they made that what the Federal Government was doing in the area of children's services was insufficient, that it was not providing sufficient places and that, according to them, the places the Government did provide would not be used. My difficulty in this area has been compounded because I have just been approached by Labor members of the South Australian Parliament requesting that, wherever possible, I should make the opportunity available to them to open new child care centres. I have also been approached indirectly by another group who complained that the last time I opened a child care centre in South Australia I forgot to name the State members who were present. I realise this is a most discourteous thing to do. I think my colleagues in South Australia had better make up their minds whether they want to be in it or not. If they do not want to be in it and if they want to criticise the program, then my Federal colleagues and I will open all the child care centres. If State members want to open some centres, they had better have a look at their attitude to the child care program. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What will be the cost in both capital and annual leasing expenses of the proposed move of the Sydney operations of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from the AGC Building in the legal centre of Sydney out to new premises at Woolloomooloo? How much has been spent on improvements, renovations and fittings for and what is the leasing cost of the present area now occupied by the Arbitration Commission in Sydney in each financial year of that occupancy? What will be the total cost of the move? Was this move initiated by the Arbitration Commission itself? If not, who did initiate it and what is the attitude of the Arbitration Commission to this forced move to an inconvenient location? Senator WALSH —I cannot answer all the part of that question off the top of my head. However, I can give a general recollection of the matter, subject to later confirmation. It was accepted that there was a need to relocate the Arbitration Commission from its present central business district premises and it moved to another area. Senator Michael Baume said it moved to Woolloomooloo; I cannot remember whether it is Woolloomooloo. If I remember correctly, the cost of the new premises in that area was substantially less than the same type of premises would have cost in the central business district. I cannot remember all the details. I will get them from Mr Willis. I think I could safely say that the total cost of the move would have been a good deal less than the money that the pensioners and orphans who put money on deposit with Patrick Partners lost when that firm when bankrupt. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. This is the second answer in a row in which the Minister has attacked Senator Michael Baume. I ask you to call him to order, to do his duty as a Minister and to stop acting in that sleazy manner that he is-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark. Senator Chaney —To suggest that a Minister is behaving in a sleazy manner-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark. Senator Chaney —I withdraw the remark. I take another point of order, Mr President. I will rephrase what I said, since you will not permit me to use that expression. I think the Minister is behaving in a way which is totally unacceptable. He is thoroughly abusive. He shows a total lack of any sense of decorum. I think you should keep him in order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I am able to contain the Minister only so far as the Standing Orders of the Senate are concerned. I try to do that to the best of my ability. I appeal to the Minister to consider the matters that the Leader of the Opposition has raised when he is making replies to members of the Opposition from time to time. Senator Walsh —Certainly, Mr President. Senator MAGUIRE —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of a public campaign to lift the proportion which the age pension represents of average weekly earnings? Is it the case that in the next national wage case increases, money wages will not increase in line with the practice increases as measured by the consumer price index? If so, will this inevitably mean that pensions, which are linked to the consumer price index, will rise as a proportion of average weekly earnings? If so, what might the resultant proportion be? Senator WALSH —I am aware, in a general sense, of the sort of campaign to which Senator Maguire referred. I can tell Senator Maguire and anybody else who is interested that the latest available data-that is for the December 1985 quarter-show that the age pensions stood at 23.7 per cent of average weekly earnings, compared with a figure of 22.7 per cent of AWE in the March quarter of 1983 when this Government came into office. I think it should also be noted that the depreciation of the Australian dollar, which was provoked principally by the large adverse movement in Australia's international terms of trade, means that the nation as a whole must expect or accept some decline or at least a slower rate of growth in its living standards than would otherwise have been the case. Therefore, the overall cake that is available for domestic consumption has shrunk in real terms. The importance of that point to Senator Maguire's question is that the Government, through the prices and incomes accord, secured agreement from organised labour for a 2 per cent discounting of wages in the present national wage case. But pensioners will not be required to share in that acceptance, if one likes, of the reduced real income because the pension will continue to be indexed on the full CPI movement. Finally, because of those two factors, assuming that other things remain equal-that is, that AWE through the discounting agreement under the accord will increase by less than the CPI at least in the short term, while the pension will increase by the full CPI rate-pensions as a proportion of AWE should rise marginally above their present level. Senator KILGARIFF —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the decision of the Central Land Council to transport 60 Aboriginal people from central Australia to the Ranger uranium mine to ascertain the effect of uranium mining in that area before considering negotiations with mining companies on the development of new uranium mines in central Australia? In light of the considerable expense being incurred by the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council in their quests to negotiate the exploration and development of new mines in an effort to become financially viable and independent of government, will the Minister state whether the Government has any intention of allowing further exploration and development of uranium? If not, will the Government recompense the land councils for those wasted funds? Finally, if the Government has no intention of allowing further development of the uranium mining industry, does the Minister agree that the Aboriginal people involved are being led up the garden path? Senator RYAN —I do not have a brief on the matters raised by Senator Kilgariff. I recall that a group of Aboriginal leaders from the central area of the Northern Territory did travel north to the Arnhem Land area to study the effects of uranium mining on the local communities. My understanding of the purpose of the exercise was that it was not in relation to any future intentions of developing uranium mines in the Northern Territory but rather so that the people would have an increased understanding of the kinds of effects those sorts of developments have on the community. In that context, I think it is a most useful development. Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory are under a great deal of strain. Those communities who have been in contact with mining or whose lifestyles have been affected by mining are under even greater strain than, say, pastoral Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. From what I can recollect of what I heard of the expedition it was what one might call a community education exercise and one which the leaders themselves undertook. I think it is rather patronising and even a little insulting of Senator Kilgariff to suggest that they were being led up the garden path when my understanding of the situation is that they made this decision to undertake this community exercise themselves. Senator REYNOLDS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister urgently review the liaison process between his Department and the Department of Social Security which has led to the anomaly of reducing the disabled pension for married couples living independently in the community, while paying the full rate to them if they live in an institution? As it is the policy of the Department of Community Services to encourage and support independent living skills, will the Minister please advise the Department of Social Security that it is out of date in cutting the married pension rate when married couples try to survive independently in the community? Senator GRIMES —It is the Government's policy-and, indeed, the policy of both the Department of Social Security and the Department of Community Services-to encourage a move away from institutionalisation of aged and disabled people in the community. Both departments have taken significant steps to this end in such things as the review of new nursing home procedures, the development of home and community care services, and the introduction last November of the new carer's pension. However, in assessing income support, the Government must take account of the concept of need, and the concept of need in this area frequently creates what Senator Reynolds calls an anomaly-I am not sure that it is. Successive governments of all political persuasions have held that couples living together have greater means of support than individual pensioners, and as a result the married rate of pension has always been set lower than the single rate. That policy has existed in this country for as long as pensions have been in existence. Plainly, when partners enter institutionalised care separately, particularly if one is to be permanently institutionalised, their needs change and for income support services they need to be treated as individuals. I will check with my colleague the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, as to any changes his Department has made in this area recently. I do not think there have been any changes, but basically the policy that the single pension should be more than half the married pension, both for aged and invalids, has existed in Australia for as long as the pension system has been in existence. I will see whether that situation has changed in recent times. Senator TEAGUE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the Government's response, expected soon, to the Senate Committee report `Towards a National Language Policy'. Will the Minister outline developments towards a comprehensive response by the Government, which she promised 10 weeks ago in a careful statement to the Senate? Is the Government's response still expected some time this month? In particular, when will an Australian advisory council on language policy be announced? Finally, what significance is there that only 10 days ago the Minister appointed a special consultant to co-ordinate the final stages of the Government's response to the report? Senator RYAN —The third part of Senator Teague's question in a way answers the first part. The announcement of the appointment of a specialist consultant to work on the final stages of the development of the response is a major step forward. The consultant in question, Mr Jo Lo Bianco, is extremely well qualified for the task. He is an Italian language specialist who has also done post-graduate studies in bilingual and multilingual education issues. He has been, and I think still is, the Chairman of the Victorian Multicultural Education Committee. He is a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation National Commission and has been very involved in multilingual and bilingual matters in that capacity. I believe that through his capacity to consult widely throughout the ethnic communities and his knowledge of the area, he will accelerate the development of a suitable response. Mr Lo Bianco has been appointed for six months and I hope that at the conclusion of the period of his consultancy, we will have a document which will have widespread support, not only in the Senate but also in the community generally. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister seen allegations in the most recent issue of the publication National Farmer that some banks and finance houses are forcing cane growers in Queensland to budget on revenues below those which would be sustained under the Federal Government's proposed underwriting of the No. 1 pool price for the next three years? Has the Minister also noted that the article states that in some cases banks have been forcing growers to budget on pool returns as low as $180 a tonne for the 1987 season, when in fact the Federal Government's proposal would be to underwrite a price of $220 a tonne for the 1987 season? Is the article correct in stating that the Federal Government's sugar package would be worth millions to viable and non-viable growers alike? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article and I believe that some caution should be exercised in interpreting it. In reply to the last part of Senator Colston's question, the value to the industry of the Federal Government's package would depend on two factors, the first being the actual market price for sugar. If the market price for sugar were above what for want of a better word I will call the underwritten price, the Government's offer would become irrelevant. However, on present expectations of sugar prices that is unlikely. The second qualification is that the underwriting funding part of the Commonwealth Government's package depends on whether the Queensland Government does its bit and matches the very generous offer of the Commonwealth, that is, two Commonwealth dollars for one Queensland dollar. The latest information I have is that the Queensland Government, at the instigation or insistence of the Premier, still stubbornly refuses to commit that Government to the plan, heedless of the plight of a substantial part of the Queensland sugar industry and the avoidable hardship it will suffer. I also understand that the Minister for Primary Industries in Queensland, Mr Turner, would have willingly accepted the Commonwealth's package many months ago, but he has been stood over by the Premier, or cut off at the knees-to use Mr Kerin's word-and prevented from so doing. Mr Turner wants to do the right thing, but the Queensland Premier refuses to allow him to do it. I suppose that could account for Mr Turner's impending premature retirement. It would be much better for the sugar industry and everyone else if the Premier were to retire instead of Mr Turner. There has been a significant improvement in free market sugar prices in recent months. In the middle of last year the free market price was as low as US2 1/2c per pound and the last figure I heard was of the order of US8 1/2c per pound. That free market price is notoriously unstable and could change quite substantially in a short period. Because the Government was anxious to prevent any undue erosion of the price to the point where the capacity of the industry to produce for profitable markets might well be destroyed, it offered, subject to the conditions I have already mentioned, to support the No. 1 pool at a price of $230, $225, and $220 for the 1985, 1986, and 1987 seasons respectively. That was subject to being accommodatable within a maximum cost. I understand, however, that when the price was extremely low last year, some banks began using No. 1 pool prices below $200 a tonne when assessing growers' individual budgets. One can sympathise with the banks, I suppose, in adopting a figure like that for as long as the Queensland Government refuses to do its bit, or more accurately, the Queensland Premier refuses to allow the Queensland Government to do its bit, and match on a $1 to $2 basis the Commonwealth Government's very generous offer. But from the moment the Queensland Cabinet decides that it will stand up to the Premier and insist that the Queensland Government do its bit there would be no justification for banks making assessments of individual canegrowers' viability on a pessimistic assumption that the number one pool would return less than $200 a tonne. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. It results from a statement that he made in response to a question by Senator Chipp earlier today, namely, that countries other than Finland are using Soviet enrichment and processing facilities. Is Australian uranium being sent to Russia for reprocessing or enrichment from any country other than Finland? Does Russia retain the end products of fuel rod reprocessing? Can the Minister guarantee that no plutonium from the Russian reprocessing of Australian uranium, used in Finnish or other reactors, is retained in the Soviet Union or any other country for nuclear weapons? If the Minister claims that he can give this assurance, what techniques are used to precisely identify and quantify plutonium yielded from reprocessing spent fuel rods? Senator GARETH EVANS —That question displays a rather distressing confusion about some of the concepts that are involved here, in particular confusion between enrichment and reprocessing. When I answered the earlier question I spoke only of Finland and other countries using Soviet enrichment facilities. I did not speak of them using Soviet facilities to reprocess spent fuel rods. Senator Haines —Tell me they don't. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am just making it clear. By enrichment, I could have also added other toll processing exercises like conversion and fuel fabrication because that is subsumed in what happens with that uranium, but I certainly did not mean to include reprocessing of spent fuel rods, with Australian uranium in it, which does, of course, involve the extraction of some degree of plutonium and gives rise to the sorts of questions that Senator Haines has just asked. It is not the case that any Australian origin nuclear material that winds up in Finnish fuel rods is reprocessed in Russia. For that to happen would be at odds with the particular safeguards agreement that we have entered into with Finland. That safeguards agreement makes it permissible for Australian origin nuclear material to be enriched by some other country on an all-in all-out basis, as it is enriched in the Soviet Union in the case of Finland. That particular agreement does not make it possible for spent fuel rods with this material in it to be reprocessed in the Soviet Union. It is a very important distinction and one that I believe must be understood. Senator Haines also asked what other countries may use Soviet enrichment-- Senator Haines —You said `other countries'. Senator GARETH EVANS —Sure, there is no mystery about these things; they are all on public record. My recollection is that the agreements with Sweden and also with the European Atomic Energy Community-EURATOM-which is a group of about 10 European countries, also make provision for the transfer of Australian origin nuclear material for toll processing purposes-that is to say enrichment conversion and fuel fabrication-on an all-in all-out basis to countries, including the Soviet Union, with whom Australia does not have a bilateral agreement in force. Lest there be any residual confusion about the concept of all-in all-out, may I make it clear. What is already well known and on record is that all-in all-out does not necessarily mean that every single atom and molecule that goes in with an Australian flag sticking on it like a toothpick in an olive is the same atom or molecule that actually comes out again. The principle of equivalence does apply. We are talking about-- Senator Hill —You don't-- Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think I need any more help from Senator Hill. He should confine himself to olives and toothpicks and not try to contribute to discussions about uranium or he will get himself into as much confusion as the Democrats do. I think my answer has probably sown more clarity than confusion, but in the event that it has not, and Senator Haines requires further elucidation on it, I will do my best to oblige. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. I was going to preface my question by asking whether his attention has been drawn to page 13 of the Sydney Morning Herald, but I perceive from here that he has just got to that section of the paper. However, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the article in today's Sydney Morning Herald by Jock Collins in which he questions the assumption that increased migration stimulates economic growth? Will the Minister give consideration to encouraging further detailed study of this area using alternative methodology to that used in the Committee for Economic Development of Australia study? Senator GRIMES —Senator Ray has very good eyesight; I have just reached page 13 of the Sydney Morning Herald but I have not read the article. I understand that the article questions aspects of the Labor Party's policy, as announced by Mr Hurford in recent times. I am afraid that I have not read the details of this policy; nor have I read the article by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia which apparently places this policy in some doubt. I will read the article, I will endeavour to read the CEDA article, I will seek the views of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and if necessary will take the advice of Senator Ray and get an alternative viewpoint. Senator Button —Why are you misleading the Parliament? Senator GRIMES —Senator Button is making vile accusations, Mr President, but I will not ask him to withdraw as he is on my side. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the speech by the Prime Minister at the opening of the Constitutional Commission, I think on 30 January, in which he said that the `Government hoped that the Constitutional Commission would maximise public involvement and interest in possible alterations to the Constitution'. Is the Minister aware that the Constitutional Commission is proposing to publish issues papers for the assistance of members of the public who wish to make submissions to its committee? Is he also aware that these papers will not be available until the end of May and that the closing date for public submissions is the end of June, thus allowing only one month for members of the public to formulate, formalise and submit their written submissions? Inasmuch as it is the Government's intention, if I might quote the Prime Minister, `to encourage thoughtful consideration by ordinary Australians of the shape of the future of our Constitution', is the Minister tempted to share my view that a period of one month for submissions by ordinary Australians is not long enough? While recognising the independence of the Commission, is the Minister prepared to wait upon it and ask it to extend the period for a greater period than one month? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am delighted to hear of Senator Crichton-Browne's commitment to the process of thoughtful constitutional reform. It is a course I commend to others of his colleagues who have not been conspicuous for any similar commitment in the past. I am not able to confirm what precisely is the case about closing dates and so on for these submissions. I will refer Senator Crichton-Browne's concern to the Attorney-General to see how he wants to respond to it. I simply make the point that these issues have been with us for a very long time. I think the general parameters are pretty clear. The Constitutional Commission consists of a highly representative body of Australian citizens and I imagine that Mr Lionel Bowen is contemplating in the first instance that the real momentum will come not so much from further public submissions but rather from what is generated by this particular body. That may well be the rationale for having a relatively short consultation phase at this stage. Senator Crichton-Browne —They have to respond to the issues. Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand what the honourable senator is saying, and it is arguably the case that more time than that would be desirable. I will refer Senator Crichton-Browne's expression of concern about this to the Attorney-General to see if he is able to amend the processes accordingly. Senator BOLKUS —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a recent report in the Australian Financial Review regarding Marcos links with Australian companies involved in a large meat cartel, the central of these being the Sydney based company Phil-Bai International Pty Ltd whose directors, reputedly, are or were mostly Marcos cronies. At what stage are investigations by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of the Treasury into Marcos's Australian investments? Do they include the allegations related in the Financial Review? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have been advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Treasury has undertaken a preliminary examination of its confidential records on Philippines investments submitted to the Government over the past several years and has supplied the Department of Foreign Affairs with some factual information, some of which is already public, as well as some confidential information. To date investigations have shown that, on the basis of the available data, Philippine investment in Australia has been small, of the order of $32m at 30 June 1984 and mostly in services and primary industries. Australian officials have also perused the documents made public in the United States by the Solarz Committee. The contents of those documents did not identify Australian transactions or dealings for identifiably Australian transactions that involved Philippine assets. The Australian Government will consider sympathetically, as we have said previously, a request from the Philippines Government for assistance in the repatriation of Philippine assets and will give whatever assistance it can consistent with Australian law and policy. No such request has yet been received. As to the specific reference by Senator Bolkus to the Australian Financial Review report about the Phil-Bai company, I can confirm that the allegations reported in the Financial Review are under investigation. In addition, a special task force from the Philippines was in Australia recently on behalf of the Philippines Minister of Agriculture, Mr Mitra, on Phil-Bai related matters. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 29 April Senator Coleman asked me a question about exercises involving the United States off Western Australia. The answer from the Minister for Defence is this: No combined naval exercise between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia is currently planned for the Western Australian exercise areas off Fremantle. An exercise involving United States, United Kingdom and Australian naval units is planned for southern and eastern Australian waters later this year. As with all such exercises, precise details remain classified until shortly before their commencement. State and Territory governments are always advised in advance of any proposed visit to their ports by nuclear-powered warships. This is to enable the safety procedures required under the conditions of entry for nuclear-powered warships to be put into effect by the State and Territory authorities. The Government has no current request for any nuclear-powered warship to visit Western Australia. The Government does not believe that any appreciable hazard to the Australian people arises through our acceptance of warship visits from our friends and allies. Senator GARETH EVANS —I also have an answer to a question that was addressed to me yesterday by Senator Archer on the matter of the drug offensive. The Special Minister of State has provided the following response: I am advised by the Minister for Health that the $100m funding for the drug offensive over three years does not include the $10m for extra staff and $7.2m for enhanced computer capacity for the Australian Federal Police over three years promised by the Prime Minister before the 1984 election. The first instalment of these additional resources for the Australian Federal Police has been made in this financial year and has contributed significantly to the law enforcement aspects of the drug offensive. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. On two separate occasions at Question Time Senator Walsh repeated untrue and defamatory allegations against me similar to those he has been required to withdraw on many previous occasions. The fact that they are false is evident from the report of the inspector into the failure of Patrick Partners. The report, to the Wran Labor Government of New South Wales in December 1976, cleared me of any culpability or criticism in the following terms. I quote from page 58 of the report: I am satisfied that at the very least by the end of May, and certainly before the Application for Renewal of Licenses on 4 June 1975, all the Partners (with the exception of Mr Baume) were fully aware that it was at least a real possibility that Patrick Corporation Ltd would be placed in liquidation in the near future. I am also satisfied that all the Partners (again with the exception of Mr Baume) were aware of the involvement of Patrick Intermarine Acceptances Ltd in any downfall of Patrick Corporation Ltd and also of the likely consequences to Patrick Partners itself. The inspector indicated in the report that I had had very little contact with that firm since I sought to withdraw unilaterally from it in February 1975. Not only did the Wran Government decide to take no legal action against any of the partners of Patrick Partners-presumably because they had done nothing illegal-but also, as the record shows and the report indicates, I was specifically excepted from any criticism by the inspector on this matter. The Minister is fully aware of all this, as he has frequently referred to this report. In these circumstances his repetition of these false allegations represents a gross abuse of the privileges of the Senate. Senator AULICH(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to raise a serious matter of concern relating to a report of the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. I refer to an article on page 13 of today's Australian headed `Committee Rejects ID Card as Wasteful Exercise', bylined under the name of Alan Fewster. The article stated that the Australian had received a copy of the Committee's main findings and recommendations which were allegedly finalised yesterday. The article then quoted various sections of the alleged draft report, attacking the concept of an Australia Card as proposed by the Government. As Chairman, I am concerned that the integrity and objectivity of the Committee has been severely damaged by the Australian's article. It is not the first time during the conduct of these hearings that damaging reports have been given to the media. I cite an article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review on 15 April 1986 headed `Committee of MPs rejects plan for national ID card'. There have been others in a similar vein. Senator Chipp —You can't blame the media for publishing leaks. Senator AULICH —I am surprised that Senator Chipp intervenes in this matter. He will have his time to speak. For those of us on the Committee who attended all or most of the hearings, who have read and sifted through the 200 letters and submissions received by the Committee, who have worked on this report for five months and who have visited every State, this leak is seen as a serious attack on the credibility of the Committee's findings and work. At all costs we have attempted to work as a bipartisan team, free of overt political considerations. Our disappointment is, therefore, obvious. Accordingly, I have set in train the following process: First, I have personally contacted all secretariat staff of the Committee and sought assurances from them that they were not responsible for the leak. I received assurances from all of them that they were not responsible. Secondly, I called an extraordinary meeting of the Committee at 1.45 p.m. today and asked each senator and member present whether they were responsible for the leak; and whether they were satisfied with security in their offices. Thirdly, I will ask the Chief Security Officer to provide me with appropriate information. Fourthly, I have called another meeting of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card for Tuesday, 6 May to finalise the report and to establish the need to refer the matter to the Joint Committee of Privileges. At the meeting members of the Committee will indicate to me any problems they may have had with security. This statement will also be presented to the House of Representatives. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I table volume I of the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions conducted by the Hon. Mr Justice D. G. Stewart and seek leave to make a statement relating thereto. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —The final report of the Royal Commission was furnished yesterday to the Governor-General and to the Governors of New South Wales and Victoria. As honourable senators would be aware, Mr Justice Stewart conducted his inquiry pursuant to letters patent issued by the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoria. It has been decided that volume I of the report should be presented to the Parliament today. In those circumstances, I regret that only the minimum number of copies of volume I have been made available. I expect that further copies will be made available as soon as possible. The report consists of two volumes. It has been decided that volume I should be tabled, but not volume II. Volume II of the report contains considerable detail of possible criminal offences identified by the Royal Commission in the course of its inquiry. Those offences relate to breaches of Federal and State law. It has been decided not to table volume II because of the prejudice which may result to future investigations and prosecutions. I can say, however, that volume II has been passed to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for examination and decisions on future action, insofar as possible breaches of Federal law may be involved. I would expect that copies of volume II would be made available by the New South Wales and Victorian governments to their respective law enforcement authorities. Volume I of the report contains a comprehensive examination of the extent of illegal interceptions by Victorian, New South Wales and Federal police. It also contains a comprehensive description of specific police operations in which intercepted material was of benefit. Mr Justice Stewart, at chapter 16 of volume I, makes a number of conclusions and recommendations, in particular, concerning the extent to which telephone intercept powers should be made available to law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. The Government will give urgent consideration to those recommendations. I should say that the Government is in the final stages of a Bill to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act following decisions made at the Special Premiers Meeting on Drug Strategy in April 1985. Copies of the relevant Bill have already been forwarded to the States. Mr Justice Stewart's recommendations will be urgently considered in the context of that proposed legislation. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.12) —I thank the Government for its prompt tabling of the report of Mr Justice Stewart on the New South Wales police tapes-as they are now known rather than as the Age tapes. However, I express my concern that only volume I has been tabled. There is another volume which is confidential, certainly at this stage. The commission that was given to Mr Justice Stewart to investigate as a royal commissioner the New South Wales police tapes is one which the Opposition had strenuously urged upon the Government from the time that the Age tapes, as they were then known, were made so public by the Age newspaper in February 1984. Very shortly afterwards, the Opposition called for a royal commission into those tapes. The Government steadfastly rejected that call and maintained that objection for many months-in fact, for more than 12 months. After all the events that occurred in 1984, which I do not need to go over again, the Government was finally persuaded to give Mr Justice Stewart, who was then conducting various other royal commissions of inquiry and who had been appointed as the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, extended terms of reference to inquire into what are now known as the New South Wales police tapes. The so-called Age tapes were only a small segment of what has now been revealed as a much wider operation which was conducted over a number of years by a group within the New South Wales Police Force. The Stewart Royal Commission into Alleged Telephone Interceptions was no doubt assisted by the decision that ultimately was made by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to give indemnity to a number of New South Wales policemen to enable the full truth of this matter to be ascertained and reported. The Premier of New South Wales has played a very sinister part in this exercise over a long period because the sorts of threats that he was making to New South Wales police officers were of the kind for which he has now become notorious, as in his recent threats directed at a witness in a criminal trial. Senator Chipp —He said that he would put them in gaol. Senator DURACK —Yes, he did. Firstly, the Premier said that there was nothing in the tapes. That was interesting because he had been Minister for Police for a relevant period, so presumably he would have had some authority to say that there was nothing in the tapes. When it became clear that there was something in them he said that he would put in gaol any policemen who were found to have done something illegal. There was no prospect of having an adequate inquiry unless indemnities were given. Although the present Attorney-General seemed to be very reluctant for a long time to do so, he was prevailed upon to give those indemnities. No doubt that is why we now have what was described by Senator Gareth Evans when tabling volume I. He said: Volume I of the report contains a comprehensive examination of the extent of illegal interceptions by Victorian and New South Wales police and the Australian Federal Police. It also contains a comprehensive description of specific police operations in which intercepted material was of benefit. That volume has only just been tabled. None of us have had an opportunity to read it but the size of it bears out the description that it is a comprehensive examination of the extent of these interceptions. It is also very interesting that it is described as containing `a comprehensive description of specific police operations in which intercepted material was of benefit'. Clearly this large amount of material has been found to be authentic and of great value to police, who as a result have already carried out successful operations. What an outstanding contrast this information and this statement provide with not only what Mr Wran, the Premier of New South Wales, had been saying, but also the attitude of Senator Evans, who as Attorney-General month after month in 1984, with his colleagues-I do not see many of them here-continually maintained that there was no proof of the authenticity of the tapes; that they had no value and nobody could rely on them. Finally a Senate committee was established because no royal commission or joint committee was established by the Government. The Senate established a Senate committee to investigate this material. Virtually no co-operation was given by anyone in authority, largely because of the sorts of attitudes adopted by the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments. The Opposition will read volume I that has now been tabled with very great interest and care because it is highly relevant to the interest expressed in this place and to the inquiries that were undertaken by the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, which ran into various dead-ends and roadblocks along the way. Clearly, the findings of Mr Justice Stewart will be relevant to the examination by that Committee. It is also worth noting that a very interesting article published today in the National Times is about the trial of that judge. It is interesting to note the allegation that information contained in the New South Wales police tapes may have been relevant to that trial. The article stated in fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions sought assistance from the Royal Commissioner in respect of some possibly relevant material that the Royal Commissioner had and on which he may or may not have reported. We do not know. However, the fact is that these allegations have been made in today's issue of the National Times. These allegations will have to be examined very closely. Indeed, it may have been justified for Mr Justice Stewart to have taken the view that that information was relevant. I do not know whether it was or whether it was not. I think that needs to be examined as well. Be that as it may, it is another matter of concern and is passing strange that if this material were relevant the trial of that judge should have been disposed of just on the eve of the reporting of Mr Justice Stewart. That is another matter that will have to be considered very seriously and examined and which, maybe, should be considered and examined in quarters other than this Parliament. I refer to the other aspects of the statement made by Senator Evans, who said: It has been decided that volume I should be tabled, which has been done- but not volume II. He went on to say: Volume II of the report contains considerable detail of possible criminal offences identified by the Royal Commission in the course of its inquiry. Here is further proof of the authenticity and the value of at least some of this material. Senator Evans continued: Those offences relate to breaches of Federal and State law. It has been decided not to table volume II because of the prejudice which may result to future investigations and prosecutions. I can say, however, that volume II has been passed to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for examination and decision on future action . . . Obviously there are sufficiently important and serious matters of great value and likely proof contained in this material. As volume I apparently shows, that material already has been of benefit in criminal investigation and law enforcement. Apparently this material is going to be of future benefit because of the so-called sensitivity of the material in volume II. I would like to register on behalf of the Opposition our concern that volume II has not been tabled. I do not know the size of volume II. I acknowledge and understand that it is to be, or that it has been, made available on a confidential basis to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Certainly it should be made available to him. Certainly it should be made available to the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp). I hope that will be done as well. I must say that I am concerned that there may be a large amount of material in volume II which also ought to be reported to this Parliament. Of course, I can understand that if there are still criminal investigations and prosecutions to be launched in relation to that material it may be necessary to prevent signals being passed to people under examination or investigation leading to prosecution. It may be that at this time not all of the material can be made public. However, I believe that in due course it should be made public. I wonder whether the Government has given full consideration to how much at this stage could be made public rather than simply saying that it is not going to table volume II at all. I borrow a famous word in this Senate, the authorship of which I readily acknowledge. I refer to the word `sanitised'. Senator Evans was a great proponent of tabling as much material as possible in this Parliament and, as he used to say, if necessary in a sanitised form. Therefore, I hope that the Government, if it has not already done so-there is no mention of it here-will not simply take a blanket view that nothing in volume II can be published. I think it should be examined very carefully to see to what extent a sanitised version-to use such a famous and authoritative phrase-can be tabled, even now or at least as soon as possible. Of course, not having read volume I, I am unable at this stage to say whether we are satisfied with the amount of material that has been reported therein and the sort of conduct that it covers. However, it seems to me that there is a problem in that volume II may in fact be dealing with a mish-mash of conduct, some of which may be of a criminal kind involving breaches of the criminal law, and others which may fall short of that. They may be mixed up together. However, royal commissions are designed to inform governments and parliaments and, indeed, the people about the conduct of, in particular, public officials. If there is material in volume II which may reveal matters relevant to the conduct of public officials but which may be short of being criminal offences, then there is no justification, in my view, for that material to remain confidential. I believe that the Parliament should be given as much information as it possibly can be given about the conduct of public officials. I remind the Government that when we were in Government in August 1982 and received the fifth Costigan report of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, which contained a great deal of material about the conduct of public officials and government agencies-information certainly of a very critical and damaging kind-the vast amount of that volume of the Costigan report was tabled in the Senate by me on behalf of the Government. We took the view then that even though there were inquiries and investigations to be made with the possibility of prosecutions arising out of a lot of that material, because the conduct of public officials and public agencies was involved, the Parliament was entitled to have that information made available to it. Thus the Parliament was able to make its own judgment about these matters. I am sorry to say that we have to express a great deal of suspicion because of the way the Government has approached this matter from its very beginning two years ago. I am very sorry to say it but I do have to express a great deal of suspicion and concern about how far this Government wants anyone to know about these matters. There has been a fair amount of covering up and distractions by this Government. Senator Chipp —For almost three years now. Senator DURACK —As Senator Chipp said, for almost three years. We are at the end of our patience. At long last we have the report of a royal commission which, on Mr Justice Stewart's track record, I am sure is as comprehensive as it is said to be. We want to know, indeed we demand to know and are entitled to know, the whole truth, no matter who gets hurt. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I listened carefully to Senator Durack and I believe that I could not disagree with anything he said. I express my concern as a person who has been interested in this matter for three years now. I remind the Senate that I was the lucky recipient of most of the Age tapes before they were even made public. The person who had them felt that they were a little too hot to handle and said: `Chippy, I am giving you these as my personal insurance'. He then announced to the Press that he had done so. Senator Chaney —I think he doesn't like you. Senator CHIPP —Not everybody has friends like that. So I have been privy to the contents of the tapes for some time. I have shared the general view the Liberal Party has expressed right from the start that, while there might have been some inaccuracies and some doubts about some of the material, there was too much cohesion and too much activity involved in them for them to be dismissed as the Government earlier dismissed them. So almost three years down the track we now have a 400-page report, which is volume I of the final report of the Royal Commission of inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interception. It is rather astonishing to see a statement in that report concerning material which has been denigrated by the Government. I think I can remember Government speakers saying that the Age tapes were worthless, they were a pack of lies, they were inventions, they were illegally obtained. A lot has happened since then. I shall refer to page 285 of volume I of the report under the heading `Identification of Material'. That is the only part of the report I have been able to look at in the short time I have had it. Before I do so, however, I refer to the following statement of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans): Volume II of the report contains considerable detail of possible criminal offences identified by the Royal Commission in the course of its inquiry. Those offences relate to breaches of Federal and State law. That is a 180-degree turn, for which I commend the Government, in attitude to the material. Two years ago the Government was saying that the tapes were worthless, that they were inventions, and so on. We have come from the point where they were considered worthless to a point now where volume II of the report is regarded as so delicate and so sensitive that it is being withheld from the Parliament of this country and given to the State and Federal Directors of Public Prosecutions so that criminal charges might be laid. I refer to page 285 of volume I of the report to indicate what has come out of this allegedly worthless material. Paragraph 14.35 of the report states: In order to identify the authors of the transcripts Commission staff interviewed each police witness who admitted participating, or who was alleged to have participated, in telephone interception operations covered by the transcript material in the Commission's possession. During each interview the witness was shown a copy of the following transcript material: I now read what is a mind-boggling index of who's who in the criminal world in Australia. This is what has transpired from those worthless documents. The report states: T1A `Mad Dog' 1979 (Target: Morgan John Ryan). T1B `Rabid' 1980 (Target: Morgan John Ryan). T1C Morgan Ryan Summaries (Target: Morgan John Ryan). T1D 1981 Transcripts (Target: Morgan John Ryan). T2 `A Dazzler' (Target: Ronald Lopes Dias). T3 `Southern Comfort' (Target: George David Freeman). T4 `Lucerne/Pasta' (Target: Robert Trimbole). T5 `Gorilla' (Target: Christopher Dale Flannery) Those are just a few of the names which have apparently been unearthed by the so-called worthless Age tapes. I commend the Government for tabling volume I of the report today. Senator Gareth Evans —They are not names unearthed by the tapes; they are targets of the tapes. They don't prove anything. Senator CHIPP —That is exactly what I said. I am not trying to score some cheap political point. I am just saying to those people who described the tapes originally as being worthless and not worth worrying over, and whose advice to the Liberals and the Democrats was to forget all about it and to get on with something important, that we now have a report consisting of two parts, the second of which has been referred to the State and Federal Directors of Public Prosecutions. The names of people who have been identified as targets have been listed in the report and information not necessarily about them but about the people with whom they are alleged to have associated, has gone to various people. This information has been gained as a result of telephone interceptions. I do not want to sound patronising when I say this, but I am satisfied that nobody on this side of the Senate wants to go on a witch hunt. I believe that the motivations of Senator Chaney and Senator Durack in particular have been noble and have been directed towards ensuring that justice is done and that there is still faith in the system of justice in this country. The kinds of allegations that have surfaced are too horrific to contemplate, even if they are partially true. I commend Senator Chaney and Mr Spender for the very sober and balanced statement they made yesterday concerning the Murphy affair. I conclude on one point that does bother me. As head of the Australian Democrats, I am going to make formal application to be afforded the same privilege as has been afforded Mr Howard, namely, to be given a copy of volume II of the report on a confidential basis, and that, like Mr Howard, I be allowed to pass that on with discretion to my nominee. I am sure that the Government will grant that, as it has done in the past. The Government has always been extraordinarily reasonable in these circumstances. It is one thing for the leader of a party or for Senator Chaney, Senator Durack or Senator Haines, who would be my nominee, being provided with a copy of this report and sworn to confidence in regard to its contents, but as soon as we get a copy of the report we are virtually prisoners of a system. That is as it should be; it is as it has to be. Therefore, I commend Senator Durack's idea that some work ought to be done on volume II as soon as is possible so that the Parliament itself can see volume II in a form which does not prejudice possible prosecutions of allegedly guilty people. Unlike Senator Durack, I do not like the term `sanitised' too much. Without being crude, that term suggests to me that a piece of paper which has been sanitised has been made suitable only for a sanitary purpose. I would not have thought that that is the kind of version of volume II of the report that this chamber would want. I would have thought it would have been an extraordinarily useful exercise to allow this chamber to debate the matters that are raised in volume II of the report without the mentioning of names, as was done in regard to the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I know that this would be a big job. I expect that we will get some useful background out of volume I of the report. We will also get a vindication by Mr Justice Stewart of the actions of the Liberal Party and the Democrats in publicly raising the issue of the Age tapes. However, we will not get anywhere down the track of exposing organised crime and its connection with people in high places unless we can see-I say this without being crude-the guts of Mr Justice Stewart's findings. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(3.40) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In my view the report on Young Australia that we have been provided with falls short in a number of ways. In the foreword of the report I note that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that he was impressed with what young people had to say and especially with the high proportion of positive and constructive suggestions that they made. My question is: Why is the Prime Minister not interested in other suggestions they made? What proportion was positive and constructive? If we have this information we can make some assessment of the proportion that was negative about the Government and perhaps not constructive. I believe a responsible Government should be adequately reporting the other views of the youth of Australia. It is not appropriate that we only concern ourselves with their hopes and aspirations; we have to understand their disillusionment, fears and apprehensions. In my view any government should want to understand the degree to which young Australians resent the public relations propaganda exercise to which they are now being subjected. I am not referring in these remarks to the sort of people who are referred to on page 19, callers who were abusive or rang off; I am referring to callers who had genuine complaints to make about the Government or the system in general. These people only had negative remarks to make. These people have views that must be listened to. Young Australians are not dumb; they are not stupid. They understand very clearly how few of their mates have, as yet, been able to participate in the traineeships. The Senate may be interested to know that out of the promised 10,000 traineeships there are now in place only 903. There are 33 in the private sector and the remainder are in the public sector. So the traineeships that were announced to be the great new deal for young Australians have not turned out to be that way. In my own State only 42 young Australians have an Australian traineeship and all are in the Commonwealth Public Service. In fact, a substantial number of these traineeships are in the Commonwealth Public Service. I would have appreciated a report that not only highlighted some of the positive aspects of this campaign, but also which honestly highlighted some of the problems the Government is having with the campaign. Members of the Opposition could perhaps understand these problems better than they do now and would be in a better position to make some constructive comments to assist the Government. However, if the Government insists on only putting before us the cream on the cake, it must expect the Opposition to continue to question its motives. I notice that not only the Opposition is unhappy. The Canberra Times of 30 April 1986 reported, on page 7, that the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation is also unhappy. It wants to know why its money has been cut when in fact the technical and further education colleges are expected to take a large number of the Priority One trainees if and when the scheme gets off the ground. I also wish to make some remarks about the 26,000 young Australians who bothered to call in and the so-called lucky 127 who spoke to the Prime Minister. This is referred to on pages 1 and 2 of this booklet. I would appreciate the Government giving some undertakings as to just who was going to be an approved user other than the Commonwealth of the ideas put forward by young Australians. I would appreciate the Government giving some undertaking as to whether or not these 26,000 names and addressed are in fact forming a neat little address list for direct mail propaganda at the next Federal election at the taxpayers' expense. The report is noticeably silent on whether the Government intends proceeding in that way. This is a long report and I have not yet had time to consider the detail. However, I do believe that to give a summary by theme is inadequate because it does not say what the views of young Australians are within that theme and, therefore, is not as instructive as it could be. I welcome some report from the Government but I wish it was more detailed and more honest. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.45) —I am not surprised by that last five minutes worth. It is quite in keeping with Senator Vanstone's chronic complaining about this whole matter, although I must congratulate her for lowering the tone of her voice this time so we were not deafened by the case put. The report on Young Australia is quite thoughtful. If Senator Vanstone had read the outline of it she would understand what it is about. It is a report of what is happening to this point; it is a progress report. It does not even pretend to have the final outline of the program of what might come under Priority One, or what might be the programs and response by the Government to the suggestions of the phone-in and/or the radio talkbacks. It does not claim that. The report makes it quite clear that the Government cannot do that until it has more thoroughly examined the response from young people around Australia. Then it will look very seriously at how it might address those proposals. I welcome the report because it certainly does remind us that Priority One is a matter of priority concern for the Government. It does keep us informed on the progress of the Government's major concern. On page 1, in the summary of the report Part B, the point is made that 37 Commonwealth Employment Service youth access offices will be opened early this year. I have had the pleasure and the privilege of opening one such youth access office in Elizabeth. The young people who were there for the opening assured me that they had visited that office on a number of occasions. They enjoy getting information and assistance. They feel welcome. They appreciate the support and advice they get. They understand that the Government is committed to providing better opportunities. The Government has admitted that there are enormous problems facing young people and has taken serious steps to address them. I think this should be mentioned. I certainly want to report that the Elizabeth youth access office is achieving very much what it was established to do. I would like to make a comment about a brief part of this report relating to the difficulties faced in consulting with a group of Australians in the community. Those of us who have had a hand in the formulation and implementation of policies in consultation with women around Australia, before and after coming into government, have some experience in the whole business of consulting. It is not so difficult to get messages from a business or a central organisation out to the community. There are the standard media of newspaper, radio and television and there are booklets, publications and so on. The real challenge is to find ways in which information can be brought into government, in this case from young people around Australia. This report is a very honest and interesting analysis of the outcome of the phone-in and the talkback on radio. The analysis of where people found out about that phone-in is quite interesting. It suggests that one cannot easily dismiss radio reports in South Australia and Queensland, though the figure seems to me to be quite interestingly high for Western Australia too. The Press also seems to be quite significant in getting the message of the phone-in and the talkback programs out to young people in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. I suppose in some ways it is a very neat little measure. It goes some way in trying to make an assessment of how best to get the message out and how best to get the message back in-that is, allowing young people to have their say. The Government is to be congratulated on producing this document. It is unashamed about saying that it has not achieved all the goals that it had hoped, particularly with the traineeships. But if anybody cares to follow that, they should check it out with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.50) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Time restricts the amount I am able to say about the outlook for the aviation industry report before the Senate-an information paper prepared by the Department of Aviation. These papers, I understand, are regularly prepared for the Aviation Industry Advisory Council. I am particularly interested in the tables which appear towards the end of the paper, which indicate the levels of activity at various airports around the country. The figures are quite interesting for Darwin Airport, which is dominated by general aviation movements although, of course, there are Defence aircraft movements in and out of Darwin. In 1985 the airline component of these movements increased by 11 per cent, reflecting the increase in the number of internal travellers, business people and tourists who are being encouraged to move to and visit the Northern Territory. Other figures, which I understand come from another Department of Aviation paper, indicate the percentage increase in airline revenue and passengers for both the Darwin and Alice Springs airports. The number of passengers uplifted and discharged through Darwin Airport in the year ended 31 December 1984 was 294,847. In 1985 the number was 324,825-an increase of some 10.2 per cent. The number of passengers uplifted and discharged through Alice Springs Airport in 1984 was 288,429 and in 1985 the number rose to 336,299-an increase of 16.6 per cent. These figures give a clear indication of the increased passenger traffic flow through these two airports. Indeed, over the past seven to eight years the average increase in the rate of people passing through the airports has been of the order of 9 to 10 per cent annually. There is no sign of the passenger traffic slowing up. Indeed, all the indicators point to the contrary. With the promotion of the Northern Territory as a unique tourist destination by the Northern Territory Government and by private enterprise, with the establishment of the Yulara Resort and with Alice Springs rapidly developing as a central hub for airlines with routes criss-crossing Australia, it is obvious that demands on the Territory's airport facilities will increase. It is interesting to note that Alice Springs, with a population of some 25,000 people, has airline passengers of the order of some 336,000 per annum passing through its airport. That figure represents 14 times the size of the local population-a very unusual situation. Negotiations have been under way for some time to have Alice Springs Airport brought under the airport local ownership plan. The Northern Territory Government, the Commonwealth Government and officers of their respective departments have been meeting to identify the scope of the work which will be required to upgrade Alice Springs Airport to cater for domestic wide-bodied aircraft. My understanding is that there has now been substantial agreement between departmental officers on many aspects of the discussions on aircraft size. However, there is still the matter of the size of the terminal to be determined. The Northern Territory Government, backed by a consultant's report, is pressing for a minimum of 8,000 square metres. I understand that the Department of Aviation is pressing for a maximum of some 6,000 square metres. The reason why the Territory is seeking the larger area is that the Northern Territory Government and industry are looking ahead to the anticipated requirements some seven years on from the time of completion. I understand that the Department of Aviation has also forecast that far ahead but that it has come up with far more conservative estimates of needs and is prepared to see more overcrowding in the airport. The airlines will have to be consulted when some agreement is reached between the departments, particularly in relation to cost recovery. There is some concern, given the volume of traffic going through the airport, that the time frame which has been suggested by the Department of Aviation is too long. I understand that the suggestion is for redevelopment over a five-year period, based on the prospect of an airport local ownership agreement between the Federal and the Territory governments at the end of this year. Time does not permit me to comment further on this matter, except to say that I understand that the Honourable Peter Morris is visiting the Northern Territory next week. He will be most welcome there and he will be most welcome to see the industry there as it is today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.55) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Canberra Commercial Development Authority annual report 1984-85 is clearly quite a disturbing report for the Government. The covering letter from the Chairman of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority was typed in December last year, yet the report has only just surfaced in the Parliament. This is in quite stark contrast with some of the gung ho, cowboy style tactics which marked the last six weeks before the handover of the Belconnen Mall to the Westfield-Superannuation Fund Investment Trust partnership. Curiously enough, last year's annual report was delayed for quite a while because of the time taken by the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to work out just what sum was to be paid into Consolidated Revenue. While there has been no statement about the cause of this year's delay, a reading of the report points the way to some possible reasons. On page 4 we find, first of all, the curious sentence: Authority members Messrs A. R. Hedley and E. W. C. Mathews dissociate themselves from the comments and opinions set out in the foregoing members report. Just what was in the report that led the two Public Service appointees to disagree so strongly with the other members of the Board? Firstly, there was the chronicling of the Government's decision of 13 May 1985 that the Canberra Commercial Development Authority would not be the developer of the Tuggeranong retail mall. There had been rumours to this effect since the Canberra Times article of 9 March headed `Budget ploy will not draw smiles'. That week the Chairman of the CCDA, Mr Jim Pead, announced plans to build a $35m retail mall at Tuggeranong in accordance with the changes the Government had made to the Authority's Ordinance to give it the go ahead. Part of that article stated: Sources said that the public works funding for the project was receiving high-level consideration in Budget preparations, but `people who try to advance their own causes usually do so at the expense of others, and it will be a matter of setting priorities'. The annual report of the CCDA says that the Government reversed its decision on Tuggeranong without any consultation. The Authority viewed with concern the total waste of resources, including the direct cost of $600,000 to bring the project to the ready-for-construction stage. It added that the National Capital Development Commission had changed all the design and development parameters for the complex, so the Authority's planning work went totally down the drain. The Authority commented that the National Capital Development Commission's actions showed scant regard for the protection of public moneys. There is an extraordinary item of $600,918 in the accounts listed in the report which is to write off this loss. I believe this does not reflect well on the Government. It certainly seems clear that there has never been a coherent government policy in relation to the CCDA. The hasty abolition of the CCDA in February, which is now being argued before the courts, may well prove to be another very costly adventure for the taxpayers. Certainly if the Australian Capital Territory gets self-government-that will depend on the bona fides of the Hawke Government-the local community will be deprived of a substantial source of annual income as a result of the sale of the Belconnen Mall. Indeed, this was the second point made by the Board in its annual report. It was why the President of the Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council resigned last May. It is interesting that the Department of Territories proposes to prepare a final report even though it was only in charge of the operation of the Belconnen Mall for the last two months of the mall's existence under public sector control. Indeed, I wonder whether the Department will provide any statement on the work of the CCDA in bringing retail site competition to the Australian Capital Territory and whether the Department will throw any light on its legal tangles over the dismantling of the CCDA and on its dealings with the respective Public Service unions which are currently in litigation against it. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —On behalf of the President I present the third report of the sixty-second session of the Standing Orders Committee, relating to private interests of senators. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.00) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has been operating in this country for close on 40 years. In terms of public recognition of its value and its achievements, it is true to say of the CSIRO that familiarity breeds a degree of contempt. Unfortunately, few people in this country have any idea of the scope of the research being carried out by the Organisation and its involvement at the very roots of Australia's economic, scientific and technological development. To the ordinary person it is still a small, obscure organisation using Government money to conduct even more obscure research on matters of questionable importance. It is the achievements of the CSIRO, more than anything else, that have put Australia on the world stage and kept it there. It will be mainly through the efforts of the CSIRO in the future that Australia will have an opportunity to move from the chorus line to a principal role in the development of a new era. The CSIRO has the capacity to lead Australia out of economic mediocrity into technological superiority, but that capacity is being stifled by a lack of recognition, a lack of effective communication and evaluation and a lack of finances. The first three the CSIRO can do something about itself. The lack of adequate finances is something that both State and Federal governments, industry and the community as a whole should be concerned about. The Chairman, Dr Wild, spoke in his report about a five-year development strategy for the CSIRO and he outlined the goals that it hoped to achieve. These include the identification of growth areas, a concentration of fewer research programs focused on significant national objectives, a more systematic evaluation of research, an improvement in the two-way communication of results, and a development of better management practices and procedures. The CSIRO has already begun to work towards these goals and this is evident throughout the report. The No. 1 criterion for research projects in this five-year development will be their relevance to national objectives. In other words, will the project or research area have a high potential for making a sustained contribution to the generation of national wealth through exports or in the domestic economy? Will the project be capable of contributing substantially to the level and quality of employment in Australia? Sirotech Ltd, the CSIRO's technology transfer and commercial assessment company, has scored some notable successes during the year. Its main objective is to assist in the process of taking CSIRO inventions and technology directly into industry and bringing knowledge of industry's needs to CSIRO. It is clear that the projects undertaken by the CSIRO are generally not of a short term nature. Some will take years to complete. Some, such as the development of new space technology and communications technology, are in their infancy and will go on into the next century. It is of vital importance that this organisation be given more financial security. The limited time horizon of the annual budget cycle militates against long term initiatives. Projects that are of national importance must be secured financially until they are completed, but this need not necessarily be purely from taxpayers' money. Industries in Australia, when compared with those in the United States of America and many European countries, contribute very little to the research that will ultimately benefit them. I am sure that the greater spirit of co-operation between industry and the CSIRO will also lead to increased contribution from this sector. I commend this report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.05) —I wish to make a few comments on the annual report of the Joint Coal Board. The Joint Coal Board is to some degree an anachronism. It was established by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction in 1946-some 40 years ago. I would have thought that we were past that stage by now. The general powers and functions of the Board are stated in the report, the first being: (a) to ensure that coal is produced in the State- that is New South Wales- in such quantities and with such regularity as will meet requirements throughout Australia and in trade with other countries. The anachronism is perfectly obvious, because in those days there was only one coal producing State, which was New South Wales. Now we have three or four. The report also goes on to say that its function is: . . . to ensure that the coal produced in the State is distributed and used in such manner, quantities, classes and grades and at such prices as are calculated best to serve the public interest and secure the economical use of coal and the maintenance of essential services and industrial activities . . . The Coal Board has a total of 263 employees, which is one employee for every 70 employees in the whole coal mining industry in New South Wales. The insurance division of the Board, on its own, has 73 employees, which is one for every 275 employees in the whole coal mining industry in New South Wales. For the 1984-85 period 19,000 mine and associated workers were covered by workers compensation. The report states that during that same period there were 9,922 compensation claims. Almost one in every two of the total number of employees in the whole coal mining industry in New South Wales was the subject of some sort of compensation claim. With a degree of pride the Board announces in the report that it processed approximately 100,000 cheques. I turn to the marketing division. God knows what a marketing division would be doing in the Joint Coal Board. It has 22 employees. The geology branch has 24 employees and the electronic data processing service, the main function of which is to process the workers compensation claims, has another 22 employees. By comparison, the Queensland Coal Board has eight employees in total, compared with 263 in New South Wales. Honourable senators should bear in mind that in both States there is a fairly prolific and large mines department. Associated with the Coal Board is the Coal Industry Tribunal, the function of which is to keep the men working. That was introduced during the wartime years, when a Labor Government had been in power for quite some time. Probably the most disruptive sector during the war was the coal mining industry. Honourable senators will recall that it was in fact Labor Prime Minister Chifley who put the soldiers into the coal mines because of the disputations that occurred in 1949. The point I am making is that it seems that there needs to be a total review of the Joint Coal Board. The objectives for which it was originally established have not been achieved. Looking at the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, by far the highest industrial disputation is within the coal industry. Yet it has become our major export earner. Recently we had the case of the whole industry being out on strike for six days when, apparently, no one was able to do anything about it. By the look of things, there is every chance that the dispute now going on could escalate into something which will adversely affect our balance of payments at a time when that is the last thing in the world that we need to happen in this country. Having said that, I must say that the Chairman of the Joint Coal Board is a man for whom I have the highest respect. However, that does not derogate from the observation I make that here we have an archaic organisation that has been going for 40 years. I believe that this is something which my colleagues in the Waste Watch Committee should have a good look at. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 29 April, on motion by Senator Chipp: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.12) —The report of Professor Alec Lazenby on the development of a system leading to the introduction of legislation for plant variety rights in Australia is most welcome. It is welcome on the basis that after many years of discussion and consideration of this issue, the Government now clearly has before it the report of an expert who has come to a series of conclusions, the most important one of which is to be found on page 5 of the report. Under the heading `Impact of Protection', Professor Lazenby says: The Inquiry was asked to consider the expected impact of PVR on identified needs. Evidence, largely from other countries, leads me to conclude that incentives based on protection would probably ameliorate many of the constraints facing our crop improvement program. These include increased breeding resources (5.4.1); better use of germplasm (5.4.2); better access to varieties bred overseas (5.4.3); better use of public, and total, breeding resources (5.4.5, 5.4.6); possible better integration with breeding of basic research and new developments in technology (5.4.7); and a more vigorous and stable seed industry (5.4.8). On balance, therefore, I believe that some form of proprietary protection provides a better means of developing Australia's crop improvement programs than do the options not involving such protection, whether operating alone or in combination (5.4.9). I believe that in his report Professor Lazenby has laid to rest many of the arguments which had been previously put up against the establishment of PVR. However, I am distressed that this is yet another example of delay which should not have occurred. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources came to precisely the same conclusions the best part of five years ago. It came to those conclusions, it presented a report to this Parliament which, if acted upon at the time, would have led to exactly the same series of recommendations being adopted as Professor Lazenby is now putting forward, would have had us five years further down the track and would have saved the cost of Professor Lazenby's inquiry, valuable as that indeed is. This is the second occasion in quite recent memory on which this has been the case. A royal commission was conducted by Mr Justice Evatt into the question of Agent Orange. That report added nothing, yielded no new findings and arrived at no substantial conclusions which were materially different from those originally obtained by a Senate committee doing precisely the same job. On both of those occasions we had Senate committees established in response to a matter suddenly arising, which took a great deal of time and effort, heard witnesses, considered evidence, debated material, commissioned research and presented findings to the Senate. In terms of both Agent Orange and plant variety rights, the Government then decided that the Senate committee reports were not good enough so it spent large sums of money-several millions of dollars for Mr Justice Evatt's inquiry; I do not know the cost of Professor Lazenby's inquiry-and a great deal of time instituting further inquiries. When those inquiries reported they did so in essentially the same terms, with the same conclusions and the same recommendations as the Senate committee reports. It is unfortunate that this should be so. Having said that, I repeat that Professor Lazenby's report is very welcome. I hope that the Government will act now upon it. I suggest that had it acted upon the Senate committee report when it originally came down, it would have saved itself and the taxpayers a great deal of money, it would have been five or six years further down the track and it would have done a great deal for Australian plant breeding and horticulture, the ornamental varieties as well as crop varieties of plants. It is a great shame that once again the Senate committee system was thought to be second best but I suppose that the valuable thing about it is that this is now the second occasion on which an independent expert has come to precisely the same conclusions as well informed members of the Senate. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.17) —Much of what I intended to say has been said persuasively and articulately by Senator Puplick. Senator Button —You are making the very point that Senator Puplick made-that it is useless to have idle repetition. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It seems to me that, if we do not repeat the message regularly to this Government, it does not get through. Senator Button —You are doing exactly the same thing that you are criticising the Government for-repeating things. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I am not. We have had no commitment from the Government that the recommendations of this report will be implemented. Therefore, those of us who take the view that they should be implemented must repeat the message until such time as we get a commitment from the Government. The sad thing is, as Senator Puplick pointed out, that the terms of reference of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources and the report on Australian Plant Breeding Needs by Professor Lazenby are almost identical. Yet that is not the full history of the question of plant variety rights in this country. The matter was first raised in the early to middle 1960s when legislation was being freely introduced in many other countries around the world. Yet, over a period of 25 years, we have chosen to ignore the fact that Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, West Germany, France, Hungry, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Romania, USSR, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have all introduced such legislation. Perhaps the only exception is Canada, I am not sure where it stands at present. Even New Zealand has now introduced PVR legislation. We have had 25 years of experience, knowledge and understanding of the effects and ramifications of PVR in other countries. We have not required it of ourselves, yet we indulge ourselves in repetitive debates and inquiries. The evidence is all before us. We chose first to have the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources inquire into the matter and I might point out that that report excluded cereal crops. It did so for one reason-one of the committee members could support the recommendations only if cereals were excluded because of political ramifications from his side of politics. So we excluded cereals hoping that that would at least create the foundation for the Government to proceed with legislation of some sort. However, it chose not to. Then we had Senator Hill's proposed legislation which very much reflected the report. He put forward a Bill which so far has not had the support of the Government. I find it distressing that the delay of PVR has had serious ramifications for the rural sector. We hear ever so often from the Government that there is very little it can do in the dynamics of the world economy to assist the rural sector. Its continuing complaint is that the forces are external and therefore there is very little it can do to improve the terms of trade or reduce the cost-return ratio. Yet here is an opportunity which has been taken by other countries and which would enable the level of production to be raised very significantly. However, we have ignored it. I rather wonder now what will happen to Professor Lazenby's report. The truth of the matter is that the report was initiated in the first place only because of a dichotomy in the Government. The extreme Left was obsessed with the myths of PVR, but the sensible, moderate people in the Government understood its merits. It has continued, because of this internecine conflict within its own Party, to put off the introduction of legislation. The object of the plant breeding inquiry in the first place was so that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) could throw up another document at the mad Left and say: `Here you are; here is another independent report'. That is not the perception of the Committee. I only hope that now Mr Kerin and the Government have that independent report they will have the courage and the fortitude to press ahead with legislation. If they do care for the rural sector, for the farmers, they will press ahead with it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 30 April, on motion by Senator Sanders: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.22) —The interim report `Future Directions for Commercial Radio' is uncharacteristically blunt for the Department of Communications. It starts in the first chapter by quite rightly referring to the extraordinary recommendations of the Huxley report of 1961 in these words: In a decision which defied logic and dogged successive Governments for the next 25 years, the Government agreed that 88-109 megahertz (MHz), the frequencies used internationally for FM Broadcasting, should be pre-empted for extra television channels in regional areas. By allowing the short term interests of television to fashion the broadcasting system, the Menzies Government created a problem that will not be solved totally before 1998, according to the Department. The forward development unit is now examining future directions for commercial radio. Its terms of reference started out as medium and long term time frames. Now it is working to identify options for structural change which will make at least one additional commercial radio service available to communities of 200 people or more outside the mainland State capital cities. The unit is to come up with proposals that discourage any undue concentration of media ownership and control. In the course of this work, the forward development unit has been directed by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to look at the feasibility of allowing commercial AM operators to convert to FM. Except for the current FM operators, the commercial radio industry has claimed that the financial results of the past couple of years show an inherent advantage for the FM mode. Their solution, on the grounds of equal competition, is to allow all operators to convert to FM if they want to. The forward development unit makes the comment that the Federation of Australian Regional Broadcasters conceded that even in regional areas FM allocation will often be dependent upon the clearance of existing television services from `band 2'. Surprisingly it does not specifically address the same question in relation to metropolitan areas. I well recall the lack of interest in FM by existing operators when I was spokesman for a group which applied for the initial commercial FM licence in Adelaide some years ago. On the basis of average figures for a couple of years, existing operators now put the case that there is some inherent advantage in FM. At the time I was an applicant that was not at all obvious; nobody from AM wanted to convert to FM. While the forward development unit says that `the legislation's enforced lack of detailed figures on stations' operations preclude definite judgments', it is clear that not all AM operators are doing badly in comparison with FM operators. The operators who are operating talk programs are doing very well. I find it significant that FM operators have carved out for themselves a market amongst young people. They have used innovative advertising and promotional techniques and have gained exposure by simulcasting with television programs. Through this practice they have attracted new sources of revenue, as have AM talk operators. Both national and public broadcasting sectors agree with the FM operators that there is no case for giving special protective treatment to commercial broadcasters and cutting off possible future broadcasting options. It is striking that the Department of Communications cannot fill its engineering positions. This means that expressions on interest cannot be processed. The supplementary licence scheme has not even got off the ground, and basic frequency planning is always done on the run. I think it is extremely important that the problem of undermanning of the engineering section of the Department of Communications should be solved quickly so that effective procedures can be put into effect. We could then get new and exciting broadcasting options in the public sector, instead of just fiddling around trying to give the same programs on different bands of frequencies. We have to nurture the technical excellence which will enable our system of broadcasting to provide a diverse, national, public and commercial broadcasting service to Australians. We also have to give the public sector a chance to attract talented individuals. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.27) —The interim report by the Department of Communications, `Future Directions for Commercial Radio relating to FM-AM conversion', is indeed a very direct report which clearly indicates that this question is not simply one that goes back to the Huxley report in the early 1960s, but back to the Gibson report in the 1940s in terms of the allocation of space on the frequency bands of Australian airwaves. The report is a very complex one. The issue that is being addressed, the conversion of broadcasting from the AM to the FM band, is beset with a large number of very technical questions. However, there is a threshold question, and it is the only one which I have the opportunity to address in the few minutes available to me today. That is the idea that licences should be granted on the test of commercial viability. At the moment, there are essentially three tests for the granting of a licence. The first is the requirement that the licensee is a fit and proper person to hold a licence-whatever that may mean. That is the subject of disputation before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and before the courts from time to time. The second is that the licensee has the technical capacity to broadcast. That is something that is fairly measurable and the Department of Communications has standards that allow that to be measured. The third is that the proposed operator is commercially viable. This is a matter which has been tested in a number of cases by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Although the Tribunal has attempted to lay down some general rules, they have by and large been unsatisfactory. The basic problem is not with the rules that the Tribunal lays down but with the requirement in the Act itself that commercial viability should be a test of a licensee. The report before us rightly describes such a device as conservative and protectionist. What we ought to be looking at in terms of the long term future of broadcasting developments is that, provided a licensee can demonstrate that he has the technical competence to broadcast and provided that he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence to broadcast to the public, the decision as to whether he applies for and is granted a licence, and subsequently a renewal of the licence, should be entirely his own decision. He should be prepared to take the commercial risk. It may well be that a company which gets a licence is not, on the tests laid down by the Tribunal in the first instance, commercially viable. If that is the case the licensee will fail. He will go broke. The only thing that can be said about that is that the loss, such as it is, is the loss incurred by the licensee and his shareholders only. It is not a loss to the public if a particular radio station fails. It is not as if the listeners do not have other choices. It is not as if somebody will not come along and apply for the licence of the operator who has failed or occupy the spot on the broadcast spectrum when it becomes available. It is an absolute nonsense that now, when we have a whole system of deregulation of communications and broadcasting, when an extraordinary variety of new mechanisms are available for people to get involved in broadcasting, when we have new techniques, technologies and possibilities in the broadcasting system, we should narrow, by the test of commercial viability-a protectionist and conservative device-the entry of entrepreneurs, especially new ones, into radio broadcasting. In the review of the Act which the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has under way at the moment, one of the criteria that ought to be removed as a test for licensees, particularly for licensees in the radio spectrum, is commercial viability. The market ought to be allowed to operate and, if people go broke in the market, so be it. They go broke. There is nothing unusual about that. It happens in all sorts of markets. There is no reason it should not happen in the broadcasting market. We now have reports from the Department, the Forward Development Unit, the Broadcasting Tribunal, the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, the FM Applicants for Independent Radio and everybody else which have built up into an absolute log jam because the Government has been unable to make certain very key policy decisions about the Act which I hope it will be able to make in the not too distant future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.33) —I move: 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: Date of announce- Subject ment 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; and (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. The motion we are addressing is in two parts. The first part draws attention to the Government's failure to produce legislation within a reasonable time in respect of announced tax measures that go back as far as 18 April 1984-in fact, more than two years ago. Listed in the motion are a number of issues which have not been dealt with by the Government in the form of legislation. A number of other matters that as yet have failed to come before the Senate are of a lesser nature and are so numerous as to not be worthy of being included in the motion. The second part of the motion speaks of the effects of various tax changes, regarding some of which legislation is still pending. In respect of others, legislation has been, and is being, dealt with by the Parliament. Some of these measures were the subject of the Government's tax statement in about September last year. Many of these changes will have devastating effects upon the economy of Australia and, in particular, upon the welfare of every Australian. I will demonstrate that as we come to argue about particular tax laws. Let me turn to my first point. Some tax measures were announced on behalf of this Government by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, more than two years ago. They were announced as being good law in terms of the Government's intention to legislate but the announcement contained very scant detail as to the way they will affect taxpayers. I emphasise that point because it is a fundamental principle of all law that people ought to know the exact terms of the law. Certainty in the law is an absolutely fundamental criterion of our democracy. It is no more important than in the area of taxation. The Government imposes a tax upon the people and then fails to tell us in what way the tax will be levied and how it will be assessed. We are not told the details so that we can gain an impression of how it will affect us. Let us consider some of the laws that are outstanding. As I mentioned earlier, the rent resource tax was announced on 18 April 1984, more than two years ago. On 16 December 1984, discounted and deferred interest securities, known as `dingo bonds', were announced. It is interesting to note that in that case the measure was announced and then immediately withdrawn by the Treasurer because he found that he had got it wrong anyway. We have never heard of it since then. The interest withholding tax on discounts and hire purchase charges was announced on 14 December 1984. We have never seen any legislation on the matter since then. Yet business has had to cope with the problem of uncertainty in the area since then. On 4 February 1985 the Government announced that non-cash business related benefits given to non-employees were to be subject to tax. Again, this a most sensitive area, particularly in the light of the new fringe benefits tax, yet we hear nothing from the Government on that issue. No law has been introduced into the Parliament since that measure was announced more than 15 months ago. On the same day we heard an announcement that income averaging for sports persons would be introduced. But, again, no legislation has been presented and sportsmen and sportswomen are still in the position of not knowing how the law will affect them. Later, in May 1985, 11 months ago, there was an announcement, with great fanfare, of the 150 per cent deduction for research and development expenditure for industry. This measure was supposed to be one of the centrepieces of the Government's plan for the rejuvenation of secondary industry. Yet business has had no clue whatsoever as to the detail of that law as no legislation has been introduced into the Parliament setting out the exact terms and conditions by which businesses could plan their affairs. This area is of particular sensitivity and interest to the community now because there is so much talk about high technology industry being the way of the future to employ more and more Australians. We hear this continually, not only from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, but also from his counterpart in the House of Representatives, Mr Barry Jones, who, as we all know, is the Minister for the Future, better known as the Minister for Science. Senator Vanstone —And living by his wits. Senator MESSNER —And living by his wits. He certainly needs a light bulb or two to help him along. This is a rather important point to make. We are talking about industries which, according to this Government's claim, hold the solution to our economic woes in the market-place. Yet legislation which goes to the core of decision-making in this area has not been introduced into the Parliament. We have to wait on the lips of the Treasurer in order to find out how we can get on with the job. Eleven months have transpired since the Government's announcements, and there has been no action. The iniquitous fringe benefits tax was announced on 19 September last year. We still have not seen the legislation for that tax. We keep reading in the newspapers that it is coming this week, tomorrow, some time, whenever. It is obvious that the Caucus is having enormous problems in dealing with the tax. I hope that it is. Perhaps there is a chance that we will never see the legislation. All we want to know at this stage is whether or not it is coming. Let the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) give us some indication so that industry can get on with planning. It is interesting to note that Senator Grimes is acknowledging apparently that the tax is still coming. He has not given us any clue on the form of it. According to media reports, it will be substantially different from what was announced. Senator Grimes —No. Senator MESSNER —It will not be substantially different. This is the way that we have to operate under this Government to find out what is happening with legislation. We get winks and nods across the chamber from Ministers who fail to bring in the legislation that sets down the details of a fringe benefits tax which will impact so heavily on Australian industry. We need legislation, and so does industry, to learn how it will be affected so it can get on with its planning for the future and developing job opportunities for Australians. Here comes the iniquitous capital gains tax. It was announced on 19 September 1985. Of course, we have heard nothing about it since then. We know no details except for a rudimentary statement put out about two months ago by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) which sets down some of the details concerning personal use items and one or two other matters-but nothing of substance. We need legislation so that we can plan and get on with the job. Nothing will have more effect upon incentives for Australians to develop job opportunities for other Australians than will a capital gains tax. Surely that is a feature to which the Government should give priority. Eight months into the financial year we are unable to find out exactly what this legislation will tax. The tax has been applied since 19 September, yet we do not know in detail precisely what will be subject to tax, how much tax we will have to pay and how the mechanisms for calculating the value of an asset which will be taken into account when assessing the tax will be used. Consequently Australian people and the business community are in the dark. The imputation system of taxing dividends for companies again was announced on 19 September. There is still no legislation, no statement about all the airy details that attach to that idea. We support the general principle of the non-taxation doubly of dividends of companies. Consequently we are looking very anxiously to the introduction of detailed legislation on the imputation system so that we can get some idea whether it will work effectively. We have heard nothing from the Government since September last year. Although it will not affect companies until the 1988 financial year, details need to be known now so that companies can plan for the future and develop their projects and budgets for those projects for the years ahead rather than having to wait to see what transpires in legislation which may or may not come. Because it will be some time before any legislation has effect, people will be waiting for two, three years or more before they finally see legislation on the imputation of company distributions. It is just not good enough if companies are to plan projects for the future. Related to this is the matter of the foreign tax credit system which is also of very great concern to the Liberal Party and the National Party. Unless it is substantially changed from what was announced on 19 September, we will oppose it along with the other legislation when it comes to the Senate. The point has to be made now that we still have no legislation and have had from the Government since the 19 September statement no statements on how this would work, which would give us any indication of how it would impact on people. We have to recognise that businesses and companies located and based in Australia have international aspirations. Indeed, this Government opened the foreign exchange markets in 1984 to allow companies to deal more effectively on international markets. When this Government announces a measure such as the foreign tax credit system, does it not understand what impact this will have on the mentality of companies, their managers and directors who are thinking about extending their operations overseas? Surely this must. Yet the Government delays in bringing in legislation which would allow people to have a clear idea on how to plan and develop strategies for investment overseas. The last item in the motion concerns the introduction of a new system of provisional tax. Whereas in the past provisional tax has been paid on an annual basis, it is now proposed that it be paid on a quarterly basis. We have had no legislation for this either. One would have thought that it would be a relatively simple matter to introduce. We have to assume that the Government is having second thoughts or is developing alternative ideas and provisions. Perhaps the Government will not go ahead with that proposal, as it has not gone ahead with the quarantining of farm losses. At least it should take us into its confidence and produce legislation so that industry can plan ahead and individual taxpayers who are farmers, small businessmen and professional people, can understand exactly where they stand and can develop financial strategies for the future. I turn now to the second part of the motion which concerns the effects of the legislation on incentive and industry. The point about the various new taxes which have been announced recently is that they will have a quite devastating effect on industry and incentive. Not least is the fringe benefits tax. It has been the subject of debate in the Senate on a number of occasions, the latest being yesterday. We heard my leader, Senator Chaney, introduce a matter of urgency on the effect on the car industry of the fringe benefits tax. As is already being indicated by statistics emerging from official sources, this tax will have a devastating impact upon the Australian motor vehicle industry. In the first three months of this year we have seen a decline in the sales of motor vehicles of some 25 per cent. Those figures are on record as of the last few days. It is clear that there could well be a fall in the total market of locally produced vehicles of 90,000 or more in this calendar year. Jobs are at stake in towns such as Bendigo, Ballarat, Launceston and certainly in my home town of Adelaide. South Australia is heavily dependent on the motor vehicle industry. Because Adelaide is the home of Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd and General Motors-Holden's Ltd, there will be a great deal of concern by Adelaide people on future job opportunities as a result of this predicted fall in motor vehicle sales. Senator Grimes —What about your predicted effect on the restaurant industry? Will you tell us about that? Senator MESSNER —Perhaps we should talk about it. I do not know how long it is since the Minister has checked with restaurants around Australia. Senator Grimes —I cannot get in. They are all booked out. Senator Parer —They won't let you in. Senator MESSNER —That is the point. The Minister cannot get a feed anywhere. But the restaurants are suffering badly in terms of jobs. They are closing down in large proportions. This will gather pace as time goes on. Senator Grimes —Are you going to get around to that? Senator MESSNER —If the Minister wants to argue, let us turn to the matter of the motor vehicle industry. The Minister does not have to believe what I am saying; he can hear it from the industry. He can believe his statistics which are produced every month. Sales have fallen by about 25 per cent in the first three months of this year. Senator Grimes —All due to a tax that is not even on yet. Senator MESSNER —All right, I will argue with the Minister about the restaurant industry. Senator Grimes —No, tell us about the car industry. Senator MESSNER —The Minister was talking about my predictions. I take his point. However, we have positive proof and evidence that indeed the motor vehicle market is collapsing. Senator Grimes —The tax is not even on yet. Senator MESSNER —The impact of the tax is affecting it very greatly. Senator Grimes —Before it is even there? Senator MESSNER —Yes, before it is actually imposed, because it is affecting expectation of future costs-as the Minister, and only the Minister, could understand-from 1 July 1986. The tax is not imposed at the time the car is purchased. The tax is imposed as an on-running thing on the employer as the vehicle is used in the business. The point of purchase has nothing to do with it. It is the future use of the vehicle that has everything to do with it. Let us ignore that question. The prediction of the industry itself and, I might say, of the trade union movement and, indeed, of the South Australian Premier Mr Bannon, is that 10,000 jobs will be lost in the motor vehicle industry. Honourable senators opposite do not have to believe me; they can believe the Labor Premier of South Australia, and believe Senator Foreman's union, the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia. Senator Grimes —They are not opposing the tax. Senator MESSNER —They are not opposing? Senator Grimes —They are saying: `Phase it in'. Senator MESSNER —Let us just consider whether Senator Grimes can be believed on this matter. I read in the Adelaide News of last night that Senator Foreman supports the tax package, but that the former vehicle builders union secretary opposes the structure of the legislation. Apparently, that is exactly the position of so many honourable senators opposite, particularly those from South Australia. I think that Senator Bolkus has a similar view, and I think that Mr Bilney, the honourable member for Kingston, has a similar view. Their views are reported quite clearly in the Adelaide News of last night. It is interesting to note, for the benefit of Senator Grimes, that none of those people is taking part in this debate today. We would like to encourage them to show how much they oppose this tax. I ask them to walk with us to the other side of the chamber to defeat this legislation if and when it comes forward so that we can give justice to South Australia. Let us refer to what some others from the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party have to say about this subject. Mr Mick Young, the Special Minister of State, is a prominent and well-known politician in South Australia. Of course, in his clever way he says that the Button car plan has been a success. Of course, he then says that the industry is about to collapse because of the effect of the car tax. Mr Hurford, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, also from South Australia, supported this issue in Cabinet. Apparently, he did not stand up at the right time in support of his State, which will suffer so heavily from the imposition of the fringe benefits tax. Again, the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, another prominent South Australian Labor politician, missed the special meeting of his own Caucus called to have this matter discussed. Would honourable senators believe that he missed his own special Caucus meeting! He is a Minister from South Australia. He represents the seat of Bonython, which, of course, covers the largest motor vehicle manufacturing complex in all of Australia at Elizabeth-and he missed the special meeting being held to discuss the car industry! Really, words fail me. This is the way the Labor Party is dealing with this matter. Surely we have to come to some common sense in regard to this point. The clear message is that jobs will be lost in the car industry if this tax is not changed. The Liberal Party, together with the National Party, will be opposing the legislation when it is introduced. Therefore, we rely on the Australian Democrats. Some of them are South Australians as well. Some of them are Victorians, and Victorians very heavily depend on the motor vehicle industry. If the Democrats fail us-they have already indicated they will because they are going to support the Minister-we really will need the back bench members of the Labor Party to show their strength by coming over to join us on this side of the Senate in order to defeat the legislation. In particular, we ask Senator Foreman to organise a caucus of back bench dissidents to come forward to join with the Liberal and National parties to do the right thing for South Australia. Let us turn to the capital gains tax. Senator Grimes —What about the restaurant industry? You told us that you were going to tell us about the restaurant industry. Senator MESSNER —I explained that to the Minister. I explained that the Minister did not have to believe me at all but that in this case he had plenty of other information to rely on to confirm what I said. As we know, the capital gains tax will have a devastating effect not only on the farming community but particularly on the small business community. I think of the people who run the corner delicatessens, the people who have established the small retail businesses, who buy into a business, pay for the goodwill, pay for the stock and for the plant, and then find, when they come to sell their businesses, that the goodwill value of their business, which has been developed by the sweat of their brows, will be subject to a tax which will treat the profits from the sale of their business not as a capital item but as though it were exactly the same as income. The whole benefit that would have been built up over, say, a 20-year period, during which time a businessman would have built up the goodwill of his business, will be taxed. The businessman will find that the entire capital amount which he receives on the sale of his business will be taxed in one year at the marginal rate of income tax. I think it is absolutely deplorable. It is disgusting. It is outrageous that this kind of attack on the businessmen of Australia should be instituted. Everybody knows that one cannot apply to goodwill the principle of indexation that the Government has included in its capital gains tax. Of course, every dollar of goodwill, whether it represents inflation or not, is going to be taxed, although the Government has seen some sense and has applied the principle of indexation to some other assets to take account of inflation. It is the small businessman, the average, little person in the community who wants to strive to get ahead and develop his own business, who will be socked right over the fence by this form of capital gains tax. I really cannot understand what this Labor Party is all about. However, when we consider the tax that it introduced on lump sum superannuation and the introduction of the assets test on pensioners, I suppose then we must appreciate that it has absolutely no regard for individual Australians and it thinks in some theoretical manner about the way that taxes impact on people. Let us turn to the negative gearing legislation. This has been introduced in the Parliament and is to be discussed in the House of Representatives next week. This legislation is intended to abolish the opportunities for small individuals to be able to put aside money from their incomes into small developments such as home units, or whatever, that can provide them with some capital in retirement, thus allowing them to develop a capital nest-egg for that purpose. Again, this is very much related to the concept of the capital gains tax and it destroys individual incentive in this country. That will happen, although it has taken a long time, nearly a year, to get the legislation on that matter from the Government. Of course, we are still to debate that legislation in the Parliament. The Liberal and National parties oppose that legislation. We will be opposing it in the Senate when it comes before us. The other area of concern to which I would like to draw attention is that of the quarantining of farm losses. Of course, this has been a great bone of contention in country areas in the last few months since it was announced on 19 September this financial year. The truth of the matter is that the Government did not have a clue what it was doing when it introduced that idea. It made the legislation so narrow that farmers who might be contemplating, for example, growing wool and, at the same time, having a wheat property, and using farm machinery such as grain harvesters, and who think that they could earn extra income by contracting out the grain harvesters, will find that they cannot offset losses on the wool growing side, for instance, against income earned from farm machinery. It is absolutely absurd that the Government should be locked into that kind of thinking. But at last commonsense has prevailed and apparently that proposal has been dropped as part of Mr Kerin's farm package which was announced a couple of weeks ago. It is interesting to note that apparently the game is not yet over because in this place about a fortnight ago Senator Walsh stood up and said: `No, quarantining has not gone'. He said that there still was going to be some quarantining of farm losses or that, alternatively, some other form of taxation would be imposed upon the farmers. Whom are we to believe-Mr Kerin or Senator Walsh? There is a major difference here which needs to be clarified and on which, of course, the Government has gone to water. We have heard absolutely nothing about this matter since it was exposed in the Senate by way of a question from Senator Chaney. The fundamental thrust of this motion is that the people of Australia cannot go on with this continuing uncertainty about the form of taxation law. As I have pointed out, there is grave doubt about whether many of the taxation laws that are being proposed by this Government are reasonable, whether they are going to achieve the objectives that are set for them and whether they are going to produce effects contradictory to those that are being claimed. I instance again the fringe benefits tax and its effect upon the car industry. I remind the Senate that 10,000 jobs are likely to be lost in the car industry if this tax goes ahead. We have already seen the motor car industry decline as a result of the fringe benefits tax and other measures. I urge all senators from the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia to support this motion. I implore back bench senators from the Australian Labor Party to join us and to show, as many of them have been claiming in newspapers back home in South Australia, that they oppose the fringe benefits tax. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.02) —We have just heard a half hour of diatribe on taxation from Senator Messner, who I understand is the Opposition spokesman on tax. Two words were conspicuously absent from that diatribe. Senator Messner never at any point addressed the question of equity; he never at any point addressed the question of fairness. As long as the members of the Liberal Party of Australia come forward in the debate on tax and refuse to deal with the fundamental question with which anyone, or particularly any government, has to deal in terms of equity and fairness in the taxation system of the country, the Liberal Party has absolutely no standing in debate, publicly or in this Parliament, on that matter. A fundamental principle of taxation is that all those who pay tax should feel that all the other taxpayers are meeting their fair and equitable obligation. We do not ever hear from the Liberal Party about what is fair and what is equitable or what is a reasonable obligation. I will come in a moment to the record of the Liberal Party, which seems to have a collective amnesia of the events that applied in this country before 1983 in respect of taxation. As long as it does not deal with equity and fairness, it does not have any standing in this debate. What about the ordinary wage and salary earners whose full incomes are subject to pay as you earn taxation? What about their standing in this debate when they see massive avoidance, tax dodges and rip-offs being perpetrated by those who sit in a position of some privilege and who are able to fiddle their incomes in order to avoid paying tax? Who speaks for them in the Liberal Party? We have never heard anyone from the Liberal Party speak for them. We hear people speak as if that situation were reasonable, ordinary wage and salary earners should pay more and people in positions of privilege should be able to fiddle their income, avoid tax, pay less and dodge their fair share. Any government has to be fundamentally concerned about protecting its revenue base. The fundamental principle that should be observed in protecting that revenue base is that of fairness and equity. Everyone should be able to know that everyone else is being treated fairly. With those opening remarks, let me turn to the quite extraordinary motion before the Senate. The motion talks about the continuing uncertainty caused by the failure of the Government to introduce proposed tax legislation. The only people who are continually concerned about that seem to be Senator Messner and his cronies in the Liberal Party who speak out on this matter. All they have to do is just wait. They will not have to wait very long because the legislation is in the pipeline and it will be introduced shortly. Senator Parer —It is a long pipeline. Senator COOK —It will be here shortly. Opposition senators can then debate the real effects of the Government's proposal rather than engaging in scaremongering tactics by talking about illusory effects and trying to misrepresent in the popular electorate the Government's tax proposals. That is the Opposition's tactic. Honourable senators opposite are doom-mongers; they are scaremongers. They are trying to pretend that things that will not happen will happen. All they need to do is to sit back and wait to debate the real issues and not the illusions. My advice to Opposition senators in regard to the first part of the motion is to stop talking about the illusion. They should start talking about facts instead of resorting to hyperbole and rhetoric. They should deal with responsible legislation responsibly. Maybe it is not possible to deal with responsible legislation responsibly in the Liberal Party, having in mind that Party's record on taxation. The second part of the motion suggests that all the subjects that are listed in the motion under the heading `subject' are approved of. The only taxes which are singled out in the Opposition's motion as having had some alleged devastating effect are the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. I take it, therefore, that if they are the only two that are identified as having some deleterious effect, all the other forms of tax have been approved. Senator Vanstone —What sort of logic is that? Senator COOK —The Opposition has identified only two out of a list-I have not counted them-of about 12 or 14. So I assume that the ones that have not been identified are approved. I will wait to see whether members of the Opposition are consistent on that point. This is a pick and choose motion. The Opposition seems to have less than a schoolboy's understanding of economics. It seems to believe that it is possible for a government to provide comprehensive tax cuts while at the same time destroying its own revenue base. Anyone with a smattering of understanding knows that it is necessary to have income in order to have outgoings. If one does not have the income, one cannot make the tax cuts that one would like to make. I understand that the Opposition supports the tax cuts that we are going to make this year and next year. However, it opposes the revenue raising measures that we are proposing in order to make those cuts possible. The Opposition also opposes equity in the system. Let me go to the enormous hide that the Opposition is demonstrating in bringing anything remotely concerned with taxation before this Parliament. I think it is true to say in this debate that the Opposition's hide is as thick as its head on this subject. The electors understand that the Liberal Party's record on taxation constitutes, and has constituted, a national scandal. For five years the Opposition supported the most blatant tax scandal in modern history. Let me just run through a few of the check points on that list. We all recall that before 1983-and I might say that that is the period to which the collective amnesia of those opposite applies-the Western Australian Liberal Party finance committee was constituted by tax avoiders. We all remember the call-girl service which worked out of the Attorney-General's Department under a tax scam in Western Australia. We all remember the problems created by the bottom of the harbour tax avoidance techniques and other massive tax avoidance schemes. We remember the findings of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in regard to tax avoidance which opened up this issue. We remember the McCabe-Lafranchi report. We remember all of those things. Honourable senators opposite sat in government while our tax base was haemorrhaging and massive avoidance and evasion were taking place. They virtually blinked at these things and did nothing. That is their record. Senator Messner —Tell us what you have done. Senator COOK —I will tell the honourable senator what we have done; I will tell him what we are about to do. As I counselled Senator Messner a little earlier, if he shows a little patience he will learn. The former Government allowed the taxation administration of this nation to run down. It imposed mindless staff ceilings on the Australian Taxation Office which led to inefficiencies. Revenue went begging because key officers could not be appointed to collect it. The previous Government did nothing to address the basic failings in the system. It watched the base haemorrhage. It watched massive avoidance take place by way of benefits in kind rather than in cash. These benefits in the form of income went untaxed. The former Government repeatedly broke tax promises. I remind honourable senators opposite of the promise that the Fraser Government made to index taxation. That was never done. I remind them of the infamous election campaign in 1977-the fistful of dollars campaign which, once they were elected, they repudiated. That is part of their record. It is certainly not an exhaustive list; it is just enough to bring us back to remembering what it was like during the period of their amnesia. In contrast this Government has instituted a vigorous policy of closing tax loopholes and gaps in such areas as superannuation lump sums, income splitting, the abuse of unit trusts, leverage leasing, the prescribed payments system, sales tax avoidance schemes and many more. In 1983 and 1984 we consistently introduced legislation in this Parliament and we sought from the Opposition the recognition of a fundamental principle of any government in dealing with tax avoidance and evasion; that is that as soon as a tax scam is properly identified, there ought then to be retrospective legislation to stamp it out. That means that any tax avoider knows that as soon as his little scheme is uncovered the ill-gotten gains that he has achieved by engaging in that scheme will be taken from him and equity will prevail. Opposition senators have constantly voted down that principle. It is fundamental to be able to control avoidance and evasion and it is a fundamental assurance to all those who do the right thing that those who do the wrong thing will be caught and made to pay. We have re-invigorated tax administration; we have made additions to the resources, as well as a massive overhaul of penalty and compliance provisions. The Government has now instituted the most substantial overhaul of the tax system, the most comprehensive tax reform seen since income tax was established. Last year was the year of tax reform. In this country there was the most massive public participation in debate on what was fair and equitable in taxation that any country has seen, culminating in the summit and in government decisions to move. Apart from the special pleadings of single interest groups, there is substantial, popular support for the Government's measures which I remind the Opposition-Senator Vanstone is nodding her head as if she disapproves-are based on the concept of equity, simplicity and efficiency. We have embarked upon tax reform which involves the closing of loopholes in capital gains, fringe benefits and tax sheltering areas; the largest tax cuts in Australian history of $41 billion to $42 billion with a maximum rate of 49 per cent being introduced into the scales; and the introduction of an imputation system for dividends, the most substantial change in corporate tax history, implementing the principles of equity, efficiency and simplicity. That is our record of achievement, compared to the previous Government's dismal performance. I would have thought that the Liberal Party of Australia would have learned something, but it has not. What have we seen as the constructive, alternative policy from the Opposition? We have seen dithering, confusion, and frustration within its own party ranks as to what it should do, a lack of leadership and total indecision. There is nothing comprehensive, cohesive or understandable emanating from Opposition ranks as an alternative. It has chosen to pick off aspects of our total package which includes things that, in some aspects, disadvantage one group or another group, but which are fundamentally based on those rock solid principles of equity, efficiency and simplicity that I have talked about. What have we seen from the Opposition? Nothing that is at all convincing or at all comprehensive. The White Paper we produced last year on tax reform showed that the Government was losing $700m a year in the form of income that ought to have been paid on benefits paid to employees, such as motor vehicles for private use, free lunches, free school fees and free housing. This involved only some employees, those in the upper echelons of the corporate structure, certainly not those covered by awards and agreements of the various arbitral authorities or those who substantially pay all their income in pay as you earn taxes. But there was that avoidance technique, haemorrhaging the tax base at $700m a year and that haemorrhaging was growing at a rate of 25 per cent per annum. That is the lost revenue that this Government was able to identify from its study and it is the lost revenue that ought to be available so that the equity questions can be addressed. We are trying to address that matter. We have had from the Opposition the doomsaying, scaremongering tactics that have become all too frequently the case in this place. Let me go to just a couple of them: In December 1985 Senator Messner, in talking about business lunch free benefits, predicted that 11,000 jobs would be lost in the hospitality industry. That was Senator Messner's prediction last year. He predicted today that 10,000 jobs will be lost in the vehicle industry. At the same time last year Senator Knowles predicted that 10,500 jobs would be lost in the hospitality industry. Senator Boswell got a bit more loquacious. He said: . . . I believe it will be around February or March-there will be a massive fall in the industry. Jobs in the industry will be lost . . . the hospitality industry is the largest employer of youth in Australia. It also provides many jobs for youths . . . He did not quantify it, he just asserted it. Senator Michael Baume asserted that it would destroy the hospitality industry, and so on. That is the Opposition's prediction. Let us go to the record and see whether those predictions were justified because if they were not we can look at predictions those opposite are making now in the light of what the evidence was then and see how reliable they are as forecasters. The Commonwealth Employment Service job notifications index in the restaurant and hospitality industry has shown 4.1 per cent growth since the Government announced the fringe benefits tax. Just taking the narrower focus on hotels, restaurants and clubs, it has shown an increase of 25.6 per cent in CES vacancies-the reverse predicted by those opposite. Advertisements in major newspapers for new jobs in those industries showed that in December 1984 173 vacancies in the skilled work force were notified. In February 1986 when, according to the Opposition's predictions things should have been worse, there were 307. What we have seen is those opposite who speak for privilege trying to use dire predictions about unemployment of workers as a catspaw to knock down the tax reforms that we are introducing. If the restaurant and hospitality industry is not sufficient, let us go to the earlier dire warnings, again with almost the same cast as the previous doomsaying movie-Senators Messner, Jessop, Hill and Teague. When we introduced a tax on wine in Australia they went into raptures about how many jobs would be lost and what the damage to the industry would be. I can go through and quote the figures. I see at least one of those senators is in the chamber. I am sure he will be honest enough when he stands up to make his contribution to this debate to say that he was wrong about those predictions at that time. The record is that the industry never performed in the way in which he alleged; in fact it has shown a growth in wine consumption rather than a diminution in wine consumption. Senator Hill —I hope you are not going to say that the industry is in good shape. Senator COOK —Since the honourable senator has bothered to interject, I point out that he said that 4,000 jobs will be lost in South Australia, that South Australian wine growers will lose $15m in income and that the Riverland growers will lose $5m in income. That has not been the performance. When the honourable senator rises to speak in this debate I expect he will say that he is wrong. But the point is that the doomsayers' record of reliability in predictions is abysmally wrong. That is their record and one should approach the predictions they make in this debate on fringe benefits tax accordingly. I will now deal with the motor vehicle industry. As I have said, the Government is introducing a fringe benefits tax because the tax system has been increasingly subjected to evasion in this particular area. When the blatant paper schemes were closed off in the early 1980s high income taxpayers increasingly turned to fringe benefits as a means of minimising their tax on their total remuneration. At the same time, the Opposition dishonestly supports tax cuts provided by the Government to honest taxpaying people. It supports the tax cuts, but it opposes the measures required to finance them. As a result, it has no credibility whatsoever on taxation or on budget policy. The motor vehicle industry is the most important component of the fringe benefits tax in revenue terms. This is because a motor vehicle is the most substantial fringe benefit that is provided in Australia. That statement goes without challenge and that is the reason why the private use of company-supplied vehicles is an asset to those who make private use of them, and the advantage people get from that private use should be taxed in some form. Companies in Australia obtain tax reductions for the cost of providing motor vehicles to their employees. That means that 46 per cent of the cost of motor vehicles is paid by the ordinary Australian taxpayer. Where those vehicles are used for business, the deduction is properly given. However, the private benefit of the vehicle should not be granted as a tax deduction. The purpose of the fringe benefits tax is to recoup the deductions provided in respect of the private use of motor vehicles, and that is a totally unambiguous and sensible proposition. If we do not do that, two classes of taxpayer are created and the equity provisions are offended against. `Equity' is a word that is not in the lexicon of honourable senators opposite. There are two options which are never argued by the Opposition. What the fringe benefits tax will be is never argued by the Opposition, so I will now argue that. There are two options in calculating the fringe benefits tax. The first option is the log book method whereby voluntary log books and full records are kept so that the precisely correct proportion of private use can be calculated and a tax levied accordingly. No one can argue that that is unfair. The Opposition cannot argue that that is unfair. However, the Government has provided a second option which can be applied without keeping records or log books. That option levies a tax on the basis of a statutory formula based on the value of the car and the total number of kilometres travelled in a year. The Government has set the statutory formula at a very concessional level. It is simply not true that the statutory formula is an unfair burden. It is also not true that it discriminates against cars of any particular type or value. Indeed, because the tax is based proportionately on the value of a car, it is totally non-discriminatory. Those sections of the industry arguing for a flat tax are, in fact, arguing for a deliberate discrimination in the law favouring higher cost vehicles. They are saying, for example, that a Volvo should be taxed at the same rate as a Corolla, which of course is absurd since the private benefit gained from the provision of a Volvo is obviously much greater than that from a small four-cylinder vehicle. It is clear that the statutory formula is concessional. For example, if a motor vehicle travels 15,000 kilometres in a year, the statutory formula will have the effect of still allowing a tax deduction of around 40 per cent of the cost of the vehicle. Since a vehicle which only travels 15,000 kilometres a year would generally have minimal business use, this remains a concessional rate. A car which travels only 5,000 kilometres a year, which is obviously only being used for private purposes, still would get an effective tax deduction of around 30 per cent of its costs. In other words, there can be no argument that in terms of tax principles, fairness and equity, the Government's tax measure is totally reasonable. Of course, when tax rorts are closed off, this can have an effect on the level of sales in the relevant industry but tax rorts are not a legitimate way of assisting industries. The motor vehicle industry is presently undergoing a contraction of sales for a large number of reasons, particularly the introduction of more expensive unleaded petrol-an Opposition initiative when it was in government-the higher interest rates which emerged late last year and the demand for vehicles in 1985 because of the impending price increases due to the depreciation of the dollar. Each of these effects is likely to be temporary. Nothing the Government can do with the fringe benefits tax will stop these three effects from being felt in the industry. Over time the devaluation will assist the Australian motor vehicle industry as imports become more expensive. It is absurd to look at the tax as a means of overcoming this temporary reduction in industry sales. As far as the tax is concerned, there has been concern that it would encourage down-sizing from Falcons to four-cylinder vehicles. However, down-sizing will also occur from expensive, largely imported vehicles into the Falcon-Commodore range. It is acknowledged by the industry that the base Falcon-Commodore is around the middle rather than the top end of the distribution of fleet vehicles. It is acknowledged that the tax must have some effect on total industry sales, but this is relatively small compared to the other temporary influences now operating in the industry. Sales increases due to the depreciation of the dollar, the stronger economy and the achievements of the Button car plan will, as the recently released Automotive Industry Authority report suggests, mean that the industry continues to enjoy a satisfactory level of activity. That is the case in terms of the tax in the motor vehicle industry. The dire warnings, the sober predictions, the doom and gloom the Opposition has cast, have to be seen in that context. The other things that have to be said in this debate are that, to listen to what the Opposition says, one would be of the opinion, or would certainly rapidly gain the impression, that the tax is introduced, is implemented, and is having this immediate effect. Of course, it is not introduced and it is not implemented, yet the Opposition claims it is having all these dire effects. The tax is not there. Therefore if one is to remain consistent, one cannot sit back and argue that somehow all those effects are due to the tax. In what I have said, I have pointed to other causes. I think, too, that as we go to the wire on tax reform the lobbies associated with particular interests in any package of tax reform measures heighten the crescendo of their protests in order to snatch a last minute change from the legislation. Senator Parer —What about Bannon? Senator COOK —That is a traditional political response to any government legislation on tax. What we are seeing now is that response. As the crescendo heightens, the exaggerations and doom-saying also heighten. The unfortunate effect is that the Liberal Party joins in and takes no responsibility for an efficient, simple and equitable tax system in Australia. As I said in my opening point, until those opposite, as a party or as an opposition, come forward and say that equity is a key consideration, the Opposition cannot expect those people who respect the tax system to meet their full measure of tax if they know that other are avoiding it. The Opposition's whole debate unfortunately comes down to the principle that it uses as a sham argument and as false proposition doom-saying allegations of massive devastation. In reality that is a blind to protect the privilege of tax avoidance from which some high income earners, because they can figure their avoidance techniques at their levels of income, benefit when most other ordinary, honest and decent Australians pay their full measure of tax. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(5.28) —I join today in discussing this motion on Government tax changes because of a concern for the ordinary Australian who is waiting to see exactly how the tax reforms of this Government are going to be implemented. The motion lists a significant number of policy initiatives of this Government yet to be introduced in legislation. The motion is particularly concerned with the detriments of the proposed fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax. We have just heard from Senator Cook. Yet again we have heard the tired old false class arguments and accusations that Senator Cook regularly comes up with. He consistently attempts to depict the Opposition as being a party of privilege, ignoring his own Party's desertion of ordinary Australians in favour of the new corporate elite of big business, big unions and government. Senator Puplick —And antique collectors. Senator VANSTONE —And antique collectors. Let Senator Cook look to his Government and to its protection of the rich and powerful friends of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) before he begins to point the finger. Labor can claim no monopoly on concern for equity. Senator Cook made much in his speech of the need for equity and fairness. The Government has to meet its obligation to be fair and equitable by putting its policy into practice and into legislation. Senator Cook asked who spoke for the pay as you earn wage earner. I ask: Who speaks for the small business or the big business that wants to plan? Who speaks for the PAYE person who wants to know from his employer what his salary package will be after the fringe benefits tax is implemented? Senator Cook makes out that the fringe benefits tax will only affect the businessman. He should tell that to the PAYE salary earner whose salary package will be substantially reconfigured. He should tell the young person with a job at Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd or General Motors-Holden's Ltd that this tax will not affect him. Senator Cook says that we should be concerned with equity, efficiency and simplicity. I believe that it is dishonest of him constantly to say that the Opposition is not concerned with equity. He should be acknowledging that we are concerned with equity but we may have a different view on how to achieve it. As to efficiency, I see no efficiency in a government which has had months and months and consultation after consultation and fix-it plan after fix-it plan but which still has not got the taxation legislation before the Parliament. We are eight weeks away from a new financial year. I see no simplicity for the businessman, the lawyer or the accountant who is trying to advise people on the basis of a vague policy statement rather than on the nuts and bolts of legislation. I suggest that Senator Cook ask his colleagues to consider their position with respect to equity, efficiency and simplicity before he starts to point the bone. There is no doubt that the taxation system needs a comprehensive overhaul. I think that is generally agreed. Any government that tackles this question should be applauded by individuals and companies alike. But any such applause should be forthcoming only when that government finally delivers on its undertakings. While it might be very self-satisfying for honourable senators opposite to decry the record of previous governments, the fact remains that this Government has set the agenda for tax reform, and it will be judged on the timetable of its delivery. Senator Cook told us, with some sort of limited application of logic, that he believes that because we complain that certain pieces of legislation have not yet been introduced we must endorse them. I believe he has been trying to say that we must be asking for such legislation. Can he not see that the Government cannot run, business cannot run and this country cannot run on the basis of public announcements? We want legislation introduced so that people have a sure base on which to act. I characterise the essential style of this Government-the Hawke Government-as being cosmetic, muddled and incomplete. It is cosmetic because its promises have not yet been delivered. Its policy has not yet been put into practice. It is muddled because it is perfectly clear that if the Government were not in a muddle this legislation would have been introduced well before now. It is no consolation to know that it will be introduced later this week or early next week. The actions of the Government are incomplete because its program of tax reform is, quite obviously, not complete, and this is what this debate is about. I could cite other programs. The Priority One program is incomplete on delivery of the Government's promises. The youth of Australia know that only too well. Perhaps we should turn our minds to the criteria by which we should judge a government and, in particular, a taxation system. Some people might say that the tax system should be simple to understand. They might say that it should not impose undue compliance costs on taxpayers; nor should taxes be overly expensive for the authorities to administer and collect. They seem to be reasonable statements. One might also say that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been at pains in the past to remind us constantly of these desirable objectives for taxation reform. Yet, despite the rhetoric, there has developed a very clear contradiction between what the Treasurer has identified as a good tax system and what he has actually produced since he occupied the Treasurer's office. Those words seem perfectly reasonable. Words to that effect were spoken by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, in a debate in the House of Representatives in 1981. Those were complaints that he was making of the then Treasurer, John Howard. It is my view that the Government should take the words of Mr Willis into account at this stage. I ask honourable senators to turn their minds to the very great burden of keeping up with legislation which is put on everyone in the community. We all know that everyone is equal before the law and is taken as knowing the law. For certain people, keeping up with the law is a constant problem, because a part of their job is to advise people on what the law is and therefore how they should plan their lives and their businesses. It is obviously important for people who might be in businesses that are not big enough to be advised regularly by top flight solicitors and accountants. Business people who have to make these decisions for themselves have to ferret their way through the Australian Government Publishing Service bookshop to keep up with the legislative program. It is even harder for these people-I am talking about the small business person who cannot afford top flight advice-to keep up with policy announcements. They are not all reported in every paper. Every small business person cannot be expected to go to the bookshop regularly to get a copy of the Commonwealth Record and read all these statements. A problem is thereby created for those people who need to use the nuts and bolts of legislation. I am not talking about whether the principles of the proposed taxation reform are right or wrong; I am saying that the people whose lives will be affected by legislation ought to know the nuts and bolts of the proposed reform so that they can apply it in their daily lives. At the moment the people who need to know the nuts and bolts do not know them. The seriousness of this point is highlighted by the recent inclusion of professionals in section 74 of the Trade Practices Act, except, of course, engineers and architects, who have been omitted. It is very serious that, when accountants and lawyers advise small business, big business or individuals on what they should do with respect to taxation liabilities, they are being asked to do so in the dark. They do not know the details. Any accountant, lawyer or small businessman would say that the detail is important. One should ask a businessman whether he plans on a day to day basis. Even the smallest local fruit and vegetable shop cannot plan on a day to day basis. It needs to know and plan ahead. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, knows all about planning ahead. We have all heard about his magnificent car plan. Of course, car manufacturers have now heard of a change in the scenario in the form of the fringe benefits tax. At the moment, business people who are planning for themselves, and the accountants and the lawyers, are being asked to make decisions while they are totally in the dark as to the details of the tax situation, which can bite and can bite hard. It could substantially affect their profitability and therefore the employment that they can offer. Obviously, not knowing the detail can put them in a position of not complying in some way with a tax Act. I think it is unfair and it is not equitable that those people are in this position at the moment. The Government says it is concerned with equity. Where is the equity in the situation that I have just outlined? How can it be fair for these people-accountants, lawyers and small business people-to bear the burden of chance and of guessing the detail of the Government's tax measures? I turn specifically to the fringe benefits tax. As we get nearer to the stage of legislative reform being put into practice, we hear that the crescendo of complaints is rising, and so it is. Today the Premier of South Australia, John Bannon, said that he was angry at the Federal Cabinet's decision to go ahead without making amendments to the fringe tax proposals. He said that the decision puts in jeopardy reconstruction plans for the motor vehicle industry and would have serious consequences for employment and business in South Australia. That is my State. Let me read to the Senate the text of a Press release issued by John Bannon this morning. In addition to what I have just mentioned, he said: I think it is a great pity that the Federal Government has not shown any flexibility in this matter. Mr Bannon said he would come to Canberra to express his disappointment to the Prime Minister and I hope he sticks to that. He has suggested that some compromise should have been worked out and some adjustment made so that everyone would have been in a better position. Mr Bannon made a particular point when he said: We- he is referring here to South Australia- will be affected proportionately more than any other State because of the type of area that is going to lose sales. Senator Cook may like to consider these comments by the South Australian Premier and take them to heart before he points the finger at this side of the chamber. Let us look at the last-minute nature of all this. Only yesterday-30 April-Senator Richardson said: The first and most obvious observation 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,- remember, this is on 30 April- 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. If the Government does not know the details at this stage, or did not know them yesterday, how can lawyers, accountants and small business people be expected to know them? How can they advise their clients as to what they should be doing? How can small business plan ahead? We are now in the month of May-eight weeks away from a new financial year. Accountants have only eight weeks to set up systems in order to comply with the requirements of the legislation. Quite obviously they cannot do this if they do not know the details of those requirements. I am not talking about eight weeks for them to set up a system to avoid the legislation; I am talking about eight weeks to put the nuts and bolts of the paper work into place so that their clients can comply with the requirements of the legislation. As we all know, eight weeks is not a long time. While we may be eight weeks away from this imaginary deadline of the new financial year, I submit that we are already well into the time when the business community has to make some financial commitments that might affect the new financial year. Business people are already committed and they have had to do that in the dark. If the Government believes that its legislation is so fair, equitable and simple, it should be simple for it to introduce such legislation. Also, it would be fair and equitable for it to introduce that legislation. I refer specifically to the fringe benefits tax and the effect that will have on the car industry. It is not just a question of car sales having gone down in anticipation of this tax, even though the Government says that a drop in car sales can only be expected because 1985 was such a good year. It has been said in this place that because 1985 was such a good year, we cannot expect 1986 to measure up to it. But the figures for new car registrations are down significantly. I note that in January 1985 there were 44,053 new car registrations but in January 1986 the number had fallen to 38,465. In February 1985 there were 46,589 new car registrations and that figure fell to 33,751 in February 1986. In March 1985 there were 47,164 new car registrations but in March this year the preliminary figure shows a fall to 35,804. Can we honestly say that that shortfall has happened only because 1985 was such a good year? Of course we cannot. It is not only a question of car sales going down, but it is also a question of business needing to plan and to know the details. Let me use the example of an accountant seeking to advise a used car firm. The salesmen drive some of the used cars. They might take them home and on the way home they might take them to a potential client to inspect them. It seems that the only option for that used car dealer is to have separate books for every used car or at least separate pages of books for every used car that the salesmen drive. Records must be kept and the mileages shown will be different from one day to the next if the salesmen are taking the cars home and showing them to clients. Will the records be allowed to flow on and, if they are, how will they ever be checked? Senator Parer —It is bureaucratic nonsense. Senator VANSTONE —Bureaucratic nonsense indeed. I submit that the plans we have heard so far to handle the use of company cars will mean a bureaucratic bonanza for people who will sit there with calculators checking figures all day. What will this accountant advise his client, the used car dealer? Suppose that this used car dealer also has an on site fuel tank which does not happen to have a meter on it. Will he have to put a meter on it? The used car salesman will fill his car up before he goes home, not only because he wants to get home but also because he wants to show the car to a potential client. These are the small nitty-gritty decisions that business needs to make. There are big decisions business people must make also and they need to know the details so that they can make decisions other than in the dark. Senator Messner has already made ample comments on the effect of a capital gains tax. In particular I wish to make one comment-that is, the Opposition is often painted by those opposite, not least by Senator Cook, as comprising people who are only concerned with the wealthy in the community. The effect of the capital gains tax on the goodwill earned by the small business person does not just affect the very wealthy. It affects the people who own delicatessens, fashion shops, fruit and vegetable shops and small machinery workshops. It also affects tradesmen who set up a service business-plumbers, electricians and carpenters. It affects young people who might want to open some computer software shop or sell records and music. All these people will be affected by the capital gains tax and they would all like to know the details of the Government's taxation proposals. Senator Parer —Most of them are ordinary people. Senator VANSTONE —As Senator Parer says, the vast majority are ordinary Australians. I also wish to comment on the 150 per cent tax deduction for research and development. In the last couple of weeks there has been substantial publicity against private enterprise in this respect. Everyone has been keen to jump on the band-wagon and tell private enterprise that it is not spending enough. The Government is not assisting these people to spend more money because the legislation is not in place and therefore people who are prepared to spend money on research and development are not able to spend it in such a way that they will qualify for this tax deduction. It may be difficult to find one's way through red tape, but it is better to know the rules by which one must play the game than to be expected to play it in the dark. In conclusion, I stress that I have participated in this debate not because big business needs to know or because small business needs to know, but because all Australians need to know the details under which their tax will be assessed and because all Australians expect from this Government an equitable, fair and simple taxation system. Given the work that the Government says it has done, it should be simple for the Government to introduce such a system. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.48) —I wish to join in this debate because the Government's taxation program, both in policy and in practice, is a disgrace. In practice it is a disgrace because what we have is tax law by announcement, not by legislation. These announcements go back many months and in a number of cases the tax law will take effect from many months ago; yet we still have not seen the shape of the legislation. There is no certainty in operating a taxation system on that basis. Business and practitioners are at a loss to know how to meet the details of the requirements that they are obliged to meet because there are simply no details. I will expand on that in a few moments. In relation to policy, the taxation program is a disgrace because it has been ill conceived, without proper thought of the consequences to the economy as a whole or to individual businesses and particularly to employment growth. I wish to look at a number of examples. The abolition of entertainment expenses as a taxation deduction is the first of such examples. As we know, it is now law. It is a unique tax in the terms in which it has been enacted. It reflected the blinkered approach of this Government and it failure to understand how business-particularly small business-operates. There was a failure on the part of the Government even to try to understand this matter. It has severely hit the marketing programs of many small businesses, particularly service orientated businesses, such as those in areas of public relations, and those that are selling orientated, for example, those in the insurance industry. It has given such small businesses only two alternatives. The first is to change their marketing policy away from entertainment. But many clients expect entertainment in conjunction with a sale. That is not only an Australian approach to business. I remind the Senate of the attitude in Japan, where the whole of marketing is integrated with entertainment. Of course, in business and industry the Japanese are proving to be perhaps the most successful in the world. It is a pity that this Government does not take its lessons from the successful. Rather, however, its ideological blinkers are such that it sees certain sectors of the community as gaining an advantage not shared by all. Those ideological blinkers were apparent again in the speech by Senator Cook. Regrettably, in this area the Government has been inward-looking, small-minded and narrow-thinking in its approach. The other alternative if small business is not to try to move away from entertainment in its marketing and risk loss of business and profitability, is to continue such entertainment but accept lower profits. If the deductions are not allowed, the loss of allowance will lead to lower profitability and therefore, unfortunately, to less opportunity for reinvestment and for providing employment growth. That is looking at it from the point of view of the businesses that are giving the entertainment, but those that are in the trade of entertainment, in the other half of the equation, must also be considered. They have suffered considerably as a result of this Government's policy in that area. The second part of this Government's total tax package to which I want to refer was its intention of quarantining farm losses and the announcement that was made in relation to that. Such a proposal showed the same ideological blinkers and lack of vision. Again, there was a failure to understand the value of encouraging investment, profit and income from the non-rural sector into the agricultural sector, a sector which will require a great deal of capital in the future to survive. The days of the simple farm are over. To compete internationally, which our rural community must do, will require sophisticated business practices, capital intensive equipment, expensive marketing research, and expensive consumables such as fertilisers, insecticides, herbicides, et cetera. But this Government, unfortunately, could not see that. Again, with the ideological blinkers of which I have spoken, all it could see was a belief that one sector of the community was being benefited in some unfair way and was getting an advantage over another. To some extent, stunned by the intensity of the farmers' protests, the Government has backed down in that area, at least in part-although as we are told by Senator Walsh and as we read in the Government's reports, the Government still intends not to allow what it describes as Pitt Street farmers a deduction for the investments that they might make in the rural community. We on this side suggest that, instead of adopting that attitude, what the Government ought to be doing is encouraging investment by the so-called Pitt Street farmers in agriculture in the future, because it will be critical to its future prosperity. The common element of the two disastrous tax policies that I have mentioned so far is that if the Income Tax Assessment Act had been properly enforced-which, of course, requires a certain will of the Commissioner of Taxation and a certain will of government-the provisions within the Act would be adequate to counter the abuses which the Government claims it has been addressing. Entertainment expenditure that is not incurred in the course of earning taxable income has never been deductible under the old law. I concede that it takes a bit of effort to properly enforce the law. It takes a certain amount of effort on the part of the Commissioner and the Government. But it could be done without any change in the law. Similarly, it is only on-farm expenditure, which is expenditure with a view to earning farm income, which is tax deductible. Many attempts to offset profit from another industry into the rural community have been rejected. Those attempts have been rejected when the Commissioner and the courts have been satisfied that they have not been properly invested in the rural community for the purposes of earning a rural income. What that means, in effect, is that in the case of the quarantining of farm losses, again, further legislation was not necessary if the purpose of the Government was to end abuse, because there are, and always have been, adequate provisions under the existing tax law. I have dealt with the two areas of the Government's tax package that I have mentioned so far, but this becomes relevant because the same position exists in relation to the third of the Government's disastrous tax policies with which I wish to deal this afternoon, and that is the fringe benefits tax. The Government says: `Here we find examples of abuse. Certain taxpayers are getting tax free advantages. Therefore, we need a new law'. That is not so. People are getting tax free advantages only because the current law is not being enforced, and has not been properly enforced by the Commissioner for a long period. It is settled law. I remind the Senate of section 26 (e) of the Act. A benefit of this type-I specifically make reference to the word `benefit' because I take it from that section-for example, the provision of a car, is taxable as income to the extent that it is not being used for a person's business needs. That is not in dispute. So personal benefit or personal use of a car is already taxable and always has been. But it is too much trouble for the Commissioner, it seems, and it is too much trouble for this Government to enforce the existing provisions of the Act. Again, the Government says that we need new taxation law. As a matter of taxation law, that is simply not so. I am sick and tired, as are others on this side, of being told that new tax law is necessary when adequate provisions are already existent under the Act. It does not apply only in relation to the three areas that I have mentioned today. We have seen this time and again in recent years in relation to the anti-avoidance provisions. Whenever there has been a problem we have been told, and continually told, that the existing law is inadequate and that new law is necessary. In many cases that is simply not so. It simply covers up the failure of the Commissioner and of the Government-I am referring not only to the Labor Government in this instance but also to the previous Government of my colour-to make the effort to exhaust the existing remedies. I have said that here, and you know, Madam Acting Deputy President, that Mr Gyles QC, when he was acting as a special prosecutor in this area, was publicly saying it, and we are seeing more and more examples of where the existing law would have been adequate if only it had been properly utilised and properly exhausted, without running to the unnecessary alternative of further legislation. There is an additional purpose for these so-called new taxes, that is, to raise extra revenue under the guise of simply countering tax abuse. It has been the case with entertainment expenses, it was to be the case with the offsetting of farm income and it is intended to be the case in relation to the fringe benefits tax. We do not know for certain the extent of the tax. I remind honourable senators of the advice we have recently received from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, which has calculated that the proposal in its current form has the potential to raise some $570m at existing prices. That is as against the Government's anticipated figure put to us of $350m. In other words, according to the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, whose opinion should not be dismissed lightly, the Government will receive income from the taxpayer in excess of $200m beyond that which it has claimed is the case. That is the other purpose of this legislation. It is not simply to counter abuse but to impose new and additional taxes, taxes which unfortunately will reduce business profitability and which were introduced by a Government without the vision which is necessary to appreciate the effects such taxes will have on profitability, business opportunity and employment growth. What will be the economic consequences of the Government's shortsighted policy in relation to the third of the taxes I have been referring to-the fringe benefits tax? Unfortunately we are already seeing the consequences in the response of the public in anticipation of the introduction of this tax. I simply remind the Senate of the figures which were released yesterday when we were greeted with headlines such as `Car industry stalls to a 12-year low' which I take from yesterday's Australian. The article states: The motor industry has recorded its worst March sales in 12 years, registrations falling almost 33 per cent from last year's record levels. What have we seen in response? As I understand it, in giving the matter some consideration today the Government has simply decided to reaffirm its position. As a South Australian, I obviously plead for the future of the automotive industry within my State, which will be affected more than anywhere else in Australia. It has been fascinating to see State Labor Premier Bannon's political gyrations on this issue. It is worth while reminding the Senate of the attitude of Premier Bannon last year when he went before the Government's National Taxation Summit and said: Measures need to be taken to bring fringe benefits within the tax net . . . The single most important untaxed benefit is probably the provision of motor vehicles. That was the attitude of the Premier of South Australia at last year's Taxation Summit, advocating a taxation policy of this kind. What is his current position? Today there was an announcement by the Premier, under his letterhead and in his position as Chairman of the South Australian Manufacturing Advisory Council, in the following terms: . . . after careful consideration it-- being the South Australian Manufacturing Advisory Council which he heads- believed the employment consequences of the proposed tax in the long-term would far outweigh the short-term revenue gains. That is why I speak of the Premier's most interesting gyrations. Again this Government, blinded in the way it is, is not even prepared to look to the advice of its State Premiers as to consequences of what it is doing, but rather is determined to continue however much the industry and employment in the industry suffer. This Government in its decision is not serving my State well and neither has Premier Bannon. As a member of the Federal Parliament I could not think of any more inflationary way in which to impose this tax, with its unique notion of being imposed upon employers. What will happen is that quite clearly employers will attempt to pass it onto consumers in all possible cases. What will be the effect of that? Clearly there will be a significant rise in inflation. I remind the Senate that we are adding to an inflation rate which is already more than double that of our trading partners. I would have thought that any Government with a reasonable reason would have seen that this measure would severely worsen Australia's inflation and its ability to complete internationally. But not this Government. It seems completely unable or unwilling to see the light. I come back to where I started, that is, this Government's practice of imposing so much of its taxation law by the method of announcement rather than by legislation. I accept, and obviously we on this side of the chamber accept, that in certain circumstances it is necessary to date taxation law changes from the date of announcement. But what must be implied in accepting such a methodology is that the legislation will be introduced expeditiously. However, under this Government that is simply not occurring. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a schedule of this Government's taxation announcements including a brief summary of what they relate to and the dates from which they are to operate. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING TAX LEGISLATION Per Favour of Messrs Parnell Kerr, Forster Announcement Legislative change intended Operative date December 14 1984 Interest withholding tax loophole to be closed (arrangements involving purchase and sale of bonds by non-residents at a profit, not interest) Effective 14 December 1984 December 16 1984 Zero and deferred interest securities (borrower and lender to be taxed on accrual basis) Effective 16 December 1984 February 4 1985 Non-cash benefits to non-employees (extension of current employee fringe benefit taxing section to business taxpayers, query effect, if any, of subsequent fringe benefits tax announcement) Effective 4 February 1985 May 29 1985 Research and development expenditure concessions (150 per cent deduction over three years) Effective 1 July 1985 July 17 1985 Negative gearing of rental property investments (quarantining) Effective 17 July 1985 July 17 1985 Depreciation of income producing residential properties Effective 17 July 1985 August 20 1985 Self-Assessment system (returns to be accepted subject to audit) budget announcement Effective 1 July 1985 August 22 1985 Retirement tax loop-hole (purchased annuities commuted and interest component of receipt an eligible temination payment) Effective 22 August 1985 September 19 1985 Reform of the Australian Taxation system: Proposals Capital Gains Tax Effective September 19 1985 Company Tax System, Rate Increase, Imputation, Abolition of Div 7 Effective July 1 1987 Farm Losses, Quarantining Effective July 1 1986 Foreign Tax Credit System Effective July 1 1987 Fringe Benefits Tax Effective July 1 1987 Living away from Home Allowances (taxable if excessive) Effective July 3 1987 National ID Cards Effective July 1 1986 Personal Tax Rates (reduction) Effective October 1 1986 Prescribed Payments System (Rate increased to 15 per cent) Effective July 1 1986 Provisional Tax (quarterly payments) Effective July 1 1987 October 9 1985 Assignment of right to future income (Myer case, consideration for assignment to be taxable) Effective October 9 1985 December 16 1985 New Superannuation fund standards (implementation of 3 per cent productivity increase) Effective July 1 1986 Senator HILL —A glance at this schedule indicates tax after tax which has been announced-these announcements go back to 14 December 1984-and which not only has not received legislative form but also is already operating. For example, going down the right hand side of my schedule, the first measure was operative from 14 December 1984, the second from 16 December 1984, the third from 4 February 1985 and the fourth measure-research and development expenditure concessions which were announced in May 1985-from 1 July 1985. I could continue but I will not because the schedule has been incorporated in Hansard. One measure, the research and development expenditure concessions, has been effective for almost a year, yet we still have not seen the colour of the legislation. Obviously businesses and those who seek to gain the benefit of the measure have to operate pursuant to this measure. How can they reasonably and effectively conduct their business in relation to tax laws which are in effect operative but for which legislation still has not been introduced into the Parliament almost a year later? Any reasonable person would think that is a legislative disgrace. It is a totally unsatisfactory position about which the Government, clearly, should be highly embarrassed. You will notice, Mr Deputy President, when you come to peruse the schedule, that I have left in the quarantining of farm losses proposal which was to be effective from 1 July this year because we do not know whether, for example, when the Government introduces its new notion of applying a tax to Pitt Street farmers it will be dated from 1 July. Again, it is a situation of total uncertainty for business people and investors. It is an example of Government ineptitude which one could almost describe as a scandal. Therefore, because of the Government's specific taxes I have mentioned today, the lack of vision in its policy on those taxes and its practice of legislating by announcement, making it impossible for businesses and individuals to comply properly with the obligations under which they have to operate, I strongly support the motion moved by the Opposition today. The Government's record of tax reform in all these areas has been one of miserable failure. Senator PARER(Queensland)(6.10) —I support Senator Messner's motion which makes three major points: Firstly, that the uncertainty surrounding the Government's procrastination on tax measures has undermined general confidence in the Government's decision-making process and its ability to make decisions; secondly, the uncertainty is harmful to business confidence simply because business does not know what is going on; thirdly, the proposed measures, particularly the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, will be harmful and thus a disincentive to our whole economy. Investment is falling, and no wonder, because investment is based on expectations. An uncertain taxation system will undermine those expectations. By looking at the legislative program that should be facing us, we can see why those expectations are undermined. Changes affecting a host of things from negative gearing through to the capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax and so on have been outlined by my colleague Senator Hill. A major item is the quarantining of farm losses. What a great saga that has been. It was announced on 19 September 1985 and was to take effect on 1 July 1986. It was pulled out by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, on 15 April 1986 and on the following day it was reinstated by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. I continue to be totally amazed that the Government cannot see that this sort of uncertainty is one of the major contributors to the failure of business confidence and the possibility of the J curve failing to eventuate. Of course, it is not the only contributor. Mr Kevin Cashman, the chief executive of Sunbeam Corporation Ltd, has also spelled out other major causes. For example, we no longer make toasters in Australia today. This is just a reflection of all the other little manufacturing industries in which we no longer engage. His reasoning is interesting. The breakdown of costs of making toasters spells out the disadvantages of manufacturing in Australia today. It is in wage costs, of course, that Australia really slips. Comparisons of hourly wage rates for process workers put Australia at $7.40 an hour at the top of the table, followed by the United States at $6.60 an hour, New Zealand at $5.31 an hour and Hong Kong at $2.68 an hour. Mr Cashman points out that in this international comparison only Australians have the privilege of a 38-hour week. Australia has the highest number of non-working days at 52 days, compared with New Zealand at 30, Hong Kong at 22 and the United States at 19. We also have the most generous annual leave. Only Australia provides long service leave. We have the highest allowance for sick leave. One might expect our wage costs to be the highest but not our material costs. Here the curiosities of export pricing mean that the manufacturers in Hong Kong can buy aluminium sourced from Australia at 22 per cent less than Sunbeam can buy the same material in Australia. Last year the Government described its tax package as a great reform. These claims are now seen for what they were, empty kite flying. The changes were neither a package, nor were they genuine reforms. I will come to that later. The problem is that no-one knows where we stand on tax changes. Many of the proposals have not been introduced as legislation even though their operation dates back to last year or the year before. Other measures have been watered down or removed. I have just mentioned quarantining of farm losses. No one knows where we stand on that matter, apparently not even the Government. If the Government does not know where we stand on taxation policy, how can anyone else in the community know where we stand? Another example of indecision is the fringe benefits tax. I will mention briefly the car industry. Senator Richardson went in to bat yesterday for the Government. He said that there would be some sort of fringe benefits tax, but what sort of tax will it be and how much will it cost? This would be subject to what the honourable senator called `negotiations'. We all know that that is an attempt to cover up the basic differences between the ideas of Senator Button and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on this and other issues. We will not know what the legislation will be until we see its colour. Senator Button said today that there will not be any change in the legislation. Let us see. Senator Button knows the parlous state of the car industry. Senator Richardson and Mr Keating obviously either do not know about the problems or do not care. They retain their pathological Australian Labor Party bias about so-called equity. Senator Cook, who preceded me in the debate, mentioned equity and fairness. The basis of option C was supposed to be equity and fairness. As everyone knows, we ended up with a deal made in a motel room with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and a mishmash of a tax on the 600,000 small business people who employ about three million Australians. He talked about tax rorters. We read in the newspapers that in Melbourne tram and bus employees and ex-employees can wander about the town with a letter in their pockets and avoid paying bus and tram fares. He talked about the restaurant industry. He said: `Show us your figures'. He bragged about shutting loopholes. The restaurant industry is patchy. I think everyone would agree with that. But this fringe benefits tax has created its own loopholes. We do not have to delve too far into it to find that where the restaurant industry is doing well, the value of the credit card business has gone down and the cash part has gone up. One does not have to be a genius to work out how that occurs. It is to the advantage of the genuine businessman who is still engaging in legitimate business expenses and the restaurateur who is now getting more cash than credit cards. The much-cited Idaps Australia Ltd figures this week clearly demonstrate the likely demise of the car industry unless the Government changes course on the tax matter. The figures show dropping sales and dropping registrations. The proposed tax is clearly a very significant reason for the state of the industry. Senator Walsh, quite correctly, has often pointed to motor vehicle registrations as a reliable barometer of general economic performance. He has often waxed lyrical during the good times and has held up his Government's contribution to economic growth as being something to be proud of. Yet in the last few months, he has been strangely silent. Meanwhile, our manufacturing sector is slipping further into the mire. I will now touch briefly on the fringe benefits tax as it applies to remote areas. Workers in remote areas, whether in mining or in farming, were provided with accommodation at nominal rental. This was done to encourage people from urban areas to work in remote areas. All the associated facilities were provided by the employers. Under the tax package, those who provided the facilities are now hit with a tax on the difference between the nominal rent and the market rate. There has been some adjustment because the mining people, in particular, have had discussions with Senator Gareth Evans. I am also aware that Senator Evans has told them that he does not care how the figures are calculated, as long as the net revenue is the same. Today's Courier-Mail states that the State Leader of the Labor Party in Queensland says that he has some information for Mr Keating which would provide fringe benefit concessions in remote areas. However, when we look at it, what he has to say is a poor attempt at a pea and thimble trick. The article states: People living in remote areas of Queensland will receive major concessions on the proposed fringe benefits tax. By way of example, Mr Warburton says that the Mt Isa Shire will save $50,000, but he does not tell the shire how much the tax will cost. He gives a little example. He says that if the Mt Isa Council is providing a home for one of its employees at a rent of $30 a week when the rent for that on the open market would be $100 a week, instead of paying tax on the $70 difference, the Council will be taxed on $30. Of course, the point is that it was not paying tax on that before. It is an absolute confidence trick. I think that that is the same type of formula that would apply to everyone else in remote areas, whether in the mining or farming industries. Foreign tax credits probably form one of the most disturbing elements in a tax package for which we have not seen the legislation. People are trying to interpret what they think might be in the legislation. Where the tax rate on overseas income is less than that paid in Australia the additional tax needed to bring the total tax up to the Australian tax rate will be payable. Apparently the timing of the tax liability will depend on whether the income is in the form of, firstly, fees and or branch profits or, secondly, dividends from overseas incorporated companies. In the former case, the liability apparently will arise in respect of the year in which the income is earned, whereas in the latter case it will arise in respect of the year in which the dividend was paid or credited. The list goes on of the uncertainties people have about the tax and the inconsistency of the whole thing. For some time we have had Government Ministers promoting the export of goods and services. That is quite understandable because of the terrible mess our balance of payments are in. Considerable focus has been put on the lack of competitiveness of Australian manufacturing and service industries and their lack of application to overseas markets. At the same time proposals for the introduction of a foreign tax credit system, which appears likely to have an adverse effect on construction companies working overseas, has been announced by this Government. We can do without the uncertainty of not having the legislation-legislation which is critical to decision-making. There are enough problems without the Government dragging its feet on this issue. Let us look at the other major issues. I cite figures from the Economist dated 19 April 1986. If we look at consumer prices as at the end of March, we see that Australia's figure was up by 8.2 per cent. As we know, it has now risen to 9.2 per cent. At the same time West Germany had an increase of 0.1 per cent; Japan 2.4 per cent; and the United States of America 3.2 per cent. I now turn to the increased wholesale price figures, which are of great concern because the later flow-on to retail prices will exacerbate the position. In the full 12 months to the end of March the Australian figure increased by 6.7 per cent; West Germany had a figure of minus 1.5 per cent; Japan, minus 7.7 per cent; and the United States of America, minus 1.3 per cent. Interest rates have been spoken about previously. We know that we have the highest interest rates since the Depression. As at the end of March, the Australian interest rate figure was 19.1 per cent. In West Germany the figure was 7 per cent; in Japan, 4.5 per cent; and in the United States of America, 8 per cent. Finally, I note in the Melbourne Herald today-I think this is very appropriate-the editorial heading: `Not so much confusion, as panic'. That article stated: As the arguments and horse trading drag on, it's not so much an air of confusion which surrounds the Keating tax package. It's an air of panic. The Treasurer has admitted the effect on the car industry of the fringe benefits tax had not been analysed. The article continued: This debate is not just an argument among politicians. It affects ordinary Australians and they must have the right to consider the proposals. Yet here we are, in May, and the tax has yet to take its final form. It's a disgrace for which Mr Keating must accept the blame. And is any of this worth the agony? In the end, with all the fiddling and disruption and dangers, there's little reform. The tax cuts are insignificant compared with the risk to jobs and prosperity. Mr Keating had the beginnings of reform, but they disappeared with the `consensus' of the tax summit. It is time for him-and the Government-to face that and reassess strategy. Question put: That the motion (Senator Messner's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Richardson, G. F. Watson, J. O. W. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. McIntosh, G. D. Jessop, D. S. Chipp, D. L. (Senator Robert Ray did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Missen.) Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time for General Business has expired. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(8.00) —The Senate is dealing with seven allied Bills which cover a wide range of rural produce including barley, dried fruits, livestock, chicken meat, pig slaughter and dairying. These Bills have been introduced at a time when the rural scene faces, beyond doubt, the gravest long term issues of its history. These issues in themselves are not just the recurrent problems of good or bad seasons, droughts or floods or fluctuations in world prices. The problems are far deeper than that. Of course, the rural industries are now confronted with the possibility of a further bad drought. Against that background there are huge world surpluses of almost all primary produce including grains, beef, dried fruits, dairy products, sugar and vegetable oil-surpluses that, in many cases, are chronic and inevitably are combined with low prices. Wheat prices, for example, are at a record post-war low. Our percentage of the Japanese beef market has fallen. The sugar industry is in a real crisis. The situation in which these industries find themselves must be taken in parallel with ever-rising production costs, record interest rates, rural indebtedness which has more than doubled in the last five years, farm incomes at bare subsistence levels and negligible returns on capital. To have low world prices in good seasons is one thing; to have low world prices and to be facing in the future, inevitably, some bad seasons is a recipe for tragedy, a recipe for disaster. Over the years rural employment has steadily fallen as farmers, in their search to cut costs, in their search to increase productivity, have sought mechanisation and new technology. Of course, rural industries are almost wholly single-owner or family undertakings. The number of farms is shrinking year by year. The fact is that more than 49,000 dairy farmers have gone out of production in the past quarter of a century. This in itself is bad enough, but let me fit this into the pattern in Australia in recent times. Let me re-emphasise some of the figures that have been quoted before. Fifty years ago Australia's living standards were the world's highest. We now rank twenty-first, and other nations are rapidly overtaking us. Not long ago we were rated as the world's twelfth largest trading nation. Now we are the twentieth, and slipping badly. We were once ranked as the eighth most competitive nation. Now we are nineteenth-and again slipping. The most graphic statistic is surely this: In the last 20 years our share of world markets has fallen from 2 per cent to 1.2 per cent, and this lower level is under serious threat. Our markets are further shrinking. I repeat: Over the last 20 years our share of world markets has virtually halved. We are a nation that is dependent on overseas trade to maintain our living standards. We are a nation that inevitably must produce in agriculture far more than our domestic demand. We are a nation that must produce minerals-far more than our demand-and export them. We are a nation that depends upon manufacturing to employ its people. Tragically, however, manufacturing, which used to employ 28 per cent of all our population, has fallen to less than 17 per cent, and is continuing to fall. In the December quarter there was a fall of 0.7 per cent in manufacturing. The trend is, indeed, an insidious one; it is one which bodes ill for the prospects of the young. Sadly, Australia's overseas debt has increased from $3.5 billion in 1970-71 to just about $70 billion today. Just to service the interest on that debt requires an amount equal to the earnings that Australia receives from all of our wool, wheat and beef exports. Sadly, the measure of how Australia is now regarded by other countries is reflected in the staggering fall in the value of our dollar, not only in relation to the United States dollar but also in regard to sterling, yen, Deutsche marks and other currencies. Devaluation of that magnitude may seem attractive at first to the embattled farming community because it means, in nominal terms, some extra money. But it is plain bad news when taken as a whole. It means sharply rising import costs and higher overseas debt servicing. I quote just one example: The extra cost for our defence forces in terms of overseas purchases is said to be in the order of $400m this year simply because of devaluation. One should not be seduced by the attraction of perhaps a further fall that might give some extra nominal value for the moment. Above all, one should not be seduced by the Government's very tenuous argument that devaluation, now approaching 30 per cent, provides an extra cover, an extra tariff, which would enable the protection of manufacturing to expand, leading to import replacement. That argument in itself looks attractive, but let me examine it. First of all, it means that the manufacturers would need to be assured that that kind of protection from devaluation and from tariffs would be extended into the indefinite future. In other words, it means that the Government would be signalling that the devaluation would stay at this level, that the world would continue to judge Australia adversely and that protection would therefore continue. That argument, one hopes, is absolutely wrong. One hopes that the world will look towards Australia and see brighter things and that as a result our dollar will move upwards. If that happens we would be asking manufacturers to operate in a market in which their protection is diminishing and competition with imports is increasing. In any case, we are dealing with rural industry and, fundamentally, the rural industries will suffer and pay the price of the increased costs, either from imports or from local manufacturing. I cannot stress too much these real elements of the approach to the rural problems. The first and fundamental thing that must be understood is that 80 per cent of all rural costs are incurred off the farm-outside the farm and outside of farmers' control. Some of those costs are incurred in the cities. Costs are also incurred in respect of imports, transport, freight and electric power reticulation. I repeat that these costs are not capable of being controlled by the farmer himself. His segment accounts for some 20 per cent of costs. The fact must also be re-emphasised-and I have mentioned this in the Senate before-that freight costs make up 40 per cent of all costs for all kinds of materials, services et cetera. Forty per cent of these costs represents the cost of transport. We have a rural community confronted with costs on which it cannot make an impact. The rural community struggles for further productivity. In terms of efficiency it is well ahead in the world, but it cannot compete in this world if the prices and costs that are forced upon it from outside continue to rise. The Government talks of a splendid economy. I cannot conceive of a splendid economy, which in fact has a rural community in severe straits, a mining community in no better shape, with coal being threatened in terms of exports and prices, and a diminishing manufacturing industry. If that is a good economy, we have a strange sense of humour in Australia. How can it be a good economy for farmers or others if the consumer price index, as last recorded, has risen to 9.2 per cent, despite the signals from the Government that it would stay at 8 per cent and decline? How can we face a situation with any complacency when we know that that 9.2 per cent is more than double the CPI increase of our trading partners and indeed is many times that of countries such as Japan and West Germany, where the inflation rate is approaching zero? We have a single burning challenge in Australia. We are facing an economic crisis across the board, particularly in the rural area for one particular reason; that is, we are being costed out of world markets, we cannot compete with other countries. It is nonsense to talk about other countries having lower wages. Indeed, many of the countries that now compete with us have a wage scale and benefits at least comparable with those in Australia. It is true, and it needs to be understood, that the world around us is becoming more self-sufficient in agricultural products both in food and fibre. One of the remarkable events of recent history, and indeed a great tribute to the late Mrs Gandhi and her Government, is that a nation of some 600 million or 700 million people which was so dependent in the decades gone by on imported food has now become basically self-sufficient in food and is showing some evidence of exporting. So, too, are countries such as Thailand and China. We in Australia have to adjust to the fact that the world around us is no longer what it was 20 or 30 years ago, that the markets are not of the same nature necessarily or existing in the same places. But fundamentally, whatever we choose to export as a product, we come against the one principle whether we are farmers, manufacturers or miners; that is, unless we can get the costs down in Australia to compare with those overseas, we will go on declining. Our living standards will decline and, indeed, unemployment will continue to rise. That is showing up in a whole host of different ways. Our current account deficit is now running at the extraordinary average of about $14.4 billion a year, an increase in recent times of $3 billion. I have dwelt upon the size of the national debt. Our interest rates in real terms are of record dimensions and although showing some minor signs of decrease are far and away above what they were in real terms in years gone by. So the burden of higher costs and higher interest rates is all on the community and on the farmer. But the Government has gone further than this. The Government, it seems, was out to punish the rural community. How could it have been so insensitive in its earlier approach to the assets test of the social security system when in fact it failed to understand the particular needs of farming communities, and particularly the needs of the elderly? It would have blindly deprived people of their rightful social benefits. How could it be so unfeeling that it set up its principles to eliminate the offsetting of losses? How could it have looked at negative gearing in the way it did in the overall picture? But how could it have looked at capital gains as it still does and still wants to? It is still putting forward a tax which is the reimposition of a death duty or an estate duty? Let me get to the fundamentals. This Government has as its primary task the lowering of the consumer price index. In recent months it has had a great opportunity to reduce the CPI by at least a further one per cent simply by keeping its promise to the electors. I refer to its promise on import parity pricing and the adjustment of the prices of oil to overseas movements. It was an extraordinary situation for this Government. I cannot think of anything that involved more of the circus-type somersaults that this Government has done on that matter. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the present Treasurer, Mr Keating, railed around this country saying all sorts of things against the Government of the day, my Government, because we had import parity pricing and because, in Mr Keating's words, there was a tax office at every petrol bowser. Everybody knows that he was going to make a 1980 election issue out of this-a major cause for himself. Everybody knows that he said this would not be Labor Party policy. This Government has not only embraced import parity pricing but also gone further. On the one hand it has said that it wished to maintain it and on the other it has added a further insidious tax. Three years ago the Government introduced an indexing of excises in Australia. That meant that the petrol excise would go up automatically with the CPI without the need for legislation in the Parliament. That in itself was bad enough because it was another hidden tax at the petrol bowser. But when oil prices fell drastically, instead of keeping the election promises, the Government decided to give only part of the relief to the Australian community and to offset that by adding to the excise at the pump. Petrol and oil prices today are at an unreal level. The Government has broken this promise as it has broken many promises. It has failed to maintain import parity pricing and it has found an insidious way of getting more money out of the Australian community through the petrol pump by means of the extra index tax at the bowser. The Government has completely failed to realise that the farming community, of all communities, is heavily indebted by freight. It is not good enough to do something about on-farm diesel or to make some minor gesture like that; they are the petty cash of the costs of freight. The real costs of freight to the farmer are the movement of goods and supplies to and from the farm, a movement to the farm of the necessary operating material and a movement from the farm of the output of the farms. It would have been a very valuable help to the farmer if a fall in petrol price had been allowed to go right through the whole community to its full extent. This would have meant that in every commodity and in every service sought by the rural community the farmer would benefit. I repeat that hidden in the 80 per cent of all farm costs-in other words, that segment which is incurred off the farm and outside the control of the farmer-is a very major ingredient of freight. Forty per cent of all costs is freight. Here one could have given the farmer major relief; but this was not given. It was a broken promise of a very serious kind and it has, in fact, put the consumer price index up by at least another one percentage point. Every time that this Government, by its actions, increases the CPI or maintains it at a rate so much higher than that of the outside world, the Government does grave disservice not only to the farming community but also to every person seeking a job in Australia. One must keep in mind that, with all the Government's promises that it would create jobs and with its magnificent argument that it had created some 600,000 jobs, a fundamental which Mr Hawke stated in his earlier policy speech was that before one can reduce one place in the unemployment ranks, 130,000 or more extra jobs have to be found every year just to keep up with the population growth. So in fact what has happened has been a confidence trick. In the apparent rise in the number of jobs-incidentally, many of them part time-there has been an illusion created. First of all, the participation rate has fallen on many occasions below what it was in the time of the Fraser Government, so the comparison gives an illusion. Instead of there being 8.2 per cent of people unemployed-I think that is the figure now-the real unemployment cannot be measured because so many people do not register. The silent unregistered number of unemployed is not available to us. We now have a situation where the more we fail to get our costs down and the more we fail to help the farmers, miners and manufacturers to export, the higher our overseas indebtedness and inevitably, therefore, the higher our interest rates, and the worse the effect of devaluation on the whole community and the ugliness of the illusion that somehow devaluation is helpful. I can understand the situation in terms of the simple nominal growth of money that may come from trade, whether mining or farming, but the extra costs that devaluation has put upon Australia and the extra burden it has put therefore, indirectly but in a very real sense, upon the rural community, far outweigh any value of the devaluation. In any case, the Government's great claim about this famous J curve-that there would be a turn around and that manufacturers would come in and do import replacements-has no supporting evidence at all. We are facing today a far worse situation in each of our industries-manufacturing, mining and agriculture-than we have faced in the past 30 or 40 years. We are facing today an entrenchment of chronic defects which have been cemented in place by the Hawke Government. The Hawke Government claims, of course, benefit from the weather. I do not know whether Mr Hawke made it rain so that the farmers had three good seasons. I imagine, therefore, that he will be sufficiently honest and robust to take the blame for any bad seasons that may flow now. The Labor Party railed and ranted in 1982 when the Fraser Government had the courage to indicate that it would bring in a wage freeze over a period, preferably of a year but certainly for six months. The Hawke Government attacked that policy as fundamentally abhorrent to it. It went in and it grasped the wage freeze to itself as the only beneficial economic factor, other than rain, which has occurred in this time. In fact, the wage freeze caused not only a CPI freeze but a fall in real terms of the CPI. The fundamental benefits that have come to the economy have come from three things. They have come from good seasons, thank God-and one hopes that they will persist but one fears that they will not; they have come from the fundamental wage freeze and its benefits, which have flowed on to everyone; and they have come from the upturn in the world outside. But that is where it ends. The Government's economic policy is to entrench the margin that Australian inflation has above inflation among its trading partners. It has set out deliberately to keep the gap the same instead of shrinking it. How else could the accord have occurred. The accord is basically the indexation of inflation, and the indexation of inflation simply means that for all farmers and miners there is entrenched in it the gap in our production costs compared with production costs overseas. This is an extraordinary attitude altogether. The Government uses rhetoric to disguise its failures. It talks accord and consensus. The accord, to the Hawke Labor Government, means a behind the scenes fix between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government-indeed, doing what the ACTU tells the Government to do and without full consultation with the rest of the community. In other words, it is a confrontation by the ACTU and the Hawke Government against the rest of the community, particularly small business, farmers and others. The whole of the action of the Government has been, indeed, to increase the burden upon the farming community and others. It has had great opportunities to do the reverse. In fact, it has simply added the lead weights to the saddle of the farming community. I repeat that nothing could have been more insensitive than the piling on of capital gains taxes, negative gearings, the attack through the assets test upon farming people and all these quite ugly things, at a time when farmers were crying out for help. To have pretended to the public that it would give the benefits of import parity pricing and then to impose a snide silent tax which destroyed that was to increase the costs for the whole of the Australian people. The simple fact is that if we are to help the farming people, everybody in Australia has that task before them. It is not a question of whether a city person can score off a country person or vice versa. The fact of the matter is that the farmer cannot be prosperous unless the cost structure internally throughout Australia is reduced. The city person cannot be prosperous unless the farmer is capable of producing and selling his wares. I come back to what I have said repeatedly in this chamber. Fundamentally what has happened is that the Labor Party over the years has entrenched in Australia a completely false concept of class polarisation, of a fight between labour and management, and therefore a need to struggle to get more and more when in fact the interests of the two are identical and when we should be saying to both: `Work together in terms of getting more real wages and increased productivity, and by so doing you will not only increase exports but also get the jobs for our youngsters who today have not got that choice'. The Labor Government works by confrontation. It pretends consensus. It has failed miserably, and the rural sector in particular is paying very dearly indeed for the almost four years of the Hawke Labor Government. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.31) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate on the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill and allied Bills, and I commend them to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without requests or debate. Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.32) —In leading for the Opposition parties tonight I have great pleasure in lending support to the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill. The purpose of this legislation is to give some greater degree of control to Australian authorities over material which is being exported from Australia and which is of cultural significance. As part of the new regime to be put in place this particular piece of legislation has been introduced as the product of a long period of consultation, details of which I wish to address later. The regime will depend not only upon the passage of this legislation but also on the subsequent passage of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill which, I believe, is currently before the House of Representatives. That Bill provides for changes in Part III of the Customs Act. In the words of the explanatory memorandum, it is intended to provide the necessary authority for officers of Customs to seize protected cultural objects notified by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment pursuant to the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 whilst those objects are subject to the control of Customs. Once this Bill and the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill are passed, we will have a new regime which will allow for the effective protection in Australia of physical items which are of cultural significance to the Australian nation. The protection of what might be called our national cultural patrimony is in fact an important step. I think it is important to note that that step is being taken fairly close to our bicentennial celebrations. Many countries have already suffered considerable losses in their cultural patrimony by the way in which artefacts-items of cultural and historical significance-have been traded around the world. Some of them, it must be admitted, have been traded quite legitimately; others have been traded in a quite covert fashion. For instance, one knows of the outrage that is still felt by many of the people in the Greek community and in Greece at the loss of the Elgin Marbles to the British Museum. This is a vexatious issue, one which continues to be a source of complaint by the Greek Government and its authorities. On looking at a very interesting book by Karl Meyer entitled The Plundered Past on the traffic in art treasures, it can be seen that there is a very significant illegal trade in materials of cultural significance. Interpol maintains a list of the most wanted pieces of art which have disappeared and which, indeed, have been stolen. On this list one thinks, for instance, of Masaccio's painting Virgin and Child, Mem- ling's Portrait of a Gentleman, a famous Toulouse-Lautrec portrait Marcelle, the Caravaggio Nativity, the Correggio The Holy Family, Rembrandt's painting The Flight into Egypt, the Gainsborough Portrait of Sir Robert Fletcher and the Frans Hals Portrait of a Young Woman. In fairly recent times we have witnessed the looting of the national Anthropological Museum in Mexico City and the loss of absolutely irreplaceable and priceless pieces of pre-Columbian art. I am glad I had the chance to see them before they vanished. It should not be thought that this is simply a small time business. I refer to a report which states that in 1972 the Metropolitan Museum in New York acquired by means which were perhaps not altogether above board a very famous Calyx Krater. That was a Greek sixth century vase from the potter Euxitheo and the painter Euphronios, which is reported to have cost the museum more than $US1m. So one is not talking about small ticket items in this trade. It should not be thought that these losses are confined to places such as Greece, Mexico or Thailand or to the collections in Europe. Let me document a couple of instances relating to Australian material which fall into this category. Last year, despite or perhaps because of the introduction of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage (Interim Protection) Act, we witnessed the removal, quite improperly and quite disgracefully, from this country of the Strehlow collection. I refer to the improper removal of the tjurunga stones of the Aranda people. In July 1985 there was a major auction at Sotheby's in England of 76 Aboriginal artefacts, including the Yirwala bark paintings, which went into private collections. There have been problems with the export from Australia-I will return to this as an example in a minute-of the facsimile of deeds of the Batman grant. It is unfortunate that the principal Australian constitutional documents are in the Records Office of the House of Lords. If the British Government is in any way serious about supporting our bicentennial celebrations, the most useful thing it could do would be to repatriate those documents so that they could in fact form part of the display in-I do not think it will be called King's Hall-whatever the main public vestibule of the new Parliament House is to be called. Senator Robertson —The People's Hall. Senator PUPLICK —As long as it is not called Hawke's Hall, I do not mind. I refer to other items of importance and significance to various people. In 1981 a very historic Spitfire mark 8 and a Messerschmitt BF109G were improperly exported from Australia. There have been problems with some rare Spitfires which have been seized by Customs. The value of those aircraft was in the vicinity of $265,000. As a philatelist I was particularly interested to see a rare Western Australian stamp, the Western Australian Blue, recently auctioned in London for $30,000. The Western Australian inverted swan stamp-one of the most famous of its kind-is currently lodged in the Dublin Museum. If the Irish wanted to make a contribution to our Bicentenary, I am sure they could return it. Senator Ryan —They are making a contribution. Senator PUPLICK —I had in mind some contribution other than having provided the genetic origin of about one-third of the members of this Parliament. Similarly one looks perhaps at the extent to which such matters could be raised with the papal authorities during the forthcoming visit of His Holiness. The Vatican's significant collection of Aboriginal artefacts in my opinion more properly belongs in this country. Recently one has seen reports in the newspapers of the Ravensworth finds at Riversleigh, where very important and significant palaeological and anthropological artefacts are being removed from Australia. A very large number of bones of what are now becoming known as megafauna are being discovered in Australia and many of these are leaving the country. I was distressed to see the details of an auction recently conducted by Sotheby's in Melbourne at which a painting by Frederick McCubbin called `Feeding Time' was sold for $693,000. It was subsequently revealed that this painting may well be taken out of the country. It is important to stress that the introduction of this legislation does not have a retrospective effect; therefore those items that have already been lost from the cultural collections of Australia cannot be recalled. However, one would hope that from time to time some capacity would exist to retrieve some of these items. I give great credit to the announcement made by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, and Mr Cohen, who was Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, back in November 1984 when they introduced a prohibition on the exportation from Australia of historic film and sound recordings. That was a most important and significant contribution to maintaining the collection of cultural material in Australia which I believe is part of the heritage of all Australians and which should be accessible to all Australians. I mentioned previously that I wanted to say something about the John Batman deed facsimile. This facsimile was seized by the Comptroller-General of Customs as an illegal export when it was, in fact, re-entering Australia. The facsimile deed was in the hands of a private owner-and quite properly so-and that person sought to send it to London to have it auctioned. It was sent to London, it did not fetch the reserve price at auction so it was then returned to the original owner, so it was thought. However, when the deed re-entered the country it was seized by Customs as being an illegal export under the terms of item B of the Second Schedule of the Customs Act. In the view of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) the deed, as an illegal export, then became the property of the Crown. The power to dispose of it lies with the Comptroller-General of Customs on the advice of the Minister responsible for Customs-that is, Senator Button. I understand that the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment has advised the Customs Service that that deed should be returned to its proper and legitimate owner in Australia. That advice has been with the Minister for some time and has not been acted upon. I think it is entirely improper that the article, on its re-entry to Australia, should have been seized by the Crown and has not yet been returned to its original owner. I hope that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) will take this up with her colleague Senator Button and see whether he is now prepared to act upon the advice that he has received from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment that that document should be returned. The model which in part has been used as a model for this legislation is the British 1979 Export of Goods Control Order. Under that order a group of expert advisers has been appointed to advise the British Government on whether an item should be permitted to be exported. The decision not to allow an export licence is normally subject to an offer by a public institution which the exporter is not obliged to accept. That offer must be made within a specified time for the purchase of the object and failing such an offer, an export licence is generally granted. For the year 1982-83, which is the last year for which I have the figures, 20 cases were referred to the committee of experts for review after an expert adviser in the first instance had recommended refusal of an export licence. In 14 cases export was suspended for a number of months pending the possibility of an offer to purchase the object at the recommended fair market price from a British public collection. In seven cases public collecting institutions were able to make offers at the recommended price; in five they were not and export licences were subsequently granted. In the remaining two cases the owners withdrew their application to export the objects in question. Unfortunately, although the British protect their own cultural material and prevent it from leaving the country, they are a little less sensitive about returning other people's. In particular a very famous case arose which was the immediate trigger for this piece of legislation. That case arose as the result of the New Zealand Government attempting under the New Zealand Historical Articles Act 1962 to recover a collection of Maori artefacts which had been improperly exported from New Zealand to Britain. In the first instance the court in the United Kingdom in the Queens Bench division agreed that the articles should be returned. The new owner then appealed and the Court of Appeal in the civil division overturned the judgment of the first judge and its overturning of that judgment was subsequently confirmed on appeal in the House of Lords in April 1983. This case-the Ortiz case-triggered in some respects the question being raised at a meeting of British Commonwealth Attorneys-General where it became apparent that there was lack of uniformity in the way in which these matters were dealt with. As I said, the British were not inclined to give effect to the New Zealand Act and that is a great pity. It is interesting to note that among the countries that have become signatories to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention upon which this Bill is predicated-the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property-the United States is listed but Great Britain is not. Again, I think that is extremely regrettable. Back in 1975 the report of the Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections recommended in paragraph 2.15 that Australia should adhere to the UNESCO Convention. The report said: To retain rare Australian cultural material, we recommend that the Australian Government introduce specific legislation to regulate or prohibit the export of particular items or categories of items. We recommend that the protection of cultural relics would be furthered if Australia ratified and implemented the UNESCO Convention of 1970 on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. That is one of the recommendations that are being taken up in this legislation, as indeed is the recommendation for the establishment of the Museum of Australia which flowed from the Pigott inquiry. Australia has a number of unique museums and collections. Apart from the Museum of Australia, to which I wish to return in a moment, it has one of the world's outstanding film and sound archives. A number of individuals and companies and organisations have contributed substantially to building up the collection there. For example, the film and sound archives hold sets of all 156 known titles of recordings made by Dame Nellie Melba and one of the projects which it has in hand is to reissue all of these at some stage. We have a Bill currently before the House of Representatives for the establishment of a National Maritime Museum. That is an important and significant development. I have watched the progress of work one way or the other at the Darling Harbour site, and although one might want to make some comments about various arrangements with the Builders Labourers Federation and the New South Wales Government, that is something that will wait for the debate on that particular legislation. Nevertheless, the Museum, despite the troubles it ran into temporarily before Estimates Committee D last week-Senator Ryan would be painfully aware of that-is a very significant development in Australia's cultural heritage. In Victoria we have an extremely good Performing Arts Museum. Just south of Sydney there is an extremely interesting railway museum. In Newcastle there is an extremely good museum at Fort Scratchley, a museum of the history and development, particularly the maritime development, of Newcastle and the region. We have the Stockman's Hall of Fame and in Sydney the wonderful technologically oriented Powerhouse Museum. One of the great things that will flow from this legislation will be the capacity of local communities to develop and promote local museums. They will have the capacity for the protection of material; they will have, through the Fund which is to be established as part of this system, a capacity to involve themselves in a more systematic and, I hope, more successful preservation of their own local cultural identity and history. The Museum of Australia in its 1984-85 annual report made a number of comments about its collections. In that report the Museum notes: There were several notable additions to the collection itself, including the purchase by the Commonwealth Government of the America's Cup winner, `Australia II', the acquisition of the River Murray paddle-steamer `Enterprise', built in 1878, the BP solar car `The Quiet Achiever', an important collection of early Australian postcards, the contents of Dalton's Printery at Echuca Victoria, and three Edwardian mutoscopes or `peepshows' originally from the Glenelg pier in South Australia. The report goes on to note: In addition, work began on the accessioning of some 10,000 Aboriginal items from the national ethnographic collection, transferred to the Museum's custody during the year. They have been stored in unsatisfactory conditions in the basement of the former Institute of Anatomy building. Following the transfer of that building to the National Film and Sound Archive, the Museum began transferring these objects to the Mitchell Repository for essential conservation treatment and storage in modern premises. There are many areas of the world where exploration is currently under way, where great artefacts are expected to be found. For instance, one looks at Egypt and the search for the tombs of Heri-hor and Imhotep; at the Middle East and developments at Akkad and Ebla; at Greece and the developments and the digs at Akrotiri in Thera; the Kas shipwreck in Turkey. In China there is a continuing search for the original bones of Peking Man, which disappeared during the war. One sees almost every week now indications of new discoveries in Central and South America, particularly pre-Columbian art and the lost heritage of the Mayan people. One knows that in Australia there is a great deal of work going on in the preservation and identification of sites of major significance to Aboriginal Australians, and indeed to all Australians. The international regime that is established under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention to which Australia now becomes a more effective contributing party will not just help Australia but will reinforce Australia's commitment to helping other countries in the preservation of their cultural heritage. I think that is an important contribution we can make in a reciprocal arrangement with other nations. One knows, for instance, that a number of Australian archaeological digs are taking place at Pella in Jordan and on a number of the Aegean Islands. Under the regime which is established here there is also a method by which we can facilitate the exchange between museums of material of cultural significance. I think that will be facilitated by the extent to which we are prepared to play our part in acting against illegal exports and being prepared to return goods improperly brought into our country. By establishing our bona fides in that respect we will then be in a better position to deal with legitimate museums and authorities in other countries for the exchange of material that will enrich both societies and different cultures. There are only two matters I seek to raise with the Minister and about which I will be interested in having some further information. The first is whether it is possible for a concerned person or group in Australia to take action under this legislation to prevent the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment from granting an export permission. At the moment the Minister, under this Act, is required to grant a permission for a particular category of goods or a particular item in order for it to be exported. If the Minister is minded to give his approval, can somebody in fact challenge, through the legal processes, the right of the Minister to issue the export certificate? Can somebody require the Minister's decision to be subjected to the same process of review that the refusal of an export licence is subjected to? This involves some complicated questions, in particular the question of standing in this particular matter. The Australian Law Reform Commission, in its report No. 27 `Standing in Public Interest Litigation', has raised a number of relevant issues. I am not in a position to go into those this evening, but I simply ask: As the Minister's decision to refuse a permission is subject to review, is the Minister's decision to grant a permission also subject to review and is it subject to review on the basis of the same tests? A number of matters have been raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its third report dated 12 March 1986. A number of these are addressed in amendments which I understand the Australian Democrats will be putting forward. It is not my intention to debate those before we reach the Committee stage, other than to say that one of the items we do need to sort out is whether goods in the possession of legitimate collecting or custodial institutions are adequately protected by the legislation, or would they be adversely affected by any proposed amendments to the legislation, and in particular the proposal for amendments to clause 38 of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill? It is my intention to comment on these particular matters when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, this is an important piece of legislation. I know that legislation of this sort does not generate the degree of enthusiasm or blood pressure that a number of others do, but in the long run I believe it is of equal significance because it goes to shaping some of the very fundamental aspects of Australian society. Culture is a very fragile and delicate flower. Different people see quite different things as part of their cultural heritage. But I think there is growing throughout the world a recognition that one simply does not have a society judged in purely material terms, that the protection that is afforded by this legislation, to some of the historic artefacts of Australia, to some of the important cultural parts of the nation's heritage, is worth supporting. I would like to conclude by paying particular tribute to the work of Dr Jean Battersby in the development of this legislation. Dr Battersby not only has been an enthusiastic proponent of this legislation, but also has been extraordinarily helpful to Senator Collard, our shadow Minister, and me in terms of providing advice, explanation and assistance on this legislation. I am sure that her work and her support of this legislation will be very much rewarded by its passage. Its passage will be facilitated by the Opposition. We are pleased to see this piece of legislation. We are glad to give it our enthusiastic support. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(9.00) —I rise to support what I regard as outstanding legislation-the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1986. As indicated by the previous speaker, Senator Puplick, the Bill provides legislative support for the Government's decision to accede to the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Movement, Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. It is particularly pleasing that the Minister at the table tonight is Senator Susan Ryan because it was Senator Ryan who announced this decision at the general conference of UNESCO in 1983. The Bill has particular interest for us in the Northern Territory for a number of reasons. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) stated in his second reading speech: All nations possess objects which illustrate in unique or significant ways their history and culture. In Australia's case, some of these objects date back beyond recorded history to the deep roots of Aboriginal life . . . The Northern Territory, as is well known, is particularly rich in Aboriginal culture and many examples of what the Minister was referring to exist there. There are many other objects in the Northern Territory related to our early history. They are housed in what is probably one of the most effective and best presented small museums in Australia. However, I will concentrate on the Aboriginal aspect to keep my contribution short. I want to come back a little later to the importance of Aboriginal artefacts but I want to make a couple of other comments before I do so. I have to be a little parochial for the moment and say that the Northern Territory can be justly proud that it was the first legislature to introduce legislation of this type in Australia. Back in 1962 the Native and Historical Objects and Areas Ordinance was passed in the Northern Territory Legislative Council. I pay tribute to the officers of the old welfare branch of the Northern Territory Administration who had the foresight to see the need for this legislation and to the outstanding head of that branch, Mr Harry Giese, for seeing it through the Legislative Council. As I recall, at that time Mr Giese was an official member of the Legislative Council. People familiar with the history of the Northern Territory will know that back in the days when the Commonwealth Government was responsible for it we had a Legislative Council comprising a number of official members, a number of nominated members and a number of non-official members. I remind the Senate that Senator Kilgariff was also a member of the Council at that time and no doubt was associated with the legislation. I also pay tribute to the work of Mr Ted Milliken and Mr Ted Evans who were involved in the preparation of the Native and Historical Objects and Areas Ordinance. It was very gratifying to see the bipartisan approach to the legislation in the other place. It was a pleasure to read the Hansard of the lengthy debate. It is not always a pleasure to read the Hansard of the other place, as perhaps it is not always a pleasure to read the Hansard of this place. But on this occasion the speaker ranged over a wide area. There was a good approach by all speakers with the exception of one, to the Bills. There was agreement that the Bill was perhaps one of the most outstanding pieces of legislation to be introduced by the present Government. Many of the speakers in the debate also drew attention to the need to protect Aboriginal artefacts. I consider now some of the reasons why we need to protect and retain Aboriginal artefacts of various types. The first obvious reason is that these artefacts are part of Australia's heritage. We are not sure about the length of pre-history but I think it is fair to say that our history would probably go back 40,000 years. The Aboriginal civilisation certainly is unique. It is one of the oldest in the world. The objects which can be displayed are very valuable in the education of non-Aboriginal people. I speak of education at all levels. The public is generally ignorant of Aboriginal culture. If we can use some of the artefacts to assist in the education of the public generally it will help to break down some of the barriers and racial hatred which still exist within Australia. I do not believe that it is unfair to say that generally Australians are ignorant of the wealth of Aboriginal culture. I mention the problem of the improper display of objects. There is a limit to the number and type of objects which can be displayed to the public generally, to women, to non-Aboriginal people and to the uninitiated. So, although there are limitations on what can be shown, there are still many objects and artefacts which could be used to help in the education of the public generally. As a sideline, it is interesting to note that Aboriginal society had very strong sanctions against persons removing or selling artefacts. The selling came late, of course, but the improper removal of artefacts from their place of secretion, because they were put away in secret, attracted the ultimate penalty in some cases. In other cases it was a matter of spearing. So even from early times the Aboriginal people were aware that some of their artefacts might be taken and improperly displayed. We need to retain and make sure that nothing happens to these Aboriginal artefacts because they are vital to the education of the Aboriginal people. I suppose that tjurungas, particularly, could be compared superficially to teaching aids for those who are responsible for the education of young men. Some are used as an aide-memoire for the elders who are carrying out the instruction and some are used by the older people to help them to remember the early times. Some honourable senators may have seen a particularly touching scene in one of the Attenborough films about the desert-I cannot recall the title of it-where an Aboriginal man was sitting, caressing a tjurunga in an almost trancelike state while he remembers his initiation, perhaps, or the dreaming of his group. We need to protect tjurungas because, at a deeper level or, shall we say at a deeper significance, they are an integral part of many of the ceremonies. They are brought from their secret repositories and shown to those who are being initiated or those who are moving up the ladder towards higher degrees. Some objects, particularly those of deep significance, are vital to a clan or group. If the clan or group lost them it would be completely disastrous, basically because the clan or group would lose its spirit. The clan or group would be ridiculed by other clans and would be called a rubbish clan because it had lost its dreaming. Not only would it not be able to perform its ceremonies, but also it would be said to have lost its laws. The elders would have no authority. I know of one case in the Northern Territory where this happened, where what we can call a loss occurred-it was not a loss at all; it was theft and subsequent selling-and it led to total disruption of the clan involved. The clan virtually disintegrated. There was a loss of spirit and the elders lost their esteem. The clan lost its pride. Fortunately action has been taken in the Northern Territory to secure the return of those objects which will bring back dignity to that clan. There are features of the Bill which I would specially like to commend. The Bill facilitates Australia's accession to the UNESCO Convention. The Convention has broad definitions of cultural material and, as we know, its primary focus is on illegal international traffic. It also calls for a number of things. It calls for a national inventory of protected cultural property. It speaks about support for collecting institutions-both financial and other sorts of support. It sets out rules for curatorial conduct so that objects, artefacts and other items can be safeguarded. There is a call for a sharing of techniques amongst the various groups responsible. It calls for educational measures, which I have already mentioned, and for control over dealers, a matter I will discuss later. The last item in the Convention is the supervision of archeological sites. This matter is covered in the Northern Territory. I regret to say that I am not sure whether it is covered in all of the States. I have a feeling that it is not. If it is not, there will be additional gain in the passing of this Bill. Another feature of the Bill which I commend particularly is the establishment of the National Cultural Heritage Committee which has as its role the giving of advice on the heritage control list and the maintenance of a register of export examiners. One might say that this is most essential because this problem has faced the Customs section in its attempts to control imports and exports. There was a long delay in many cases in trying to get unanimity among experts-whether the item should be allowed in or out of the country. The Committee advises on the operation of those controls which have been established, on what can be sold and to whom it can be sold overseas. Most importantly, it advises on allocations from the heritage fund. It is vitally important that appropriate people be appointed to this Committee. I am very pleased that the Committee will include a nominee of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Those who have knowledge of the Aboriginal situation will know that it is practically impossible for one Aboriginal to advise, shall we say, across the board. Usually, one person can speak only of his own area. Perhaps it will be necessary to have a panel. If this is not possible, it is even more important to select the right sort of person who has the capacity to draw on resources. We know that the full resources of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the quite extensive resources of the Institute of Aboriginal Studies will be available to anyone who has to fill that very difficult role. The third feature of the Bill which I particularly commend is the establishment of the National Cultural Heritage Fund. This is a vital aspect of the Bill if we are to retain material in Australia. In other words, if material is to be sold, as in the case mentioned by the previous speaker, it might be possible for the fund to top up the figure which could be achieved in Australia, as against that which might be achieved at Sothebys or other auction sales. This topping up might make it possible for material to remain in Australia. Of course, the Convention calls for the return of material, or the exchange of material if it happens to be under the care of governments. This has already been hinted at. For example, the Convention would say that if the Government in Ireland had an article and the Government in Australia had an article in one of the museums or universities, there could be a transfer back of those items to where they belong. I should make the point that there needs to be care in the allocation of funds from the National Heritage Fund but I am confident that the Committee will watch over the taxpayers' money and spend the heritage dollars wisely. Although I sit on the Government side of the chamber I am sure that many honourable senators on the other side hope and trust that the Government will make adequate funds available for the job to be done properly. It would seem to be an ideal situation for government and private enterprise to co-operate. There is no reason why governments and major corporations could not join together as they have done to support the Australian Opera and other cultural activities in Australia, to see that sufficient money is available to retain or bring back those items which are part of our heritage. Some concern was expressed in the other place that Aboriginal artists must be protected; there must be some sort of a free market and some control of this free market. My concern is that the Aboriginal artists, those producing new art and craft, if we can call it that, the people in the Aboriginal communities who are doing bark paintings, carvings, weaving and so on, should be adequately compensated. This source of income to Aboriginal people has the great advantage that it also satisfies them in some of their traditional ceremonies. There is a great and growing interest in Aboriginal art and craft and, in fact, in art and craft all over Oceania. It seems appropriate that the artists, not the middle men, should profit. Fortunately artist co-operatives and similar organisations have been established to safeguard the artists' interests. It might be fair to mention that the missions in the early days were the first in the field to make sure that the artefacts were sold for a fair price with a good return to the artists. I must make the point that care still needs to be taken with others involved in buying and selling, those whose only concern is with money. Several speakers in the debate in the other place and one speaker in this place have spoken of the need for a museum for Aboriginal artefacts as well as for other artefacts. Many of the artefacts cannot be displayed to the uninitiated but several museums around Australia at present-I know of those in the Northern Territory, including an outstanding one at Yuendumu-exist for those objects which cannot be displayed but which are outstanding examples of people bringing together their sacred objects and putting them in a safe place. I remind honourable sen- ators of the excellent displays in museums and art galleries but remind them that there is a need for this material to be readily available. I hope to see mobile displays being used rather than static displays in the Centre or in the capitals. I draw attention to something which will be of interest to us all-that is, the involvement of the President of the Senate in this area. I refer to page 585 of The Whitlam Government 1972-1975, which was written by former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, in which he had been talking about trying to arrange cultural co- operation agreements. After speaking about some of his work in Italy, Greece and other places he said: My official involvement in these matters was to come full circle nearly 10 years later in agreeably ironic circumstances. For the Cabinet meeting due on 12 November 1975-- the day after a rather significant event in the history of Australia- Doug McClelland had submitted a recommendation that the Australian Government ratify as soon as possible the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This convention had been adopted in November 1970 and had entered into force in April 1972. The Hope Report, tabled in September 1974, recommended ratification as part of a concentrated effort to secure this element of the national art for future Australians. In April 1975 I asked Bowen to bring to Cabinet a submission on the ratification of the convention as a means of preventing the loss of Australia's cultural property overseas, particularly Aboriginal artefacts. The Pigott Report strongly recommended that `the necessary legislative action be taken to enable Australia to implement the undertakings required by the Convention'. At the time of McClelland's submission the convention had already been ratified by 25 States. Mr Whitlam then went on to speak of the inactivity of the Fraser Government. He said: During its first five years in office the Fraser Government took no action on the convention. It then set up an inter-departmental working group of seven departments, a Hydra-headed monster which miscarried as soon as it went into labour. It lacked sufficient sensitivity or agility to adapt to the election of the Hawke Government and sufficient candour to recall the intentions of my own. Barry Cohen was not impressed with its insipid conclusion that `there appeared insufficient practical advantages for Australia to ratify it'. Other Ministers collaborated with him in approving ratification. On 27 October 1983 Susan Ryan announced a decision to the General Conference of UNESCO. By that time 53 other nations had become parties to the convention. Mr Whitlam finished this section by speaking of his own involvement. He said: The ratification of this important convention, symbolic of all our efforts to reserve Australia's cultural heritage, and forestalled by Kerr's coup, was thus to be formally completed by Sir John's successor at UNESCO. It was to be my last official act in a process of reform and agitation, in both Government and Opposition, to stimulate the arts in our country and refurbish our cultural institutions, a process which provided, across the whole field of our concerns, a most remarkable illustration of the totality and permanence of our performance. In conclusion I note that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, in the other place drew attention to the support which he had received from former Prime Minister Whitlam in drawing up the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill which I commend to the Senate. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.20) —The Australian Democrats support the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1986, which is urgently needed to preserve the cultural heritage of Australia. One may ask whether it is important to preserve the cultural heritage of Australia. I think in its own right it is important, but also it is important because, as I think Senator Puplick hinted, Australians have shown an increasing interest in their national past. It has now become something which is important to a lot of people. I think that the extraordinary success of the Golden Summers exhibition in Sydney and the enormous numbers of people who went to that give an indication of just how much this is becoming, one might say, fashionable. Maybe it goes further than that. Possibly there is now some groping for a sense of national identity. For instance, our film making has started to show that. Of course, that is a process to be encouraged. This Bill then becomes very necessary and very important if we view it in that context. The Australian Democrats would like to see the Bill passed as soon as possible. In this regard, I note with concern that the Bill was debated in the other place last November, some six months ago. For one reason or another, it has only recently been introduced into the Senate. This delay has been a cause of great uneasiness because, as I understand from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and from people interested, there has been a considerable movement of valuable items overseas by people anxious to get rid of them before the Bill could apply. I can understand that. However, I think it is an argument that if we want the Bill actually to fulfil what it is attempting to do, it should pass now, be proclaimed and come into application. While the disposal effect could easily be exaggerated, it is a fact that when legislation of this kind is mooted it provides a signal for people who want to take certain steps in regard to their possessions before it becomes law. That is a reason, and a very good reason, for the quick passage of this sort of legislation through both Houses of this Parliament. The fact that this Bill has taken so long did incline me, I might say, to look with a jaundiced eye at one of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in regard to this matter. It felt that any extension of the scope of what should be included should be a matter for legislation rather than regulation. I suggest that there are two arguments against that. One argument is that we may want actually to extend that scope quite quickly. The second argument is that it has taken so long to get this Bill through. If we are going to have this sort of legislation regularly taking so long, then I think it is desirable that it should be a matter of regulation, which, after all, does have its remedies in either House of Parliament, if anyone wants to have an argument with it, by the simple method of disallowance. The Australian Democrats believe that the Bill has been badly needed for a long time. As Senator Robertson said, our Aboriginal heritage is, of course, vast but nevertheless highly idiosyncratic in that a great deal of it is individualistic and cannot easily be replaced. Fortunately, many movable items of that heritage remain here today. Even during the relatively short period since European settlement of this country we have developed a unique heritage, which must be preserved. This heritage includes not only those things which first spring to mind, such as the paintings and other art works of the past, but also such things as shipwrecks and their contents and the early films-which the National Film and Sound Archive is doing such a good job of collecting and preserving-which are very important to this country. I refer also to military honours awarded to Australians, the gold brooches depicting mining tools which are unique to our gold rush era and many other disparate and unique items which must not be allowed to disappear from Australia forever, as so much has disappeared from so many other countries in the past. I hope that it is possible for us to learn from that. This Bill should provide a reasonable balance between personal and national interests. I think that, on the whole, it does that-with a few minor exceptions which we will deal with in amendments. One only needs to walk through the British Museum or the Victoria and Albert Museum to wonder at the extraordinary ability of the British, during the colonial, imperialistic era, to acquire, often by highly doubtful methods, other people's property. I agree with Senator Puplick, who said that most of that ought to be back where it came from. Of course, there will always be the classic example of Lord Elgin's acquisition of essential parts of the Parthenon, with the so-called Elgin Marbles in the British Museum. It would be highly desirable if the Greeks and, indeed, anybody else could see the Parthenon in one piece where it should be, on the Acropolis in Athens. I heard recently that an original Batman deed was offered for sale overseas not long ago but that this sale did not take place when the owner was apprised of the terms of the Bill. Obviously, we came very close to losing that irreplaceable piece of our heritage. The sooner this Bill is passed, the sooner we will have a rock solid means of protection for those items. Our Aboriginal heritage is vast and quite unique. It is deplorable that the vast majority of Australians know little or nothing about this heritage. That can lead to unwitting destruction of or damage to invaluable items of Aboriginal heritage. The richest treasure-chest of Aboriginal lore, the Strehlow collection, as Senator Puplick said, was reportedly moved out of the country in May 1984 when it was feared that new Federal legislation prompting from land rights activists could lead to confiscation of the collection. That collection, which is widely believed to be Australia's largest and most valuable, contains objects of ceremonial and sacred significance, recordings of secret songs, films of ceremonies now extinct, paintings by notable artists such as Elizabeth Durack and Albert Namatjira and books and manuscripts of Aranda language, hymns, myths and marriage laws. These were accumulated by Professor Ted Strehlow during his work in Central Australia between 1932 and 1977. That collection is of fundamental importance to all Australians, black or white. The collection, which apparently has been returned to Australia, is now in Darwin pending a decision on its future. These priceless collections and artefacts which are an integral part of Australian history must be kept in this country at all costs and we must support legislation that would achieve that end. We have circulated amendments which differ significantly from those originating from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee which were circulated by us last week. These now have the virtue perhaps of being more straightforward. They directly address two major points. Firstly, they address the power of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to delegate and the issue of ministerial discretion to return any confiscated objects to their proper owner or custodian. I take on board the point that Senator Puplick made. We put the word `custodian' into the amendment with that in mind, because we were aware of the difficulties which the Department was having with this. Sub-clause 24 (1) provides that the Minister can delegate to a person any of the Minister's powers under the Act, other than the power of delegation. Of course, that is something which is contained in a good deal of previous legislation. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee noted that the powers capable of delegation included the appointment of the National Cultural Heritage Committee-in clauses 17 and 18-the power to make arrangements with State Ministers in relation to the exercise of powers under the Act by officers of the State, and the power to give directions as to the disposal of forfeited objects. The Committee suggested that if these powers were to be delegated at all, they should be delegated only to the senior officers of the Minister's Department. We would agree with that. The amendment proposed by us would not go quite as far as the Scrutiny of Bills Committee suggests but it does reserve to the Minister, obviously and plainly and necessarily the power to delegate, and also responsibility for the appointment of the National Cultural Heritage Committee. Delegation of the remaining powers would only be to the Secretary to the Department or Senior Executive Service officers. I would hope and expect that the Government and the Opposition will support that amendment, which I believe reasonably limits bureaucratic power because it places the obligation for decision making on specific and senior members of the Minister's Department. The Australian Democrats would like to see that provision extended to other Acts which in fact do not have it now. I suggest that our second amendment ought to be philosophically acceptable to the Government and the Opposition because it protects the rights of the owner or legal custodian of an object in the event of its theft, disposal or illegal sale. The departmental officers have had a good deal to say to us in this area and we have listened carefully to them. As a result, this amendment has been altered quite substantially, so I believe that it must now allay their concerns. Basically, it obliges the Minister to return a forfeited object to its owner or custodian, except in two cases. One is where the owner is overseas and the matter is plainly outside Australian jurisdiction. We believe that a ministerial direction can properly apply there. The second is where the owner has been convicted of making an unlawful export under this Bill. That seems to us to be reasonable. If the object has been taken away and sold overseas with the connivance of the owner-and I believe that that has happened in the past and it is thought it might happen in the future-I think the Minister should have a discretion as to whether or not he gives that object back. Granted those two things, I would have thought that it was very important for anybody who has any respect for private property to ensure that some rabid left wing Minister at some stage who believes that everything should be owned by the states does not in fact use the powers of the Bill to say: `All right, here is an object which belongs to somebody'-perhaps to Senator Grimes, for instance-`We will not give it back to him because it is in the hands of the state'. That is what we are trying to avoid and overcome with this amendment. I suggest that that is something that many other people in the country also want to have achieved. The point about the first of these exceptions is that it is reasonable that the Minister should have a discretion where an offence may well have taken place but where it is not possible to obtain a conviction. I have outlined these amendments briefly at this stage because of the relatively late hour at which we have circulated them. I am anxious that they be given due consideration, especially by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is in the Senate at the moment and who I think may well be interested in them. Honourable senators will be able to give them some thought before the Bill reaches the Committee stage. Senator JONES(Queensland)(9.32) —I will be brief in my remarks. I want to make one or two brief points in relation to the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1986, which Bill has been dealt with in the House of Representatives. I think it is worth while saying at this stage that it is fairly heartening to see that the Bill has the support of most members of the Senate. I suppose, for that matter, it even has the support of the Australian Democrats notwithstanding the minor amendments which they propose to move. I think every member of this place and the other place agrees that it is time that this sort of legislation was brought before the Parliament. The following clear statement is made under the heading `outline' in the explanatory notes: The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the protection of Australia's heritage of important movable cultural objects by introducing export controls and to extend protection to the cultural heritage of other countries through import controls. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property was signed by 54 countries. I believe that Australia is now taking up that UNESCO Convention. The stage is certainly being set for future protection by Australia of its own heritage as well as the protection of world heritage and particularly the heritage of the 54 countries that have signed the Convention. The following point is made in the explanatory notes: Under the Bill the export of Australian protected objects is prohibited unless an appropriate permit or certificate has been issued by the Minister. The explanatory memorandum continues: A national control list of protected cultural property will identify categories of objects prohibited from export or requiring export authorization. I think that is an important point in relation to the Bill. It is important that a national control list be established and be made available so that people can clearly understand and know what objects are listed. It is also important that the Minister, through the Bill, be able to give the right sort of protection to those objects should objections be made. The explanatory memorandum continues: On receiving an application for a permit or certificate the Minister will refer to a committee which in turn will submit the application for expert examination by appropriately qualified people. On receipt of expert advice the committee will submit a report to the Minister with recommendations concerning the granting of a permit or certificate. The Bill gives further protection by ensuring that the right advice is given to the Minister in relation to any certificate that may be issued to allow the export of any material that might be considered to be valuable. That protection for the Minister and the decisions that he takes is built into the Bill. The Bill also contains a protection for the community and people who might hold goods of some value that we might consider to be art or heritage. It is also worthwhile noting that the explanatory memorandum states: A Fund is established under the Bill to facilitate acquisition of objects prohibited from export under the legislation. I think the establishment of such a fund is a very reasonable and worthwhile provision in the Bill. If a decision is made to prohibit goods from export, there will be some reasonable chance that the people who own those goods will receive some return rather than being left in a situation where their goods are confiscated or they have no opportunity to dispose of or sell their goods and gain some financial return for them. When we talk about our heritage and history I think we need not only to look at the white settlement that has taken place but also to look in some depth at the Aboriginal community. We need to consider what is happening in that area. If we are talking about protection of heritage we ought to go a little further and consider doing some of the things that have not been happening in relation to Aboriginals. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), in his second reading speech on this Bill, said: The definition of cultural material given in the Convention is broad, embracing archaeology, pre-history, history, literature, art and science and includes a range of material which I mentioned a moment ago. Although its primary focus is on illegal international traffic, the Convention proposes other forms of protection, including a national inventory-- I believe that is important. The Bill provides for the establishment of a national control list. In addition to mentioning the national inventory of protected cultural property, I also want to refer to the need to support collecting institutions. I think it is fairly important when we talk about collecting institutions that we do not just confine our remarks to museums and those collecting institutions that are already established throughout Australia. I think it is important to draw attention to some of the action that has been taken by the Aboriginal communities to set up collecting institutions in the near future. I was lucky enough to visit an exhibition at the Queensland University which was set up by members of the Kombumerri Aboriginal Corporation for Culture. That exhibition displayed art, artefacts, weapons and everything else that the tribe could find that belonged to its ancestors. It included a very sound and professional display of photographs showing the history and ancestry of the Kombumerri Aboriginal tribe. That collection included photographs of tribal kings. All of these things were exhibited at the Queensland University as recently as 3 April 1986. It is also worth while noting that the exhibition contained a model of a museum that is to be constructed by the Kombumerri Aboriginal Corporation for Culture at Burleigh on the Gold Coast. That museum is to be constructed of reinforced concrete which will be coloured to match the colours of the earth. It is to be a living museum in which Aboriginal people will talk to school children who may care to visit the museum. They will talk about the culture of Aboriginals. They would gather together all the heritage items that they could that originally belonged to the tribe so that members of the tribe who, at this stage, had not even seen and did not know anything about their heritage, could again draw some pride from the fact that they belonged to the Aboriginal group that gathered around Burleigh Heads in the very early days of Australia. It is interesting to note that the building will be constructed of reinforced concrete. It will cover 3,700 square metres. The museum will be built on a sacred bora ground. The bora ground, which still exists and is exhibited on the Gold Coast at Burleigh Heads, will be granted to the Aboriginal tribe by the Gold Coast City Council. So there has been a real move to do something for the Aboriginal people in that area. We are looking towards the Bicentenary and towards celebrating the history of this country. This legislation will take particular note of collecting institutions. This exhibition showed very clearly that members of the Aboriginal group are trying to do something for themselves. I believe that it would be very sound and that it would be a forward step for the Government to look at the exhibition to see whether or not its construction could be funded from the Bicentennial fund. The Government claims in this legislation that it will support collecting institutions. I believe that any support from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and the Government towards the development of the museum on the Gold Coast by the Kombumerri Cultural Centre would be a step in the right direction and would certainly be an action that would be supportive of the legislation before the House. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.42) —I have much pleasure in supporting this legislation. At present we do have legislation covering the export of some historical items. That has not been in place terribly long. It has been welcomed, but one of the problems with it is that it acts as a brake on the honest, but it does not act as a brake on the dishonest and people can evade the requirements of the current legislation and export illegally. I fear that one of the defects of the current legislation regrettably is that nothing will be done to stop this loophole in the existing legislation. In general the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill extends the coverage from the rather restricted groups of objects that are covered by existing legislation to much wider parameters. It defines the export procedures, it prohibits imports of objects covered by similar legislation or parallel legislation in other countries, it creates a national cultural heritage committee and a register of expert examiners and, importantly, it creates a national cultural heritage fund. In assessing this legislation a philosophic element comes into it. Obviously the drafters of this legislation had in mind the achievements and the experience of Australia and the belief that the achievements and experiences of the inhabitants of this country are worth retaining for the enrichment of the present and future generations. That is something that all of us in this Parliament support. Australia has a national culture and that is not as widely recognised as it might be. We are the inheritors of the traditions and practices of our forebears and the people who lived here in ages before us and we are the trustees for the future at the same time. We have made many great achievements. We have developed this country, but we have got an equally large task ahead of us both in a social and a physical sense. I think it is appropriate that this legislation is being brought in so that we will be able to draw on the experiences and the achievements of the past and gain some guidance for the future. Most of the speakers in this debate so far have tended to talk about the common or the better known parts of culture and have tended to view the cultural heritage of Australia almost exclusively in terms of art and literature and, to a lesser degree, poetry and music. Undeniably that is very important. I have derived a lot of pleasure in my life out of art galleries and classical music. I hope that when I leave this Parliament I will be able to spend more time going back to reading things other than the great welter of paper that comes over my desk each day. I take the view that the cultural heritage of the country is very much wider and embraces what we have done since human habitation has occurred in Australia. That includes the way we lived in the past, the ordinary households, the community and social practices, the organisations that existed, education, the way we were governed, business practices and particularly the technological achievements of the community. Australia has been slow to recognise the importance of these tangible records of the past. We have certainly lost a great deal of these records overseas. There are many examples of this. Just randomly, there are the Batman documents that were spoken about recently, a rare Western Australian blue stamp, the Strehlow collection of Aboriginal artefacts that I think was mentioned by Senator Mason, and the whole range of Aboriginal artefacts that has gone over the years since European settlement has taken place in this country has been enormous. I support this Bill because it will tend to restrain further loss of these artefacts from Australia. I am a little bit ambivalent about it because I recognise that some of the things that we want in this country will have to be bought overseas and if other countries have the same sort of legislation it will act against our interests but clearly, on balance, we should support the Bill rather than oppose it. I said at the start that one of the problems with existing legislation is the fact that dishonest people can evade what we have in place. I have two broad criticisms of this Bill. I frankly do not know how to overcome them. The first is that there is no way to enforce an adequate curatorial practice on someone who owns something of national significance. I think most collectors of artefacts-whether they are stamps, Aboriginal relics or old machinery-are motivated by the best of ambitions. They are preserving things that may have been lost if they had not taken the effort to preserve them. Most of them certainly do not do it for financial gain or any other such reason, they do it just for preservation. But one has to recognise that collectors do have a strain of eccentricity amongst their numbers at times. I have met some pretty odd collectors of some odd things. The point is that if a person owns something of national significance there is no way to compel him to look after that property. In an extreme case if they have a piece of rare furniture or a painting they could leave it out in the weather and we can do nothing about it under this legislation. The other shortcoming of this legislation is that there is no prohibition or restraint on a person selling to another party when he knows that that party is going to break the law and covertly export the article of national importance. It often happens in these situations that when a person is selling something that is quite rare he does know a bit about the purchaser of the object. Oftentimes he can make a judgment of that person's intentions. It is very easy to export objects, particularly since the introduction of containerisation. Inspectors cannot see what is in a container and it is a major effort to demand that a container be opened and there would be thousands of containers leaving Australia every month. The policing of the regu- lation is very difficult. I think the legislation goes some way to covering these defects in so far as it provides the National Cultural Heritage Fund. It means that an offer can be made to someone who is not prepared to look after something or who wants to sell the object so that he can get some money for it. The fund will provide a bit of an outlet. However, there are people who are avid collectors, both for museums and for private collections, for whom the laws of governments have no meaning whatsoever, and regrettably they will be able to operate in the future with almost as much freedom as they have in the past. The preservation that has taken place in Australia is varied. The popular fields of art and literature are probably pretty well catered for. Literature, of course, is readily reproducible and, apart from first editions, there is no problem there. There are excellent art collections in the State galleries, particularly the New South Wales and Victorian collections, but the smaller States also have good collections. It is surprising how successful the National Gallery has been, given its newness, at putting together a worthwhile Australian collection. I think the art and literature side in Australia is pretty well catered for. A weak field in Australia has been the field of technology and science. Most of the speakers tonight have concentrated on Aboriginal artefacts and archaeological specimens and things like that. I would like to take a few moments to look specifically at one area in the field of technology, an area that is clearly covered by the legislation and one that is of particular interest to me. I refer to the field of aviation. I take the view that Australia's achievements in aviation take second place to those of no other country. As a nation, we have formally done nothing to preserve and display those achievements that previous generations of Australians have made in this field. I do not believe that any country has produced a greater array of pioneering talent than Australia has, particularly in the first half of this century. Aviation is relevant to our culture. It is relevant to technological innovation and development. It is very relevant to transport. With the great distances within Australia and the great distances from Australia to other countries. It is deserving of more attention than the Australian nation has given to it so far. In the designing field, at the end of the last century Lawrence Hargrave, with his box kites and gliders, was a world pioneer. There were later designers like Harry Hawker, who as a lad from Australia became Tom Sopwith's chief designer in the early days of aviation in Britain and later formed the Hawker Aircraft Company, which became Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd. He was a world figure. Edgar Percival was another designer from Australia who spent most of his life in England. I think Edgar Percival, as a very old man, is still alive. In the pioneering airmen field we had people such as Ross and Keith Smith, who made the first flight between England and Australia; R. J. P. Parer-Senator Parer's uncle-and J. C. McIntosh, who involved themselves in a very long saga in 1920, flying out from England to Australia; Kingsford-Smith and Charles Ulm, who made the first crossing of the Pacific, which pioneered an air route, and the later reverse crossing from Brisbane to Oakland, California, with Bill Taylor in the Lockheed Altair in 1934; Bert Hinkler with his record-breaking solo flights; Ron Adair, Norman Brearley, Horrie Miller and Hudson Fysh. We have a collection of pioneers that no other country can match. America might have its Lindberghs but we have a whole bunch of people who proved themselves as pioneers, which, as I say, no other country can match. Even in the current generation we have Dick Smith, who a couple of years ago made the first solo helicopter flight around the world. The achievements of those pioneering airmen opened up the great air routes. They showed that it was feasible to run airlines services around the world. We played a major part in the development of airlines. Norman Brearley formed Airlines of Western Australia in 1920. Kingsford-Smith and Ulm formed the first Australian National Airways Pty Ltd, and the Holyman Brothers formed the second ANA after the first ANA went broke. There was Horrie Miller and, of course, probably the greatest of all, Hudson Fysh, who started Qantas in 1921. Guinea Airways was a small company started in Australia that operated in New Guinea and was the biggest freight airline in the world up to the time of the Japanese invasion of New Guinea in the 1940s. With respect to the building of aircraft we also have a proud history. I find it amazing to stand in the hangar at Longreach-the same shed that Qantas built in the 1920s-and reflect that the legendary Arthur Baird, the chief engineer, just set to work and built a fleet of DH50As for Qantas. He did not assemble the parts from England, he built the aircraft there. After he had built those he built the DH50Js, which were a bigger aircraft, and he just did it by eyeballing it with his innate skill out there in remote Longreach. Throughout the war thousands of aircraft were constructed in Australia. This was in a country that had never before made its own car or even a refrigerator. We built about a thousand Tiger Moths. We had Dragons, Wirraways, Boomerangs, Beauforts, Mosquitoes and Mustangs. After the war, of course, we had the Sabre and the Mirage. Australia, with all these achievements, has never felt motivated to recognise what we have done in this field. I believe it is now time that we did something to honour those people who have gone before in the field of aviation. For some reason we had a very good collection of aircraft in this country in the 1960s. Aircraft tended to survive in Australia a lot longer than they did in other parts of the world, but because we had no national museum to preserve those aircraft, we lost a very large number of them overseas. There was no legislative restraint on their sale at the time. It is very difficult to preserve old aircraft. They need space. That space is usually at airfields, and because of the policy of high rentals for hangars which has always existed, once aircraft are not used it is not really possible to keep them in a hangar under shelter. I know this is so as I presently own two old aircraft, one of which I have owned for nearly 20 years. Hangarage is an acute and an expensive problem. In the absence of a national museum for aircraft we have had aircraft either turned outside to rot in the weather and be burnt by the fire crews in the end or sold overseas. Since I have been a member of this Senate I have written to every Minister responsible for museums, both Liberal and Labor, putting the case for a national museum. I must say that I have got absolutely nowhere. A report on museums was commissioned by the Whitlam Government-Museums in Australia 1975. Recommendation 2.12 states: We recommend that early priority be given to a national maritime museum in Sydney and to a national aviation museum at a growth centre. That was eleven years ago and since that time nothing has been done. The proposition I have put to successive Ministers is not that we go out and spend a few hundred million dollars building a museum but that we have a fund of a few hundred thousand dollars so that when aircraft become available we can buy them for the Commonwealth. We have no shortage of storage space-the Commonwealth does have plenty of storage space-and so long as we acquire the aircraft, we have a nucleus for a museum later on. As I say, I have got nowhere, and in the eight years I have been here we have seen the loss of some very valuable aviation assets. Sid Marshall, who was the chief engineer for Guinea Airways before the war, had one of the great private collections of the world. When Sid Marshall died the collection was broken up and some of those significant aircraft went overseas. We have seen the loss of one of the original aircraft from Point Cook, the Maurice Farman. That was sold out of Australia within the last ten years to Frank Tallman, at Tallmantz Aviation at Orange County Airport. He did a lot of the film work for Hollywood. The aircraft was subsequently resold at a very much higher price to the Canadian national aircraft collection. That aircraft was one of the original aircraft from Point Cook. It had a great place in Australia's aviation history. It has now gone to the Canadian national collection and we can never buy it back. The point about aircraft is that those old ones are not being made any more. They are progressively being moved into museums around the world. Once they go into a museum they are not available for purchase. In the light of this legislation the Government is under a greater obligation to abide by the recommendations of the report of the Museum of Australia in 1975 with respect to an aviation museum. I have taken a path that is different from that taken by other speakers tonight because, as I said earlier, although art galleries, music and literature give me a great deal of pleasure, I do believe-and I will argue this in any company-that the technological achievements of a society are as much a part of its culture as its painters. This part of the Australian culture is one that has been gravely neglected. We now have some really wonderful cultural centres in Australia-the new centre in Brisbane and the centre in Melbourne, to name but two. It is a matter of great regret to me that we do not have a science and technology centre such as the Toronto science museum, which has been in existence, probably, for at least 15 years. People can go and see the application of science and technology in all its forms in their daily lives. Senator Puplick —The Powerhouse Museum in Sydney is going up. Senator MacGIBBON —I hope that the Powerhouse Museum will fulfil that function. We do live in a technological age. We are part of it, and it is as much part of our culture as our art and music. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill. I hope that we will have an aviation museum in the future. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.03) —The purpose of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill, as has been outlined, is to provide for the protection of Australia's heritage of important movable cultural objects by introducing export controls and to extend protection to the cultural heritage of other countries through import controls. As honourable senators would be aware, there is a large degree of unanimity on the object of this Bill. My only concern about it relates to some of the methods being adopted to achieve this laudable object. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has had a lengthy look at some parts of the legislation and it is concerned about their consequences. I am glad, however, that the Government has responded to at least one of those concerns and will be introducing an amendment at the Committee stage relating to the question of delegation of powers, which we believed was originally intended to be delegated in a manner which was inappropriate. I thank the Government for responding, although it surprised me that the legislation had proceeded as far as it did along those lines with that inappropriate delegation. I am not being churlish about that. I congratulate the Government on recognising that that provision was inappropriate, particularly as the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) had responded to the Committee, saying that it was true that there were problems with proposals on the delegation of power and that in future legislation, as a result of the Committee's concern, close attention would be given to restricting the exercise of the power of delegation-but only in the future. I am glad that the Government will move to make it apply to the present. There are some other matters that concerned the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. One of them relates to clause 32 (1) (b) which would permit an inspector to: (b) enter upon any land, or upon or into any premises, structure, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, on or in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that any thing forfeited or connected with an offence against this Act is situated, and may seize any such thing found . . . upon the land or in the premises, structure, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, as the case may be, if- (c) the inspector believes on reasonable grounds . . . and (d) . . . entry is made in circumstances of such seriousness and urgency as to require and justify immediate search or entry without the authority or an order of a court or of a warrant issued under this Act. The Committee has recognised in the past that whether such a provision for search and entry without warrant in a circumstance of seriousness and urgency is justified is a question of policy. It drew to the attention of the Senate paragraph (b) of clause 32 (1) under principle 1 (a) (i) in that such a power of entry and search without warrant might be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment responded: As the Committee noted, it is a question of policy as to whether or not such a provision should be inserted. Breaches of the Act particularly in relation to illegal exports are likely to be discovered at short notice and in circumstances where urgent action may be required. It is therefore desirable, I believe, to have such a provision enabling speed and flexibility for deterrent action. Nevertheless, the Committee continued to draw attention to paragraph (b)-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Are you opposed to it? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As a matter of principle, I am concerned about the exercise of such power without a warrant or a court order. I need convincing that this speed and flexibility is required in this case. I concede that it is a matter of government policy, and so be it. I just wish to draw the attention of the Senate to what seems to me to be a problem in this area. The Committee's next and most serious concern related to the forfeiture of protected objects. Clauses 36, 37 and 38 deal with procedures for the forfeiture of protected objects and the disposal of objects so forfeited. I understand that in the Committee stage the Australian Democrats will move an amendment related to this matter. I simply want to draw attention to the general principle involved and to two aspects of those provisions that certainly concerned the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The first point is that objects may be forfeited by purely administrative procedures without the intervention of a court and, secondly, the disposal of forfeited objects is left entirely to the discretion of the Minister. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment did provide a substantial response to the Committee. Although he gave assurances as to how powers under the Act would be exercised, his response, in the Committee's view, tended to confirm its view that in many cases the return of protected objects to their lawful owners or to the person having proper custodial care may depend on the goodwill of the inspectors and of the Minister of the day. I find that to be a totally unacceptable proposition. The operation of the provisions may best be illustrated by way of example. The Committee has put up this example: Let us suppose that an Australian protected object is stolen from its owner, or someone with custodial care, and an attempt is made to export it from Australia. It thereby will become liable to forfeiture under clause 9 (2). The inspector who seizes the object is given a discretion by clause 36 (2) to notify the owner or the person who had the possession, custody or control of the object immediately before it was seized-in this case the thief-that the object has been seized and that it will be forfeited unless, within 30 days after the service of the notice, the person on whom the notice is served claims the object or brings an action for recovery of the object. In this case the thief will have good reason for not coming forward. The object in question may be forfeited to the Commonwealth without any requirement that a court determine that the object is in fact a protected object and without any requirement that a court determine whether in fact the person attempting to export the object was its rightful owner or had in fact proper custodial care. The owner or the custodian may indeed remain blissfully unaware of the entire proceedings. By virtue of proposed section 38, on forfeiture all title and interest in the object vests in the Commonwealth and the disposal of the object is left to the discretion of the Minister. The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee had a second example. Suppose that the rightful owner is, by good fortune, served with a notice under sub-clause 36 (2) and brings an action for the recovery of the object. On this occasion a court intervenes but it is merely permitted to determine whether the object is liable to forfeiture under sub-clause 9 (2)-that is, whether the object is protected and whether an attempt has been made to export it from Australia otherwise than in accordance with a permit or certificate of exemption. Where a court determines that an object is liable to forfeiture, it is required by sub-clause 37 (3) to order that the object is forfeited. Once again, title and interest in the object would vest in the Commonwealth and its return to its rightful owner would appear to depend on the Minister's goodwill. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is even if the Government gets it in bad title, which is what would happen if it were stolen. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That appears to be the situation. You can call it `bad title'. In this case it is good title because there is a legal basis for its acquiring that title-the breaking of a law. However, the question is who broke the law. That is the problem and the consequence of someone who is not the rightful owner or the person with proper custodial care of the object being the person who broke the law or even being aware of the law having been broken. The Committee recognises that these provisions follow those in the Customs Act 1901 and the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 dealing with the forfeiture of seized goods and live animals and plants respectively. However, the Committee remains concerned in relation to three aspects of the provisions. First, where a protected object is seized there is no requirement that the inspector notify the owner or the person with proper custodial care if the owner is not the person who had the possession, custody or control of the object immediately before it was seized. Secondly, where a protected object is seized and a notice served under sub-clause 36 (2), the owner or person who had the possession, custody or control of the object has 30 days to claim it or to bring an action for its recovery. If these steps are not taken the object is forfeited without the inspector's reasonable belief as to the fact that the object is a protected object and there has been an attempt to export it in contravention of the Act being tested in a court. Thirdly, where a court finds that an offence has been committed in relation to a protected object and that object is forfeited to the Commonwealth, its return to its lawful owner or the person having proper custodial care depends on the goodwill of the Minister even though the owner may be entirely innocent of any involvement in the attempt to export the object. While the Minister says that it is envisaged that the Minister would return the object by virtue of exercising his discretion in relation to forfeited objects, there is no requirement that the discretion be exercised in favour of the lawful owner or the person having proper custodial care. The Minister could, for example, give the object to an appropriate cultural institution if he wanted to. As one who generally objects to having excessive discretion within the bureaucracy and the Ministry, I do not think this is an appropriate way in which to handle this matter. There are some other matters that concern me. I shall conclude briefly by pointing out that the Committee suggested in its Alert Digest No. 16 of 1985, first, that an object should be forfeited only on the order of a court and not, as is proposed, on the basis of the belief of an inspector and the failure of the owner or the person who had the possession, custody or control of the object immediately before it was seized to take steps within a limited time to recover the object. The inspector seizing the object should be required to satisfy a court that the object is in fact a protected object and that an attempt has been made to export it, or in the case of its being a protected object of a foreign country the government of which has requested its return, it has been imported, as the case may be. The Committee's second recommendation was that a register should be established of the owners of objects on the National Cultural Heritage Control List so that where such objects are seized in the course of an attempt to export them, the owners may be notified as a matter of course and not merely at the discretion of the inspector seizing the object as is proposed under sub-clause 36 (2). The third recommendation was that an object so seized should be returned to its owner or custodian unless that owner of proper custodian is convicted under sub-clause 9 (3) of knowingly exporting or attempting to export the object. The Committee noted that there is already the power to order forfeiture in such circumstances under sub-clause 37 (4). In relation to the second suggestion, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has responded in this way: The National Cultural Heritage Control List will not be an itemised list of objects. It will consist of a list of categories of cultural material . . . The Committee accepted that it had misconstrued the nature of the control list. However, the fact that the list will merely set out categories of protected material served to confirm the Committee's fears that it may prove difficult to identify the lawful owners of protected objects which are liable to forfeiture. The Committee continued to draw sub-clauses 36, 37 and 38 to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) and pointed out that by permitting protected objects to be forfeited otherwise than by order of a court and by leaving the disposal of such objects to the discretion of the Minister rather than by requiring return to their lawful owners or persons having proper custodial care in appropriate circumstances the clauses may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Given those concerns about the manner in which this legislation is proceeding, I simply wish to restate that I join with other senators in supporting the thrust of this Bill. I simply express some concerns about the methods by which this objective is being achieved. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.17) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their contributions and their support for the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1986. It is very encouraging that there is such broad support for this important Bill. In closing the second reading debate I draw attention to the amendment that the Government will move to clause 24 of the Bill and indicate that the Government will not accept the amendments to be moved by the Australian Democrats. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.18) —As I foreshadowed a moment ago, I move: Page 11, clause 24, lines 6 to 8, leave out all words after `writing' insert: `delegate to- (a) the person holding or performing the duties of the office of Secretary to the Department; or (b) a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922, being an office in the Department, all or any of the Minister's powers under this Act, other than this power of delegation or a power conferred by section 17 or 18, sub-section 28 (3), (4) or (5) or section 38 or 47.'. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.19) —You may have noticed, Mr Chairman, that there is a slight difference between a very similar amendment circulated earlier by me on behalf of the Australian Democrats and the Minister's amendment which somewhat puzzles me because when one looks at the Minister's amendment one sees that it includes sub-section 28 (3), (4) and (5) and section 38 and section 47. My amendment stops at `delegation or power conferred by section 17 or 18'. Section 17 or 18 is virtually the appointment of the National Cultural Heritage Committee. I understand that that is a very important matter which the Minister should deal with, but if one extends that one finds that the Government's amendment also includes the power to make arrangements with State Ministers in relation to the exercise of power under this Act by officers of the State. I would have thought that that was perfectly reasonable for the head of a department to undertake, and I cannot for the life of me see why it is necessary for that power to have to come back to the Minister on all occasions. Perhaps the Minister can guide me on this but I can see situations arising where a State officer looks at quite a small matter in Queensland, Tasmania or Western Australia. That matter will then have to be dealt with, not by a senior officer of the Department such as the Secretary but by the Minister himself unless I have misunderstood this completely. The same thing applies to the next bit, which is: The power to give directions as to the disposal of forfeited objects. I should like the Minister to note just what that means. It is a power to give directions as to the disposal of forfeited objects in any substantial sense, that is to exercise a discretion over whether they are disposed of against the wishes of the owner. I understand that not to be the case. I understand that there used to be objects which clearly, under the Bill, would be forfeited. I would have thought that if there is a small painting or picture which is forfeited, or if there are a large number, perhaps a collection of 40 or 50 objects, that is not a thing which would necessarily have to engage the attention of the Minister. I cannot quite see what the reason is. Possibly I do not understand it clearly, but I would like the Minister to give me a little information on those two points, please. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.21) —The Opposition will support the amendment put forward by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). We believe that it is a sensible amendment in that it limits the power of delegation in line with some of the principles laid down by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills report. We are not concerned to the same extent as Senator Mason is over sub-clauses 28 (3), (4) and (5). We believe that where negotiations are to take place on a Minister to Minister level, that should not be a matter delegated. As far as clause 38 is concerned, which touches on directions on the questions of forfeiture, we believe that it is appropriate for that not to be a delegated power. Clause 47 touches on the matter of annual reports and financial statements. Again, we do not believe that this is power which ought to be delegated. So we are perfectly happy to support the Government's amendment to clause 24. While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say to the Minister that at some stage I would be grateful for a response to the question I raised in the second reading debate about the reverse implication of the legislation in terms of people seeking to prevent the Minister from granting a certificate in the circumstances in which he is minded to grant one. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.22) —I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the amendment moved on behalf of the Government to the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill. I thank Senator Puplick for his comments. I think they explain the position that the Government is in in respect to the Australian Democrats' amendment, in that there are a number of matters which have been enumerated by Senator Puplick which we judge to be properly a matter of ministerial decision and not a matter for delegation. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.22) —I take the point. It is a fine point. Senator Puplick was perhaps right, in that as it was in negotiation with a State Minister it should be carried out by a Minister. Even there, though, I would have thought that if it were a routine matter, and in this case it would not be a negotiation with the Minister but with his Department, the head of a Commonwealth Department would at least be able to carry out that function. However, it is not a matter of vital importance. The Government is perhaps giving more ground on this than it needs to. I suppose that is a good thing one way or another. Senator Puplick may not have realised that yet, but indeed it is. The other matter is much more important and requires a little more explanation than the Minister has given me. As regards `The power to give direction as to the disposal of forfeited objects', as Senator Puplick said, this touches on the matter of forfeiture. But it does not, to my mind, surely, touch on the matter of forfeiture where there is any discretion as to whether an object is to be forfeited. Surely, it touches purely on how an object can be disposed of once it has been forfeited. It seems to me very strange that that is going to have to come back to the Minister on every occasion. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Mason, I think you are getting on to clause 38, are you not? Senator MASON —No, I am not. I am speaking to the last section of the amendment which is before the Committee. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.24) —In answer to the query from Senator Mason-he has attempted to respond to his own query by his own amendment-the Government believes that the disposal of the forfeited object by the Minister is the most appropriate course of action. If one looks at the Australian Democrats' amendment, one will see that it creates more problems than it would cure. The Democrats' amendment would allow the return of an object to an owner who is under investigation, or one who, if the owner's conviction had been on the basis of probabilities, would have been convicted. The reference to `custodian' in the Democrats' amendment is unacceptable. The Bill refers to a person who is an owner or is in possession, custody or control. This reflects the reality of persons who have an interest in an object. This Bill is concerned with export controls, not with the domestic arrangements relating to the location or title of the important objects. Much cultural material owned by one person may be legally in the possession, custody or control of another-museums, dealers, agents, exhibiters and so on are examples. Frequently, ownership of important cultural material is deliberately concealed, for good reason or for bad. The Government's provision allows flexibility for the disposal of the property. Issues of equity relating to the interests of the owner are catered for in the procedures specified in the Bill prior to forfeiture occurring-that is, during the court proceedings prior to forfeiture being ordered. I also bring to the attention of the Committee sub-clause 35 (2). It is unusual in Commonwealth legislation relating to seizure in that it provides the Minister with the power to return the object to the owner after seizure but at any time before forfeiture to the Commonwealth occurs. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.26) —I really was referring to the last part of the Minister's first amendment. When she looks at the Hansard she will see that that is the case. It is not a matter on which I want to detain the Committee. I think the Minister has been addressing herself now to our second amendment. Is that so? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory) —(Minister for Education) (10.26)-Yes-which we are also rejecting. Amendment agreed to. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.27) —I move: (2) Page 19, clause 38, lines 1 to 11, leave out the clause, insert the following new clause: ``38. (1) Where a protected object is forfeited by or under this Act- (a) all title and interest in the object is vested in the Commonwealth without further proceedings; and (b) subject to sub-section (2), the object shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the directions of the Minister. ``(2) Where a protected object is forfeited by or under this Act, and the Minister is able to ascertain the name and address of the owner or custodian of the object, the Minister shall return the object to the owner or custodian unless- (a) the owner or custodian is not a resident of Australia; or (b) the owner or custodian has been convicted of an offence against sub-section 9 (3) in relation to the object. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.27) —The Opposition will not support the Australian Democrats' amendment. The confusion which would result from the expression `owner or custodian' being included in the Democrats' amendment would be detrimental to the effective working of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill, in particular where both owner and a custodian can be identified. The owner, for example, being perhaps a traditional Aboriginal or Aboriginal community, and the custodian being a museum or institution which is currently in legitimate custodial possession of a particular object seems to us to raise a problem that where both the owner and the custodian are known and identified, and both have rights, very considerable confusion would be caused by the addition of this amendment to the Bill. We are conscious of the matters raised by Senator Michael Baume. We believe that the Government has attempted to address those matters. There have been certain assurances given by the Attorney-General's Department as to the way in which this would occur. I mention finally that I believe that if this procedure were put in place, we would in fact have, in terms of our relationship with other countries, an unenforceable legal situation such as that which arose in the Ortiz case. Therefore, we would be prejudicing our international standing and relationship in this matter and adding to domestic confusion. For those reasons, we will not support the Democrats' amendment. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.29) —I thank Senator Puplick. This is a little bit out of order, but in response to the previous question put by Senator Puplick-- Senator Chipp —Why don't you make him an Assistant Minister? He is doing a terrific job. Senator RYAN —Because we have two minutes to go and we would really like to conclude the Bill. In answer to Senator Puplick's previous question about a review for an interested party of permission granted by the Minister, the Bill is recognised as intruding in specific circumstances on the rights of the owner. The Minister when issuing a permit does so on the application of an owner, which in turn is referred to a committee for advice and also to expert examiners in that area. Thus, the design of the Bill takes into account the right of the owner where refusal occurs. The question of the interests of the public is taken into account in the whole design of the Bill. I thank the honourable senator. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.29) —I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I predict that the failure to accept this amendment will cause a great deal of trouble. I do not think it is clearly understood. To meet Senator Puplick's point, the amendment could be altered, I suppose, to say: `the owner, or in the event of the absence of an established owner, the custodian of the object'. Surely that would meet Senator Puplick's point. Amendment negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.30) —During the weeks of the first term in each academic year I have been in the Senate I have received letters from parents who have students at Canberra High School, some of whom for the first time discover that the school has no gymnasium and others who have an additional child going there and discover that there is still no gymnasium in place. In the chamber tonight are two honourable senators, Senator Ryan and Senator Peter Baume, who have had responsibility for Australian Capital Territory education and know the story very well. I shall not go over the whole 18 years of the history of the Canberra High School since it moved from Acton to its present site in Belconnen. I will, in a minute, seek to incorporate in Hansard a letter about the matter which the Principal of the school has written to Mr Scholes who, as Minister for Territories, is now the Minister responsible for schools in the Australian Capital Territory. The fact is that Canberra High School, the second high school in Canberra, was moved to Belconnen 18 years ago. A gymnasium was part of the plans then but successive governments have not put the gymnasium in place. This means that students at the school are deprived of being able to take part in a number of activities: Indoor basketball, gymnastics, dance, badminton, volleyball, indoor hockey, indoor soccer, indoor cricket, netball and aerobics. There is no adequate indoor facility to run student lunchtime activities. A number of other activities that go on in other schools cannot be done at Canberra High School. This means that the school has to hire other facilities and students have to go away from the school for a number of these activities. That is an additional cost for which the school does not receive additional funds. Canberra High School is the only high school or secondary college in the Belconnen area that does not have a gymnasium. The new secondary college is being built with a gymnasium, but somehow the gymnasium for Canberra High School always finishes up at the bottom of the priorities for capital funding. Something else always seems to be more important. Many students have missed out on activities, including sporting activities which they should be able to enjoy and which students in other schools enjoy. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter written on 24 February to the Minister for Territories by the Principal of Canberra High School, Mr Thomas. I hope that perhaps this year the way may be seen at least to get on with the job of placing this facility at the school. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Canberra High School Bindubi St, Macquarie, ACT 2614. Telephone 51 1000 24th February 1986 Mr G. Scholes, Minister for Capital Territory, Parliament House, CANBERRA, ACT 2600 Dear Mr Scholes, I write to inform you of a situation that has been progressively deferred for the past eighteen years. In 1968 Canberra High School was relocated from its original site in Acton to a new site in Macquarie. The old building was built in 1938 and it now has both the Canberra School of Music and the Canberra School of Art on its grounds. When the school was relocated in 1968 the plan allowed for a gymnasium. This gymnasium was not built and despite continued representation and promises of it being completed the facility has not been built. All new high schools in Canberra are now built with a gymnasium as a standard facility. This facility is necessary in Canberra with the harshness of Canberra's cold winter and heat in summer. I believe that physical education skills are essential for all children if they are to live a healthy and satisfying life. High school should offer exposure to many skills but unfortunately children at this school are not able to experience many of the indoor activities. In 1988 Canberra High School will celebrate its golden anniversary. Many of Canberra's top public servants have been educated at the school and the school has an enviable reputation in both academic and extra-curricula activities. Despite constant representation to Ministers of Education, Chief Education Officers and the NCDC this school does not have an indoor facility for students to be able to experience many of the potential lifetime activities. It has come to our attention that with the talk of budget cuts, and cuts in the building programmes, that once again the Canberra High School community will be forced into waiting ``for a more appropriate time''. It appears to me that children, parents and students in this community have waited long enough for a facility that is now recognised nationally as a standard item of equipment. If this facility is not going to be provided what alternative is going to be provided? Will students from this school be given bus vouchers to gymnasiums in other districts? Will the Schools Office pay the cost of our hiring of gymnasiums for Volleyball, Badminton, Basketball, Gymnastics, Dance etc.? This currently costs our students who have to pay the fee when we hire another facility. This school endeavours to educate children as well as possible. I believe we are achieving this aim under very difficult and unnecessarily poor physical conditions. This community has waited long enough. Yours sincerely, A. W. THOMAS (Principal) The Union CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616 Telegrams: COLLADVED Bruce, A.C.T. Telephone 52 2111 C.C.A.E. Sports Centre Building 4 Buildings and Site P.O. Box 1 Belconnen, A.C.T. Dear Sir/Madam Please find enclosed the Canberra High School account for use of the Canberra College Sports Centre. ACTIVITY: Badminton. The account is dated from the 6th of February to the 24th of July, excluding the May holidays (8/5, 15/5) and the 26/6 and 3/7 (due to College examinations). Cost per court: $16.00 per hour per court Number of courts used: 2 (discount to $15.00 per hour) Duration of sessions: 1.25 hours (1.15-2.30 p.m.) Total number of sessions: 19 AMOUNT DUE: $40 for two courts for 1.25 for 19 sessions: $760.00-(20% school discount) =$608.00 Cheques should be made to the Union. Yours sincerely JULIE SKILBECK Sports Centre Co-ordinator 30th July 1985 Telephone: 52 2542 Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.34) —I have taken note of the comments made by Senator Reid. As she would know, I have two children who are graduates of Canberra High School; so I am well aware of the deficiencies in the gymnasium department and, of course, am very sympathetic. I will make sure that the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) is aware of the matters raised by Senator Reid and of the further advocacy of the Principal of Canberra High School. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.35 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Fisheries Act-Plan of Management No. 5-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery (Amendment). The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 794) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) On how many occasions has Mr D. Rofe, QC been briefed by the Commonwealth Government in each of the last 5 years. (2) Who has been the instructing authority in each of those cases. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Records indicate the following: Year Number of occasions Instructing Authority 1981... Nil 1982... 1 Crown Solicitor 1983... 4 Crown Solicitor 1984... 1 Director of Public Prosecutions 1985... 3 Director of Public Prosecutions 1986 (to date of Question)... 1 Director of Public Prosecutions It is noted that: (a) All briefs delivered to Mr Rofe in relation to the various aspects of the alleged social security conspiracy proceedings have been treated as comprising one occasion. A brief in relation to those proceedings was first delivered by the Crown Solicitor in 1978 and accordingly neither that brief nor subsequent briefs delivered by the Crown Solicitor to Mr Rofe in relation to those proceedings are included in the above table. Upon the establishment of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1984 he took over the carriage of the proceedings and continued to brief Mr Rofe: that briefing is also not recorded above. (b) The table has been prepared on the basis that a brief for committal proceedings and a brief for the subsequent trial comprise one occasion. (c) The table has been prepared on the basis that one set of proceedings involving a number of defendants comprises one occasion. (d) The table does not include the briefing of Mr Rofe to appear for a witness ``X'' in the interlocutory stages of the forthcoming trial of Mr Rex Jackson in New South Wales. Although Mr Rofe's fees were paid by the Australian Federal Police after being certified fair and reasonable by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Rofe was actually briefed by private solicitors acting for Mr X.