Wednesday, 17 September 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Honourable senators will be aware of the presence in the chamber this morning of television cameras and lights. I advise the Senate that I have approved the filming, with the agreement of the party leaders. The purpose of the filming today is twofold. Sequences to be filmed throughout the day will form part of a video film on the operations of the Parliament. That film will be part of an education kit for schools which is being produced by the Parliament itself and which is to be distributed to all schools in Australia during 1987. In addition, the television networks will film the proceedings during Question Time for the purpose of updating the footage they use in illustrating news items on the Senate. Recognising the discomfort caused by the increased lighting, I asked that the film crews ensure that the lights remain on only for the minimum periods necessary to film the footage that they require. At the same time, I ask that honourable senators bear with the discomfort which they may experience because of the increased lighting. 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 New South Wales 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 Brownhill (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal System in Australia, the State and Federal and criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education system, the independence of the Churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children and the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and the employee relationships and the Australian Society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for at least twelve months and for the political parties to become involved in a public awareness program of the Australian Bill of Rights, so that the Australian people can debate, scrutinize and discuss the issue for themselves, prior to a referendum, as to whether or not they want a Bill of Rights introduced by Senator Brownhill (from 991 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:- 1. That the Bill of Rights will have the power to override and negate our Common Law within five years of its enactment. 2. Because the Bill of Rights is based on an International Covenant, this will take the control of our country out of the hands of the people and their democratically elected representatives, giving the power to those outside Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray: 1. That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of Rights and all cognate Bills. 2. That as our representatives, you protect our Australian Heritage and Christian culture and values, both in the Education System, and through the Media. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coleman (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ``X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because this Bill will Restrict our rights to those listed in the Bill Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this or any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustifiable power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty Set the State above the individual We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject the Bill of Rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 219 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the proposed Bill of Rights because it adversely affects areas of the liberty and freedom of Australians. It will operate against: The States and our Federal system of Government Criminal Justice The Police Education Families Employer/Employee relations It will remove the power of the people through Parliament, by giving power to a new more powerful Human Rights Commission which is not elected, but can act as a Star Chamber. We do most earnestly wish to keep our system of Common Law. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should- pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill. The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not to be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Newman (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, which will: protect individuals against violation of their rights by the impact of laws or by the actions of the governmental institutions; be effective in implementing Australia's international obligations to properly secure fundamental rights and freedoms and provide an educative charter. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should support the passage of this Bill at an early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McKiernan (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we support your efforts to strengthen our family and community life particularly by increased penalties for ``drug pushers'' and distributors. We, however, wish to register our firm opposition to any legal changes which would increase or encourage the distribution or availability of so-called ``soft drugs'' such as marijuana. We believe such drugs to be harmful to the physical and psychological health of the individual and therefore to the interest of the community of which such individual is part. Although there is current controversy concerning the question of such harm it appears to us quite foolish to legalise and encourage the use of such drugs unless or until it be shown that such drugs are in fact harmless. The serious social problems of alcohol should provide sufficient warning to our society. Any efforts to legalise or decriminalise usage or distribution of such drugs will have the following results: 1. Encourage and inculcate a social acceptability towards such drugs. 2. Increase the volume of usage of such drugs in schools and the community by present users and by ``drug pushers'' through the proposed one ounce legal possession. 3. Extend the usage of such drugs to persons who would previously have abstained because of the legal sanctions. 4. Put pressure upon Parliament to establish and license import, growth, manufacture and/or distribution of such drugs, that is, to regulate another destructive industry contrary to the best interest of the individual and society. 5. There would be the probable temptation to tax such drugs as another source of Federal revenue. We urge the Government to increase the medical and counselling facilities for the assistance of drug users and to expand existing Drug Referral Centres and Clinics. We have general confidence in the existing law and its sympathetic implementation by the Police and Courts. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will firstly take no measures that could extend the major social problem of drug usage and secondly will oblige those who are promoting marijuana and/or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legalisation or decriminalisation of use is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 254 citizens) and Harradine (from 236 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December, 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (i) the welfare of many employees and their families depends upon the healthy, expanding gold mining industry; (ii) the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations; (iii) the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represents a threat to the profitability of these industries and will therefore cause widespread unemployment and depression throughout the whole gold mining industry. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Government to reject any proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining or prospecting thereby ensuring that the spectacular growth of the industry over recent years is continued. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 66 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Fringe Benefits Tax will impose intoler-able administration burdens on small businesses and other tax payers. Will seriously hinder the work of charitable organisations and threaten their viability. Will result in severe job losses and cause hardship to many Australian families from their involvement in the motor vehicle industry. Will have serious economic effects on tourism, mining, housing, manufacturing and rural industries. Your petitioners request that the Government withdraw this harmful and destructive legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions; that the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long-term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Senator Short (from 220 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) That the medical services by Dr Keith Reye to the undersigned and their families were reasonably medically necessary and charges of overservicing are unreasonable. (2) A doctor's and patient's judgment of need for service be beyond question. Your petitioners humbly request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should oppose charges brought against Dr Keith Reye by the Minister for Health as services rendered were reasonably medically necessary. National issues in question such as the universal coverage of Medicare to all Australian citizens when in need of any necessary medical service should be debated. by Senator Sheil (from 97 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 516 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Fringe Benefits Tax will place enormous cost increases on employers throughout Australia, that in so doing, the Fringe Benefits Tax will raise the cost of employing labour particularly in remote locations and that it will inevitably worsen the already high level of unemployment in Australia and that much of the cost of the tax will be carried by employees as employers reduce benefits that the cost of the tax will harm small business particularly adversely as these businesses will be un-able to pass on the cost of the tax and as a result many may be forced to close. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Government to repeal this unfair tax before it damages Australian business and thereby reduces the standard of living of all Australians. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the Fringe Benefits Tax will place a costly and unfair burden on independent schools. The Fringe Benefits Tax will have the most damaging impact upon schools which provide boarding accommodation for children as they are also required to provide accommodation for staff members to live in and supervise the boarders. Independent schools have limited resources and this additional impost will ultimately have to be passed onto parents, many of whom are already heavily committed to the financing of their children's education. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Parliament to recognise that the future of Australia depends upon the education given to its children and to exempt schools from the operation of the Fringe Benefits Tax. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) France continues to test nuclear weapons at Mururoa atoll contrary to the wishes of all the people of the South Pacific. (2) Australia is a signatory to-(1) The treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Antarctic Treaty. (3) Australia is currently pressing for a comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in the United Nations. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should (1) Condemn and demand the cessation of French or any other nations nuclear testing in the South Pacific or the use of such area for long range missile tests (e.g. the U.S.S.R. or U.S.A.) (2) Declare Australia will join with New Zealand and other South Pacific countries in a treaty to make the South Pacific a Nuclear Free Zone in line with that section of the world recognised Antarctic treaty which expressly forbids-The placing, stockpiling, testing or carriage of Nuclear weapons and the establishment of military bases. by Senator Jones (from 975 citizens). Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the following petitioning letter bearing eight signatures requesting that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 be rejected: 9 Exhibition Pde Mt Pritchard 2170. 24th March 1986 Senator B. R. Archer Parliament House Canberra Dear Senator, We wish to express to you our alarm at the proposed Human Rights Bill, now before Parliament. Rather than preserve the legal and human rights of Australians, now in operation, this Bill lays the way right open for tyranny and abuse of these rights. It is a Bill which has received no public debate, insufficient Parliamentary debate, and bears all the hallmarks of being hastily put together. The far reaching effects of this Bill could be devastating to the time-tested and highly-valued system of justice in this country. It is most worthy of note that the Bill is being received gladly by the leaders of totalitarian governments, but has been rejected by the democratic parliaments of Great Britain and United States of America. This nation should, in fact, must, also reject the Bill. We urgently request that you vote against this Bill, in its entirety, when it comes before the Senate. Yours Sincerely, HELEN BLAKE (Mrs) Petitioning letter received. Petitions received. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Button) agreed to: That Government Business, Notice of Motion No. 1, be postponed until 10 October 1986. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives, after 14 November 1986, and a motion is moved for the second reading of the Bill, debate on that motion should be taken to be adjourned upon the conclusion of the speech of the senator moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an Order of the Day for the first day of sitting in 1987 without any question being put. (2) That immediately after debate on a motion for the second reading of a Bill is adjourned in accordance with paragraph (1), or following the giving of notices on a subsequent day, a motion may be moved without notice to refer that Bill to a standing committee for inquiry and report by a day not later than the first day of sitting in 1987. (3) That this order cease to have effect at the commencement of the first day of sitting in 1987. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he shall move: That an Opposition senator, when the senator indicates that he or she is speaking on behalf of the Opposition on any matter under consideration by the Senate, have leave to speak from the place of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) commends the Federal Government for ensuring that stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park will be guaranteed free from mining activities; (b) notes with concern the uncertainty around stage 3 and the possibility of mining in this area; (c) also notes with concern derogatory comments by the Minister for Resources and Energy about the landscape in stage 3 of Kakadu National Park; and (d) calls upon the Government to stand firm on its original policy of no mining in a National Park area and in particular no uranium mining. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Minister for Finance prepare and bring in a Bill for an Act for the purpose of ensuring that Australian suppliers are given maximum opportunity to compete for Commonwealth contracts for the supply of goods and services, that authorities entering into contracts on behalf of the Commonwealth give proper consideration to Australian suppliers, and that such contracts are awarded to Australian suppliers unless there are cogent reasons for awarding them to non-Australian suppliers, in accordance with the following outline: PROPOSED COMMONWEALTH CONTRACTS (AUSTRALIAN SUPPLIERS) BILL 1986 Outline of Provisions 1. Purpose of Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that Australian suppliers are given maximum opportunity to compete for Commonwealth contracts for the supply of goods and services, that authorities entering into contracts on behalf of the Commonwealth give proper consideration to Australian suppliers, and that such contracts are awarded to Australian suppliers unless there are cogent reasons for awarding them to non-Australian suppliers. 2. Application of Bill. The Bill is to apply to all Commonwealth authorities, that is, Commonwealth Departments of State, Parliamentary Departments, statutory authorities and companies owned or controlled by the Commonwealth. 3. General requirement. The Bill is to impose upon Commonwealth authorities a general requirement to ensure that Australian suppliers are given maximum opportunity to compete for Commonwealth contracts, that proper consideration is given to Australian suppliers, and that contracts are awarded to Australian suppliers unless there are cogent reasons for awarding particular contracts to non-Australian suppliers. 4. Australian suppliers. The Bill is to define an Australian supplier in accordance with the following criteria: (a) for persons other than companies, the persons are to be residents of Australia; and (b) for companies- (i) a prescribed percentage of the shareholders is to consist of Australian companies or residents of Australia, or (ii) a prescribed percentage of the goods to be supplied is to be manufactured in Australia, and (iii) a prescribed percentage of the profits of the company have been invested in Australia. 5. List of Australian suppliers. The Department of Finance is to compile and maintain a list of Australian suppliers, and collect information to assist Commonwealth authorities to determine whether persons and companies are Australian suppliers. 6. Tenders and quotations. Where the value of contracts is more than the prescribed amount, tenders are to be invited and the invitations to tender are to be directed to the attention of known Australian suppliers. Where the value of contracts is less than that prescribed amount but more than a lower prescribed amount, quotations are to be sought from known suppliers. Exemptions from these requirements may be granted by the Minister for Finance in cases of urgency or exceptional circumstances, and any exemptions are to be laid before both Houses of the Parliament. In submitting tenders or quotations suppliers are to indicate whether they are Australian suppliers, and penalties are to be provided for any false statement. 7. Award of contracts. The award of contracts and the terms of contracts are to be published, together with a statement indicating whether the suppliers are Australian suppliers. 8. Statement of reasons. Where a contract is awarded to a person other than an Australian supplier, the publication referred to in paragraph 6 is to be accompanied by a statement of reasons for the award of the contract to a non-Australian supplier. This statement is to be laid before each House of the Parliament and forwarded to any Australian suppliers who tendered or quoted for the contract. Those suppliers are to be furnished with additional information relating to the reasons for their failure to gain the contract, and any further information relating thereto which they request. 9. Advance notice of contracts. Commonwealth authorities are to give advance notice of invitations to tender for contracts with a value above a prescribed amount, indicating the technology requirements involved in the contracts. 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. The Care of Aged People-statement by the Minister for Community Services. 2. Disability Services-statement by the Minister for Community Services. 3. Legal Aid Needs of Youth-Report-together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General. 4. Commonwealth Approved Capital Works Program 1986-87-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Housing and Construction. 5. Ownership and Control of Commercial Television-Future Policy Directions-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Communications. 6. Equalisation of Regional Commercial Television-Draft Indicative Plan. 7. Future Directions for Commercial Radio-Report. 8. Service and Business Review and Outlook-Australian Postal Commission Report. 9. Service and Business Outlook for 1986-87-Australian Telecommunications Commission Report. 10. Review of Migration Decisions-Administrative Review Council Report. 11. National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation-Annual Report 1984-85. 12. Australia-China Trade and Investment Law Conference-October 1985-Volume 1 papers presented in Beijing-Volume 2 papers presented in Shanghai. 13. Marine Sciences and Technologies Grants for 1986-Marine Research Allocations Advisory Committee Report. 14. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet-Annual Report 1985-86. 15. Population Monitoring and Forecasting: Intergovernmental Issues, Concerns and Options-ACIR Report-pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Act 1976. 16. Australian Overseas Projects Corporation-Final Report for the period 1 July 1985-5 January 1986-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to section 9 of the Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985. 17. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation-Final Report for the period 1 July 1985-5 January 1986-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to section 10 of the Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985. 18. Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management-Annual Report 1985-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to Regulation 23 of the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Regulations 1981. 19. The Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund-Annual Report 1985-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. 20. Royal Military College-Annual Report 1985-pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1903. 21. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statements of Expenditure for April, May, June, July and August 1986. 22. Australian Telecommunications Commission-Annual Report 1985-86-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to sub-section 99 (3) of the Telecommunications Act 1975. Senator GRIMES —I also seek leave to have the text of papers Nos 1 and 2 incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The papers read as follows- Statement on the Care of Aged People 1 In my statement of 14 April concerning the Government's response to the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes entitled ``Private Nursing Homes in Australia: Their Conduct, Administration and Ownership'' (known as the Giles Report), I tabled a Review prepared by my Department on Nursing Homes and Hostels. 2 While making it clear that the Government endorsed the broad strategy and general directions of change in this Review report, I indicated that the Government would be reserving its position on the specific funding implications in the report, pending consultation with the States, the nursing homes and hostels industry, consumer and other welfare groups and professional and staff bodies. The purpose of this Statement is to: (i) report on the outcome to date of the consultation process; and (ii) announce the decisions which the Government has taken on the Review in the Budget process. Consultation 3 The consultation process has established that there is broadly based support for the strategy and directions proposed in the Review to concentrate future growth in aged care services on alternative forms of residential care and community services rather than on more intensive care in nursing homes. 4 A number of important matters have been raised in the consultation process which have influenced the decisions taken by the Government: (i) the requirement for flexible planning, which provides for monitoring, evaluation and changes where necessary, including more integration with community services; (ii) a publicised and better resourced hostel sector so that hostels can care for increasingly depen- dent aged people; (iii) the extension of residential care services beyond hostels to other forms of accommodation such as group housing arrangements; (iv) the need to expand community services to assist those elderly people most at risk or premature and inappropriate institutionalisation; and (v) the importance of carefully developing the pro- cess of assessment so that it will gain support from consumers, professionals and service providers. Future Strategy 5 The aged care policies of Governments over the last twenty years have resulted in a huge and largely uncontrolled growth in expenditure on nursing homes. We can no longer afford to continue the emphasis on intensive and inappropriate levels of care-not only because it will be difficult to sustain rapid growth in nursing homes in the climate of a rapidly ageing population, but more importantly because this system is not resulting in the range of care services which elderly people want and which respect their drive for independence. 6 We have to act now if we are to better meet the needs of the significant number of aged people we will have in this country by the end of this century. 7 The Government's central objective in this Budget is to begin the process of redistributing resources for care of aged people away from nursing homes to alternative forms of residential care and to community care in order to increase the range of aged care services and to achieve improved quality of care arrangements. As evidence of our commitment, this strategy will involve additional expenditure of roughly $24 million in 1986-87, $80 million in 1987-88 and $150 million in 1988-89. These additional costs over the next few years will be offset increasingly by the lower costs of reduced growth in nursing home beds. 8 The main elements of the Government's new strategy include: (i) increasing recurrent assistance to hostels and increasing the number of hostel places funded through an expanded capital program; (ii) increasing the resources available for home and community care; (iii) the development of special programs to cater for the needs of ethnic communities, Aboriginals, dementia sufferers and people with disabilities who are aged; (iv) the development of co-ordinated assessment processes, including the establishment of new assessment teams, to assist aged people and their families to plan the most appropriate care to meet their particular needs; (v) the implementation of an information strategy which will ensure that all aged people have access to comprehensive, accurate and timely information on the full range of options and services available to them; (iv) new growth control arrangements linked to capital funding arrangements and covering both nursing homes and hostels; (vii) introducing on a phased basis from 1 July 1987 a new standard grant for recurrent nursing home funding arrangements to replace deficit financing for general purpose aged care nursing homes and the separate fee and benefits arrangements for participating nursing homes; and (viii) in combination with the States, developing a strategy for determining staffing standards in nursing homes, guidance on quality of care and arrangements for tougher inspection processes. Growth Control 9 As a starting point for planning future provision, the Government has adopted the recommendation made in the Review that growth of residential care services should be planned on the basis of the current national ratio of 100 residential care places per 1000 people aged 70 or over, and that up to 10 per cent of additional beds should be for nursing homes. 10 On the basis of that ratio the Government has decided to plan for the approval of 2750 new places in 1986-87, 4730 in 1987-88 and 5,400 in 1988-89-12,880 additional places overall. A total of up to 1,295 places over the triennium will be for nursing home beds and the balance for hostels (11,585 places). This represents a substantial growth of 30% on the stock of hostel places. These new places will be distributed among the States with the objective of evening out current disparities in the provision of residential care places. I table, and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, a schedule which shows the distribution of these places across the States. 11 There is an obvious need to overhaul our narrowly based planning methods for residential care. Common criticisms of present arrangements include an inadequate statistical base, the heavy bureaucratic processes involved, the fact that better resourced organisations have been able to obtain access to Government funds ahead of more disadvantaged groups and the limited involvement of consumer, service provider and other organisations in the planning process. 12 With that in mind, I intend to replace the Federal-State Co-ordinating Committees and establish Aged Care Advisory Committees in each State. The objective of the new arrangements will be to ensure that in planning residential care services full account is taken of the availability of community care services; the involvement of consumer bodies and service providers and the continuing and essential contribution of State authorities. I anticipate that the membership of these Committees, their methods of operation and their relationship to HACC advisory structures will need to accommodate the differing circumstances of each State and views of State Governments. 13 Against the backdrop of available demographic information and information on current residential care provision the objective of the Committees will be to provide me with advice on: (i) those regions or parts or regions which may be inadequately served; (ii) the needs of particular groups, especially ethnic communities, Aboriginal groups and people with disabilities who are aged; (iii) the scope for innovation in services, including residentially based respite care services and their integration with community services; and (iv) the more effective co-ordination of residential and home care services. 14 Subject to my approval of those priorities my Department will begin the process of identifying service providers able to deliver the required services. In some cases this will involve working with organisations which are already well established in the provision of residential care services, but in others there will undoubtedly be a requirement for my Department's resources to be available to assist groups not well placed to develop proposals. Residential Care Services 15 Key elements of the Review are to provide alternative residential care services to nursing homes in the form of hostels and to strengthen the role of hostels in care of the more frail aged. The consultation process has confirmed the problem of hostels being under-resourced. Moreover, among many consumers hostels have a bad image because they are seen simply as the poor relation of nursing homes and because they are equated with large-scale and impersonal care. 16 There is a need to ensure that hostel operators adopt a management style appropriate to the communal, but more independent, accommodation which they should provide. A name change might help-community homes perhaps. The broader issue, however, is the concern among many consumer organisations that the possibility should be urgently examined of extending residential care service beyond currently assisted hostels to other forms of accommodation. 17 The Government is keen to examine these issues and will be consulting with consumer and voluntary organisations and, in co-operation with the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction, with housing authorities on group housing and other matters. 18 In this Budget and in response to concerns expressed by the hostel industry and consumer groups the Government has decided that steps should be taken now to provide a firm commitment to maintain the real level of hostel subsidised over time and to increase assistance for care or more frail aged people. The Government has decided that: (i) there should be automatic indexation of the hostel care subsidy, respite care subsidy and personal care subsidy with effect from November each year, beginning in November this year; and (ii) there will be an additional increase of $2.60 a day in the value of the personal care subsidy, making a total of $11 a day from May next year to assist the hostel industry to provide more adequate levels of personal care for dependent elderly people. 19 These measures represent a significantly increased Government commitment to ensuring the effectiveness of the hostel sector in carrying out its role of care for aged people. They will cost $5.6 million in 1986-87 and $24.7 million in 1987-88. 20 The changes build upon the important policy initiatives taken by this Government in 1983 to develop the role of hostels in caring for aged people. 21 The Government recognises that increased numbers of hostel beds will necessitate a significant strengthening of the resources available for capital funding. 22 Additional funds have been allocated to the capital funding program of $13.5 million this year, with planning for an additional $31.7 million and $74.9 million over the following two years to: (i) lay the basis for the expansion of the hostel sector; (ii) provide up to 100 per cent capital funding for financially disadvantaged groups, commencing with priority for Aboriginals; (iii) continue to earmark capital funds for expanded residential accommodation which will actively seek to provide additional access for ethnic communities in 1986/87 and subsequent years; and (iv) increase the maximum subsidy limits under the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act from $16,666 to $20,200 for a single unit and from $19,333 to $23,450 for a double unit. 23 Consistent with the role of providing care it will no longer fund accommodation which does not have as part of its main purpose the provision of care. For this reason, self-contained units will no longer be funded under the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act except in respect of those projects which have already been given approval. Assessment 24 The primary role of assessment teams is to use a range of specialist skills to assist the consumer to clarify his or her needs and to identify the most appropriate options. The teams need to be backed by geriatric, nursing and social work and other skills. If teams fulfil their role effectively, their work should result in aged people receiving more appropriate types of care and assistance more in line with their wishes. We need to remind ourselves continually that older people would prefer to stay at home and do not want to enter institutional care. 25 The Commonwealth will provide $2.0 million, $6.0 million, and $9.0 million over the next three years in addition to the $4.2 million already being spent on assessment. This is a strong start towards the Nursing Home Review's recommendation to support 60 full assessment teams at an annual expenditure of $16 million within three to five years. 26 The Commonwealth and the States have now agreed to work together on a range of assessment issues, including the development of new proposals for assessment. It is the Commonwealth's intention to involve consumers and service providers in the development of such proposals as well as in the policy and management of assessment teams. 27 Discussions are under way with the States on piloting the delegation of admission approvals to nursing homes to assessment teams. I anticipate that the first delegations will be made during 1986-87. Special Programs 28 The Review proposed an innovative projects program to put the funding of existing approved services in deficit funded homes onto a new basis and to provide special services for the care of those with particular needs, e.g. dementia sufferers. 29 The Government recognises the need for a capacity within residential programs to provide special programs over and above basic care programs. It believes that an innovative approach should be adopted in meeting the care needs of groups who for various reasons cannot be adequately cared for within the usual funding arrangements. With that in mind, the Government has endorsed the concept of a special services program to assist, inter alia: (i) ethnic communities in gaining access to mainstream nursing homes; (ii) the further development of programs in the hostel sector for care of dementia sufferers; (iii) the provision of care in mainstream nursing homes for people with disabilities who are now ageing; and (iv) to develop programs to assist Aboriginals. 30 Provision has been made in 1986-87 for additional expenditure of $2.0 million and with planning figures of $9.0 million in 1987-88 and $17.5 million in 1988-89 under this new program. 31 My Department will be working with professionals and the community to ensure the development of relevant programs, and with voluntary organisations to draw out a clear picture of current services in deficit funded nursing homes. Community Services 32 In initiating the Home and Community Care (HACC) program, the Government recognised the importance of developing new community care services and expanding existing ones if the wishes of elderly people themselves to be supported as far as possible in their own homes were to be addressed. The provision of additional resources for HACC was a recognition also of the need for a more appropriate balance between the resources provided for community services and residential care. 33 Under the terms of Commonwealth-State Agreements in establishing HACC the Commonwealth is making available $30 million in additional funds for the program in 1986-87. A growth rate of up to 20 per cent is assured for the programs in 1987-88. The net result will be to lift to a considerably higher plateau the total of resources available for HACC in 1987-88 and beyond. 34 Our consultations have shown that elderly people need the security of knowing that the appropriate services will be available if they are to continue to live at home with confidence. The history of inadequate access to service provision and increasing level of need within the community means that additional resources will be needed in HACC to: (i) improve access by the whole HACC target population to the services of home help, home nursing, food services and respite care; (ii) increase the hours of service available to those clients with more intensive care requirements; (iii) make services more responsive to the needs of special groups, ethnic communities, Aboriginals and isolated people; and (iv) develop approaches to the delivery of services which ensure through assessment and better co-ordinated services that individuals receive appropriate packages of the services they require. 35 The Commonwealth has, therefore, decided to make available a total of $94 million over a four year period starting 1 July 1987 for expenditure on new and expanded home and community care services. The Government is planning to start projects to the value of $5 million in 1987-88, $8 million in 1988-89, $15 million in 1989-90 and $20 million in 1990-91 which will have a full year cost by 1990-91 of $48 million. 36 The Commonwealth Government will not require State Governments to match these additional amounts of money. However, the availability of additional Commonwealth funds will be subject to a number of conditions, including maintenance of State Government contributions under HACC and, in particular, that individual State Governments agree to index their HACC base by 20% in the four years from 1987-88 to 1990-91. The Commonwealth will also be seeking assurances that State Governments will provide additional unmatched resources for HACC if they in turn embark on policy and program changes that involve, as a consequence, increased pressures on HACC services. 37 I have asked the Office for the Aged and Office of Disability to report to me by the end of September from a consumer perspective on possible future directions and priorities for HACC. This, together with the ongoing policy and program work of my Department and State Governments should lay a better basis for establishing future directions and priorities by Commonwealth and State Governments and HACC Advisory Committees. Next Steps 38 The decisions announced in this Budget on care of aged people will set the scene for changing the existing balance between providing intensive care through nursing homes and providing appropriate community services and hostel options. The process of change will be gradual and it will be essential that implementation is carefully monitored, evaluated and, where necessary, adjusted. 39 The next step in implementing the Review will be to change the recurrent funding arrangements for nursing homes and to ensure appropriate quality of care and enforcement of standards from 1 July 1987. 40 As regards funding, I welcome the constructive attitude which has been adopted by both the private and voluntary sectors to the Review. Between now and the end of 1986 my Department will be drawing together the financial data which will be necessary to determine the basis for the new funding arrangements to replace existing deficit funded and nursing home benefit arrangements for the care of aged persons. The objective of the new funding arrangements will be to move from the current cost reimbursement arrangements based on assessed costs of individual nursing homes to a benefit system based on a standard fee and benefit structure across Australia. 41 Under the proposed funding arrangements the Commonwealth will stipulate the standard of care which it believes is reasonable to fund. The Commonwealth and States have agreed to set up a working party to report on matters relating to standards and there will be continuing consultation with consumers, professional and staff bodies and some provider organisations on matters relating to standards. 42 Specifically it will be important that the Commonwealth and the States together agree on key matters relating to quality of care objectives and the staffing standards to apply in nursing homes. There is agreement between the Commonwealth and States that they should work together in developing joint and co-ordinated nursing home inspection programs. Urgent work is proceeding on means of making existing sanctions more effective against those proprietors who provide sub-standard care. 43 Subject to the work which is being done on developing better co-ordinated Commonwealth-State inspection programs, it is anticipated that decisions can be taken early in 1987 on the means of most effectively inspecting the provision of appropriate care. This will involve not only Commonwealth-State agreement on a range of matters relating to standards but also on appropriate staff training and placement for this important work. Conclusion 44 The Government has allocated an additional $23.90 million in this Budget for expenditure in 1986-87 to implement a new system of care for the aged as set out in the Review of Nursing Homes and Hostels and is planning, subject to confirmation in future Budgets, a commitment to spend additional sums in the order of $81 million in 1987-88, and $151.8 million in 1988-89. These are significant additional sums in a time of economic restraint even though they will increasingly be offset by the lower costs of reduced growth in expenditure on nursing homes. 45 The Government is responding appropriately to the concerns of the community for care of its ageing members and the need to plan for the provision of alternative options to traditional nursing home care in the 1990's. 46 The success of this strategy will depend on a continuing partnership between the Commonwealth and State Governments, consumers, service providers, the welfare sector, professional staff bodies and others. So that this can occur I intend that my Department should consult with the widest range of interests possible. Meanwhile, the Office for the Aged and Office of Disability will continue to provide me with advice from a consumer perspective on the implementation of the strategy. 47 We are at the beginning of a long process of ensuring that arrangements made for the care of out elderly people are sensitive to their physical and social needs. This Government has put in place a framework within which it is possible to plan the increased resources which will be needed to care for increasing numbers of aged people. We have committed ourselves now to providing the significant additional resources needed to achieve a better match between the needs and wishes of aged people through action now to expand alternative residential and community care services. 48 The Government has listened to the community in developing its framework. It will continue to do so. The end result will be a very different approach to the way aged care is provided-an approach which provides greater choice to meet the needs of individual aged people throughout the Australian community. PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF NEW NURSING HOME BED AND HOSTEL BED AIP APPROVALS BY STATE FOR 1986-87 1987-88 AND 1988-89 Year/State 1986-87 Nursing Homes Hostels 1987-88 Nursing Homes Hostels 1988-89 Nursing Homes Hostels Total 1986-89 Nursing Homes Hostels Combined NSW 130 900 130 1,500 130 1,165 390 3,565 3,955 VIC 180 640 180 1,760 180 2,390 540 4,790 5,330 QLD 60 370 60 510 60 740 180 1,620 1,800 SA 30 100 0 200 30 230 60 530 590 WA 10 180 15 50 15 120 40 350 390 TAS 20 70 20 180 20 260 60 510 570 NT 0 0 5 40 0 0 5 40 45 ACT 0 60 20 60 0 60 20 180 200 Aust. 430 2,320 430 4,300 435 4,965 1,295 11,585 12,880 The distribution of AIPs between States is indicative only and the actual numbers approved will vary from State to State and year to year depending on the nature and distribution of project proposals. Statement on new Disability Services Legislation The purpose of this statement is to inform the Senate of the Government's plans for introducing new Disability Services legislation which will replace the present Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974, and contain legislative provision for the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Program and the Program of Aids for Disabled People. Among the first initiatives of this Government were decisions to fund the Australian chapter of Disabled Peoples' International and to establish the Disability Advisory Council of Australia to provide direct advice to the Government from people with disabilities themselves. These two initiatives in 1983 resulted in increased exposure and discussion of the issues facing people with disabilities. It became clear that there was a need for fundamental change in the way the community provides for the needs of people with disabilities and that a truly comprehensive review of all Commonwealth policies and programs was required. Accordingly, in late 1983 we set up the Handicapped Programs Review to examine all Commonwealth programs and services directed at assisting people with disabilities. This Review was the first of its kind in Australia, being based both on submissions and on extensive community consultation, especially with people with disabilities. During the course of the Review over 65 towns and cities across Australia were visited and more than 5,000 people were involved in meetings, seminars and personal interviews. Pending publication of the Review Report, the Prime Minister announced in December 1984 the establishment of the Office of Disability whose responsibilities include providing advice to the Government on the quality and effectiveness of services at a national level. One of its roles is to carry forward initiatives contained in the report of the Handicapped Programs Review entitled ``New Directions'' which I tabled on 30 May 1985. The Report found broad community support for the Commonwealth's policies of meeting needs through mainstream community programs as far as possible, and of ensuring that the least restrictive alternative principle is followed where specific services are required for people with disabilities. It concluded that substantial improvements were required in the accountability of subsidised organisations for service content and quality, and that major changes were needed in the programs themselves. A restructuring of services, funding and other resources was also required. The Review believed that these changes could be effected only through new legislation to replace the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, based on the principle that positive consumer outcomes should be the rationale for program development, delivery and review. The Government at the time endorsed the thrust of the report and I foreshadowed new legislation under the Community Services portfolio to provide for the range of Commonwealth support programs for people with disabilities to replace the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. The Government will be introducing such new legislation in the Budget Session. One of the major thrusts of the new legislation will be to establish a clear linkage between a commitment and action by organisations in achieving desirable outcomes for individual people with disabilities and organisations' receipt of financial assistance from the Commonwealth. For some time, and within the constraints of the present legislation, my Department has been working closely with organisations conducting subsidised services to encourage them to provide programs on the ``least restrictive alternative'' model and more recently to adopt the principles underlying the New Directions report. The substantive work of re-shaping existing methods of service delivery is, however, still largely ahead of us and, with this in mind, the Government has adopted a two-fold strategy to achieve a complete re-structuring of services for people with disabilities subsidised under current legislation. The first component in our strategy is a program of demonstration projects to illustrate to service providers and to people with disabilities who are the consumers of those services, the types of services and the principles and operating practices underlying them which the Government wishes to promote in the context of ``New Directions''. This demonstration program commenced this year and will run for two years, costing some $20 million in total. Examples in two key areas will make it clear how different, even radical, some of these new types of services may be when seen against the traditional service pattern. In the area of vocational services, where the principal choice for disabled people in the past has generally been limited to sheltered employment, services to be developed include long-term supported employment models such as: work enclaves in open industry where small groups of disabled workers are given special training, supervision, and adjusted work targets; work crews where a group of disabled people are an integral part of an independent commercial business; and individual work-stations where a disabled person works alongside non-disabled workers, but support is provided through extra training and supervision on site. There will also be competitive employment and placement programs which will train disabled people in work skills and work-related behaviours and locate individual jobs for the program graduates in open employment. Examples of this might be where a cafeteria teaches food service tasks and finds people jobs in regular restaurants. In these instances, any subsidy provided would be for the training and personal support components only, not towards the commercial activity as such. From these examples, it is clear how we are opening up vocational opportunities which will greatly enhance the dignity and better match the aspirations of people with disabilities, compared with the limiting, isolating, and often stigmatising options traditionally available. The other key area where I would like to give examples of new types of services is that of supported residential accommodation for people with disabilities. We are all familiar to varying degrees with the traditional residential institutions where dozens, but at times even hundreds, of people with disabilities are accommodated in the one large complex. More community integrated models of residential support have already begun to be introduced, but the demonstration program will broaden the range of options available by including approaches such as: co-tenancy arrangements where a non-disabled person offers support to a disabled flat-mate in return for concessional costs of living; tenant support programs where disabled people occupying a number of flats in a single development are given support from staff living in a separate flat both at set time periods (such as meal preparation) and on-call if necessary; group homes in ordinary community settings with live-in or on-call staffing appropriate to the needs of a small group of multiply-disabled adults; model or demonstration de-institutionalising projects which support an existing organisation in the transition from a large institutional facility to a more appropriate range of housing options in the community for its existing residents; and respite programs. All told, under the demonstration program, we have so far funded 68 projects, comprising-14 long-term supported employment projects; 13 competitive employment projects; 14 projects exploring options in residential living; and 27 projects providing advocacy and information services and individual personal development planning for people with disabilities. I regard these as significant achievements. The second component of the Government's strategy for restructuring of the system is the introduction of the new legislation. Our original intention was to introduce the new legislation in this present Autumn session but this will not now be achievable because of pressures on Parliamentary Counsel. As I said earlier, the Bill will be introduced in the Budget session 1986. However, I am able to indicate now the scope of the new Bill. It will draw together existing programs for people with disabilities within the Community Services portfolio and provide a new coherent framework for these programs to facilitate the pursuit of the Government's objectives for people with disabilities. The new Bill will contain an explicit statement of its goals and objectives. These may be summarised as: to achieve for people with disabilities positive outcomes such as long-term increases in independence, participation in paid employment, integration into the community, and the promotion of a positive image; to provide financial assistance to eligible organisations conducting approved services directed at achieving such outcomes in an integrated fashion; to enable service performance in achieving the desired outcomes to be taken into account in making funding decisions; and to encourage innovation in service development and delivery. There will also be specific objectives relating to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Program and the Program for Aids for Disabled People both of which will be incorporated into the Bill. I will refer to these programs again later. First and foremost, the Bill will provide for the funding of a range of services many of which are outside the provisions of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, which will be repealed. Some of these categories will be: Accommodation Support; Selected Respite Services; Supported Employment; Competitive Employment Training and Placement; Independent Living Training; Advocacy and Information; Recreation; Individual Assessment and Program Planning; and Services for Persons with a Print Disability. The Government recognises that non-government bodies play an essential role in providing services for people with disabilities and will retain the concept of assisting eligible organisations as service providers. The Bill will include a clear definition of the eligible target group to be assisted by organisations receiving financial support. The proposal is that the target group be comprised of people who: have an intellectual impairment or a sensory or physical impairment, being a sensory or physical impairment which has become manifest before the person has reached the age of 50 years; are likely to have that impairment indefinitely; and as a result of that impairment have a long term incapacity for independent living and have a substantive functional limitation in relation to communication, learning or mobility. There will be a discretion to include in the target group categories not specifically mentioned in the Bill, if this promotes the purposes of the legislation. The range of services provided by the Commonwealth and the States in the disability area varies from State to State and the situation is complex. I intend that the new Bill will provide a mechanism whereby inter-governmental and agency co-operation can be enhanced. Local government will continue to qualify for the funding of approved services under the new legislation. The new legislation will also encourage partnership arrangements with State Governments. One of the biggest problems with the current Act is that there is no recognition of the different funding requirements of different service types. There needs to be flexibility to recognise the widely differing needs of people assisted under the program and the differing needs of individual service types. Rather than a set funding formula, I propose that the Bill provide for funding formulae to be set out in regulations. These funding formulae will change the ad hoc arrangements which exist at present and will reflect the desired outcomes anticipated for individuals. To assist in developing detailed funding formulae, my Department is sponsoring a consultancy to identify the actual costs of conducting the various types of services, and to make recommendations on the formulae to be adopted. This task will obviously require a great deal of careful analysis and take some time to complete. When developed and approved by Parliament, these funding formulae will be applied to services which meet the objectives of the new legislation. In the meantime, in order to provide for funding continuity, transitional funding arrangements will apply to currently funded organisations. As I mentioned earlier, the new Bill will also provide a new legislative basis for rehabilitation services administered within the community services portfolio thus removing them from Part VIII of the Social Security Act. This will involve transfer of the enabling provisions from that Act to the new Disability Services Act, with some minor modifications. This will facilitate a common philosophical base for the Government's assistance to people with disabilities. The Department's rehabilitation program is currently over half way through a Three Year Forward Plan which emphasises the development of community based services in preference to those provided in institutional settings, and concentrates on social and vocational rehabilitation for working aged people and on improving access to rehabilitation programs by women, Aboriginals and people with non-English speaking backgrounds. It is proposed that our rehabilitation services, providing as they do, a direct service to people with disabilities, should work closely with those areas of my portfolio which fund organisations providing services to disabled people. This will ensure the provision of a co-ordinated range of services. The Bill will also provide for the Commonwealth's Program of Aids for Disabled People, currently based in various provisions of the National Health Act. At this point the Government is proposing no major changes to this program but the opportunity will be taken to improve its operation through minor legislative modifications. At this stage, I anticipate that the new legislation will become operative as from 1 April 1987. For operational reasons The Handicapped Persons Assistance Act and those sections of the Social Security Act relating to the provision of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Program will not be repealed until 30 June 1987. In addition discussions are taking place with the Department of Health regarding the authority for the operation of the PADP scheme. Regulations will then be introduced under the new Act to provide initially for interim funding for organisations who commit themselves by way of formal contracts to the objectives of the new program. This interim funding will be similar to that currently provided under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. Departmental officers will be contacting each organisation through to April 1987 to discuss the objectives of the new legislation as this relates to the specific service types, and to invite organisations to enter into contracts which will be consistent with the new legislation. There may be a small number of existing services which will not qualify for funding at all under the new legislation. I envisage that carry-on funding at existing levels will be available for these services until such time as other arrangements can be made for them. A requirement under the new legislation will be that a review of all services, to assess their achievement of the objectives embodied in the legislation, be undertaken at least every five years. The Department of Community Services will be conducting a series of short intensive workshops to explain in more detail the operational significance of the new legislation and its underlying aims and objectives. The present intention is for these to commence towards the end of 1986. At the same time as the introduction of the new Disability Services Bill the Government will launch a Statement of Principles and Objectives in relation to people with disabilities to be followed in the administration of the legislation and specifically to be applied to individual services. We will also work towards the implementation of the Principles and Objectives by all those involved in service delivery to people with disabilities. A draft of the Statement of Principles and Objectives is attached. The Principles recognise that people with disabilities are individuals who have an inherent right to respect for their human worth and dignity, and, irrespective of the origin, nature, type and degree of disability have the same fundamental rights as do other members of society. This applies to the realisation of individual potential; to involvement in decision-making in matters affecting their lives; to the pursuit of grievances and rights; and to services which offer the least restrictive alternative in the achievement of these ends. The Objectives relate more directly to service delivery and cover aspects such as a focus on consumer benefits, integration of services into the regular service structure where possible, and a community-based focus for specialist services where these are required. Adoption of the Principles and Objectives will have some very practical consequences for service delivery. They will demand new standards of accountability by service providers to their disabled clients. They will require a new emphasis on the rights of privacy and confidentiality. They will herald a drawing to a close of an era in which regrettably it has been possible for single organisations, in some cases without any accountability, to control the entire life of a person with a disability. The Handicapped Programs Review contained a large number of recommendations. As a means of pursuing both those covered by the new legislation and other matters, I am writing to my Commonwealth ministerial colleagues seeking their assistance in those areas which are pertinent to their respective portfolio responsibilities. For similar purposes I have also written to State Ministers, especially to open up the wider issues of co-ordination between State and Commonwealth initiatives which will promote a better future for people with disabilities. The Handicapped Programs Review has demonstrated the crucial importance of consultation with the community about the needs and aspirations of people with disabilities, but most of all with disabled people themselves. Such consultation will continue to be a cornerstone of the Government's policy in this area. I have outlined in this Statement the intention of the Government in the area of disability services. However, before I introduce the necessary Bill into Parliament, I and my departmental officers will be seeking discussions with relevant groups on the proposals I have outlined. I also expect those discussions to assist in the development of specific guidelines which will apply to the varying service types. I hope to be in a position to table those guidelines when I introduce the new legislation in the Budget Session. Draft Statement of Principles and Objectives Principles 1. People with disabilities are individuals who have the inherent right to respect for their human worth and dignity. 2. People with disabilities, whatever the origin, nature, type and degree of disability, have the same fundamental rights as all members of Australian society. 3. Every person with a disability has the same rights as other members of Australian society to realise their individual capacity for physical, social, emotional and intellectual development. 4. People with disabilities have the same right as other members of Australian society to services which will support their attaining an acceptable quality of life. 5. People with disabilities have the same right as other members of Australian society to participate in the decisions which affect their lives. 6. People with disabilities have the same right as other members of Australian society to the least restrictive alternative in the services they receive. 7. People with disabilities have the same right of grievance as other members of Australian society in relation to the services which they receive. In response to these principles, the Commonwealth Government will adopt the following objectives in its provision of services to people with disabilities and promote their adoption by non-government organisations, Local Government and State Governments providing assistance to people with disabilities. (A service is defined as direct assistance predominantly of a non-monetary nature provided through the Government or voluntary organisations. A program is any specific assistance of a direct service or of a monetary nature funded by the Government.) Objectives 1. That the focus of service delivery to people with disabilities should be the achievement of positive outcomes. 2. That services for people with disabilities should ensure that the conditions of the every-day life of people with disabilities are the same as, or as close as possible to, norms and patterns which are valued in the general community. 3. That services for people with disabilities should be provided as part of local co-ordinated service systems and integrated with generic services wherever possible. 4. That people with disabilities should receive services which are tailored to their individual needs and goals. 5. That programs and services should promote a competent and positive image of people with disabilities. 6. That programs and services should promote the participation of people with disabilities in the life of the local community through maximum physical and social integration. 7. That no single organisation providing services should exercise control over all or most aspects of the life of an individual with disabilities. 8. That services providing assistance to people with disabilities, be they specific or generic, should be accountable to consumers and their representatives, funding bodies and the public at large. 9. That programs and services should provide opportunities for people with disabilities to reach goals and enjoy lifestyles which are valued by the community at large and are appropriate to their chronological age. 10. That disabled people should have access to advocacy support where necessary to ensure adequate participation in decision-making about the services they receive. 11. That services should provide appropriate avenues for people with disabilities to air and resolve grievances about the service they receive. 12. That disabled people should be provided with avenues for participating in the planning and operation of individual services and opportunities for consultation relating to major policy development and program changes. 13. That services for people with disabilities should respect an individual's rights of privacy and confidentiality. NOTE: Individuals with disabilities should be read to include advocates and families of children with disabilities where appropriate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave- The report of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia was presented to the Governor-General on 20 November 1985 and was tabled in Parliament on 5 December 1985. No substantive response was made to its recommendations at that stage. In summary, the seven Royal Commission recommendations were as follows: 1. Extend the benefits of Commonwealth Government employees compensation legislation, including reverse onus of proof, to civilians at the sites, and to Aborigines and other civilians who may have been exposed to black mist; 2. compile a national register of nuclear veterans, Aborigines and others who may have been exposed to black mist or radiation at the tests; 3. clean-up Maralinga and Emu so that they are fit for unrestricted habitation by the traditional Aboriginal owners; 4. establish a Maralinga Commission to oversee the clean-up and co-ordinate future management of the site; 5. signpost areas still not suited for permanent habitation on the Monte Bello Islands and to collect small debris; 6. all clean-up costs for Maralinga, Emu and Monte Bellos to be borne by the United Kingdom Government; and 7. compensate those with traditional interests in the Maralinga lands, in the form of technology and services. Some of these recommendations raise complex policy issues, some involve delicate intergovernmental negotiations, some cannot be finally addressed without extensive further technical research; all have taken time to consider, and some-for reasons which I will make clear-will not be able to be finally responded to for some time yet. The Government, nonetheless, is conscious of the importance of the matters dealt with in the Royal Commission report-especially for the Aboriginal traditional owners and those claiming to have suffered illness or injury as a consequence of the United Kingdom tests-and remains keen to sustain the momentum that has already developed in the nine months since the report was presented. We have accordingly now determined our responses, to a greater or lesser extent, to recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 7; we are actively engaged in the process of considering recommendations 3 and 5; and we have commenced discussions with the United Kingdom Government-as yet only in their preliminary stages-in relation to recommendation 6. Recommendation 1: Compensation for Individuals In accordance with this recommendation, the Government has decided to extend compensation eligibility to Aborigines and non-Commonwealth employees, at the rates and under the rules currently applicable under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. The Department of Social Security will establish an administrative scheme to handle these arrangements. Persons eligible to claim compensation under the scheme will include Aborigines and other civilians, such as graziers, who may have been exposed to the black mist. Construction workers, such as those still present at Maralinga at the time of the first test there, will also be eligible. The existing onus of proof provisions of the Compensation Act-including the existing `reverse onus' clause in section 30-will apply to Aborigines and non-Commonwealth employees in the same way as to Commonwealth employees who are suffering injuries or disease which may have resulted from the atomic tests. Section 30 provides that where the disease in question is one specified in the regulations as being related to employment of a particular kind, then `unless the contrary is established, the employment . . . shall be deemed to have been a contributing factor to the contraction of the disease'. Item 4 of regulation 12 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Regulations in turn identifies a `pathological condition caused by . . . radium or another radioactive substance' as being related to `employment involving exposure to or contact with radium or other radioactive substances'. The net result of these provisions, in the present context, is that if a claimant can establish that he or she has a disease in fact caused by a radioactive substance, and that he or she suffered exposure to a radioactive substance as a result of being employed or otherwise present at or near the atomic test sites, that exposure will be `deemed to have contributed' to that disease-unless the Commonwealth can establish the contrary. It will be appreciated-advice from the Attorney-General's Department confirms this-that this `reverse onus' provision does not extend as far as deeming that any particular pathological condition, for example, cancer, which could possibly have been caused by exposure to a radioactive substance was in fact caused by such exposure. That must be established by the claimant in the ordinary way on the balance of probabilities. The pathological condition usually cited in compensation claims under regulation 12 item 4 is cancer. But the natural incidence of death from cancer in the Australian population is approximately one in five, and similar statistics apply elsewhere in the world. It is no doubt because of this high natural incidence that the existing Compensation Act provisions do not assume that a person's cancer has been caused by exposure to radioactivity but require this to be established on the balance of probabilities. Although it may not be easy in every case for claimants to establish on the balance of probabilities the necessary causal link between their disease and exposure to radioactivity, it seems highly unlikely, on the basis of the material cited in the Royal Commission report-although the Commission's conclusions were not quantified in this respect-that any injustice will be done. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that the risks of fatal cancer induction from external radiation is of the order of one chance in 100,000 for every millisievert of radiation dose. On this basis, at the very low levels of radiation to which some 15,000 Australians-including Commonwealth employees, non-Commonwealth employees and Aborigines-may have been exposed during the tests, there is a risk of only one or two cancer cases in excess of normal population incidence. While the Government will not be seeking to deny compensation in any case where compensation appears justified, it will nevertheless make full use of the appeals process if compensation is awarded and it believes that Commonwealth liability does not exist. Recommendation 2: National Register The Government does not consider that it is either possible or appropriate to create a new national register of the kind envisaged in Royal Commission recommendation 2. However, the objectives of this recommendation can still be met to a very great extent by the existing and proposed arrangements described below. Recommendation 2 envisaged the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation having access to a database of nuclear veterans, Aborigines and other persons who may have been exposed to the black mist or exposed to radiation at the test sites during or after the tests. It would be virtually impossible, however, to produce such a comprehensive database now for Aborigines and pastoral workers. The precise numbers of aborigines, let alone their names, who may have been exposed to the black mist could not now be determined, and the reliability of such a register would be highly questionable. Two substantial lists of persons involved in the tests and possibly exposed to radiation already exist within my Department. The first list was created as a result of continuing public concerns over the effects of the tests on the health of atomic test personnel, which led to the preparation of an epidemiological study carried out by the Department of Health. As an integral part of the study, my Department conducted an extensive record search in concert with a nationally advertised notice requesting atomic test personnel to complete a health survey form. In all about 15,300 people have been identified through this process. Of these, some 8,000 were included in the epidemiological study. The second list, compiled by the Australian Radiation Laboratory, is based on a United Kingdom `medical-in-confidence' listing of radiation exposures. Any additional information which might be obtained through a further advertising campaign or record searches is unlikely to add significantly to the existing database. Much of the existing information which would need to be incorporated into any new register is protected by the Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act from direct disclosure to anyone but the individual concerned. Arrangements can readily be made, building on existing practice, to ensure that compensation claimants and the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation can get access to all relevant material in the Commonwealth's possession. The claimants themselves can pass such information to the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation should they choose to do so. Where the information is not protected by the confidentiality legislation it can be provided direct to the Commissioner and the claimant. As a result of extensive searches of Commonwealth files made in the course of the Royal Commission's inquiry, my Department now holds a substantial body of information. It can and will provide such information, relevant to a person's presence or activities during the tests, to that person on request. Persons requesting access to such information held by my Department will also be provided with a statement on the health risks of radiation exposure, prepared by the Department of Health, so they will be in a position to make some preliminary evaluation of the likely effect of any exposure in their particular cases. Recommendation 3: Clean-up of Maralinga and Emu Following ministerial discussions in London on 22 January this year, two bodies were established to work towards the resolution of the remaining problems of contamination associated with the Maralinga and Emu test sites in South Australia and, to a lesser extent, the Monte Bello Islands off the Western Australian coast. The first is a technical assessment group, or TAG, as it has become known, to advise on field studies and laboratory research and report in detail on options-and costs-for the radioactive and toxic decontamination of the sites. The TAG, whose composition, terms of reference and functions were announced on 19 February, consists of two Australian scientists, Mr D. R. Davy, Chief of the Environment Science Division of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, as convenor, and Dr K. H. Lokan, Director of the Australian Radiation Laboratory. It also comprises a United States plutonium decontamination expert, Mr B. W. Church, Director of Health Physics Division, Nevada Operations Office, Department of Energy, and two British experts nominated by the United Kingdom Government, Dr H. Smith, Head of Biology Department, National Radiological Protection Board, and Mr D. Deverall, formerly Head of the Chemical Technology Division, Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. The second body is a consultative group, consisting of representatives of the Australian, United Kingdom, South Australian and Western Australian governments, and the association representing the Maralinga traditional owners, Maralinga Tjarutja, formed to discuss and monitor progress on the clean-up. The most serious continuing contamination problem is clearly at Maralinga, where the main concerns are: (a) the distribution of some 22 kilograms of plutonium, either dispersed in fragments at unacceptable concentrations over a large land area, or buried amid a mass of debris in over 20 burial pits at the Taranaki and TM101 sites; and (b) the large quantities of uranium, and the toxic chemical beryllium, dispersed over a significant land area at a number of minor trial sites. The TAG held its first meeting in Canberra in February, which was followed by a visit to the test sites at Maralinga. The second meeting was held in London in May, and was preceded by a visit to the United States Nevada test sites. At its second meeting, the TAG completed an interim report on studies judged as prerequisites to the formulation of options and associated costs to rehabilitate the test sites in Australia. This report, which was presented to me at the end of May, described a range of studies to determine the nature, extent and potential hazards of contamination at Maralinga and Emu, and possible reclamation processes and remedial measures. The consultative group has met twice in Canberra in April and June. At its first meeting discussions centred on an exchange of views between the representatives on clean-up issues and future management of the test sites. The convenor of the TAG provided an explanation of the TAG interim report at the second meeting in June. Following some discussion of the proposed studies there was a consensus within the group that those studies concerning the nature, extent and potential hazards of contamination should be given priority. In response to the TAG interim report and the consultative group's consideration of it, the Government has now decided that at least six studies should be carried out over the next two years, to enable determination of an optimal clean-up program. These are: A regional study to determine, by airborne and subsequent detailed ground surveys, the extent of contamination; an anthropological program to quantify the lifestyle characteristics of a critical group in order to define the risks associated with ingestion and inhalation of radioactive and toxic contaminants; a program to obtain samples of soil, fauna and flora from lands at Maralinga and Emu which are contaminated with radioactivity to significant levels; laboratory studies of the bioavailability of plutonium and americium from inhalation and ingestion experiments; the assessment, using contemporary models, of exposures associated with the inhalation of resuspended dust at Taranaki and other contaminated areas for a variety of realistic scenarios; and the detection of radionuclides and toxic contamination in animal tissue, plant, air filter and soil samples by chemical or radiochemical analysis. The cost of these studies has been estimated at $3.4m over two years. As announced on Budget night, $1m has been provided to cover the Australian contribution in 1986-87. I have approached the United Kingdom Government seeking a 50 per cent contribution to the study program in cash or kind and will follow up this matter with the United Kingdom Government during a visit to London in early October. The Government is continuing to work on the refinement of ultimate clean-up options and costs in consultation with the TAG and members of the consultative group. We will be looking at possible further preliminary studies, as and when the need for these has been established. When all necessary information is to hand, an appropriate final clean-up strategy will be formulated. Recommendation 4: Maralinga Commission On 23 January, after ministerial talks in London, I announced that neither the Australian Government nor the United Kingdom Government favoured the creation of a formal Maralinga Commission of the kind recommended by the Royal Commission, both governments taking the view that the matters at issue could be properly resolved only by direct intergovernment negotiation. The technical assessment group and the consultative group, described above, carry out certain functions envisaged by the Royal Commission for the Maralinga Commission. The TAG and consultative group arrangements have worked effectively to date. The Government is receiving scientific advice from the former, and is made aware by the latter of the views of those with a direct interest in clean-up issues. In this way the Government itself makes the decision on the appropriate course of action in these matters, but only after being fully informed of and taking into account the views of the various interests involved. Recommendation 5: Monte Bello Islands Consideration of any clean-up options for the Monte Bello Islands has been deferred by the TAG until proposed Western Australian Government management plans for the Islands have been finalised. The matter is being pursued through the consultative group. The number of warning signs on the Islands is considered adequate at present and they are being maintained regularly. Recommendation 6: United Kingdom to bear Clean-Up Costs The Australian Government's position, as put by me to the United Kingdom Ministers in London in January, is that the statement in the original 1956 memorandum of arrangements relating to the Maralinga site is still an appropriate description of both the legal and moral responsibility of the United Kingdom Government; namely, that: The United Kingdom Government accepts liability for such corrective measures as may be practicable in the event of radioactive contamination resulting from tests on the site. The United Kingdom Government's position is that it remains to be convinced-in the light of the clean-up of the site which did take place in 1967 and the release signed by the Australian Government the following year-that it has either a legal or a moral responsibility. Although some preliminary discussions have taken place on these issues, both governments agreed that at this stage the most constructive course would be to put to one side the question of liability for clean-up costs and to focus attention on what are in fact `practicable' solutions-in cost-benefit terms-to the remaining contamination problems. The immediate need has been a full-scale scientific evaluation of the measures needed, and the costs involved, in order to achieve varying possible degrees of access to, and habitation of, the contaminated test sites. This was recognised by the Royal Commission itself when it said, at conclusion 182: Various options for clean-up were considered but the Royal Commission has not been able to make detailed recommendations because insufficient data were tendered on the levels of risk, options for clean-up and the associated costs. The United Kingdom Government agreed to participate in the required scientific evaluation-being carried out by the technical assessment group, with its two United Kingdom representatives-on a completely `without prejudice' basis, and the Australian Government willingly accepted this. As indicated above, approaches have been made on a possible contribution by the United Kingdom Government to the research program needed to identify clean-up options, but any such contribution would again be without prejudice to the question of responsibility for payment for the final clean-up. Recommendation 7: Compensation to Aboriginal Traditional Owners The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has announced that relocation compensation will be provided to communities with a traditional interest in land within the former Maralinga prohibited area. An amount of $500,000 has been provided in this year's Budget to assist in the provision of roads, a permanent water supply and basic communications, among other facilities. The details of the programs will be worked out with the Maralinga peoples. Conclusions of Royal Commission In addition to the seven recommendations that I have discussed, the Royal Commission also drew some 200 `conclusions', which are spelt out throughout the text of the report, and drawn together in volume III. The Government has taken the view that it is not really either possible or appropriate to respond to each of these statements. We have seen their essential role as being to make clear, individually and collectively, the basis upon which the Commission has made its various recommendations, rather than as being propositions to which a government response is required or would be useful. Some comment does, however, seem called for in relation to conclusion 140, which is in the following terms: Aboriginal people continued to inhabit the Prohibited Zone for six years after the tests. When they were told to leave the Prohibited Zone, some of them perished. When read in conjunction with paragraphs 9.3.50-52 of the report, an inference clearly emerges that Mr R. A. Macaulay, then the Native Patrol Officer, bore some personal responsibility for the deaths, by starvation or dehydration, of three Aboriginal people ordered to leave the prohibited area. Mr Macaulay has written to me taking strong exception to this section of the report, not least because he was not given an opportunity to respond to the particular evidence on which it was based, the matter not having been raised during his own earlier evidence to the Commission. He has denied any such responsibility, and has asked that the Government `not accept' the second part of conclusion 140 as it relates to him. As already indicated, the Government has taken the view that it is not really appropriate or necessary to either accept or reject any of the Royal Commission's conclusions on questions of fact, and a further consideration militating against any specific response here is that the matter in issue may possibly be tested in the course of future litigation. But, in fairness to Mr Macaulay, it should perhaps be said that it does appear from the available documentation bearing upon this issue-which my Department has assembled-that the Commission's report might, with the benefit of further evidence and reflection, have been expressed a good deal more cautiously. It is noteworthy in this respect that the Aboriginal groups' submission, which was clearly much utilised in the drafting of this and other sections of the report, was careful `not . . . to attribute blame' to any of the patrol or peace officers who dealt with the party of Aboriginal people in question, suggesting that `in the end result it was (a) gulf in understanding which contributed to the deaths of the three people'. The Government is concerned that the outstanding issues raised by the Royal Commission's recommendations are resolved in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. The impetus toward achieving this objective is being maintained despite the present budgetary constraints. The studies into the nature, extent and potential hazard of the contamination at the Maralinga and Emu sites will commence as soon as possible. It is expected at this stage that a final strategy on clean-up can be developed within two years, on the basis of results obtained from the initial six studies and other inquiries which may prove necessary. Meanwhile the process of consultation with the United Kingdom, the State governments of South and Western Australia, as well as Aboriginal interests, will continue both directly and through the consultative group process. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.31) —It is becoming more and more apparent from each statement made by the Government on the McClelland Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia that the Royal Commission was not only an embarrassment to the Government, particularly in relation to a number of its so-called conclusions, but also a complete waste of taxpayers' money. Senator Sir John Carrick —And an abuse of human justice. Senator DURACK —As we have heard one example from the Government, it was an abuse of individual rights. There are probably many more such examples in the conduct of the Royal Commission and in a number of its findings. I have had occasion to refer to the Royal Commission's first conclusion. Senator Gareth Evans in his response referred to conclusion 140 and let the former justice, Mr McClelland, off lightly in relation to that matter. Clearly, the Government has been totally embarrassed by what the Royal Commissioner said about Mr Macaulay, without even giving the man the opportunity to be heard. I hope that those senators opposite who interject will reflect for a moment on what the Government has said about the Royal Commission's disgraceful finding and conduct. I would like to refer, as I have done previously, to another marvellous example of the judicial character of the Royal Commission. Conclusion 1 of the Royal Commission's 200 conclusions starts with the words: The Royal Commission received no evidence to disturb the overwhelming impression that the original decision to lend Australia to the United Kingdom for the purpose of the latter's nuclear tests program was taken by Australian Prime Minister Menzies without reference to his Cabinet. To say that there was `no evidence to disturb the overwhelming impression' is an exhibition of judicial ineptitude. Presumably, that impression resided in the mind of the Royal Commissioner, without any evidence. Because no evidence was produced to disturb that Royal Commissioner's impression which, no doubt, he had gained from the strange workings of his mind and his prejudices, he found that the impression was fact. As a revelation of the Royal Commissioner's thinking process, in itself that would be enough to nullify the whole of the Royal Commission's activities. But here we have the Government identifying not only another totally unjustified finding but also a very serious finding against a public servant carrying out his duty, without even giving that person the opportunity of being heard. However, perhaps those are matters upon which we do not need to dwell. I think they need to be mentioned again and again, because no doubt we will hear from several Australian Labor Party senators and Australian Democrat senators what a terribly important finding this was by Mr Justice McClelland, and how the world should be shaken and the Government should be prompted to act upon every word that he uttered. I have no doubt that their reasoning is based on no better evidence than conclusion No. 1 of the Royal Commissioner, to which I have referred. Senator Sanders —You have now spoken for five minutes and you have not introduced anything into the debate yet. Senator DURACK —I propose to spend as long as I am entitled to spend in debating this statement and I do not want to have any of my time wasted by Senator Sanders's inane interjections. Senator Michael Baume —He does not care about human rights. Senator DURACK —No, of course he does not. The Democrats have only their own prejudices to work off. I bet that they will spend half an hour working off their own prejudices and wasting the time of this Senate. In a sense, the Government has now made two responses to this Commission, and they are very important ones indeed. The first response was not made in the Senate. I am not complaining about that. A very important statement was issued by Senator Evans when he was in London in January last year. I notice that he is proposing to have another trip to London. I wonder how many he has had so far this year. No doubt it is very important that he should go back there and negotiate further about these matters. Senator Evans issued an important statement in London following his discussions with the United Kingdom Government. The implication of that statement all about the Royal Commission was that it was a great waste of money, and that the Government was foolish in ever setting it up. He did not admit that, but that has really been the burden of anything the Government has said and done since the report of this Royal Commission was received by it. As I have said, no doubt the Government is thoroughly embarrassed; it ought to be thoroughly embarrassed by the fact that it set up this Commission, wasted all this money and is wasting a great deal of time and effort now in having to respond to the report. At that stage the Government said that it was going to set up a body, which is now called a technical assessment group, the membership of which has been announced and to which Senator Evans has referred in his statement. As Senator Evans said, this group will conduct major technical operations in a proper, scientific way-which the Royal Commission never did, despite the fact that it cost $4m or more. It would have been the appropriate course for the Government to have taken, instead of giving in, as it is constantly doing, to its left wing loony back bench and other elements in the community of that kind. Instead of making a proper assessment, it set up a royal commission and selected a judge, in the person of Mr Justice McClelland as he then was, who it thought would be agreeable to these pressure groups. That was the appropriate course to take, as I said in my response on behalf of the Opposition in January, and our only regret is that the Government did not see fit to take that course in the first place when it decided to do something about the matter. Whether it is justified is not for debate here, but the Government felt that it had to take some step. It now has in place the technical assessment group. It is meeting and has reported to the Minister. Will the Minister let honourable senators have a copy of the report from that group? The Estimates committee will be hearing evidence from the Department of Resources and Energy, and perhaps the Minister could take it on notice that the Opposition would like to see a copy of that report made available. It is no doubt an interesting and important report and may throw a great deal more light on the whole matter than anything done by the Royal Commission or by this Government to date. The Fraser Government and the responsible Minister in that Government, Senator Sir John Carrick, who will speak in this debate, had a great deal to do over many years with cleaning up operations in this area and attempting to assess a number of the problems which the technical assessment group is also addressing. I was pleased that Senator Gareth Evans in his statement referred to two important steps that were taken by the Fraser Government. A register of 15,000 people was put together by the Department under Senator Sir John Carrick, followed by a epidemiological study of 8,000 of them. That is a good example of scientific efforts that were made to resolve these problems. We support initiatives the Government is now taking to obtain further scientific knowledge on this topic as a basis for decision-making and for compensation rather than by the methods adopted earlier by this Government, particularly in its foolish decision ever to set up the McClelland Royal Commission at all. The Government has also rejected, as was announced in January and is confirmed in this statement, a proposal by the Royal Commission to set up what it called a Maralinga commission. Senator Michael Baume, chairman of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee, is present and may take part in this debate, but there was no more foolish waste of money than to set up a royal commission, one of whose main recommendations was to set up yet another commission, namely, the Maralinga commission, to carry on and do work which should have been undertaken by the Royal Commission. The Government has sensibly rejected that recommendation. One wonders what is left of the Royal Commission's findings that is of any significance when the Government has to set up a technical assessment group to perform the work of the Commission and has rejected, for good reason, one of its major recommendations. The Government has dealt with the recommendation about compensation for individuals and, again, that is a response with which the Opposition could certainly agree. There is a deficiency in the existing compensation law of the Commonwealth because it has applied only to those Commonwealth employees, particularly servicemen, who were on the site. However, there were other people employed on the site-they were not Commonwealth employees, but they were there and they were exposed to exactly the same dangers as Commonwealth employees-who are not covered. The Government has now decided that they should be covered, as should other people who were in the area, such as Aborigines and graziers. These people should be given the same rights as Commonwealth employees. As Senator Evans has explained in this statement, those rights will have to be exercised in accordance with the existing laws and even though there is a reverse onus of proof, they will be required to provide adequate proof that they were exposed to a radioactive substance and that that exposure has resulted in a disease. This is an appropriate way of handling this matter. No doubt many people will say that simply because people were in the area they should be compensated for any disease from which they are now suffering. That would be a most foolish approach and would involve the quite unjustified expenditure of public money. The way the Government proposes to deal with this matter is correct and I am pleased that it will police these claims very carefully. Clearly, they must be carefully policed and, indeed, the Government says that it will make use of the full legal process to ensure that compensation is awarded only where it can be proved to be justified. I hope that the Government will stick to its guns on this response because I can well understand that it will be under great pressure from its loony left wing back bench of which I have already spoken. We have seen how the Government has been rolled in the last day or two by those elements. Senator Gareth Evans —Do I look as if I have just been rolled? Senator DURACK —Yes, you are rolling around there giving every sign of it. I assume that there will have to be an amendment to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act to create these rights. Legislation will need to be introduced into this Parliament. Senator Coleman —That will be another opportunity! Senator DURACK —As Senator Coleman says, that will be another opportunity for the back bench to put pressure on the Government and try to roll it. I have no doubt that that will happen. I hope that on this occasion the Government will stick to its guns and not give in to Caucus as it so readily seems to be doing on many issues at present. It has not been standing up for its own convictions. The only other matter that I need mention is the negotiations with the United Kingdom. One of the recommendations of the Royal Commission was that the United Kingdom should bear all the costs of the clean-up. The Commonwealth Government has acted on that recommendation in that it has emphasised the 1956 memorandum of arrangements with the United Kingdom in relation to these tests, which stated: The UK Government accepts liability for such corrective measures as may be practicable in the event of radioactive contamination resulting from tests on the site. However the United Kingdom Government is not prepared to accept that after clean-ups have been carried out on two separate occasions, during the period of the Menzies Government and subsequently of the Fraser Government, and in view of a release which was signed by the Australian Government in 1967, it now has a legal responsibility in the performance of that memorandum of arrangements. The Commonwealth Government may well have great difficulty in persuading the United Kingdom Government to change its mind on that in view of those circumstances. However the United Kingdom Government, as we have already heard, is participating fully with the technical assessment group and no doubt it will be guided very much by its own and other experts on that group in determining whether there is any continuing moral, if not legal, obligation. I have no doubt that the proper procedures are in place, even though they give Senator Evans a nice excuse to have a trip to London occasionally. Senator Gareth Evans —I am going to see Sheikh Yamani as well. Am I allowed to do that? Senator DURACK —That is fine. I am not objecting to that, I am saying that that is a proper course to be taken. Only by sensible negotiations, based on scientific knowledge and facts, will we resolve these matters. They will not be resolved by the sort of grandstanding which so many people have indulged in over this matter. I refer not only to the back bench of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats-and no doubt we will see an example of that shortly from Senator Sanders-but also many other people. This matter will not be resolved by a lot of emotive grandstanding; it will be resolved only by proper scientific assessment and rational negotiations between governments. I am pleased that at long last the Federal Government has seen that this is the appropriate approach to these matters, and has not followed the course recommended by its royal commissioner. The only serious criticism which can be made of the Government over this matter is that it ever set up the Royal Commission in the first place. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.52) —The Senate is debating the Government response to the recommendations of the McClelland Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s. Let me say at the outset that it is very important that there should be the fullest exposure of the facts concerning those tests. Wherever it is possible that radioactivity associated with atomic tests or the use of radioactive materials may impinge upon human health, there should be the fullest exposure of facts. I rise because I have had responsibility in this matter. I say this so that what I say now can be judged and any subjective judgments of mine can be taken into account. I was the responsible Minister in the Fraser Government from 1979 to 1983. As such, I took a number of actions in this regard. In the whole of that time I gave instruction to my own department-which is now the Department of Resources and Energy and the responsibility of the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans-and through that department, with full Cabinet authority, to all departments, including the Department of Health-the Minister will know this-to the effect that there must be the fullest exposure of facts; that we must seek out every individual alive and the records of every individual now dead in order to determine what happened at Maralinga, Emu and the Monte Bellos; and that we should offer to every individual whom we locate a full health check and the fullest facilities for examination for compensation before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. To my knowledge no attempt has been made by any government or any department that is as thorough as this. The Minister in his statement refers to the fact that some 15,300 names were procured. Let me examine what, in fact, happened. Every record that is now held by the Department of Defence of every person who had been associated with those tests and was on record was obtained. The records that were obtained showed not only the names, the ages and the then addresses of those people, but also their full health records, as known then, the areas that they were in in these testing areas and the dosimeters, the recording which showed the radioactivity to which each person was exposed. There was a massive two-year search in Australia through all the records that there could possibly be-through the Australian Electoral Office and every other place-to see whether we could locate these people. From memory some 8,200 people were located alive and were actually contactable and there were some 1,200 to 1,300 death certificates. Every person who was alive was written to and given a very comprehensive questionnaire. Each person was told what we were seeking and was asked to give information. These people were invited to come forward, they were invited to have a health test and they were invited to go before the compensation commission. Indeed, they were pursued again and again. If the questionnaire came in and did not look as if it had been fully filled in they were contacted again. The aim was not to leave one person unaccounted for who might give us some kind of useful evidence. That was done. The death certificates were obtained and the primary and secondary causes of death were examined in an epidemiological study by experts to see whether there were any signs of neoplasms, of carcinogenic disease that could have been caused by radiation. We then proceeded. We advertised in the Press as to what we were doing. We got in touch with all the veterans' organisations, those that were the nuclear veterans' organisations, and we urged them to contact people and to have them come forward. As a result, the report became available and is available to all. Although I would not have hesitated to expose any direct association, I was happy with the consequence which exposed the fact that there was no proof at all of any radioactive influence upon the health, the morbidity or the mortality or the individuals concerned. That report is available for all honourable senators and for the community to observe. But we went further. We encouraged people to have health checks and to go before the compensation commission. In that time we attempted to clean up Maralinga. I do not want to make a political issue of this matter, since it has been made an issue by the Royal Commission. Because the Royal Commission in itself was disastrous, I must say a number of things. I would have welcomed a thoroughly objective commission which was non-political in its basis. In the three years of the Whitlam Government I would have welcomed any attempt whatsoever by the Government to have undertaken a survey and to have shown the slightest concern at all about individuals who had been at Maralinga, Emu or Monte Bello. I would have welcomed a study of Maralinga by a royal commission. Nothing was done. We attempted to find the facts. The simple situation is that the Minister ought to have reported the results of these tests after the tremendous appeal to the Australian people to come forward. The fact is that a relative handful of people, approximately 100 or 200, have come before the compensation commission. We will get this in the Estimates committees. When we analyse it, the number of cases that could be shown, with the reverse onus of proof, to have some connection, were small. When I last heard, there were some five cases before common law. They have, no doubt, been delayed as a result of the Royal Commission. No doubt the Minister's speech will be carefully examined today by their lawyers. Indeed, a number of paragraphs relating to neoplasms and their incidence in this community will be of great interest in these cases. As yet, no case has come before common law which has been fully tested. There are cases before common law. Indeed, there is one case of a man claiming agoraphobia, a fear of open spaces. This was because he had allegedly seen an atom bomb go off. The common law has always been available. It is true to say that it is an expensive way of doing things. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Commonwealth Compensation Commission has been broadened to allow people, other than those who can have access to it now, to come before it. I welcome that and support it fully. The common law has been available and no case has, as yet, been sustained. A number of cases have been before the courts for five, six and seven years and have not yet been proven. That is the background. I am delighted that there should be debate and exposure in Australia on this subject. I have urged that a detailed report should come before this Parliament on the Chernobyl situation. We should be urging the International Atomic Energy Agency to become not just the inspector of atomic weapons around the world-it should be aware of their danger-but it should also be an inspector of the safety factors of reactors. Chernobyl has shown us the importance of the fact that there can be no nuclear free zones in the world, that radiation runs across all boundaries and that there can be no limited wars. Those who advocate nuclear free zones without advocating a world completely nuclear free are peddling propaganda which they know to be false. Senator Sanders —Reagan is the one who wants nuclear war. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Sanders is a classic example of that. Those who talk this emotive stuff should understand that they are doing great damage to the community. On the subject of radioactivity we need to tell the facts as they are, neither by exaggeration nor by diminution. That is the purpose of my rising to speak today. The Royal Commission sought no basic technical evidence. It had nothing substantial before it except the health report that my Government had instituted. It did no tests at all of the ground. Here was a chance for it to do tests of the flora and fauna of the area and it did none. The area itself-I have been all over it-teems with rabbits, hares, dingoes, lizards and snakes, every kind of living fauna that one would find in a desert area. They are all ground foragers and ground eaters, all close to the radioactive particulates that are there and not a test has been done. One wonders how a royal commission could set itself up to decide the dangers in this situation. It did not find this out when it had, for instance, on Monte Bello Island an ecological cycle of sea turtles and all the creatures that feed on turtle eggs. The Government could have done a complete test. I have raised this matter in the Senate a number of times. I asked the Minister to ask the Royal Commission to do these tests. I asked the Minister repeatedly at the Estimates Committee because I could not believe that a royal commission would set itself up to inveigh in the end against radiation and not be able to say: `I have tested the flora and I have tested the fauna and I have found this or that'. Not one bit. It did not know. It did not even scientifically test the area at all. It simply relied on anecdotal evidence. It then came to making a series of assumptions which it hoped, by the force of repetition of prejudice, would become accepted. This is the sad fact, to which I ask the Minister to pay attention, because I want to support so much of what has been done here and the Minister knows that I have tried to be bipartisan in this. I ask the Minister not to carry on, because there is no factual basis for it, with the statement that the black mist not only existed but also was radioactive in causation and did radioactive damage. I put to the Minister that there is no factual evidence at all, only anecdotal evidence on this. I commend the Minister as to much of the journey on this. I believe we ought to be as bipartisan as possible. The fact of the matter is that this black mist has never been tested. There is no evidence except anecdotal evidence on this, yet we are here making decisions on these situations. The Royal Commission made no scientific tests and sought none. The Minister knows that there is some anecdotal evidence-if it were proven, I would acknowledge it-that some Aborigines may have suffered. For example, one person-Yami Lester, a fine person who is well known in the Aboriginal community-is now alleged to have suffered blindness from the black mist. But the records preceding that are full of the fact that ophthalmologists and others, including relatives, have said that Yami Lester's blindness was caused by measles. To simply get an anecdotal statement is to do great damage. If indeed harm was done to the Aborigines, let us expose it. The interesting thing is that the Royal Commission, which now advocates a register, did not seek to forage out all those people or their relatives who were there to get their evidence, yet it has made a finding without any factual evidence at all. I plead with the Minister that the Government should not build upon a prejudice or, at the very least, an unproven statement. There is no scientific proof of the black mist. The Minister will know that AIRAC-the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council, which is the standing body of scientists-has said that there is no such proof. I know that there is controversy on these statements, but no proof of them exists at all. Indeed, there are reports before the Government and the Senate pointing that out. In my judgment it is an outrage for a Royal Commission to use phrases that are emotive and melodramatic when it was set up to find the facts. I plead with the Minister on this. Senator Sanders —Just because you do not agree with the facts does not mean you have to become emotive. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Sanders should not talk to me about facts. The one factual test that has been done is checking every one of the 15,300 people. I am not rising to speak in tones of anecdote or the emotional melodrama that Senator Sanders employs; I am speaking from the force of the greatest examination of individuals that has ever been done in terms of radioactivity. Let the Australian Democrats get up and counter that if they want to. The fact is that we set out to try to get every detail we could and we pleaded with people to come forward. Where has that ever been the case before? If the Minister says that I am not right-that the black mist is not anecdotal-let him bring before us a statement. I invite the Minister to do that because tomorrow I will ask the same question at the Estimates Committee. Let him bring before us a statement of the scientific proof, firstly, that the black mist was caused by atomic explosions; secondly, that it was not just a dust storm; thirdly, that it was radioactive; and, fourthly, that it in fact caused human damage. I would not hide from the fact if it can be proven. If damage was done to Aborigines, let us have the proof. But let us not have people racing around the place making certain statements when they know that there is documentary medical evidence that there were epidemics of both ordinary measles and German measles-rubella-over that period and the deaths of a considerable number of Aborigines were caused by measles. Those people know also that evidence was given before the Royal Commission by an ophthalmologist that Yami Lester had been reported by himself and others in the past as having his blindness caused by measles. Let us look at the next situation. Here is a situation in which the Minister has come before this Parliament and picked out seven recommendations. He said at the end, in rather a coy way, that there are 200 others but that they are not really recommendations at all, and therefore the Government supports just these seven. The interesting thing is that the Minister has picked four to deal with and king hit two of them straightaway. This Royal Commission was set up by this Government under pressure from its left wing. The first recommendation that the Minister king hit was in relation to the national register. He said: `After all, there is a first class one at the moment'. He did not add that it was created by the previous Fraser Government, with full medical knowledge. He also king hit the idea that there should be a Maralinga commission. That does not leave much of what has come before us today. Recommendation 1, the third of the four recommendations, simply takes the principle of the health study, the principle of using the Commonwealth employees compensation commission, and extends it to those who are outside it. I could not commend a recommendation more; it is a very sensible recommendation and it ought to be done. Another interesting thing ought to be revealed. I invite the Minister to produce the figures tomorrow at the Estimates Committee so that we will understand what might be the anticipated impact of this. One should understand what was the impact of questioning the 15,000 survivors who were eligible to come before the Royal Commission, how many people are there otherwise, and what kind of an impact are we likely to find? There is no earthly reason to believe that there is any greater danger of mortality or morbidity in the people who were outside the Commonwealth compensation sphere than those who were inside it. I can only hope, for the sake of themselves and their families, that that is so. As to compensation, if there is a basis for compensation, let us go ahead; so I do not argue on that at all. What I say, as Senator Durack said before me, is that we made agreements over the years with the British in terms of the clean-up of Maralinga. It was competent for the Whitlam Government in its three years of office from 1973 to 1975, if it had felt it necessary from its surveys of Maralinga following the agreement a few years before, to reopen the situation and to say to the British Government: `Let us have another think on this'. It is fundamental to our understanding to appreciate that the Whitlam Government did not even raise a whimper on this situation; it did nothing at all. It knew of the agreement and it had full responsibility for all these sites, but it did nothing at all to challenge the situation. In fact, it approved of that. I can only say now that the common sense of this situation should be not to look to the McClelland Royal Commission in its recommendation that we should try to force the United Kingdom Government to pay the costs, but to come to some kind of working understanding which is sensible, bearing in mind that this is no new-found thing. In the past 15 years Labor governments have had the capacity over six or seven years to do these kinds of things. When one looks at this matter, one comes to a particular conclusion. What a pity it is that, if a royal commission had to be set up-I do not argue against that-it was not set up with specific personnel and specific terms of reference to get facts and not politics. What a pity it is that that Royal Commission was not given the responsibility to get scientific and demographic information and to test flora and fauna. What a pity it is that we have had this huge expenditure on a commission that in the end, by this very report that is before us today, the Government virtually rejects. That is the truth of the matter. Senator Gareth Evans —That is not so. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Well, let us have the Minister say this. He has had today to write off some 200 recommendations as trivia. That is what he casts off. Senator Gareth Evans —What nonsense; they are findings of fact. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let us have a look at the nonsense. The facts are very simple indeed. Senator Gareth Evans —Do not trivialise this debate. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let the Minister run away from his statements. I am holding them in front of me. I read: In addition to the seven recommendations discussed above, the Royal Commission also drew some 200 `conclusions', which are spelt out throughout the text . . . He then goes on to say: The Government has taken the view that it is not really either possible or appropriate to respond to each of these statements. We do not know why. The Minister goes on to say: We have seen their essential role as being to make clear, individually and collectively, the basis . . . But he goes very carefully as soon as he comes to Mr Macaulay and picks him, because Mr Macaulay himself gets right to the sheer indictment of that Commission-that that Commission was not intended to be a judicial commission at all; it was to be a commission that would in fact put out political melodrama. No person could suffer more before a quasi-judicial body than the Mr Macaulays of this world. What a terrible criticism it is of the Royal Commission and a former judge that it is now said: Mr Macaulay has written to me taking strong exception to this section of the report, not least because he was not given an opportunity to respond to the parti- cular evidence on which it was based. Can anyone really justify a royal commission in which we have this kind of kangaroo court situation? Let me just summarise this matter. There were tests in the 1950s and the 1960s in Australia. It has been imperative that we should find the facts. It is important that we distinguish between fruity melodrama and absolute facts. It is absolutely important that we hide nothing at all. It is vitally important that every person, or the family of every person, who has ever been inside that area has not only health tests made available but also compensation if compensation is possible. It is vital that we know what has been happening in Maralinga, Emu and the Monte Bello Islands in the recent past. It is vital to test the flora and fauna. But the Royal Commission did not do that. This technical group-whose report we are seeking from the Minister and which I hope he will let us have tomorrow-is now to set to work so that we can get information. Why did we have a royal commission if this is so? This is a most extraordinary situation indeed. The facts of the matter are perfectly clear. Everybody knows that recommendations such as signposting areas on the Monte Bello Islands still not suited for permanent habitation and collecting small debris are not ones for the future; they are for the government of the day to deal with. My Government in the past dealt with the sealing of pits, with fencing, with bulldozing areas and with putting up signposts. Anyone who knows the area will know that fundamentally this is a continuing job and that with particulate plutonium in small amounts caught up in the dunes around the place, with wind drift and with the various flora capturing these particulates, the scene changes continuously. Therefore, that recommendation is a matter for the government of the day to deal with continuously. As I said at the start, I want to commend the Government for its decisions on extending compensation and on other matters, particularly in the rejection of the fundamental recommendations of the Royal Commission. I want to press with the Government that the Senate should have before it as soon as possible all scientific and factual reports regarding the nature of flora and fauna, the dispersal of radioactive material and the steps that the Government is taking at this moment to check the fencing, the concrete caps of the areas and what is known as the cemetery at the airfield at Maralinga. Let us have this kind of information day by day as it comes out. Above all, let us have in this Parliament, as with Chernobyl and as with the whole argument on nuclear matters, the facts day by day. For my part, the Opposition here stands firmly against the whole future use of nuclear weapons of any kind. We stand for total nuclear disarmament, for a nuclear free world. We reject the nonsense that the propagandists put out about nuclear free zones. There can be only one nuclear free zone; that is a total world. We know that we cannot have limited wars, because Chernobyl has shown that radioactivity is no respecter of national boundaries. So we are vitally interested, both as a coalition and as people, in human survival and in the total removal from this world of nuclear weapons. In the discussion on this whole matter of Maralinga, Emu and the Monte Bellos we are dealing with the fundamentals of radioactivity. I make a personal plea. Let us have facts, not fiction. Let us have truth and scientific values, not melodrama, and for Lord's sake, never again give in to the Left and put up a royal commission purely for propaganda purposes. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.22) —We have listened to two very long speeches from the Opposition parties. Senator Durack indulged in the usual party hyperbole. It took him five minutes to get off the mark. He did not have his facts. Senator Sir John Carrick has made a plea for facts. Senator Durack obviously did not have any; he had not done his homework. But from his statements I did learn that he did not like the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963. I think that this was made abundantly clear. He said it was foolish to set it up at all. He furthermore stated that people should not be compensated, simply because they were in the area, for any disease they might have. I disagree with that totally. I think that people who were in that area should be compensated for any disease that they might have because it might be even remotely related to the nuclear testing. The fact remains-and it is a fact-that the British were criminally negligent in those tests. It has been brought out over and over again that they took no account of the consequences of their action. I think that since they were criminally negligent they should be prepared, or should be forced, to pay. They were completely arrogant. Senator Sir John Carrick gave a more cogent speech and presentation. He too protected the British; he protected nuclear bombs. Senator Sir John Carrick —I protected neither nuclear bombs nor-- Senator SANDERS —He protected nuclear bombs; he protected nuclear energy; he protected nuclear reactors. He made the statement that Chernobyl has proven that there can be no nuclear free zones on earth if we have nuclear reactors-and that is an absolutely correct statement. What follows from this is that we must eliminate nuclear reactors, which is what those in the so-called loony Left, which the Opposition loves to allude to, have been saying all along. There can be no permanent peace on this earth if we have nuclear bombs-which the British were testing-and nuclear reactors. To his credit, Senator Sir John Carrick, unlike Senator Durack, at least recognised the need for the compensation of victims. He pointed out that he had done quite a bit of study in this area and I commend him for this. But I cannot agree with much of anything else that he said. One thing that he noted, which I think we all should note, is that when one has any association with nuclear ionising radiation, one must continue to monitor this for years and years. He said that it is a continuing job for the government of the day to monitor the results of these nuclear tests. That is so. It is a recognition of the long term damage of anything connected with the nuclear fuel cycle. It is something that we must be made aware of over and again. We are not just thinking of ourselves but of our children, our children's children and of some 250,000 years hence in the case of some material. I have often been sceptical of royal commissions. They are often set up to give the appearance that something is happening without anything happening. But this Royal Commission was an exception. It brought out a number of things. The most important was that it indicated the full horrors of what can happen after a nuclear war. Certainly what happened was on only a small scale in that it involved bomb tests; they were not full scale bombs or large bombs by today's standards and nor were they exploded in a city or populated area. But this shows what can happen if we unleash the power in the atom in nuclear war. Specifically, the first recommendation of the Royal Commission is to: extend the benefits of Commonwealth Government employees compensation legislation, including reverse onus of proof, to civilians at the sites, and to Aborigines and other civilians who may have been exposed to black mist. I must say that we have to accept this as anecdotal evidence because we cannot measure it. But simply because we cannot measure it does not mean that it did not exist. If we were to follow Senator Sir John Carrick's argument to its ultimate conclusion, we would have to set off a whole series of tests to see whether they produced black mist and caused blindness and death in the people around. That is utter foolishness. It is like Edward Teller saying that we cannot believe that there will be a nuclear winter as we have to prove it first. How does one prove it? Does one destroy the world in proving these things? On the contrary; we have to take the evidence that exists. There is enough evidence of that black mist to accept it. As was recommended by the Royal Commission, and as the Government states at page 3: The net result of these provisions, in the present context, is that if a claimant can establish that he or she has a disease in fact caused by a radioactive substance, and that he or she suffered exposure to a radioactive substance as a result of being employed or otherwise present at or near the atomic test sites, that exposure will be `deemed to have contributed' to that disease-unless the Commonwealth can establish the contrary. We have reversed the onus of proof, as it should be reversed. Senator Sir John Carrick —It has been reversed for the last 10 years. It was reversed during the time of the Fraser Government. Senator SANDERS —Fine; that is a wonderful thing. We should extend the reversal of the onus of proof into a number of other areas. Often we find that a citizen who has been affected by some action by a polluter or by a government has to establish that he or she has been affected; the burden of proof is on the person who has been affected. It should be for the other side to prove that it has not caused damage to a citizen. Another thing that this Royal Commission and the Government's response to it raises-this is an important issue-is class action. This basically sets up a class of people who can take action. Class actions are a very valuable tool in modern society for getting compensation or redress for people who have been affected by some action not of their making. A mechanism for class actions should be established in Australia. Another issue is that of standing to sue. This does give standing to sue a limited sense. I would like to see in Australia a more broadened standing to sue issue. On page 5 the Government states that there is data available. It has been collected. It states that the second list, compiled by the Australian Radiation Laboratory, is based on a United Kingdom `medical-in-confidence' listing of radiation exposures. I do not know whether this is considered to be the blue book; nobody is saying that it is not the blue book. If it is the blue book, and if it is to be made available to those people who have been affected by the nuclear testing, that is a good thing. In the past, the blue book, that is, the medical evidence of the dosi-meters that were on the people at the test sites, has not been made available to those individuals who were affected. The Government response states: Arrangements can readily be made, building on existing practice, to ensure that compensation claimants and the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation can get access to all relevant material in the Commonwealth's possession. It also states: As a result of extensive searches of Commonwealth files made during the course of the Royal Commission's inquiry, my Department now holds a substantial body of information. It can and will provide such information, relevant to a person's presence or activities during the tests, to that person on request. If this is the blue book information, and it is to be made available to veterans and others involved, this is a great step forward. The whole issue of atomic testing at Mara-linga and in the other areas is an example of hubris, that is, excessive arrogance or pride. We heard much of this during the Nixon regime, during the Watergate affair, when Nixon thought he was above the people and everything and everyone in the world because he was President of the United States of America. We find that our present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, is also exhibiting signs of hubris. Certainly those scientists who put together those atomic tests in the first place were completely arrogant. They completely disregarded anything except their desire to test weapons. In passing, I note that these are the same people who developed the antique reactor at Lucas Heights. Those same people with those same attitudes developed our very ancient reactor at Lucas Heights. That reactor is about 25 years old and as such should be retired along with the attitudes of the people who built it. I will not delay the Senate. I will not speak for 30 minutes as previous speakers have done. I will close by saying that this Royal Commission has pointed out once again that nuclear power in the form of bombs, and nuclear energy in the form of power plants, simply cannot be tolerated on this earth. As Senator Sir John Carrick has pointed out, there can be no nuclear free zones if we have exploding reactors or exploding bombs. That is an indication that we must eliminate all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. In specific terms, in the case of the Monte Bello and other tests, the Government should press ahead and ensure that the Poms live up to their responsibilities towards those who were affected in these tests. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(11.34) —What is most important to comment on in this debate on the Government's response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963 is what is missing from the statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). Things which should be included are completely missing. Firstly, completely lacking from the Minister's statement is any comment of regret that the land and people of Australia suffered from that Bri-tish nuclear testing program. Completely lacking from the statement is any sentiment of sympathy for the people who, 30 years on, are still suffering. Completely lacking from the statement is any expression of sympathy to the families of victims who have died as a result of their involvement at the sites. Also completely lacking is any expression of concern about the ongoing environmental damage caused by those tests. Completely lacking is any political comment about the loss of Australian sovereignty when Menzies, without reference to Cabinet, let alone the Parliament or the Australian people, lent Australia to the British for that very damaging testing program. All of those exclusions, all of those things unsaid, reflect the Government's lack of moral concern about many issues facing Australian society. How can a Government Minister respond to the McClelland Royal Commission, which did take into account moral considerations without mentioning the sad fact that Aboriginal people and their land suffered greatly from the testing program, without expressing any regret at the injustices wrought upon the Aboriginal people, as well as people working on the land, technicians and members of British and Australian services? It is also a great shame that the Government has not made any statement of intent to ensure that Australia would not in future allow itself to be used in that way. Of course it is in an embarrassing position, because successive Australian governments, including the present one, continue to allow Australian sovereignty to be impaired by a country imposing nuclear dangers on Australia. That historical aspect should not be overlooked. In the 1950s an Australian government allowed another country to use Australian soil and back-up services to further its nuclear weapons program. Ever since then, Australian governments have invited nuclear involvement in this country by way of American bases on Australian soil which implicate us in United States nuclear war fighting strategies and which severely hamper Australian sovereignty. That involvement is also obvious as a result of the use of Darwin for the landing of B52 bombers armed with nuclear weapons. That involvement in assisting another country's nuclear war fighting strategies is also evidenced by the frequent visits of nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered warships to various Australian ports, which pose enormous environmental dangers to the people who live in those ports. Right now, there are warships visiting Australian ports in both Western Australia and Queensland. The same kinds of nuclear dangers are conti-nually invited. Australian people are continually put at risk, yet our Government involves us willy-nilly in such nuclear arrangements. The Royal Australian Navy is preparing for its 75th birthday party. I would gladly give my support to the RAN's celebration of that commemoration, except for the fact that the Navy has been silly enough to invite nuclear weapons-capable ships into a number of Australian ports. Many Australians are opposed to that. We object on principle, because we believe that Australia should not be further involved in any nuclear strategies of any nation. Nuclear wea-pons are evil and the threat to use them is evil. Our objection is a basic moral objection to Australia's continual involvement in the insanity of the nuclear arms race. That involvement began with the British nuclear testing program. It continues, 30 years on, with our grovelling subservience to the United States in the ANZUS alliance which, in its origins, was never intended to be a nuclear alliance. The Government is to be commended for commissioning the inquiry. If it were left to the Opposition, these important questions would never have been asked. The Opposition says that it is a waste of time and money even to bother with the leftovers of the testing program. Is it deaf to the tragic stories of people who have suffered? Maybe the Opposition has not heard the stories. However, I have received many letters from victims pouring out their sad stories. Financial compensation will never wipe away the suffering that those people have endured, but at least it is recognition that they have suffered. Much more than that, compensation claims should serve to remind Australian governments of any political persuasion, and the Australian community, that we should not invite future claims for nuclear-related damages by continuing to put Australians at risk, as the present Government is doing. Obviously there was a need to seek facts about the leftovers of the testing program. Looking at the specifics of the Minister's statement, many questions remain. They relate mainly to the delicate question of who pays for the clean-up and who pays for the compensation. I believe that the British Government should take a great deal of the responsibility, despite the release from responsibility signed by the Australian Government in 1968 absolving the British Government after its abysmally inadequate clean-up in 1967. It is clear to many Australians that the British were grossly irresponsible in their use of Australian land and people in their testing program, and of their own servicemen in the process. The fact that such a release from responsibility was signed is not only greatly regrettable but also another indication of successive Australian governments deferring to foreign governments with little regard for Australian sovereignty. I am sure that the Minister will work as hard as possible to make the British Government pay for further clean-up and compensation but if the British Government will not do so, the Australian Government must. The work cannot be left undone. Amounts so far set aside are inadequate. At page 9 of the Minister's statement, under recommendation 3, which relates to the clean-up of Maralinga and Emu and the funding of the technical assessment group to enable it to make its findings, an amount of $3.4m over two years is cited as being necessary. However, in the recent Budget an amount of $1m has been set aside to cover the Australian contribution in that two-year period. The Government is seeking a 50 per cent contribution from the United Kingdom Government. If that money is not forthcoming-I hope that it will be, although I have many doubts-the Australian Government must undertake that responsibility, despite the economic constraints that bedevil the Government at the moment. We cannot allow the clean-ups to be deferred any longer. As the Minister's statement said, an enormous amount of work needs to be done, especially in the Maralinga and Emu areas. A distribution of 22 kilograms of plutonium continues to contaminate those areas. The Aboriginal people who want to move back to those areas have waited long enough. They have waited for 30 years for clean-ups to be conducted in their areas. I do not think that any clean-up program will be totally adequate, because it is difficult to make sure that every bit of radioactive contamination is scraped up and disposed of. As we know only too well, no adequate disposal for radioactive contamination is available to humanity. Recommendation 7 concerns compensation to Aboriginal traditional owners. That subject is glossed over in two paragraphs, with an amount of $500,000 provided in this year's Budget. That is totally inadequate, and a further insult to Aboriginal people who have been the main victims of the testing program. I agree with the Opposition that it is regrettable that the Government takes the line that, with 200 conclusions-apart from the seven major recommendations of the report-it is not possible or appropriate to respond to each statement. Each statement should be responded to in detail by the Government. They were made with a great deal of valuable searching which needs to be continued now by the technical assessment group. It is to be hoped that future governments will never allow Australia to be used again in such a way. I believe that any future government that did so would bring down the wrath of the Australian people-that is, if they knew about it in advance. The problem with all things nuclear in this country is that often we do not know in advance what various governments have planned for us. The secrecy of the nuclear industry world wide is regrettable and it causes many problems to future generations. We must be eternally vigilant to ensure that such a problem does not occur again. More importantly, future Australian governments should reclaim Australian sovereignty. We are still being used in similar ways. Although we are not being used for a testing program, we are being used in more diabolical ways by the United States, a nuclear super-power, by way of its bases, its warships and its B52 bombers landing in Darwin. We are still being used. That is my main point in commenting on the report. It is high time that Australian governments reclaimed Australian sovereignty and listened to an increasing number of Australians who are very concerned about our involvement in the nuclear arms race, as expressed by way of the alliance treaty with the United States but not as written down on paper. The ANZUS Treaty of 1951 does not commit us to hosting American bases on Australian soil. It does not commit us to allowing B52 bombers to land in Darwin. It does not commit us to hosting the visits of nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered warships. The treaty was not intended to be a nuclear alliance. That is what has sprung up in secret over the years, at the invitation of a successive number of Australian governments. That is a totally reprehensible situation. I believe that Australian governments would do well to listen to the increasing number of Australians who are calling for an independent and nuclear free Australia. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I claim to have been misrepresented, Mr President, by Senator Vallentine during her reading of her statement to the Senate. Senator Vallentine was in the Senate when I was speaking earlier today and she either was simply not listening or deliberately misrepresented what I said. Senator Walsh —The statement was probably written before. Senator DURACK —I suppose that it was but I would have thought that, having listened to what I said, Senator Vallentine would have altered it. She said that the Opposition did not care about the situation at Maralinga and that it was happy to leave the position as it stood. That was a totally false statement and one totally at variance with what was said by me and by Senator Sir John Carrick who followed me. We have supported the Government's decisions to set up a technical assessment group to assess the position and obtain scientific facts. We know that Senator Vallentine is not interested in scientific facts. The technical assessment group will assess the facts. Decisions will then be made. We certainly support that approach. On the basis of the information obtained, a further clean-up may well be required and may well be very costly. We have not at any stage criticised that approach. On the day in January this year when that course of action was announced by Senator Gareth Evans, I issued a statement on behalf of the Opposition supporting it. I want to nail completely Senator Vallentine's false assertion that we do not care about the position at Maralinga. Senator Sir John Carrick in his speech made perfectly clear the efforts that he had taken in relation to this problem when he was a Minister in the Fraser Government. This emphasises the concern that we felt then, that we now feel and that we will continue to feel for the proper cleaning up of this operation. The statement which Senator Vallentine read to the Senate-I hesitate to call it a speech-was a total misrepresentation of the Opposition's position. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.47) —I shall speak on the Government's response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia. When one hears the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and reads the report, one can only feel once again the concerns and fears expressed in the Senate on 13 March 1986 when we spoke briefly about the Royal Commission's report and the technical assessment group. Since then, we have come a long way. We now have the Government's response. The Opposition's case has been put forward by the shadow Minister, Senator Durack, and by Senator Sir John Carrick. The Senate should be reminded that Senator Sir John Carrick was a Minister in the Fraser Government at the time of the investigation. I think that everyone must agree that his grasp of the matter should be acknowledged. Senator Sir John Carrick made a fine speech, giving the facts to support his references. This is a matter of great concern. I have some sympathy with Senator Gareth Evans who, in introducing the subject, said: Some of these recommendations raise complex policy issues, some involve delicate intergovernmental negotiations, some cannot be finally addressed without extensive further technical research. He went on. Obviously, Senator Gareth Evans is in a difficult position as well. One of the first points which must be noted is that the Federal Government has accepted as fact the existence of the black mist, in spite of a good deal of controversy which persists as to the existence of that phenomenon. The Royal Commission made seven recommendations. Recommendation 2 calls for the compilation of a national registrar of nuclear veterans, Aborigines and other persons who may have been exposed to the black mist or exposed to radiation at the tests. Senator Gareth Evans said: The Government, nonetheless, is conscious of the importance of the matters dealt with in the Royal Commission report-especially for the Aboriginal traditional owners and those claiming to have suffered illness or injury as a consequence of the United Kingdom tests. That was a reference to the black mist. Obviously the Government has now accepted that. Evidence on the black mist was gathered from a small number of people. It is worth while noting that the British Government's position is that it has received no hard evidence to convince it of the existence of this phenomenon and, if it did exist, no evidence to link it with the testing carried out at Maralinga. Senator Sanders is always interrupting. Perhaps it would be a good idea if he, too, looked at this rather dubious report which was brought out by the McClelland Royal Commission. The Government, in its response to the Royal Commission's first recommendation-that compensation legislation be extended to cover those who may have been exposed to the black mist-has accepted that recommendation. That is in spite of the controversy surrounding the very question of the existence of the mist. The evidence given to the Royal Commission came from a very narrow area and I will have a little more to say about that later. One can foresee some difficulty in determining who have been exposed to this phenomenon and what the results of this exposure have been. I was interested to see that the Federal Government has rejected the Royal Commission's second recommendation that a national register of those exposed to the so-called black mist be compiled. The Government had decided that it would be virtually impossible to produce such a list-that could be because no one has ever been exposed to any such thing-and so there is not a single person who could be placed on such a list. Once again, I ask the Senate to take note of what Senator Sir John Carrick said when he was a Minister in the Fraser Government. His endeavours to bring about a list of the people involved were considerable. Assuming that there are people who have been exposed to the black mist, surely it would be beneficial to commence, even at this late stage, the compilation of data which could produce a clearer picture of what has occurred and its effects. This is a serious matter. At this stage, the Government has evidently decided to accept the recommendation, which was based on little evidence, despite the fact that there is no concrete evidence that black mist was associated with the Maralinga blast. I ask the Government not to accept out of hand the conclusion that black mist did exist, because, as I have said, a narrow area of evidence was involved. I believe in the necessity for an accurate assessment of the whole matter. I believe that it should be further investigated. Perhaps two organisations could be given that responsibility-the technical assessment group and the consultative group. Whatever the Government decides to do, I believe that, before it takes any further steps, it must ensure that there is adequate evidence to support the view that black mist existed. When one looks at the report of the McClelland Royal Commission, one can see what an amazing report it is. It contains some of the most unusual statements made by Mr Justice McClelland as Chairman of the Royal Commission. One must have doubts about whether black mist exists. Let me give an example of how Mr Justice McClelland's thinking was coloured. On 13 March 1986 during the debate in the Senate on British nuclear tests in Australia, I quoted from a letter written by Senator Sir John Carrick. Senator Sir John Carrick said then: A stark insight into the subjective mental processes of the commission's chairman is revealed by this statement. Mr Justice McClelland's statement was: I used to see her (Mrs Thatcher, the British Prime Minister) on those cold winter nights looking at British television and formed such a loathing for her that it got out of control. That statement was made by Mr Justice McClelland of the Royal Commission, a judge of Australia, yet he is supposed to have brought a stable, balanced report to the nation. The judge indicated some of his feelings. He said that he had such a loathing for the British Prime Minister that it got out of control. But, of course, she is not the only person who has been attacked by the judge. There are very many more. Senator Gareth Evans should listen to what Mr Macaulay has to say. He, as an individual in Australia, has been libelled and labelled by this Royal Commission without even being given the opportunity to come before it and answer the charges that have been made against him. I commend Senator Gareth Evans for indicating that this aspect of Mr Justice McClelland's report should be handled with caution. I cannot say that I am surprised by the third and sixth recommendations of the Commission, which are for a clean-up of Maralinga and Emu, the cost to be borne by the British Government. One has only to look at the colour of the report to see that there is, perhaps, a little instability and lack of balance here. I noted in an article in Quadrant dated March 1986 by one of my colleagues in another place, Alexander Downer, and entitled `McClelland Royal Commission' a quotation from a former Federal Labor parliamentarian that a government should never set up a royal commission unless it is certain of the outcome. That is a rather unusual statement for a senior Labor person to make. I invite those honourable senators who are interested in the subject to read that excellent article in Quadrant. I cannot help feeling that the Government, in setting up this Royal Commission, has heeded the advice alluded to in the article. The Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice McClelland, has demonstrated that he held strong views concerning this matter and had drawn conclusions adverse to the British Government even prior to hearing the evidence. He is on record as referring to the mess which exists in central Australia and describing the tests as `awful mistakes' prior to hearing the evidence as to whether a mess existed at all. As I have said, it is an incredible report. Other choice comments of McClelland include his reference to former Prime Minister Robert Menzies, who was Prime Minister at the time of the tests, as `lickspittle of the British'. Senator Childs —That is all reality. That is factual. It is a commonly held view in the community. Senator KILGARIFF —I would like to see those interjections reported in Hansard. As to the British themselves, the Royal Commissioner made no secret of his antagonism towards them. Recommendations 3 and 6 of the Royal Commission reflects the Commissioner's desire to get his pound of flesh. I suppose that it should not come as too much of a surprise then, to see that the Federal Government is taking advantage of these recommendations. Given that the cost of the clean-up is estimated to be between $100m and $200m, the Minister's comment that the resolution of this recommendation and recommendation 6-that the cost be borne by the British-will involve delicate intergovernmental negotiations is putting it rather lightly. It is incredible that the Federal Government, as the Minister has stated today, is not even prepared to state its position with regard to accepting as fact the findings of the Royal Commission yet is clearly prepared to ask the British Government to foot the bill for a clean-up. Our Government is prepared to accept that the black mist occurred, as I have said once again, on the basis of highly controversial evidence and it is paying additional moneys to Aboriginal people-call it compensation or whatever-in some sort of attempt to pay something to somebody, or perhaps to anybody at all. The McClelland Royal Commission surely has been wasteful of public money. It has not produced any scientific evidence which would justify its recommendations. I think this has been adequately put to the Senate by Senator Sir John Carrick. However, the Government is now stuck with the situation. At least we have a technical assessment group and a consultative group which are groups of expert people. Let us hope that at least they can get the book straight as to what occurred, what the responsibilities are and who was affected. Once again I stress, as has Senator Durack and Senator Sir John Carrick, this key situation of the black mist. I repeat: The evidence was drawn from a very narrow quarter. It has not been substantiated. I believe that Senator Gareth Evans is a fair person. He has indicated, at least in regard to Macaulay's position, that we should deal with this matter with caution. Before anything further is done, let him get his experts at work to investigate this matter thoroughly this time. Did the black mist exist? If the black mist existed, did it have anything to do with the Maralinga blast? Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Motion (by Senator McIntosh) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for report: The adequacy of current contingency planning by Federal and State authorities to deal with the accidental release of ionising radiation from visiting nuclear powered or armed vessels in Australian waters and ports. Motion (by Senator Sanders) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901 to give effect to the policy whereby Australia will refuse to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific region. Bill presented by Senator Sanders, and read a first time. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(12.04) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill has one purpose-to enact a clause of the policy of the Australian Labor Party. It prohibits the supply of uranium to France until France stops testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. The Bill will be the basis of amendments to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. These amendments will strengthen the Treaty and give a clear signal that Australia is opposed to French nuclear testing in the Pacific. Our reasons for taking this action are straightforward. We believe that it is utter hypocrisy to ratify a treaty when the Government has seriously undermined it in its relentless drive for export dollars. The fact is that the Treaty only bans one nuclear-related activity which is presently taking place in the South Pacific-the testing of nuclear weapons by France at Mururoa. Yet that is the activity that the Government has just given its moral assent to, against the wishes of most Australians and key nations in our region. A poll commissioned by the ABC's 7.30 Report showed that 58% of Australians oppose the sale of uranium to France, while only 38% support it. Four South Pacific Forum nations-Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Fiji-have condemned the Government's action. Papua New Guinea may reverse its earlier decision to ratify the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. As the largest and most influential non-European nation in the region, this could be the death knell of a treaty which is already almost worthless. Their concerns are well-founded. In 41 atmospheric tests before 1974, and over 70 underground tests since, France has severely polluted the South Pacific region and beyond. It has consistently blocked attempts to investigate the effects of the tests on the Polynesian people. There is no doubt, however, that the indigenous people have been severely affected. French Polynesian peace activists claim that France has secretly flown islanders to Paris for cancer treatment. This 19th century colonial attitude is part of the French ambition to influence the balance of power in the Pacific. An end to testing at Mururoa is unthinkable to them, because of the implications for New Caledonia, the base from which they want to project their military might. At the very time that France is trumpeting this ambition by dismantling their small steps towards Kanak independence, we have told them that all is forgiven. Leaving the ban in place was and is the only sensible option, morally and politically. It was therefore a shock that a Government whose Prime Minister is renowned for seeking consensus should not have taken the path of least resistance. However, the Government's reasoning becomes clear when its statements are examined. In accusing the anti-nuclear movement of acting with `ulterior motives', the Prime Minister must have been making a Freudian admission of his own hidden agenda. The scrapping of the ban has been rationalised, most particularly by Mr Hawke, on the grounds that it was having no effect on France's dangerous nuclear testing at Mururoa. In fact, said the Prime Minister, France was laughing all the way to the bank, as it was able to buy cheaper uranium on the spot market. Yet in the same breath, we were told that the Australian Government is confident that we can capture 25 per cent of the French uranium market from the late 1980s or the early 1990s. Why would France consider entering into more long-term contracts with Australia if it can get cheaper uranium elsewhere? The answer is that France does want long term contracts from reliable suppliers. Buying on the spot market gives no guarantee of continuous supply. France must be willing to pay extra to buy our uranium, otherwise the Government's desire for a quarter share of their market is wishful thinking. When all the Government's rationalisations are brushed aside, it is obvious that its action is designed to serve one purpose-to signal to France that we will, in future, be a reliable source of supply. This decision indicates a major expansion in uranium exports from Australia, including, eventually, the opening of new uranium mines in addition to Roxby Downs. The only reason this last plank of the ALP's quasi anti-uranium policy has not yet been broken is that there is no point in buying another party fight now. There is no call for new mines given the current uranium over-supply. However, when the decision is made, it will be made solely on economic grounds. If the ALP is in government at that time, there will be no tears shed by these captives of the New Right as they overturn party policies yet again. The Government's designs on the French market show that the ban must have been working. It must have posed a threat to France's expanding nuclear power program and its burgeoning nuclear weapons arsenal. With a secure supply of Australian uranium for energy production, France is well placed to obtain uranium for bombs from less scrupulous sources in the Third World-such as two of its present suppliers, Niger and Namibia-and from its own reserves. Uranium from Niger has assisted Pakistan, Libya and Israel in their covert quests for nuclear weapons, while the huge Rossing mine in Namibia fuels South Africa's bomb program. This highlights the nonsense of our bilateral safeguards agreements. All of our hand wringing and careful accounting is reduced to a farce when France can get ample uranium from Niger and Namibia, with no strings attached. France, in turn, has shown a complete disregard for world security in its role as a nuclear supplier. It supplied the Dimona 2 reactor to Israel in 1963, which Israel has used to produce plutonium for ten to twenty Hiroshima-sized bombs, according to a 1976 CIA report. It has helped Pakistan, which is on the verge of building the `Islamic Bomb', to develop a reprocessing facility which could produce weapons-grade plutonium. It supplied reactors and fuel to Iraq, whose nuclear weapons ambitions were only thwarted by Israel's attack on the Osirak reactor in 1981. It has had nuclear links with India, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa, all of which have an actual or desired nuclear weapons capability. Most importantly, France does not draw a distinction between the civilian and military nuclear fuel cycles. The Superphenix fast breeder reactor, supposedly a civilian plant, has been earmarked by numerous French officials as the only source of plutonium able to fuel France's expanding nuclear weapons program. France refuses to say whether the Superphenix will be used for weapons manufacture. In spite of their appalling nuclear record, we are prepared to bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best. In proceeding at breakneck speed with its nuclear power program, France is a likely location for the next Chernobyl. And in planning to build 600 nuclear bombs between now and 1995, France is striving to become the third nuclear super-power. The Hawke Government is willing to help them achieve both milestones, despite the fact that the Pacific will continue to suffer from French nuclear imperialism. The Australian Democrats appeal to those who believe that ethics transcend economics to join with us and pass this Bill, in accordance with the wishes of a large majority of Australians, and the nations of the South Pacific. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: (1) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing or Sessional Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Order of the Business for Thursday, 18 September 1986 be as follows: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Questions (5) Ministerial Statements, by leave (6) Presentation of Papers (7) Adjournment. (2) That the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, at its rising on Thursday, 18 September 1986, adjourn till Monday, 22 September 1986 at 2 p.m. Consideration of House of Representatives message resumed from 16 September. Schedule of the Amendment made by the House of Representatives in place of the Amendment made by the Senate to which the House has disagreed- Clause 8, page 3, omit the clause, substitute the following clause; `8. (1) A person shall not publish, or otherwise disclose to any other person, the whole or any part of a class A document that has been prepared by the Commission, the staff of the Commission, or counsel assisting the Commission. Penalty: (a) where the defendant is a natural person-$5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months, or both; or (b) where the defendant is a corporation-$100,000. `(2) Sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to anything done- (a) in accordance with an authority given under sub-section 7 (4); or (b) for the purposes of any proceedings for an offence against sub-section (1). `(3) In this section, ``class A document'' has the same meaning as in section 7.'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.08) —I move: That the Committee does not insist upon the amendment disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and agrees to the amendment made by the House of Representatives in place thereof. The basic issue with which we are now confronted is the amendment pursued by the Government in this place, unsuccessfully, and then moved by way of an amendment in the House of Representatives to the Senate's treatment of the Bill before the Senate rose for the recent adjournment. The effect of the Government's amendment is to place a general prohibition on disclosure of any of the material or information in the possession of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, not just by anyone associated with the Commission, but by anyone else, and with quite substantial penalties being provided for anyone who so acts to put this material into the public domain. The Opposition, however, with the support of the Australian Democrats, has pursued a different course, wanting-and no doubt it will be moving for it again here today-a much more limited provision which would apply only to prohibit the disclosure of documentary information by members of the Commission, Commission staff and so on. The Government wishes to pursue its own position on this as stated in the House of Representatives and as in the proposition now before us. Let me say why. The unique terms of reference of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry authorised an unprecedented inquiry into all aspects of the conduct of a particular individual. It was unprecedented. There has never been anything like this in the history of government in this country-the nature of the investigation itself and the width of it, with nothing barred from access by the Commission's inquiry procedures. In the light of the tragic developments of which we are all now so unhappily aware concerning Mr Justice Murphy's health, the allegations that have been collected by and prepared in the Commission will not now ever be tested before the Commission. Indeed, the Commission has not at this stage, so far as its members are concerned, even begun to examine whether those allegations have any foundation at all. All that they have concerned themselves with so far is the collection of material which is sufficiently precise in character to constitute an allegation for the purposes of its enabling legislation. A number of the allegations-perhaps all-are as likely as not to prove, when tested, to be absolute and complete scuttlebutt without any foundation at all. The other thing that has happened in the Commission of Inquiry so far is that a purely legal ruling has been made by all three members of the Commission on the meaning of `proved misbehaviour', but that does not go in any way to the factual questions here in issue. As has been stated by me in previous debate in this place, and again by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the other place, it would be unconscionable and oppressive to allow any part of untested allegations prepared in the Commission to be circulated. It would be the hounding of a dying man and it would be a grave injustice to his family. We have already seen the kind of thing that is likely to happen with the squalid story, joining so many other squalid stories before us and likely to come in the future, in the National Times on Sunday of 7 September 1986, when the same old familiar gaggle of allegations about alleged unsavoury associations got yet another airing-whether on the basis of information supplied through Commission sources from material that would not otherwise have been available to the paper or whether supplied directly by the persons making the allegations we are not aware of. So it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty whether this particular publication would be the kind of thing that was prohibited or not on the basis of the Government's legislation that is now before us. I make no comment about whether or not it would be caught, because I do not know enough about the paper's sources of information. But one can say that it is exactly the kind of mean-spirited, squalid collection of scuttlebutt which has been the trademark of that publication through the whole course of this unhappy affair. It is not contributing anything to the public weal or to the national or public interest, and I would hope that it is not contributing anything to the circulation of the paper. It is a classic example of the kind of hounding process that it is the intention of this legislation, if our amendment is carried, to remove for the future. The Government amendment to clause 8 will add a new sub-section (1) which deals precisely with the main problem as I have described it. The amendment is limited to documents that were prepared by the Commission and staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission relating to conduct by Mr Justice Murphy. I stress that the amendment does not apply to any documents prepared by other persons that were received or obtained by the Commission, nor does it apply to any steps that persons who have supplied any information or document to the Commission may wish to take to supply that information or document to other persons. In other words, to repeat, if someone who has made an allegation to the Commission or prepared a document himself which he has tendered to the Commission or produced a document to the Commission wants now to go public in some way to disclose that material to somebody else, he is at liberty to do so. The only thing that is prohibited is the disclosure of information that only exists, as it were, by virtue of the Commission, either as a result of having been prepared by it or that being the only route by which someone has had access to it. The amendment is to be contrasted with that proposed and foreshadowed by the Opposition, which I shall speak to now to save time later, although it has not yet been formally moved. The Senate Opposition amendment will allow persons other than persons connected with the Commission to publish documents containing material relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy, and so it does not operate widely enough to close off those avenues of disclosure which we believe in conscience and fairness ought to be closed. The second problem with the amendment in the terms drafted and circulated is that, insofar as it singles out the members of the Commission themselves, it is uniquely, unprecedently and profoundly offensive to the members of the Commission. That, in short, is our reaction to the Opposition's amendment. Our own amendment will eliminate the singling out of the members of the Commission, their staff and counsel, but the Opposition's amendment perpetrates this. On this question of the offensiveness of the Opposition's amendment, I simply mention further that the Government has had advice from the Secretary of the Commission that all members of the Commission consider the Opposition's amendment `grossly offensive' to persons associated with it. That is a perfectly understandable reaction and it is one that I now communicate to the Committee. Senator Sir John Carrick —That comes from the Commission? Did you seek it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I certainly did not seek it; I am advised that is the nature of a communication that we have received. Senator Sir John Carrick —From where did the advice come? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I said, it came from the Secretary of the Commission. I am not sure whether it was given orally or in writing. I am advised now that it was an oral communication from the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department. Senator Durack —It is a funny way for a commission which is a parliamentary body to communicate to the Parliament. It is very funny. Senator GARETH EVANS —What do you want to do? Call the members to the Bar of the House? Do you want Mr Justice Blackburn and Mr Andrew Wells to come here? Senator Durack —If they have already communicated with the Parliament before in a proper way, why can't they-- Senator GARETH EVANS —The point is that there is no precedent in any Commonwealth legislation for singling out members of royal commissions in relation to this kind of secrecy provision. There are precedents, which I mentioned when we were previously debating this, of which I was aware and on which I thought this clause was based, imposing a secrecy restriction on the staffs of various bodies, but there do not appear to be any precedents at all for, in effect, singling out royal commissioners. Senator Sir John Carrick —Is a judge, in law, any more important than a layman? Senator GARETH EVANS —I simply record the fact that it is unprecedented and has been regarded by members of the Commission as offensive. Senator Sir John Carrick —I ask you: Before you and before the law, has a judge more right to protection than a layman? Senator GARETH EVANS —Certainly not to me. I think I have made that clear by my contributions over the years. I make the point that one proceeds on the assumption that judges do not have to be subjected to the kind of statutory discipline that the Opposition imposes upon them by being singled out for attention. Senator Sir John Carrick —Why? You singled out their staff. Senator GARETH EVANS —They would have been dealt with. I make it clear that the Government's amendment did not exclude members of the Commission from the general obligations; it just did not go down the offensive presentational track of singling them out to the exclusion of other classes of people who might be equally liable to disclose information and in that way equally put at risk the values that we are trying to protect. That is the point. It is a presentational point rather than a substantive point. There is no question of excluding them from liability. That is really as much as needs to be said on this already overly debated matter. As I have said, the Government agrees with the amendment made by the House of Representatives and wishes the Committee to agree to it too. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.21) —First of all, I wish to deal with this red herring that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has introduced into this debate-namely, the alleged views of the commissioners. He admits that they have orally communicated their offence or displeasure at an amendment that has not only been proposed by the Opposition but also passed by this chamber and communicated to the House of Representatives. That displeasure was allegedly communicated orally to a staff member in the Attorney-General's Department. I would have thought that this was a most extraordinary claim to make in this debate, and extraordinary in a number of respects. If such indignation were felt by members of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry one would have thought that some better evidence of it would have been produced than this throwaway line by Senator Evans in the course of his recent remarks. Another extraordinary aspect of it is that this displeasure has been voiced to the Government, which is in no way responsible for the amendment. It has been fighting it tooth and nail and, if any displeasure were felt, one would have thought it would have been directed at those responsible, namely, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. I can assure the Senate that I have certainly had no displeasure communicated to me, nor, as far as I am aware, has the shadow Attorney-General. I will make some further inquiries about that in case he has had some displeasure directed to him. This is really a quite extraordinary procedure and I must say it only raises doubts in my mind as to how serious was this conversation that has now been retailed, quite improperly, by Senator Evans in this chamber and inserted into this debate. The third extraordinary feature of this red herring introduced by Senator Evans is that if this displeasure is a fact, the commissioners have communicated their views in a most extraordinary way. Presumably they would have completely overlooked the fact that they were set up by this Parliament. The signal feature of this Commission-as Senator Evans keeps emphasising-is that it is unique; it has been set up by the Parliament to carry out this wide-ranging investigation into whether Mr Justice Murphy may have been engaged in any misbehaviour in constitutional terms. The Commission has already communicated its views in several respects in the proper way, namely, to the Presiding Officers. We have already had two reports from the Commission, one of which was to the Presiding Officers, and the Commission therefore clearly understands how its views should be made known to the Parliament. Senator Gareth Evans —What about its communication to Spender which you want to table here? Is it improper for the Commission to communicate its views to John Spender? Is that improper? You are about to table a letter; you told me. Senator DURACK —That is a matter of communication. Senator Gareth Evans —Well, the other matter was a matter of communication to us. Senator DURACK —In our letter the Commission was responding to questions that were asked. That is completely different from expressing a view about something that Parliament has done. It is a totally different matter. Here we have Senator Evans introducing another red herring into this debate. For a start I had not even raised this matter. Admittedly I will be doing so, and I will now do so probably with a great deal more fervour than I would otherwise have had. The fact is that, if the Commission wishes to communicate its views about a particular matter to the Parliament, it has already followed the right course on two occasions and I would be very surprised if it were seriously communicating its views on such a matter in the way that Senator Evans has indicated. Whatever the views of the Commission, I do not think they are relevant to this chamber's consideration of the matter. In debates here we do not usually have given to us the views of judges or public servants on what we should or should not do. I do not pay any more attention to these alleged views than I would to the views communicated to me by any other citizen, even if they had been properly and seriously submitted to us. I am sorry that I have had to spend so much of my short time in opening this debate in dealing with this complete red herring introduced quite improperly by Senator Evans. The Government has rejected in quite inadequate terms the amendment which was made in the Senate to clause 8 of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill 1986, because it has now proposed an alternative clause to its original clause 8. Indeed, this is another example of the hasty and ill drafted nature of this Bill-we have had it before us for some time-to repeal the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. In clause 8 the Government had originally proposed the following: A person shall not disclose- (a) any allegation relating to the conduct of the Honourable Lionel Keith Murphy derived from a document received . . . by the Commission, the staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission; or (b) any information or statement disclosing any consideration by the Commission . . . any particular allegation . . . There will be a penalty on a person of $5,000 or imprisonment and a penalty on a corporation of $100,000. The Government has proposed an alternative clause, which reads as follows: A person shall not publish, or otherwise disclose to any other person, the whole or any part of a class A document that has been prepared by the Commission, the staff of the Commission, or counsel assisting the Commission. A class A document is a document that contains material relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy. The penalty remains exactly the same as the penalty in the Bill and there is no difference in substance between the Government's proposed amendment to clause 8 and the one that exists in the Bill. It introduces for, I believe, the first time in this country a very severe penalty indeed on any person, particularly on the Press. That is the reason for the $100,000 penalty on a corporation. The legislators had in mind the Press. The Bill includes draconian penalties on anybody publishing material which is by some other statutory provision made confidential. Where we have laws providing for confidentiality and non-disclosure of material-that is done in the Crimes Act itself in relation to public officials, Ministers and others-the obligation is placed on a person not to disclose information of a confidential character. This obligation is imposed on many people who are under agencies, statutory or otherwise. But these provisions-not even the Crimes Act does this-make it an offence, attended by draconian penalties, to publish material which may have come into a person's hands in a perfectly lawful way or certainly not in an unlawful way. Indeed, it would have been open to governments of all complexions for all time to very simply cut off leaks, which governments are always very upset about, by including in the Crimes Act a simple proposal of the kind proposed by the Government. If the Government is serious about stopping leaks and stopping publication of its material, I would like to see it introduce an amendment to the Crimes Act to put a $100,000 penalty on a paper which publishes a confidential document which it is an offence for a person to disclose. This is a most serious departure by the Government from the freedom of expression and the freedom of the Press in this country. Its alternative amendment is absolutely no different in substance from the one in the Bill and which this Senate rejected and replaced with the amendment I moved before and which I propose to move again. I move: Leave out all words after ``House of Representatives'' (first occurring), insert: ``, does not agree to the amendment made by the House of Representatives in place thereof, and makes a further amendment to the Bill, as follows: Clause 8, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ``8. (1) A person who is, or has at any time been, a member of the Commission, a member of the staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission shall not, directly or indirectly, disclose to any other person or make use of any document or information to which the first-mentioned person has had access by reason of being or having been such a member or counsel. ``Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months, or both. ``(2) Sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to- (a) the performance of any act otherwise authorised by this Act; or (b) anything done in accordance with an authority given under sub-section 7 (4).''. This procedure is a rather technical one. I have had to make a technical amendment to our original amendment because the original amendment was drawn up on the basis of a series of amendments to the Bill and it was on the assumption that those amendments may be carried. This amendment was drafted accordingly. However, as our other amendments were not agreed to and different amendments were agreed to in the Senate it has become necessary to make this technical amendment. Let me stress that the substance of this amendment is exactly the same; that is, an obligation is simply placed upon the members and staff of the Commission not to disclose any of the material before it to which they have had access. In other provisions of this Bill there are ways in which that material will be disposed of, but we are not debating it again today. Indeed we are not debating again the whole issue of repealing the Parliamentary Commission, as that has already been disposed of. This is simply a means which the Opposition believes is a fair way of retaining confidentiality for a certain period by this method. It is based on a number of precedents in other statutes where people are the custodians of confidential material, but it does not take this giant step backwards-the Government's proposal is a giant step backwards-in freedom of expression and freedom of the Press in this country. The Government's amendment will make it a very serious offence to publish any material of that kind which comes into the hands of other people in a quite lawful way. The Opposition certainly sticks to the principle of its amendment and I have moved accordingly. Unfortunately there are a number of other matters that I wished to pursue. I will have to leave them to a later stage in the debate. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.30) —I believe the issue we are debating needs to be put in some perspective. I am not at all sure how relevant a number of the items that have been raised so far in the debate really are to the issue that is paramount. It does not seem to me to matter terribly much whether or not the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry is upset about the way the particular amendment is worded. After all, the Government also wished to include the Commission in its prohibitions. It is upset about the words. I am not sure how important that is. In fact, I cannot see that it is of any importance in terms of the issues that are involved here. The Australian Democrats objected to the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. However, with the support of the Opposition parties the Government chose to go ahead and to have an inquiry. It should never have been held and we are now facing the problem of how we can close it down. When the terminal illness of Mr Justice Murphy was made public we called for the Commission to be closed down immediately. At least the Government saw the sense of closing it down at that stage. Natural justice and the ability of Mr Justice Murphy to defend himself were obviously removed and it would have been an absolutely gross operation for the Commission to continue. I believe that a lot of the public debate since that time has consisted of hounding a dying man and I think it has been one of the more disgraceful episodes of Australia's political life. For some reason that entirely escapes me a number of spokespersons for the Opposition seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the documents have been divided into a variety of categories. As I said last time, every allegation which has been made to the Commission has, of its very nature, to be in the possession of at least one other person in the community. In fact, the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill to close the Commission down is so worded that these allegations are able to be communicated to any other body that may conceivably have any other interest in them, whether it be the National Crime Authority, the Australian Federal Police or any other body. There is nothing within this Bill to prevent anybody who has made those allegations from remaking those allegations to anybody to whom they feel desirous of so doing and courting any particular legal penalty or running up against any laws of defamation or libel that they wish to run up against. The other document-the document seeking information of a technical kind with regard to the Constitution-has also already been made public, as I believe it should have been. The only documents we are discussing here are the working papers of the Commission; that is, lists that the Commission has made after sorting through the various allegations that have been made, lists of unfounded allegations. That is the type of thing about which we are talking. It does not seem to me that they are the types of things that should be floating around. In fact, we said at the time-we stand by this-that we think the whole lot should be bundled up and burnt. The Government went into an arm waving exercise about witch hunting or something else, and said that it would not do so. Senator Gareth Evans —Book burning. Senator MACKLIN —Book burning, was it? I do not see that it is any use when we have this unprecedented situation where Mr Justice Murphy is unable to rebut these allegations, when further down the path we would not have a report which may rebut unfounded allegations. In fact, this whole sorry business is the result of the way this thing was set up. I remind the Senate that it was set up by the Government with the support of the Opposition. We believe that the Government's solution will not achieve the ends that it has sought to achieve. We have already seen that. I do not know whether the Minister reads the National Times on Sunday, but the article has been in there since we had the last debate and it would have been in there regardless of what this Parliament had done in terms of these amendments. We were talking about a penalty of $100,000. In media terms, for a newspaper which is just starting off and is seeking penetration of readership, fairly obviously $100,000 is cheap; it is peanuts. If the newspaper could get into court on that operation, it would probably be quite happy. The facts of the matters are that by giving the attention the Government has chosen to give to those documents, it has enabled the National Times on Sunday to increase its circulation, because it has given credence, support or airing to a certain range of documents which most people in the community would find dead boring if they actually had to read them. Senator Michael Baume —What about the threat of gaoling journalists? Senator MACKLIN —Senator Baume will have his time to speak later on. Senator Michael Baume —What about the threat of gaoling the journalist? Senator MACKLIN —I think the National Times on Sunday would be happy to have one of its journalists threatened with gaol; it would be a marvellous boost to circulation. The point I am making is that the proposals the Government has made in no way protect Mr Justice Murphy. That may be what the Government is intending to do, but its actions do not do that. That is our reason for objecting to them. I am not at all sure about the Opposition's wringing of hands with regard to the freedom of the Press and all the rest. I believe that we have an unprecedented situation. We have a whole series of material which should not be made public, but I do not believe that the way the Government is going about it will achieve that result. I do not happen to believe that it has anything to do with freedom of the Press or otherwise with regard to this. It is a whole lot of material that should not be out in public. The Opposition has agreed that it should not be made public, because it will move an amendment that will prevent it from being made public. So, there is no disagreement here; we all agree that it should not be made public. We are just interested in the method by which we prevent that. It is not a matter of freedom of the Press or otherwise, as the Opposition is quite happy to agree that it should not be made public. I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans): What is the current state of the law governing this material? What is the current state of section 10 of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act? Will that still continue in operation upon the passage of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill? Senator Gareth Evans —Are you talking about the main Bill or the repeal Bill? Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry. It is in the original Bill, which is the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act. It is section 14, sub-section (10), which states that, except in accordance with a direction of the Commission, evidence given before the Commission, contents of documents, information and the fact that any person has given or may be about to give evidence at a hearing shall not be published. Then there is reference to penalties: A fine of $2,000 and imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months. In other words, will that continue to have a bearing on the publication of material subsequent to the repeal Bill being passed by the Parliament? If, as I think, it does-- Senator Gareth Evans —It does not. It is no help to you at all. Senator MACKLIN —One would then want to know what that does with regard to those documents. Senator Gareth Evans —I make it clear that no evidence has been given to the Commission nor any document produced to the Commission within the meaning of this section, so that section will have no continued operation. Senator MACKLIN —In other words, it does not matter whether it continues or not? Senator Gareth Evans —No. Senator MACKLIN —I thank the Minister. The proposition that we have before us is the one circulated by the Opposition, which has now been tidied up as a result of the opportunity to have a closer look at the second part of it. It seems to us that, unsatisfactory though that is, there is no other means of dealing with the task at hand. This essentially put the onus on the Commission to prevent the material that it has from becoming public. I am curious as to what action the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has taken with regard to the publication last weekend, as to whether or not that in any way was seen to be a breach and, if it was not seen by the Attorney-General to be a breach-- Senator Gareth Evans —A breach of what? Senator MACKLIN —The security in the previous Act. It was not seen to be a breach in any way. Senator Gareth Evans —Which provision of the previous Act? Senator MACKLIN —I am asking. Senator Gareth Evans —There is no provision it could have offended. Senator MACKLIN —That is an interesting admission-that the Government was quite happy to pass the previous legislation without one but now it wishes to pass legislation with one. The publication that occurred last weekend presumably would be prevented by the Government in terms of the fact that the Government wishes to prevent the publication of allegations, but it would not be prevented by the Opposition's amendment. Under the Opposition's amendment, if it were passed, those types of publications based on material which came from the Commission could be investigated, because the Opposition's amendment states: . . . a member of the staff . . . shall not, directly or indirectly, disclose to any other person or make use of any document or information to which the first-mentioned person has had access by reason of being or having been such a member or counsel. In other words, it would seek to cut off at source the information. Quite frankly, beyond that there is very little that one can do. It was plainly obvious with regard to the leaks from the Senate Committee-- Consideration interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I regret to inform honourable senators that Senator Button is absent from Question Time today. I regret even more to inform honourable senators that any questions to be addressed to him should be addressed to me. Senator CHANEY —In the interests of mercy seasoning injustice, I will address my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to an answer given by his predecessor as Minister for Resources and Energy in May 1984 in which Senator Walsh expressed the Government's concern about delays in dealing with applications for exploration and mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. The Minister may recall that Senator Walsh said then that 165 exploration prospects had been held up for almost three years because agreement could not be reached between mining companies and Aboriginal communities. Does this situation still exist? Will the Government proceed with legislation this year to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in an effort to break the deadlock which has developed in the Territory and, if not, why not? Senator GARETH EVANS —There are signs of breaches in the deadlock situation that has prevailed in the Northern Territory, most recently with the signing of the Uranerz agreement between the Northern Land Council and a mining group, demonstrating that it is possible under the existing regime for agreements that are mutually satisfactory to be reached. However, it has to be acknowledged that there are many constraints under the existing Fraser Government land rights legislation in the way of reaching quick agreement for exploration and mining on Aboriginal land, and the Government does have a clearly preferred position as to what amendments to that regime there should be. This preferred position has now been embodied in a draft Bill which is the subject of continuing consultations both with the mining industry and with the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council, as well as other relevant government interests, including that, of course, of the Northern Territory Government. What will be able to be done by way of meeting a timetable for the introduction of this legislation still remains to be seen. But my understanding from talking to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs just a very short time ago is that it is still his hope and his expectation that legislation will be introduced this session. Whether it can be introduced and passed this session, given the enormously heavy timetable that confronts us, depends a lot on the co-operation we receive in the conduct of parliamentary affairs. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer. I just ask whether the consultations with the land councils and the Northern Territory Government are still proceeding or whether those consultations are complete, and is the only remaining barrier the normal party processes that legislation goes through at the end of such processes? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is really a matter for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to answer. Discussions are proceeding within the normal parliamentary party processes at the moment. It may be that those discussions throw up further issues which the Minister believes need further consultation with other groups. A number of such issues have been thrown up in discussion so far. Those processes are continuing. There are further meetings today, and no doubt there will be a lot more yet before we see the legislation. But that is understandable, given the importance and sensitivity of this legislation. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware of media reports which claim that the Government has decided to allow mining at Coronation Hill in the projected stage 3 of Kakadu National Park? Will the Minister explain the Government's intentions regarding the future of the Coronation Hill mineral lease and clarify that part of yesterday's joint ministerial statement which refers to provision being made for exclusion from the park of `an appropriate mining lease area, and the project allowed to proceed subject to normal environmental, Aboriginal heritage related clearances'? Senator RYAN —The Government has agreed to enlarge the boundaries of the park into the existing Gimbat and Goodparla leases. The details of this stage 3 extension, including the mechanisms to ensure the full environmental protection of the South Alligator River system, will be subject to further consideration by Cabinet and Caucus. The Government has also agreed that the development of the Coronation Hill mineral deposit may proceed subject to it satisfying environmental requirements arising from full environmental assessment. Consideration will have to be given to ensure the full protection of the park, Aboriginal and catchment values. The location of Coronation Hill is extremely significant in relation to the catchment and world heritage wetlands. The Government is most conscious of this significance and intends to ensure that the fullest and most sensitive environmental examination takes place. If, at the conclusion of this examination, mining development is to take place, this will occur only on conditions which provide the highest level of environmental protection, not only in the particular area, but for the conservation values of the park as a whole. Stage 3 is important for the variety of essentially natural ecosystems which it contains and which complement those in the proclaimed park. It also contains a wealth of Aboriginal rock art-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator RYAN —Mr President, the embarrassment of the Opposition is very understandable. It also contains a wealth of Aboriginal rock art and provides significant opportunities for tourist development. The integrity of the existing park and particularly the extensive wetlands depends in large measure on the management of stage 3. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I ask that the Minister table the document from which she has so extensively quoted. The PRESIDENT —Is the Minister prepared to table the document? The Minister has tabled the document. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Can the Minister for Finance confirm Senator Button's statement on the AM program on 8 September that the reason that further cuts in spending in particular areas were not included in this year's Budget was that expenditure reviews were continuing and it was felt that they should be completed before any decision was made by the Government in relation to expenditure in those areas? Have any or all of these reviews since been finalised and, if so, will the Government be announcing decisions on further expenditure cuts in the near future? Senator WALSH —I am not sure, because of the background noise, that I heard all the question; but I got the gist of it, I think. I am not sure what Senator Button meant when he made that statement, but it is already a matter of public record that the Government has before it a paper-I stress that it is no more than a paper-which examines, among other things, programs for which there is both a State and a Commonwealth financial and staffing or administrative obligation. As any diligent government ought to do, this Government from time to time examines those sorts of programs and whether economies can be made on both financial and staffing requirements by some change in the administrative arrangements. It is common knowledge that such a paper exists: I have myself confirmed it. But the consideration of that paper has not yet been completed. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister for Education inform the Senate of what steps the Government is taking to ensure that cuts in the Commonwealth English as a second language budget will not lead to significant reductions in services to migrant children? Senator RYAN —The Government is taking a number of steps to ensure that unallocated funds available for particular purposes in the Commonwealth Budget may be directed to the ESL area depending on the agreement of the States and the non-government systems. I remind the Senate that there was a cut-a severe cut, I admit-of $27m in the ESL program. At the same time, of course, the Government will continue to commit over $40m for the ESL program next year. So we have by no means vacated the ESL field. In addition to that $40m, $4m was announced by me on Thursday in order to assist in the development of across-the-curriculum ESL resources in the next year. With regard to those States which may not be able to absorb the cuts and continue to provide these services, I have said to them since Budget evening-and I have had discussions with them since-that the $38m which is available nationally as unallocated extra recurrent funding may be directed to the ESL area if that has the highest priority with the States and the non-government systems. In addition to that $38m, we have indicated that the highest priority under the participation and equity program should go to programs assisting children from a non-English speaking background. The amount of money allocated for that is $24m. So, honourable senators can see that, although there has been a cut of $27m, an amount in the vicinity of $66m is available to the States and the non-government systems to be directed substantially-not entirely, but substantially-to programs assisting children of a non-English speaking background if the States and the non-government systems accord those programs a high priority. I am very pleased to report to the Senate, because I know that not only Senator Sibraa is interested in this matter, that most of the States and the major non-government system-the Catholic system-have already indicated that they will co-operate with the Commonwealth in the direction of these extra moneys to that area. I hope that the end result, if we can get complete co-operation in this matter between the States and the Commonwealth, will be that the level of services to migrant children will not be reduced. Senator HAINES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the Government agree with the declaration made in Mexico on 7 August by the heads of six governments from five continents that, since the nuclear weapons states have not ended the nuclear arms race, it is up to the non-nuclear countries to become actively involved in all aspects of disarmament? As nuclear arms control is everybody's business because everybody would be affected by nuclear war, I ask the Minister whether the Australian Government will work together with those countries to establish a network of monitoring stations to support a nuclear test ban as the first step towards achieving nuclear disarmament. Senator GARETH EVANS —It may be that, given a little more notice, I could give the honourable senator a more comprehensive answer. But, yes, I am aware of the declaration to which she referred. I am certainly aware of the concern that has been expressed about the desirability of establishing an international network of monitoring stations which could effectively verify nuclear weapons test bans of the kind that Australia has been very much in the forefront of promoting in recent years. With that in mind, my Department of Resources and Energy has been co-operating closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs to establish within the Bureau of Mineral Resources a seismological monitoring station linked to data derived from both the United States-run joint facility in Alice Springs and, I think I recall correctly, other monitoring sources or locations around Australia-although I will need to check that. We have been in the process of putting that centre together and developing the capacity to develop independently monitoring techniques in association and consultation with other interested countries around the world. That centre will shortly be opened formally by Mr Hayden and me. At that time, if not before, I will be perfectly happy to make a statement, probably jointly with Mr Hayden, explaining fully what is going on and how it will help to secure the objectives to which Senator Haines referred. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a Press release put out last Sunday by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Ralph Hunt? If so, can the Minister indicate the need for new taxes proposed by the Deputy Leader of the National Party? Senator WALSH —The fuel price increases to which the Press statement in question refers are a consequence of the import parity pricing policy for crude oil first introduced in 1978 by the coalition government of which Mr Hunt was a member. However, I presume that, since Mr Hunt has put out such a statement, he now repudiates the import parity pricing policy. I do not know whether that view is shared by the temporary Leader of the Opposition or whether it is just another example of the National Party of Australia running off and doing its thing while the Liberal Party of Australia does something else. I have noted in particular the last paragraph of the Press statement in question, which refers to the need for the Government to `slash its tax burden on fuel-if necessary, making up some of the revenue forgone through a broadly based consumption tax'. I suppose that is a point of view. But, if the irresponsible policies of the Leader of the Opposition were to be implemented, there would need to be either a very large and very broadly based consumption tax or a huge increase in a variety of other taxes. Although on the Thursday following the Budget the Leader of the Opposition junked all of his expenditure promises-except that of continuing to pay pensions to millionaires-a couple of days later the National Party came up with expenditure proposals for $900m, in addition to the expenditure of about the same order which would be required to service Mr Howard's proposed modifications of Medicare and another $600m or $700m to fund the Opposition's proposition that people should work or receive training in return for the unemployment benefit. So, one way or another we have back into the system $2 billion or so worth of expenditure commitments over and above those contained in this year's Budget. In addition to that, the Opposition has promised around $5 billion in taxation cuts, which would reduce the revenue by $5 billion. So, when we add up all of those figures, we find that there is about $5 billion worth of forgone revenue from the Opposition's taxation promises, $2 billion worth of increased expenditure-not endorsed in every case by the Leader of the Opposition but put out by the National Party-which makes a total of $7 billion. If one adds to that the existing Budget deficit, one comes up with a Budget deficit figure of $10.5 billion if the irresponsible fiscal policies of the Opposition Leader were to be implemented. In concluding, I note that in absolute terms, although not in real terms, a deficit of $10.5 billion would be even bigger than the $9.6 billion deficit that this Government inherited from Mr Howard the last time he got his hands on the levers of power and his fingers in the till. Senator REID —My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in that capacity and in part in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Territories. Does the Government intend to proceed to legislate to break a number of contracts for home sales, entered into with purchasers in Canberra, that contain fixed interest mortgage payments? Is the Government taking steps to inform these home purchasers of that immoral action in breaching contracts and the repayments that will now be demanded even though the legislation has not been introduced into the Parliament? How can the people of Australia trust this Government not to breach similar contracts such as those for defence service home loans and not to increase unilaterally those interest rates? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, I am aware of the issues raised by Senator Reid. I appreciate that there is some concern in the Australian Capital Territory about the decisions taken by the Government in response to the present difficult economic circumstances. The Minister for Territories advises me that the extremely low interest rates paid by some borrowers cannot be justified and that, in the interests of equity, pre-September 1983 borrowers should have to bear the same economic burden as new borrowers. The Minister advises me that the additional revenue raised-some $800,000 in the remainder of the 1986-87 Budget year and $1.6m in a full year-will be used to provide additional Commissioner for Housing loans, thereby extending to many more persons the opportunity of home ownership in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister has also advised me that mortgagees will not be required to commit any more than 25 per cent of their income towards loan repayments. The Government will take into account specifically any genuine hardship cases, and arrangements will be made to balance their repayments with their commitments. Any subsidy given will be recovered over the life of the loan. The Government is responding to the difficulties that have been raised by Senator Reid, and each case will be dealt with sympathetically. Senator REID —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Minister failed to address the third part of the question as to whether or not the people of Australia can have any confidence at all that the same thing will not happen to defence service home loans, which also have fixed interest mortgages. Senator GIETZELT —The Opposition is in the glorious position of being able to criticise every saving the Government seeks to make in such areas. As Senator Reid has taken up that issue specifically-that is, the problems faced by those who have existing commitments-I shall put it to the Minister for a direct response. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. Is the Minister aware of any proposals for tourist developments on Christmas Island? If so, can he outline what those proposals entail? Is it the case that the proposals are linked to the current industrial dispute between the Union of Christmas Island Workers and the management of the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd? Senator GIETZELT —The future of Christmas Island has been on the agenda of both the previous Government and this Government for some years. The Parliament will be aware that phosphate mining on that island will ultimately cease. I recall that in June this year the Government made a decision in principle on the development of a casino-resort complex on Christmas Island. That matter is currently under review by the Government. Final approval will depend on a number of factors, including the upgrading of the airport and the presentation to Government of a sound financial package which would make it an economically and socially desirable alternative to the existing problems on the island. In July, the Government decided that the mining operations on Christmas Island should continue, with a subsidy of $4 1/2m to be paid at least until April 1987. The Minister for Terri- tories has advised me that, as a result of that decision, there will be some displacement of the work force. Some 150 persons will be retrenched. The situation will be reviewed in April 1987. Senator Childs, because of his background in the trade union movement, will realise that there is a union response to that proposal. The Minister is currently considering proposals that the Union of Christmas Island Workers has placed before the Government to see whether some reasonable approach can be reached in respect of the current difficulties. The Minister is sympathetic, but obviously he is acting under some restraint of Government policy. I shall ensure that Senator Childs's question is drawn to his attention to see whether he wants to amplify the matter. I am aware that Senator Lewis has expressed support for the Government's proposals for the island, even though Mr N. A. Brown, an Opposition spokesman on other matters, has taken a somewhat different position. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer him to the requirement for farm employers to furnish records of farm produce used by employees for the purposes of the fringe benefits tax. In order to establish whether the arbitrary $150 value of produce per annum has been exceeded, does the Minister agree that accurate and detailed records need to be kept of every item supplied, and that that adds a further complex and costly administration burden to the farm business? If an employer claims at the end of the year that the $150 limit has not been exceeded, but has not kept records, and that claim is challenged by the Australian Taxation Office, could the employer end up paying the full fringe benefits tax on the amount of produce assessed by the Tax Office? Senator WALSH —As with income tax, I would expect that if a person does not satisfy the Commissioner of Taxation that his income tax assessments are correct, the Commissioner will make his own assessment. I expect that the same position would apply to fringe benefits tax if the Commissioner is not satisfied that the declaration is accurate or complete. However, I shall have the matter checked. I am interested that Senator Collard should take up this question. It is worth ruminating for a while on the National Farmers Federation's point of view. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. Senator Walsh obviously feels a debate coming on. The PRESIDENT —Order! Is the point of order coming on? Is there a point of order? Senator Chaney —I think that I shall make it a point of order, Mr President. We have had an answer from the honourable senator. One can see him being tempted into a debate on the question. I thought that I should draw attention to that at an early stage, since he has given us a fair shot across the bows on this occasion. I suggest, Mr President, that you use your presidential power to ensure that he does not debate the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think that Senator Chaney has forecast a point of order. Senator WALSH —Regarding the effects of fringe benefit taxation on farmers, the fact is that the majority of farmers will not be affected at all. That leads one to the further question: Why is the National Farmers Federation making such a fuss about it? Is the NFF concerned about the welfare of the people it purports to represent, or is it concerned about the welfare of the Elders-IXL Ltd director who happens to be its President, and people in that category? One has double grounds for suspicion when one considers the degree of support from the NFF for the proposition coming from the Federal Opposition that we should have flat tax. If we had a flat taxation system, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of farmers would pay more tax than they pay now. So the National Farmers Federation opposes a tax revenue measure which affects a small minority of its members, adversely perhaps, but supports a tax revenue measure which would adversely affect the great majority of its members. Therefore, the credentials of those people in the National Farmers Federation who are orchestrating such a campaign should be called into question. Senator Collard, in the first part of his question, referred to farmers-this applies to everyone else-who think that the bookkeeping provisions of the fringe benefits tax are too onerous deciding not to comply with them. All they have to do is either remove the fringe benefits or cash them out. Senator GILES —My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Now that the Veterans' Entitlements Act has been operating for some time, can the Minister comment on the approach taken by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the approval of totally and permanently incapacitated pensions under the new Act? Is that approach denying TPI pensions to veterans over 65 years of age? Are the provisions in the new Act retrospective in effect? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will be aware that, in the statement of 14 May last year, certain proposals were made about changing the entitlement areas for those who would otherwise be eligible for the totally and permanently incapacitated pension rate. The proposals were considered by the Parliament. Some changes were made to the provisions by which applicants may be granted a pension relating specifically to their eligibility. In a number of cases the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has been called upon to make some decisions on the legislation passed by the Parliament. The Tribunal has decided not to grant applications for TPI pensions on principle because the veteran would have ceased work by the time the pension increase was sought. The Tribunal's decision has stressed that although there is no upper limit in terms of age, it made it clear that only in rare cases will a veteran who is beyond the normal retirement age qualify for the grant of a TPI pension. The new TPI provisions are not retrospective, which is a question Senator Giles asked of me. They do not in any way affect existing beneficiaries or those with special pension entitlements. In fact, during the debate in Parliament that point was agreed to by the Opposition. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any of the cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Federal Court, although those issues are being canvassed there in respect of the rights of some of those who have applications pending. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Having formally invited the United States of America and the United Kingdom to send ships to visit Australia as part of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy, is the Government going to honour its obligations? In view of statements by the maritime unions that their members will strike rather than provide the customary port services and the stupid acts of harassment yesterday by protest groups in Brisbane, how will the Government ensure that ships of the United States Navy and the Royal Navy visiting Brisbane later this week receive the courtesies and assistance that they are entitled to expect as invited guests? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no briefing on that. I shall seek a response from the Minister for Defence. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister for Community Services able to say whether the Government has put aside funds to make good its new policies on the care of the aged program as set out in the Budget statement? Has he been made aware of the serious shortage of hostel beds in New South Wales? Are there any plans to meet that shortage? Senator GRIMES —I thank Senator Richardson for that question as it just happens to coincide with the fact that today I am announcing the expenditure of some $40m on grants for accommodation for the aged in every State, particularly in Senator Richardson's home State of New South Wales, where the amount of money to be expended is about $18m. Senator Richardson will be pleased to know that the grants enable voluntary organisations, church groups, welfare groups but particularly local community groups to provide hostel and nursing home accommodation and to replace nursing home beds in some areas. These allocations are an important step in the implementation of the nursing homes and hostels review strategy which we announced in the Budget and which resulted in increased expenditure in the Budget. The Government wants to give people more freedom of choice and more alternatives to nursing homes. For that reason, the grants will involve an emphasis on the provision of hostel beds. We will fund nursing home beds also because there is a need for adequate beds for those who need that form of care. Groups with special needs, such as ethnic groups, will be better catered for. Funding will be spread out over the 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 financial years because of the long lead times taken in some areas. I would dearly like to list the individual projects throughout Australia for honourable senators as I know of their great interest in this matter. However, I know that, if I did so, Senator Chaney would feel a point of order coming on, and he would probably succeed in that case. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the list of organisations and the purposes to which those funds are to be put. Leave granted. The list read as follows- DJG148/86 17 September 1986 NEW GRANTS TO BUILD ACCOMMODATION FOR ELDERLY Aged people and people with disabilities will benefit from grants totalling $40.4 million for the construction of accommodation. The Minister for Community Services, Senator Don Grimes released details of the grants today. The grants will enable voluntary, welfare and church groups and local government to provide 1493 new or replacement hostel places, 335 new or replacement nursing home beds. The allocation of these funds for hostel and nursing home beds is an important step in implementing recommendations of the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review. A major recommendation of that review was the need for more emphasis on hostel care and community based services. In the past, too much emphasis had been directed to nursing homes at the expense of these. ``The extra hostel places resulting from these grants will enable more people to take advantage of hostel facilities, and this, in turn, will reduce demand for nursing home beds,'' Senator Grimes said. ``The Government wants to give more freedom of choice and more alternatives to nursing homes. Nevertheless, these grants will ensure that there are adequate nursing home beds for people who do need this form of care. ``These grants will lead to a fairer distribution of facilities. There will be a more even geographic distribution and there will be better provision for needy people. ``As well, the needs of groups with special needs, such as the ethnic communities have been better catered for,'' he said. Funding will be spread over the 1986-87 to 1988-89 financial years. A LIST OF ORGANISATIONS TO RECEIVE GRANTS IS ATTACHED * $18m N.S.W.; $3.7m Vic.; $9.5m Qld; $1.6m S.A.; $5.2m W.A. STATE: NEW SOUTH WALES Organisation and location Proposal Electorate Provisional grant Anticipated year of grant $ Canterbury Municipal Council, Beverly Hills 60 bed hostel Banks 1,327,200 1987-88 Botany Municipal Council, Banksmeadow 45 bed hostel Kingsford- Smith 995,400 1987-88 Royal Blind Society, Beverly Hills 25 bed hostel replacement Banks 553,000 1987-88 Rylstone & Kandos West Aged and Disadvantaged Persons Welfare Assoc., Rylstone 1 bed hostel extension to prev. 7 bed hostel + 1 staff bed Calare 12,741 1986-87 Juliana Village Assoc. Ltd, Miranda 11 bed hostel + 1 staff bed Cook 265,440 1986-87 Armenian Rest Home Association, Mosman 34 bed nursing home (existing) Warringah 386,666 1986-87 Maitland Benevolent Society, Maitland 20 bed hostel + 1 staff bed replacement Hunter 444,200 1987-88 RC Church Archdiocese of Sydney, Ashfield 50 bed hostel Sydney 1,106,000 1987-88 Narrandera Shire Council, Narrandera 12 bed hostel Riverina/ Darling 254,520 1986-87 Uniting Church in Australia NSW Synod, Randwick 48 bed hostel (of which 45 beds are replacement) + 1 staff bed Kingsford- Smith 1,083,880 1988-89 Cowra Retirement Village, Cowra 43 bed hostel + 2 staff beds Gilmore 909,000 1986-87 RC Church Diocese of Lismore, Sth Tweed Heads 10 bed hostel extension Richmond 202,000 1987-88 Wellington Retirement Village, Wellington 32 bed hostel + 1 staff bed Parkes 666,600 1987-88 H. N. McLean Memorial Retirement Village, Inverell 50 bed hostel (of which 24 beds are replacement) New England 1,010,000 1987-88 United Protestant Assoc. of NSW, Dubbo 39 bed hostel + 1 staff bed Parkes 821,333 1987-88 Trustees of Sisters of Mercy Diocese of Bathurst, Forbes Services block for N/Home Parkes 355,333 1986-87 St Lawrence Home, Galong Alterations to 31 bed hostel Hume 74,587 1986-87 Tumbarumba Shire Council, Tumbarumba 12 bed hostel Farrer 242,400 1987-88 H. N. McLean Memorial Retirement Village, Inverell 30 bed nursing home New England 606,000 1987-88 Uniting Church in Australia NSW Synod, Farmborough Grove, West Unanderra 60 bed nursing home Cunningham 1,327,200 1986-87 Mount Warrigal Retirement Village, Warilla 30 bed nursing home Throsby 663,600 1987-88 Culburra & District Community Health Service, Culburra Beach 40 bed hostel Gilmore 884,800 1987-88 Uniting Church in Australia NSW Synod, Richmond 60 bed hostel + 2 staff beds Macquarie 1,272,400 1987-88 Frank Whiddon Masonic Homes of NSW, Kelso 39 bed hostel + 1 staff bed Calare 884,800 1986-87 Lockhart Aged Care Association, Lockhart 12 bed hostel Farrer 265,440 1987-88 United Protestant Assoc of NSW, Lavington 10 bed hostel Farrer 221,200 1987-88 Russian Relief Association, Cabramatta 16 bed hostel extension + 1 staff bed Fowler 376,040 1987-88 Uniting Church of Australia Property Trust, Peakhurst 37 bed hostel + 1 staff bed Banks 840,560 1986-87 NEW SOUTH WALES 18,052,340 STATE: VICTORIA Organisation and location Proposal Electorate Provisional grant Anticipated year of grant $ Australian Huntington (Vic.) Inc., Box Hill South 3 bed hostel plus 1 staff bed Chisholm 30,347 1986-87 Shire of Cobram, Cobram 30 bed hostel plus 2 staff beds Indi 830,000 1987-88 Uniting Church in Australia, Ascot Vale 30 bed nursing home Melbourne 663,600 1988-89 Alcheringa Hostel Inc., Swan Hill 19 bed hostel extension plus 1 staff bed Mallee 404,000 1986-87 City of Chelsea, Edithvale Lift installation (for 58 bed hostel) Isaacs 70,000 1986-87 Shire of Sherbrooke, Upper Ferntree Gully Lift installation (for 33 bed hostel) La Trobe 52,333 1986-87 Baptist Union of Victoria, Canterbury Lift installation (for 54 bed hostel) Kooyong 86,666 1986-87 City of Caulfield, North Caulfield Lift installation (for 47 bed hostel) Higgins 66,667 1986-87 Malvern Elderly Citizens Welfare Association, Malvern 12 bed hostel extension plus 1 staff bed Higgins 287,560 1987-88 Avonlea Nhill 10 bed hostel extension and renovations Mallee 293,667 1987-88 Edgarley Home Inc., Casterton Central block of lounge, dining room and administrative area Wannon 118,136 1986-87 Edith Bendall Retirement Village, Pascoe Vale 35 bed hostel plus 2 staff beds Wills 818,440 1987-88 VICTORIA 3,721,416 STATE: QUEENSLAND Organisation and location Proposal Electorate Provisional grant Anticipated year of grant $ Bowen Old People's Home Society, Bowen 27 bed hostel plus 2 staff beds Dawson 407,700 1988-89 District Grand Lodge of North Queensland, Kirwan Upgrading of 10 hostel beds Herbert 66,700 1986-87 Uniting Church Aust. (Qld), Garden Settlement, Pallarenda, Townsville Conversion of 10 hostel beds Herbert 94,300 1986-87 Carramar (Stanthorpe) Home for Senior Citizens' Association, Stanthorpe 7 bed hostel extension Maranoa 141,400 1986-87 Pittsworth and District Hospital Friendly Society, Pittsworth 40 bed hostel plus 2 staff beds Maranoa 929,040 1987-88 Nanango Shire Council, Nanango 20 bed hostel plus 2 staff beds Wide Bay 497,750 1987-88 Tully Nursing Home, Tully 40 bed nursing home Kennedy 910,171 1987-88 Committee of Buffalo Memorial Homes for the Aged, Kippa Ring 28 bed hostel replacement Petrie 400,000 1986-87 Uniting Church in Australia, Kirra 18 bed hostel extension McPherson 398,160 1987-88 Society of St Vincent de Paul, Clontarf Installation of lift Petrie 62,070 1986-87 Uniting Church in Australia, Redcliffe Installation of lift Petrie 57,000 1986-87 Hibernian Australiasian Catholic Benefit Society Qld District No. 5, Scarborough 30 bed hostel Petrie 663,600 1987-88 Queensland Country Women's Association, Lota 10 bed hostel plus 2 staff beds replacement Bowman 242,400 1986-87 Baptist Union of Qld, Ascot 40 bed hostel (37 of which are replacement) Lilley 884,800 1987-88 Brodribb Home for the Aged, Toowoomba 12 bed hostel (9 of which are replacement Groom 190,000 1987-88 Lutheran, Church of Australia, Laidley 12 bed hostel replacement Groom 242,400 1987-88 Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Qld), Kenmore 60 bed hostel plus 1 staff bed Ryan 1,349,320 1987-88 Lutheran Church, Maroochydore 48 bed hostel plus 2 staff beds Fairfax 1,106,000 1987-88 Churches of Christ in Queensland, Bongaree, Bribie Island 17 bed hostel extension Fisher 376,040 1987-88 Central and Upper Burnett District Home for the Aged, Gayndah 1 bed hostel extension and sundry additions Hinkler 51,000 1986-87 Society of St Vincent de Paul, Labrador 11 bed hostel extension Moncrieff 131,100 1986-87 The Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of Diocese of Townsville, Townsville 14 bed hostel (10 of which are replacement) Herbert 282,800 1986-87 QUEENSLAND 9,483,751 STATE: SOUTH AUSTRALIA Organisation and location Proposal Electorate Provisional grant Anticipated year of grant $ Eldercare Incorporated, Alexandra Lodge, Rose Park Lift (for 93 bed hostel) Adelaide 283,300 1986-87 Warrina Homes Inc., Campbelltown 6 bed hostel extension Sturt 73,300 1986-87 Hungarian Caritas/Serbian Community, Norwood 35 bed nursing home (existing) Sturt 774,200 1986-87 Jallarah Homes Inc., Meningie 6 bed hostel and 1 staff bed extension Barker 161,910 1986-87 Barossa Valley Senior Citizens Homes (Nuriootpa) Inc., Nuriootpa 4 bed hostel extension Wakefield 88,480 1986-87 Stirling District Hospital, Stirling 5 bed hostel extension Mayo 110,600 1986-87 Cowell Community Hostel Inc., Cowell 6 bed hostel Grey 144,380 1987-88 SOUTH AUSTRALIA 1,636,170 STATE: WESTERN AUSTRALIA Organisation and location Proposal Electorate Provisional grant Anticipated year of grant $ Uniting Church Aged Persons Homes Board, Perth 7 bed hostel (extension) Perth 141,400 1987-88 Villa Maria Homes Inc., Busselton 20 bed nursing home Forrest 462,600 1987-88 Wyalkatchem, Koorda and Districts Hostel Committee, Wyalkatchem 4 bed hostel O'Connor 92,520 1987-88 Northhampton Frail Aged Hostel (Inc.), Northhampton 4 bed hostel Kalgoorlie 100,600 1987-88 Catholic Homes for the Aged, Peppermint Grove 40 bed hostel plus 2 staff beds Curtin 929,040 1986-87 Sisters of Mercy Inc., Lesmurdie 10 bed hostel Canning 221,200 1986-87 Goldfields Aged Pensioners Welfare Association Inc., Boulder 40 bed hostel plus 2 staff beds Kalgoorlie 1,013,880 1987-88 City of South Perth, Como 40 bed hostel plus 2 staff beds Swan 848,400 1988-89 Anglican Homes Inc., Lesmurdie 25 bed hostel Canning 553,000 1988-89 Yugoslav Australian Nursing Homes Inc., Spearwood 40 bed nursing home (existing) Fremantle 884,800 1987-88 WESTERN AUSTRALIA 5,247,440 STATE: TASMANIA Organisation and location Proposal Electorate Provisional grant Anticipated year of grant $ Mary Ogilvy Home Society, Newtown 10 bed hostel (extension) Denison 110,000 1987-88 Mary Ogilvy Home Society, Newtown 16 bed nursing home replacement Denison 353,920 1986-87 Poor Sisters of Nazareth, Nazareth House, St Leonards 16 bed hostel (conversion of wards resulting in loss of 4 beds) Bass 153,000 1987-88 TASMANIA 616,920 STATE: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Organisation and location Proposal Electorate Provisional grant Anticipated year of grant $ Sir Leslie Morshead War Veterans Home, Lyneham 25 bed hostel extension Fraser 553,000 1988-89 Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution, Holt 49 bed hostel plus 1 staff bed Fraser 1,106,000 1987-88 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY 1,659,000 Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that three Labor State governments are attempting to circumvent the global limits set last June by the Loan Council for public sector new money borrowings by resorting to the sale of deferred annuities under the Commonwealth's lump sum superannuation tax law? Would not such schemes lead to a higher effective public sector borrowing requirement and therefore greater pressure on interest rates? Would the interest earned under the investment of moneys be free of Commonwealth income tax under section 27h of the Income Tax Assessment Act? What advice has the Minister received on the status of these ingenious devices which seem to fall outside the Loan Council's global borrowing limits? If this is so, what action does he intend to take? Senator WALSH —The answer to the first part of the question, in which I was asked whether I was aware of all those events, is no. Consequently, the rest of the question is not applicable-to me anyway-but I will refer it to the Treasurer and obtain a response for Senator Messner. Senator AULICH —I refer the Minister for Education to the administration charge payable by some tertiary students in 1987. Has the Minister had any discussions with any institutions on the feasibility of payment of the charges by instalments so that no students are forced to discontinue their studies because they do not have sufficient finance? Senator RYAN —How the institutions collect the charge and the time scale within which they do so are questions for the institutions. Obviously, it is easiest, and therefore administratively most efficient, if the institutions collect the $250 at the point of enrolment. If they make any other decisions, there will be further administration. That is not to say that institutions may not make those other decisions. The institutions will, in fact, keep the $250 that they collect and have their grants from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission adjusted accordingly, although they will also net 10 per cent of the charges for their own purposes. The institutions therefore have the scope in that sense to collect the charges in instalments. I presume that some of them will decide to do that. Certainly, the Government would put no obstacle in their way. If the institutions were to do that in an attempt to come to terms with the difficulties that some students may experience, we would be happy to co-operate with them. Institutions may decide also-I have asked them to do this-to make loans to students who are having difficulty in getting together $250 at the beginning of the year. The special assistance to students loan fund is now available to every college of advanced education and university. I have asked the institutions to ensure that loans are made in a fairly liberal fashion so that the students may get the loan of the $250 and then repay the $250 to the loan fund during the year in terms that are suitable to the student and to the people administering the loan fund. The loan funds are administered with student representation. There are two ways in which institutions may assist those students who find difficulty in getting together $250 at the point of enrolment. I believe that the institutions will co-operate in this. There has been no indication that they will not. After all, there is some supplementation to the income available to them from the charge. They are aware that there will be some cases in which students are required to meet the charge but are having difficulty in getting the money together. Students who are eligible for any form of assistance under the tertiary education assistance scheme will have the $250 immediately given back to them. Students on supporting parent benefit, invalid pensions or carer's pensions will not be liable to the charge. Aboriginal students assisted through Austudy will have the charge restored to them. We are looking only at that group of students who are not eligible for benefits or assistance of any kind. Technically speaking, that should mean the better off students but, because the Government recognises that sometimes people's circumstances differ from what is on paper, we have asked the institutions to be accommodating to needy students in the ways that I have set out. The outcome should be that the imposition of the charge will not be an obstacle to any student who is serious about pursuing his or her studies. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Will the Minister allow an increase in the number of international airline flights, including charter flights, into Australia during the America's Cup competitions so as to avoid disappointment to a large number of yachting enthusiasts who at present may be denied the opportunity of coming to Australia because of the limit on overseas flights into Australia? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Watson has raised a very interesting question relating to increasing the flights of airlines into Australia during the America's Cup period. He would be aware that a lot of pressure is being exerted on the Government to open the very lucrative Australian market to many foreign airlines-a course which, of course, obviously, is being resisted by Qantas Airways Ltd, in its advice to the Government, and correctly so. I represent the Minister for Aviation in this place. They are not matters upon which I can venture an opinion, although I can state the facts. I will certainly bring the matter to the attention of Mr Peter Morris and see whether he can give an early response to the honourable senator's question. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Given that Jane's Fighting Ships and numerous other ship references list the United States battleship Missouri as having on board 32 Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles-an offensive weapon which is not only nuclear capable but also widely regarded in the arms control community as dangerously destabilising in terms of proliferation and verification procedure-why is the Government allowing this vessel into the heart of Sydney in the first week of October for the fleet assembly, only two months after presenting a treaty for a nuclear free zone at the South Pacific Forum meeting in Fiji and three months after reaffirming its commitment to deterrence as opposed to nuclear war fighting at the Australian Labor Party conference in Hobart? Furthermore, is it true that the Missouri is not only visiting Sydney but will also be going to Hobart and other ports either before or after the fleet assembly? If so, which ports and on what dates? Senator GARETH EVANS —The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty does not prohibit the transit of warships through the South Pacific region or visits to Australian ports. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made this clear on innumerable occasions but most accessibly, perhaps, in his second reading speech introducing the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill on 5 June 1986. The Government welcomes visits by United States Navy ships to Australia as essential to the effectiveness of the ANZUS alliance. To come to the latter part of the question, there is no conflict between the Government's support for deterrence and the visit of the USS Missouri. The Government does not agree that Tomahawk missiles are destabilising or are primarily intended for nuclear war fighting. There are two kinds of missiles: There are the nuclear ones and there are the conventionally armed. As to the nuclear-armed Tomahawks, I am advised that two roles for these have been outlined. Both take advantage of the greater dispersal of United States Navy nuclear capability provided by the deployment ultimately of Tomahawk missiles on 190 vessels instead of on, essentially, only 14 aircraft carriers. The first stated role-Senator MacGibbon will love all this stuff-is as an assured survivable reserve. It would be able substantially to survive a Soviet first strike and so ensure that United States forces could not be disarmed by such a strike. The second stated role is to match the long range naval cruise missiles already deployed by the USSR and thus to augment present United States Navy capabilities. As such, it allows the United States to balance the Soviet capacity for theatre nuclear war and nuclear war at sea. It also allows the United States to ensure that any Soviet nuclear strike against the United States Navy could be met with retaliation in kind-retaliation which would not necessarily involve escalation and the use of United States strategic nuclear forces. Finally, this role ensures that the USSR should not envisage any advantage to itself in initiating a nuclear war at sea. The conventionally armed Tomahawks deter the outbreak of war by providing survivable weapons systems less vulnerable to Soviet pre-emptive attack and by demonstrating to the USSR that the United States has the military capabilities to prevent it from achieving its war aims. The conventional Tomahawks also raise the threshold against the use of nuclear weapons if conflict should occur by increasing United States Navy conventional military capability. So there! The Minister for Defence has also advised me that the USS Missouri will visit the following ports on the following dates: Sydney from 1 to 6 October, Hobart from 8 to 11 October, and Fremantle from 16 to 18 October. So that should give the honourable senator plenty of time to get her troops organised. Senator JESSOP —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and the Special Minister of State, refers to an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's program AM of 12 September with the Willesee journalist, Martin King, who is the man who entered the Footscray ammunition factory with a camera and was not detected for some 90 minutes. I ask the Minister: Are the departments concerned over King's statement? Despite a spate of reported break-ins at that time, King said: I could have taken anything that was manufactured in the munitions depot . . . It was really a terrorists supermarket. Will the Minister also investigate King's allegation that he had spoken to a Tamil employed at Footscray who claimed to be involved in the racket and who has testimonials from the Department of Defence and a false passport which, according to Mr King, had been arranged for him by a member of parliament at a cost of $8,500? Having regard to the vital importance of security at such munitions depots, has the Australian Federal Police investigated this extraordinary event and the allegations of Mr King? If so, will the Minister report the findings of the Federal Police? If not, will he ask the Federal Police to make inquiries and report to the Senate? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure that I am as briefed as I ought to be on this. But I have learnt, amongst other things, from Senator Grimes that the Tamil in fact turned out to be an Aboriginal claiming to be a Tamil. But I had better confirm that with the Minister responsible before formally committing myself to that proposition. As to the general business that Mr Sinclair initiated-I am not sure whether his Tamil was the same one as Senator Jessop's-I do have a briefing from the Minister, which is in the following terms, and it is the sort of thing he has been saying on the media, but that does not seem to have deterred Senator Jessop from asking the question, so let me repeat it. The Ammunition Factory, Footscray, is not missing one million rounds of ammunition or anything like that amount. One million rounds of 7.62 ammunition weighs 44 tonnes and would fill two semi-trailers. This amount, even from the Maribyrnong factory, could not be easily stolen nor could its disappearance be covered up. A concern in 1985 that 25,000 rounds of tracer ammunition were unaccounted for has been investigated. A detailed stocktake has shown that over all the discrepancy at AFF is less than about 1,000 rounds. The concern could not be investigated earlier as an employee in the area concerned was under surveillance and has since been charged. The Army withdrew an order for one million 5.56 calibre ammunition from AFF. However, this was done because the factory cannot yet make this round, not because of missing stocks. Security measures have been upgraded at the munitions factories over the past nine months to detect and deter intruders and theft. The specifics of some of these security measures that have been implemented and the investigations and legal proceedings in hand should not, for obvious reasons, be gone into here; but apparently there has been a lot of activity taking place in this respect. I will follow it up with the Minister and see whether there is anything more he wants to add in response to the honourable senator's question. Senator TATE —The Minister representing the Minister for Communications will be aware of a recent very heavy snowfall in Hobart-I think it was about a month ago-at which time the Hobart telephone network was simply unable to cope with the telephone traffic until late in the afternoon. I have this on very good authority from Mr Noel Lancaster, the Tasmanian Secretary of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union. Does the Minister agree that such congestion and the consequent lapse of communications could cause significant difficulties in times of emergency? Will the Minister indicate to the Senate what is being considered to overcome this problem? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether I can give Senator Tate the answer that he would probably like to hear to the last part of his question, but I am aware of the effect of the snowfall on communications in Hobart that day. I am advised by Mr Duffy that it was the heaviest fall of snow since early this century and, indeed, one of only three times in this century that snow has actually blanketed the city. The telephone network is planned to cope with normal traffic with the peak time taking place during business hours and on working days. But on 25 July it appears that the majority of Hobart people remained at home and many of them continued to conduct their business activities from their home telephones. As a result there was a grossly distorted traffic pattern, originating in areas where the volume of the traffic and its peak are related to normal residential use. Congestion occurred from about 7 a.m. to about 2 p.m. During this time action was taken to reduce mainland access to the Hobart area to prevent congestion spreading to the mainland originating exchanges. Telecom is aware of the need both to economically provide network infrastructure and to ensure that congestion is kept to a minimum by suitable traffic management techniques. However, events such as this, which occur very rarely, cannot realistically be catered for. I might add that the difficulty experienced with the network was not related in any way to maintenance practices, but to the extremely heavy and unusual demand placed on the network from areas designed primarily to cater for residential traffic volumes. Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to a letter he wrote to me dated 26 August in reply to a letter I had written him about the Government's consideration of the listing of Kakadu National Park stage 2 on the World Heritage List. I quote from the letter-there were other matters that were dealt with-as follows: Additionally, I consider the issue of whether or not to seek listing should be settled in consultation with the Northern Territory Government. I have also written to the Attorney-General about these matters. Will the Minister confirm that no such consultation about the nomination of stage 2 did take place with the Northern Territory Government before yesterday's announcement on Kakadu? If that is the case, why did the Government not consult with the Northern Territory Government before taking its decision to nominate stage 2, and why has it reneged on the undertaking given by Senator Evans in the letter to me, which naturally I gave to the Northern Territory Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think there has been any consultation with the Northern Territory Government in the last 48 hours leading up to the announcement of our decision yesterday, and I said as much to a Press conference yesterday on which Senator Durack no doubt is basing his question. I am not aware, however, whether there was any consultation by Mr Cohen, whose ministerial responsibility this was, with the Northern Territory Government on the world heritage listing issue. It is hardly a new issue. It has been around as a statement of government intention for a long time, and I have no doubt there has been communication on that as on other issues, but I will ask Mr Cohen whether he has any further information he may care to supply on that basis. Senator Durack —He has, I am sure. Senator GARETH EVANS —In that case it will be a quick answer, but I will ask him anyway. Senator COLSTON —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to a Press release issued today by Mr Ray Braithwaite, shadow Minister for Trade, claiming that the Commonwealth Government's investigation into the intervention of the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries to provide a $145,000 government loan to a National Party official is based on an incorrect understanding of the guidelines for applying natural disaster funds? Has the Minister also seen comments on this matter by the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the National Party official referred to, Mr Behan, and the Queensland National Party Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Turner? If so, can the Minister clarify the matters that have been raised? Senator WALSH —I do not think I can clarify the contradictions but I will come to that matter in a moment. Mr Braithwaite is one of a number of Queensland National Party members who have been thrashing around like headless chooks over the last day or so trying to divert attention from the scandal that their actions have created. Judging by the outcome of those efforts so far, they may be well advised to follow the precedent set by another prominent National Party member and blame their fathers. I am aware of the statement that Mr Braithwaite has put out. He accuses Mr Kerin and me of not knowing that the bank refusal was a prerequisite to potential entitlement to a loan. We are of course well aware of that, but in this case there was much more than a bank refusal, which apparently came from the Commonwealth Bank. There was an assessment of non-viability by the Rural Reconstruction Board, supported, it would appear, by the Agricultural Bank of Queensland and the stock agent Elders Pastoral Co. Mr Braithwaite is one of those who have joined in the diversion by referring to a police investigation into the source of the leaked documents. It reminds one of one of those ancient despots who used to behead the messenger if he brought bad news-blame the messenger and not the message. That apparently is the practice in Queensland. Regarding the other actors in this farce, tragedy, or whatever it is and the contradictions to which Senator Colston referred, in today's Courier-Mail Mr Behan is quoted as having said: At no stage did I ever agree or have I been told to sell the property. That is a complete furphy. Whereas on another page of the Courier-Mail Mr Turner, in seeking to explain away why he intervened and overturned the recommendations of the Rural Reconstruction Board and the bank, tried to explain this away by saying that Mr Behan had indicated a commitment to selling a portion of the property which would substantially reduce the debt structure, and therefore completely change the underlying viability assessment. That is the first contradiction. The second contradiction is even more blatant and more important, I suppose, insofar as it involves the Premier himself. The Courier-Mail reported: Mr Michael Behan said last night that he had never approached the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, over loan assistance for the family property . . . In a different newspaper, the Brisbane Daily Sun, it is reported: Sir Joh admitted Mr Behan had spoken to him about the loan, but refused to give further details. Moreover, Mr Turner has admitted, according to other Press reports, that this is not the only time he has intervened and overturned recommendations of the responsible administrative body. Indeed, he is quoted as having said that he overturned them `whenever I have thought it necessary'. That alarms the Commonwealth Government even more than the sordid details of this particular allegation-the clear indication that this is certainly not a one-off. It may not even be aberrant, but this could be just a sample of what is standard practice in Queensland. The fact is that these funds are provided after a threshold has been passed in a ratio of 3:1 by the Commonwealth Government to provide loans under defined or specified guidelines at a highly concessional interest rate of 4 per cent. There has to be a rationing of the amount of money which is allowed or can be provided under such highly concessional interest rates. Hence, the guidelines which are supposed to be met when assessing individual applications are sent out. In other words, this is a very heavily subsidised means by which the taxpayers of Australia, who include the taxpayers of Queensland, assist farmers who are, first, adjudged to have been the victims of national disasters which could not reasonably be foreseen or insured against and, secondly, are assessed as having the capacity in the longer term to repay those borrowings. It is not a National Party slush fund but it has clearly been treated as such. I shall be shortly communicating with the Queensland Government and asking it to supply a comprehensive list of the natural disaster relief arrangements loans which have been made over at least the last 12 months, and possibly over a further period, and to append to or contain in that list a clear identification of the individual cases in which the recommendations of the Rural Reconstruction Board and/or the Agricultural Bank have been overturned by political decisions within the Queensland Cabinet apparently on the premise that this is just another National Party slush fund which Queensland Ministers can use in whichever way they choose. That is certainly not the case. I want to discharge my responsibilities not only to the taxpayers of Australia as Finance Minister in this Government but also to all those other farmers in Queensland and throughout the rest of the country who met the criteria much more adequately than Mr Behan and were refused loans because, of necessity, the funds are rationed. Senator GIETZELT —On 22 August Senator Grimes, representing the Minister for Transport in this place in my absence, was asked a question by Senator Townley in relation to daytime running lights and motor vehicle accidents. The Minister for Transport has provided me with some additional information in response to that particular question. He says: I am aware that studies have been conducted in Sweden and Canada on the possible influence of daytime running lights. An evaluation conducted over two years in the late 1970s in Sweden suggested that some savings of injury-related road crashes could possibly have been attributed to the introduction of daytime running lights. Also, the Canadian Government recently conducted pilot studies that supported these findings. The outcome is that from 1 September 1988, Canada has legislated for the use of daytime running lights for passenger cars, trucks and buses and full time headlamps are also to be required for motorcycles. There is therefore evidence that the principle of using daytime running lights may reduce road crashes but it is open to question if this benefit would be demonstrated in Australia. Australia is fortunate in having relatively long periods of sunshine compared to the daily average levels in countries such as Sweden and Canada. There is a consensus of opinion in Australia that enhanced conspicuity can assist with the safety of certain types of vehicles, especially motorcycles. It is possible that these benefits may be deleted if the whole traffic stream uniformly used daytime lights. The Minister therefore advises me that he has asked the Federal Office of Road Safety in the Department of Transport to monitor developments overseas on the use of daytime running lights. The experience in the northern hemisphere will need to be studied carefully to determine whether the safety benefits achieved there can be translated to Australia. Senator GIETZELT —During Question Time today Senator Reid asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Territories, a question relating to interest rates in the Australian Capital Territory. I responded, but unfortunately my hearing let me down in respect of her supplementary question which, on reflection, I am sure she will appreciate was not related to the first question that she raised. There is absolutely no relationship between defence service home loan interest rates and the eligibility of persons to qualify for that concession, and what happens in respect of interest rates in the Australian Capital Territory. I can assure Senator Reid that there is no suggestion at all before the Government that there be any change in the interest rates for defence service home loans. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation in relation to this matter. Leave granted. Senator REID —Without canvassing the question or the answer, I must point out that when I prefaced my question I said that it was to Senator Gietzelt in his capacity as Minister for Veterans' Affairs and additionally as Minister representing the Minister for Territories. I had alluded to both his positions before asking the question. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 17 September, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need during the current Parliamentary sittings for a Mini Budget which contains measures necessary to restore confidence in the Australian economy.' Yours sincerely (FRED CHANEY) Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.05) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need during the current Parliamentary sittings for a Mini Budget which contains measures necessary to restore confidence in the Australian economy. This is the only day of this sitting week that the Senate has available for debate on various matters, because the rest of our days will be taken up with Estimates committees. Today we have had debates on the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia; we have commenced a further debate on the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill 1986 and later we will debate the important issue of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I suspect that for most people in Australia those are relatively obscure topics which certainly lack any central importance to their lives. The men and women of Australia are today concerned about what will happen to their country, what sort of economic future it holds, what job security they have and what sort of economic security they and their children will have. It is the view of the Opposition that the central national interest is in the future state of our economy and in the prospects for Australia's work force. There is very widespread understanding in 1986 that our country is diminishing when it should be growing. Instead of hope for the future, the Government is delivering despair. We have a diminishing country, a leaderless country; a directionless country under a diminishing Prime Minister. It is now quite clear that Mr Hawke is a Prime Minister for good times. Now that we have passed from good times to bad, he has been shown up as a non-leader. Now that we need leadership and direction to give us hope, he is a shrinking figure. I remind the Senate that the Budget is expressly about trimming Australian living standards. That is not what the Opposition has talked about; that is what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talked about in the Budget Speech. The Opposition believes that that would be all right if it were part of an active plan for economic recovery and it held out some hope for the future of Australians. In fact, the Budget does not do that. If one looks at the Budget's assessment, the Government's own assessment, of what will happen over the next 12 months one sees continuing high inflation, worsening unemployment, reduced private investment and the prospect of reduced growth. In this context the Government is telling the people of Australia that they are in a diminishing situation, both personally and nationally. The Opposition's view is that that is not a necessary situation and it is a situation which ought to be addressed by the Government if it is to be regarded as fit to govern this country. We believe that it is incumbent upon the Government to act now so that that situation can be reversed and some hope can be held out. Since the Budget we have had tantalising suggestions from Government Ministers-from Senator Button in particular and also from Senator Walsh-that changes could be made. In Question Time today Senator Walsh told us that the Government has a paper which examines Commonwealth and State programs and their staffing and he says that, as any diligent government would do, the Government has examined whether economies can be made. The Opposition says that the Government should certainly address that and address it in the active way that was promised by Senator Button, although that promise was withdrawn by him when he was challenged in the next 24 hours. We believe that the Government must act, and act during the current parliamentary sittings. In other words, it is not a matter which should be left for 12 months while the country languishes. We believe also that it is not a matter of the Government simply bringing in a Budget which addresses itself to the fiscal situation in Australia. We believe that the Government should at the same time be addressing itself to other vital issues which are the inhibiting factors preventing economic recovery and preventing the people of Australia from having hope for the future. The Government not only needs to bring in a mini-Budget, but also needs to encompass in that mini-Budget a sensible approach to the labour market, to the vexed question of wage fixing and to the question of labour market practices. It also needs to address itself to the anti-incentive elements of the taxation system which are discouraging investment in business and employment instead of encouraging it, and it needs to address the issue of costly overregulation, which the Government itself has estimated costs business between $40,000m and $80,000m a year. We have said it before and I repeat it now: There is nothing that can be done in a Budget alone that will change investment circumstances in Australia and put us back on the path to recovery and growth. The Government must, in the form of a mini-Budget, take a more responsible fiscal stance and do something about the excessive government expenditure which still impedes our recovery but, at the same time, it must tackle those other vital things which prevent people in business from getting on with the job of creating new employment and wealth for Australia. As part of this debate I think the Opposition must indicate what it sees as being wrong with the Budget and the sort of issue that needs to be addressed and addressed urgently by the Government. We believe that the taxation settings of the Budget are absolutely wrong. Quite apart from the anti-business taxes, which we have made clear should be repealed, we find that the Government has in this Budget added new taxes of $1.4 billion. I suppose the most evident tax to the taxpayers and the ordinary citizens of this country is the increase in the price of petrol which this Government has imposed upon them by additional excise. But there is $1.4 billion of new taxes and in addition at the moment the public is suffering the loss of the tax reduction which was promised by the Government and which has been delayed by it at a cost of some $650m. There is something over $2 billion in tax penalties in this Budget and one has to ask the question: Is this a time when the troubles of Australia are going to be reduced by tax increases rather than reversed? I think that if the Government is prepared to listen to the people of Australia on that question it will hear a resounding no. In addition to that, the Budget takes a total in additional taxes of $6.5 billion. Again I mention that because, quite clearly, the people of Australia understand what the Hawke and Keating Government does not understand; that an ever growing tax burden is the worst way to solve our problems of a loss of growth and a growing unemployment problem. In the 1986-87 Budget we found a fiddling of the figures that has to be reversed by this Government. I have already mentioned the deferral of personal income tax cuts which has been used to help reduce the deficit. I mentioned the putting back of pension indexation, a simple reminder to the pensioners of Australia and the other welfare beneficiaries of Australia that they are beginning to pay the price of this Government's profligacy. That was another $300m in one-off savings. It was a penalty imposed on the pensioners and other people who are dependent upon the Government for support. There is the deferral of the medical fee rise, another $85m crib. This is another sign of the Government's desperation to do something about the deficit. I stress that these are one-off savings like the profits from the Reserve Bank of Australia and they do nothing to ease the problem for the Government in terms of the basic structural deficit, the problem that it faces next year and the judgment, indeed, of the international market. Senator Walsh —John Howard should know about that. The $10 billion man. Senator CHANEY —The Minister is starting to interject. He has been loud in his denial that there would be any serious problem that would in any way compare with past problems of the current account deficit and yet we find that we have a record deficit of $13.7 billion. It is estimated at 5.9 per cent of gross domestic product. It is said that that will be the status quo for this country, that we are going to continue to have a deficit of that sort. In the same way we are going to have inflation at 8.4 per cent when the average for our major trading partners is 1.8 per cent; we have an inadequate commitment to wage discounting; we have an outlook for investment which, in the Government's own prediction, is for decline and that mirrors the decline for the last three quarters; and we have dubious growth forecasts where most international commentators and national commentators have suggested that the Government's growth forecasts are simply not likely to be fulfilled. That is the situation that we have been handed by the Government. On its own assessment Australia is in decline. We are in a declining investment situation. We are not going to improve on our unemployment figures, rather the reverse, and we are in a situation where our external figures are going to remain so bad that we will be maintaining, as the Treasurer has said, high interest rates into the future. Since the Budget has been brought out, what has been the impact? We have had a financial market reaction which has been adverse. I could quote commentators in New York, London and Tokyo, all of whom damn this Budget and say that it will not work. We find that interest rates have soared to a seven-month high; money markets have risen by 2 per cent since the Budget, the prime rate is around 19 per cent and home loans are now coming under great pressure. Interest rates which are, of course, an important barrier to activity and investment are rising and the Treasurer tells us that they will stay at those high levels through next year. This is what the Government has given us in the Budget so far. Since the Budget we have a balance of payments figure for August of $1.2 billion. That is greeted as something which is livable because it is less than the $1.5 billion for the month before. Unemployment is stuck on the 8.3 per cent figure to which it rose in July and the Westpac Banking Corporation, in conjunction with the Melbourne Institute, say that we face protracted recession. We have consumer confidence registered at its lowest ever level and we again have the Confederation of Australian Industry and Westpac in a survey of Australian business indicating that 70 per cent of manufacturers expect worse ahead. If we believe that the economy must recover, if we are to ease the position of the people of Australia, what more depressing fact could we get than the announcement by the Confederation of Australian Industry with the Westpac Banking Corporation, after a survey taken in the first two weeks of September this year-after the Budget-that 70 per cent of respondents expect the general business situation to worsen in the next six months. They advise that the same trend was reflected in a further downward revision of capital expenditure plans for the next 12 months. We have a continued decline in investment in buildings and in plant and machinery and this is expected by the highest proportion of respondents since June 1983 despite the fact that finance is only slightly more difficult to obtain. It is clear from all of these things, including the opinion polls, that the majority of voters say that the Budget will harm them. We have the worst public reaction to the Budget since 1981. There is really no prospect being held out by this Government of this Budget for any hope at all. One wonders at the mentality of the Government, one wonders at the mentality of the Ministers who are prepared to say that it is good enough to simply hold out for Australia for another 12 months this prospect of no improvement. We have a situation where effectively the Government has washed its hands. It has said that we are incapable of producing a change in this doleful situation. It is the view of the Opposition that it is essential that the Government move on this matter and change its policy settings so that we are not left slopping around in the bottom of the boat as a council of despair. We have a situation where there are changes which could be made. The Opposition, among many other people, has been holding out to the Government clear indications of changes which could be made and yet we have the Government resisting. Senator Walsh —What changes? Senator CHANEY —I will come to what changes are going to be made. Let me say that I welcomed what seemed to be a rush of honesty to Senator Button's head as reported in the Age newspaper of 8 September. It is rather sad that in the Senate yesterday Senator Button, as he did on 9 September, chose to recant from his burst of honesty earlier in the day. When honourable senators see the lengthy report of Michelle Grattan on the interview she did with Senator Button they will find the clearest possible statements from him that the Government could do more on the spending side and that it is capable of bringing in changes. Senator Button was quoted as saying: . . . a mini-Budget `must be a possibility . . . Whether you glorify it with the expression mini-Budget or not, there is room, I believe, for further cuts in certain areas of Government expenditure . . . On the same morning on the AM program he made comments. He said specifically: I made that comment in the light of the question about what the Government had to do in the next 6 months or so having regard to the state of the economy and the current account problem. The simple point is that we had the clearest possible indication from Senator Button made in that interview and confirmed on radio on that same morning that the Government had within its hands the capacity to move. Of course it has been a sorry fact that the Treasurer has since insisted that there will be no change over the financial year. Even though Senator Walsh himself has made a comment where he makes it clear that spending cuts will be possible, it would appear that the Government has locked itself in. Senator Walsh was quoted in the Age of 13 September as saying in Perth: Perhaps later this financial year; I think it's unlikely in this calendar year. Senator Walsh conceded the possibility of cuts. Senator Walsh —No, I did not. That was taken from an inaccurate-indeed, doctored-ABC interview. Senator CHANEY —The Minister will speak soon and no doubt he will put his view. If all the Minister can do is say that the Government is locked in to the status quo for the next 12 months and that it is not capable of moving on the budgetary front and those other essential fronts I have mentioned, the country has clearly been sold down the river by this Government and this Minister, because it is clearly possible for something to be done. The last point I want to make about this Government's record is to note the downgrading of our credit rating by Moody's Investor Services Inc. and to remind the Senate that not even Jim Cairns was able to reduce the reputation of this Government in quite the way Mr Keating has now managed to do. If one looks at what Moody's has said about the Australian economy, one gets a bearing out of the positive points I wish to make in the balance of this debate on what is required to be done. What Moody's pointed out as part of its report on what is wrong with this country and why we have lost our AAA rating is that industrial and labour market rigidities are further expected to hamper the country's efforts to shift economic resources into areas with high foreign exchange earning capacity. What Moody's is saying, in everyday language, is that the way we run our trade union system and our labour market and the sorts of ridiculous work practices which have received so much publicity over recent times are all factors which are impeding our economic recovery. This Government has to be prepared to tackle these things, but to date it has shown itself to be incapable of tackling them. The positives which have been asserted by the Opposition have been asserted by the shadow Treasurer, Mr Carlton, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and many other spokesmen for the Opposition. We have said that the present Budget should be recast. We say that there is a need for further genuine cuts in Government spending. If Senator Walsh asks where those cuts should be made, I refer him to the statements made by Mr Howard and published by us in our `Policies for Business' document, where we list many of the changes which could be made. I remind the Senate that this is the situation: The Government has been in office for 3 1/2 years and the Minister says that, like any good government, it has been looking at these matters. I challenge him to tell the Senate what cuts the Government is considering and believes could be made. We have said that there can be many changes, such as the abolition of many of the unnecessary Government bodies, the transferring of functions to the States, the restructuring of some of our income maintenance programs and substantial changes to Medicare and health policies. These are areas that we have said, were we in government now, would be subject to examination and action. I ask the Minister to say what areas he, as the Minister for Finance, will tackle to do something about the overspending of his Government and the resultant overtaxing by his Government. We call upon the Government to remove the anti-investment taxes. It is clear from talking to anyone in the small business sector-the sector which has the capacity to react quickly and create new jobs quickly-about the impact of the capital gains tax, the anti-entertainment tax and the fringe benefits tax that the same message is coming through. On the one hand, we get lectures from this Government and the trade union movement saying that businesses should invest and, on the other hand, the Government imposes a series of taxes which make businessmen feel that further investment in Australia is worthless and make the fund managers of Australia look overseas for their investment, to the detriment of this country. We believe that the final foreign investment restrictions should be removed because they are illogical and nonsensical, given Australia's demands and needs for inflow of funds over the next few years. We believe it is essential that the Government toughens its wages policy. The present Budget indicates a quite inadequate response to wages policy. We believe that in a mini-Budget the Government should argue for the full effect of any currency changes being taken into account at the next national wage case. We say also that the Government should be arguing that any inflationary impact from the Budget decisions, particularly those affecting petrol prices and health care, should be subject to discounting. I again say to the Minister: Do you not agree that those are proper matters for discounting and that wage rises based on increases in costs are economic nonsense? Yet the Government is not committed to arguing against those before the arbitration authorities. Finally, the Government has to give leadership in tackling labour market rigidity generally and restrictive work practices in particular. The Government has to get off the fence in this area, has to stop holding hands with its trade union mates and has to genuinely give the lead to both the trade union movement and employers in rooting out these ridiculous practices which render Australia so inefficient. If Senator Walsh had been here last night to hear Senator Button talking about the efforts to move restrictive work practices in the heavy engineering industry and had heard the evidence given about the slowness of the processes which have been undertaken by the Government, he would understand better why there is so little faith in the Government in this vital area. We believe that Australia has great economic prospects and that it can provide higher living standards for its people. We believe that this Government has condemned Australia to diminished living standards, and that should be changed. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.25) —I am fascinated by the hypothesis put by Senator Chaney just before the end of his speech-the hypothesis of retrospective causation-that is, that prospective taxes have caused the present problems. I have also noted his non-specificity on the particular expenditure changes the Opposition believes should be made, which he tells me were outlined in some tatty business document circulated recently by the Opposition. I am afraid that I did not read that. I do not have it with me and I do not know what is in it, but I know that the shadow Treasurer, Mr Carlton, said at the National Press Club three weeks ago that he was not going to spell out the specifics of what an alternative government would do on the expenditure side because if he were to do that he would be gelding himself-that was his term. I therefore wonder whether this business document, the details of which Senator Chaney chose not to reveal, constitutes a gelding mechanism from Mr Carlton; but the shadow Treasurer has flatly refused to give any details. We know why-because the details will be dictated by the extreme Right, which is on the brink of taking over the Liberal Party of Australia. It is a very serious matter for responsible Australians in general-I am sure this view is shared by a lot of members inside the Liberal Party-that there is a prospect of right wing extremists taking over the Liberal Party. That they are on the brink of doing so is just as frightening as the Australian Labor Party being taken over by Trotskyists. The latter has never been a real possibility in Australia; the former, I regret to say, is. That must be a matter of deep concern not only to non-partisan Australians but also to those members of the Liberal Party in Sydney, for example, who have spent the last decade or so fighting the uglies. The Opposition is determined to have a mini-Budget. Let me make this perfectly clear: There will be no mini-Budget. Fiscal policy has been set for this financial year in the Budget released last month. There is no need for this Government to have a mini-Budget, because this Government does not produce figures which are rubbery, nor a Budget strategy which has failed to address the fundamental problems. In that context it may be contrasted with what occurred under the previous Government. I have got out today a few Press clippings from 1982 with headlines such as this: `Howard puts record straight on Budget'. That article was dated 10 March 1982 and states: In a special statement to Parliament yesterday, the Treasurer, Mr Howard, said the Government first became aware of the prospective deficit overrun towards the end of November, and not the end of December as he had previously indicated. He was caught out. He said it was towards the end of December; in fact, it was the end of November. The Public Service was so angry about being blamed for the Government fiddling the figures-that is, the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, fiddling the figures-that there were angry murmurings that the truth might be revealed. That is alluded to later in this story in the Australian Financial Review, where it is reported: Mr Howard also addressed himself to the point made by the Financial Review yesterday that some senior bureaucratic advisers were angry at the way in which Mr Fraser had implied that it was they, rather than Cabinet, who were responsible for the blowout. That is the Budget deficit blow-out, of course. But that was not the real deficit blow-out over which the former Treasurer presided. The real deficit blow-out over which he presided was the next year, in his final 1982-83 Budget. In the Australian of 11 March 1983, for example, it is reported: The acting Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr John Howard, yesterday denied any dishonesty in his failure to disclose deficit projections in the last week of the election campaign. Mr Howard said he had discussed with the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, Treasury estimates showing the deficit was higher than the $6 billion he and other government leaders were quoting. The truth is, of course, that this most rubbery former Treasurer, the India rubber man who was Treasurer at the time, the expert at producing rubbery figures, deliberately concealed from the nation the fact that what was looming at the time he lost government was a deficit not of $6 billion but of almost $10 billion. If a government is going to produce Budgets with rubbery figures, such as those which the present Leader of the Opposition was accustomed to producing, there may be a need to produce mini-Budgets. There is no need to produce mini-Budgets when the figures are not rubbery and when they are honest estimates, honestly presented, as they have been this year and, indeed, in all the years since this Government came into office. Senator Chaney said, correctly-one of the few things he said correctly-that the aim of this Budget is to trim living standards. That is true; it is. That is because the fact is that the changing terms of trade-that is, the declining prices for the things Australia sells overseas-have wiped $6 billion, $6,000m, off national income. That is an income loss which cannot be accommodated without an appropriate decline in average living standards. Of course there are political difficulties-one would be a fool to deny this-for any government which presides over a decline, in the short term, in average living standards as this Government is fated to do. We accept that responsibility and we have set an appropriate policy for longer term recovery. But there is nothing that can be done in the short term about that catastrophic decline in the prices paid by other countries for the things Australia sells. It is true, as Senator Chaney said, that we have had a large current account deficit. For those who are not familiar with the jargon, that means the difference between the value of the things, the goods and services, we sell overseas and the things that we buy. That is not new. We have been running for the last six years a current account deficit of between 4 per cent and 6 per cent of gross domestic product. Incidentally, the record, the highest current account deficit, was in 1981-82, not while this Government has been in office. The large current account deficits of that time were strongly associated with the so-called resources boom which never actually happened. But the cost of servicing those foreign debts hangs over the economy still. It is true that there was a substantial, though declining, current account deficit in the first two years of this Government. We were getting on top of it and then we were hit with the collapse in the terms of trade of the order, as the Budget Papers show, of 10 per cent on average for 1985-86 over 1984-85, with a forecast further decline of, on average, 8 per cent for 1986-87 over 1985-86. We had a pre-existing fragile current account due largely to the financial servicing charges of the huge borrowings associated with the resources boom which never happened. That pre-existing fragile current account was hit with a terms of trade collapse the size of which had not been seen since 1930. Let us look at the origin of those problems. The problem we now face certainly has not been caused by wage outcomes. For the three calendar years from 1983 to 1985, real wages in Australia fell by 3 per cent-and have fallen more since. In the United Kingdom they increased by 11 per cent; in Japan they increased by 5 per cent. In the United Kingdom, unemployment was rising from just above 10 per cent to above 13 per cent. A stridently anti-union government was pursuing anti-union legislation; yet real wages increased by 11 per cent. In Australia, real wages fell in a period of high and sustained economic growth and falling unemployment. There is no precedent in Australian history for that outcome of declining real wages accompanied by falling unemployment and high and sustained economic growth. Real wages needed to fall because of the wages blow-outs of 1981 and 1982 of 13 per cent and 14 per cent respectively. So it is true that neither inflation nor any of our ills are attributable to wage outcomes. The accord has delivered the wage outcomes which the economic situation demanded. It is true that our inflation rate is higher than those of most of our trading partners and, indeed, that there is operating in many countries a wages-inflation paradox whereby countries in which real wages have increased-this is not true for all countries, but it is true for a great number-have falling rates of inflation. Australia, where real wages have fallen, has accelerating price levels. The common answer to that apparent paradox is the change in commodity prices. Inflation in Australia is not being driven by wage outcomes but by rising import prices directly attributable to the devaluation, which in turn has been caused by the collapse in our terms of trade. On the other hand, the countries which have had significant real wage increases yet declining levels of inflation have been the beneficiaries of those commodity price falls. The real origin of Australia's present economic problem goes back many decades. It is related partly to the slow downward trend in the relative prices of the things that we export. One can get different figures depending on where one chooses to take the starting point, but over the last three or four decades a reasonable figure for the rate at which the relative prices for the things that Australia exports, minerals and agricultural products, have been falling is about one per cent a year. Secondly, it is related essentially to the internationally uncompetitive nature of Australian manufacturing, attributable to a very significant degree to the economic policies of the 1960s, the architect of which was the Leader of the Country Party, and, further back, to the economic policies, I suppose, of the 1920s. Thirdly, in more recent times, the uncompetitiveness of Australian manufacturing industry was aggravated by a deliberate policy of maintaining an overvalued Australian dollar in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a substitute for a wages policy. Fourthly, it relates to the debt hangover from the resources boom which never happened, to which I referred in more detail earlier. Finally, it relates to a taxation system which encouraged speculation and the dissipation of the nation's scarce investable domestic capital, instead of its investment in activities which would be self-sustaining and which would promote continuing economic growth. I want to digress here to take one specific example, that of the fringe benefits tax and the motor vehicle industry. It was asserted and mindlessly echoed by the Opposition that the fringe benefits tax application would cause a catastrophic decline in motor vehicle sales. Of course, that was exaggerated. But, to the extent that it was true, it demonstrated that, because of a tax distortion, scarce investment capital was being directed into the purchase of motor vehicles for which there was no functional economic need. In other words, the absence of a fringe benefits tax and the developments in the provision of fringe benefits which had taken place had together set up a mechanism or a formula by which the nation's scarce investable capital was misdirected into a tax haven, that is, the excessive purchase of motor vehicles for which there was no functional economic need. That is a very important symptom of this country's fundamental problems. Far from the so-called anti-investment taxes of this Government's tax reform package doing damage to the economy and to self-sustaining growth, they are an essential component of a policy package that will ensure that growth. It is worth mentioning the fundamental illogicality of the Opposition's hypothesis of retrospective causation, that prospective taxes have caused the present problems. The only long term answer, other than a large and continuing decline in living standards-unless one believes that the relative price trends for commodities and other goods and services will be reversed, and there is no reason to believe that they will be-is to develop an internationally competitive manufacturing industry. That is what this Government was doing and had done. The wage outcomes delivered by the accord had wound back the effects of the wages explosions of 1981 and 1982. The consumer price index had fallen from above 11 per cent to around 5 per cent. The level of industrial disputation was the lowest it had been for 17 years. The profit share of product had been restored to the levels of the late 1960s. In key industries, significant structural change had already been achieved. In the steel industry labour productivity had increased by almost 30 per cent. The motor vehicle industry was becoming more competitive, as were the shipbuilding, heavy engineering and even to some extent the chronically sick textile, footwear and clothing industries. All that had happened. In early 1985 the first devaluation of the Australian dollar further and substantially aided international competitiveness. The accord had delivered the wage adjustment that that initial devaluation required. Then, towards the end of last year, it became apparent that we were being hit with not a minor but a catastrophic decline in the terms of trade, the size of which probably had not occurred since 1930, and there was a further devaluation of the Australian dollar which has made the Australian economy massively competitive in an international sense. The accord will deliver the wage adjustment that further decline of the Australian currency requires. Senator Sheil —I think you really believe that. Senator WALSH —As the Leader of the Opposition used to say, the runs are on the board. The accord has delivered so far and it will deliver in the future. I say to Senator Sheil that, if the accord cannot do that, nothing else can. One of the supreme ironies of contemporary politics is the fact that the left wing extremists of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia have exactly the same wages policy as the right wing extremists who pull the strings that move John Howard-that is, they want wage outcomes to be determined in the market-place. That has been tried. The previous Government tried it in 1981 and 1982. What happened? There was a wages explosion because there was a short lived period of high economic growth. Under the accord, three years of sustained high economic growth have delivered a decline in real wages. I suppose it comes down to whether one is more interested in outcomes than in processes. The extremists of the Right who are on the brink of taking over the Liberal Party of Australia are clearly more interested in processes. They are more interested in the methods than in the outcomes. This Government is interested in outcomes. The outcome on the wages front has been delivered. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.45) —This matter of urgency that we are debating refers to the need for a mini-Budget to restore confidence in the economy. I believe that the actual wording of this matter of urgency indicates the narrowness of political perceptions in this country. What the Opposition really means by the need for a mini-Budget to restore confidence in the economy is that it wants to restore the confidence of the international money markets in the Australian economy. The Government's whole Budget was framed with this in mind. It was framed for the international money markets; it was an attempt to restore confidence in the Australian economy. What we need now is not a mini-Budget. We need a fundamental change in economic direction in this country. The present Government's strategy is wrong; it is misguided and it will strangle the economy. It will have the effect of pushing an economy already in recession into deep depression. It will have the effect of placing a disastrous burden on working Australians. It will cause heart-rending devastation to families already in poverty. It will cause hunger to families of retrenched persons in single income families and it will create enormous problems for young children. But, worst of all, this Government has left unscathed the huge profits of money speculators. It has left untouched the rape of Australian industries by overseas companies. By disbanding the Foreign Investment Review Board at the very time when the Australian dollar has been devalued to its lowest level in memory, our Australian owned industries will be left open to takeover at bargain basement prices. Members of the Government have travelled up and down this country to sell the Budget. The Government has said how brave it is to introduce an austerity Budget at this time; so far it has got away with that. It has got away with it because fundamentally it has brought down a Budget identical in strategy to the Budget for which the Opposition and big business were calling. The only difference between what has been said by the Opposition and what the Government has done in this Budget is that the Opposition believes that there should be more austerity, bigger cuts, further discounting of wages and deregulation of the labour market. That last strategy, which has just been enunciated by Senator Chaney, is open to very severe criticisms. Two days ago on AM no less a specialist in industrial relations than Brian Powell, the Director of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, said that he did not see how the labour markets could be substantially deregulated in Australia without creating enormous industrial turmoil. The Opposition should take note of that comment. If it really believes that deregulation of the labour markets is the salvation of our economic problems, it has a responsibility to show in great detail how it would deregulate the labour markets and get away from centralised wage fixing. The Australian Democrats have at least introduced a Bill that would allow collective agreements to be worked out in association with a centralised wage fixing process. We need a change of direction. The fundamental problem with the Australian economy is simply that for the last 30 years we have been borrowing money overseas to balance our trade deficit. Borrowing money is not in itself a bad thing. It is not a bad thing to borrow money to invest in wealth creating industries if one is sure that meeting the interest commitments on the amount borrowed is within the bounds of one's ability. Neither of those two criteria is being met at the moment by the Australian Government. Australia is like a reckless family that has borrowed too much and spent unwisely. It is like a reckless family that is faced with the prospect of not being able to meet its interest commitments on the money it has borrowed. What would a family do in such a situation? I suggest that the first thing that it would do is stop borrowing and work harder in an attempt to find the money to pay the commitments on the money it had already borrowed. Also, it would set about trying to produce, itself, the things that it no longer had the money to buy. The Government has given no such lead in the Budget. In fact, it still encourages big business to borrow overseas to make and invest in paper profits on the takeover trail-that is, to make money out of money. The Government has done nothing to encourage money borrowed overseas into productive investments. We see the criminal waste of borrowed money in things such as tanker loads of orange juice coming in from Brazil to be put on the Australian market at a time when our battling fruit growers in the Murray Valley are letting their oranges drop to the ground because, as was pointed out in a recent survey, if they pick them they will each lose $15,000 this year. They will lose $15,000 this year if they stay in business. If that is not slave labour, I do not know what is; and if that is not an absolutely criminal waste of borrowed money on which all Australia must pay the interest, I do not know what is. It is absolutely infantile to pursue the present course. Senator Sheil —There is no slave labour, just labour. Senator SIDDONS —Slave labour is getting people to work without paying them a living wage. That is precisely what is happening. In the time available to me, I want to be constructive. I shall list 10 fundamental points of principle that the Democrats, in government, would ensure were implemented. Firstly, we must get our overseas trade account into balance. We must stop borrowing money. Secondly, we must stop overseas companies purchasing our wealth producing industries at rock bottom prices. We must strengthen the FIRB; not disband it, as the Government is doing. Thirdly, we must convert the Department of Trade into a Ministry of International Trade and Industry-type organisation on the Japanese model where there is a mechanism for co-operation between government, industry and the trade union movement. We should rename the Department of Trade the department of international trade and investment. Fourthly, we should revamp the Department of the Treasury to cleanse it of the discredited monetarists who are still dominating its policies. Fifthly, we must encourage worker participation if we are to create efficient internationally competitive industries. There is nothing in the Budget about encouraging employee participation-the policy that the Japanese have so successfully used to develop an industrial machine that today is the envy of the world. We have done nothing in that respect. Six months ago I introduced a Bill on employee participation. So far, I have not been able to get the Government's agreement to debate that Bill in the Senate. Sixthly, we must encourage small business and entrepreneurship in this country. It is through small business that we will develop the innovative industries that will be export competitive. Seventhly, we must apply orderly marketing to primary production in the interests of eliminating the enormous fluctuations in the prices that our farmers receive for their labour. Eighthly, we must create a nuclear-free Pacific. Ninthly, we must share the available work among the entire work force so that there is no unemployment. We cannot continue with such enormous levels of unemployment. Surely the fair thing to do is to have flexible working hours so that the available work can be shared. Tenthly, we must face up to and encourage a multicultural Australia. Often the Democrats are accused of jumping on bandwagons, of talking principles and not getting down to the nitty gritty. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Democrats' alternative Budget. Our policies have been worked out in great detail. The figures are available and can be studied. Leave granted. The document read as follows- AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRAT ALTERNATIVE BUDGET (14.8.86) The Australian Democrat alternative budget has been produced as a practical demonstration of how the Party's policy platform would be implemented. It demonstrates that our present economic problems can be addressed without the austerity measures advocated by the Government, the Opposition and financial markets. Austerity will bring depression, not economic recovery. Although the Democrat budget proposes a deficit only slightly higher than the figure the Government is aiming for, personal income tax is reduced and spending is increased significantly in important areas. The Government tax cuts have been maintained and a further $1,000m has been foregone through the introduction of tax indexation. The family allowance has been increased by 88% and Government cuts in health, welfare, education and payments to the States have been neutralised. Additional funds have been channelled to public housing. Industry has received aid through technology transfers, employee participation and the abolition of payroll tax. These measures will be financed through improvements in bureaucratic efficiency, retargeting of welfare expenditure to areas of need and the closing of loopholes exploited by some big companies at great expense to the honest taxpayer. PREDICTED GOVERNMENT BUDGET* (One week before the Government, in fact, brought down its Budget) Assumptions-inflation...7.7% GDP Growth...3.0% Total...10.5% Table 1 EXPENDITURES 1985-86 Latest Actuals 1986-87 Inflated (10.5%) Predicted Government Changes 1986-87 Government Budget (Predicted) Defence... 6,676 7,377 7,377 Education... 4,914 5,430 - 220 5,210 Health... 6,839 7,557 - 200 7,357 Welfare... 19,202 21,218 - 710 20,508 Housing... 1,401 1,548 1,548 Urban/Regional Development... 65 72 72 Culture and Recreation... 885 978 978 Economic Services... 4,442 4,908 - 230 4,678 General Public Service... 4,882 5,395 - 200 5,195 Payments to States... 13,587 15,014 -1,160 13,854 Public Debt Interest... 7,053 7,793 7,793 TOTAL... 69,946 77,290 74,570 RECEIPTS Income Tax... 32,735 36,172 - 842 35,330 Company Tax... 6,111 6,753 + 645 7,398 With-holding Tax... 562 621 + 105 726 Sales Tax... 5,728 6,329 + 110 6,439 Excise Oil/LPG... 4,019 4,441 - 420 4,021 Other... 5,186 5,731 5,731 Customs Duty... 3,339 3,690 3,690 Bank Account Debits... 202 223 223 Other Taxes... 528 583 583 TOTAL TAX... 58,410 64,543 64,141 Other Receipts... 5,792 6,400 6,400 TOTAL RECEIPTS... 64,202 70,943 70,541 Deficit... 5,744 6,347 4,029 Internal... 1,915 2,116 1,343 Overseas... 3,829 4,231 2,686 Deficit as % of GDP... 4.5 4.5 2.8 PROPOSED DEMOCRAT BUDGET Table 2A EXPENDITURE 1985-86 Latest Actuals Predicted 1986-87 Government Proposed Democrat Changes (see attached notes) Proposed 1986-87 Democrat Defence... 6,676 7,377 - 250 7,127 Education... 4,914 5,210 + 303 5,513 Health... 6,839 7,357 + 200 7,557 Welfare... 19,202 20,508 + 710 21,218 Housing... 1,401 1,548 + 100 1,648 Urban/Regional Development... 65 72 72 Culture and Recreation... 885 978 978 Economic Services... 4,442 4,678 4,678 General Public Services... 4,882 5,195 5,195 Payments to States... 13,587 13,854 +1,200 15,054 Abolish Payroll Tax... + 663 663 Public Debt Interest... 7,053 7,793 7,793 Technology Transfer... + 150 150 Employee Participation... + 30 30 Raise Family Allowance... +1,326 1,326 TOTAL... 69,946 74,570 79,002 PROPOSED DEMOCRAT BUDGET Table 2B RECEIPTS 1985-86 Latest Actuals Predicted 1986-87 Government Proposed Democrat Changes (see attached notes) Proposed 1986-87 Democrat Income Tax... 32,735 35,330 - 105 35,225 Company Tax... 6,111 7,398 7,398 Takeover Loopholes... +1,254 1,254 Offshore Capital Tax... + 550 550 Imports Tax... + 450 450 Abolition of Transfer Pricing... + 500 500 With-holding Tax... 562 726 726 Sales Tax... 5,728 6,439 6,439 Excise-Oil/LPG... 4,019 4,021 4,021 Other... 5,186 5,731 5,731 Customs Duty... 3,339 3,690 3,690 Bank Account Debits Tax... 202 223 223 Other Taxes... 528 583 583 TOTAL TAX... 58,410 64,141 66,790 Other Receipts... 5,792 6,400 6,400 Economic Growth Factor... +1,000 1,000 TOTAL RECEIPTS... 64,202 70,541 74,190 TOTAL EXPENDITURE... 69,946 74,570 79,002 TOTAL RECEIPTS... 64,202 70,541 74,190 Deficit... 5,744 4,029 4,812 Internal... 1,915 1,343 1,604 Overseas... 3,829 2,686 3,208 Deficit as % of GDP... 4.5 2.8 3.3 Table 3 DEFICITS, INFLATION AND MONEY SUPPLY 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 Govt. 1986-87 A.D.s Receipts... 40,785 44,462 48,610 56,993 64,202 70,541 74,190 Outlays... 41,305 48,935 56,570 63,739 69,946 74,513 79,002 Deficit... 548 4,473 7.961 6,746 5,744 4,029 4,812 Domestic... + 920 2,482 5,471 3,733 1,915 1,343 1,604 Overseas... 1,468 1,991 2,490 3,013 3,829 2,686 3,208 Deficit as % of GDP... 0.4 2.7 4.2 3.2 4.5 2.8 3.3 Inflation rate %... 10.4 11.5 6.9 4.3 8.25 7.5 7.5 Money supply increase %... 11.1 11.1 12.7 13.3 13.00 13.00 13.00 EXPLANATION OF FIGURES-GOVERNMENT BUDGET 1986-87 Expenditure will be cut by the following amounts as a result of the Government's attempts to slash the deficit. Education $227 million Health $200 million Social Security $710 million Economic Services $230 million General Public Services $200 million Payments to States $1,160 million TAXATION Personal income tax collections will decrease by $842 million due to the tax reforms recently introduced and planned tax cuts. Tax cuts are assumed to date from 1 December 1986. Living allowances +$10 million Changes to film deductions +$35 million Concessional expenditure +$60 million Abolition of negative gearing +$55 million Rental property depreciation -$ 2 million Tax cuts -$1000 million -$ 842 million COMPANY TAX The following changes will result from the tax reform. Fringe benefits +$320 million Disallowment of entertainment expenses +$310 million Unit trust +$ 5 million Petroleum/Forestry rebates +$ 10 million Total company tax increase $645 million As a result of tax reform the following increases will also occur: Withholding Tax +$105 million Sales Tax +$110 million OIL PRICE FALLS: As a result of oil price falls, the Government will lose a total of $420 million in revenue. This figure has been worked in with oil excises, and is a result of the following figures: $2,492 million - loss to the Government on crude oil levy. $2,072 million + gain as a result of increase in oil excise. $420 million Net loss to Government DEMOCRAT BUDGET CHANGES EXPENDITURES In the following areas spending was increased to offset Government cuts. Education $220 million Health $200 million Welfare $710 million Payments to States $1,160 million $2,290 million Additional Expenditure was allocated to the following critical areas: Abolition of Payroll Tax $663 million Technology Transfer $150 million Worker Participation $30 million Family Allowances $1,326 million Education $76 million States $40 million Housing $100 million $2,385 million Payroll Tax-This tax is a tax on jobs. It will be abolished over three years and the Federal government will reimburse the States, who levy the tax, for the loss of revenue. Technology Transfer a Worker Participation-These measures are necessary to stimulate efficiency in the manufacturing sector. Their application has been fully explained in Democrat bills currently before the Senate. Family allowances-The dependant spouse rebate has been scrapped and the resulting funds used to increase family allowance payments by 88%. The family allowance will be taxed in the hands of the recipient parent. Education-Extra funds have been provided for building and maintenance works in tertiary institutions. These areas have been starved of funds for many years resulting in a reduction of education opportunities and deterioration of buildings and equipment. States-Extra payments have been made to the States for industrial restructuring and transport upgrading. Housing-Funds have been directed to ease the chronic shortage of public housing in all States. Defence-The defence budget has been reduced by $250 million. This reduction has been made possible through increased efficiencies in running the department and the defence forces. Details are set out in a Democrat defence paper. REVENUES Personal Income Tax-In addition to the Government's $1,000m promised tax cuts (effective 1.12.86), the Democrats propose the following measures: $ 121 m + Taxation of family allowances $1,326 m + Abolition of Dependant Spouse Rebate $1,000 m - Full tax indexation $ 552 m - Full imputation of dividends $ 105 m - Reduction in income tax collections Full tax indexation will be introduced to prevent inflation eroding living standards. Full imputation of dividends will be implemented to encourage investments. There will be no compensatory increase in the company tax rate. Takeover Loopholes-An extra $1,254m will be collected by closing the takeover borrowing loophole. Transfer Pricing-The practice of tax avoidance through transfer pricing will be greatly reduced through the designation of notional values to exported goods with reference to world prices. This measure will raise $500m. Capital Export Tax-A tax of 5% would be levied on movements of capital out of Australia to protect the currency and encourage local investment. This tax would raise $550m per year. Imports Tax-To combat the balance of trade deficit a tax would be placed on selected imports, mainly luxury items, at 6.5%. This would raise $450m. Economic Growth Figure-Democrat policies and budget initiatives would result in a further increase in GDP of the order of 2% or $3,000m. This would net the Government a further $1,000m in revenues due to increased taxes generated and a decrease in welfare spending. Growth would be generated by the stimulus to consumption of the increased outlays and the stimulus to productive investment provided by the tax changes and general policy initiatives. Family Allowance Details-At present family allowances cost the Government $1,505m per year. The Democrats proposal would increase this by 88% ($1,326m), bringing the total cost up to $2,831m. The average payment to families at present is $686.84 per year. This would increase to $1,291.25. The family allowance would be means tested and taxed in the hands of the principal child carer. This would raise $121 million per year. Senator SIDDONS —I thank the Senate. In our alternative Budget we have carefully worked out the figures. We came up with a deficit only slightly higher than the Government's deficit, so it is a responsible alternative Budget. However, we have done something about the tax rorts and the negative gearing of big business. We have done something about reducing the flow of luxury imports that we do not need and can do without. Such methods can be incorporated in a Budget which is responsible and which does not create a large deficit. I refer to some of the initiatives that the Opposition has suggested we should embrace. The Opposition has said, among other things, that we should have income splitting. That would cost $2 billion. It has suggested that we should repeal the assets test, at a cost of $140 billion; that we should abolish the fringe benefits tax, at a cost of $320m; and that we should remove the tax on lump sum superannuation, at a cost of $100m. The Opposition's suggestions for greater austerity would cost a lot of money. I do not see how the Opposition can continue to say that it would introduce such policies and at the same time keep the deficit within bounds. I believe that the Opposition has a very real responsibility to cost out its proposals and to put them into a Budget context that allows everyone to see precisely how they would be worked out in detail. Senator Chaney said that the present Budget trimmed Australians' living standards. The Democrats could not agree more. There will be cuts in health and in education. There will be cuts in the bounties available to industry at a time when we want to create employment and produce in Australia so that we do not have to buy so many imports. Bounties will be cut, with the inevitable result that industries will go bankrupt. The Democrats are not prepared to accept that. When the various Budget Bills come before this chamber and we debate cuts in education and welfare and reductions in bounties for industries, we will oppose those cuts. They are unnecessary. It is the wrong approach. It is fundamentally the wrong direction in which to go. The Democrats have come up with alternative policies that can be funded, and those policies tackle the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that for 30 years we have borrowed money and we can no longer pay the interest payments on that borrowed money. Therefore, we must stop borrowing money. If we put a 6.5 per cent tax on luxury imports only-that is, about one-fifth of our current imports-that one initiative would raise $250m alone. Responsible commentators have pointed out that if the tax rort on negative gearing on takeovers in this country were eliminated, the Government would gain a further $1.5 billion in company tax. That figure has been substantiated by responsible journalists in this country. Yet nothing has been done about it. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) refuses to look into it. Certain responsible back benchers in the Government and in the Senate have brought the problem of negative gearing in corporate takeovers to the Treasurer's attention and he has refused to act on it. An amount of $1.5 billion is involved. We could do something about encouraging people to put the money that we can still borrow overseas into productive investments. If we use money wisely to create wealth producing industries, we can get ourselves out of our problem. But, if we keep borrowing money to buy consumer products, there is no doubt that the country is headed for bankruptcy. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(4.00) —I rise to speak to the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, which states: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need during the current Parliamentary sittings for a Mini Budget which contains measures necessary to restore confidence in the Australian economy. Senator Siddons, at the outset of his speech, made out that we were just suggesting that the measures would be instituted to satisfy the international money market. That would be the last thing that I would be worried about. At the moment, the confidence of all the small businesses in this country is at a minimal level. That is where we must get confidence back. For many years, I have been attempting to point out some of the problems mentioned by Senator Siddons. I have done so in speech, question and motion. I have tried to point out the way in which the economy has been heading downhill because of the insatiable appetite of the Australian Labor Party in wanting to spend any part of the taxpayers' money that it can possibly collect along with anything that it can possibly borrow. It has been mentioned that the world's greatest Treasurer of last year is now the world's greatest borrower. That is not quite true. He is not quite the world's greatest borrower but, if he keeps going at his present rate, he soon will be. Even blind Freddy could understand that, if one keeps spending more than the amount raised in revenue, eventually the total debt catches up with one. Every housewife and businessman around the country knows that. It seems that the only group that does not is the Labor Party. Why do I not blame Mr Fraser? Everyone else seems to blame him and Mr Howard. I do not do so for good reason. Past Budget figures show that Mr Fraser and Mr Howard were well aware of the danger towards which the country was heading and were making attempts to do something about it. The deficits in the last three years of Mr Fraser's term were reduced from $3,449m in 1978-79 to $2,016m the next year, down to $1,105m the next year and $576m in 1981-82. When Labor won office in February 1983, it let the expenditure cat out of the bag. In 1982-83, the deficit rose to $4,467m. The year after that it reached the horrific level of $7,960m. The year after that it was $6,746m and then it went down to $4,919m. This year the Labor Government has made an attempt-with rubbery figures, I admit-to get the deficit down. Of course, Labor blames Mr Howard. I do not believe that the electorate believes Labor any more. It has just been doing this for too long. Anyway, the people of the country expect the Government of the country to fix up what is happening. The blame cannot be pinned on anyone else but on the world's greatest borrower. The Labor Party has not been able to make the cuts in government spending that needed to be made in years gone by, so our indebtedness has continued to escalate. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing our debt per head compared with that of some other countries. I have shown it to the Minister. Leave granted. The table reads as follows- PER CAPITA NET EXTERNAL DEBT OF SELECTED COUNTRIES 1984 Per capita 1985 Per capita ($US) ($US) 1. Canada... 6 920 . . 2. Norway... 6 500 . . 3. Denmark... 5 800 . . 4. Sweden... 4 500 . . 5. New Zealand... 3 666 3 833 6. Finland... 3 200 . . 7. Australia... 2 600 3 200 8. Venezuela... 2 059 . . 9. Belgium... 1 800 . . 10. Argentina... 1 600 . . 11. Mexico... 1 280 1 280 12. Germany... 1 279 . . 13. U.K.... 1 250 . . 14. Italy... 1 193 . . 15. Japan... 1 134 . . 16. S. Korea... 1 075 1 138 17. France... 945 . . 18. Spain... 816 . . 19. U.S.A.... 800 . . 20. Brazil... 800 . . Note 1. Australia's current position Net External debt = A$52.6 bill. (converted to US $ at conversion rate of A$1.00 = US $0.72); US $72.9 bill; US $4,700 per capita (approx.); 2. Eastern European countries are not included in the ranking; 3. 1985 figures are only available for the countries shown in the table. 1. Harrick, M. Australia's external debt. The Australian banker, Dec. 1985: 230-234. 2. First world debt. Lloyds Bank international financial outlook, 7 August 1985: 1. 3. Tingle, L. Australia's debt crisis: when will the plug be pulled. Business review weekly, 4 October 1985: 40+ (8p.) 4. World Bank. World development report 1985. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 1985. 5. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Foreign Investment, Australia, September quarter 1985. ABS Cat. n. 5306.0 Senator TOWNLEY —Australia is seventh on that list, with Canada, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand and Finland ahead of us. The Senate might be interested to find that our debt per head of population is greater than that in Argentina, Mexico and Brazil, among many others. Those three countries are the `bad boys' of the economic scene in South America. One of our big worries is that our debt is increasing rapidly-from $2,600 per head in 1984 to $3,200 per head in 1985-yet Mr Keating pretended that that surprised him. He should not have been surprised because, for a long time, many of us were telling him, in one way or another, that we could see the catastrophe that lay ahead for this country. I think that in May 1985 I moved a motion that pointed out just how much in debt we were. I mentioned then that we had to recognise that damage was being done to this country and asked the Government to take immediate action to start cutting expenditure. That was about 18 months ago, yet when eventually the penny drops or when Mr Keating cannot get through to his union people in Caucus how serious the situation is, he calls Australia a banana republic. Some of us have known that for a long time. This has not happened quickly. This is a country which, under Labor, has been plunged deeply into debt. Forward projections by informed people show a huge deficit of about $8 billion or $9 billion next financial year, and that is only a base. We cannot afford such a level or to leave the situation running out of control, as apparently it is doing at the moment. Thought should be given to a mini-Budget. Perhaps, as Senator Chaney suggested, we should even alter the Budget that is now before us. It is only a month old. After about two days, the Press were beginning to notice how bad it was. After a month, it is certainly very much out of date. Of course, as we borrow, our debts increase. The interest which we must pay has been increasing too. We now pay more from the Budget in interest. I think that the amount predicted to be spent this year on interest is $7,514m-more than we spent on education, health or defence. More than 10 per cent of the tax paid now is being used to pay interest on our borrowings. The figures of the Department of Finance show that the estimate for this year was $6,724m in interest, and the Budget figure is $800m ahead of that. That shows how the debt has escalated since the Department of Finance released that information in a book in May 1985. I bet that this year the interest that must be paid will be more like $8,000m rather than the $7,514m predicted. What does $8,000m mean in terms that we all understand? With about 15 million people in Australia, it means that every man, woman and child will have to contribute about $500 in tax a year, just to pay interest on the money that the Government is squandering. I have two tables that show the way in which our interest bill and defence spending have increased over the past couple of years. They show a dramatic rise in our interest payments from 1976-77 to the present time and the projection for next year. I have shown those tables to the Minister and I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Senator Cook —What are their sources? Senator TOWNLEY —The source is listed at the bottom of each table: Budget Papers 1985-86 and Department of Finance Forward Estimates Report of Budget Outlays and Staffing 1986-88. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT BUDGET OUTLAYS ($m) Public Debt Interest 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 Total Public Debt Interest... 141 1 649 1 971 2 223 2 561 2 881 3 378 4 330 5 656 7 053 7 514 7 691 Total Outlays... 24 023 26 664 28 911 31 444 35 994 41 188 48 792 56 430 63 712 69 917 74 764 80 150 Public Debt as percentage of Total Outlays... 5.9 6.2 6.8 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 7.7 8.9 10.1 10.0 Source: Budget Papers 1985-86 and Department of Finance Forward Estimates Report of Budget Outlays and Staffing 1986-88. COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT BUDGET OUTLAYS ($m) Defence 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 Total Defence Expenditure... 2 149 2 340 2 568 2 965 3 490 4 054 4 701 5 298 5 938 6 673 7 415 8 190 Total Outlays... 24 023 26 664 28 911 31 444 35 994 41 188 48 792 56 430 63 712 69 917 74 764 80 150 Defence as a percentage of Total Outlays... 8.9 8.8 8.9 9.4 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.4 9.3 9.5 9.9 Source: Budget Papers 1985-86 and Department of Finance Forward Estimates Report of Budget Outlays and Staffing 1986-88. Senator Cook —Were they checked? Senator TOWNLEY —The Minister checked them. The honourable member is welcome to check them. I imagine that it will take him a long time to do so. I said that the Government was squandering money. I am sure that some will ask where it is squandering money. Let me detail a few areas in which the Government has been squandering money. Until recently, we had the total madness of New Zealand people coming to this country and extracting about $65m a year in unemployment benefit. When I first raised the matter in the Senate it was laughed at, but I note that the Government is attempting to rectify the situation, although I do not believe that it has gone far enough. I believe that it should immediately cut off payment to those people from New Zealand who have not worked in this country. On the matter of unemployment, it is time we recognised that we cannot continue to pay those who choose not to work. Anybody who is caught cheating the system should be ineligible for any assistance from the Government for a period of five years from the time that he or she is convicted. That is the kind of thing that applies in the United States of America. Briefly, in Canada one has to work for 26 weeks before one can get a year of unemployment benefits and then one has to work another 10 weeks before more unemployment benefits become available. One needs to prove who one is in Canada. Everyone's record of employment has a number on it. The unemployment payments made are not at a flat rate but are based on the last 10 weeks of one's earnings. When one is dismissed from a job the dismissal notice has to be signed by two people. So, one's earnings can be checked against tax paid. If no tax has been paid, there in no unemployment benefit. The tax number can be the check. I believe that that kind of system in this country would help a great deal. Another way in which the Government can attack expenditure is to stop sending pensions overseas. Some people say that more money comes into this country in the form of pensions than we send away, but I do not believe that we can afford that luxury any more. How does the Department of Social Security check, for argument's sake, on the assets of a pensioner who is living overseas? Why should a pensioner living overseas not be subject to the same rules, if we are to have an assets test, which I do not think we should? How is the Department able to check on those people? Personally, I would not send any pension overseas; but if we continue to send pensions overseas, the maximum tax rate should be applied to them, because when they are spent in Australia they are of some benefit to this country but when they are spent overseas they are of no benefit. Until we reduce government spending, the confidence of the Australian taxpayer will not be restored and the confidence of overseas banking organisations, such as the Moody's group that Senator Chaney spoke about, will not be restored either. Mr Hawke has said that we have a war on our hands. Mr Hawke has declared the war but he is the person who presided over the disastrous economy that has caused the war. As I have said, the news of the future is not good at all. I have a Press statement from Les McCarrey, who is Director of the State policy unit in the Institute of Public Affairs. The statement is headed: `The real horror is yet to come'. That is something the people of this country should recognise. He points out in this statement that the basic deficit from which we will have to start calculating next year will be $8 billion to $9 billion. If we had a mini-Budget now, that is something that could be avoided. We have this war on our hands. No one in the country would assert that it has been caused by anything other than the fact that the Australian Labor Party would not discipline its own expenditure over the last few years. We live in a time when we are trying to get money into this country, yet when this big spending and big taxing Labor Government gets a chance to get export income from one of the most highly mineralised areas in the world, it gives in to the loony Left in the Party. A Senate committee is looking at the whole Kakadu area, but does the Government wait to hear what that committee has to say? No, it seems to give in to the loony Left and it says: `No mining in that area'-no matter how uninteresting or how useless that area may be. If a few more members of Caucus visited that area, I think they would realise that the damage done by mining would be minimal in some areas but the rewards for the people of this country would be quite large. About $70 billion to $80 billion worth of minerals is in that area-and the Government decides to lock it up without even finding out just what assets are there. Mr Hawke has been done over by his loony Left, the people who are trying to put Mr Halfpenny ahead of Senator Button, the one who said, effectively-but not quite in these words-that we need a mini-Budget. That is something that the Opposition senators would support. If the Government does not produce one, this country is heading for disaster. My advice to Australians is that if the Government will not bring in an adjustment to this Budget, they should brace themselves-for there is yet worse to come. As I have said, the world's greatest Treasurer will be remembered in this country as the guy who ruined the economy, and he will become the world's greatest borrower. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.15) —Mini-Budgets are required when Budget strategies do not work and when it is recognised that the Budget is failing. I would like to state at the outset that this is a Budget strategy that is working all the way and it is widely endorsed. We heard Senator Townley say that the Press woke up to this Budget straightaway. I want to take honourable senators through, slowly but surely-- Senator Robert Ray —Very slowly for him. Senator RICHARDSON —Extra slowly for Senator Townley. I want to take honourable senators through exactly what reaction we have had from the Press and industry over the last month since we brought down the Budget. Even Bert Evans from the Metal Trades Industry Association Inc. put out a Press release a day after the Budget which stated: The Government has administered the right dose of medicine through the Budget. I want to start quoting from some Fairfax newspapers because, in recent times, the accuracy of the Fairfax Press has been in question. Sometimes that is justified. However, there are odd occasions when it gets it right, and I want to take honourable senators through those occasions. On 4 September the Australian Financial Review had a big headline concerning financial world backing for our Budget in the following terms: `Morgan Stanley backs Budget'. The article went on to say that recent fiscal and monetary trends in Australia were encouraging for off-shore investors. Senator Watson —Why did the dollar go down? Senator RICHARDSON —I will get to the dollar in a minute. As usual, the honourable senator has not been following the debate. I think that Tasmanian senators from the Liberal Party of Australia have definite problems in following current events. I will help the honourable senator out a little later but I want him to be patient. He should take three deep breaths and remain calm. The Canberra Times of 20 August-I want to go through a number of editorials-said in the introduction to its editorial on the Budget: `A sensible Budget'. The Australian, the thinking person's paper, stated: `Good Budget'. The Melbourne Age-what better paper could one get than the Melbourne Age-stated: `The Keating prescription: Strong medicine, but not bitter'. Senator Peter Baume —Moody's didn't agree. Senator RICHARDSON —I will get to Moody's in a minute. Senator Peter Baume also needs to be patient. Moody's agreed wholeheartedly. I will take the honourable senator through that as well, but I ask him to be patient. The Australian Financial Review referred to `Mr Keating's remarkable Budget'. Let me just quote some of the words of wisdom from the Australian Financial Review. It states: He- I think it is referring to Mr Keating- has met the most optimistic of market expectations, maintained a high level of welfare spending . . . It is . . . economically responsible and politically honest. Of course, that is a pretty accurate description of Paul Keating generally. We just heard about Moody's Investor Services Inc. I want to discuss the Moody's report and I want to quote from the National Times on Sunday which is a really reliable paper. The other day it had an article on the Moody's report which contained enough quotations from that report to try to put it into proper perspective. The AAA rating that we had was reduced to AA1, which is the highest level within the double-A ratings. However, Moody's statement is an endorsement of the Hawke Government's Budget strategy. Let me quote what a gentleman called Roger Nye-Moody's man in Australia-said: Moody's think the Budget was a brave one. In a rating review we take into account the wisdom or lack thereof of the country's economic managers. One of the positive features of the Australian scene is the intelligent guiding of the ship of state. Senator Baume asked me about Moody's. That is what it had to say. Moody's is the smaller of the two international credit rating agencies. The much larger one, Standard and Poor's, still has us at an AAA rating. We as a Government have directed our economic policy and our national effort for some considerable time at these issues, and the way in which Moody's has acknowledged our efforts makes us grateful and happy. I quote further from Moody's: Many fundamental factors bode well for Australia's long term credit quality. Moody's cited the nation's stability, its strong natural resource base, its sound economic management-I want the Opposition to remember those words, its sound economic management-and prospects for improved economic performance in the 1990s. Overall it has confidence in the private sector's ability to rise to meet competitive challenges and confidence in the Government's ability to pass the appropriate legislation to give incentives for those challenges to be met. Senator Watson today mentioned the dollar, and we must help Tasmanian Liberal senators in this place-God knows they need it. The Australian dollar closed unchanged, the Sydney Morning Herald tells us, from Monday at US62.5c. The trade-weighted index has remained unchanged at 52. The reason for that is that the Budget has been accepted in the financial markets in spite of our terms of trade difficulties. I shall take Senator Watson through the reasons for that and his defective memory will be assisted in the process. The financial markets have underlying confidence in what we have done. That is why there is now a floor on the dollar, why we are not seeing mad movements any more, and why the float has worked. It was this Government that floated the dollar. Many members of the Opposition during their years in government-the years they now pretend did not happen-were always in support of a float but could not run over Malcolm to get one up. Foremost, at the head of that queue, as usual, was John Howard. He always wanted to float the dollar, but never could because he could never win an argument in Cabinet. It is a little like the way he goes in the shadow Cabinet. The blow-out in the trade deficit was not caused by the dollar float, an uncompetitive inflation rate or necessarily entirely by the collapse in world commodity prices. It did not happen overnight. Our incapacity to maintain living standards happened because of neglect, built up over decades. Who ruled Australia during that time? It was the Liberal and National parties. It is not a case this time in this matter of urgency of just going through the failures of John Howard, although I shall probably be tempted to fall prey to that shortly. It is a matter of looking at the whole record and going right back through the days of Menzies and Black Jack McEwen and all those who spent years in office ruining our economy. They neglected our manufacturing industry and our service industries, and forgot about the need to expand Australia's industrial base. When the Hawke Government came into office in 1983, facing all those decades of neglect, there was a herculean task to get this country going again, but we did. We had the choice when we came into government, in looking at the mess we were left with, particularly after the collapse of 1981-82, of doing what the Liberal Party still acknowledges is the best way to go when faced with an economic crisis. What that Party has always done through its history is make the decision to shut Australia down, lengthen the dole queues, stop industry in its tracks, halt the housing industry, and forget about the poor. It has put the burden on the poor in the hope that one day the problem will go away. If one makes that traditional Liberal Party response, it will work in the short term, for a few years, certainly at the expense and misery of millions of Australians. The band-aid will stay over the sore for a little while, but eventually it will get too great, the disease will break out again and the place will be continually closed down. That is why one saw the rises and falls under Fraser and Howard. The truth is that one has to set in place the mechanisms to overcome, on a permanent basis, the need ever to shut this economy down. We must ensure that it can continue to grow, that employment can continue to rise and that the standard of living Australians have come to expect can be maintained. We are being lectured here today on Budget strategies by a Party led by John Howard, who overshot his expenditure targets for every single one of his Budgets. I ask Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle to get up and explain whether that is wrong. On every single occasion he was wide of his estimated deficit targets for each of his five Budgets. Why would he not be? Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was Minister for Finance. He never did achieve a surplus. Three out of five Howard deficits blew out beyond Budget projections, culminating in the massive blow-out of 1982-83. That was a whopper of a blow-out. In 1982-83 the Budget estimate was $1.6 billion. The actual figure was $4.473 billion, a blow-out of $2.8 billion. One consistent cause of those deficit blow-outs under John Howard was the underestimation of the cost of unemployment benefits. They were important, because that Government was putting people out of work day after day-thousands in every week in the last year of the Howard Government. That is why the Australian people had the ultimate good sense to throw that Government out and why, when the crunch comes, they will do it again. We could not overnight miraculously produce a rise in the prices that the world pays for our products. We cannot overnight turn round the fact that the rest of the world has marked down commodity prices. It is worth looking at just how much our major commodities have fallen in the last year when one looks at why we have any sort of a problem: 13 per cent for aluminium, 15 per cent for alumina, 10 per cent for wheat, 5 per cent for wool, 5 per cent for beef, 13 per cent for sugar, and 4 per cent for coal. We cannot just tell the world that we do not accept that, but we can adjust our policies. We can continue the Government's approach to industry policy, which is to upgrade our international competitiveness and to try to make up for those shortfalls. That is the only way to overcome those decades of neglect of Australia's industrial base. When the Liberals first came into government in the early 1950s a huge percentage of Australians were employed in our manufacturing industry. That figure is now down to under 17 per cent. The reason is that fat and lazy Liberal-National Party governments for 30 years were content to ride on the sheep's back. They thought that that would go on forever, but it did not. Thankfully, there is now a Hawke Labor Government in place to try to clean up the mess. Let us look at what would happen if John Howard ever ruled the roost again. Let us look at the promises. He will abolish the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the tax on lump sum superannuation. That is an annual cost at the moment of $700m. These promises come on top of the whole grab bag of other promises. I refer to the reinstitution of the entertainment expenses allowance, $310m; negative gearing, $50m; flow-on of world oil price reductions, $400m; abolition of fuel excise, $108m, et cetera, et cetera. At the end of the day one must face the fact that up to $7 billion would have to be added to our deficit if we ever let that mob get the reins of control again-and here they are now lecturing us about the size of the deficit. The facts are that Paul Keating and Bob Hawke were able to drop the Budget deficit to $3.5 billion. No one in this country thought they could do it. It was one hell of a task, but fortunately we had men of courage and principle who were prepared to take it on. I can recall, as I am sure even Senator Watson can with his defective memory for which he is so famed, what happened when John Howard and his colleagues attempted some sorts of expenditure cuts when they had that ridiculous effort during the days of Phillip Lynch. I refer to the big committee that was to cut expenditure and make for small government. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle played a leading role. What did they achieve? Three months of deliberation and a very impressive $250m in cuts. This Government in a couple of years has cut billions off government expenditures. Honourable senators opposite managed $250m the only time they had the guts to try. Unfortunately, they did not have the guts to follow through. That was at a time when Phillip Lynch delivered a Budget that he described as rubbery. When the crunch came it was not just rubbery; the figures were downright crook. That Government had to go into the election with the fistful of dollars promise but it snatched them away after the election because it could not keep it up. When we got into government only 3 1/2 years ago we were again faced with picking up the mess-John Howard's mess of a blow-out that was getting us towards $10 billion. We have got that figure down to $3.5 billion. This is a government that works. Paul Keating is a Treasurer who can get the economy going. All the people I mentioned earlier-the Press, business, the financial markets-have all endorsed our Budget. If it is given a chance to work, it will pull Australia out of the mire and do for all Australians what they need. It will deliver to them intelligent, principled government that will raise their living standards. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(4.30) —Senator Chaney cogently explained the Opposition's reasons for its motion of urgency today on the need during the current parliamentary sittings for a mini-Budget which contains measures necessary to restore confidence in the Australian economy. Those who have just listened to the speech of Senator Richardson and that of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) earlier would understand our concern that in the very limited parliamentary opportunities that we have to debate the Budget, there seems to be no recognition of the difficulties of the Australian economy or the responsibility of government in regard to them. I would go so far as to say that there has been a complete breakdown in the Government's primary responsibility-that is, the management of the economy and the protection of people's living standards. I was fascinated to hear from Senator Walsh that there will be no mini-Budget, that the fiscal policy is set-I would suggest that it is set in concrete-and that the difficulties that we can see now with the Budget are ahead of us. It seemed passing strange to me that Senator Richardson should say that mini-Budgets are required when Budgets will not work. Obviously this Budget does not work and will not work. For that reason the Opposition has brought forward this matter of urgency today. The Budget is in the Parliament at the moment. It was introduced some three weeks ago. The Government then scampered off for three weeks to sell the Budget. Quite obviously it was a Budget that needed to be sold because those who have had experience in casting Budgets would recognise it as one that is all about perceptions. It is not about real figures, it is about perceptions. There is a bottom line which was the perception that the Government decided was required, but unfortunately that perception has not been realised. The Budget has failed and we now hear from Senator Walsh that there will be no mini-Budget despite all the entreaties that have been made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and others about looking at expenditure. Indeed, let us consider the answer given by Senator Walsh today about the committees that are sitting looking at expenditure by the Commonwealth Government and the States. Obviously these committees are intended to report at some time, but we have been told there is to be no mini-Budget. Senator Richardson quoted somewhat selectively from the Fairfax Press when he referred to an article of 3 September. Perhaps a more accurate and more up to date quote could be taken from the Australian Financial Review of 12 September. The editorial concluded: The other major step which needs to be taken as an expression of leadership is a mini-Budget. The term `mini-Budget' can mean a lot of things, but it can also be an opportunity for the Government to correct the mistakes that were made in this Budget and to try to retrieve a situation which is concerning not only the business community and the investment people but also Australians generally. They are very concerned about what has happened. The first things that we should analyse are the figures in the Budget itself, and there is a controversy about those. The person who most represents the taxpayers of Australia, Mr Eric Risstrom, queried these figures at the time of the Budget-not the first day after, but at the time of the Budget. He questioned the figures in the Budget Papers because he said that the Commonwealth Government estimates greater levels of unemployment. We are advised that if the increase were only one per cent the deficit would blow out by around $800m. He said that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had sidestepped every question that was put to him on television about the figures. Mr Risstrom also talked about the fact that the Budget is based on an expanding economy and that the $3.5 billion deficit, which has been much heralded in here today, depends on a 2 per cent growth in the economy. Mr Risstrom went on to point out that for that to be achieved there would need to be a massive turnaround, for the last two quarters, of the economic downslide. I think that everyone would like to think that there would be some growth in the economy, but it is rather futile if the Government already knows that the figures in the Budget will not be realised, but still persists week after week in pushing the Budget through the Parliament. It seems to see no need to correct or retrieve a situation which is causing grave concern. If we look at the months leading up to the Budget, we should perhaps start with the month of May when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made his `banana republic' statement. He told us that we would suffer the fate of a banana republic. That had very serious consequences because before that he, the Prime Minister and other spokesmen for the Government had been misleading in the statements they had made about the economy being healthy, about remarkable economic growth and about all sorts of indicators that were very helpful to us. Then in the month of June we had an address from the Prime Minister who analysed the problem but offered no solutions. Nor has he taken any steps to deal with the problem that he had outlined in that address to the nation. In August we had the Budget and the Prime Minister's likening of the situation to a crisis akin to war. In that interview, he said that the party was over. I do not know what party he meant. If one looks at this Budget one would wonder what party he was referring to. I think he probably meant the Labor Party's government was over. The Government could see the problem but it was not prepared to face the solutions required. It is not only the Opposition that is suggesting that the August Budget has failed to meet the problem outlined by the Prime Minister. I do not think that anyone could argue that the Budget has cut spending at all in real terms. Senator Richardson and others can talk about the thousands of millions that they have taken off the Forward Estimates, or whatever, but the bottom line of the expenditure is that in real terms it has not been cut. The deficit of $3.5 billion was achieved not by cutting expenditure, but by imposing new and increased taxes of about $1.4 billion on top of new types of taxes that were introduced in the last financial year and that are estimated to yield another $850m. It was also achieved by the Reserve Bank profit which increased by $615m to $2.6 billion in the 1986-87 year. That Reserve Bank profit figure is not one that can be relied on for future budget years. This Budget shows a timely figure of $3.5 billion for the perception that I mentioned earlier but it is not a figure which relates in any way to the realities of the economy. When one measures this Budget by the economic yardstick that the Prime Minister himself used-that is, of crisis-one would have to say that it was a bad Budget, that it has failed and that the Government has failed in its economic responsibilities. I would accept that there was a strategy behind the Budget and I acknowledge that the Government has recognised and stated that there is an enormous problem in the balance of payments. It has recognised also that public sector deficits are draining our national savings and it also gave some recognition of the need to discount wages. In recognising those factors, I would have to argue that the Government has been less than responsible in dealing with the problems concerned. The strategy underlying the Budget was obviously to ease the pressure on monetary policy and to achieve a decline in interest rates. This should have been helped by a decline in the growth of real economic activity. That strategy might have been all right and the Government certainly might have believed that that was what it was attempting, but it gave no recognition to the lack of confidence in the business and investing community and the community in general when it put forward this Budget. The effect of the taxing policies of the Government on business over the past year or so and of the taxing policies on Australians in general has diminished the very fragile confidence that did exist and has built nothing for the future. The strategy has gone wrong. That is why Senator Chaney brought forward this matter of urgency today. It seems to me to be an exercise in futility to go week after week through the Budget Estimates in the Parliament with a Budget that is obviously not going to work, a Budget which has been set in concrete and which provides no solutions to the problems at hand. The Prime Minister promised massive expenditure cuts. Those cuts have not been realised. It is fair to say that business does not accept that the forecasts underlying the Budget figures are accurate. There is great concern as to what will happen and it is not just conjecture to talk about interest rates going up. They are up and they are still rising. Today's headline in the Sydney Morning Herald business page states: `More pressure on home loans'. Let us look at rates of interest, whether they be related to a home loan, personal loan or credit card. Home loans with banks are between 14.8 and 17 per cent; 17 to 19 per cent with credit unions and 14 to 15 per cent with building societies. Personal loans are all around 18 per cent. Interest rates on credit cards with the banks are 18 to 22 per cent; building societies, 18 to 19 per cent and credit unions, 17 to 19 per cent. No one could suggest that the strategy of the Government's Budget to bring down interest rates has shown any performance in that direction and interest rates are still rising. So on that factor the Budget has failed. If we look at the state of the Australian dollar, the protection of the currency which is the responsibility of a government in office, we see that there is very grave concern. We find a report in today's Australian that the dollar was steady in quiet trading yesterday, but the Reserve Bank apparently is targeting the trade weighted index between 50 and 52. The Budget Papers on that statistic assume 52 as the trade weighted index level. The index stabilised yesterday at 50 and again departs from the Budget figures and the Budget strategy. One wonders what the Government or the Reserve Bank of Australia will be able to do with regard to the movements in our floated dollar. So I think that what was said by Opposition speakers with regard to next year's Budget is equally of concern. The budgetary prospects for next year are very grave indeed. Let us leave this Budget, no mini-Budget, no recasting and no changes made because of the reception of the Budget to look at the starting point for next year. Senator Townley referred to the figure from the Institute of Public Affairs. Mr McCarrey, a former Western Australian Under-Treasurer, said that we are looking at a starting point of between $8 billion and $9 billion for the next financial year. If we add to that the alarming external debt which now requires the Government and monetary authorities to defend the present rate of the Australian dollar, we can see why there is concern. This means that interest rates will just have to rise to whatever level is necessary and, therefore, demand will go down even further as the recession continues. One could ask: `Why would business invest in new plant?' A figure was given earlier that about 70 per cent of manufacturers expect that there will be worse times ahead for them. Why would they invest? There has been an argument by trade unions and the Labor Party that investment capital is on strike. It is not that; it is just that it is not prudent to invest in present economic circumstances. One needs to ask: `What will the Government do to correct this?' It will have to look at wages, and to its very timorous approach to 2 per cent discounting for the next wage case. The Government's only argument is that that is the amount that the trade unions would wear without militancy. We have brought forward this matter of urgency because we believe that there is a need for a mini-Budget to correct some of the difficulties that have been outlined by Opposition speakers today, to do the things that were not done in this Budget, the sorts of things that Senator Button has been talking about when he is being interviewed and is being quite frank about the situation. There is certainly a need for a tougher wages policy to deal with these problems. Statements have been made with regard to the level of our indebtedness and some of the other factors that are very grave problems. There is just one figure I may have time to use; that is, that the cost of servicing the debt in 1985-86 amounted to 36 per cent of export earnings. That means that only 64 per cent of export earnings is available to pay for imports. That is not enough and, therefore, more borrowings are required. So we are in this vicious circle of borrowing to pay the interest on borrowings that we already have. When they relate to foreign indebtedness and the state of the Australian dollar, we can perhaps understand the concern of the Opposition, the investment community, the money market and all Australians about the Australian economy and the lack of effort that is being made by the Government in this particular Budget to correct the very grave consequences that I have outlined. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.45) —I have been given a very tough role to perform in the Senate today. Senator Gareth Evans —You're up to it, Peter. Senator COOK —I thank the Minister. It is a very tough role to speak last in this debate because Senator Walsh has provided a reflective economical analysis on behalf of the Government as to why there should be no mini-Budget and why there will not be a mini-Budget. He has provided an analysis of the general furphies tossed up for public consumption by the Liberal Party of Australia. Senator Richardson, my other Party colleague who has preceded me in this debate, has reported in some detail on the accolades and applause that the Government has achieved in bringing down a Budget in these terms both from the public and from the media. Speaking last I would have thought that there would be something for me to reply to and that the Opposition might give me some arguments to get my teeth into. In a motion that calls for an immediate mini-Budget to enact certain steps the Opposition has not stated clearly what those steps are. If one looks into the context of the speeches that have been given, it is hard to work out exactly what it is Opposition senators are calling upon the Government to do other than to bring down some vague notion of a mini-Budget. So there is nothing really for me to reply to from the Opposition. Senator Chaney —Well, sit down then and stop wasting our time. Senator COOK —I intend to make a few points which will be very uncomfortable to the honourable senator and to his Party, but then the honourable senator expects that. I do think a measure of approval should be accorded, however, to Senator Siddons because he at least said on behalf of the Australian Democrats what their alternative view was in a comprehensive form, unlike the Opposition. The Budget is just over four weeks old. It is a bit like trying to pick the winner of a Melbourne Cup just as the horses have jumped from the barrier and have over a mile to run. The Liberal Party `ain't that good'. Indeed, its chief and leading economic pundits have got a good track record for picking losers. Let us go immediately to its ace in this regard, the now discredited former Treasurer, the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Representatives, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) whose picking of a $6 billion plus deficit in 1983 was revealed in all its glory when we came to the treasury bench as a projected nearly $10m deficit. He got it so wildly wrong that his reliability and the confidence anyone might have in him as a economic manager have been totally discredited. One can only say that, so soon after a Budget has been brought down, the Opposition has brought on this urgency motion merely to give itself a trial run to test out a few arguments, to have a go and to get itself into a bit of form, to see if it can, as the Budget unfolds, debate economic policy with this Government. I am sorry to inform Opposition senators that they will not get a chance because as the Budget unfolds it will not provide the comfort that they seek in order to debate it. Let me give some examples. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle in the closing remarks of her contribution said that we have not cut expenditure sufficiently. She really did not go into saying where she would propose those cuts or what harsh medicine she would recommend that we take. I remind Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and anyone else who might have been gulled by that remark that this Budget for the first time in many years is a Budget which is cast not only with a $3.5 billion deficit, half a billion dollars below what the discredited former Treasurer, now Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard forecast the Budget deficit to be, but also it is a Budget with zero growth in outlays. It has been a long time since a Budget has done that. Before I turn to the body of my remarks perhaps I should congratulate the Liberal Party on at least achieving one thing; that is, that it has stopped the Labor Party talking to itself on other matters and got us back talking about economic policy where we are best and where the electorate and the broader community have given us a vote of confidence. One of the other things that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has referred to is that there needs to be a tougher wages policy. We keep hearing this slogan of a tougher wages policy offering coming from spokespeople of the Liberal Party. They say there should be zero growth in wages and no wage increases at all. What they do not address, never have addressed and when in government if they ever showed any slight sign of trying to address came destructively undone, is and was how to achieve the philosophical concept they promote as being a wages policy-no growth in wages-in a pluralist society such as ours, where we have a trade union movement which represents strongly the interests of its members and employer associations which represent strongly the interests of their members. The Thatcher experiment in Britain comes to mind. That is a debilitating and destructive economic, industrial and political experiment which has brought undone the very fabric of that society. Perhaps one could cast one's mind back in a sense of deja vu to the Fraser days when Australians were put in confrontation against Australians and one could believe that that type of situation would help resurgence in the economy. The type of tougher wages policy that is being advocated is probably more likely to be along the lines of the Charles Copeman experiment at Peko-Wallsend Ltd in the Robe River, where everyone was sacked and the company tried to disobey the orders of the Industrial Relations Commission, then tried to reduce conditions of employment rather than address the subject of work practices in the context of the arbitration system. Maybe that is what the Opposition is talking about. When I look at the utterances of the Liberal Party I see, on the one hand, that its supporters talk about wage cuts, but they say, `For God's sake do not impose the fringe benefits tax on us and make the 11 per cent of Australians who will be affected by that tax-the 11 per cent at the wealthier end of the spectrum-pay their due share of tax'. They say: `Cut wages for the majority of wage and salary earners, but do not make the top 11 per cent of wage and salary earners pay the tax that they have been escaping because they have not met their fringe benefits obligations'. On the other hand, they mouth platitudes about cutting expenditure, but when it is suggested that the excessive growth in executive salaries and remuneration packages over the past three years should be trimmed, they come to the defence of the executive wing and defend that privilege. When it is suggested that that growth should be exposed so that people can see how the dissymmetry between executive salaries and retarded ordinary wages and salaries operates, they say: `No, that information should not be produced'. This is a peculiar urgency motion which calls for a mini-Budget and refers to measures, but it does not cite the content of such a mini-Budget. It talks about the need to restore confidence, but it does not confront the manifestations of confidence in the Australian community for this Budget. I recall, shortly after the Budget was brought down, seeing a poll in the Australian in which 57 per cent of voters gave a tip for this Budget and said that it was a good one. I recall reading that plethora of editorials and commentary approval cited at some length by Senator Richardson earlier in this debate. I note also that the Australian dollar is holding and holding up well, despite what Moody's Investor Services Inc. says about our credit rating. Senator Chaney —How are interest rates? Senator COOK —I might say that, with the level of the Australian dollar and the way it is now performing, I would confidently expect that interest rates will start to edge downwards. That would be a normal expectation in view of the performance of the dollar. As I said earlier, the empirical and anecdotal evidence that is coming forward all the time is that while this is a tough Budget, Australians broadly recognise the need for tough action and support it. This Budget was grievously misforecast by Mr Howard when he predicted a deficit of around $4 billion. We came in under him at $3.5 billion. We do not deny and never have denied that we are living in tough economic times. What we deny is that those tough economic times are a direct function of Australian Labor Party policy. They are not. They are a function of an inbuilt structural position in the Australian economy put there over many years by conservative governments of the party that is now criticising this Government. The terms of trade turnaround that has affected us amounts to a $4.25 billion reduction in the gross national product over the past financial year. That is $4.25 billion off the national income. In fact, it has reduced the 1985-86 current account deficit to 2 per cent below what it would have been otherwise. However, it has not reached the record of the 1981-82 Howard deficit. It is interesting in this debate that one should turn to informed political commentary in the Press. Just this morning in the Sydney Morning Herald, under the by-line of Ross Gittins, is an analysis of the economic situation in Australia, in which he says: Indeed, and the inappropriate policies and inaction go back at least as far as the Menzies Government. Australia's slide down the international league-table of income per head has been going on for decades-and the greatest fall occurred during the Menzies years. We shared in the world's post-war prosperity, but compared with other countries, we frittered away the opportunities it presented. To take just one statistic, in the 30 years to 1983 Australia slipped from being the eighth largest exporting country to being the 23rd. I remind the Senate that in the 30 years to 1983 Labor was in Government for about three of those years. Senator Chaney —And you were leading the trade union movement and wrecking the country. Senator COOK —The decline in our competitiveness was presided over by a conservative government. That is a fact that cannot be refuted. In answer to the interjection about my involvement in the trade union movement, of course that is true, but it is not yet a criminal act, as it might be under a Liberal government, to be a member of a trade union in this country. Although, if the members of the New Right had their way, that would be so, because they stand for the abolition of the free association of Australians into trade unions to represent their rights, to counterbalance the right of organised business and to work through an arbitration system, which the New Right opposes, as being a way in which to arbitrate between claims from both sides of the political spectrum. Let me answer the interjection in some detail. Last night in the Estimates committee some figures were produced by Senator Button. Because the Hansard is not available, I cannot now reproduce them in this chamber. Under the Steel Industry Authority, because of this Government seeking through the prices and incomes accord to get workers and capital working together to refurbish what was a languishing industry, we now get high levels of productivity which have overshot, per capita of output, the target levels agreed in the early stages of the establishment of that Authority. We have plummeting levels of industrial disputation, as through the accord we have caused the forces of production to harness themselves towards the common goal of operating together to produce more, to secure employment and to make that industry competitive. That is one area where we have worked directly, given a chance to follow our philosophy about how this economy should be managed in the micro-industry setting. I turn to the Pilbara, the setting of Charles Copeman's latest escapades on his form of deregulation of the labour market. I cite two figures which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) mentioned in a recent speech. In the period of calendar years 1983 to 1985, the industrial disputation figures available show that in 1983 109,000 man days were lost in the iron ore industry in that region; in 1985 24,000 man days were lost, with a reduction in 1984 as well. Earlier this year the figures were running at that much reduced level as well, until the Copemans of this world decided to take the law into their own hands. The record is a very sharp decline in industrial disputation and a very rapid escalation in productivity per head. In the pre-accord period of this Government the output was about 7,200 tonnes per worker in that industry, whereas last year it was 11,300 tonnes-a rapid escalation in productivity per head. What we have achieved in the steel industry and the iron ore industry stands in stark contrast to the divisive, confrontationist Fraser years and the Court years in Western Australia in which workers were set against employers on a destructive course to try to destroy the Australian trade union movement. Senator Siddons recognised this in his address. We have to work with the social partners in the community that exist as inputs to production and harness their creativity and support. This Party is, of course, committed to a program of industrial democracy, not necessarily along the lines of Senator Siddons's Bill, but the objective is there. The way we have succeeded in turning around those two floundering industries, building a better reputation as exporters, stands not as rhetoric, but-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.00) —in reply-The Senate is debating the motion: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need during the current Parliamentary sittings for a Mini Budget which contains measures necessary to restore confidence in the Australian economy. It is unfortunate that the Minister who entered into this debate, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), confirmed that the Government would not have a mini-Budget during this financial year. In the view of the Opposition that is a counsel of despair, and indeed the gloomy predictions of the Government's own Budget were confirmed by Government speakers in this debate. We have just heard a speech from Senator Cook in which he managed to avoid the real issues. The fact is that the Government has condemned Australia to declining investment, and we all know what that means in terms of future wealth and job creation in this country. The Government's own prediction is for declining investment; the Government's own prediction is for higher unemployment; the Government's own prediction is for declining growth; the Government's own prediction is for high interest rates, and they have gone up 2 per cent since this Budget was introduced; the Government's own prediction is for 25 per cent of our gross domestic product to be taken in tax; and the Government's own prediction is that we will continue in this gloomy way without relief under this Budget. So the Government has simply dropped its bundle. It is leaderless, it is directionless and it does not know what to do about the problems of Australia. It was fascinating to hear Labor speakers quoting the newspapers, and not least the Fairfax Press, in defence of the Budget. We heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) make a disgusting attack on the Press only yesterday, describing it as his natural enemy and opponent. I do not know how people who have been reading the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review could possibly countenance that, but it shows the sort of desperation which has gripped the Government over recent weeks. Senator Gareth Evans —It will not do you any good to suck up to them, Fred. Senator CHANEY —I just commend to the Minister who is now interjecting the reading of a few of Ross Gittins's columns over the last few years and I ask him whether he stands by his leader's comments about the Fairfax Press. I challenge him to put his own view forward. Senator Gareth Evans —Gittins is outstanding. Senator CHANEY —There we are. We are now told that Mr Gittins is outstanding. It sits oddly with the interjection the Minister gave me just a few minutes ago. The reality is that this Government is leaderless, rudderless and desperate. It is condemning this country to stagnation and the Opposition believes that there is a better alternative. The reality is that if this Government was prepared to follow the advice of some of the Fairfax Press that was quoted by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, namely, the need for a mini-Budget, which was printed in a leading article in the Australian Financial Review just a few days ago, if the Government was prepared to give real national leadership with respect to changes in the labour market, if it was prepared to do something about the anti-investment taxes in this country, and if it was prepared to do something forthright in the area of excessive regulation, we might then see some economic recovery and the men and women of Australia might have something to look forward to other than appallingly high interest rates, greater unemployment and a declining standard of living. That is what is being delivered by this Government under this Budget. It is a national disgrace and a mini-Budget is essential. I believe that the Senate should record its view that this Government has already failed in its Budget and an alternative is required. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. Macklin, M. J. Archer, B. R. Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Powell, J. F. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Sanders, N. K. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Siddons, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Haines, J. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D. B. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Harradine, B. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. Colston, M. A. McKiernan, J. P. Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R. Cooney, B. Morris, J. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hamer, D. J. Bolkus, N. Hill, R. Button, J. N. Lewis, A. W. R. Coates, J. Teague, B. C. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Ryan, S. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has chosen to bring in a ministerial statement not as a statement to be made in the chamber but as a Government paper which he tabled this morning. This means that it has to be dealt with now and that we are limited to five minutes in which to comment on the paper. The paper concerns the care of aged persons in Australia, which is a most important matter. The Minister released this statement during the last sitting period, during Budget week, but it was not discussed in the chamber. It was not available for comment until today. The care of aged people in Australia affects each one of us because each one of us is just a decade or two away from being a member of that class of person. When we talk about aged Australians, we are not talking about some other group of people; we are talking about problems that affect all Australians; and concerns that will affect each one of us, we hope, if we are able to live to that age. What must concern most Australians is that there is an enormous amount of unmet need in the provision of services for the aged. There are problems with loneliness, isolation, lack of support and lack of services. Senator Walsh —You are going to fix it up by paying pensions to millionaires. What humbug, what mealy-mouthed humbug! Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister for Finance, who is busy cutting services for Australians all over the place, dares to interject when I talk about the problems affecting aged Australians-problems which the Minister, if he is very lucky, will learn about at first hand in a few years. We compliment the Government on the introduction of the home and community care program. Indeed, we supported this program. It will help. But there have been some real problems and delays in getting under way the home and community care program referred to in this statement. There has been a disinclination by the States, most of them under Labor governments, to do their part in implementing the goals and objectives of the program. The home and community care program has raised undue expectations in the minds of consumers, of elderly Australians who had hoped, and were led to believe, that this program would give them new options and new directions. Indeed, the Minister for Health in South Australia, Dr Cornwall, a Labor Minister, said earlier this year that the amount available for his State would be less than $1m for a certain part of the program. He stated: . . . it will be necessary for the State progressively to pick up an increasing amount of the tab. The Labor Minister, Dr Cornwall, then added: . . . unfortunately I believe it- that is, the home and community care program- may have been oversold significantly in the pre-Federal election climate. I think that expectations may have been unduly raised . . . it will certainly not be the answer to all our problems. It is a great pity that, when the objective is to allow elderly Australians to live with dignity, autonomy and choice, the Commonwealth and State governments argue about who is responsible for paying and attempt to shift the responsibility from one level of government to another. There are concerns about the narrow criteria for participation in the program. If we look at the problems facing residential care for aged persons mentioned in this report, we find that we are stuck with existing methods of provision. We need new ways for people to be able to remain within their society and their community as participants. We need to do this when we are looking for programs for the aged to meet our needs later on. Members of the aged community are often asset rich. They often have a substantial asset in their home but are income poor. They need support yet they can offer support. Some of the cross-generational support being put into place shows just how much aged Australians can contribute. I instance the work done by Ruth Wilson in Sydney who has been working in Sydney schools, getting honorary grandmothers to come into many of the day schools in Mount Druitt and relate to the children. That kind of thing should be encouraged. We are concerned by the narrowness of the approach just as we are concerned by reported criticisms from the Minister for Community Services about the church-run nursing homes and their clientele. We are concerned that in its programs the Government should move to make the quality of life better for aged Australians and that it should do this through programs, including residential care programs. We welcome the positive measures in this report but we have no doubt that much more needs to be done. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.17) —It seems quite incredible that a statement of this kind is brought into this Parliament as a Government paper and not as a statement to the chamber by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). The statement contains so much material that ought to be debated and looked at quite closely. Given that each senator has only five minutes in which to speak on the topic, I will restrict my comments to aspects particularly relevant to the Australian Capital Territory and the plight of frail aged people in the Australian Capital Territory, about which I have spoken frequently in the past. It is with considerable regret that I tell honourable senators that the situation is no better now than it has been over the last couple of years. At present there are 240 people in the Australian Capital Territory who are assessed and classified as in need of nursing home care. It takes 12 months to obtain a place. There are 40 frail aged people in public hospital beds because there is nowhere else for them to go. The fact is that 20 per cent of people in Australian Capital Territory nursing homes come from interstate, some from Victoria and some from New South Wales. I also mention that 25 per cent of our hospital beds are taken up by people from interstate. In addition, there are no facilities for beds for convalescent people. There are no facilities for respite care. That is one of the things most needed in terms of supplementing the home and community care program and the various facilities that will enable people to stay in their homes for as long as they wish and for as long as they are able to do so. None of us would suggest that people should be driven out of their homes; quite the reverse. We support the concept of keeping people in their homes for as long as possible, but we must not hide behind the rhetoric of those programs and forget that there comes a time when many people are no longer able to cope in that environment and their families are not able to support them. In many instances special nursing care is required for the frail aged which a family at home cannot provide. An elderly person may well be much better off in care, where the care is of the right type and with experienced people, than being left in a family home. Of course, the hostels are part of the solution but they are really only a cheap form of nursing care and are for self-sufficient people who do not require the constant care and supervision required by the frail aged. When I talk about this sort of care I am not forgetting the fact that aged people may be not only frail; they may have handicaps and conditions which mean that they require that type of care. That certainly is an expensive way of looking after people, but one must accept that nursing home beds are required for those who are bedridden and are not self-sufficient. I note from the chart in the document produced by the Minister for Community Services that the Australian Capital Territory will have, in total, 200 extra places between now and the end of 1989. It will have no more nursing home beds this year. However, it will have 60 hostel beds and 20 nursing home beds in 1987-88. In 1988-89 it will have no more nursing home beds, but 60 hostel beds. In that three-year period only a further 20 nursing home beds and 180 hostel beds will be provided. Of course, that will be of considerable benefit. However, I was disappointed to find that the understanding of the situation in Canberra is such that only 20 more nursing home beds are to be permitted in three years. I could spend the rest of the afternoon, Mr Acting Deputy President, telling you the stories that I have heard from constituents who have been faced with the problem of not being able to find any sort of bed for an aged person who quite suddenly needs such accommodation. You would know, as I do, that very often an elderly person comes to need a nursing home bed almost overnight. In Canberra, there is a 12-month wait for a bed. One might be lucky enough to get a bed at Bega or Eden, or in Sydney or the Blue Mountains. How distressing it is for elderly people to be taken away from where their families reside and placed in care so far away from where their families reside and where they have lived. There are places in Canberra which have cottages and hostel beds. They should be allowed nursing home beds. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.22) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is another ministerial statement which has been brought in as a paper and on which any response will be limited to five minutes. If I said earlier that all of us may, with time, become users of services for the aged, it is especially true that we are only one car crash away from needing services for the disabled. Again we should not talk about us and them; we should understand that the people who have used and developed such services are citizens who want our help as friends and as colleagues. The needs in the community are enormous. Services have been developed by volunteers moving to areas where no services existed, by people learning as they go, and by people dedicating themselves-often dedicating all their lives-to providing services for those with a disability. The statement that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has brought down, and his Department, does not give adequate public recognition to the work of hundreds and thousands of volunteers across this country over generations. It does not start by measuring and identifying the unmet need in the area of disability and using that as the starting point for examining what services are needed. Indeed, the statement works towards improving the efficiency of existing services. It starts from the point of what exists but it should start by identifying new measures of disability, by identifying and measuring unmet need, and by telling us what we as a society are failing to do. The strategy should be directed towards meeting unmet need rather than just towards the efficiency of existing services. A couple of matters in the statement are of particular concern. The first involves rehabilitation services. The Government has made some considerable comment about rehabilitation services and how it intends to restructure and, as it says, refocus them. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service provides medical, social and vocational services. It is quite clear that the thrust of Government planning is to diminish and lessen the medical element in the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. It is of concern that that will leave a vacuum because adequate State services do not exist. We receive letters from all over Australia from people who need rehabilitation services and have been in the habit of going to existing Commonwealth rehabilitation services to receive the medical components they require. They are concerned that, as that is withdrawn and a vacuum exists at the State level, they will be left without services. They cannot identify what services they will get. I have received many letters. The so-called refocusing has meant that people have found no services where services were previously available. The second matter of concern is the new rules that it is postulated will apply to services and to the providers of services. Many agencies that have done a great deal have been told that what they are doing is wrong, or that their direction is wrong, that their style of operation is wrong, and that they can no longer look forward to the kind of funding they have received and therefore the kind of viability for which they have worked for generations. While it is proper to ask them to change, it is not proper that any of them should be expressing to me, as they are doing, any sense of having their very existence threatened. I hope that the Government, in its application of the new rules, will ensure that existing services-even if they are not the most appropriate in terms of the Government's current thinking-will not be put at risk. In that regard, more time for changeover may be needed than the Government seems to be offering. The needs of people with disabilities are enormous, are continuing and are growing. We should be directing our attentions at the areas of unmet need. I hope that the positive aspects of the Government's program can be put into effect. However, the negative aspects are considerable and have been quite clearly understated by the Government in its paper and plans and in the way in which those plans are being put into effect. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.27) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. However, I must point out that this is just one of five papers which have ministerial statements attached to them. These are matters that, in a sense, are being pushed through the Senate without adequate time for proper debate. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Again, the text of a ministerial statement by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has not been brought into the Parliament in the proper way so that it can be debated. I shall refer to only one item out of the many hundreds that are included in the document before us. It appears under the heading `National Capital Development Commission'. I refer particularly to the Cameron Offices in the Belconnen town centre. At page 97 of the report, under the heading `Commonwealth Offices', there is an item for upgrading chillers and providing additional boilers at the Cameron Offices. An amount of just under $300,000 is to be spent this year. Page 101 shows that the estimated cost of modifications to the Cameron Offices is $8m. The estimated expenditure for this financial year is $1m. I wonder how long it will be before somebody will tell this community and the Parliament what went wrong at the Cameron Offices. They were built in the 1970s at considerable cost. The office complex is quite large. Hundreds of public servants are employed in it. The things that seem to have gone wrong there almost defy description. In many places the offices are unsafe. People should not have to work in the conditions in which they now work. The position is worse when it rains. After the offices were built there was a court action. Apparently the Canberra Times published some remarks that went to the heart of what was wrong with the Cameron Offices and what might have gone wrong in their construction. It was sued for those remarks and, I understand, lost the case. Senator Walsh —Yes, it cost nearly half a million dollars. Senator REID —Half a million dollars? It is interesting that, just a few years after, we seem to be faced with the situation where the Cameron Offices are in the news frequently. Whose fault is it that that has happened? What is the true story of what is wrong with the Cameron Offices? Earlier this year, Senator Devlin asked the relevant Minister a question about the Offices. The answer was: The Department of Housing and Construction has advised that the building is now safe and no restrictions need to be placed on its use and occupancy. That was in April but, by May, there was a lengthy article in the Canberra Times reporting 177 leaks in those Offices. On 7 May, I asked a question about that and the Minister said that considerable work was required. I think that at some stage somewhere it was suggested that it might cost $8m to repair whatever was wrong with the Cameron Offices. As taxpayers we are entitled to a statement on what happened. There are headlines such as: `Defects in Fire Safety' and on 16 August `Buckets and Mops Again at the Cameron Offices'. I suspect that they probably had the buckets and mops out again yesterday and today. This is a large sum of money to come out of the taxpayers' pockets. I could think of other ways of spending it. I wonder who was responsible for the fact that these problems occurred and the fact that we are required to spend this enormous sum of money repairing buildings that were built only a short time ago. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.32) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. There are on the list of papers proposed to be presented three sets of reports of which this, `Ownership and Control of Commercial Television-Future Policy Directions', is the first. The report that follows it, which is `Equalisation of Regional Commercial Television-Draft Indicative Plan', and the one that follows that, `Future Directions for Commercial Radio', between them constitute more than 2,000 pages of documentation about the future of broadcasting in Australia. At this stage, we are dealing with only the first of those reports. But the difficulty faced by people attempting to come to an understanding of what is happening in broadcasting in Australia is that, in the past couple of weeks, we have been deluged with more than 2,000 pages of documentation from the Forward Development Unit of the Department of Communications. I put it to the Senate that, in all those 2,000-odd pages, there is a remarkable lack of future direction. All the issues are raised, some of them tediously and ad nauseum. All the alleged options are canvassed, and one is left none the wiser as to what is the preferred economic, social or technological solution to be offered. Let me therefore confine my remarks in these few minutes to the first of the reports, `Ownership and Control of Commercial Television-Future Policy Directions', and make the point which I have made on numerous previous occasions that the Government has now decided, finally, to bury its alleged policy in favour of localism. Paragraph 27 of the report states: Some policy objectives are no longer attainable, whatever their merits when first advanced. This applies to promotion of local ownership and to encouraging a diverse shareholding within licensee companies. Here is the Forward Development Unit's covert admission that the policy of localism and the policy of diversity of media ownership are no longer attainable objectives as far as this Government is concerned-the ultimate statement of the final sellout of broadcasting in Australia into the hands of the media magnates and of the networks. We have heard only in the past 24 hours of the assault by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on those people whom he does not particularly like. On this occasion, it was the Fairfax Press which he described as the natural enemies of his Government. On this occasion, the Government's natural friends are being rewarded and assisted by the deliberate policy pursued by this Government which runs through not only this report but also the following report on the draft indicative plan `Equalisation of Regional Commercial Television' and the report which follows `Future Directions for Commercial Radio'. They are being aided and abetted in their long term desire for complete network domination of media outlets and the whole broadcasting system in Australia. The report makes that admission a number of times. The section headed `Networking Agreements' commencing on page 206 of the report is written in a fashion that clearly shows that the Forward Development Unit not only is prepared to countenance but also thinks it to be a good thing that regionals should be forced to become slaves of commercial networks, which in effect means slaves of the Melbourne and Sydney media proprietors and which, in time, will mean slaves of those media proprietors who are able to use the satellite communications to bring their programming direct from Los Angeles. That is where the Government's policies will eventually locate the source of most Australian television production-in the United States. Programs will be brought here via satellite in a fairly uncontrolled fashion, will be introduced through the networks and will be forced down the necks of regional television stations and viewers. That is the plan-so-called-that the Government is developing and pursuing. I would expect most of this plan to be introduced by ministerial administrative action because the Minister will not be game to bring the legislation to Parliament where it can be properly debated. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.36) —I rise to echo exactly what Senator Puplick has said. It is sad that this type of report is basically an obituary for localism in Australian media. The Government is currently, through this vast verbiage, hiding the fact that it is already too late to stop our media being totally dominated by five or six people. Although there are 2,000 or 3,000-I do not know how many-pages in these reports, the whole story is told in a set of tables which also included in the report on ownership and control of commercial television. Well, it is not really the full story but it is certainly the story of television. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard table 3.1 of the report, which sets out in detail the populations which are covered by various television stations. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 3.1 COMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS Location Call-sign Population (1) Percentage total population (3) Sydney... ATN 7 TCN 9 TEN 10 3,204,696 22.0 Melbourne... HSV 7 GTV 9 ATV 10 2,972,893 20.4 Brisbane... BTQ 7* QTQ 9* TVQ 0* (1,297,295 )...8.9 Adelaide... ADS 7 NWS 9 SAS 10 1,039,059 7.1 Perth... TVW 7 STW 9 925,205 6.3 Newcastle... NBN 3 604,297 4.1 Wollongong... WIN 4* (331,007 )...2.3 Canberra ... CTC 7 307,347 2.1 Ballarat... BTV 6 298,548 2.0 Lismore... RTN 8 296,348 2.0 Bendigo... BCV 8 241,651 1.7 Maryborough... SEQ 8 228,818 1.6 Hobart... TVT 6 207,685 1.4 Launceston... TNT 9 205,685 1.4 Orange... CBN 8 202,754 1.4 Shepparton... GMV 6 193,328 1.3 Traralgon... GLV 8 162,106 1.1 Tamworth... NEN 9 156,843 1.1 Townsville... TNQ 7 150,716 1.0 Toowoomba ... DDQ 10 149,009 1.0 Bunbury... BTW 3* (140,655 )...1.0 Rockhampton... RTQ 7* (139,684 )...1.0 Wagga Wagga... RVN 2 132,228 .9 Albury... AMV 4* (128,042 )....9 Cairns... FNQ 10 125,057 .9 Port Pirie... GTS 4 118,872 .8 Coffs Harbour... NRN 11 111,453 .8 Mackay... MVQ 6* (92,135 )....6 Dubbo... CWN 6 82,910 .6 Taree... ECN 8 81,637 .6 Griffith... MTN 9 67,327 .5 Mt Gambier... SES 8 67,073 .5 Darwin... NTD 8* (61,435 )....4 Kalgoorlie... VEW 8* (55,534 )....4 Warwick... SDQ 4 47,676 .3 Mildura... STV 8 47,257 .3 Geraldton... GTW 11 35,057 .2 Albany... GSW 9 32,749 .2 Riverland... RTS 5A 29,586 .2 Broken Hill... BKN 7 27,423 .2 Mt Isa... ITQ 8 23,369 .2 (1) DOC estimates (based on 1981 Census) for the service area of each licence. Where service areas are not yet available (indicated by ``*''), the estimate is based on the anticipated service area. (2) Some persons have been counted two or more times, because of overlapping service areas. (3) Calculated as a percentage of the total Australian population (14,576,330). (4) Population estimates do not add to the total Australian population because of double counting in overlapping service areas and because remote populations served by RCTS licences (545,405) are not included. Senator VIGOR —One will note that most of the population of Australia resides in theSydney-Melbourne axis areas, which is obvious. In those areas' the media are controlled by essentially three companies. If we extend that to almost the 80 per cent mark, we end up with six companies controlling the whole of our commercial television media. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard table 3.2, which tells the story of who owns Australia's media. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 3.2 PRESCRIBED INTERESTS IN TWO LICENCES* Company Stations Location Consolidated Press Holdings... TCN 9 GTV 9 Sydney Melbourne Network Ten Holdings Ltd... TEN 10 ATV 10 Sydney Melbourne John Fairfax Ltd... ATN 7 BTQ 7 Sydney Brisbane Herald and Weekly Times Ltd... HSV 7 ADS 7 Melbourne Adelaide Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd... QTQ 9 STW 9 Brisbane Perth Bell Group Ltd... TVW 7 SAS 10 Perth Adelaide Qintex Ltd... TVQ 0 SEQ 8 Brisbane Maryborough Parry Corp Ltd... NBN 3 RTQ 7 Newcastle Rockhampton Associated Broadcasting Services Ltd... BTV 6 GMV 6 Ballarat Shepparton TWT Holdings Ltd... WIN 4 RTQ 7 Wollongong Rockhampton ENT Ltd... TVT 6 TNT 9 Hobart Launceston Northern Star Holdings Ltd... RTN 8 NRN 11 Lismore Coffs Harbour Techcom Australia Pty Ltd... BCV 8 GLV 8 Bendigo Traralgon Golden West Network Ltd... BTW 3 GSW 9 VEW 8** Bunbury Albany Kalgoorlie Country Television Services Ltd... CBN 8 CWN 6 Orange Dubbo Riverina and N'th East Vic. TV Ltd... RVN 2 AMV 4 Wagga Wagga Albury Telecasters N'th Qld Ltd... TNQ 7 FNQ 10 Townsville Cairns Television New England Ltd (B'cast Amal. Ltd)... NEN 9 ECN 8 Tamworth Taree Darling Downs TV Ltd... DDQ 10 SDQ 4 Toowoomba Warwick Spencer Gulf Telecasters Ltd... GTS 4 BKN 7 Port Pirie Broken Hill South East Telecasters Ltd... SES 8 RTS 5A Mount Gambier Riverland Sabtel Pty Ltd... STV 8 MVQ 6 Mildura Mackay * Position as at 28 July 1986 ** Subject to ABT Approval. Golden West Network Ltd will need to divest its interests in one of these licences, if the ``two station rule'' is not changed. Senator VIGOR —The major problem is that we are acting slightly too late. In the United States of America, the people who hold radio and television licences are restricted by two main factors-first, the total audience reached, which must be no more than 25 per cent of the population, which they use on any one medium and, secondly, the number of stations of different media types that they control. Anyone with newspaper interests in one town is automatically ineligible for a radio or television licence in that area. This is happening even under the deregulated Reagan regime. The Americans are not prepared to allow individuals or companies open-ended opportunities for control of their media. Why should we in Australia? A case is coming up in the Federal Court of Australia which will sound the death knell, or maybe bring a ray of hope. That is the case in which the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is trying to have defined the meaning of `control', and the Federal Court will rule whether it is control of the board or control of the shareholding. I believe that if it rules in favour of Mr Murdoch, it will be the death of any type of diversity in the media. The second option that we have is to look very much at the whole structure of our media and try to introduce some way in which we can devolve the powers in the main multi-media organisations in the cities-maybe by separating the networks from the transmitting stations. Unfortunately, the Government is going the other way and handing over the regional stations, through its aggregation program and through the way in which it has handled the satellite transmission, to the major networks. At the same time, it is really hitting the national media by trying to get them at one another's throats-the Australian Broadcasting Corporation versus the Special Broadcasting Service. I believe that this is a shame. This report is just a lot of words which unfortunately can do nothing for Australia's commercial television. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time for the consideration of Government papers has expired. Before I call on the next item of business, I invite those honourable senators who wish to be recorded as having moved a motion to take note of any of the remaining papers, and as having the leave of the Senate to continue their remarks later, to do so. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.45) —In closing the debate, I wish to make a brief statement about recent comments made in the media concerning the Public Accounts Committee's inquiry into the job seeker computer acquisition by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer honourable senators to my statement made on this matter in the Senate on 13 June 1986 when the Committee's report No. 252 was tabled. The purpose of the Committee's inquiry was to establish whether proper planning and tendering procedures had been followed in the job seeker acquisition. To this end the Committee received evidence from relevant government agencies and also from one unsuccessful tenderer who requested the opportunity to give evidence. The Committee's inquiry concluded that proper procedures had not been followed and that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services must carry responsibility for the improper conduct of the tender. The Committee did not conclude that any computer vendor had contravened proper tendering procedures. Subsequent to the conclusion of the Committee's inquiry, there have been some developments concerning the job seeker contract that would appear to reflect unfavourably on the successful job seeker contractor, Wang Computer Pty Ltd. Wang has been unable to meet certain of its contractual commitments to the Commonwealth. Contrary to recent assertions in the media attributed to Wang, it has not been denied the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee on this matter and was at liberty to do so at any time. For reasons best known to Wang, it has chosen not to do so until today, when a written submission was received by the Committee. The Committee will be considering this submission, but its attitude since making its recommendations on this matter to the Parliament is that it is now the responsibility of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Commonwealth's contracting authority to consider and act on those recommendations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That unless otherwise ordered, General Business orders of the day relating to the consideration of committee reports pursuant to sessional order be not further proceeded with this day. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the twelfth report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill 1986, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Bill 1986, the Income Tax Assessment (Research and Development) Bill 1986, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986, and the Superannuation Act 1976. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 12 dated 17 September 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the annual report for 1985-86 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —I seek leave to make a brief statement relating to that report. Leave granted. Senator TATE —The Australian Senate was initially established with the primary purpose of safeguarding the interests of the States in Australia's federal system. However, in the course of its history it has increasingly assumed national responsibility similar to those of the upper Houses in other legislatures. Its most important function has been its work as a House of review with respect to the actions of the Executive and to legislation initiated by the Government. It has established a considerable reputation as a watch-dog and defender of civil liberties from the excesses of unbridled executive power. Not the least part of this reputation is due to the activities of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the annual report of which I have just presented to the Senate. This Committee was established by resolution of the Senate on 19 November 1981. Many honourable senators will be aware of the work achieved by that Committee in the course of its history in assisting the Senate in its function as a House of review with respect to legislation by drawing attention to provisions which might otherwise go unnoticed in the passage of Bills through the chamber. Its brief is a watching brief. Its task is to alert the Senate to the possibility of infringements of rights and liberties or the erosion of the legislative power of the Parliament. It expresses no concluded view on whether the clauses on which it comments do in fact constitute such infringements or permit such erosion. That judgment is ultimately left to the Parliament. However, the Committee actively seeks responses to its comments from the Minister, member or senator responsible for introducing the Bill so that those responses may be included in a report to the Senate together with the Committee's original comments. In this fashion, the Committee seeks to promote a fuller and more informed consideration of the clauses upon which it comments at the Committee stage of debate on the Bill in question. Whilst the paper which I tabled on 11 September last year will remain for some time the primary reference on this Committee's mode of operation and its interpretation of its terms of reference, the Committee believes it to be desirable that, in addition to its weekly reports detailing the results of its examination of particular Bills, it should present to the Senate an annual report identifying trends in matters falling within its terms of reference and highlighting certain areas of particular concern to the Committee. Besides containing a general overview of the Committee's work during the year, the report deals with four matters which have been of particular concern to the Committee during the past year: Provisions imposing the persuasive onus of proof on defendants in criminal proceedings; provisions abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination; clauses providing for the unrestricted delegation of administrative powers; and the impact of the national uniform companies and securities scheme on the legislative power of the Parliament. During the year 1985-86 the Committee consolidated its reputation as a useful adjunct to the legislative process. There was a welcome increase in the number of responses to the Committee's comments received from Ministers, and also in the use of the Committee's alert digests and reports in debates in relation to Bills on which it had commented. The Committee received responses with regard to roughly three-quarters of the Bills it commented on, and almost a fifth of the provisions to which it drew attention were amended in accordance with its comments. The existence of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has enhanced the reputation of the Senate as a watchdog and a defender of the civil liberties of all Australians. It has proved a constructive force for the improvement of the quality of the legislation passing through Australia's Federal Parliament. I commend the reading of the report to honourable senators. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-As a member of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills I commend Senator Tate on his outstanding role as Chairman of the Committee which, as he outlined, has had such an important function to perform in this Parliament. I congratulate him and commend the work of the Committee as evidenced in its report to the Senate. I underline the fact that the Committee has traditionally not been overwhelmed by political factors and has served the Senate in an impartial and outstanding way. I draw attention to the fact that, for example, the report is critical of both present and former governments. It says, for example, on page 5 that the responses which the Committee has received from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) have given it cause for concern on a number of occasions. It reports that it received no response from the former Treasurer and has yet to receive a response from the present Treasurer (Mr Keating), which is most unfortunate. I hope that this report will encourage the bureaucracies in these areas to improve their performance. The Committee has drawn to the Senate's attention the Committee's disappointment with the Government's responses so far and to the fact that the Government has not made a proper response to the report of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee on the question of persuasive versus evidential proof. In general it has been a hard hitting, fair and reasonable Committee. The Committee also criticised the Government on the matter of the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment (Clearing Houses) Bill which was made available by the Attorney-General for public comment, but the annual report notes that there was therefore clearly no intention that the Parliament should be involved in this consultative process and, naturally, the Committee was disappointed. However, I endorse the Chairman's remarks that the Government has responded very well indeed, certainly much better than in previous years, and better than previous governments, to the requests made by the report and to remarks made on matters that clearly required amendment. I commend the report to the Senate and congratulate its Chairman, Senator Tate. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I present the seventh report on the examination of annual reports, dated September 1986, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. During 1985 and 1986, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts has reported on several matters arising from its examination of the annual reports of government departments and authorities referred to it by the President of the Senate. Honourable senators will be aware that under sessional order 7 committees are empowered to `pursue or not pursue inquiries into reports so received'. The report I have tabled today on behalf of the Standing Committee is the seventh report in the series on the examination of annual reports and is entitled `The ABC's Radio Racing Service in Queensland'. On 5 December 1985, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, pursuant to sessional order 7, resolved to inquire into the adequacy of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's radio racing service in Queensland. The inquiry was stimulated by representations made to some Committee members and to other honourable senators about the ABC's radio racing services in both metropolitan and regional areas of Queensland. These representations resulted from a decision of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in September 1985, to cease broadcasting race descriptions on radio in Brisbane. The radio contract of the ABC's long-serving race caller, Mr Larry Pratt, was terminated. In order to maintain a racing service in areas of Queensland outside Brisbane, the ABC arranged, with assistance from the Queensland Totalisator Administration Board, to take Brisbane race descriptions from the commentator for commercial radio station 4BC. These descriptions were then and still are broadcast on the ABC's regional stations. As the Committee was concerned about the level of services provided in these areas and the general question of decision-making and consultative processes within the ABC, it decided to inquire into these matters in the context of its examination of the ABC's annual reports. The Committee advertised for submissions and 115 were received. Public hearings were subsequently held in Queensland over four days. This report, which is the result of those inquiries and the Committee's examination of the Corporation's annual reports, is divided into two parts. Part one of the report deals with the ABC's annual reports for 1983-84 and 1984-85, the racing industry in Queensland, the ABC's coverage of racing on radio in Queensland and the concerns raised at public hearings about changes to that service. Because representatives of the ABC refused to answer questions relating to its radio racing service in Queensland, the Committee regrets that this section of the report is not as comprehensive as it would have wished. In part two of the report, entitled `The ABC and Parliament', the Committee addresses the serious matter of witnesses from the ABC refusing to answer questions put to them during the inquiry. I will now deal with the major aspects of the first part of the report. In the Committee's view, the ABC's annual reports for 1983-84 and 1984-85 meet the Government guidelines on annual reports. Both reports give adequate treatment of the Corporation's achievements and concerns, in addition to the basic information suggested by the guidelines. In some respects, the annual report for 1984-85 was superior to that of 1983-84, especially in the amount of information supplied. The Committee encourages the ABC to continue with the type of comprehensive reporting found in the 1984-85 annual report. Neither report makes mention of any ministerial directions or requests which the Minister for Communications may make under sections 80 and 8 (2) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. The Committee assumes, therefore, that the Minister did not so direct or request the Corporation in any way. The Committee recommends that, in future, this matter be made explicit in the ABC's annual reports. Part one of the Committee's report also deals with the ABC's radio racing service in Queensland. The evidence gathered from submissions and from the public hearings indicated that public acceptance of the changes to the ABC's racing service depended to a great extent on the availability of an alternative service from commercial radio. In country areas covered by the ABC's regional service only, there was evidence that, in early 1986, race followers were generally dissatisfied with the quality of the service. There was virtually no radio racing service available on the Sunshine Coast, just north of Brisbane, and in parts of the Gold Coast, to the south of the State's capital. Although the Committee received sufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of the changes in the ABC's radio racing service, it was unable to reach any definite conclusions about the reasons for the changes and the consultative processes used by the ABC. Nor was the Committee able to investigate fully howefficiently these changes were implemented. There were strong indications, however, that the changes may have been poorly researched, badly managed and incompetently implemented. Unfortunately the Committee was unable to confirm these impressions because the ABC decided not to co-operate with the inquiry. As I indicated previously, part two of the report addresses important issues concerning the powers and privileges of the Parliament. The Committee's report reviews the events surrounding the failure of summoned witnesses from the ABC to answer questions put to them during the inquiry. The report sets out both the arguments advanced by the ABC in support of the approach it adopted during the hearings and the Committee's response to these arguments. The report also incorporates legal advice on these matters provided by the Attorney-General's Department. In its submission to the inquiry, the ABC informed the Committee that it was willing to answer questions about its views of its relationship with the Parliament and the general processes by which program decisions in radio are made. It was not willing to give evidence on the adequacy of the ABC's radio racing service in Queensland, which it regarded as a programming matter. Accordingly, the Corporation's representatives at the public hearing refused to answer questions which related to the Queensland radio racing service. Executives of ABC radio in Queensland, who were summoned to attend before the Committee, also refused to answer questions about the racing service. The ABC's refusal to answer the Committee's questions was based mainly on the Corporation's perceptions of its integrity and its independence from the political process in programming matters. In the report, the Committee responds to the arguments advanced by the ABC in support of the approach it adopted during the hearing. I shall comment on four of those arguments. Firstly, the ABC claimed that by requiring operational editorial executives to attend such an inquiry the Committee was establishing a disturbing precedent. The Committee believes that this claim is unjustified and, moreover, is inconsistent with the ABC's past willingness to co-operate in the Committee's inquiry into children's television. During that inquiry, the ABC was invited to give evidence on `its activities in the area of children's programming'. It accepted that invitation and an operational executive from the ABC's children's program department appeared before the Committee on behalf of the ABC and co-operated fully in the inquiry. This co-operation sits oddly with the attitude adopted by the ABC during the present inquiry. The Committee can only conclude that the ABC is selective as to the areas in which it wishes to demonstrate its accountability to Parliament. Secondly, the ABC claimed that it had already demonstrated its willingness to account for program decisions through the Estimates committees and through answers to parliamentary questions. This claim leads the Committee to conclude that the ABC believes it can nominate those parliamentary forums in which it will be accountable. The Committee rejects this approach as unacceptable to a properly constituted standing committee of the Senate. Thirdly, the ABC stated that the Committee's decision to investigate the adequacy of the ABC's radio racing service in Queensland was `unusual'. The Corporation, however, did not make it clear why it held this opinion. If the implication is that the Committee's activities should be confined to educational and artistic matters, the Committee rejects the implication. The Committee has had a long-standing interest in issues relating to communications and, in particular, broadcasting. The range of annual reports referred to the Committee and the nature of the reports tabled by the Committee over the past decade bear witness to that association. Indeed, it has been suggested on a number of occasions that the Standing Committee be more accurately named the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Communications and the Arts. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the Committee rejects the ABC's assertion that the inquiry placed ABC programming under external authority and tended to impair its editorial functions. In support of this proposition the ABC's submissions to the Committee specifically referred to its independence from Government directions guaranteed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and to conventions of non-intervention. In the Committee's view the inquiry did not seek to compromise or erode this integrity and independence and it would not have that effect. The Committee respects the programming integrity and independence of the ABC. The Committee believes, however, that it has the right and duty to examine the administration and execution of decisions taken by the ABC. The ABC, as a statutory authority, is created by the Parliament and is fully accountable to the Parliament. The Committee considers that Parliament should not attempt to direct the ABC in relation to the content of programs, nor should it seek to direct the Corporation as to which programs should be carried or when programs might be shown. In the present inquiry, the Committee was not attempting to direct the Corporation, but was seeking information about past events. It wished to know how and why a particular decision was made and to ascertain the effects of this decision on the people of Queensland. The Committee's views on the ABC's accountability to Parliament are supported by legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department. In relation to the position of the ABC as a statutory authority, the Department stated: If the argument be that, as a consequence of the independence conferred on the ABC by statute, the ABC is as a matter of law beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny, then the argument is . . . misconceived. The provisions on which the ABC relies relate to the relationship between the ABC and the executive government. The powers of the Parliament to inquire into a matter, and to require information for that purpose, do not depend upon that matter being within the control of the executive government. It is abundantly clear that statutory provisions freeing an authority from day to day ministerial direction in no way put that authority beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in the context of a parliamentary inquiry into the administration and execution of that authority's constituting legislation. The refusal of witnesses from the ABC to answer questions obstructed the work of the Committee. In effect, the Committee was denied access to information which would have allowed it to prepare a more comprehensive report to the Senate. The witnesses' refusal to answer questions also raised the issue of contempt of the Senate. Nevertheless, the Committee does not suggest that the matter should necessarily be referred to the Privileges Committee at this stage. Rather, the Senate may wish to debate the merits of the ABC's arguments which seek to justify its refusal to co-operate with the Committee. The Committee would welcome such a debate because it would help clarify important issues relating to the accountability of the ABC and other statutory corporations to the Parliament. Such a debate could proceed on the motion which I have moved today. To assist in any debate the Committee reports that it considers that the ABC's approach to this particular inquiry was incorrect and it should answer questions asked by the Committee on behalf of the Senate. The tabling of this report is timely because Estimates Committee C, which will examine the appropriations of the ABC in the next few days, will have the benefit of the Committee's report and its findings on these important issues. Finally, I stress that in terms of the authority of the Parliament, and in this case the Senate in particular, this is an important report. There are numerous pertinent aspects of the report which I have not mentioned, but they deserve attention by honourable senators. On behalf of the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I commend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 250th report of the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —by leave-In putting down the statement, I seek leave to incorporate various paragraphs into the Hansard record because it is a lengthy statement and I do not wish to take up too much time of the Senate. I will indicate at what point I would need the incorporations. Report 250 details the findings of the Committee's `Review of the Discontinuance of the Efficiency Audit of Australia Post-Administration of Counter Services'. The efficiency audit of Australia Post's administration of its counter services began in June 1980 and was discontinued by the then Auditor-General, Mr K. Brigden, in October 1984. It was one of the earliest and longest efficiency audits conducted by the Australian Audit Office. Subsequent to the discontinuance, an informal draft report of the efficiency audit was disclosed to the media without authorisation. This resulted in allegations about the motives of the Auditor-General regarding his decision to discontinue the audit. On 20 June 1985 the Committee announced that it would review the circumstances surrounding the discontinuance of the audit. I seek leave to incorporate the next four paragraphs in Hansard. Leave granted. The paragraphs read as follows- On 30 June 1980, after a feasibility study, the Auditor-General notified the Australian Postal Commission that an efficiency audit into the provision of services to the public through Post Offices would be undertaken. It was anticipated that field work would commence in July 1980 and that a report would be tabled in Parliament in mid 1981. The initial audit team comprised 5 staff. Australia Post was advised in May 1981 that further field work would be undertaken, that further information was required and that Mr D. Berthelsen would be the Audit Office's project leader from June 1981. The staff on the audit was shortly after reduced to two and then to one person only. From mid 1981 to late 1983 further field work was undertaken and considerable delays were experienced in the writing of the draft report. Several different drafts were submitted to the Committee which indicated that there had been differing views on report content. This informal draft report was a precursor to any formal draft to be seen by the Auditor-General. Under the provisions of the Audit Act, the Auditor-General is required to issue a formal draft report to the audited organisation and to take the views of that organisation into account in his final report. Senator GEORGES —In May 1984 an incomplete informal draft report was sent officially to Australia Post. A non-specific response from Australia Post in July 1984 resulted in senior officers of the Efficiency Audit Division becoming increasingly concerned that, while this audit was the only audit outstanding from those commenced by the Efficiency Audit Division, considerable effort would be required to bring it to finality. These concerns were expressed to the Auditor-General in August 1984. The two basic problems brought to the Auditor-General's attention were that the Australia Post Efficiency Audit had been running for some four and a half years; and that for over two years there was only one officer, Mr Berthelsen, conducting the audit and reporting direct to the Division Head. The Auditor-General discussed in late September 1984 the completion of the report with Mr Berthelsen and was given assurances that the audit report would be finished within four weeks. A month was allowed for completion. At the end of the month, Mr Berthelsen requested a further six weeks to complete the report. In late October 1984 the then Auditor-General, Mr Brigden, decided to discontinue the audit. I seek leave to incorporate the next six paragraphs in Hansard. Leave granted. The paragraphs read as follows- The Committee was presented with a list of some 19 occasions where completion dates for the report had been given by Mr Berthelsen. On 7 February 1985 the Auditor-General advised Australia Post that further work necessary to carry out the audit on Australia Post would not be undertaken. In the Committee's view, here the matter should have rested. The Committee concluded that the decision taken by the Auditor-General to discontinue the efficiency audit was justified. However, the debate on whether the audit should have been continued was not put aside. The issues were raised again by Mr Berthelsen with the new Auditor-General, Mr J Monaghan, on 8 March 1985. In May 1985 the Auditor-General formally responded to Mr Berthelsen. The Auditor-General noted that the Australia Post Efficiency Audit suffered the consequences of a serious management failure. He found that audit groundwork was not sufficient for the previous Auditor-General to judge that the draft audit conclusions could be sustained against Australia Post's likely rebuttals. The Auditor-General advised Mr Berthelsen that he would not be reviewing Mr Brigden's decision further. However the debate continued, including claim and counter claim as to the worth of continuing the audit to its final conclusion of reporting in detail to the Parliament. This occurred both within the Audit Office and later before the Committee. Senator GEORGES —As part of the Committee's review, advice was sought from the Attorney-General's Department, the Committee's Legal Adviser, the Auditor-General, and from Mr K. Brigden, the former Auditor-General as to the basis of the Auditor-General's legal power to discontinue an efficiency audit. These advisings are documented in the Committee's report. On this matter the Committee concluded that the former Auditor-General, Mr K. Brigden, had the discretion to discontinue the efficiency audit of Australia Post's administration of counter services under section 48e (1) of the Audit Act 1901; the former Auditor-General, Mr K. Brigden, failed to present a report on the efficiency audit of Australia Post under section 48f (1); the Auditor-General, Mr J. Monaghan, has complied in part with section 48g (1), when he reported the discontinuance of this efficiency audit in the annual report of the Auditor-General 1984-85; and, finally the Auditor-General should comply with section 48f and 48g of the Audit Act 1901 as is relevant to the efficiency audit of Australia Post's administration of counter services. I seek leave to incorporate the next six paragraphs in Hansard. Leave granted. The paragraphs read as follows- The Committee also examined the management of the efficiency audit of Australia Post in the Efficiency Audit Division. The first head of that Division, Mr J. Jones, told the Committee that he decided to delegate responsibility to others to manage projects and as Division head develop methodology, select topics and maintain quality control. Mr Jones stated that this `option, had its risks, because when people are allowed to learn by doing they make mistakes'. Mr Jones accepted the responsibility for, and conceded that, the management of the Australia Post audit was deficient. Mr Jones claimed that he had difficulties working with the former Auditor-General, Mr Brigden. Mr Brigden was aware that relationships generally were not harmonious between that Division and the rest of the Audit Office. He also said that throughout the Division's existence, problems with the major audits undertaken remained the same. Audit scope was not defined and maintained with precision and audits were not managed firmly or documented properly. Mr Brigden told the Committee that considerable pressure was brought to bear upon the Division head with a view to having all sixteen of the audits originally undertaken by the Division completed by the end of 1983, but these efforts were by no means successful. Only seven has been completed (since 1978) when the head of the Efficiency Audit Division proceeded on leave early in 1984. In an endeavour to expedite the completion of the audits, major changes were made to long standing administrative and reporting arrangements within the Audit Office. In May 1985 the Auditor-General, Mr J. Monaghan, decided that all major project audits directed to efficiency and operational effectiveness issues would be formally designated as Efficiency Audits. The aim was to achieve an average turnaround of approximately 9 months from designation to tabling. He expected that, on this basis, some 20 to 30 efficiency audits per year would be conducted. The Audit Office has introduced revised management practices to ensure that management objectives, including improved reporting objectives for efficiency audits are achieved. There is some evidence that the aims of both Auditors-General (Mr K. Brigden and Mr J. Monaghan) to make efficiency auditing much more timely have been achieved. Senator GEORGES —Overall the Committee found that the efficiency audit of Australia Post was not well managed, resulting in a lack of concise and timely reporting; there were serious communication problems regarding the efficiency audit of Australia Post within the Efficiency Audit Division, between the Auditor-General, Mr Bridgen, and the Efficiency Audit Division, and between the Efficiency Audit Division and the rest of the Audit Office; and that the scope of the efficiency audit of Australia Post was not well defined and maintained. The Committee concluded that the management of the efficiency audit of Australia Post's administration of counter services was deficient; the ultimate responsibility from 1981 to 1984 for the management of the Efficiency Audit Division and of the efficiency audit of Australia Post was the Auditor-General's; and the management of the efficiency audit of Australia Post was not in keeping with the Australian Audit Office's goals, that is, that the Australian Audit Office should be exemplary as regards accountability for its functions and the efficiency, economy and effectiveness of its operations. The Australia Post audit was not only the longest, but also the costliest efficiency audit. The Committee anticipates that the Auditor-General will provide the total cost of the efficiency audit of the administration of Australia Post's counter services in his next annual report. The issue of stamp security was also raised before the Committee. Amongst other matters, it was alleged that the Auditor-General may have misled the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) on the issue of postage stamp thefts. The Committee concluded that stamp security within Australia Post was not related to the decision to discontinue the efficiency audit of Australia Post's administration of counter services; and further detailed investigation of the security of stamps and other negotiable paper by the Auditor- General is warranted. Finally, I would like to express the Committee's appreciation to the Auditor-General and his staff, the former Auditor-General and the staff of Australia Post for their co-operation provided throughout the review. The Committee thanks its legal adviser, the Hon. Mr Justice Paul Toose, and members of its Secretariat for the support given during this inquiry. I commend this report to honourable senators and members. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the report of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch Delegation to the Thirty-First Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Saskatchewan in October 1985. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator ARCHER —Mr Lindsay of the other place was the leader of the delegation and I was the deputy. I would like initially, and primarily, to pay tribute to the magnificent guidance, surveillance and consideration given to us by our excellent secretary, Mr Ian Cochran. The format of the Conference was excellent. It commenced in Regina, where we spent a couple of days at the preliminary functions; then the party was divided into four separate groups. We then disappeared for three days until we reached Saskatoon, where the main part of the Conference was held. The President of the Association was Herb Swann, Speaker of the House in Saskatchewan. He was a tremendous host and the organisation was brilliant, with 165 delegates present and masses of extras. The highlight of the functions for the Australians was the appointment of Dr David Tonkin as the Secretary-General of the CPA-an appointment which was widely applauded, and certainly we all wish him well in his new position, although it is now nearly 12 months since he was appointed. The Australians participated widely in all the sessions. I was pleased to be both panelist and chairman of one session on famine which, if the recommendations were followed, could be a most useful basis for future development. If the recommendations only wind up in a file somewhere with many other similar motions and discussions, the whole basis of the CPA will come under question-both the organisation and the meetings it runs. I believe that the CPA is a very good and worthwhile body which should be supported, and it should become more objective in its work and the way the conferences are carried out. I regret that in many cases the forum opened up as being somewhere for people to grind their own axes, to say the things that they had been storing up for some time, highlighting the differences between the lesser developed and more developed countries and too often winding up as a debate on apartheid. Very good friendships and useful connections were made. It was most enjoyable and the entertainment, hospitality and friendships were all beyond belief and greatly appreciated. This year's Conference will be in the United Kingdom, 1987 in Malaysia, 1988 in Australia, 1989 in Barbados and 1990 in New Zealand. The performance that the Saskatchewan Parliament put on for us in terms of entertainment and providing the necessary venues, and all that goes with that, places a particularly difficult job ahead of us. I hope that our planning, presentation and performance in Australia will match the very high standards set in Saskatchewan. Consideration resumed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.25) —When I was speaking before lunch, I was making the point that it seems to us that unsatisfactory though the final result will be in terms of the Opposition's amendment, there seems to be no other alternative which will provide the types of protection that the Australian Democrats would want, so I indicate that we will support the amendment moved by the Opposition and will reject the amendment moved by the Government. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.26) —The Senate has before it for a second time the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill 1986. On the first occasion the Senate sent to the House of Representatives the Bill with an amendment which had been carried by the Senate. The other place has sent it back and now we have before us a Government amendment, and an Opposition amendment for which the Australian Democrats have indicated their support. I remind the Senate that the Bill seeks to bring to an end the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry which was set up by this Parliament. That Commission of three eminent former judges was to inquire into the conduct of a judge of the High Court of Australia. The Bill goes further than that. It not only seeks to bring to an end the Commission of Inquiry but also seeks to put a complete estoppel upon the information before the Commission. Before the Senate at the moment is an amendment moved by the Government which, in part, states: A person shall not publish or otherwise disclose to any other person, the whole or any part of a class A document that has been prepared by the Commission, the staff of the Commission, or counsel assisting the Commission. The amendment goes on to say that the penalty would be $5,000 or six months imprisonment for a person or, where the defendant is a corporation-presumably a newspaper or other form of media-the fine is $100,000. The Minister representing the Attorney- General today put forward several arguments. Senator Gareth Evans's first line of argument was to refer to some articles in a recent publication of the National Times on Sunday. If I construe his argument properly, he sought to suggest that such articles would be stopped-articles which he referred to as scuttlebutt-if this legislation were carried. Essentially, what he did not tell us is that if this Commission had been allowed to proceed, the two journalists could have been and would have been summoned before the Commission and the test of whether or not their evidence was factual would be known. The action of the Minister and his Government is to leave that test forever unmade. Under this legislation the Government is creating a series of situations in which stories can be indicated and cannot be proved. That is a tragic situation. The two journalists concerned, Wendy Bacon and Brian Toohey, have said that what they have stated is correct and that they are journalists with a reputation of integrity. If that is so-- Senator Gareth Evans —Ha! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Minister scoffs. Let the media scoff if such allegations as were made against their integrity are made against the Minister's integrity. The fact of the matter is that the test was there-not for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to abuse a particular section of the media because he does not like what is being reported, but to test whether or not the facts were there. In fact, the Government has run away from testing the facts. So, let the whole public understand that when the media is under attack by the Government, that is, firstly, because it does not like what the media is saying, and, secondly, because the Government will not put it to the test. The simple thing to have done would have been to have invited those two journalists before the Commission. A much more astonishing situation has been brought forward by the Minister today. The Minister reported to this Senate that the Secretary of the Commission had indicated to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that the commissioners found themselves grossly offended by the amendment being put forward by the Opposition. The Minister then proceeded to build his case in support of that. I find it astonishing that a Minister of the Crown would do that. When he was pressed by interjection he admitted that there was nothing different between what the Opposition was trying to do and what the Government was trying to do, that the Government's amendment and the Opposition's amendment were factually identical in their application to the commissioners. His words were that really the error was one of presentation, that one should not mention commissioners as such, but that one was quite free to mention staff. I find it outrageous that a former Attorney-General and present Minister representing the Attorney-General should set out one kind of rights for those who occupy particular places in the community and another kind of rights for others. He suggests that we must not name judges or ex-judges but that we can name staff and that somehow or other we can put a higher value of integrity and trust upon one citizen than on another. If there is a real offence it lies in what I would call a totally corrupt and ugly presentation. Let us understand what is happening here. This Parliamentary Commission is a creature of this Parliament, created by this Parliament. We as parliamentarians are sworn to recognise the independence of the judiciary and we ourselves, under our Standing Orders, do not venture upon any such criticism at all. I find it absolutely wrong, if it is true, that the Commission should have sent such a message to this Parliament, first, because in fact it would have been selective. It must have known that the Government's amendment was identical in its application both to the commissioners and to the staff. Secondly, it is the complete freedom and right of this Parliament to bring forward whatever amendments it wishes and not to have such messages sent to us under those circumstances. I must say that it would be an abuse of what I regard as the privileges of such a body so to do. I would ask that the President or the Minister himself find out under what conditions such a message was sent, first of all when it was known that the amendments of both the Government and the Opposition applied identically. Why was it selectively choosing the Opposition when the Government itself was seeking to do by legislation what the Opposition was seeking to do? Let us have that answer. All this is based upon the Government saying that really we must hide this information, keep it out of sight. The Government then dismisses this matter with a whole series of words about trivia, allegations, assertions and insinuations. Let me bring this debate back to reality. In fact, what happened was that a commission of three was asked to investigate the conduct of a judge. I read from the Government's explanatory memorandum the terms in which it should go about its task: The Commission will not call Mr Justice Murphy to give evidence unless the Commission is of the opinion that there is evidence of misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution sufficient to require an answer and the Commission has given to Mr Justice Murphy particulars in writing of that evidence. It goes on to say: The Commission is to base its findings on evidence admissible in a court of law. So the Commission has to look at the evidence, find that, in its view, there is really a case to answer-and the test is that applying to evidence before a court of law-before it goes into anything that could otherwise be described as insinuation. But what did the Commission do, having been adjured to do this? The Commission said-and I read from its own statement: By Thursday 17 July 1986 counsel assisting the Commission had cause to be delivered to those representing Mr Justice Murphy twelve documents each purporting to set out a specific allegation of conduct by the Judge (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act, S. 5 (2)). Two further such documents have since been delivered. That meant that 14 allegations made and put into writing stood the test of the explanatory memorandum. In other words, the Commissioners considered that the allegations and the evidence before them were serious enough. So we are dealing with the termination of a commission on that basis and with the disposal of the evidence on that basis. Let nobody from the Government side try to trivialise the facts. The facts are that three commissioners have said that there are 14 serious matters to be investigated and answered. They are to be brought to a finish. But, more importantly than that, the evidence is to be shelved. This amendment of the Government produces an extraordinary situation because, in fact, as I read it, it will do exactly the opposite of what it sets out to do. It says: A person shall not publish, or otherwise disclose to any other person, the whole or any part of a class A document that has been prepared by the Commission, the staff of the Commission, or counsel assisting the Commission. Presumably any document that has not got to the stage of being prepared by the Commission or the staff, but is in the Commission's hands, can in fact be freed. The lawyers would dine out for months on the meaning of the word `prepared'. Perhaps if a document is to be processed further it is not `prepared', because the Secretary of the Commission has said in a letter to the shadow Attorney-General that there is much more processing to be done. What about all the matters that have not been prepared or processed? Is it all right for the staff, the Commission or others to release this matter? The amendment is basically saying: `Look here, if something is prepared and moved along to the stage of being a reasonable case to inquire into, shelve it; but every piece of trivia and scuttlebutt is free to be released'. That is an absolutely monstrous situation and the Opposition has moved a much more sensible amendment. It is no good in respect of a matter arising from this Government, with a commission being set up by this Government, for the Government now to try to tear it down simply because it says it was built on trivia. The Commission itself says it is not dealing with trivia. The Commission itself says it has a volume of matters to process and to go ahead with. So let nobody say that. I have to say that the Australian Democrats' case crumbled completely when the Commission recently put out its statement showing that 14 cases were submitted in writing for answer. There was no longer any suggestion that we were dealing with just some journalistic scuttlebutt. Simply to turn the attack upon the journalists and the media is, of course, an attempt to coerce and to deny freedom. I know nothing that is more ugly than the suggestion that the Government is going to stop journalists from releasing documents by threat of gaol or fine. Nothing will stop that at all because the essential freedoms will come out. In any case, if it cannot come out one way it will come out another. So we have before us a Bill which will create the monster instead of destroying it. I regret very much the Government's amendment; I support the Opposition amendment. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.39) —I rise to support the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Durack and to oppose the amendment introduced by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and transmitted to us from the House of Representatives. As I understand the import of the amendment which the Government seeks to make to this legislation, its effect will be that class A documents-that is to say, those documents which the original Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill defines as those relating to the conduct of the Hon. Lionel Keith Murphy-are to be given a particular type of protection. In effect, that protection is to be a suppression order. Persons are to be held liable for punishment, in the case of natural persons, by a $5,000 fine or imprisonment for six months and, in the case of corporations, by a $10,000 fine, if they publish or otherwise disclose to any other person the whole or any part of a class A document that has been prepared by the Commission, the staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission. I believe this will lead to this quite extraordinary situation: A document which purports to be a series of allegations against His Honour Mr Justice Murphy may in fact be published or disclosed without attracting such a draconian penalty if in fact it is published or disclosed in its raw form, having come into the possession of, say, the media or whoever. However, if there were in existence a document prepared by the Commission which said: `We have taken this allegation, investigated it and found it to be entirely without substance', the publication of that document, being a document that has been prepared by the Commission, would constitute an offence punishable by a fairly hefty fine or a term of imprisonment. It seems quite extraordinary that the publication of a document that might be a document vindicating His Honour in terms of any of the accusations made to the Commission against His Honour would possibly attract very serious penalties. When Senator Gareth Evans was replying to the debate on 21 August he said that one of the basic objects of this legislation was `to prevent the kind of grotesque unfairness to Lionel Murphy and his family that would flow from untested allegations about any aspect of his life-public life, private life, on the Bench, in politics or before all that over the last 60-odd years'. I would have thought that material prepared by the Commission, given the nature of the Commission and of the persons who constitute the Commission, could only be material which would settle matters one way or the other and that indeed it would be not only in the public interest but also in the personal interest of His Honour Mr Justice Murphy that such material should enter the public domain. It may well be that there are questions about time and form but, nevertheless, that should enter the public domain. The shadow Attorney-General, Mr Spender, communicated with the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry to ask about some of the material it currently held. On behalf of the Commission, Mr J. F. Thomson, the Secretary, replied to Mr Spender in a letter dated 10 September 1986. The letter is on the stationery of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry and it states: Dear Mr Spender, I have received your communication dated 8 September and transmitted to me by facsimile. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Presiding Member of the Commission, the Honourable Sir George Lush and, consistently with that discussion, I make the following observations in relation to your communication. With respect to the matters set out under the heading `As to section 34' the position is as follows. Material in the possession of the Commission was not `analysed' for the purpose of possible communication to other persons and agencies specified in section 34 of the Commission's statute. The Commission is not called upon by its statute to do such analysis. However, the question generally was addressed by Counsel Assisting the Commission and the Instructing Solicitor though naturally not in the same depth as would have been the case had the Commission gone to finality. On an overview of the material available, much of which came from the National Crime Authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Federal Police, analysis was not warranted, in the opinion of Senior Counsel. A good deal of the material is inchoate and, in that form, unsuitable for reference pursuant to section 34 generally. To be suitable for that purpose such material would need to be enhanced by further investigation and/or cross-examination of witnesses. However, when it became apparent that the Commission was to be wound up by the Parliament, it consulted the National Crime Authority over materials in its possession that the Authority might require. Those requested by the Authority were provided to it. I confirm what you have set out in your communication under the heading `Receipt and Disbursement of Information' except that the material proposed to be sent to the Parliament under the repeal Bill (as presently formulated) will not include: files received from departments and authorities; material provided to the Commission in confidence on the basis that it would be returned; Senate Committee material; Counsel's personal working notes which, I understand, have been destroyed; and administrative files. However, relevant information from the material described immediately above is contained in the Commission's records, which, it is proposed, will be sent to the Parliament. Yours sincerely, J. F. Thomson Secretary In other words the Commission has established that it is the holder of a great deal of material in a form which is not appropriate-the word used is inchoate-to be transmitted under the terms of reference provided in section 34 of the original legislation establishing the Commission of Inquiry. However, the amendment advanced by the Government does not deal with that sort of material. It deals with material which, in the words of the Government's amendment, has been prepared by the Commission, the staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission. I submit that the very fact that the Commission has prepared material means that a great deal of that material would have been relevant to an assessment of the validity or otherwise of matters laid before the Commission. As Senator Sir John Carrick has pointed out, the Commission has made public the fact that it has received a number of allegations which have been put together at least in some form. With the support of the Australian Democrats the Opposition has sought to provide an alternative form of words which the Committee was minded to accept when we debated this matter on 21 August. Our amendment dealt with the material in a way which material held by Commonwealth authorities is usually protected, that is to say, by making it an offence for a member of the Commission, a member of the staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission directly or indirectly to disclose to any person certain material which should not have been disclosed. Senator Evans has indicated, to use his words, that members of the Commission found it profoundly and uniquely offensive to be dealt with in that fashion. I do not believe that there is anything profoundly or uniquely offensive about specifying all of the persons-the commissioners, the staff and the counsel assisting-who after all are the persons directly concerned with the ownership or control of this material in exactly the way that Senator Durack referred to in his earlier remarks. I conclude by drawing attention to only one or two of the very lengthy comments made by Senator Macklin. In his speech earlier this day, Senator Macklin indicated that the only documents-those were his words-in the possession of the Commission were `working papers of the Commission'. Of course, we do not know whether that is the case. Indeed, from the terms of Mr Thomson's letter of 10 September, one would suspect that that is not correct. I do not propose to go over the grounds of the freedom of the Press arguments, although Senator Macklin has made it clear that he does not believe that that is an issue actually arising. Those arguments were canvassed by me in my speech on this legislation on 21 August and were well canvassed by Senator Durack in his remarks earlier today. I therefore conclude simply by saying that I believe that, if the test of fairness is to be applied in the way in which the Minister, Senator Evans, described in his speech on 21 August, fairness is more likely to be achieved by proceeding along the lines suggested in Senator Durack's amendment than by pursuing the Government's amendment. On that basis, I support Senator Durack's amendment and trust that the Committee will reject the Government's alternative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.50) —I remind Senator Evans that, in answer to a question yesterday by Senator Sir John Carrick-- Senator Gareth Evans —I was going to deal with that. Senator DURACK —Fine. The only other point I raise is that this morning I said that I would check with the Opposition shadow Attorney-General, Mr Spender, as to whether he had had any communication from any members of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry by way of complaint about the amendment. I have done so. Mr Spender has informed me that he has had no communication of any kind from any member of the Commission. Senator Gareth Evans —I wouldn't talk to him either, if I were them. Senator DURACK —There has never been a communication initiated by either Mr Spender or the Commission. It has nothing to do with whether members of the Commission are prepared to talk to him. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.51) — However much the Opposition's contribution today may be dressed up as high principle, defence of freedom of the Press, or whatever, what it really amounts to is simply a tacky attempt to keep alive, by one means or another, the persecution of Lionel Murphy. It is an enterprise that is being regarded with increasing distaste by the community at large. It will not get the Opposition anywhere but, of course, that does not stop it. As I understand it, there is nothing in the Commission documents which is in any way conclusive one way or another in its analysis of the material that has been submitted to the Commission by way of allegation. The material that the Commission has remains allegations-no more than that. They are untested allegations, in some instances made by people utterly without credit-such as `Tropical' Anderson, so beloved of Mr Toohey and Ms Bacon of the National Times. There is nothing in the revelation of the material that would contribute anything to justice or decency in this matter. It continues to remain a matter of shame to the Opposition that it should be so besotted with the continuing saga and desires to keep it alive by one means or another and encourage others to keep it alive by supporting the limited amendment proposed tonight. I refer to the famous communication of the views of the Commission. For the record, I make it clear-there is no desire to keep any secrets in this respect-that the communications to which I referred, in which the Commission said orally that it found the Opposition's amendment grossly offensive to persons associated with the Commission, was as a result of a request for a reaction to the Opposition's amendment that was made orally to the Secretary of the Commission by a senior member of the Attorney-General's Department. One would think that that was a natural precaution when the Government was deciding whether or not to accept the Opposition's amendment. Senator Durack —Who replied? Was it the Secretary? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Secretary replied, having consulted with Sir Richard Blackburn, Mr Justice Lush and Mr JusticeAndrew Wells-former justices in each case. As I understand it, that is an accurate report of their response, based on their distaste for having been singled out. No doubt they are prepared to accept, with judicial equilibrium, being treated in the same way as everyone else, but being singled out for very substantial gaol penalties should they breach faith, secrecy and respect, quite understandably is regarded by them as somewhat less than gentlemanly behaviour on the part of the tories who are allegedly above such things. I make that clear for the record. Finally, I make clear for the record the Government's response to Senator Sir John Carrick's question to me in the Senate yesterday, some of which ground both he and Senator Puplick traversed again today. The Opposition spokesman on legal matters, Mr Spender, in his Press statement of 12 September made the extraordinary claim that there ought to be some continuing activity by the Commission to investigate further the material now before it so that it might be assembled better for the purpose of transmission to law enforcement authorities for the purpose of uncovering evidence relating to the commission of criminal offences. In other words, the Opposition wants the whole thing to keep going because it is unsatisfied with the way in which the material has been transmitted to law enforcement authorities to the extent that it does raise issues of possible criminal behaviour by various people. My response to Senator Sir John Carrick's question is, in short, that no further action is required or remotely appropriate in relation to the matters that he has raised. I say, for the record, that he was quite selective in his reference in his question yesterday to the parliamentary record. His question made no reference to what I said in the Hansard in my reply at the conclusion of the second reading debate. I summed up the position in the following terms: So far as the Commission's capacity itself to pass on to law enforcement agencies material not originated from such agencies, but perhaps turning up in the course of documentary submissions made by other people, the Commission has the capacity under section 34 of the present Act to communicate such as it thinks appropriate of that material to law enforcement agencies. Further, I said: Material which, in the view of the Commission, satisfies that description is, as I have indicated, being passed-if it has not already been passed now-to the National Crime Authority. Later in that speech I made the point that there was ample time, on the basis of information received from the Parliamentary Commission, for that process of communicating information to agencies to take place before the anticipated repeal date of the legislation. The suggestion by Senator Sir John Carrick appears to be that the information that was obtained by Mr Spender from Mr Thomson, the Secretary of the Parliamentary Commission, indicates that the Commission now considers that further investigation and/or cross-examination of witnesses should be undertaken by the Commission before it can perform its function under section 34 of the Act in transmitting further material. To the extent that that is the interpretation that seems to emerge from what both Mr Spender and Senator Sir John Carrick have said, I simply say that that is not what the Commission has said. Any careful reading of Mr Thomson's letter will make that clear. Perhaps I should incorporate in Hansard the terms of Mr Thomson's letter so that the record will be complete in that respect. I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY G.P.O. Box 5218 Sydney, N.S.W. 2001 Telephone: 232-4922 Presiding Member: The Hon. Sir George Lush Members: The Hon. Sir Richard Blackburn, OBE The Hon. Andrew Wells, QC 10 September 1986 Mr John Spender, QC, MP Suite 601, 6th Floor 83 Mount Street NORTH SYDNEY, NSW 2060 Dear Mr Spender, I have received your communication dated 8 September and transmitted to me by facsimile. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Presiding Member of the Commission, the Honourable Sir George Lush and, consistently with that discussion, I make the following observations in relation to your communication. With respect to the matters set out under the heading `As to section 34' the position is as follows. Material in the possession of the Commission was not `analysed' for the purpose of possible communication to other persons and agencies specified in section 34 of the Commission's statute. The Commission is not called upon by its statute to do such analysis. However, the question generally was addressed by Counsel Assisting the Commission and the Instructing Solicitor though naturally not in the same depth as would have been the case had the Commission gone to finality. On an overview of the material available, much of which came from the National Crime Authority, the director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Federal Police, analysis was not warranted, in the opinion of Senior Counsel. A good deal of the material is inchoate and, in that form, unsuitable for reference pursuant to section 34. Generally, to be suitable for that purpose such material would need to be enhanced by further investigation and/or cross-examination of witnesses. However, when it became apparent that the Commission was to be wound up by the Parliament, it consulted the National Crime Authority over materials in its possession that the Authority might require. Those requested by the Authority were provided to it. I confirm what you have set out in your communication under the heading `Receipt and Disbursement of Information' except that the material proposed to be sent to the Parliament under the repeal Bill (as presently formulated) will not include: files received from departments and authorities; material provided to the Commission in confidence on the basis that it would be returned; Senate Committee material; Counsel's personal working notes which, I understand, have been destroyed; and administrative files. However, relevant information from the material described immediately above is contained in the Commission's records, which, it is proposed, will be sent to the Parliament. Yours sincerely, J. F. Thomson Secretary Senator GARETH EVANS —I simply state, by way of commentary on that letter, the following points: First, the Commission's reply states that the Commission is not called upon by its statute to analyse material for the purpose of possible communication to law enforcement agencies under section 34 of its statute. Secondly, however, the question was generally addressed by counsel assisting the Commission and the instructing solicitor. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is the statement of the Secretary that, on an overview of the material available, an analysis was not warranted, in the opinion of senior counsel. The fourth point needs to be read in the light of that, and that was that a good deal of the material was inchoate-that is, disordered, scattered, messy-and, in that form, unsuitable for reference pursuant to section 34. Fifthly-it is only in the light of that previous discussion that the further point is made-to be suitable for that purpose such material would need to be enhanced by further investigation and/or cross-examination of witnesses. The final point is that when it became apparent that the Commission would be wound up by the Parliament, the Commission consulted the National Crime Authority over materials in its possession that the Authority might require. Those requested by the Authority were provided to it. What is said there is very different from the interpretation, the gloss and the notion that the Commission was keen for further examination that is sought to be persuaded. I urge the Committee to reject the Opposition's amendment and vote for the proposition now before us. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! It being 7 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(7.02) —I rise to express my concern to other senators about the situation in which Queensland nurses find themselves in relation to the attitudes of two crucial Queensland Ministers. Of course, any issue that affects Queensland nurses obviously affects the people of Queensland. The 1985 Grants Commission report found that Queensland nurse staffing levels were 27 per cent below the national standard. It is an absolute scandal that the people of Queensland should have such low levels of nurse staffing. Capital works expenditure in Queensland hospitals is taking preference over work force considerations. New hospitals are opening but there is no guarantee that there will be an adequate number of nursing professionals to care for the patients in them. The State Minister for Health and Environment has adopted a head in the sand approach and refuses to meet with Queensland nursing union officials to talk over the problems on a rational basis. Of course, rationality is a characteristic that is not particularly well represented in the Queensland minority Government. High nursing staff turnover with better conditions available in other States has created a situation in which 4,000 more nurses are required to bring Queensland up to the national standard which should be applied. The Queensland Government consistently refuses to co-operate with the Federal Government which has made a number of important overtures in regard to increasing the professionalism of nurses throughout the country. Queensland is the only State that has failed to agree jointly to introduce tertiary education for nurses. Queensland is the only State that has not matched refresher training grants. Queensland is the only State that has refused to establish a nursing consultative committee to improve communication between the Government and the nursing profession. If better consultation on the future of nurse education and other issues affecting nurses is needed anywhere, it is certainly needed in Queensland. Queensland lags well behind other States in regard to child care provision, which means that, although the Commonwealth is prepared to fund extra child care places, the Queensland Government is not taking up the kind of share to which it is entitled and is not prepared to develop child care facilities where they are needed. Recently, I met with a principal of a college of technical and further education who announced that he wanted to develop a child care provision for students attending his TAFE college but he was not allowed even to consider a child care provision on State Government premises. I can assume only that a similar ruling applies to hospitals. It is detrimental to nurses if they do not have access to child care facilities. The Queensland Minister for Education, Mr Powell, has a totally negative attitude to nurse education. On 9 September, in a speech in the Queensland Parliament, Mr Powell described the agreements that had already been reached with every other State in the Commonwealth as draconian. He said: This Government- the Queensland Government- makes no apology for refusing to sign an agreement on the funding of higher education that would throw the major burden for both recurrent and capital expenditure for a tertiary education course on the State. I challenge Mr Powell to explain why Queensland is so different in this regard. If the Commonwealth's agreement is as draconian as Mr Powell would have us believe, why has every other State been prepared to take up the option? I would like to run through some alarming figures relating to the number of persons qualifying as nurses in Queensland. In 1980-81, 923 general nurses qualified but, in 1984-85-the latest year for which figures are available-there were only 835. In midwifery the picture was not as serious but, nevertheless, in 1980-81 342 people graduated whereas in 1984-85 only 331 graduated. Child health is the focus of much attention in Queensland. Yvonne Chapman, the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs has made all sorts of grand claims about how concerned she is for the family, yet although 80 people qualified as child health nurses in 1980-81, in 1984-85 only 35 qualified. I think that one can see that Queensland nurses are concerned about the neglect that they are suffering. I am concerned that Federal initiatives are not being taken up by the Queensland Government. A few weeks ago, when Dr Blewett tried to talk with Toowoomba nurses, he was barred from the Toowoomba General Hospital. What kind of consultation process is it in Queensland when a Federal Minister for Health who wants to talk to nurses about the transfer of nurse education, refresher training and other issues of vital concern is barred from entering a State hospital? Only a few months ago, I was fortunate enough to be a guest speaker at the Toowoomba General Hospital. Presumably Mr Austin was not asked whether that was all right with him, and I went without his approval. I suggest that the time for the Queensland Ministers for Health and Education to get their acts together and be prepared to talk to the Federal Government about the transfer of nurse education is long overdue. If that does not happen, I do not see that Queensland nurses have any reason to vote for the National Party Government in Queensland. (Quorum formed) Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(7.13) —In this adjournment debate I wish to deal with a question the nature of which I will not be able to deal with at any other stage in the foreseeable future. It is in respect of the development over the last few weeks of a New Right philosophy projected into the public sphere. I consider that there is too much preoccupation on the part of political leaders with the antics of the New Right and that this preoccupation will not cure the ills of this country. It is my view that fair-minded Australians will not subscribe to the philosophy of the New Right, which amounts to a late twentieth century version of the nineteenth century laissez-faire capitalism. The fundamental ground rule of that philosophy is the survival of the fittest, and it results in the most vulnerable and the voiceless suffering most. In economic life the law of the jungle means that small businesses and consumers would become defenceless victims of monopolies. In the industrial arena moderate unions, which have looked to the arbitration system for justice and equity for their members, will be the losers to the advantage of those unions controlled by the extreme Left, whose influence on the industrial and political Labor movements will correspondingly increase. This may, of course, be to the short term political benefit of the New Right, but in my view it will be to the long term detriment of Australia. It is interesting to observe that when I first came into the trade union movement as an official-it is too long ago to remember now, but it was probably 25 years ago-it was the extreme Left and the communist elements of the trade union movement that were seeking to smash the arbitration system. Now it is the New Right that is seeking to smash the arbitration system. I do not for a moment consider that the extreme Left and the communists have given away their anti-arbitration attitude, but the running is now being taken by the New Right. It is interesting to observe that some of them have gathered together in what is known as the H. R. Nicholls Society. I do not want to reflect individually on the members of that society. Some of what they say is correct and needs to be maturely considered. Indeed, all that they say needs to be maturely considered. But, Mr President, I point out to you that, insofar as a member of the H. R. Nicholls Society has sought to reflect on the Harvester judgment of Mr Justice Higgins, and insofar as they consider that H. R. Nicholls was right in reflecting on that judgment, they are historically inaccurate because the facts are that Nicholls did not win that case. That case was defeated on a technicality after counsel for Nicholls had withdrawn the substantial criticisms by Nicholls of Higgins. It is important to note also that the Harvester judgment arose not from a wages application but from an application by the Sunshine Harvester Co. for what was virtually tariff protection. In order for the exemption certificate to be granted, the judge was required to determine what was a reasonable and fair wage and what was a reasonable and fair income. In addressing himself to that, he considered the question of what was reasonable to be paid to a worker so that the family of that worker would be maintained in frugal comfort. The important point to remember is that it was the family to which the attention of Judge Higgins was directed. It is clear from an examination of the judgment that he was influenced by the social principles that were developed in, for example, the great encyclical Rerum novarum. Indeed, it is important to reflect that the principle of conciliation and arbitration became ground into the consciousness of the Australian people, such that when it was attempted to be smashed politically by the Bruce Government, it was not arbitration that was smashed but the Bruce Government that was defeated. I believe that it is well for everyone in this chamber and for people at large to reflect on those matters. I believe that it is important for the Government at present not to be diverted by the antics of the New Right but to concentrate on some of the real problems that are confronting families in today's society in living at a reasonable standard; to understand that those families are feeling the pinch, and that those families, along with every other sector of the community, are prepared to make sacrifices in the interests of the welfare of this country. But it is clear from an examination of what has happened to the incomes of those families that they are carrying an undue burden of the economic crisis at present, and indeed have done so over the last 10 years. In the last 10 years the disposable income of a family with four children on average earnings has dropped by 11 percentage points. Despite the much heralded tax cut of this Government, that family by this time next year will drop a further one percentage point. It would be disconcerting to say the least, and most electorally damaging for the Government, not to heed the feelings of ordinary families who are feeling the pinch. It will be disgraceful if we in this Parliament allow to continue a situation where parents feel they are being discriminated against because they have children and that young people feel discriminated against in their job opportunities. As I have said on a number of occasions here in this chamber, whereas 20 years ago youth constituted 26.3 per cent of the Commonwealth Public Service, it now constitutes less than 5 per cent. I place these matters before the Senate in a genuine attempt to raise these issues for the Government's consideration, to attempt to address what I believe is a diversion on the part of the New Right, and to recommend that in its quest to crush arbitration, it pause and recognise what the end result will be to justice and equity in this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.23 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Health Insurance Act-Statements (2) of particulars of Ministerial Determinations authorised under section 106aa, together with reasons for Determinations, dated 8 September 1986. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 1024) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 April 1986: (1) Are difficulties presently being encountered by Telecom in its attempts to establish a digital radio concentrator telephone service to Port Keats (Wadeye) via Peppimenarti and Palumpa. (2) Has there been a very long delay in the provision of this service, as a result of protracted negotiations between Telecom and the Northern Land Council (NLC), in relation to this development. (3) Is the present asking price of the NLC for each of the 6 sites which Telecom requires to provide the service $30,000; if not, what is the price being demanded by the NLC. (4) What price, if any, is Telecom prepared to pay for these sites, in order to provide the telephone service. (5) How does this compare with payment of `compensation' to owners of non-Aboriginal land acquired for similar purposes. (6) What action is being taken to facilitate a speedy resolution of this matter which has now dragged on for 3 years, given that the Aboriginal people who live in the area which would be served by the facility, are keen to receive the facility. (7) Can the Minister for Communications give any indications of when he expects the problem to be resolved, and when he expects the telephone service to be operating. (8) What other applicants from outback Aboriginal settlements, is the Minister aware of, who may be experiencing problems similar to the one which exists in relation to Wadeye. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) No. (2) No. (3) and (4) No. The NLC requested for each of two of the sites a once only payment of $1,000 for a 25 year lease and for the third site a once only payment of $1,500 for a 25 year lease. Telecom has accepted this offer. (5) The average price for non-Aboriginal land tends to be in the vicinity of $500. The higher offer to traditional owners reflects the dislocation and disruption caused to that land through the presence of Telecom staff and equipment and the strong ties the traditional owners have to the land. (6) As indicated in the answer to (3) and (4) Telecom and the NLC have reached agreement on the matter. The detailed paperwork is in the process of being finalised. In the meantime permissive occupancy has been granted to allow the project to proceed. (7) At this stage it is anticipated that the Wadeye system will be cutover for service in November 1986. (8) Negotiations are continuing in relation to a number of DRCS projects, and are at different stages for the various locations. As in the Wadeye situation, Telecom is satisfied with the procedural arrangements which have been established and there are no problems being encountered which give Telecom any concern with respect to the timing and completion of the Rural and Remote Areas Programme.