Wednesday, 8 October 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 300 citizens), Peter Baume (from 353 citizens), Brownhill (from 65 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 524 citizens), Childs (from 276 citizens), Devlin (from 25 citizens), McIntosh (from 353 citizens) and Sibraa (from 477 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill: 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under law. 2. deny some Human Rights and do not include others. 3. give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Senate should: completely reject the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 22 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 Federal Government is spending increasing amounts to alleviate damage done to human lives by family break-up, desertion by spouses, divorce, children in `latch-key' situations, juvenile crime and drug addiction, it is most inconsistent for that government to lessen in any way the support that Australian families need to help them to survive. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. reject any proposed cuts to the support now provided to families by way of family allowance; 2. reject any proposal to introduce a `flat-rate' family allowance, but rather keep family allowance fully proportional to family size; and 3. reject any proposal to abolish or diminish the dependent spouse tax rebate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 38 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 648 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to rescind the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986. The Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986 (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 and the Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1986 because: 1. It will increase both personal and company taxation. 2. It will undermine employment levels through reducing profitability and international competitiveness of industry. 3. It will result in price increases. 4. It will force employers to withdraw voluntary incentives to employees paid over and above existing payments. 5. It endangers stable industrial relations because of the potential for forced withdrawal of Fringe Benefits. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should rescind the Act, and seek a genuine public debate on equitable reforms of the Taxation System. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 1,868 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: 1. The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint De- fence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap may be terminated by either Government on one year's notice from 19 October 1986. 2. In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. 3. Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. 4. The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. and your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated one year from October 1986. 2. Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. 3. Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators McIntosh (from 58 citizens) and Zakharov (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Every citizen should have- 1. A constitutional guarantee of the right to vote and 2. A constitutional guarantee of the equality of votes. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- Support the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) 1985 Bill And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: that we the citizens of the Illawarra Region condemn the decision to close the Wollongong office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and that we respectfully request that this decision be reversed immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 112 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 696 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights is a harmful, dangerous, divisive and unnecessary proposal, the provisions of which are dictatorial, harmful and against the true interest of the people of Australia. Your petitioners pray: that the Senate reject the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill. The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system, by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pinpoint Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer- submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The ``joint U.S.-Australian'' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the ``joint Australian-U.S.'' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia army barracks. by Senators Cooney (from 384 citizens) and Zakharov (from 365 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned Queensland citizens respectfully showeth: (i) For the 1986 Calendar year 34,000 students applied for only 14,500 places at tertiary institutions in Queensland. (ii) Queensland has 16.07% of Australia's total population, but the participation rate of students attending Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education is only 13.7% and 14.9% respectively (which for example compares unfavourably with the New South Wales figures of 34.85% of population and participation rates of 37.9% and 25.8% respectively.) (iii) Queensland students because of lack of places are disadvantaged and deprived in that they suffer the lowest participation rates of any State or Territory in Australia. Your petitioners request that: The Federal Government immediately increase its Tertiary Funding so that Queensland students have at least the same opportunities as the average for Australia. by Senator Parer (from 258 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the Government's decision on the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 60 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 Vigor (from 149 citizens). To the President and Honourable members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Senators Childs (from 773 citizens) andRobertson (from 34 citizens). To the President and Honourable members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we wish to protest at the cutbacks announced in the Federal Budget of August 1986. Large numbers of people live in poverty and many more are now moving in that direction. Gains in education, multi-culturalism, welfare and in many other areas that have been important to the Australian people are being eroded and in some cases totally destroyed. Members of the ethnic community have been hit twice as hard by the August budget. They experience the hardship of general economic policies as well as the severe cutbacks that affect services essential to developing equal opportunity and the promotion of multi-culturalism. We therefore call upon the Federal Government to reconsider the economic direction which it is pursuing and develop economic policies that cater for the needs of all Australians. Specifically, such policies must include the following which are vital to the ethnic and general Australian community at large: The Federal Government to undertake full responsibility to maintain and expand the ESL programme; Retain the Human Rights Commission; Retain the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs; Reinstate funding to the education centres programme; Maintain the autonomy of SBS Television and Ethnic Radio; Maintain the branches of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Albury, Wollongong, Newcastle in NSW, as well as the other branches in Victoria and Queensland; To not introduce Tertiary Education fees; To maintain the Bill of Rights legislation; To reinstate, maintain and expand the Multicultural Education Program. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Senator Robertson (from 80 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 protest at the continual refusal of the Commonwealth Government to seek the opinion of the Australian people as to whether or not we should remain a homogeneous European society, and that, against the advice of all public opinion polls it continues to dismantle the trouble free and cohesive structure of the Australian way of life; as it continues to promote and mislead the people on the alleged benefits of a multi-racial society. That the Government seeks immediately to increase the percentage of Australians of British, Irish and other Caucasian background so that the traditions, heritage and way of life of our people shall not be destroyed. That the position of Commissioner for Community Relations be phased out as the need diminishes with an increase in the content of British, Irish and Caucasian people in the Australian population. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from eight 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 only activity now taking place in the South Pacific which the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty bans is the testing of nuclear weapons by France at Mururoa and that the export of uranium by Australia to France undermines the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to adhere to the Australian Labor Party's policy, as set out in the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill which prohibits the supply of uranium to France until France stops testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 55 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: Deferring the C.P.I. increase for pensions which will take place in November and May for 6 weeks each will cause hardships to pensioners and penalise people already living in the shadow of poverty. It is interesting to note that the last stock exchange 6 monthly survey of profitability indicated that average profits for Australian companies have risen 41 per cent during the half year to December 1985 over the corresponding period in 1984. Pensioners are already making unfair sacrifices. We call on the Government to restore the C.P.I. flow on and to take measures to alleviate poverty traps immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Canberra High School respectfully showeth: That Canberra High School has been lacking an essential facility for the past eighteen years-a gymnasium. Canberra High School is now the only remaining secondary school in the North side area without a gymnasium and as a result of this students are missing out on a vital part of their education. We, as students, staff, parents and the community of Canberra High School, believe that it is time Canberra High School was provided with a gymnasium. Your petitioners therefore pray that Honourable Senators will do their very best to ensure that funds for this gymnasium facility are provided as a matter of extreme urgency. by Senator Reid (from 2,100 citizens). Petitions received. Senator PARER(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate (a) notes with concern recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showing a marked increase in the level of industrial disputation in Australia; (b) commends the Business Council of Australia for its attack on the Australian Council of Trade Unions superannuation push at a time of widespread acknowledgment of the need for wage restraint; and (c) condemns the involvement of Senator Morris in a superannuation related brewery workers strike in Sydney and calls on the Federal Government to declare its attitude to the actions of Senator Morris. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) The hours of sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 14 October and Wednesday, 15 October 1986 be varied as follows: (a) Tuesday, 14 October 1986- 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.; and (b) Wednesday, 15 October 1986- 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. (2) On Wednesday, 15 October 1986, Question Time take place at 3 p.m. (3) Subject to paragraphs 1 and 2, the Sessional Order relating to the days and hours of meeting of the Senate, and the Routine of Business for week one, apply to the week commencing 13 October 1986. (4) The Sessional Order relating to the days and hours of meeting of the Senate and the Routine of Business for week two apply to the week commencing 20 October 1986. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the sinking of a Soviet Yankee class nuclear powered and nuclear armed submarine in the North Atlantic on 6 October 1986; (b) notes, too, that this submarine joins two United States nuclear submarines at the bottom of the same ocean; (c) condemns the Federal Government for not taking seriously the danger of nuclear accidents when nuclear armed and nuclear powered ships and submarines enter Australian harbours; (d) deplores the decision to invite nuclear capable warships to the Royal Australian Navy's 75th anniversary celebrations; and (e) calls on the Government to end these unnecessary nuclear visits immediately. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I withdraw General Business notices of motion Nos. 52, 58 and 78 standing in my name. 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. Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and KKFC Proprietary Ltd dated 28 July 1986. 2. Australian Capital Territory Building Review Committee-annual report 1985-86. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I table the annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation and seek leave to make a statement relating thereto. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —The Australian Industry Development Corporation achieved a record after tax net profit of $19.1m in the year ended 30 June 1986. This is an increase of almost $3m on the previous year and a return on capital of 21.8 per cent. The Commonwealth will receive a payment from the Corporation of $8.6m, representing 50 per cent of the parent Corporation's profits. The Corporation's new commitments during the year were a record $1,599m and total assets of the Corporation at year end were $2.2 billion. These results reflect a most successful year for the Corporation in a difficult economic environment and demonstrate the Corporation's effectiveness in financing industries vital to the Australian economy. All of the Corporation's activities, both debt and equity, are contributing to the growth of manufacturing, resource and service industries, with the emphasis on exports and international competitiveness. In June 1985 the Corporation established a new industry restructuring unit and during the year development investments with significant benefits in restructuring and revitalisation of sectors of manufacturing industry were made. In addition to these commercial activities the Corporation is continuing to work with government and industry bodies towards finding solutions to problems in more difficult industries. The Corporation is co-operating with the newly established Heavy Engineering Advisory Group in the administration of a concessional loan finance scheme expected to support more than $130m of new investment in revitalisation of the sector over the next three years. The Government has for the first time also utilised the national interest provisions of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act to support AIDC in injecting $9.2m into a joint venture project to develop an anti-malaria vaccine. The Corporation's 1986 annual report shows that it is well placed to respond positively to Government initiatives in industry policy. The Board of Directors of the Corporation has informed me that the Government's intention of levying a charge in respect of the guarantee of borrowings by the Commonwealth's business enterprises would adversely impact on AIDC as a financial institution and that a statutory guarantee of AIDC's borrowing is not necessary for the commercial operations of the Corporation. The Government has therefore decided that all new borrowings made by the Corporation on or after 8 October 1986 will not generally be guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The Corporation will nevertheless have the option, at its discretion, for the Commonwealth guarantee to apply to individual borrowings made by it after today. The statutory guarantee of the Commonwealth will of course continue to apply to all borrowings and other liabilities of the Corporation entered into prior to 8 October 1986. These new initiatives acknowledge the commercial strength of the Corporation and its ability to stand on its own feet as a successful government-owned development bank. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I do not wish to speak at length on the motion. I will shortly seek leave to continue my remarks later on the understanding that Senator Siddons wishes to make some comments on behalf of the Australian Democrats and that he will do that by leave under the practice which seems to have developed in these matters over the last year or so. Having had a quick look at the report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation since I received it this morning, it seems to reflect a very successful year for the Corporation. The report touches on some activities which are of very great importance to Australia in 1986. I refer in particular to the role which the Government has given the Corporation with respect to industry restructuring. It is common ground in this chamber that the restructuring of Australian industry with a view to its becoming internationally competitive and more outward looking is essential for our long term welfare. It will be a matter of interest, not only to the Opposition but also to the Parliament generally and to the community, to see to what extent the role which the Australian Industry Development Corporation has been given by the Government facilitates the very necessary changes which are being made. I express a word of caution about the reliance upon providing concessional assistance to industries as a road out of their present difficulty. The statement of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) specifically refers to the assistance which is being given to the heavy engineering industry. Again, it is common ground that that industry has fallen on very difficult times, not least because of the significant reduction in the demand for heavy engineering services in Australia. The provision of concessional finance in those circumstances which will support restructuring and which will put the industry generally in a position to be more competitive on the face of it appears very sound. However, the Opposition expresses the general view that, as far as possible, industries in that situation should be assisted to restructure, not so much by providing further concessional assistance as in trying to ensure that the general conditions under which the industry operates are such that it is able to make the necessary changes itself without further assistance from the taxpayer. In that regard I suggest to the Government that the addition of new taxes to the business sector generally, which has been a feature of the last 12 months, sits very oddly with the need to provide concessional finance to those same industries to enable them to operate. There appears to be an element of the absurd in a situation where the Government has put such heavy and obviously new imposts on industry generally and, at the same time, has to provide subsidies which will in some way reduce the impact of those imposts and the other disadvantages which are suffered. In exactly the same way, whilst no one could quarrel with the Government's objective of removing restrictive work practices in the heavy engineering industry, one would question the three-year timetable and the heavy bureaucratic mechanisms discussed by the Senate Estimates committees which we hope will give rise to change in this area. We suggest to the Government that it should be looking for rather less bureaucratic and more direct approaches along the lines of what seems to have been embraced by it in its more recent initiative on work practices. This has thrown the emphasis very much back into the work place with direct dealings between management and the work force of an enterprise or the trade unions involved in that enterprise rather than a reliance upon outside bodies. That has taken me a little way from the AIDC report. The Opposition welcomes the move towards some equalisation of the position of the AIDC and its private competitors in the decision which the Government has taken that all new borrowings made by the Corporation on or after 8 October 1986 will not generally be guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The effect of that guarantee has been to give the AIDC some commercial advantage in what is a very competitive market-place. It enables the Corporation to obtain some concessions on interest rates on its own borrowings. It is, of course, a preferred borrower because of the interest rate guarantee. It is to be noted that the Government is moving away from that preference, although the Corporation is to retain the option, which will be exercised at the discretion of the Corporation and not the Government, for the Commonwealth guarantee to apply to individual borrowings made by it after today. The statement of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce points out: The Board has taken the view that the Government's intention of levying a charge in respect of the guarantee of borrowings by Commonwealth business enterprises would adversely impact on AIDC as a financial institution and that a statutory guarantee of AIDC's borrowings is not necessary for the commercial operations of the Corporation. If that is so, if that is an indication that the Corporation will not be calling upon the Commonwealth, I think the AIDC will be operating in a more acceptable way in terms of its competitors who have to put up with the burdens of the market-place and in view of the general attitude which is adopted by the Opposition to government bodies of this sort. It would be my intention to discuss directly with the AIDC its attitude towards its future borrowings and the extent to which that is likely to inhibit the very rapid rate of growth of the AIDC's borrowings and subsequent lendings over the period reported on in this report. It is a notable rate of growth and it is not clear to me on my early examination of this report whether the Corporation believes it can sustain that same rate of growth given the changes in the way it intends to operate and the removal of the Government guarantee. The question of whether there is a need for a specific government-owned agency to facilitate the process of restructuring in Australia is an important one and not one on which I would make any pronouncement at this stage. I do not think any of us are under any illusions about the very real difficulties that Australian industry faces in changing not only its habits but also its cast of mind. The role which the AIDC is assuming, therefore, is one which is important to this country. The Opposition will watch its progress with great interest and, of course, hopes that the work of the Corporation will be successful, as have many of its actions to date. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —by leave-If Australia is to pass through the economic problems in which it currently finds itself, positive action must be taken to encourage and to expand its manufacturing industries. One effective way of doing this is to invest along the lines set down in this report in the policy statements of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. It has the opportunity to be Australia's best and most innovative bank, and I believe that it has gone a long way in this regard. AIDC has expanded rapidly but if we are really to encourage Australian industry through selective investment in those industries which have export potential and which are efficient, we must encourage further expansion of banks such as the AIDC, which exists to encourage greater Australian ownership of export oriented industries and to seek to raise funds largely from within Australia. It is significant that by and large the Corporation makes a point of borrowing funds in Australia, and not overseas. That is exactly what is needed at the moment with our critical balance of payments problem. The investment policy of AIDC is in stark contrast to the practice of many of the foreign banks which the Government recently encouraged to set up in Australia. Their record shows that enormous amounts of money have been lent for purely speculative investments such as defending or taking over the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd. Those banks have borrowed money overseas and have encouraged speculation and takeovers. On the other hand, AIDC carefully assesses where its investments are made. It invests to develop our manufacturing base. I put it to the Senate that in the interest of rapidly developing Australia's export potential and manufacturing base we must find ways and means of encouraging AIDC to expand even more rapidly than it has in the past. I want to draw attention to the page in the AIDC report headed `Australianisation'. In doing so I declare my interest as the non-executive Chairman of Siddons Industries Limited. The AIDC last year invested in our company to the extent of owning 11 per cent of the capital. I read from the report: The Corporation's two primary functions are to promote development of Australian industry and promote Australian ownership and control in industry. The report goes on to list two of the Corporation's activities in that area. The report states: Siddons Industries is a listed Australian public company which manufactures and distributes the well-known Sidchrome hand tools along with a diverse range of other light engineering products. The Company has been a client of the Corporation for several years. During the year the Corporation provided a further loan for the ongoing development and growth of the Company. In addition, the Corporation subscribed for equity in the Company to help finance its purchase from an American company of the 49 per cent shareholding in Ramset Fasteners (Australia) Pty Ltd which Siddons did not already own. The Corporation now owns 11 per cent of the shares of Siddons and looks forward to participating in the further growth and development of this important Australian company. I read that mainly because I want to make it clear to the Senate that I have had first hand experience of the care and trouble AIDC takes to vet its investments. It has expanded. It has shown that it can operate in a highly competitive area of finance, and can operate profitably and expand. At the same time, it is performing a very important national function, which is increasing the Australianisation of Australian exporting industries. I was very concerned to hear Senator Chaney say that he would look into the fact that AIDC had developed rapidly. I would have thought that the Opposition would be very pleased that the AIDC had grown rapidly in the past year and would be looking at legitimate and fair ways to encourage that growth in the interest of the Australianisation of industry and helping the development of export oriented manufacturing, which is absolutely essential if we are to solve our balance of payments problem. Motions (by Senator Coates) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of incorporated companies and incorporated associations owned by the Commonwealth and of those in which the Commonwealth holds a major or substantial interest. That the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on 6 October 1977 be amended to read as follows: The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of bodies established pursuant to Commonwealth statute. That the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on 17 November 1983 be amended to read as follows: The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of bodies for which the Commonwealth is wholly or partly responsible, being bodies which are not departments (or parts of departments) nor statutory authorities (or sub-bodies of statutory authorities) nor incorporated companies nor incorporated associations. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Student Assistance Act 1973, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Ryan, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1986 seeks to amend the Student Assistance Act 1973, which since 1974 has provided the legislative basis for the tertiary education assistance scheme-TEAS-and the postgraduate awards scheme. The Bill will not alter the existing arrangements for postgraduate awards but by including secondary education in the principal Act will allow for the introduction of the Government's new age-related student assistance scheme, Austudy. Austudy, which will replace TEAS, the secondary allowances scheme, or SAS, and the adult secondary education assistance scheme, or ASEAS, will provide benefits to both secondary and tertiary students. The underlying principles of Austudy were announced last year by the Government as part of Priority One: Young Australia. Austudy is the student assistance element of the Priority One package and is a carefully planned initiative to improve the income support arrangements for young people. Austudy benefits, of course, will still be available to older students as they were under TEAS and ASEAS. Austudy benefits will be progressively aligned with the unemployment benefit rates for young people aged 16 to 20. As with unemployment benefit a higher rate will be payable from age 18. Rates of benefit will be increased each year and by 1989 Austudy and unemployment benefit rates for young people in this age range will have come together. In 1987 the first alignment will be established between Austudy rates for 16- and 17-year-old tertiary students and unemployment benefits for people of the same age. Once parity of rates is achieved both allowances and income test levels will be indexed to protect their real level. Student organisations and parents have been seeking indexation for many years. When we came to Government in March 1983 young people were losing confidence in the education system and participation rates in schools past the compulsory years were unsatisfactorily low. Young people were faced with an ad hoc collection of benefits and allowances which was riddled with inconsistencies and which left significant numbers of needy young people without support, or without adequate support. The Government's reaction was two-fold. We recognised the immediate plight of students by increasing student allowances in each of our Budgets and at the outset set in train a fundamental review of youth income support. In 1983 we invited a team of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development experts to come to Australia and review Australian policies and programs affecting youth. We also in that year asked the Office of Youth Affairs and the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat to review jointly the area of income support. It was from this informed basis that we established the Task Force on Youth Allowance Administration in 1985 which has provided the detailed advice necessary for the Government to introduce Austudy in 1987. Austudy is not a quick fix solution but a carefully planned initiative which addresses the fundamental problem of ensuring that young people have the opportunity and the incentive to study until they have completed a full education. The scheme with its much improved allowance structure for secondary and tertiary students will remove the disincentive to study which arose because unemployment benefit out- stripped the basic rates of education allowances for young people. This was a legacy of the Liberal Government from 1975 to 1983. The Bill, strictly speaking, has no direct financial impact in that it does not provide for increases in allowances. The increases in allowances and progressive aligning of them with unemployment benefit rates will be achieved by amending the regulations to the principal Act. The financial implications of the Government's Austudy initiative are, however, significant. In 1985-86 the expenditure on the three student assistance schemes, TEAS, SAS and ASEAS, that Austudy will replace was $401.5m. In 1986-87 it is expected that expenditure on TEAS, SAS and ASEAS recipients up to 31 December 1986 and Austudy recipients from 1 January to 30 June 1987 will be $487.7m. The estimated cost of Austudy in its first full year of operation in 1987 is $528.5m compared with $439.2m for TEAS, SAS and ASEAS in 1986. The full cost for Austudy in 1986-87-that is for the six months 1 January to 30 June 1987-is estimated to be $271.2m. Austudy is a tangible demonstration of the Government's commitment to education. Despite the financial restraint exercised in this year's Budget, extra funds have been provided in a planned and considered way to help the young people of today and those of the future become useful, productive Australians. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Vigor) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision for more liberal rights of standing and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Vigor, and read a first time. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.34) —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- PURPOSE This Bill is aimed at fulfilling a commitment to provide access to the processes of justice to all Australians and to move the emphasis of our legal system from almost total concern for protection of financial and commercial rights (property) towards the consideration of social, environmental and human rights. The new rules of standing set out in this Bill in conjunction with the Judiciary Amendment (Class Actions) Bill 1986 allow individuals to get justice in dealing with large institutions, including government and the judiciary, allow social and personal reasons to be considered justification for participation in legal action, and allow environmental and public interest wrongs to be righted through the judicial process. One mark of an open and tolerant society is the readiness with which justice, including effective remedies for wrongdoing, can be invoked by ordinary citizens. I believe very strongly that every human being has a natural right to seek to correct wrongs and to resolve conflicts through an effective judicial system. NEED FOR REFORM As a parliamentarian, I place the greatest priority on justice being available to all people, regardless of their position in society. Our legal aid mechanisms partially address this problem. I introduced my Judiciary Amendment (Class Actions) Bill earlier this year to enable courts to deal efficiently with matters where the interests of many people with limited financial resources may be adversely affected. The Law Reform Commission report-No. 27-on the subject has canvassed the issues in considerable detail. The conclusion of that Report-and the recommendations for reform-are excellent and are worthy of immediate implementation. Unfortunately, it seems that Government action will take some time if not forever. I believe we can no longer wait any longer for the much needed changes encompassed in the Bill. I am now addressing another major problem in our legal system, that of people being excluded from justice because of some obscure doctrine or some previous court finding that they are not fit and proper to bring an action. We have to turn our legal system back to one which is not bound up inordinately by the protection of commercial or property interests, to one in which the ordinary person may rely on the rule of law. I believe that our courts should be spending their time on the merits of issues, and not on splitting hairs about whether or not the bringer of an action has an `appropriate' interest in the matter. I agree with Ralph Nader, who said: A law which is not enforced against a Government official because courts deny citizens standing to sue is the equivalent of no law at all. We cannot talk about equality before the law or the rule of law if in practice unlawful or illegal behaviour can go unchallenged because no-one is in a position to do anything about it. This may occur either because those who are affected most directly do not have the financial means, or it may happen because those who do have the financial means do not qualify to bring on a case because of some artificial legal barrier. The thrust of this Bill and of its earlier companion, relating to class actions, is a strong desire to restore some of the original elements of natural justice to our highly complex society, and to make it possible for every citizen to have confidence in the decision-making and conflict resolution process. The alternative solution of violent social revolution if justice is beyond the legal and economic means of ordinary citizens is unthinkable. Restrictive legal interpretations which deny access to justice must be broken down. If citizens cannot be heard, they will be justified in believing that the legal system is geared to protect dominant economic and political interests, and does nothing for those who are outside that charmed circle of privilege. I believe that the only real obstacle to being able to initiate legal proceedings on public interest grounds should be competence to handle the matter. If there is no appeal on this ground, or if the court decides the question need not be settled at the outset of proceedings, the substance of the case can be the dominant matter before the courts. Lawyers should not be encouraged to devise tactics aimed at thwarting a hearing of the issues at the centre of a dispute. They should instead devote more effort to ensuring that the matters at the heart of the conflict are talked out and resolved properly, justly and efficiently. Unless we can unclog the courts and focus their efforts on the substantive issues in each case, more and more people will resort to extra-legal techniques to achieve justice, bringing the law into further disrepute. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The law of standing as it is today has developed since mediaeval times in many ways as a result of historical or accidental factors. It is arbitrary, discriminatory, and in short, it is a mess. The rules which determine whether or not a person initiating legal proceedings is an appropriate party to do so, vary according to the type of proceedings brought or the type of relief sought. Where there are matters of public interest at stake, there should not be a major legal maze for negotiation before the substance of those matters can be addressed. Where the theory that the Attorney-General is the legal representative of society appears to break down for party political or any other factors, there should be an effective remedy whereby individual citizens can take the action needed to keep the system above suspicion of favouritism, or of political cowardice in the face of sensitive issues which may damage a government. If we are to make access to justice more than just a catch-phrase, we must also have mechanisms to allow, where it is appropriate, matters to be pursued even when their initiators have not the financial resources to carry them through to conclusion or resolution. These points are all addressed effectively in this Bill. Honourable senators will I hope by now have had a chance, or will take the opportunity, to study the lengthy report by the Law Reform Commission on `Standing in Public Interest Litigation', completed last year. The Commission got off to a flying start with the issue of a discussion paper during the course of 1977, the year in which former Attorney-General Ellicott gave standing and class actions as a reference to the Commission. However, for a variety of reasons, the actual report was not concluded till last year-nine years later-and the class actions reference has still not been completed. This Parliament cannot afford to sit around for years contemplating the generally excellent recommendations of the Commission, and denying Australians access to affordable justice through this substantial delay. The Commission itself has this to say in the summary of its report: The law of standing is ripe for reform. The High Court has held that reform cannot come from the judiciary. It is up to parliament to reform the law. I have followed the Commission's draft Bill in many respects and I acknowledge the assistance that its work has given me. The significant difference is that I believe that any criticism seeking to cut out those people who are `merely meddling' will continue to switch the energies of lawyers from the substantive issues into unproductive sidetracks. We should be ridding our legal system of as many barriers to achieving justice as are possible to be removed. Access to justice must be available where there are public interest matters at stake. We must not set up new barriers as we pull down the old. This Bill leaves to the courts the discretion to strike out an action if the court does not believe it can competently be brought by the proposed initiator. Apart from the question of competence and the matter of financial discipline in taking on proceedings, we need brook no diversions away from the issues to be resolved. Lawyers will always test such diversions if given half a chance, and we should in no way leave that particular stable door open. CASE STUDIES I want to deal with some case examples before dealing with the principles of this Bill in detail. It is worth noting that the enactment of the Judiciary Act in 1903 abolished the Crown's immunity from suit and made the government amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts, in the same way as are people and corporations. 1. Accountability of government The creation of an Ombudsman and an Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the enactment of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 were designed to force greater government accountability. While there have been improvements as a result there are still gaping holes. This Bill seeks to give Australians a means of plugging some of those holes. At a time when government expenditure is under increasing scrutiny, it is interesting to note that Canadian taxpayers have a right to challenge the constitutional validity of legislation or of an intergovernment agreement, and hence can seek the prevention or the recovery of unlawful government expenditure. Australians do not have this right. This is a consequence of a decision in Anderson v. Commonwealth. In this case a consumer sought a declaration that an agreement entered into between the Commonwealth and Queensland over sugar marketing, and whose effect was to increase the price of sugar, was unconstitutional. The High Court ruled that the applicant did not have the standing to seek the declaration because he was just a consumer of sugar and not affected more than anyone else. The most direct route for allowing Australian citizens to test the lawfulness of government behaviour is by changing the rules of standing to give people more access to all the processes of law even when dealing with government or its instrumentalities. 2. Protection of the environment A very important area in which the rules of standing have failed badly in the past is in the protection of the environment from public or private action which puts it at risk. Concern for the environment is a relatively recent phenomenon even though it is a central plank of Democrat policy. Arguably the courts, given time, could adjust to new concerns and develop machinery to cope, but there is little evidence of such adjustment to date in Australian legal practice. We uphold that a strict interpretation of standing requirements should not be able to be used by the courts to opt out of difficult issues concerning the protection of the environment. For example, in Stow v. Mineral Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd, the Supreme Court of Tasmania and the High Court confined the interpretation of `interest' in section 15c of the Mining Act 1929-Tasmania-to its traditional pro- prietary context. The appellant objectors-the Launceston Walking Club, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust and the South West Committee-argued that they had an interest in land which they used as members of the public. This was rejected in the High Court in the following terms: The fact that some of them are more disposed to go upon the land than others, derive more benefit therefrom and use the statutory rights more often than others does not elevate that which is a public right enjoyed by all members of the public equally into a private right capable of being described as an estate or interest in the land. (Aickin J) Comparable difficulties arose in Johnson v. Kent-the Black Mountain Tower case. The argument that a public trust arose out of the declaration that Black Mountain was a public park which required maintenance of the environmental quality of the mountain was dismissed. The additional argument that disfigurement of the skyline constituted a public nuisance was also dismissed in the same case. In the Australian Conservation Foundation Inc. v. Commonwealth of Australia, for instance, the ACF challenged the Federal Government approval of the Iwasaki-Sangyo Corporation's development at Yeppoon in Queensland. The ACF based its standing on the nature of the Foundation and its objects and the fact that it had sent written comments when the draft environmental impact statement was made available, under the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. When the matter came before the full High Court, only Justice Murphy accepted that the Conservation Foundation had the necessary standing. Justice Gibbs made the following comments when justifying his reasons for rejecting standing: I would not deny that a person might have a special interest in the preservation of a particular environment. However, an interest, for present purposes, does not mean a mere intellectual or emotional concern. A person is not interested within the meaning of the rule, unless he is likely to gain some advantage, other than the satisfaction or righting a wrong, upholding a principle or winning a contest, if his action succeeds or to suffer some disadvantage, other than a sense of grievance or a debt for costs, if his action fails. A belief, however strongly felt, that the law generally, or a particular law, should be observed, or that conduct of a particular kind should be prevented, does not suffice to give its possessor locus standi. Justices Stephen and Mason stated their agreement with these views. This was despite the fact that the ACF had 6,500 members, was partly funded by the Federal Government, and had pursued its objectives by participating in the environmental impact assessment process by making written submissions. With one reservation as to the constitutionality of legislation extending standing, the High Court clearly felt that any change would need to be by way of legis- lation. It is important to remember that the rules of standing are only one aspect of remedial law and their effectiveness has to be measured against that yardstick. A rule of standing is, in effect, meaningless apart from the remedial uses to which a given relationship between plaintiff and subject matter may be put. 3. Public interest The Law Reform Commission report has drawn attention to the serious deficiencies among the confused, unclear and restrictive rules which place an unreasonable burden on a plaintiff see- king to act in the public interest. There are, for example, different tests of standing, depending on whether the plaintiff is seeking a declaration, or injunction or some other order from the court. Briefly, the effect of these different rules is that the plaintiff generally has to show some special connection with the subject matter of the proceedings-an interest going beyond the interests of ordinary members of the public. The decision in the Australian Conservation Federation case shows how difficult it is to get over that hurdle. Plaintiffs who have no such interest can approach the Attorney-General for a fiat, of course, but fiats are often not granted and obtaining them may cause delay. For example, the `relators' in the Defence of Government Schools case sought to challenge the Commonwealth's funding of non-govern- ment schools on constitutional grounds. Their efforts have been described as `a long, hard pilgrimage to court' and as `an obstacle race'. The first attempt to gain a fiat was in 1957, when an application was made to the Commonwealth Attorney-General and was refused. The challenge which ultimately resulted in a High Court action was launched in 1971. The 1972-73 requests for fiats to the Commonwealth and all State Attorneys-General were refused, except for the Victorian Attorney-General, who granted a fiat in November 1973 subject to a number of conditions. Compliance with these conditions and with others set down later caused further delay and the relators were almost deterred from proceeding. In the event, the first hearing did not take place until June 1979. Similarly, in 1972 the Tasmanian Hydro Electric Commission proposal to flood Lake Pedder caused a major controversy. Conservationists, having been advised that the proposed action was illegal, sought a fiat from the Tasmanian Attorney-General. Although the Attorney-General said that he would grant a fiat, his Cabinet intervened and instructed him not to do so. The Attorney-General resigned and was replaced by the Premier who refused a fiat. Again, public interest was thwarted and the courts were given no opportunity to rule on the legality of the work. In the Black Tower case, delay in granting the fiat nearly prevented the relators from instituting proceedings before work on the tower had begun. The Attorney-General's insistence that an interlocutory injunction be obtained before a final injunction was sought also raised the prospect of the relators having to pay heavy damages for delaying the tower's construction if the final injunction was ultimately refused. DIFFICULTIES FORESEEN IN REFORMING RULES OF STANDING Those who argue against the liberalisation of the rules of standing advance a number of arguments which in my opinion do not stand up to close examination. 1. Inadequacy of courts to decide It is sometimes said that less restrictive standing rules would impose a task on courts for which they are inadequately equipped, as they generally are dealing with private rights. In fact there is little evidence to support this assertion. For instance, the courts have come more and more to realise the profound differences between the tenets of administrative law which deals with the appropriateness of decisions, and the private interest principles with which they are more familiar. If there are areas where the courts are still badly equipped, the appropriate response is to legislate to limit the type of case in which the courts can intervene. The rules of standing should not ever be misused to effectively deny some plaintiffs the right to approach the courts. 2. Increased litigation because of liberalised standing It is also claimed that if the rules are changed the floodgates of litigation will open. Again, these claims are unfounded. Liberalisation of standing in certain areas has not produced a flood of litigation. For instance, in New South Wales section 123 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 permits `any person' to bring proceedings to remedy or restrain a breach of the Act. According to the Law Reform Commission about 35 actions were commenced between 1979 and 1984, and in a significant proportion of them the plaintiff would have had standing at common law. In addition, the courts possess a number of powers to prevent frivolous claims. PROVISIONS OF THE BILL This Bill is based on the Draft Standing (Fe-deral and Territories Jurisdiction) Bill 1985 in Appendix A of the Law Reform Commission report No. 27 on `Standing in Public Interest Litigation'. Its purpose is two-fold: To give people and organisation the ability to resolve issues of public interest by legal means through widening the standing rules that presently apply in `public interest litigation'; and to improve the accountability of the Government and of law enforcement agencies by allowing private prosecution of indictable offences when the public prosecution has not been followed through, subject always to the right of the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and special prosecutors to take prosecutions over and terminate them. 1. Remedies available In line with the purpose of the Bill to improve access to the courts in matters of public interest, the types of remedies available under this Act will be those of a `public' nature. Litigation under Commonwealth and Territories laws will only fall under the aegis of this provision for standing, where the relief sought is a declaration, an injunction or a prerogative writ. This includes writs such as certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus and quo warranto. 2. Exclusion of meddlers The negative definition of the concept of `merely meddling' has been excluded from the Bill, but the formula to determine whether a plaintiff has standing will give effect to the Law Reform Commission's intentions to exclude med- dlers. The time of the courts should be taken up with substantive matters really in dispute, and not with sideshows about who does or does not have the special interest required to bring an action. A proper balance is struck between excluding incompetent meddlers and allowing access to those who can represent in a capable manner a class or group of individuals in the community whose legal rights or whose interests, in a general sense, are directly involved in the proceedings. The fact that a plaintiff is a representative organisation rather than an individual would normally operate in practice to strengthen its claim to standing because of its improved ability to present the issues to the court and the greater financial resources available to it. 3. Open access to the courts for all citizens In order to protect the right of all citizens to have access to the courts, this Bill provides that a court will be bound to accept that a plaintiff has standing in the absence of compelling arguments put forward by other parties to the proceedings. The only exception to this rule is where a plaintiff has no personal stake in the subject matter before a court, and lacks the motivation and capacity to conduct the case adequately in the public interest. The court will be able to strike the action out once it determines that inability. The court need not determine standing as a preliminary to hearing the case, but may reserve its determination on the standing question along with the merits of the case. This will give it greater opportunity to determine whether a party to the case is basically frivolous or incapable, rather than having to waste time unnecessarily trying to decide in advance of hearing their case. 4. Rights to intervene or to present an argument in a case As well as the right of standing to be joined with the plaintiff or defendant, this Bill also gives rights to interested parties and to the Attorney-General to intervene in proceedings, or to present a submission to the court as amicus curiae. In this way access to the court is open to all, and a person or public interest group can take a less expensive role in proceedings by participating as amicus curiae. This is because amicus curiae is not responsible for the costs of either of the originating parties, nor is he obliged to pay court fees. The right to intervene allows people or groups who may be affected by the outcome of an action to present their point of view before the issue has been decided. This protects the courts against a series of actions when a result of a current case may be unsatisfactory to another potential plaintiff with possibly opposed interests. By allowing intervention in the first action, so as to become a party to it, the intervening plaintiff or defendant is bound by the outcome and cannot relitigate the point. There is also considerable advantage to a court in receiving evidence from an amicus curiae, as this extends the evidence available to the court in reaching a decision. Particularly in public interest litigation, the courts can take the wider implications of the case into account. 5. Costs This Bill gives the courts power to make an order for costs against the Attorney-General, whether or not the Attorney-General is a party in the case. They can also order that the plaintiff is not liable to indemnify the Attorney-General for costs, or that any security for costs held by or for the benefit of that Attorney-General is not enforceable. The reason for this is that all cases proceed to trial by the Attorney-General granting a fiat, and in many cases it is in the public interest that the issues should be resolved. The fact that the Attorney-General does not prosecute the case or intervene in the case in no way diminishes his or her responsibility for allowing the case to be heard. The Attorney-General has the right to intervene in any case where he or she wishes to state government policy, or to argue a constitutional matter. Whether or not this right is exercised, the supervisory interest is present in all cases. The power of the court to order costs against the Attorney-General gives a court the right to do so when it perceives that it was in the public interest that the case be heard, rather than in the particular interests of either party to the case. This is an important step towards ensuring that people have greater access to the law in matters of public interest. This Bill also permits financial support of an action by members of the public who are not themselves party to the action, provided that they do not seek to share in any of its financial proceeds. The exception of champerty protects our courts against the legal excesses apparent in United States courts where ``contingent fees'' for lawyers encourage them to seek out actions in order to generate income for themselves. 6. Private prosecutions While enforcement of the criminal law is usually carried out by public officers of the police or Crown, private individuals have the right, under the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, section 13, to prosecute offenders against a law of the Commonwealth. This protects the right of citizens to access to the courts in cases where public officers fail to enforce the criminal law. In particular, cases of personal assault are seldom prosecuted by the police, particularly when they arise from domestic or neighbourhood disputes. Prosecution is left to the person assaulted or to a person acting on the person's behalf and with that person's consent. Where an offence is indictable, a private individual is not in practice able to prosecute, since the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General effectively control the initiation and termination of such actions, and also because the costs are often not eligible for subsidy from legal aid funds. The standing of a private person to prosecute before the courts is an important safeguard of civil liberty. As long as discretion to prosecute rests only in the hands of the police, the Attorney-General and other public prosecution authorities, there is no adequate public scrutiny, accountability or review possible in cases which involve the police themselves, or other politically influential people, or where the publicity given to the offence may be considered to be politically damaging. This Bill allows any person to prosecute an offence by indictment in his or her own name, if public prosecution has not proceeded within three months of committal of a person for trial in relation to an indictable offence. This is a valuable safeguard for accountability of our law-enforcement agencies. Nuisance and vexatious prosecutions are avoided by not removing the right of the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions or a Special Prosecutor to terminate such prosecution. Since such decisions not to proceed further in the prosecution are open to public scrutiny, the rights of citizens remain fully protected. NEED FOR WRONGS TO BE SETTLED JUDICIALLY It is the function of courts to resolve conflicts of interest. The current situation is clearly unacceptable. What really lies behind the allocation of judicial resources argument and the floodgates claim could simply be unwillingness to get involved. However, inadequacy of judicial remedies leaves concerned individuals with two choices-resort to extra legal means, such as green bans in the environmental area, or have no remedy at all. We may with a proper efficient and effective judicial solution available, be able to dispense with green bans and similar measures. Such bans do not produce lasting solutions nor are they a desirable means for resolving matters of public interest. We cannot accept the current lack of public access to the courts which causes injustice to flourish through lack of private remedy. Responsibility of Parliament The High Court has shown its unwillingness to extend standing in public interest litigation and it therefore falls to Parliament to solve this impasse. As the Law Reform Commission report said, the law of standing is ripe for reform. I have indicated in some detail, why it is up to the Parliament to act if we want reform in a reasonable period of time. As a community we can no longer allow outdated, unclear, restrictive rules of standing to hamper and often defeat genuine public interest litigation. As a Parliament we have the responsibility and power to remedy the situation within our jurisdiction and we should do so quickly. CONCLUSION I urge honourable senators to support the Standing (Federal and Territory Jurisdiction) Bill 1986, thus affirming their commitment to the interests of all Australian citizens, to providing a conflict resolution process which works, and to thus establishing an effective, affordable and efficient system of justice. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.35) —I move: That the House of Assembly (Election) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Australian Capital Territory Regulations 1986 No. 10 and made under the House of Assembly Ordinance 1936, be disallowed. The effect of these regulations is to allow the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) to sit back and do nothing on the self-government question until the end of this year. The regulations are being gazetted in part because the Government is looking around for some policy on the Australian Capital Territory which it has not been able to formulate. We have now before the Senate the Government's Australian Capital Territory Council Bill 1986 and its consequential provisions companion. They are listed at the bottom of the legislative section of the Notice Paper, along with the National Capital Development Commission Amendment Bill 1985, which was abandoned last year just as the Australian Demo- crats and the Opposition were about to improve it out of sight. The Australian Capital Territory Council Bill was, of course, described in March this year as an `insulting imposition' and `not half a loaf' by the well-known champion of self-government, the Canberra Times. Eventually the Government came out of its non-negotiable closet with nine printed pages of amendments that it intended to move. These have not been debated in the Senate. It is apparent that the Government's intention is that they never will be debated. That is quite extraordinary behaviour from a government and, indeed, should be brought to the notice of the people of Australia. The only possible conclusion is that the Hawke Government has never been serious about its commitment to Australian Capital Territory self- government. This conclusion is supported by the amazing antics over the mooted appointed advisory body. This attempt to defer for six months the acknowledged need to hold House of Assembly elections is yet another example of the Government hiding behind small measures. I shall come back to that point in a moment. What must be stressed is this: The Government knows that its Australian Capital Territory Council Bill would be passed by the Senate, with amendments, if it were to bring it on. That is presumably why it does not want to bring it on. It does not want to bring these two Bills on for debate. The last thing that this Government wants is a debate about effective self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. That is one reason why I introduced my Australian Capital Territory Effective Self-Government Bill during the week of sittings in August. It is now dawning on more and more people in the Australian Capital Territory that my Australian Capital Territory Effective Self-Government Bill 1986 has addressed the issues of concern to Canberrans. In part, this is because I consulted widely with Australian Capital Territory people in the drafting of that legislation, as distinct from the head-in-the-sand attitude of the Cabinet when it concocted its outrageous package. The sorts of issues which the effective self-government Bill addresses are those that the Hawke Government does not want the people of Canberra to discuss openly. That is why we have before us this attempt to put the due process of law on ice for six months. The explanatory memorandum attached to the regulation that I am seeking to disallow states: Regulation 25 of the House of Assembly (Election) Regulations requires the Minister for Territories to order an election of members of the House of Assembly to be held whenever necessary. On 30 June 1986 the terms of office of members of the Assembly expired and, accordingly, the Minister is under an obligation to direct the holding of an election. Nothing could be clearer than that. The Minister is under an obligation right now to direct the holding of an election. Why would the Minister want to evade that obligation through some type of interim regulations? It is not as though he did not know what was coming up because the Government's Australian Capital Territory Council Bills have been before us for a number of months. Honourable senators will recall that during the last week of the Senate sittings in June the Australian Democrats put forward as a compromise a practical solution for a swift transition to self-government. At that stage, the House of Representatives had packed up for winter; so the only legislation that could have been passed by both Houses was the Government's universally condemned original attempt at self-government, the attempt that required nine pages of proposed Government amendments. The Democrats suggested that an election date be announced immediately for the House of Assembly and that powers be transferred to it while other matters were resolved. The telegram sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by Don Chipp, then Leader of the Party, on 10 June said: Democrats believe ACT House of Assembly election date should be announced immediately. Elections to be held under current ordinance. Will support transfer of powers and responsibilities to those elected. Opportunity to conduct referendum simultaneously with administrator, single-member, mixed-system, Senate and Hare-Clark options. Alternatively, conduct another public inquiry even though both Craig task force and 1974 Joint Committee endorsed continuation of proportional representation after extensive hearings. This was a realistic opportunity for the Government to establish its bona fides on the self-government issue. What did the Government do? It wound up the Assembly. It was an Assembly for which it had promised great things in 1983. However, the Government delivered very little. It canvassed the possibility of an election to a smaller and more flexible advisory body, then it showed its true colours. What could be more comfortable than a hand-picked advisory body? Why go through all the trauma of an election when one could just appoint a group of people to somehow represent the Australian Capital Territory? After all, had not guided democracy worked in Third World areas in the past? Could we not learn something from Indonesia in the 1950s and 1960s or from the Soviet Politburo's processes? In any case, the latest proposal of the Government for an appointed advisory body takes the clock back beyond 1930. Honourable senators who have given any serious study to Australian Capital Territory matters, as I have, will recall that on 9 April 1930 Governor-General Stonehaven signed the ordinance relating to the establishment of an advisory council. That original advisory council had seven members of whom three were elected at large by the people of the Territory. Since that time, the people of the Australian Capital Territory have had some elected advisory input into the running of Canberra. It is unfortunate that the Australian Public Service, the Ministers and the Government have wanted to keep such a tight rein on things that they will now go back to the propositions which were current in the 1930s. The Hawke Government has been as contemptuous of local feeling as has been any other government. The remarkable incompetence over the Trading Hours Ordinance 1962, the establishment of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority and the disregard for the proposed Nuclear Activities (Prohibition) Ordinance 1984 are examples that immediately come to mind. There are many more instances in which the House of Assembly was bypassed or ignored, despite the following statement of the Governor-General at the opening of the Parliament after the 1983 double dissolution: My Government is committed to bringing self-government to the Australian Capital Territory. As a first step, a broad range of local government powers will be transferred to the House of Assembly. That solemn undertaking by the Hawke Government proved about as reliable as a number of its other pre-election policies, such as the promise to save the Belconnen Mall from privatisation. No local government powers were ever transferred to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. The closest the Assembly came to having any real powers was an enhanced role in disbursement from the Community Development Fund but, as always, Ministers had the last word and could and did substitute their own political judgments where they felt that they should. So overall the House of Assembly was treated with contempt and no serious attempt was made to give it any responsibility in phasing in the process of self-government. In retrospect this may have been to ensure that the people of Canberra did not start coming forward with ideas about how the Australian Capital Territory should be run. Basically the Government believes in the paternalistic approach of the British Raj. The natives would have to learn to live with what was offered and steps would have to be taken to ensure that they did not get ideas above their stations in life. Unfortunately some of the natives developed the tunnel vision that restricted their view of what could be done to keep them in local prominence. It was left to others to warn about the problems in the administration of the Australian Capital Territory and about how the thorny process towards self-government had developed in the Northern Territory. That comparison is quite useful. The agenda remained well and truly within the bureaucracy until some troglodytes in Cabinet had a go at devising a more unworkable form of self-government for the Territory-quite an insulting imposition overall. Just as the Government is now preparing to institutionalise its ignorance, or ignoring, of the people of the Australian Capital Territory, it took remarkable steps to evade contact when preparing its Australian Capital Territory Council Bills. We have this on good authority from the various bodies in Canberra which we consulted. This was taken up in an excellent article in the Canberra Times on 6 March by John Wood, President of the Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service. Mr Wood was a member of the task force on the implementation of self-government, which reported in 1984 to the previous Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory. That splendid report of the Craig Task Force on Self-Government for the Australian Capital Territory, coming as it did after extensive public hearings, was consigned to the rubbish bin while the Cabinet went about its work on proposals for avoiding effective self-government. In Mr Wood's article, headed `Canberra Self Rule: The Real Agenda', he quoted some of the choice reasons privately advanced for not wanting to grant responsible self-government to the Australian Capital Territory. I have selected the following revealing ones that indicate true party solidarity: Why would we want the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the ALP given any responsibility? Who wants a proper Government on your doorstep nipping at your heels? Why should we let those members run those valuable assets? There might be a backlash and our vote would go down. How would we be able to control the place? The Northern Territory is bad enough! With these prejudices running rampant, it is not hard to see how the Government arrived at such an abysmal package and how it is now running further away from effective local input in decision making. The moves to do away with the elected representatives and to back away from a phased transfer of powers to a local body are totally in keeping with the spirit of the Hawke Government's original and revised offers. There just has not been a commitment to effective self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. The Hawke Government now wants to induce an atmosphere of political amnesia. This charade, as expressed in this regulation, I believe does not have any hope of succeeding. Australian Capital Territory residents will remember the insult contained in the original proposal for a council with limited powers and whose most remarkable feature was that the ALP hoped to win virtually all the seats with 40 per cent of the vote. The revised plan still unduly restricted the renamed Assembly's powers of investigation. Financial arrangements were not included in that legislation. The Commonwealth retained the right to dismiss the Assembly although it gave up the outrageous plan for the Attorney-General to vet and approve all Assembly laws even before they came into effect. Of course the ALP was hoping to win two thirds of the seats with 40 per cent of the vote. That has always been a constant feature of the ALP's negotiations and plans until now. Any system which needed more than 40 per cent support to create a majority was dismissed out of hand in my discussions with them. In this regulation the Government does not even want an election. It certainly does not want detailed public discussion of the most appropriate funding arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory. This is one of the major reasons why many residents of the Territory are sceptical about self-government. Those residents believe that under self-government they will be up for enormously increased payments. I believe they will be up for them anyway. Whether that happens will depend very much on the way in which Canberra's regional and national roles are assessed. Those considerations are in fact canvassed extensively in my Australian Capital Territory Effective Self-Government Bill, and a fair formula is arrived at for administration after triennial reports by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Such financial questions are the last thing that this Government wants discussed at length within the Canberra community, but those questions are uppermost in the minds of Canberrans. It is not surprising that the Government is so completely out of touch and so overrun by some of the Stone clones in the De- partment of the Treasury that it will stop at nothing to keep these issues off the public agenda. This is undoubtedly one reason why the Hawke Government wants to avoid Australian Capital Territory elections, for at least six months and probably for as long as it can get away with. It will certainly be interesting to see at what point the Human Rights Commission or some appropriate overseas body, such as the International Court of Justice, is approached about the impending denial of basic democratic rights in the Australian Capital Territory. Another reason why the Government wants to avoid an election is that the appalling policy free administration of the Australian Capital Territory might come under some type of scrutiny. Already the Government has reneged on its commitment to transfer legislative drafting staff to the Department of Territories. This would mean the continuation of the inordinate delays which attend the revision of any Australian Capital Territory legislation. Updating of the Tobacco Ordinance 1927 is months behind schedule. But then the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority is still to come to grips with its approach to the Merit Protection and Review Agency to transfer its promotion and other appeal processes to that body. Given the Minister's guarantee when the antiquated provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority Ordinance were under consideration in the Senate earlier this year, the transfer should have been completed by now. We were promised that, yet serious discussion has still not begun. Currently before the Senate are provisions relating to credit unions which have been taken holus bolus from the regulations of co-operative building societies after four years of sitting still by the Department. Looming large is the Government's unprecedented attack on contractual arrangements with the attempt unilaterally to abrogate the conditions of mortgage agreements entered into before September 1983. I understand that the Government has seen the light and has pulled out of that today. One reason advanced-I am not sure how serious the Department is-is that the Department was having administrative difficulties keeping track of all the different interest rates. On the front page of the Canberra Times last weekend were references to equipment lying idle at the Royal Canberra Hospital. We could go on and on. The Chief Magistrate of the Australian Capital Territory estimated that three months of full time work would be needed to do a proper cut and paste job to get an up to date traffic ordinance. His pleas to the Minister for another reprint have gone unanswered and the buck has been transferred to the Attorney-General's Department. Given that it took 13 years for the Department to turn up with its disallowed New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance of last year, it may require drastic action from the Bench to get things really moving. The point is that, while the people of the Australian Capital Territory have no responsibility or control over their own affairs, such preposterous episodes will continue. The Government, in this regulation, wants to make certain that the people of the Australian Capital Territory will not elect representatives who can have scrutiny over what is happening in the Department. That is what the Government is encouraging by its election-free, discussion-free approaches. On the other hand, my effective self-government Bill puts forward a workable plan for the thorough overhaul of Australian Capital Territory legislation. During the first five years of local decision-making, self-government will find it difficult to survive if it has the albatross of past government and departmental legislative incompetence around its neck. There has been no attempt to provide resources to clear the legislative slate. People will realise that they have been had and their attitude will be surely as a result of all the chicanery. Unless a searching, independent probe of the Australian Capital Territory administrative mechanisms occurs, the situation will continue to creak along until such time as another spate of ministerial or administrative mishaps occurs. It is not useful for the Government to pull down the shutters around the Department and to remove it from beneficial exposure to active local questioning. I call upon the Government now to call an election for the House of Assembly under the proportional representation system. This is why I believe that we should should not allow the Minister an out. I hope that the Opposition will support the measures I put forward and support the Democrats in disallowing this amendment. In summary, the Craig Committee completely upheld the continuation of proportional representation and thoroughly dismembered the artificial proposals for a mixture of single member districts and proportional representation. In June we suggested a referendum if the Government was adamant about wanting to ignore what has happened in the past and what has been recommended after exhaustive public hearings. Now the Government does not ever want an election at all. It reminds me of a brilliant cartoon by Pryor in the Canberra Times about the two options that were being offered-no self-government or no self-government at all. I conclude my contribution with a quotation from the Department's `Answers to your questions on self-government' of March 1986: The ACT is the only Federal capital in the western world which does not have a local representative form of government. A little later on it states: The House of Assembly has only advisory powers and cannot fill the gap. Currently ACT priorities are determined by a Minister who is part of a national government and who is not accountable directly to the voters of the ACT electorate. In the Government's view, that is unsatisfactory, and the House of Assembly will go as a result. Debate on effective self-government is to be stifled. I do not believe that this ploy will succeed. The Senate can help the cause of effective self-government by tossing out these regulations and placing the ball fairly and squarely into the Minister's and the Cabinet's court. When the Government tires of cleaning up the mess of its failure to take the people of the Australian Capital Territory into its confidence, perhaps it will deign to hand over decision making to Canberrans. I commend the disallowance of this amendment to honourable senators. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Before I call the next speaker, I draw the attention of the Senate to standing order 406, which is quite comprehensive. As it is very short I shall read it to the Senate. It states: No senator shall read his speech. I am prepared to accept that Senator Vigor was using copious notes, but I draw everyone's attention to that standing order. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.59) —Even if all the criticisms that Senator Vigor just levelled at the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), the Government, the Department of Territories, the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission and everybody else were completely true and we agreed with them, to vote with him in relation to this disallowance would not solve any one of the problems. That is the point of the debate this morning. I could go through the same issues Senator Vigor has raised and the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is at the table, could also canvass and answer them, but I do not think that that would advance the cause in the slightest. Self-government has a very long history in the Australian Capital Territory, as we all know; it certainly goes back to 1927. We heard this morning of the reference in 1930 to the setting up of the Advisory Council, when the Minister at the time referred to the likelihood that within a few years we should be able to give full civic control to the city, to the people themselves. And so it has gone on. In 1969 the Advisory Council members resigned in protest over there being no movement towards self-government. We had a very strong commitment to self-government from the Whitlam Government, but that came to nothing. Our Government was committed to self-government by July 1976, but that came to nothing. We have had numerous inquiries and reports from all sorts of committees. I think the conclusion which has to be drawn is that it is difficult to sort out the relationship between the national capital and the government of the people of Canberra. We cannot forget, and this was not referred to by the Australian Democrats speaker, a referendum where 63.75 per cent of the people of Canberra very clearly voted for things to remain as they were-what we might call a ministerial dictatorship. As I said, if all these other things which are wrong with Canberra could be corrected it would not be by the disallowance of this particular regulation. We had a commitment in May 1982 that the Australian Labor Party would bring in self-government within 12 months of being elected federally. It said that that commitment was without equivocation-but that was not so. We got the Bill this year for the first time and found for the first time that the electoral system was not negotiable. In all the years I have been in Canberra, in all the years I have heard self-government being discussed, that had never been an issue. There were a number of things wrong with the Bill in other respects, even for those strongly committed to self-government, but those issues were never really debated because the electoral system dominated the debate. I have to say that only a couple of people contacted me urging my support for self-government. The Canberra Association for Regional Development certainly has a fairly strong commitment to it, but I understand that it is not universally agreed to even amongst its membership. The fact is, as I read the electorate, that most people do not want it. They may be wrong, but I believe that to be the case. Some certainly do want it, but they have not yet raised the level of debate to such an extent that the politicians-the senators, the Government, the Liberal Party of Australia, everybody concerned who might be making the decisions-have been sufficiently impressed electorally to see it as something that must be done. We saw last night what can happen when a government perceives the electoral wind blowing in a certain direction. The decision on the low interest mortgages was changed. That was because of public demand. Meetings were held in Canberra at which hundreds of people turned up demanding something. We have not seen hundreds of people turning up at public meetings demanding self-government. If we held a referendum we would probably get the same result as we got in 1977, I think it was. I repeat the point that even if all the problems could be corrected, the disallowance of this regulation would not do it. To extend the life of the House of Assembly really flies in the face of the concept of self-government and the handing over of powers if that is what is wanted. I say in passing, without taking too much of the Senate's time, that those who were on the House of Assembly worked hard. They put a lot of time into their committee work and into their electorate and constituent work. As a consequence, the four Australian Capital Territory members of the House of Representatives and the Senate now have a considerably increased work load. We accept that that is a consequence of the House of Assembly disappearing. But that is not the answer to self-government, if that is the direction in which Senator Vigor wishes to move. Many decisions did not go to the House of Assembly; it did not have legislative power. This legislation certainly removes the obligation to hold another House of Assembly election. It refers also to the fact that the Minister intends to have an advisory council or an advisory body. He is certainly welcome to do so if that is what he wishes or if he thinks it will be of any benefit to him. He is not obliged to take the advice of an advisory body seriously or to act upon it at all. I was dismayed to see in the explanatory statement to this regulation that the Minister proposed a new elected advisory body. I strongly urge him not to proceed in that direction because I regard the $200,000 to $300,000 which would be required to mount such an election as a gross waste of money. Even if the advisory body were elected the Minister would not be obliged to take its advice. I have no doubt that the Minister would go to great lengths to select a group of people to advise him who would represent the community widely. I do not for a minute think that he would select them all from one corner. Even if he did, it would still be his choice as to whether he accepted their advice or not. Many things could be said about this matter. I do not think it is an appropriate time to answer all the matters that have been raised by the Democrats' argument in support of this motion which relates more to their Bill for self-government than to the consequences of re-establishing a House of Assembly with no legislative power. The Opposition will not be supporting the Democrats' motion for disallowance because we cannot see, whether one is for self-government or against it, how proceeding to re-elect a House of Assembly, as there was prior to 30 June this year, advances the cause of self-government one way or the other. As I said, we have a benevolent and friendly ministerial dictatorship. It is not necessarily doing everything we might want. But until the people of Canberra start going to public meetings and demanding another form of government and the right to govern themselves, it is a long way before the issue of self-government will again be raised. Nobody has denied self-government. There is a right for people to govern themselves. I do not think it is necessarily a situation people should be forced into. Until they demand that that should be the case, there will be more and more of these sorts of debates and more and more time spent on inquiries with fewer and fewer consequences as far as the government of Canberra is concerned. We will not support this motion for disallowance. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.08) —The Government opposes the disallowance motion moved by Senator Vigor on behalf of the Australian Democrats for a variety of reasons, some of which have been outlined by Senator Reid. The Government has a philosophical commitment to the principles of self-government. It has always moved towards the principles of self-government, not only with respect to Australia but also with respect to its attitude to the Pacific nations, to the granting of independence to Papua New Guinea and to self-government for the Northern Territory. It has clearly expressed its desire to grant self-government to the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. The Whitlam Labor Government established the House of Assembly which we saw at that stage as the first step in preparing Canberra for self-government. However, the Government now takes the view that the Assembly has outlived its usefulness. The Government cannot be blamed for the failure of its legislation proposing the establishment of the Australian Capital Territory Council to pass the Senate. Senator Vigor went to great lengths to criticise the Government's approach to self-government. However, as he is aware, there was extensive negotiation, consultation and compromise with respect to that legislation. It was not the principle that was at stake in the way in which the Government approached the proposals for self-government; the electoral system was the stumbling block. The Government takes the view that it was elected to govern. Nevertheless, it accepts that the Senate and the other political parties are entitled to express their views on the matter. However, it is the Government's responsibility and obligation to govern. The House of Representatives passed a Bill but the Government was frustrated by the view-which some people might say was dogmatic; it was contested very strongly, particularly by the Democrats-about the form in which the new council would be established in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government has to accept a number of complexities, as do Canberra citizens, in respect of the granting of self-government to the Australian Capital Territory such as what role local government is to play, the role of the National Capital Development Commission and the differences that obviously would exist in respect of the powers of the Australian Federal Police and the local police. There are a whole range of complexities in this area on which the Government has a view. The Government was prepared to accept that it had to make provisions for any new function or role involved in self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. We accepted our responsibilities in that area and put a Bill through the House of Representatives, then for the consideration of the Senate. But it has been stymied. The Senate was not able to reach an agreement so the Government did not proceed. So any blame in this area should be placed at the Bar of the Senate rather that with the responsibilities of the Government. The Government has been forced to go back to the old advisory committee which Senator Reid has correctly stated has been with us for a great number of years-with the exception of the Assembly-in excess of 40 years. The Government finds itself in a dilemma because of the Senate not being prepared to agree to the Government's proposals. It has very correctly canvassed public opinion in the Australian Capital Territory. Public opinion is opposed to going back to the old House of Assembly. That is how I am advised and how I read the issue. The Government is, therefore, obliged to take steps so that the Minister does not become the sole decision maker and arbiter, not taking into account the views of the residents of the Australian Capital Territory. So the Government proposes to appoint an advisory body. It believes that in doing so it has the support of the citizens of the national capital. I am advised that Senator Lewis, who has shadow ministerial responsibility for the Australian Capital Territory, supports this view. I am drawing from Senator Reid's contribution that that is the opinion of the other major political organisations in the Territory. Therefore, the Government does not feel that it is acting outside the general range of public opinion in taking action which is the only course of action available to it now. It is important in the absence of self-government for the Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory to have the benefit of the advice of the Canberra community to help him properly run Canberra. That is the alternative to the failure of the Senate to pass the original proposition that has been on the agenda for the last six months or more. This body is designed to achieve that and it is obviously the way in which the views of the Canberra residents can be placed before the Minister. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), to help decide on the most appropriate advisory body, wrote to a wide cross-section of community groups seeking their opinion and advice on the form that that body should take. The Minister has advised me that the clear majority of these bodies supported the abolition of the House of Assembly and the appointment of a smaller advisory body. I and the Government would support the establishment of a council charged with the responsibility of governing the Australian Capital Territory, but that is not feasible in light of the view that has been so strongly expressed by the Australian Democrats. I remind Senator Vigor that there were differences of opinion in the electoral area among the Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. The Government finally came up with a compromise that it felt was suitable in the circumstances, which was to accommodate part of the philosophical position of the Australian Democrats in respect of proportional representation. But that was not acceptable to the Democrats, who insisted upon a form of election that was not acceptable to the Government. So the Government is moving, as a matter of priority, to introduce such a body which will ensure not only that the Minister receives proper advice from the community but also that the taxpayers are protected from unnecessary expense. Whilst there are properly and genuinely held views on these matters on the part of not only the Democrats but also other sections of the Australian community, the Government is confronted with having to make a decision and to accept its responsibility to govern. To that extent, it cannot accept the disallowance motion moved by Senator Vigor and is going down the road of appointing a representative body to advise the Minister. I hope that that body will work in unity with the Minister in the interests of fulfilling the important functions of proper government for Australian Capital Territory. To that extent we urge the Senate not to support the disallowance motion. Question put: That the motion (Senator Vigor's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Sanders, N. K. Mason, C. V. J. Siddons, J. R. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. McClelland, DouglasArcher, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. McIntosh, G. DBaume, Michael McKiernan, J. P. Baume, Peter Maguire, G. R. Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Messner, A. J. Black, J. R. Morris, JBoswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Reynolds, M. Collard, S. J. Richardson, G. F. Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M. Cooney, B. Sheil, G. Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Townley, M. Grimes, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —Pursuant to order, I present the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I understand that by arrangement with the Whips and with the concurrence of the Senate it is intended that I should speak for 15 minutes and the other members of the Committee should speak for 10 minutes each. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —This is not an enforceable order, but I order the clocks to be set to indicate as you have suggested, as a guide to speakers in the debate on the time remaining available to them. But I make it clear that I cannot enforce such an arrangement. Senator TATE —Mr Deputy President, Australian society has been fortunate to have within it skilled practitioners of reproductive technology who in very recent years have helped many infertile couples achieve a pregnancy which would have been impossible without clinical intervention. Amongst those applications of medical technology is in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer. This is a process in which a mature human egg is taken from a woman's body and fertilised with sperm in a glass dish. Twenty-four hours later, when the fertilised egg has divided to the two to four cell stage, it is transferred back to the woman's uterus. The Committee welcomes the creative aspects of this technology which has enabled children to be born of some otherwise infertile parents. There has been some concern within the community about the process of IVF and its implications for society, particularly because such clinical practice has involved experimentation with human embryos. This Senate Committee has sought to grapple with these issues and it is, I believe, the first committee of parliamen- tarians, at least in the English speaking world, to call for submissions and hear witnesses before discussing the issues. In the event, the report which I present was signed by five of the seven members of the Committee-Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Harradine, Senator Macklin, Senator Walters and me. Senator Crowley and Senator Zakharov attached a dissenting report and Senator Harradine attached some qualifying comments. The Committee needed first to reach an understanding of the word `embryo'. The Committee decided to adopt the word `embryo' to describe the entity which results from the completion of the fusion of egg and sperm; that is, from the sequence of events described as fertilisation. Our working definition came to be that the embryo is `genetically new human life organised as a distinct entity oriented towards further development'. It must be emphasised that the conclusions of the Committee do not depend on the label applied to the entity. The Committee became aware very early that apparently simple descriptions can operate as behaviour governing terms. But in answering the question most commonly posed before the Committee, `What respect is due to the embryo?', the Committee found the language of stages and development inseparable from its consideration both of the proper description of an embryo and consequently of the respect due to it. In trying to answer that key question this Committee recognised it was operating in a pluralist society and therefore was never attracted to some of the dogmatic certainties which were sometimes put to it. Rather, it looked to certain features of international biomedical ethics and the domestic notion of guardianship to gain some insights and to find some models for the way in which the Australian community might treat the early human embryo. Medical scientists in Australia subject themselves to considerable constraints on possible experimentation in deference to international ethical principles which have been promulgated in several agreed international codes. The Committee considered that the same principles underlying the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964 should, as a matter of prudence, apply in this area. Thus the Committee adopted as fundamental the distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic experimentation and agreed with a basic principle of the Declaration of Helsinki, which states that `concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society'. The Committee does not pretend that the words `human being' or `subject' as used in the various declarations were adopted by those drafting them in such a way as to specifically include embryos. Nevertheless, prudence dictates that until the contrary is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, to use an expression well known in our community, the embryo of the human species should be regarded as if it were a human subject for the purposes of biomedical ethics. The Committee indicated the necessarily developmental language of stages and process which accompany any lively description of the embryo. It is in the embryo's orientation to the future that the Committee finds the feature of the embryo which commands such a degree of respect as to prohibit destructive non-therapeutic experimentation. Points and stages, sometimes called marker events, in the development of the embryo-such as implantation, appearance of the primitive streak and neural groove, cerebral and organic development, consciousness and pain awareness-are significant because they are critical stages in development. Their significance lies precisely in their being stages. The Committee is of the view that no one event succeeding fertilisation is such that the embryo prior to that event should not be accorded respect by way of protecting its development to a succeeding stage. The Committee supports therapeutic experimentation on an embryo; that is experimentation carried out with the aim or object of acting in the best interests of the embryo which is the subject of the experimental procedure undertaken-for example, improving culture fluids or transfer techniques. The freezing of embryos awaiting implantation is in certain circum- stances, by the same reasoning, also desirable and indeed necessary. But the Committee does not support destructive non-therapeutic experimentation which does not directly benefit the embryo undergoing treatment. It may ultimately benefit future embryos or may benefit some aspects of medical science. For example, it was claimed in evidence before the Committee that such experimentation might include research on genetic and development abnormalities, teratogenesis, carcinogenesis and reduction in the number of spontaneous abortions. Non-therapeutic experimentation on an embryo is, at least at the present, destructive of that embryo. It is that which is beyond the pale. In the future, non-destructive, non-therapeutic procedures may be developed, such as cell biopsy. This conclusion of the Committee, differentiating therapeutic experimentation from destructive non-therapeutic experimentation, accords with the Helsinki Declaration's basic principle that `concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society'. The Committee found no ethical or practical basis to distinguish embryos surplus to an optimum implantation regime for a woman from embryos created specifically for experimentation. In the Committee's view neither should be subject to destructive non-therapeutic experimentation. So, too, the Committee found some guidance in the notion of guardianship, agreeing with the Waller committee reference to the rights of gamete donors: The Committee does not consider that those rights are absolute just as the rights of parents are limited by the rights and interests of the child, and by the larger concerns of the community in which they all live. Thus, for the Committee the preferred model is to regard the embryo existing in its glass dish not as property belonging to, but as an entity enjoying the protection of, a guardian. Under this model the property rights of gamete donors are exhausted on fertilisation when an embryo comes into being. At that point guardianship arises and would be ordinarily and properly exercised by the intending social parents, whether or not these are the same persons as the gamete donors. This approach contrasts markedly with the approach of the dissentients, who move from the fact that society would not commit the gross assault and battery of compelling a woman to accept the transfer of an embryo into her uterus to the conclusion that a woman, or sometimes the joint donors of sperm and egg, has an absolute right to decide to submit the embryo to destructive non-therapeutic experimentation in a situation in which the embryo is simply lying in a glass dish quite independent of any relation to her body. This thesis of the dissentients cannot deal with the specific creation of embryos for the sole purpose of experimentation, about which they have severe misgivings, nor with a dispute between the donors of egg and sperm as to the fate of the embryo where they are the decision makers. More fundamentally, the Committee recommends the protective role of the law for the embryo as a matter of caution and prudence until the onus of proving that it should not be treated as a human subject is successfully discharged. It seems to me, with respect, that the dissentients idolise choice and decision by the intended mother as an absolute principle without in any circumstances giving any weight to the countervailing right of the embryo to move to its next stage of development. Thus the Committee, drawing on these models of international medical ethical principles and guardianship as useful guides, recommends that a Commonwealth statute, whether standing by itself in its limited field of power or, preferably, in company with legislation of the States and the Northern Territory, should set down a broad declaration of principle supporting the creative aspects of reproductive technology, indicating the acceptance of the need for research, including therapeutic experimentation on the human embryo, but making unlawful any destructive non-therapeutic experimentation which frustrates the development of the human embryo. We recommend that a national body elaborate this broad principle and give it practical application by attaching conditions to licences permitting experimentation within the limits of the broad declaration of principle. It will be apparent that the Committee does not consider that the present system of institutional ethics committees giving voluntary adherence to guidelines nationally promulgated by the National Health and Medical Research Council is adequate. It is highly desirable that the whole Australian community observe uniform ethical standards in a matter as crucial as human embryo experimentation. Given the need for Commonwealth-State co-operation in this field, the Committee has recommended the adoption of an accreditation and licensing scheme as the most appropriate legal mechanism for regulating experimentation in the field of medical biotechnology. This collaborative Australia-wide model is likely to be more effective than the prohibition model put forward by Senator Harradine with its dependence on the criminal law and the obtaining of injunctions as the sole method of regulation and enforcement. Therefore, the Committee does not recommend the passage of the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. The approach of that Bill gave rise to the most persistent theme running through the evidence of most clinicians and scientists appearing before the Committee. The oft expressed fear of those witnesses was that they, and/or their institutions, would be constantly running the gauntlet of expensive and disruptive criminal trials or actions where injunctive relief was sought. The Committee preferred a scheme whereby approval by a national body of a research protocol, and scrupulous adherence to the conditions of a research licence, should give some assurance to the licence holder that he or she could proceed without being exposed to legal action. I have no time to elaborate on the structure of the national body which the Committee favours, amongst other things, to issue licenses subject to the broad statutory charter recommended. Time taken to establish it should not preclude an interim licensing mechanism being established by the Commonwealth-State ministerial councils of Attorneys-General and Health Ministers. It may be with some lack of modesty that I say that I believe this Senate Committee has produced a report which will set new standards in its consideration of these literally vital issues. It has not shirked any of the ethical issues. It has come to hard conclusions. It has devised a practical licensing scheme which will ensure on the one hand that IVF clinics and accompanying research continue to play a role in the treatment of some infertile couples in Australia, but on the other hand it has put beyond the pale certain experiments on the human embryo of a destructive non-therapeutic kind. I thank the secretariat-Pippa Carron, Glenys Roper and Fiona Hendy-for their assistance in the compiling of this report. But it is to my colleagues in the Senate serving on this Select Committee that the highest tribute is due. As politicians elected by and accountable to the Australian community they have worked under considerable pressure to produce this report. We hope and trust that the report will serve infertile couples and the whole community well. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.39) —The Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, of which I am a member, was given seven terms of reference by this Senate. Abbreviating them, they were, firstly, to decide whether, for the purposes of in vitro fertilisation, it is necessary or desirable for research to be done on the human embryo by way of manipulation, dissection or administration of drugs; secondly, if that is so, whether there should be guidelines; thirdly, if that it so, whether it is necessary and desirable to freeze embryos; fourthly, whether it is necessary and desirable to discard embryos, and, if so, under what conditions; fifthly, whether the Harradine Bill requires amendment; sixthly, whether there ought to be sanctions or prohibitions for breaches of research limitation; and, finally, whether legislation is desirable. I seek very briefly to examine those terms of reference and I do so against the background of three main thrusts: Firstly, the very understandable desire of otherwise infertile couples to have families and, against that background, the need, wherever possible, to help them to achieve that goal; secondly, the very great successes that Australian scientists, medical scientists in particular, have had in aiding the overcoming of infertility, whether by a range of other means or by what has now become known as in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer; and, thirdly, and most importantly, the eternal search for knowledge by all scientists and human beings, particularly in the field of genetics, in the field of understanding of the chromosomes, of the genes they contain, in the frontier work that is being done on the double helix, and in seeking to understand DNA and its effect on the origins and course of human life. I believe that against that background the Committee has approached its task sensibly and thoroughly. As to the first term of reference, the Committee has commended the approach to over- coming infertility and has recognised that there is a need and a desirability for research, but that that research should be therapeutic research aimed at the benefit of the subject and that, therefore, there is a need for some manipulation and, indeed, perhaps for some drug therapy, such as adding potassium or other chemicals to the culture. Secondly, the Committee has found that it is necessary to have guidelines so that there is uniformity throughout Australia. I have to say that if there was one common theme of virtually every witness before the Committee, it was the desirability for a national and uniform approach to the whole of this procedure. Thirdly, the Committee looked at the question of freezing embryos. It knew that under the present process of super-ovulation by the use of hormone stimulation there were likely to be embryos that would not be needed for the first implantation, which would be of approximately three embryos, that the first cycle of implantation might not succeed due to a hostile condition of the uterus and that therefore there was a desirability to hold, in frozen form, embryos for a second or further implantation. The Committee looked at the relatively new procedure of freezing ova, or female eggs. It noted that there had been some success in Australia, particularly with Dr Chan, noted the announcement of the birth of twins from frozen ova, and expressed the view that should this procedure be proven, it would largely, if not totally, eliminate the need for freezing embryos. It would then be possible to freeze ova and simply to inseminate them when necessary, in terms of implantation, so that there would not be a necessity for frozen embryos. However, the Committee noted that one should try to reduce the number of frozen embryos and/or the concept of spare embryos to an absolute minimum. The Committee looked at the question of discarding embryos. It revealed that in the final event a procedure should be set up where the number of so-called spare embryos should be at an absolute minimum, if possible, none at all, but realising that due to a whole series of events-the breakdown of a marriage, accident, illness, divorce, death, or indeed the absence of another willing parent-there could be some spare embryos. Therefore, the Committee concluded that they should not be subject to adverse experimentation and concluded that they should be allowed to succumb. The Committee concluded that the Harradine Bill contains some disabilities and should not be the instrument for regulation in this area. It recognised that if there is to be a national approach there would need to be sanctions and prohibitions. It has put forward such thoughts and has suggested a form of legislation. The Committee looked at the definition of an embryo and, as Senator Tate has said, it came forward with a universally accepted definition for all members of the Committee recognising the fundamental basis of the embryo being a genetically new human life organised as a distinct entity oriented towards further development. The Committee looked at various marker events. It was suggested to the Committee by a number of people that there were marker events of such significance along the journey that there would be a major change in the respect that society or the individual should direct towards an embryo. It was suggested that such a marker event was implantation. Various periods were prescribed by other committees around the world. It was suggested by some that 14 days would be a suitable period, that up to that period experimentation could take place but after that period it would not take place at all. The Committee noted an interesting factor. In the early days of the embryo-the first five, six or seven days-it had the potential for implantation but after that number of days had passed implantation was impossible and the embryo could no longer take a course of evolution of life. The Committee puzzled at those committees that recommended, curiously enough, that one could experiment on an embryo during that period that it had a potential for life but not after such potential had gone. Therefore the Committee believed there was no particular marker event of sufficient significance to alter the degree of respect an embryo should receive. The Committee noted one other point. The real probing of genetics to discover diseases is done by taking cells from living human beings-children and adults suffering from defects. The probing of genes in order to discover disease is not done on the embryo. In its first 14 days it is undifferentiated in its cells, tissues and organs and therefore much cannot be done. The availability of tissue on others allows the development of unrestricted research in probing genetic defects. If cell biopsy can be proven as it is in mice at the moment it will enable that detection without disturbing the embryo. I believe that the Committee has approached this subject, which is enormous in its moral, ethical, religious and scientific aspects, with a sense of responsibility and that it has made sensible recommendations and conclusions. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.48) —The Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 had before it some 270 submissions many of which were extremely extensive. Some 64 witnesses-medical practitioners, legal practitioners, members of various religions, people whose occupations were in the area of philosophical and ethical thought and scientists-appeared before it. It was a major learning experience for me. I had particular views when this Committee inquiry started but I must admit that as time went on and I read more and learnt more those views became much more fluid and they tended to change as the Committee inquiry progressed. Having a professional background in philosophy and ethics I believe that the major difficulty is that when one is finally forced-and one is dealing with ethical thought that has been developed and used elsewhere based on models of walking, breathing human beings-to come to grips with the area of human embryos, which are not able to be seen with the naked human eye, one is looking for and desperately trying to get relevant models which can be used. I think the model that the majority of the Committee came up with is a relevant model; it is a model that can be worked with and, I am sure, can be developed over time. I urge the Press and the public to read the Committee's report. There have already been some references in the Press about what was supposed to have been in the report; these managed to get a considerable number of very important details wrong. It is not a report which people are attempting to press on others; it is a report on an area in which we know there will be continuing controversy. I think it is interesting that there were so many differing views at the beginning of the Committee's inquiry and it is an advance that we ended up basically with a majority report and a minority report. That is a major advance in this area even though there are still disagreements. One of the interesting points about the majority and minority report when taken together is that they clarify two major approaches to this issue. They will probably continue to be major debating points in years to come. I think an advance has been made in clarifying these issues, probably making them have sharper outlines and pressing that they be intellectually understood and capable of justification. I hope that the Press will deal sympathetically with this issue. It is an issue which the Committee saw touches individuals deeply. When women and men who were seeking to have children came before us they touched all Committee members very deeply with their human desire. In trying to deal with that issue in a legal framework one is sometimes confronted with how cold the legal framework ends up being and how human are the desires of those on the other side. The Committee tried to deal with that matter and in my final deliberations and the signing of the majority report I had that very much in mind. An issue I wish to raise briefly now is one which did not seem to be appropriate to be raised in the report; it is one which I felt constantly throughout the Committee's inquiry. It is directly concerned with the cost of the in vitro fertilisation operations particularly in Australia but also elsewhere. I know that one tends not to count costs in these areas, and I can see why that is the case. However, I believe that ultimately costs have to be counted. The successful pregnancies that have come from this experimentation and operations throughout Australia have been gained at phenomenal cost in dollar terms to the community. Obviously an opportunity is lost to other areas of medicine which would be beneficial to the Australian community. It may seem hard and heartless to try to put those two things together but we have to, and we have to do it rationally. An enormous number of other areas in the community need constant attention, urgent attention and scientific attention, and money is not going into those areas. I refer, for example, to areas such as respiratory diseases which affect some 20 to 25 per cent of Australians; it is an area where there is obvious need for further experimentation. We always have to consider, when we are dealing with these areas, no matter how much our heart may wish us to go in certain directions, that we also have to make decisions with our heads. I had the feeling at the end of the Committee's inquiry that probably too many of our resources were being spent in this area and that probably some of those resources really ought to have been directed to other vital areas of medical research and understanding. I give my thanks also to the staff who helped me when I managed to lose some of the most voluminous number of papers I have ever had during a committee hearing. The staff managed to get new ones to me. Hansard, placed under enormous difficulties because of our constant and incessant demands for the Hansard report of the previous day's proceedings, understood our desires to have those transcripts quickly. I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, who must certainly be given the accolade of the major slave driver that I have ever served under. He helped us to produce a report in a time that I never believed possible. I also pay tribute to the other members of the Committee, from whom I learnt much, and who were always patient when I sought to understand various items. As I said, it has been a major learning experience for me. It was a very tiring and trying operation, but one which I certainly would not have missed. I do not believe that my understanding, or the understanding of the community, is complete at this point. I endorse the comments by our Chairman that we believe that this issue must continue. We believe that we have enabled a certain level of understanding to be reached. I urge those who will engage in the continuing debate first of all to read the report. They should not just rely on newspaper extracts. They should read the report and go on from there. I think the debate will continue. I hope it will continue to be as rational, reasonable and human as members of the Committee have been in presenting this report to the Parliament. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.57) —I introduced the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill in April last year because of my concern, based on a substantial volume of information, that experiments detrimental to the human embryo were being undertaken both in this country and elsewhere. The Bill was referred to a Senate select committee. I say here and now that I have worked on a number of committees, and I agree with what Senator Macklin has said. The Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill has worked extremely hard. The Chairman has attempted to meet the deadlines placed on this Committee by the Senate, and I believe that all members of the Committee and its staff have discharged their responsibilities in the traditions of this place. I welcome the report of the Senate Select Committee. I am pleased that it recommends a legislative ban on any experiment which would frustrate the development of a human embryo from fertilisation onwards. I am honoured that the Committee found that the central principle of my Bill was quite basic to its own ultimate response to the reference given to it by the Senate. I should like also to pay tribute to the 132,000 people throughout the length and breadth of Australia who petitioned Parliament in support of the Bill, and the many persons eminently qualified in the fields of science, medicine, ethics, political life, community life and the law who recognised that human embryo experimentation poses grave problems for the whole world, and needs to be resolved on the basis of a fundamental premise. The Committee concluded that its major findings and recommendations accord with and help sustain the principles underlying medical bioethics as understood in the international community, and the institution of guardianship as understood in our domestic legal system. The report referred to the international agreements concerning biomedical research which arose primarily from the concern of the international community over the eugenics programs advanced by the Third Reich and inhuman experiments conducted by doctors in Nazi Germany. At the heart of these agreements was the principle that in any biomedical procedure involving human subjects `the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society'. The report makes it clear that, for the purposes of biomedical ethics, the embryo of the human species must be regarded as a human subject. In firmly rejecting the concept apparently followed by the National Health and Medical Research Council that a human embryo can be treated as property, the Committee recommends that the concept of guardianship is the most appropriate to indicate the respect due to the human embryo. The Committee also noted that, in any guardianship, the welfare of the ward is paramount and that, in this instance, the rights of the guardian are to be exercised on behalf of, and in the best interests of, the embryo resulting from in vitro fertilisation. The Committee report challenges the basis of the National Health and Medical Research Council's guidelines which allow for any type of experiment up to the state at which implantation would normally occur. Such guidelines have generated a permissive atmosphere for human embryo experimentation in Australia. The Committee reported that it could see nothing which marked the National Health and Medical Research Council marker event as other than a significant event in a continuum of development until birth. The Committee found that the present system of institutional ethics committees, voluntarily adhering to nationally promulgated NHMRC guidelines, was not adequate. Instead, the Committee advocates legal protection for the human embryo. As the Committee stated, there should be a `protective role of the law for an embryo, such that obligations are cast on persons not to knowingly frustrate its development by destructive non-therapeutic experimentation'. The Committee recommends that Parliament adopt the chief recommendations of the report as the basic statutory principles underlying research on human embryos in Australia. These principles would make unlawful any destructive non-therapeutic experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Because power over clinical medicine and biomedical research rests largely with State parliaments, the Committee recommends Federal-State co-operation to establish uniform accreditation and licensing processes for institutions within which human embryo experimentation might occur. A national body would be established which would draw up guidelines consistent with a statutory principle protecting human embryos from damaging non-therapeutic experimentation. Research would be unlawful unless the institution concerned submitted a research protocol to a national body and a licence was issued. The national body would be required to establish and to act within guidelines consistent with the statutory principle protecting human embryos from injury which frustrates their development. I point out that, whilst the Committee goes beyond the Warnock and Waller reports, it builds on the reports of the Waller and Asche committees. The Senate Committee's report is, I would think, more like the decision of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe which was taken on 24 September last and which I have only just received and scanned. In fact, as the Chairman of the Committee would appreciate, we had put our report to bed well and truly before then. I seek leave to have the decision incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- RECOMMENDATION 1046 (1986) (1) on the use of human embryos and foetuses for diagnostic, therapeutic, scientific, industrial and commercial purposes The Assembly, 1. Recalling its Recommendation 934 (1982) on genetic engineering, proposing a range of measures including in particular the recognition of the right to a genetic inheritance which should not be artificially interfered with except for therapeutic purposes; 2. Considering that recent progress in the life sciences and medicine, in particular in animal and human embryology, has opened up remarkable new scientific, diagnostic and therapeutic prospects; 3. Considering that, by the technique of fertilisation in vitro, man has achieved the means of intervening in and controlling human life in its earliest stages; 4. A. Considering that the exploitation of technological opportunities not only in science but also in medicine must be governed by clear ethical and social guidelines; B. Considering that future benefits from the advance of medical science and technology must be carefully assessed in deciding when, and how, and on what grounds, to restrict the exploitation of technological opportunities; C. Welcoming the contributions of the Council of Europe's ad hoc committee of experts in the biomedical sciences, and of the European medical research councils operating within the framework of the European Science Foundation; D. Noting the statement issued by nine European medical research councils following the meeting convened in London 5-6 June 1986 under the auspices of the European Science Foundation; 5. Considering that, from the moment of fertilisation of the ovula, human life develops in a continuous pattern, and that it is not possible to make a clear-cut distinction during the first phases (embryonic) of its development, and that a definition of the biological status of an embryo is therefore necessary; 6. Aware that this progress had made the legal position of the embryo and foetus particularly precarious, and that their legal status is at present not defined by law; 7. Aware that adequate provisions governing the use of living or dead embryos and foetuses do not at present exist; 8. Convinced that, in view of scientific progress which makes it possible to intervene in developing human life from the moment of fertilisation, it is urgent to define the extent of its legal protection; 9. Having regard to the variety of ethical opinion on the question of using the embryo or the foetus or their tissues, and to the conflicts between values which arise; 10. Considering that human embryos and foetuses must be treated in all circumstances with the respect due to human dignity, and that use of materials and tissues therefrom must be strictly limited and regulated (see Appendix) to purposes which are clearly therapeutic and for which no other means exist; 11. Convinced that the use of embryos or foetuses and the removal of their tissues for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes are only justified if the principles and conditions specified in the Appendix to this recommendation are observed; 12. Considering that any exclusively national regulation of the question runs the risk of being ineffective as any activity in this field could be transferred to another country which did not enforce the same regulations; 13. Stressing the need for European co-operation, 14. Recommends that the Committee of Ministers: A. Call on the governments of the member states: (i) to investigate the rumours about a trade in dead embryos and foetuses circulating in the media, and to publish the results; (ii) to limit the use of human embryos and foetuses and materials and tissues therefrom in an industrial context to purposes which are strictly the-rapeutic and for which no other means exist, according to the principles set out in the Appendix, and to bring their legislation into line with these principles or to enact rules in accordance therewith which should inter alia specify the conditions in which removal and use may be undertaken for a diagnostic or therapeutic purpose; (iii) to forbid any creation of human embryos by fertilisation in vitro for the purposes of research during their life or after death; (iv) to forbid all that could be considered as undesirable use or deviations of these techniques, including: - the creation of identical human beings by cloning or any other method, whether for race selection purposes or not; - the implantation of a human embryo in the uterus of another animal or the inverse; - the fusion of human gametes with those of another animal (the hamster test for the study of male fertility could be regarded as an exception, under strict regulation); - the creation of embryos from the sperm of different individuals; - the fusion of embryos or any other operation which might produce chimeras; - ectogenesis, or the production of an individual and autonomous human being outside the uterus of a female, i.e. in a laboratory; - the creation of children from people of the same sex; - choice of sex by genetic manipulation for non-therapeutic purposes; - the creation of identical twins; - research on viable human embryos; - experimentation on living human embryos, whether viable or not; - the maintenance of embryos in vitro beyond the 14th day after fertilisation (having deducted any time necessary for freezing); (v) to provide appropriate sanctions to ensure the application of the rules enacted pursuant to this recommendation; (vi) to create national registers of accredited medical centres authorised to carry out such techniques and to make use of them for scientific purposes; (vii) to facilitate and encourage the creation of national multidisciplinary committees or commissions on artificial genetic material, human embryos and foetuses,-to guide and counsel the medical and scientific authorities, to follow and control the application of such techniques, and to authorise specific projects in the absence of concrete legislation or regulation; B. Continue to study the problem relating to the use of human embryosus and foetal tissue for scientific purposes and prepare, on the basis of the points mentioned in sub-paragraphs 14.A (ii) to (vii), a European convention or any other suitable legal instrument which would also be open to accession by non-member countries of the Council of Europe; 15. Instructs its competent committees to prepare a report on the use of human embryos and foetuses in scientific research, taking into account the necessary balance between the principles of freedom of research and of respect for human life and other aspects of human rights. (1) Assembly debate on 19 and 24 September 1986 (13th and 18th sittings). See Doc. 5615, report of the Legal Affairs Committee, Doc. 5628, opinion of the Committee on Science and Technology, and Doc. 5635, opinion of the Social and Health Affairs Committee. Text adopted by the Assembly on 24 September 1986 (18th sitting). APPENDIX Rules governing the use of human embryos or foetuses and the removal of their tissues for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes A. Diagnostic purposes i. No intervention for diagnostic purposes, other than those already authorised under national legislation, on the living embryo in vitro or in utero or the foetus whether inside or outside the uterus shall be permitted, unless its object is the well-being of the child to be born and the promotion of its development. ii. The use of a dead embryo and foetus for diagnostic purposes (confirmation of a diagnosis in utero or search for the cause of a spontaneous termination of pregnancy) shall be permitted. B. Therapeutic purposes i. No intervention for therapeutic purposes on the living embryo in vitro or in utero or the foetus whether inside or outside the uterus shall be permitted unless its object is the well-being of the child to be born, i.e. to facilitate its development and birth. ii. Therapy on embryos in vitro or in utero or on the foetus in utero shall not be permitted, unless it is for very clear and precisely diagnosed embryonic maladies, with grave or extremely bad prognosis, where no other solution is possible and therapy would offer reasonable guarantees of successful treatment of those illnesses. iii. It shall be forbidden to keep embryos or foetuses alive artificially for the purpose of removing usable material. iv. It would be desirable to create a list of those illnesses where therapy can be based on reliable means of diagnosis and reasonable guarantees of success. This list would be periodically up-dated to take account of new discoveries and scientific progress. v. Therapy conducted on embryos and foetuses must never influence non-pathological hereditary characteristics, nor have racial selection as its aim. vi. The use of dead embryos or foetuses must be an exceptional measure, justified in the present state of knowledge by the rare nature of the illness treated, the absence of any equally effective therapy and a manifest advantage (such as survival) for the person receiving treatment; it must comply with the following rules: (a) the decision to terminate pregnancy and the conditions of termination (date, technique, etc) must under no circumstances be influenced by the possible or desired subsequent use of the embryo or foetus; (b) any use of the embryo or foetus must be undertaken by highly qualified teams in approved hospitals or scientific centres supervised by the public authorities; to the extent that national legislation foresees, these centres must posses multi-disciplinary ethical committees; (c) total independence between the medical team terminating the pregnancy and the team which might use the embryos or foetuses for therapeutic purposes must be guaranteed; (d) embryos and foetuses may not be used without the consent of the parents or gamete donors where the latter's identity is known; (e) the use of embryos, foetuses or their tissues for profit or remuneration shall not be allowed. Senator HARRADINE —Dehumanising experiments on human embryos cheapen the concept of life and are a threat to other human rights within our society. They have implications for a general community that is only now becoming aware of the nature of the threat. I am aware-and evidence was given to us from a utilitarian aspect-that this philosophy of utilitarians permeates, to a certain extent, certain scientists and other areas of medicine. Such was the evidence given to us by Professor Peter Singer. However, the building blocks of any civilised society would soon crumble if we were to concede that the end justifies the means and approve the concept of experimentation on some human subjects for the benefit of others. That is not a principle on which the law can reasonably or safely be founded. The ball now is in the court of the Government and, in particular, the court of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). This is not a matter to be left to the self-regulation of scientists or a medical ethics committee; it is a major question of public policy for government and parliaments in a democratic society to determine. The Parliament would betray its public trust were it not to act urgently on the report. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.07) —The inquiry just completed by the Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 has been one of the most complex, controversial, emotive and technical that a committee could undertake. For this reason the Committee attempted to abide by scientific evidence and expertise in coming to its conclusions. I congratulate the secretariat staff for their help, particularly in the technical areas, as their background information was invaluable to us. There is no doubt that the human embryo genetically is a new human life. The Committee took evidence from eminent scientists and medical and individual experts. We took evidence from government departments and social organisations throughout Australia. None attempted to argue that the human embryo was other than a developing human being. Many opinions were expressed about the value, respect and protection that should be afforded that embryo at various stages of its development, but there was little dissent regarding its future development into a human subject. From such evidence the Committee formed the opinion that the human embryo deserved respect and protection according to its status as human. Over many years medical scientists relied on world bodies to set ethical guidelines to ensure constraints-bodies such as the World Health Organisation and the Council for International Organisations of Medical Science-as well as on several international codes. The Declaration of Helsinki is one such code which the Committee felt was appropriate to apply in this area. Its introduction states in part: In the field of biomedical research a fundamental distinction must be recognised between medical research in which the aim is essentially diagnostic or therapeutic for a patient, and medical research, the essential object of which is purely scientific and without direct diagnostic or therapeutic value to the person subjected to the research. The Committee did not pretend that this Declaration was specifically meant to cover embryos, but the Committee was of the opinion that the human embryo genetically was new human life developing as a distinct entity. As such, the Committee considered it appropriate that there be no experimental intervention that would frustrate the embryo's future development. Because the words `prohibited experimentation' in the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill caused so much confusion, the Committee took much trouble to clarify just what was meant. The clarification the Committee chose was taken from the Declaration of Helsinki, as I said. The Committee observed the distinction between therapeutic experimentation and non-therapeutic experimentation. Therapeutic experimentation is defined as experimentation of a diagnostic or curative value and non-therapeutic experimentation is that undertaken purely as an advancement in scientific or medical knowledge and of no diagnostic or curative value. While the Committee acknowledges that there can be grey areas in which the intention of the scientist may be queried, the Committee believes that those cases can be submitted to an expert body which is able to assess the situation. As I have indicated, conflicting evidence was presented to the Committee as to the value, respect and protection that should be afforded the embryo at the various stages of its development. We were told that, unless non-therapeutic experimentation was able to be carried out on at least the pre-implantation stage of the embryo, knowledge regarding many medical problems such as thalassaemia and Down's syndrome would be considerably delayed or never attained. However, Professor Lejeune from Foundation Genesis explained that an abundance of cells relating to these medical problems is available in human beings after birth and there is no need to obtain such material from the early embryo. Various committees, scientists and philosophers have indicated that the community should accept various marker events as being of such significance that respect and protection can vary during the developing stages of the embryo. I quote briefly from the Warnock report which stated: One reference point in the development of the human individual is the formation of the primitive streak. The Waller Committee considered that the marker event was: . . . beyond the stage of implantation, which is completed 14 days after fertilisation. Dr Jansen stated that the National Health and Medical Research Council had chosen implantation as the marker event. He said: At that time the embryonic disc has not differentiated into various parts that could be called parts of an embryo. Suggestions have been made that any type of experimentation should be permitted on embryos from fertilisation to the stage of implantation. The Committee could not understand the thinking behind suggestions that would allow destructive experimentation on an embryo during the stage of viability-that is, between fertilisation and implantation-but once the embryo has reached the stage beyond implantation and is no longer viable or able to develop to its full potential experimentation is no longer approved of. However, to get back to the contention that the stage of implantation is a significant marker event in the development of the human embryo and that no additional respect and protection should be afforded the embryo following that event, in evidence on behalf of the National Health and Medical Research Council ethics committee Professor Richard Lovell stated: It was put to us that when implantation is complete it is a definable landmark in the development of the foetus. It is now in place-it is talking to its mother. Professor Lejeune stated: There is no special landmark that we could use to tell us that there is a change in the status of the embryo . . . but there are only stages of its development. Dr Trounson, when describing the Warnock and Waller committees, stated: I do not see that there is a magical change between day 13 and day 14. It just happens to be an arbitrary time. The Committee agreed with the majority of the evidence and believed that Dr Trounson was correct when he said that. We have therefore decided that the embryo of the human species from fertilisation should be regarded as a human subject for the purposes of biomedical ethics. The Committee recommended: that the principle protecting the embryo from destructive non-therapeutic experimentation be adopted by the Senate in its consideration of this matter. Because of the short time available to Committee members to debate this report I am unable to give any further detail, but I believed that it was crucial to the understanding of the Committee's report to deal with that particular area. There is great concern in the community regarding research in areas other than experimentation using embryos. I refer, for example, to cloning. It is because of these concerns that a Commonwealth statute should be established so that a national licensing body may follow its broad declarations of principles. As I indicated when I began my speech, the inquiry was a very complex and technical one and because time has not allowed me to go in detail into the other matters in the report I do commend its reading by all interested parties. It is essential that the report be read in full. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(12.17) —Before I make any comments on the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1986 and lead off for the minority or dissenting report, I wish to take the opportunity to thank our Chairman, Senator Michael Tate. I have had the pleasure of serving on previous committees with Senator Tate and as ever he has been tolerant and efficient and has guided this report through in under 12 months. In that time we have had a comprehensive examination of the material obtained from other inquiries, 270 submissions, nine public hearings and the evidence of 64 witnesses, so I think anyone reading the report can feel comfortable that we sought very wide information before coming to our conclusions. I think it should be said, too, that throughout the proceedings Senator Tate chaired with his usual grace. I place on record my appreciation for that, particularly as I, as one of the senators dissenting from the majority report, never felt at any time that the Committee or the Chair found that problematic. That is not to say that we agreed, but we did not become divisive about it. I would like also to thank the other members of the Committee. I endorse Senator Macklin's comments that we did a lot of learning on this Committee. In particular I would like to thank our secretarial staff, Dr Pippa Carron, the Secretary; Glenys Roper, a research officer; and Fiona Hendy, the steno-secretary. Their assistance in the Committee's work and our further demands due to the dissenting report was always willing, cheerful and helpful. I am pleased to acknowledge their contribution. The minority report differs very significantly from the majority report-I will use those terms for clarification for those people listening-because it was the contention of those of us who wrote the minority report that the focus of this inquiry had to be on who should decide about embryos before any effort was made to address what should be decided. We felt very strongly that the in vitro fertilisation program is like any other program of medical treatment or health care. It involves a contract based on informed consent between the couple or the patient and the treating doctor or specialist. It is not a contract between a doctor and an embryo. The couple, either the gamete donors, that is the donors of egg and sperm, and/or the woman into whose uterus the embryo is placed, are the contracting persons. They are seeking treatment for their infertility and they understand after adequate counselling what is entailed in the IVF program, what will be required of them and what the outcomes are likely to be. Those outcomes go all the way from no successful implantation or successful implantation with no progress to full pregnancy, to a full term baby. Another outcome is a full term baby which may sometimes be deformed or abnormal. It is a risk laden treatment program, as any couple involved in it knows. As in any other area of medical treatment all reasonable steps to reduce the risks are part of responsible medical practice; that is, continuing research and experimentation on all phases and stages of the program is desirable to achieve optimal outcome for the couples. Logically this means that there has to be relevant research on human embryos. We agree with the majority report's definition of an embryo, although we do comment in point D.14 that we accept that the word `embryo' should apply from the time of conception only so as to reduce confusion in the community as to what is being talked about. We also differ with the majority report in that we conclude that there is a marker event of such significance that differences of behaviour and regard may pertain to the embryo before and after that event. The majority report comments, and we agree, that the birth of a baby is a marker event of such significance that different things and different attitudes pertain to it prior to and after that event. We suggest that implantation and/or the emergence of the embryonic disk is a similar such marker event; that is, different attitudes, or different regard, can ascribe to the embryo prior to and after implantation. We also see the importance of the marker event not only in terms of what shall be done before and after but also, importantly, in terms of who shall decide. The marker event is critical in regard to the necessity for a woman to accept an embryo into her uterus for the development of that embryo. The marker event is significant and it is reinforced by the necessity of implantation. We find it remarkable that the majority report concludes that a woman would have the right at that stage not to accept any embryo into her uterus, and yet disallows her to make choices prior to that significant event. We conclude that the right to decide at the time of implantation properly ascribes to her the right to decide prior to that stage. Senator Tate claimed in his remarks that our conclusions allow a woman full rights to destruction of the embryo in the petri dish. I would chide him for what I think is unnecessarily emotive language. We argue that it is the couple's or the woman's right to decide about the embryo and that many will decide for the full development of the embryo. Not all women who make decisions, or who have decision rights ascribed to them, are necessarily going to seek destruction of the embryo in the petri dish. In fact the evidence from IVF programs is that women and couples choose contrary to that. They are seeking a satisfactory implantation, a satisfactory pregnancy and the development of a full term baby. They are seeking pregnancy and childbirth, not the destruction of embryos. We know that women going through the development of embryos or foetuses in their uteruses do make a variety of decisions. We know that our community is pluralist and I see no reason to suggest that it will not be pluralist about the decisions that women and/or couples will make about embryos. I would say, in support of our prior claim, that it is the parent's and/or the woman's right to decide and that those rights ascribe to decisions about the embryo. I also remind people that the sort of embryo we are talking about need not necessarily be thought of as human in the way that we think of a child. On the front of the report there is a photograph of a four cell embryo magnified I think 300 times, and it is at that point barely visible to the naked eye. Even at about the fourteenth day of development an embryo has reached the size of only a speck of dust. How anyone can equate that to a fully developed child I do not understand. I do not disagree, neither does my colleague, Senator Zakharov, with the definition of an embryo or the understanding of its potential, but an embryo does not equate with a child. For these reasons we conclude that the report deciding in terms of the Helsinki guidelines is inappropriate. Those guidelines mention volunteers, human beings, persons and subjects. None of those terms properly apply to an embryo. They properly apply to the subject-being the woman or the couple-and the ability to make choices, but they do not properly apply to embryos; nor does the description in the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines regarding therapeutic research for children who are mentally retarded or dependent in some way apply. Again, a child does not equate with an embryo. If people wonder about this further I urge them to look at our dissenting report where we elaborate those points. We submit that as those guidelines do not clearly address embryos, the best thing might be that further decisions are taken to look more specifically at rights regarding embryos, if that is how people decide they want to go. We also feel very strongly that the distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic experimentation, as in the majority report, is very vague, very confused, and I think could lead to considerable doubt about whether an experiment is non-therapeutic or therapeutic, and whether it is allowable. We conclude that we should allow the parents, the gamete donors, the woman into whose uterus the embryo will be replaced, to be the decision makers, to make decisions that parents have made over centuries regarding the development of their children, the decision to procreate or not. In so doing, and in structuring our report around this as the main focus, we avoid many of the contradictions that are inherent in the majority report. Principally, to argue that a woman may decide not to accept an embryo into her uterus, therefore guaranteeing that it will have to succumb, but not to allow her to take a decision that she might regard as responsible, given the counsel and advice of her treating doctors or other therapists that it may possibly lead to the destruction of the embryo, seems to me a very curious inconsistency. This dissenting report is not saying that one can do anything one likes with embryos. In fact, we oppose such things as cloning and experimentation with human and animal gametes. We have very little difference with the conclusions drawn by the majority report about a national body and the importance of that, but we suggest that its priority requirement once established ought to go to a clarification that the parents, the gamete donors, or the woman into whose uterus the embryo will be replaced, are the principal decision makers. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(12.27) —Lest I run out of time, I thank the other members of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 for their ability to disagree amicably. I thank the Chairman for his contribution, particularly to the final draft, when the pressure of time was great. I also thank the secretariat for their excellent work in researching and organising very complex subject matter to make it readily accessible to members of the Committee. I thank Senator Crowley for her major contribution to our dissenting report and for her contribution to today's debate. Before speaking to our dissent from the report, I would like to quote one of the recommendations of the Committee with which I am wholeheartedly in agreement, that is, that the Committee does not recommend the passage of the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. Regrettably, however, I believe that some of the conclusions of the report do not diverge sufficiently from the intentions of that Bill and appear to accept much of its underlying philosophy. I believe that that philosophy is out of step with majority community attitudes, and I will expand on that later. At this point I report that the vast majority of the correspondence and other communications I received on the Bill before the Select Committee was set up saw the Bill as an attack on the in vitro fertilisation programs and in particular on the rights of parents who wish to have children through those programs. We have addressed that question, which the report dismisses as a result of misapprehension, at some length in the dissenting report and I will not take time to discuss it here. The other fear expressed by many of my constituents, particularly women, was that legislation of this type, ostensibly to prohibit certain types of experiments on human embryos, might provide a basis or precedent for future legislation limiting the rights of women adequately to control their fertility. It was clear that some witnesses before the Committee regarded therapeutic abortion and even the use of intrauterine devices as requiring, in their value system, the same prohibitions they wished applied to human embryo experimentation. The fundamental reason for my dissent from the Committee's report is directed to the main emphasis and underlying philosophy of the whole report: It is embryo-centred rather than person-centred. Because of this priority, the report accords disproportionate rights to a group of cells-as few as four-while giving less than full rights of decision making to the potential parents of the potential child. Thus it ignores the priorities held, I believe, by the majority of our community that the born are clearly qualitatively different from the unborn; that the zygote, or early embryo, before implantation in the uterus is clearly qualitatively different from the potential human being after it has implanted in the uterus and thus gained the necessary conditions to survive and grow. As the National Health and Medical Research Council Ethics Committee has said: Historically the community has never accorded to early human embryos the degree of protection it has accorded to the later developing foetus and the still greater protection given later to the child. Further, the average woman does not grieve when menstruation may signal the demise of an ovum fertilised in the previous two weeks. She may grieve for a miscarriage, but not to the extent that she does for the death of a baby or a child, when her grief will be felt also by family and friends. So society does not accord the same respect to the early embryo as it does to the neonate, let alone the adult. I believe that in this matter some members of the Committee have given undue weight to the arguments of some theologians and groups in the community whose commitment to human rights is focused on the unborn rather than the born, and who came before the Committee under a number of different titles. This focus on the embryo has led the Committee in its report to assign the right of decision making to those with no direct relationship to the embryo. Our dissenting report recommends that the right to make decisions about the embryo rightly belongs to the mother or parents of that embryo in consultation with their doctors and/or other members of the IVF team. We say that this is what applies to embryos produced naturally, in vivo, and that there is no need to shift responsibility elsewhere just because the embryo spent a short time in a petri dish. If we say that some outside body has the right to make the decisions about the embryo in the petri dish, it is a small step in logic to say that an outside body should make decisions about the same embryo after implantation or about embryos in vivo at the same stage of development. I also hold that guardians are not required where there are responsible parents, as applies in this case. Our advocacy of the prospective parents as decision makers has implications for a number of other sections of the report and these are spelt out in our dissent. Most importantly, it has implications for any legislative or other regulation of human embryo experimentation. The majority report bases its proposals for regulation on the Helsinki guidelines, which have been referred to earlier, yet the Helsinki signatories were not considering embryos, and I do not believe that the Committee has legitimately adopted the Helsinki guidelines as a precedent for its own. The NHMRC guidelines, made much more recently and recognised by their authors as not being the final word, are much more relevant to current needs. We recommend that any national body should support the creative aspect of reproductive technology and recognise the rights of gamete donors, or parents, and/or the woman in whose uterus the embryo is placed. These conclusions we have made about decision making have implications for other aspects of the terms of reference, such as the disposition of spare embryos, but time does not permit me to discuss them here. I want briefly to refer to the matter of informed consent and the related question of the need for good counselling as part of the decision-making process. As a psychologist and an experienced counsellor I have listened with interest to criticisms of the counselling available to couples on IVF programs. I have discussed this with some of those couples, I have talked with counsellors at IVF units, and I have read their information sheets and consent forms. I believe that much of the criticism is ill-founded. Clients or patients are often in a state of aroused emotion while on the program, so it is easy to forget that they have been given realistic advice about the chances of successful pregnancy and to seek scapegoats if they are disappointed. It must be recognised that the level of counselling available, to my knowledge, is superior to that usually provided for elective surgery, for example, which also involves informed consent. IVF is a matter of choice, so consent is vital to the contract. Nobody is forced to enter an IVF program. That choice is in the hands of the prospective parents, and I believe it is denigrating them to suggest, as some witnesses have, that the couple, particularly the woman, is in some way being manipulated by the doctors and scientists. This is taking a very paternalistic or, in this context, maternalistic attitude to the couple and/or the woman. In this brief time I will obviously not be able to speak of every aspect of the dissenting report. I hope that all honourable senators will take the time to read it. I hope that the Senate and the Government will consider very critically the Committee report and its implications for IVF programs and far beyond and at the hidden agendas which may be contained in it. Those implications include research into the causes of infertility, improved contraception, and simpler solutions for infertility, including ova freezing. I have concern that the community is not yet ready to make a final decision on the implications of this new technology and is not yet aware of the possible benefits as well as the hazards. There is a danger that the Committee has given undue credence to a preponderance of socially conservative views given to it in evidence, views which I do not believe are held by the majority of the Australian community. I believe that we are at the beginning of community debate on these issues, not the end. We have found it hard in the past to remove outgrown draconian measures, such as corporal punishment for prisoners. Let us hasten slowly in this matter. I hope that both reports make a significant contribution to the community debate and sound regulation. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 7 October. SALES TAX LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1986 The Bill. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.37) —Yesterday during the debate a number of matters were raised by Senator Siddons and other honourable senators relating to the legislation before the Chair. Answers have been prepared for the convenience of honourable senators. It was asked why the Government was taxing intellectual property for the first time by this Bill. I point out that computer software, which is intellectual property, has always been subject to sales tax. When sold as part of goods it is subject to the same rate of tax as the carrying medium on which it is contained. However, when licensed separately from the carrying medium, it is argued that the software technically escapes sales tax. This Bill simply restores the sales tax position of computer software to what has always been intended. It is simply not correct to assert that this is a new tax on intellectual property. The question was raised of whether multinationals can avoid liability to the tax by transferring software by electronic means. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), when introducing the Bill, announced that its provisions did not extend to the electronic transfer of software via satellite or the domestic telephone system. This is because such transfers do not ordinarily involve a carrying medium and, as explained, the amendments are designed to restore the intended operation of the sales tax law. If no carrying medium is involved there is no `goods' on which sales tax is payable. As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, the Government is looking closely at this question and an announcement will be made as soon as the Government has completed its examination. Another question raised concerned computer software used as aids to manufacture. The information I have shows that computers used exclusively and principally to operate manufacturing equipment presently qualify for sales tax exemption. The Bill does not alter this situation. The Bill does, however, treat two processes as manufacture for sales tax purposes. They are the copying or reproduction of a computer program or the conversion of a computer program to another language, code or notation so as to embody the program in goods. To the extent that machinery is used exclusively or principally in these processes it will qualify as an aid to manufacture and be exempt from sales tax. Similarly, if computer software is used exclusively or principally as an aid to manfacture, that is, to control, the production line, it will be exempt from sales tax. Another question raised was whether goods containing computer software that are exported from Australia are subject to sales tax. I am informed that there is no, nor has there ever been any, liability to sales tax in relation to the export of goods from Australia that contain computer software. The Bill does not alter this position. Computer software developed for the export market and actually exported remains exempt from sales tax. Another question raised was whether the development of a computer program is accepted as research and development for income tax purposes. The answer provided states that the mere development of a computer program does not of itself give rise to an entitlement to the 150 per cent income tax concession for research and development. A program could satisfy the requirements of the income tax law if it could be shown to be sufficiently innovative, for example, a new computer language. The program would also have to be intended for mass distribution. If software is developed to support a particular research and development project, the cost of developing that software would also qualify for the income tax concession as ancillary to research and development expenditure. Put simply, very little computer programming would qualify as research and development for income tax purposes. It was stated during the debate that if imported master tapes are exempt from sales tax Australian manufacturers of software must be disadvantaged compared with their overseas counterparts. I am advised that imported master tapes that are to be used to produce copies for sale or licence are aids to manufacture and exempt from sales tax. Australian produced master tapes that are also to be used to produce copies for sale or licence are also aids to manufacture and therefore exempt from sales tax. Copies made from all master tapes-imported and locally produced-for sale or licence are, subject to the usual exemption, taxable. The price charged for the copies would reflect the cost of producing or acquiring the master tape. There is, therefore, no discriminatory sales tax treatment for Australian producers of software compared with their overseas counterparts. The final question raised was what goods, other than software associated with copyright, are subject to sales tax. I am informed that where sound recordings or tapes or video cassettes are sold, the value of the copyright material has always been subject to sales tax. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.42) —I thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) for his answers to our questions. My colleague Senator Vigor would like to comment on those answers in some detail shortly. Before he does so, I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that we are debating a 20 per cent impost on the computer software industry-a young, thriving, innovative industry that is just getting under way in this country. That is still our principal concern. We are amazed that the Opposition would not join us in opposing this new tax on a young and thriving industry-a tax essentially on intellectual property, as the Minister's answer indicated. We are even more amazed that the reason the Opposition gave for not joining us in blocking this sales tax on this industry was simply that it was a Budget Bill, a Budget measure. How squeamish can the Opposition get? Anything that is defined as a Budget Bill the Opposition will support. One wonders why we have a Parliament or whether we are just acting out a charade in this place. All the Government now has to do is to brand a Bill a Budget measure and it certainly will not be opposed in the Parliament. Let us contrast this attitude with that in the United States where Budgets are debated, negotiated and discussed at great length. We are to sit back in the Senate and say: `The Government has said that it is a Budget Bill, therefore it automatically passes'. We are not stopping the Government from governing. We are not doing what the Opposition did in 1975, that is, blocking Supply, blocking Appropriation Bill (No. 1) which provides for the ordinary annual services of the Government. We are not stopping the elected government in the lower House from governing. We are saying that certain taxes should be opposed. Certain unfair strategies in this Government's Budget have to be opposed if we are to avoid disastrous effects on Australian industry. The Opposition will not join us in doing so. Senator Messner —You should have thought of that when you supported the Government on the fringe benefits tax. Senator SIDDONS —Let us talk about the fringe benefits tax. How inconsistent can members of the Opposition be? They wanted us to join them in opposing outright a tax package which included such measures as billions of dollars worth of tax cuts for ordinary Australians and which reduced the top marginal rate of income tax from 60 per cent to 49 per cent. The Opposition wanted us to join it in opposing that whole tax package, the first important taxation reform in this country for 40 years, and precipitate what undoubtedly would have been a double dissolution at a time when the Opposition did not have a snowflake's hope in hell of winning. Consideration interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Finance to media reports today that the Government intends to have changes to the fringe benefits tax in place by 28 October, which is the day on which the fringe benefits tax is payable. Given that there are only 20 days until the first return and payment of fringe benefits tax are due and given that employers will not now know what their obligations are until the proposed changes to the tax are announced, how can anyone fill in his form and pay the tax by 28 October? Will the Government extend the date for the first payment of fringe benefits tax, or will taxpayers be fined for late lodgment or incorrect returns as a result of the Government's incompetence over this tax? Senator WALSH —I am very grateful to Senator Chaney for having asked this question, because it draws attention to the confusion on this issue among that rabble that calls itself the Opposition. We have that puppet who is manipulated by the ratbag Right clinging desperately by his fingernails to the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, opposed and ridiculed at every turn by the bevy of extra-parliamentary pretenders to the Liberal Party leadership, contradicted every time he issues an edict to those who are called his followers and then promptly embarrassed when they say: `Of course we will repeal the fringe benefits tax but we will tax fringe benefits in some other way'. Specifically, Mr Tuckey said that private school fees, motor vehicles and accommodation would be taxed, Mr Sinclair said that fringe benefits would be taxed under section 26 (e)-- Senator Ryan —And Mr Hunt. Senator WALSH —As Senator Ryan reminds me, Mr Hunt said the same thing. Mr Carlton, after being grilled at some length by George Negus on the Sunday television program on the weekend, refused to say anything at all. If I may pass some editorial judgment on Mr Carlton's performance, I thought it was one of the shonkiest performances I had ever seen a senior politician give on television. The truth is that this puppet of the ratbag Right who is clinging by his fingernails to the parliamentary leadership of the Liberal Party-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the Minister be careful and more moderate in his language. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. He used to say, and his colleagues say when they have an outbreak of honesty, that the Opposition intends to enforce section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. If the Opposition, should it ever become the government, is going to enforce section 26 (e), the question is: Over what period will it do so? The arguments about retrospective legislation do not apply in this case. The Opposition asserts that section 26 (e) is and always was enforceable. If that argument is to be taken at its face value there is a clear, moral and legal responsibility on the Liberal Party, should it ever become the government, to enforce section 26 (e) retrospectively over a number of years. I am sure that all the pay as you earn taxpayers in the country who might have received some fringe benefit will be delighted with the knowledge that, if Mr Howard should become Prime Minister, they will be pursued for five years, seven years or longer, issued assessments for the fringe benefits which they received and which would be assessed under section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I turn to the other point that Senator Chaney raised. It is and always has been open to the Commissioner of Taxation under the law to extend the time for payment if people affected by changes can demonstrate to the Commissioner that they have genuine difficulty in assessing their liability to pay the fringe benefits tax or, indeed, income tax. Finally, the principle and integrity of the FBT is not and never has been at risk. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister able, on behalf of the Government, to give any sensible advice to taxpayers who are faced with a first payment of fringe benefits tax on 28 October and an announcement by the Leader of the Government, Prime Minister Hawke, that there is to be a review of the fringe benefits tax between now and that time? I ask the Minister, who did not answer my question: What is the position of taxpayers? Are they still obliged to submit returns, and on what basis, given that we are told that there will be changes to the fringe benefits tax? Senator WALSH —The Government intends to complete the review process in time to announce any changes before 28 October, which is the date on which the instalment is due. But, as I told Senator Chaney before, it is open and has always been open to the Commissioner to extend the time for payment if a taxpayer has difficulty in assessing his or her liability. Senator AULICH —I refer the Minister for Education to the opening of facilities at the Launceston College of Technical and Further Education on Friday, 10 October 1986. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the Commonwealth contribution to these facilities? Is the Commonwealth providing any additional funding for facilities at the Launceston TAFE campus? Has the Minister been invited to the opening? Is there any requirement for the Tasmanian Government to issue invitations to Commonwealth representatives where Commonwealth funds are provided or are we witnessing another example of the Gray Government spending other people's money yet claiming all the credit? Senator RYAN —As Senator Aulich is probably aware, Launceston College of TAFE is the TAFE centre for north-eastern Tasmania. The Alanvale campus, built around the former matriculation college, has become the main location for trades courses as they have moved from the run-down facilities in the city. The development of TAFE at Alanvale has been carried out with both Commonwealth and State funds but the provision of a student hall of residence on the Alanvale campus has been funded solely by the Commonwealth to the tune of $1.35m. The Commonwealth is currently funding the construction of an automotive trade facility on the Alanvale campus of Launceston College of TAFE at a total cost of approximately $7m. I am sure that Senator Aulich will be pleased to hear that Alanvale is to become the State provider of specialist automotive services and heavy vehicle courses and that the availability of on-site accommodation will enable attendance at these courses by students from other areas. Major construction on this project is planned to commence in 1986. There is an agreement amongst all State governments that, where Commonwealth funds are provided for projects, the Minister, or in my absence, a senior representative, should be invited. Unfortunately, State governments do not always adhere to this agreement. However, Senator Aulich will be pleased to hear that, as a result of his representations, a late invitation has been extended to me. I hope that State governments and their authorities will abide by this agreement in the future. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Finance, relates to the fringe benefits tax. I ask the Minister: Are the unintended consequences of the fringe benefits tax referred to by the Prime Minister yesterday confined to administration, or do they extend to the reach of the Act, as was indicated in the Prime Minister's answers to questions yesterday, on invalid pensioners, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals inspectors and other examples of the tax? If the review now under way applies to the reach of the Act, on what principle will the unintended consequences be identified? Senator WALSH —I repeat that the principle and integrity of the fringe benefits tax are not at issue and never have been. Legislation could not conceivably list or even attempt to list every specific example where a fringe benefits tax may at some time or the other be applicable. Indeed, I understand that if legislation attempted exhaustively to list the circumstances under which a liability would be triggered, legally it might well be limited to that list. So there is always some scope for interpretation, if you like, and as I understand it the Prime Minister had that in mind yesterday when he made the sort of statement to which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred. But it is a question of there being at the margin some doubts or uncertainty in the minds of a number of people as to whether a particular type of benefit would be taxed and that is, as I understand it, what the Prime Minister intends to clarify. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Mr President, I have a supplementary question. For clarification, I ask the Minister whether we should anticipate that there will be a list of organisations and situations to which the fringe benefits tax will not be applied. Senator WALSH —Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle or anyone else can anticipate whatever she or he likes, but I am not going to anticipate anything until such time as the review has been completed. Senator COATES —I ask a question of Senator Walsh as both Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy. Has the Minister seen the annual report of the Tasmanian Hydro Electric Commission released last week in which it was admitted that the HEC forecast of power demand for 1986 was overstated by 18 per cent and that the growth rate of electricity usage was only about 1.5 per cent rather than the predicted 2.7 per cent? Can the Minister confirm that this Government's payments to Tasmania under the dams compensation package were based on the HEC's predictions of demand? What amount of compensation would have been necessary if the forecast had matched the outcome? Finally, can the lower usage justify the announced massive increase in HEC power charges and the advertising campaign which seems to contradict the concept of energy conservation? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, about whether the lower usage of power can justify the massive increase in HEC charges, I think it is difficult to be definitive about that but, of course, the cause of the massive increase in charges is the gross errors in the forecasting of demand which the HEC made and which this Government pointed out to Mr Gray more than three years ago. I was personally involved in a good deal of this; I remember it quite well. This Government disputed the HEC demand forecasts, and Mr Gray stubbornly and stupidly backed the HEC up to the hilt. It has now been proved that the HEC was wrong. The compensation-leaving aside the short term compensation which was paid-which the Commonwealth offered was based on the difference between the capital cost of providing 112 megawatts of power through the King and Anthony schemes, as I think the other two schemes were called, or 112 megawatts through the Gordon below Franklin dam. That was actuarially calculated as full compensation, spread out over 10 years, for the difference in that capital cost. As it turns out, with the record of the last three years, the demand forecasts of the Hydro Electric Commission, which were mindlessly accepted by Mr Gray and the Tasmanian Government, were grossly in excess of what actually occurred. Indeed, in 1985-86 the amount of power supplied averaged 950 megawatts, whereas the HEC forecast that by calendar year 1986 1,094 megawatts of energy would be consumed, which I think accounts for the percentage difference or overestimate to which Senator Coates referred. The Department of Resources and Energy in 1981 forecast an average load of 989 megawatts for 1985-86, which was subsequently revised downwards to 976 megawatts. So even the downward revision of the estimate of the Department of Resources and Energy was marginally above the actual consumption for that period, but, of course, it was vastly closer to the actual outcome than the estimate of the HEC. The HEC now concedes that after the 112-megawatt King and Anthony schemes which are now under construction, no additional capacity will be needed until at least the mid-1990s. So, in short, Tasmania has really been overcompensated by the Commonwealth Government. Notwithstanding the generosity of the fiscal treatment which Tasmania has received from the Commonwealth Government, the people of Tasmania are still faced with a very serious fiscal problem which is directly attributable to the initial errors of the Hydro Electric Commission. But of course the State Government as the government of the State-it is the government of the State, not the Hydro Electric Commission-has to accept the responsibility and ought to be made to accept the responsibility for having mindlessly, stubbornly and stupidly accepted those overestimates and for failing to heed the superior advice which was offered to it by Commonwealth authorities. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security and it relates to the Government's decision to defer consumer price index adjustments to pensions and benefits for six weeks from the 1 November due date. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of and approves of the fact that this measure will cut $53 from the income of single pensioners while pensioner couples will be $80 out of pocket two weeks before Christmas and at a time when 800,000 children are living in families below the poverty line. Furthermore, is he aware that in a recent Australian Council of Social Service survey of 11 pensioner categories all were found to be already several percentage points further below the poverty line than in March 1983, when the Hawke Government took office? Finally, in view of the Government's recent backdown on housing interest rates in the Australian Capital Territory, does the Minister agree that it would be both a matter of fairness and, even at this late stage, a matter of good political sense to reverse the decision delaying indexation increases, thereby taking that additional financial pressure off an already disadvantaged group of people? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of the fact that Senator Haines and her colleagues do not approve of that particular change made in the Budget. I am aware also that, despite their predictions, that particular change in the Budget has not been greeted with the furore and uproar that Senator Haines and her colleagues had anticipated. The figures that Senator Haines has produced-I do not have them at my fingertips-are in excess of the sorts of figures that I recall. However, I will not even go near misleading the Senate by giving my recollection; I will come back to Senator Haines with the exact details. The decision that was made was made in a budgetary context because we believed we had to reduce outlays. Several choices had to be made. Most of them I did not like but they were made in difficult circumstances in an attempt to provide equity across the board. I have not seen the ACOSS surveys that Senator Haines talked about, but as ACOSS is a body which pleads the case of pensioners and other groups that it represents, or claims to represent, I understand that of course it will produce the sorts of figures to which Senator Haines referred. I accept that that is so but the simple fact of the matter is that if Senator Haines wants us to reverse that decision, a decision which would cost, I forget- Senator Haines —A little over $100m. Senator GRIMES —Just over $100m; Senator Haines may believe that this Cabinet, this Government and this country indeed can afford to take that decision. Alternatively, if she does not believe that, if she believes in the overall Budget parameters, she should suggest to us where else we should get that money from. Senator Haines —Well, we have. Senator GRIMES —I know. The alternative of the Democrats was to blow out the Budget deficit by just over $1,000m. The simple fact of the matter is that it is the easiest thing in the world to come into this place and say that it is perfectly all right to blow out the Budget deficit by $1,000m or $2,000m, or to make statements of that type, in the absolute certainty that they will never be in the position to have to carry out those promises. The decision was made in difficult economic circumstances in a difficult budgetary situation and, in fact, most of the pensioners in this country have accepted that the burden had to be spread across all groups in the community. Senator Haines may not agree with it. I know the Democrats will make a great performance of it next week, the week after, or whenever the legislation comes in, but the simple fact is that most people in this place have to make decisions and support decisions on the grounds that they have to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. That is something the Australian Democrats do not have to do and that is why they ask questions of this type. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Has the Minister seen reports of a speech made by Mr Graham Spurling, Managing Director of Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd, to a recent forum on university and business co-operation about the importance of attracting Japanese investment to Australia? If so, does the Minister agree with Mr Spurling that it is Japanese investment in particular which holds significant export advantages for Australia, presumably through a reduction in Japan's huge $US70 billion current account surplus? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I have seen the media reports relating to Mr Spurling's remarks on Japanese investment and I endorse the thrust of what he said. In fact, the Government is actively in pursuit of investment from Japan. There is to be an investment mission next month to Japan in which I will take part. The purpose of that mission is to attract Japanese investment in export-oriented operations in Australia or to develop links between Australia and Japanese companies that can bring spin-offs for Australian companies through technology or access to world markets. The recent sharp fall in Australia's terms of trade has put more urgency into our need to develop closer links with Japan and export strengths in our own manufacturing and services sector. Firstly, the Japanese links could provide new opportunities to mesh Australian manufacturing into wider international markets. Secondly, the devaluation of the Australian dollar against the yen by more than 50 per cent in the last 18 months has provided a substantial boost to the competitiveness of Australian manufacturing industry. Thirdly, Australia in recent years has achieved an impressive record of wage moderation and has greatly improved the industrial relations climate. Combined with the depreciation and enhanced taxation and investment incentives, this record makes Australia a much more attractive prospect for world class manufacturing operations. In the latter part of Senator Maguire's question he asked me about Japanese interest in investment overseas. A study has been done for the Japanese Government-the so-called Mackawa report-which encourages Japanese investment overseas in view of the very strong situation of the yen and the Japanese economy generally. In that sense it is an opportune time for the Government to take an initiative in respect of joint ventures with Japanese companies. The mission to which I referred will comprise members and associates in seven key sectors, predominantly from the private sector. Those sectors are automotive components; processed food; telecommunications; computer software; processed minerals; biotechnology; and wool processing and wool textiles. I might say that the Government, in establishing this mission, which arose from discussions between Prime Minister Nakasone and Prime Minister Hawke, is not seeking instant successes. It is just another step in the process of upgrading the international links of Australian industry in a medium to long term strategy. It is a mission aimed at attracting worthwhile investment in Australian enterprises to enhance their competitiveness and export potential. I add that it is the intention of the Japanese Government to have a return investment mission to Australia, I think in February next year. Senator TOWNLEY —I preface my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer by saying that, in reply to a question from Senator Chaney, the Minister mentioned the word `confusion'. I have to say that it appears that many people are confused and concerned over the fringe benefits tax, including government officials. I ask: Does the Minister agree with the concern reportedly expressed by government officials that so-called administrative changes and exemptions will allow a truck to be driven through holes in the fringe benefits legislation? Senator WALSH —Just to set the record straight, I think it should be noted that the confusion to which I referred was the hopeless confusion in the ranks of the Opposition as to how it is going to get itself off this hook on which it has been impaled by the desperation of its temporary leader in struggling to protect his position from the assaults of the ratbag Right. The confusion was demonstrated by the statement on 26 September by Mr Tuckey, a member of the front bench, who confirmed that a coalition government will maintain a fringe benefits tax specifically in relation to cars, housing and education, whereas the temporary Leader of the Opposition has been running around saying that the fringe benefits tax will be repealed lock, stock and barrel. Every time he says that, either one of his own Liberal Party front benchers or one of the National Party leaders promptly contradicts him. In uncharacteristic fashion, they have had periodic outbursts of honesty and have said: `Of course fringe benefits will be taxed but we will tax them in a different way'. That is the confusion to which I referred. As to the latter part of Senator Townley's question, I refer him to the answer I gave Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle that I am not going to attempt to prejudge the outcome of the review which the Prime Minister announced yesterday. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister for Community Services aware that many nursing home patients and their families in New South Wales are concerned at their inability to pay recently increased nursing home fees in New South Wales? Has the New South Wales branch of the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Australia circularised relatives of nursing home patients on this matter? Senator GRIMES —Yes, concern has been expressed in New South Wales by patients in nursing homes and their relatives as a result of a circular letter put out by the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Australia to patients and relatives in an attempt to influence the Government's decision-making process. I might add that this is not a new phenomenon. Ministers for Social Security and more recently in my time Ministers for Community Services and for Health from all parties have been subjected to this sort of treatment by the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Australia. What has happened this year is that in New South Wales recently there were improvements in award wages and conditions provided for nurses, amongst whom are those working in nursing homes, and as a result the Department of Community Services, on looking at the situation, gave permission to the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Australia to increase its fees across the board by some $5.10 a day, I think it was, in response to a request from the private nursing homes in New South Wales. Under normal circumstances these organisations would individually apply for increases in fees to the Department, which would look at their costs and give increases to the maximum fee they can charge in the normal process of events. We did this in recognition of the fact that they had increased costs and that we would have to take into account those increased costs. In other words, we are co-opera-ting with the nursing homes. Equally, around this time every year Cabinet, of whichever party is in power, considers increases to the nursing home benefit. Normally that nursing home benefit is increased in November. On this occasion the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Australia in New South Wales sent out form letters to patients and patients' staff. Three things could be inferred from that letter. First of all it claimed that the increases in costs were the result of actions of the Department of Community Services. That is not true. They were the result of increased costs, which were outside the power of the Department of Community Services, and of applications made to us by this very organisation. Secondly, the letter implied that the Government was not going to increase the nursing home benefit in New South Wales when Cabinet is about to consider those increases now. What I object to, and what previous Ministers of both political persuasions in the past have objected to, is the tactics used by these individuals. What they are doing is trying to frighten and exploit the fears of people in nursing homes and their relatives in order to gain more funds for themselves. There are three groups of private nursing home proprietors in New South Wales and, indeed, in the whole of Australia. The first group consists of people who run good nursing homes, people who are concerned about the clients and patients for whom they care, who are out to make a living from their nursing homes-and no one can deny them that-but who would not consider exploiting their clients or patients to get such a living. The second group are in it only for the money. They are willing to do anything to gain more funds from the Government. This Government and previous governments have spent $1 billion on nursing homes in the community. The third group owns large numbers of nursing homes and has become extremely wealthy from exploiting the legislation we have in this community to cover nursing home benefits. This Government is in the process of changing the system of funding nursing homes and it will continue to do so. We are in the process of changing the percentage of people in expensive nursing homes. Some private nursing home proprietors see that as a threat and the sort of action they are indulging in at the moment is part of their reaction to that threat. I, personally, have no time for such individuals nor will I in the future. This Government will not be dissuaded from changing the system of funding nursing homes by the actions of such individuals. I consider them ghouls; I consider them to be merely out to make money at the expense of some elderly, some disadvantaged and some people in the community who do not have as much knowledge as others. Neither I nor the Government will be moved from our changes. I wish that the relatives and the people involved will recognise this campaign for what it is; it is a campaign to get more money out of the public purse in order to line the pockets of people who have done very well in an industry which has the lowest rate of bankruptcies of any industry in this community, despite the fact of its experiencing difficult economic times in the past. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. When did the Government decide to make the review of the fringe benefits tax announced yesterday? Did it result from a Cabinet decision or was it a political knee-jerk reaction of the Prime Minister on the run in Question Time yesterday? Senator WALSH —There was a ministerial meeting prior to yesterday's sitting of the House of Representatives. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Has concern been expressed by overseas students now in Australia about present increases in fees charged them and about future increases in those fees and, in particular, about their predictability? Has the Minister sympathy with the students? If so, what expression is she able to give to that sympathy? Senator RYAN —I have heard expressions of concern from overseas students and their representatives-in fact I had a meeting with them today-and I do have some sympathy with some of the matters they have raised with me. The first thing to be clear about is the extent to which the overseas student charge has been increased. Students who commenced their study in higher education this year, or will commence it next year, will move from paying 35 per cent to 45 per cent of the full average cost of their course next year. That is the rate which will also apply to new students next year. Students who commenced study prior to 1986 will pay a 15 per cent fee increase in 1987 and this will bring the charge for them to an equivalent of 32 per cent of the full average cost. This lower rate for continuing students reflects the Government's concern that students who commence their studies without knowledge of the recent overseas student charge increases should not be deterred from continuing their studies. The Government has made no further decisions about any future increases in the level of the overseas student charge. Another claim which is erroneously based is that overseas students will be liable for the higher education administration charge. This is true only in a technical sense. The overseas student charge will be reduced by $250, so in money terms the administration charge does not affect overseas students. Students have raised matters with me such as the possibility of staggering payments of the charge through the academic year instead of paying it on issue of the visa. They have also expressed their desire to have some stability and security with regard to the Government's future intentions with the charge, and I have undertaken to have discussions about both of these matters with the Government and to inform overseas students as soon as possible. Senator BROWNHILL —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the Australian Taxation Office is paying $474,000 in fringe benefits tax to itself this financial year? When the Government has professed that it wants employers to cash out employee perks, can the Minister explain why the Taxation Office has made no attempt to comply with the Government's wishes and cash out the benefits of its own staff? Senator WALSH —The Taxation Office has of the order of 16,000 employees; so even a member of the National Party of Australia should be able to work out that the fringe benefits tax liability of the Australian Taxation Office is about $30 per employee. In other words, the Taxation Office has not been rorting the tax system through the calculated conversion of what ought to be taxable as cash income into previously non-taxable and untaxed fringe benefits and perks. Around $30 per employee is the liability of the Australian Taxation Office. It is largely due to the provision of vehicles which are used by a large number of people at various times of the day and therefore it is not suitable for cashing out. Those employers who, in collaboration with their employees-let us get this perfectly clear-over a number of years, have been into tax evasion do not deal in amounts of $20 or $30; they deal in amounts of thousands of dollars per employee for benefits which are clearly identifiable as being provided to specific employees. If those employers want to avoid fringe benefits tax liability they can cash out those benefits. By and large it is not a viable proposition for the Australian Public Service to cash out fringe benefits because it has not been into tax evasion in the same way as the people who are presently complaining about the fringe benefits tax and who are cranking up the puppet, who is presently the Leader of the Opposition, promising to repeal it-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that expression. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr President. I withdraw. Senator BROWNHILL —I ask a supplementary question. Am I to take it from the Minister's answer that everyone in the Taxation Office gets a fringe benefit? Surely not every employee would get a fringe benefit to make sure that every person got $30. Senator WALSH —I think that question is too silly to deserve an answer. Senator VALLENTINE —I refer my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It concerns the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence relating to the accidental release of radiation from visiting nuclear powered or armed vessels in Australian ports and waters. Bearing in mind that between 1971 and 1976 nuclear powered warships were banned from Australian ports at the request of the McMahon Liberal Government, pending an environmental impact study-the results of which are still secret-and also bearing in mind the latest Soviet nuclear naval accident, should not the Government now impose a ban on the visits of nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships until the Senate inquiry is completed, adequate port safety plans to cope with possible accidents have been drawn up and exercises have been conducted in every Australian port likely to be visited by nuclear ships? Senator WALSH —I thought I had a note that covered the question that Senator Vallentine has just asked. If I have, I cannot find it at the moment, so I will refer that question to the Minister for Defence. Senator SANDERS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware that, under the proposal for a new woodchip export scheme based on Tasmania's southern forest concession, 8,400 hectares of rainforest on public land will be clear felled and replaced with eucalyptus, and that old growth forests in the Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd concession will be cut at a faster rate than at present? If so, can she assure the Parliament that an environmental impact statement will be carried out in accordance with the Government's commitment under clause 29 of the memorandum of understanding signed by the Federal and State governments before any woodchip export licence is granted to the consortium? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has been notified by the Tasmanian Minister for Forests, Mr Groom, of the Tasmanian Government's decision to accept a proposal by Huon Forests Products, a consortium led by Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd, for the utilisation of the southern forest resource. Mr Groom informed the Minister for Primary Industry that the project will not result in an increase in the volume of woodchips to be exported from Tasmania, as approved by the Commonwealth in December 1985. However, the Minister has not yet been able to receive full details of the project and an explanation of the way it relates to the management strategy outlined in the Tasmanian environmental impact statement. On receipt of those details an assessment will be made in accordance with clause 29 of the memorandum of understanding to determine the extent to which, if at all, the project differs significantly in environmental impact from that outlined in the environmental impact statement. Should that be the case, the proposal will be referred to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment for consideration under the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. In relation to rainforests, I remind honourable senators that the export of woodchips from pure rainforests, as defined in the memorandum of understanding, on Crown land is prohibited, pending the outcome of a State study and any Commonwealth environmental impact statement which may be necessary. Senator McKIERNAN —Has the Minister for Education seen a Press report in the Adelaide Advertiser of 3 October in which the State Leader of the Opposition, Mr Olsen, predicted that tertiary students would eventually have to meet the full cost of their studies? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether this will be the case, and do the comments by the South Australian Liberal leader show disagreement with the sentiments expressed by his Party at the National Council meeting earlier this year that a Federal Liberal government would introduce full cost fees for tertiary students? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether the South Australian Government has taken up Mr Olsen's suggestion that it should consider mounting a constitutional challenge against the reintroduction of fees? Senator RYAN —I have not paid close attention to Mr Olsen's comments as reported in the Advertiser, but it is a well known fact, particularly in this place, that the Liberal Party, at its National Council meeting earlier this year, passed a resolution endorsing the imposition of full tertiary fees for tertiary students. Whether or not its National Party colleagues are in agreement with this policy is not a matter known to us. There are so many divisions of policy between the coalition partners and, indeed, amongst Liberal Party members that I suppose it is difficult to be clear on this point. But what is clear is that the Liberal-National parties have a policy of charging full tuition fees. So the only likelihood of Mr Olsen's prediction coming true-that is, of students being charged full tuition fees-is in the event of the very unlikely possibility of the election of a Liberal government. With regard to the suggestion that there should be a constitutional challenge regarding the $250 administration charge, I assure the Senate that there is no substance to the claim that the imposition of this charge is inconsistent with the 1973 Commonwealth-State agreement. The Commonwealth-State agreement of 1973 was to the effect that the Commonwealth would take over full funding of higher education-that is, in universities and colleges of advanced education-on the condition that the institutions would not impose tuition fees. This prohibition to tertiary fees still applies. The section of the States grants Act relating to the prohibition of tuition fees will not be amended. I make it clear that the higher education charge is not a tuition fee. The $250 charge per student is a contribution that students will make to the administration costs incurred by institutions in providing to students services of a non-academic nature. I point out that my Department has received advice from the Attorney-General's Department which is in complete agreement with my position. So there is no basis to that challenge and there is no likelihood of full tuition fees being levied on Australian higher education students-except, as I said, in the very unlikely possibility of the Liberal Party being elected to government. Senator MESSNER —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the fact that if brewery workers drink free beer on their employers' premises, no fringe benefits tax is payable. Is the Minister aware that the Swan Brewery Co. Ltd in his State has decided to give a carton of beer to employees each week in an effort to prevent employees driving home after drinking at work? Can the Minister explain why the company's adoption of a socially responsible policy should transform a non-taxable work practice into a taxable fringe benefit? Senator WALSH —I know that many brewery workers have a drink. Some of my colleagues have reminded me that some people who are not brewery workers have been known to have a drink. I do not know what the tax provision was in respect of brewery workers. If Senator Messner wants an answer, I will refer the question to the Treasurer and get one. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation confirm reports that recently two domestic jet aircraft were on a collision course and nearly collided over the Great Australian Bight? Can the Minister inform the Senate what action has been taken by the Government to ensure that there is no repetition of this occurrence? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will be aware that the aviation industry in Australia has an excellent air safety record. I think it is accepted that its record has no comparison with that of any other country in the world. It is way out in front in respect of air safety standards. However, despite that, there are from time to time departures from proper standards in respect of the movement of aircraft. One such incident occurred on 28 September, when two Australian Airlines A300 Airbus aircraft passed within approximately one mile of one another while flying at the same altitude over the Great Australian Bight. Considering the speed at which such aircraft fly, that is not a very great safety margin. = It appears that one of the aircraft had requested and received permission from air traffic control staff to alter its original track to save fuel. The incident was promptly investigated by the Bureau of Air Safety and Department of Aviation staff. Instructions have now been issued to all air traffic controllers to obviate a repetition of the circumstances which led to the normal standards of separation of aircraft not being fully observed. The Department of Aviation is aware of its responsibilities and will certainly take every available step to make sure that there is no repetition of this incident. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I refer to the Government's decision to nominate stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park for World Heritage listing. I ask the Minister: Is it correct that Professor Ovington, the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, is to make a submission to the World Heritage Commission in Paris on 20 November 1986? If that is the case, would it not directly conflict with the procedures which were agreed to by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments at the July 1984 meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers? That agreement makes it absolutely clear that the Commonwealth will not take unilateral action to nominate areas for World Heritage listing without the agreement of the States or Territories concerned. Finally, given this breach in the agreement, will the Government now reconsider its decision to nominate Kakadu stage 2 for World Heritage listing and consult fully with the Northern Territory Government regarding the nomination before any further decision is taken? Senator RYAN —I do not know of any developments which suggest that the Government will reconsider its decision to nominate Kakadu stage 2 for World Heritage listing. As to the procedures by which this decision was taken and the extent to which there have been discussions with the Northern Territory Government, I will have to take those matters on notice. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. The Minister for Territories announced on Budget night that interest rates on all pre-1983 housing loans in the Australian Capital Territory would be increased to the maximum of 13.5 per cent, consistent with the Government's April 1986 housing package. Considerable public reaction to the announcement followed. On what basis does the Government justify its announcement last night that the Budget decision has been reviewed? Senator GIETZELT —On Budget night there are scores of items to which changes are made in respect of charges, expenditure and income. From time to time, many of these matters receive some public reaction. Clearly, in the Australian Capital Territory genuine concern was expressed about one of the proposals, which was to increase to the current level of 13.5 per cent, the rate on loans which had been in existence for many years. As a result of representations by Senator Ryan, Mr Langmore and Mrs Kelly, the Government reviewed that decision. That is proper. Perhaps all the factors were not available at the time the Expenditure Review Committee was examining savings under its commitment to reduce the Budget deficit. The Government has seen fit to make some changes and to accommodate public reaction. The decision not to proceed was taken because of the legal complexities involved combined with the view that the Government's adherence to the principle of not breaching contract obligations should outweigh the principle of minimising government assistance to those no longer in need. In my view the Government responded correctly to the representations that were made. The decision applies to all loans as a technical difficulty in an ordinance prevents increases in loans with variable interest rates. In response to Senator Giles, the Government has taken into account all of the difficulties that existed in this matter and has adhered to the old system rather than implementing the decision made on Budget night. Senator PETER BAUME —My question to the Minister for Community Services follows the question asked earlier today by one of his colleagues. I remind the Minister that in answer to Senator Childs he concentrated in rather unflattering terms on the revenue of nursing home proprietors while acknowledging that a series of recent awards and determinations in New South Wales had led to his Department approving extra fees of $35 weekly for 20,000 nursing home patients to cover the extra costs. Is it correct that, for these people, their pension and subsidies now fall short of charges approved by government by very large amounts, even up to $200 per week? Since many of these people have no extra sources of income and since their plight results, at least in part, from combinations of government freezes on benefits, extra costs of awards and so on and delays in pension upgrading, what action does the Minister or the Government intend to take to relieve the plight of nursing home patients? Will the Minister acknowledge the plight and helplessness in which many patients find themselves today and put this matter before his colleagues in any submission he makes to Cabinet? Senator GRIMES —I wish to correct a couple of points made by Senator Peter Baume. First, there is no freeze on nursing home benefits in New South Wales by this Government. All this fuss has arisen in New South Wales, not in Victoria or South Australia where previously there was such a freeze. Secondly, as happens all through the year, there is a percentage of people whose fees are not made up by the combination of the pension and the nursing home benefit which is payable. That always happens. In these circumstances, for a few weeks that will happen again. The delay in pension increases will have no such effect. At the moment I have before the Cabinet, as Ministers in my position have had every year for about 30 years, a submission concerning nursing home benefits. I am not willing to disclose what is in that submission but obviously in making it I would take into account the recent considerable increases in nursing home awards and hours and conditions in New South Wales. I would also take into account the fact that the percentage of people who have a gap between the nursing home benefit pension payment and the actual fee will be considerable by 1 November. Of course that would be taken into account. What I objected to in the previous answer was the tactics used by the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association in New South Wales. It is perfectly legitimate for it to lobby the Government. It is perfectly legitimate for it to lobby members of the Opposition and members of parliament generally. It is outrageous that it should send a letter to patients in nursing homes and the relatives of those patients implying that the increases were the result of actions of the Government and implying that the Government was not considering increasing the nursing home benefit for patients in New South Wales, as it has in other years. It is that sort of scare tactic and action of which I disapprove, just as I did when we were in opposition and I disapproved of it threatening the then Government that it would put patients out in the streets in litters unless the nursing home benefit increase that it desired was received. Senator McINTOSH —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware of the executions in Jakarta in late September of at least three prisoners who had been in prison for about 18 years? Is the Government further aware of reports that another seven prisoners are listed for immediate execution? Given that the Australian Government expressed its concern at the execution of four Indonesians in similar circumstances in May last year, will the Australian Government call on the Indonesian Government to reconsider plans to execute those awaiting this final sentence? Senator WALSH —I have a note on this subject which states that the Government understands that several former members of the Indonesian Communist Party have recently been or are about to be executed. The Government deeply regrets any executions that have taken place, especially in view of the fact that those concerned would already have served long periods of detention; I think 18 years was the period Senator McIntosh mentioned. The Ambassador in Jakarta has been instructed to express the Government's concern to the Indonesian Government. The Australian Government made its views on such executions known to the Indonesian Government at a high level when several similar executions took place last year, and our embassy in Jakarta recently reiterated those views. I understand further that Mamun Kusmayadi was executed in Indonesia on 12 September. He was a member of the extremist Islamic group, Jemaah Imran, which is banned in Indonesia. He had been convicted of involvement in a raid on a police station in the city of Bandung in 1981 in which three policemen were killed. It appears that his execution occurred after every avenue of appeal had been exhausted. The Government regrets that the execution was carried out; its opposition to capital punishment is well known. The Government urges that compassion prevail in the cases of any prisoners who may be awaiting execution. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —Mr President, I seek leave of the Senate to move a motion relating to the capital gains and fringe benefits taxes. Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 8 October, 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 inadequacy of the Prime Minister's undertaking to make administrative changes to the fringe benefits tax and the need for its repeal lock, stock and barrel.' 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)(3.03) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The inadequacy of the Prime Minister's undertaking to make administrative changes to the fringe benefits tax and the need for its repeal lock, stock and barrel. The need for this urgency motion has been borne out by the questions asked in Question Time today and the failure of the Government to respond to them. It was quite clear from the answers given today by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, that he is unable to give the Senate quite basic information about the present state of the fringe benefits tax and what state it will be in on 28 October. We are presently 20 days away from the first payment which is required to be made under the Government's legislation and the Minister and the Government cannot tell us what the rules will be on that date for first payment. The best that Senator Walsh seemed to be able to do today was tell the Senate what the next government of Australia, the Liberal-National party government, would do. He made a few fanciful suggestions in that regard but the fact is that he was unable to tell us what his own Government proposes and on what basis people should be submitting their returns for this onerous new tax. When this Government is defeated at the next election, as it inevitably will be, it will not be defeated so much because of the specifics of the fringe benefits tax but because of the contemptuous way that it has treated the people of Australia in so many areas, not least with respect to this tax. The sad reality is that this Government has treated with scorn and contempt anybody who has brought forward a concern about this tax and it has done that with gay abandon, whether the people coming forward be from the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the National Party of Australia, whether they are aged or infirm, whether they work for non-profit charitable organisations, and whether they are farmers or small businessmen. It does not matter who it is; this Government treats them with contempt. It was only yesterday that we saw some wavering by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the teeth of his obvious unpopularity on this issue. To this point-and we saw a repeat of it in the Senate today from Senator Walsh-we have had nothing but an abusive rejection of the very real practical difficulties which arise from this taxation measure. We can only hope that Senator Walsh is not in charge of the re-examination of the fringe benefits tax, because if he is I suspect it will be made more onerous over the next 20 days. So the people of Australia had better not wait with any great sense of hope about what the Government is doing. Again in his answers today he demonstrated his personal lack of concern for the problems of both substance and administration. He again demonstrated his contempt for the worries of the people of Australia, including those in the Opposition, small business, the residents of remote areas of Australia, those who work for non-profit organisations and so on. We bring forward this motion in an atmosphere of complete confusion about where the Government is going on this tax. Only yesterday in the Senate, when the issue was raised by the Opposition, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, painfully tried to separate the issue of administration and the issue of the principle of the tax. It is quite clear from what occurred in the other place at the same time that the Prime Minister drew no such distinction, because whilst in an answer to a question in the other place the Acting Treasurer, Mr Hurford, made the statement that there were no announcements to be made about administrative changes, and that the Government would not be withdrawing or resiling one iota from the principles of the tax, it was very clear that the Prime Minister immediately afterwards was acknowledging that the tax has an ambit which goes beyond what he is prepared to defend in the Parliament. The Prime Minister brought a new phrase into the discussion; he started talking about the unintended consequences of the legislation and about the fact that people were being caught who it was not expected or intended should be caught, and that this matter would be examined by the Government. I say quite simply to the Government that that is not a matter of administration; it is a matter of the scope of this tax and it is quite clear from the answers given yesterday in the House of Representatives that the Government is now raising doubts about the intended scope of this tax and what application it is to have in the future. This matter has been raised continuously this year. It was raised in the debate on the relevant legislation both in this place and in the House of Representatives, and all of these unintended consequences are matters which have been given a clear public airing. I suppose the failure of the Government to act until today was explained by Senator Richardson on the radio this morning when he said that governments are never really keen to admit even the possibility of an error. Of course that is what the Prime Minister did yesterday. We are yet to have an admission from the Minister at the table, the Minister for Finance, although I hope we might get something a little more gracious by way of admission of error in his contribution to the debate a little later. But let me say that it is good that some part of the Government has admitted error, albeit rather late. We have also heard continuously from Senator Walsh an attempt to throw the whole thing back on to the Opposition. I simply make the point that it is the Government which is governing this country. It might have only another year or so to do that-indeed it is quite clear that it has no more than a year or so-but for it to be claiming that the focus of attention at the moment should be on the policies of the Opposition when it made no announcement on the fringe benefits tax before the last election, had no tax policy before the last election and had nothing to guide the people of Australia, is nothing but a subterfuge and an attempt to escape the responsibilities of government. What John Howard has said about the fringe benefits tax has been said clearly and continuously since early this year. He made the point then that we would repeal the tax which was introduced by this Government, and as far as the question of abuses is concerned, the matters which Senator Walsh chooses to focus on, he said that any abuses in the tax area amounting to tax avoidance would not be permitted by a future coalition government. The detail of the way we will deal with that is a matter that we will put in our tax policy. Unlike the present Government we will not leave the people of Australia in the dark until after we have been elected to government. We will take them into our confidence, but we do not believe that that obligation is on us now. It is quite clear, as we were told in Question Time today, that at a meeting of Ministers before Question Time, clearly without consultation with officials, the Government made a decision to review the fringe benefits tax. There is clearly no knowledge within the Administration of how that is going to be undertaken. The Minister has been unable to tell us the principles which will be followed. We have no idea what the outcome will be and we have no idea of what the limits of the review will be. We have nothing but confusion. When we invited the Minister to give the taxpayers and the people of Australia some guidance today in Question Time he was unable to do so. This is the fourth time the Opposition has raised this matter by way of an urgency debate this year. We raised it first on 9 April, when we sought the abandonment of the fringe benefits tax because of its threats to jobs in the car industry and in other industries. On 30 April we put forward a modified proposal, again in the interests of protecting employment, to obtain the support of the Australian Democrats for at least some modification of the fringe benefits tax. A motion was carried by this Senate and again, of course, it was ignored by the Government. On 20 August this year in the Senate we sought the repeal and the abandonment of the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. Again, the combined weight of numbers from the Government, with its supporters in the Australian Democrats, prevented the carriage of that motion. Those motions and the debates have been brought forward time and again by the Opposition, just as we brought forward these critical issues in the debate on the legislation itself. The Government has chosen to ignore it and substantially the Australian Democrats have chosen to support the Government in its promotion of this tax. Jobs are being lost in the automotive industry, in the mines which have been closed, in small businesses and of course we have the tremendous concern of so many people not just about the administrative complexity but about the extraordinarily wide impact of this tax. The Opposition has clearly drawn the attention of the Government to the wider community application of this legislation and to the sorts of tax rorts which the Government tries to focus on in its debate. That is all we ever hear from Senator Walsh. I draw his attention to the debate in the Senate on the Bill itself, to the amendments moved by Senator Peter Baume in particular which sought to exempt some of those non-business activities which occur in Australia and which will be taxed, and to the opposition which he and his colleagues gave to those exemptions being made. That is important to note because it is as a result of this Government's resistance to the facts which were put before it that the tax is now being applied to such non-profit organisations as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the sporting clubs, the National Trust, the schools which are run by so many voluntary organisations and non-profit organisations, and so on. There are cases of extraordinary personal hardship which this tax imposes. That issue was put before the Prime Minister in a question yesterday and he had the gall to suggest that it was a matter which had come to his attention only over the previous days. What Mrs Sullivan, ex-Senator Martin from this place, drew to the Prime Minister's attention in the House of Representatives yesterday was that even quadriplegics and others suffering the after-effects of strokes, as well as people who are too old to look after themselves, and who have people living in with them to prevent their being institutionalised, would be forced to pay a tax to the Commonwealth because of those arrangements. The Prime Minister's reply is one which is fascinating but which simply cannot be believed. He said that these were matters which had been brought to his attention in the last few days. He went on to say that these were not the sorts of situations that the fringe benefits tax was intended to encompass. I am sure that you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and every other senator in this place, know of examples of that sort and have known about them for months. I would be very surprised if you yourself had not drawn these matters to the attention of your colleagues and sought their guidance on what might be done about it. There was at least one very notorious case that received a great deal of publicity in our State of Western Australia. I draw attention to the case of pensioner Margaret Plozza, a woman of 78 years of age who is crippled but determined to keep herself out of an institution. She has somebody living in who is receiving some payment and also receiving bed and meals as part of the deal for looking after Mrs Plozza and preventing her from being institutionalised. We heard the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) saying today that the Government was deeply concerned about the cost of institutions and the cost of nursing homes and anxious to prevent people from having to enter nursing homes. Yet when Mrs Plozza's case was taken up by an ex-service organisation and guidance was sought, the advice-this was widely publicised in the media in Western Australia-was that she would have to pay the tax because it was an employer-employee relationship and a fringe benefit was being supplied. This woman of 78 years of age is trying to keep herself out of an institution by having somebody live in for a reward. The value of that person's bed and meals is the subject of a taxation assessment which Mrs Plozza will have to pay. That is an example which came forward in September, and the Prime Minister tells us that this is news which has come to him over recent days. I refer to the correspondence which so many of us have had with senior Ministers in this Government about these sorts of issues. I quote from the correspondence that was produced in the House of Representatives yesterday by Mr Peter Coleman, who wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 5 June this year on behalf of a quadriplegic who needed frequent assistance and who had a live-in being paid a post-tax wage of $140 a week and who was provided with a rent-free room and two free meals each day. That specific example was just one of many drawn to the attention of the Government. Yet in those circumstances we find the Prime Minister saying that all this has emerged only in the last few days and that these matters were not meant to be caught by the tax. The response, which is instructive, received from the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) and addressed to Mr Peter Coleman, stated in part: The Government received a number of representations seeking exemption from the tax. However, after very carefully considering them, it decided that for reasons of equity it would not widen the field of exemption beyond that announced on 19 September 1985 for religious institutions. Even that single exemption was very tightly drafted in the Bill introduced into the Parliament. I have put some of the very limited time I have to debate this motion into the question of how individuals are being affected by the fringe benefits tax. The whole tenor of the endless debates we have had in this place has been for the Government simply to talk about this being a matter of tax rorts when in fact there is a whole range of Australians who are in the Mrs Plozza category, in the category of the quadriplegic whose case was taken up by Mr Coleman, in the category of the RSPCA whose concerns have been raised in the Parliament, in the category of the schools whose concerns have been raised in the Parliament, and who are not engaged in any form of tax rort but who are being subjected to highly punitive new taxation by this Government. The concern of this Opposition is that we have a tax the scope of which is absolutely absurd. We believe that it is not a reparable situation. To suggest that in some way this tax is principled is to turn the word principled upon its head. This tax represents a gutless government's attempt to escape the odium of collecting fringe benefits tax in any other way than lumbering it on to employers and organisations which it thought would not have the electoral clout to resist a new and punishing degree of taxation. The fact that there are problems with this tax has been raised loudly and by many. It has been raised by us in Parliament; it has been raised outside the Parliament by many people, including the Leader of the Government in the Senate. When we get the Minister for Finance standing up in five minutes time and in his usual abusive way claiming that anyone who objects to the fringe benefits tax is in some way engaging in tax rorts, I will remind him that Senator Button, who bustled from this place a few minutes ago, himself described the paper work and the technicalities as being beyond him and as being horrifying. We have a series of Labor leaders who have used words which I would not be prepared to use in this place in describing this tax. Yet, in five minutes time we will have Senator Walsh telling us that the only reason to object to this tax is if one is trying to protect people who are up to tax rorts. There is nothing more absurd than the way this debate has been conducted in the Senate, and there is no person who has been more absurd in his contribution than Senator Walsh. In finalising my comments on why I believe that this Government is in low odour because of its abusiveness, I remind the Senate of the fact that when Labor Premier Burke of Western Australia raised objections to the tax, Senator Walsh said: However, annoying though it may be that some members of the Western Australian Government are suckers for sob stories from habitual tax evaders who want to continue their tax evading habits . . . I quote that merely to show the tone of the debate in this place about the fringe benefits tax. We object to the tax both in principle and because of the clumsiness and weight of its administration. The reasons in principle were outlined by John Howard again yesterday. He referred to the unbelievable complexity of the legislation and to the fact that there are 139 pages of legislation, 35 pages of definition in the legislation, 176 pages of explanatory memorandums, two booklets of 69 pages, 14 rulings of 115 pages and so on. In the context of the Government's commitment to simplify the tax system this tax is an absurdity. Another thing that is wrong with the tax is that it involves the principle of obliging people to bear the tax obligations of others. That clearly makes it wrong. It is clearly a tax which discriminates against the remote areas of Australia. Senator Walsh and the Government should be prepared to admit that the considerations which apply to the remote areas of Australia, including the remote areas of Senator Walsh's home State of Western Australia, produce provisions for employees which can in no way be regarded as tax rorts or tax minimisation arrangements. Finally, the objection in principle that we have to this tax is that it is a clear and obvious fetter on the productive sectors of the community when we should be encouraging economic growth. This tax, in the words of so many people who are in government, both from the Labor and Liberal side and people who are in administration and business, is cumbersome in its administration. It is inducing a contempt for the law. It is a bad tax because it is so administratively complex. On administrative grounds alone it should be repealed. In our view this is not the time to be tinkering at the edges. This is the time to be throwing out this tax-lock, stock and barrel. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.22) —Pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 26 standing in the name of Senator Button, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Government (Senator Button) moving an amendment to the motion. I understand that the custom is that `Senator Button' be read as anybody who is representing the Government at the time. The reason that I have moved the suspension of Standing Orders pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 26 is so that I can move the following amendment: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to tax fringe benefits because fairness demands that employees who are paid solely in cash, and most Australians are, should not be asked to pay more tax and thus effectively subsidise those whose income is obtained partly in cash and partly in the form of valuable benefits of other kinds. That is a quotation from a statement made by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Senator Chaney —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. What purports to be an amendment being moved by the Minister for Finance is not an amendment at all. It is the substitution of a totally fresh motion for the motion which is before us. It has no relevance to the motion before us and should, therefore, be ruled out of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —I ask Senator Walsh to let me have a copy of the amendment. When Senator Walsh read it I thought that it was not applicable to the motion, but I am prepared to examine it. Having examined it, I see the amendment as being entirely the opposite of the motion which has been put before the Senate as a matter of urgency. That motion reads: The inadequacy of the Prime Minister's undertaking to make administrative changes to the fringe benefits tax and the need for its repeal lock, stock and barrel. That does not provide room for your amendment, Senator Walsh. I suggest that if you wish to move an amendment of any sort it would at least have to be compatible with the motion that is before the Chair. Your amendment is not accepted by the Chair as being an amendment to the matter of urgency that has been put forward by the Opposition. I will hear you speak to the matter of urgency that has been put forward but I am afraid that I cannot accept your amendment as an amendment to the motion before us. Senator WALSH —Very well, Madam Acting Deputy President. I will not canvass your ruling. However, the point is being made that it has exposed the humbug and hypocrisy of the Opposition that on a technicality it has been able to avoid repudiating its own Leader- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On a technicality, Senator Walsh: You moved a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. That motion is still before the Chair. It will have to be disposed of before you continue your remarks. Senator WALSH —Madam Acting Deputy President, I thought you had ruled the motion out of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, I ruled your proposed amendment out of order. Senator WALSH —If you are ruling my amendment out of order, Madam Acting Deputy President, there is no purpose in proceeding with the motion to suspend Standing Orders, so I withdraw it. Motion withdrawn. Senator WALSH —The point has been made that on a technicality Opposition members have been able to escape repudiating their own Leader by voting for an amendment which would have become the motion and which they all know is true. They all know that John Howard said in 1980 that it is absolutely unfair, unconscionable and intolerable that a minority of Australians should be able to avoid taxation by taking some of their income in cash and some in kind, thereby forcing all other Australians to pay more tax than they would otherwise have to pay. The motion moved by Senator Chaney says essentially that yesterday's statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is inadequate. The only undertaking that would satisfy the ratbag Right and its captives in the Parliamentary Liberal Party is one which would open up the tax system to massive rorting of the type which ran wild when John Howard was Treasurer of Australia. One of the leaders of the ratbag Right, or New Right-I refer to Mr Hay-delivered his ultimatum in the first week in August. In response to questions asking whether he or his organisation was asking that the fringe benefits tax be modified, amended or improved administratively in some way or another, he said: `We want it abolished. We will settle for nothing less'. I note that the same gentleman now wants the Department of Communications abolished. I am not sure whether he wants to replace it with a department of propaganda and public enlightenment. In 1980 Mr Howard laid the principle on the line when he said that it is unconscionable that some Australians should have to pay more tax than they would otherwise have to pay because other Australians escape tax through the device of taking some of their income in cash and some in kind. What Mr Howard said when he was door-stopped yesterday was the absolute reverse. He said that the principle of taxing fringe benefits is wrong. He has succumbed to the ultimatum issued by the New Right in the first week in August. Only last week Mr Powell, the executive director, I think his title is, of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures-not the secretary of some trade union which is seen as being extremist or left wing, or even a member of the Australian Labor Party, but the executive director of the Chamber of Manufactures-described the New Right as having fascist tendencies. Of course, he is absolutely right. It does have fascist tendencies. The theme which the New Right has been playing up and down Australia for the last six or nine months is that the parliamentary system and the parliamentary parties have failed. The theme is that the parliamentary system has failed Australia and that issues have to be settled by protests and demonstrations. That is undoubtedly a fascist approach to the resolution of political problems and political conflict, and I entirely endorse Mr Powell's comments. Senator Chaney repeated something, which I must say is becoming tiresome, from the group which has succumbed to the ultimatum of the New Right and which, because it has succumbed to that ultimatum, seeks to perpetuate abuses of the taxation law. He referred to the alleged effects on the motor vehicle industry. The alleged effects on the motor vehicle industry are grossly exaggerated, but I will overlook that for the time being. Let us delve a bit deeper into this question. If motor vehicle sales were to be lower because the provision of a motor vehicle was no longer a mechanism for evading income tax it would mean that significant numbers of motor vehicles have been sold even though there was no functional, economic need for them. They would have been sold not because there was a functional, economic need for them but because their provision was a mechanism for evading taxation. Taking the assumptions of the critics of the tax at their face value, because of that Australia's scarce capital would have been misdirected away from productive investment, which would have led to self-sustaining, economic growth, into tax havens which just fostered unnecessary consumption. To the extent that their argument is valid, it is a powerful argument, on the grounds of economic efficiency, resource allocation and investment allocation, for doing precisely what this Government is doing. (Quorum formed) To the extent that that argument is true and that the taxing of perks has led to a decline in motor vehicle sales, what is really being said is that, because of the existence of a tax loophole and a tax haven, motor vehicle sales were being maintained at a level above that for which there was any functional, economic need. In other words, scarce capital investment was being misdirected into areas where there was no economic purpose in the investment other than tax evasion. Of course, that is one of the things that have been wrong with this country for a very long time. Under a succession of irresponsible coalition governments the fundamentals of the Australian economy have been allowed to drift, and drift into trouble. The last Liberal Government was elected with an unemployment level of around 160,000, inflation in double figures and growth at a very low level. It was in office for seven years and when it left office unemployment was around 650,000, growth was negative and inflation was still at 10 per cent. In the meantime, the structure of the Australian economy had deteriorated very significantly because of the sorts of investment policies which the then Government followed and because, as a substitute for having any effective wages policy, it deliberately maintained an overvalued Australian dollar. This Government had turned the economy around from that trough into which John Howard, as Treasurer, had taken it. In the last 12 months or so we have had a massive turn-around in the terms of trade which has given us severe problems with our external account. The Opposition's answer to that problem is to bring back the free boozy lunch, to pay pensions to millionaires and to continue to provide tax free perks. That is the Opposition's answer to the economic problems which now confront Australia because of a combination of decades of coalition Government neglect and a recent very sharp and adverse deterioration in our terms of trade. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is clinging precariously by his fingernails to the leadership of the Opposition. Of course, it is a matter of common knowledge that the plots are again being hatched in the parliamentary Liberal Party for a challenge and a replacement for Mr Howard before the end of the 1986 calendar year. Senator Michael Baume —Rubbish. Senator WALSH —It is not what the honourable senator's friends tell me. I will come back to that in a minute. Perhaps he is not a friend of the honourable senator. It is certainly not what some of the honourable senator's colleagues are saying. Some of his colleagues are confidently predicting that there will be a successful challenge to Howard's leadership before the end of the year and, quite frankly, I believe them. Clinging precariously by his fingernails to the leadership of the Liberal Party against the subversion from within and without by that bevy of extra-parliamentary pretenders to the Liberal Party leadership, the present Leader of the Opposition as an act of desperation has succumbed to the ultimatums of the extreme Right. He repudiated his own clearly and lucidly expressed statement of principle in 1980 that fringe benefits had to be taxed when he said yesterday that the principle of it was wrong. Meanwhile, when in a desperate attempt to hang on to his leadership, he has been succumbing to the ultimatums from the extreme Right, he is being undermined and contradicted by a wide variety of his own front benchers-probably most spectacularly of all by the honourable member for O'Connor, Mr Tuckey. Mr Tuckey was reported in the West Australian newspaper on 27 September-he has been reported in a number of other newspapers but I think the West Australian report is probably the most concise-as follows: Federal Opposition front bencher Wilson Tuckey has confirmed that a coalition government will maintain a fringe benefits tax specifically in relation to cars, housing and education. What Mr Tuckey was doing there was throwing down the gauntlet to John Howard. It was not a rash, off the top of the head or off the cuff comment; it was a premeditated and calculated repudiation of the present Leader of the Liberal Party. It is a well-known fact that Mr Tuckey would like Mr Peacock back in that job. It was a piece of premeditated treachery. I leave the National Party leaders out of it at this time; I am not sure whether they want to replace Mr Howard with Mr Peacock or whether they want somebody quite different, although I would be surprised if they wanted the present Premier of Queensland to come here to take over their job. That will certainly not happen. Senator Maguire —Ian McLachlan. Senator WALSH —They probably want Ian McLachlan. Mr Howard, having been contradicted by Wilson Tuckey, Mr Sinclair and Mr Hunt, on 30 September said on the AM program: Look, I'm not going to get drawn into speculating as to what impact legislation that exists at the present time would have on those individual items. I mean, I've said all along that the entire tax goes and as far as I am concerned any abuses that involve tax avoidance are going to be dealt with. And I'm not going to be drawn into giving a running commentary like a tax lawyer or an accountant, on every individual item that somebody might bowl up to me. In other words, he wants to have it both ways. He was then almost immediately stabbed in the back again, this time by the Liberal Party State Leader in Queensland, Sir William Knox, who said: As far as housing and perks for executives are concerned, the tax Act for years has had a provision that that must be quantified and is taxable. If we want some clarification let us go to the shadow Treasurer, Mr Carlton. On the most recent Sunday program Mr Carlton said: We-- that is the Liberal Party if in government-- would take action where necessary against abuses. He was asked by the interviewer: How are you going to take action against the abuses without taxing fringe benefits? That drew this enlightening reply: Well, we'll say exactly how we'll do that when we announce our tax policy and it's a relatively simple matter-- mark those words-- and the only reason why there's been a great kerfuffle over it is because Keating tries to-- He was interrupted by the interviewer, who said: Well if it is relatively simple why don't you tell us? That drew this enlightening reply: Well that's what we've said. We said we will knock out the fringe benefits tax that Keating introduced . . . And so he went on. Then the interviewer, George Negus, asked: What kind of action? Mr Carlton said: We'll indicate that when we publish our tax policy. Mr Negus asked: Will it be a tax? Mr Carlton replied: And we'll say exactly what it is then George. Mr Negus asked: Will it be a tax? Mr Carlton said: I'm not prepared to go into it any more at this stage. As if that was not sufficiently obfuscatory, later in the interview Mr Negus said: I'll try once more-under a Howard-led National/Liberal Party federal government in Australia at whatever time would there be a tax on fringe benefits? I would have thought one could not get a question much more direct or exhaustive than that. Mr Carlton said: We will indicate at the time we publish our tax policy how we will handle abuses under the fringe benefits tax. Right at this moment the big problem is what's happening with the Government's fringe benefits tax. Mr Negus asked: Let me ask you this, do you agree that fringe benefits are perks? Mr Carlton gave this evasive reply: . . . how do you define a perk? Mr Negus did it for him. This was an example of a television compere doing the shadow Treasurer's job for him. Mr Negus defined perks as: Company cars, company houses, companies paying their kids education fees, interest-free loans, holiday travel-are they perks? Are they fringe benefits and should they be taxed? Mr Carlton said: We're wasting very good television time George because I'm simply not going to go down this line saying precisely how we will tackle the abuses in the fringe benefits area. On and on the obfuscation went. There are only two possible conclusions from that. The first one is that a Liberal Party led by John Howard-I say a Liberal Party advisedly because no Liberal Party in government will be led by John Howard; if a Liberal Party should be elected to government at any time in the future it will be after it has got rid of John Howard, which is likely to be before the end of this year-is likely to continue to knuckle under to the demands of the ratbag Right and to open up the income tax system to the sort of erosion of its base, the rorting and ramping which was prevalent in the time when John Howard was Treasurer, or it will enforce section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act as the National Party Leader and Deputy Leader said it would do, having of course also contradicted Mr Howard. That begs these questions: If section 26 (e) can be enforced why did John Howard not enforce it when he was Treasurer? Senator Watson —Why do you not enforce it? Senator WALSH —Because we do not believe it can be effectively done. I thought even Senator Watson would have picked up that piece of intelligence by now. We do not believe that it is administratively feasible to clean up this taxation racket, this erosion of the tax base through the conversion of income from payments in cash to payments in kind, through the section 26 (e) route. But the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party say it can be done in that way. Unless Mr Howard is going to succumb completely to the demands of the ratbag Right-and if this Government's legislation were repealed-that is the only route left open. That begs a question which I know the Opposition does not like being asked and which it will be asked a lot more. (Quorum formed) Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.48) —The Australian Democrats agree on the need for administrative changes to the fringe benefits tax but we are not prepared to accept the motion before us in its present form. It states that the tax should be repealed lock, stock and barrel. There is a need for a fringe benefits tax, although a simplified one. As we have a contingent notice of motion on the Notice Paper, during my remarks I will move to delete the last part of the motion before us. The Liberals have carefully refused to say how they will raise the money necessary to implement some of the important parts of their tax reform package and at the same time repeal the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. They have refused to say where the money will come from. The fact of the matter is that the fringe benefits tax is designed to raise $350m. If the Liberals are to have any credibility at all, I think it is absolutely essential that they should tell this Parliament where they are going to get that $350m, assuming that they repeal the fringe benefits tax lock, stock and barrel. They have not done that and until they do they will have no credibility. When the whole package was being debated we were repeatedly asked by the Opposition to join with it to block the tax package. To have done that would have precipitated a double dissolution at a time when the Liberals had no hope whatsoever of winning an election. Senator Watson —You wanted it. Senator SIDDONS —Senator Watson can have his go when it is his turn. He should let others speak without interruption. If we had joined with the Opposition and blocked the whole tax package, there would have been a double dissolution which the Liberal Party and the National Party would have had no hope of succeeding. Even more importantly, it would have blocked very important tax reforms, such as the lowering of the top marginal rate from 60 per cent down to 49 per cent, and it would have stopped the imputation of company dividends. These are important reforms and the Liberal Party has not given any indication of how it proposes to implement such reforms-reforms it admits the country needs-and at the same time not raise additional revenue. The fact is that the Liberals are playing politics, as was very clearly demonstrated with Senator Messner's leaked memo on 16 September. I quote again from his memo: There is considerable concern amongst Liberal Senators that the Coalition may oppose the capital gains tax and defeat the Government. This would provide an issue from which a double dissolution may ensue. This is perceived to benefit the Democrats. He went on to say that if this were to happen, some Liberals would vote to support the capital gains tax rather than to allow that danger to occur. It is there in black and white and Senator Messner has never denied that he wrote those words. The Liberals were not prepared at that time to face up to a double dissolution. They were not prepared to do so then and they are not prepared to do so now. We are currently debating some amendments to the Budget legislation which could give the Government grounds to call a double dissolution if it wanted to. The Opposition is not prepared to join us in amending Budget legislation which even it admits will have a disastrous effect on the fruit growers and wine growers in the Murray Valley and on the computer software industry. The Democrats agree with the need for administrative changes. I made that very clear in a speech way back on 16 September. I think I was the first parliamentarian to raise the need for a different approach to the fringe benefits tax. I quote from what I said in Hansard on 16 September: . . . I wish to deal with fringe benefits. It has been proposed that the responsibility for taxing fringe benefits should rest with the employer rather than the employee or the individual. In equity we believe that this has no basis whatsoever. It is the employee-the individual-who is enjoying the benefit. Surely he is the one who should accept the responsibility for ensuring that the tax allowance of fringe benefit is shown accurately in his tax return. I said that on 16 September last year. I got no support at the time from the Liberal Party or big business and we then had to go in to bat alone. Seven Democrats had to go in and negotiate with the Government to try to reduce the worst aspects of the whole tax package. Senator Watson —Come on! Senator SIDDONS —I have yet to hear any sense from Senator Watson in this place at any time whatsoever. Will he let someone proceed who is trying to be constructive? Seven Democrats did what they could, and we had considerable success. We saved the car industry $200m in fringe benefits tax-a not inconsiderable amount of money. We forced the Government to reverse the quarantining of farm losses. We forced it to take note of goodwill in small businesses. We removed some of the restrictions on employee share ownership, and we could have gone further if we had had some support from the Opposition. In fact, we were successful in negotiating 16 amendments on the capital gains tax and we saved $200m on the fringe benefits tax on motor cars. The industry at least was good enough to write and thank us very much for our efforts and to say that we probably saved 20,000 jobs in the car industry. We succeeded where Senator Button had failed three times in three separate submissions to the Cabinet on exactly the same issue. How can we simplify the fringe benefits tax? After all, that is the issue before us. We could not push the fringe benefits tax too far at the time but we did try to get the Government to agree to a flat rate of fringe benefits tax on cars. It was not prepared to change the major thrust of its legislation at that time, so we were unable to push it. Frankly, a flat tax suffers from the very serious disadvantage that it would favour expensive cars not being used for business. It would not stop the rort we see in so many suburban areas today where the newly married glamorous young wife does her daily shopping in a Mercedes Benz 460 SEL at her fellow taxpayers' expense. There is a way that the fringe benefits tax could be greatly simplified and, in an effort to be constructive, in the few minutes that I have available to me I want to outline how that could be done. There are only two elements that need to be established. One is the annualised cost of the vehicle. Any business keeps records of the costs of running a vehicle-expenditure on petrol, oil, servicing and depreciation-so the annualised costs of running a vehicle is well known. The Australian Taxation Office has always had a formula for business use. For instance, in the opinion of the Taxation Office, a travelling salesman has 90 per cent business use, a taxi driver has 100 per cent business use, and a small businessman generally has 70 per cent business use. Senator Coates —In some cases it is open to exaggeration. Senator SIDDONS —That is the formula the Taxation Office currently uses. We are not breaking any new ground there. All that would have to be done to simplify the fringe benefits tax on motor cars would be to take the annual cost as recorded by the business and multiply that by the usage the Taxation Office lays down-70 per cent, 50 per cent and so on, depending on the type of business. That multiple would give the expense that should be allowed for a tax deduction. Senator Coates —It could be unfair both ways. Senator SIDDONS —Think about it. It would be a very much simpler approach. If the business wanted to use the log book because it thought the percentage the Taxation Office applied was unfair, it could do that to prove that it was using a motor vehicle for a greater percentage of business use than the Taxation Office was allowing. There has been comment, and the Democrats agree with it, that there should be a threshold for fringe benefits. There is a threshold for taxation and there could clearly be a threshold for fringe benefits. That would get away from some of the more obvious abuses that relate to country areas where casual labour is taxed for fringe benefits and so forth. If there were a threshold of, say $1,000 per annum, that would simplify the matter quite considerably. The Opposition has stuck to the ridiculous position that it wants the goodies, such as imputation and tax cuts, but it is implacably opposed to the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. It should be called the `have your cake and eat it too party'. It has not been helpful in this whole tax debate and it is not being particularly helpful today when it simply says that we should repeal the fringe benefits legislation lock, stock and barrel, without giving any constructive alternatives as to what should be done. I refer now to our contingent notice of motion No. 24 and I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) moving an amendment to the motion. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sanders, N. K. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Haines, J. Tate, M. C. Harradine, B. Vigor, D. B. Jones, G. N. Walsh, P. A. McClelland, Douglas Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M. Baume, Michael Parer, W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G. Boswell, R. L. D. Reid, M. E. Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Short, J. R. Chaney, F. M. Teague, B. C. Collard, S. J. Townley, M. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. MacGibbon, D. J. Evans, Gareth Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. Hill, R. Colston, M. A. Jessop, D. S. Devlin, R. Knowles, S. C. Button, J. N. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(4.06) —At the request of Senator Haines, I move: Leave out all words after `tax'. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.07) —Today I rise to support the Opposition's matter of urgency which reads: The inadequacy of the Prime Minister's undertaking to make administrative changes to the fringe benefits tax and the need for its repeal lock stock and barrel. I recall my words when the fringe benefits tax legislation was introduced into the Senate in May this year. At that time I said that the history of tax legislation was a fascinating study in how governments could operate at their inefficient worst. Four months on that situation has not changed for the better. In fact if it is possible it has become even more of a nightmare. People expect governments to govern and the tax reform package of which the FBT was a part took years of expensive contemplation and negotiation. It culminated in the National Taxation Summit supposedly involving the Government's best experts. Admittedly, the tax summit started as an on-the-run policy, a decision of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who, at the time, neglected to tell the Treasurer (Mr Keating) what he was doing. Obviously things do not change with the times. Nevertheless the tax package was sold to the Australian community as a definite revamp of the taxation system. The Opposition agreed that the tax system in Australia was long overdue for reform, and it still believes this. However, when the Government determines one policy one week and changes its mind about it the next, one cannot blame the Opposition and the community at large for becoming cynical and jaundiced about the whole thing. How does the Government justify this change of heart? It pretends that it was not aware of the anomalies it has just discovered might exist in the application of the fringe benefits tax. The Government cannot possibly claim, as the Prime Minister tried yesterday in the other place, that it was unaware that the fringe benefits tax would hit innocent, unintended victims. The Opposition has brought this matter to the attention of the Parliament, the Government and the people time and again. As Senator Chaney said, the Opposition brought it to the attention of the Parliament some four times. The Prime Minister and the clock collector would have had to do nothing but read the Hansards when the legislation was being debated both in the Senate and in the other chamber to know the flaws in the legislation and the Opposition's total rejection of it. The Government was warned that charities such as the National Trust of Australia would be adversely affected. The Government was warned that organisations such as the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would be liable to pay fringe benefits tax. The Government was warned that safety awards given to employees to encourage safety in the work place would be taxed; that presbyteries and manses would be deemed fringe benefits and taxed; that sporting clubs would be liable for the fringe benefits tax on non-cash prizes; that schools would be liable for the fringe benefits tax on housing for residential staff; that Defence Force personnel would be unfairly hit. The list could go on, as did the debate. Opposition speaker after Opposition speaker, both here and in the other place, tried to tell this Government what a mess it was creating. I could cite statistic after statistic detailing the people who are being affected, but it seems that this Government does not give a damn about them. It knows who will be hit and it has done nothing about it. The Government was aware of specific cases of elderly, crippled, house-bound invalids who had live-in help for whom they were now liable to pay tax. It knew about them and other similar cases where live-in help was required. What was its answer? I quote from a letter from the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Chris Hurford: . . . The Government had received a number of representations seeking exemption from the tax, but for reasons of equity, would not widen the field of exemption beyond that for religious institutions. That is how much the Government really cares about who it hurts and how it hurts. Are the crippled, housebound elderly the tax rorters that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, keeps telling us about? What about remote area workers such as miners and farmers, whose children might get sick suddenly? If the company doctor treats the child, that service becomes a fringe benefit. Is that a rort or a rip-off? If it is not, why is it deemed to be a fringe benefit? What about employers who send their staff home by taxi if they work late at night? They are liable for the fringe benefits tax. What about the farmer in northern New South Wales who lives 40 miles out of town? He has a cottage in which a pensioner lives rent free. By any standards the cottage is uninhabitable-any standards, that is, except those of the Australian Taxation Office, which has recently determined that the farmer who owns the cottage is liable to pay fringe benefits tax. Are these the fat, cigar smoking tax rorters who sit in their gold-plated offices for whom this Government would have us believe the fringe benefits tax was designed? If the Government has been unable or unwilling to see the true effects of FBT, one wonders why it bothered to retain so many experts, both on its personal staff and in its departments, to look at the anomalies such as those I have just mentioned. The Opposition tried to tell the Government what damage it would do to business. It tried to explain that the administration of the fringe benefits tax on cars would be horrendous; that people would spend innumerable hours trying to calculate their business and private expenses. We now have a tax that applies to cars used for business purposes. We were told that the tax on company cars was to stop the rip-off of the tax system. Has the Government considered how motor dealers will afford to pay the fringe benefits tax on cars that are taken home by their staff? One small motor dealer near my home town employs one salesman. For the past two years, with the rural slump, the yard has made no profit, but because this salesman takes home a car the motor dealer will be liable for about $1,200 a year in additional tax. That dealer has only one salesman and he does not sell expensive cars-the type that the Treasurer has recently bought. Let us consider this example: A businessman travels overseas on business. He gets his wife to drive him to the airport in the car provided by the company. She then returns home and the car sits in the garage until he returns. That becomes a fringe benefit. But if the same businessman drives his car to work, parks it in the company car park and catches a taxi to the airport, his employer is not liable for the tax on the car because it is sitting in the car park and not in the employee's garage. That is how petty this legislation is, and that is why only its total abolition will suffice. People in industry and taxation accountants have tried, as we all have, to tell the Government about the problems. But still Government members do not listen-no, not them. Why should they? They believe their own hype machine that the Prime Minister is `charisma plus'. Old `Silver'! They believe that Australia has the world's so-called best Treasurer-- Senator Siddons —Heigh ho Silver! Senator BROWNHILL —Heigh ho! He is riding the rest of us into the ground. The Opposition was told we were creating unnecessary fear and panic in the community when we raised this issue previously; that the fringe benefits tax was not difficult to calculate and only tax rorters would be affected; that by protesting against the fringe benefits tax we were protecting tax cheats and frauds. The problem for the Government is that it could not really decide what it wanted in regard to the fringe benefits tax. Did it want to raise more money? Was it trying to make a serious attempt at revenue redistribution? Did it believe that massive tax evasion and rorts had been taking place? That would seem to be one of the fundamental dilemmas for the Government. It seems that the Government could not, and still cannot, decide what the fringe benefits tax will do for the community. For example, during the fringe benefits tax debate which took place in this chamber in June, a Government senator told us that the tax was an attempt to redistribute the tax burden among those people who have to pay tax. The original estimates in regard to the FBT were that it would raise $320m in 1986-87. But as recently as this morning, on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program, we heard Senator Richardson claim that the fringe benefits tax would raise $700m, the implication being that that made it a good thing. It is a pity that the rest of his Party cannot see things as clearly as he obviously does. For example, we all heard Senator Button's honest confession last week that the administration of FBT was horrifying. On Monday the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party in Queensland, Tom Burns, called it `sheer stupidity' and `administrative bull' expletive deleted. The Victorian Premier, John Cain, said in August that there were some difficulties with the administration of the tax. In August New South Wales Premier Unsworth called it an `administrative nightmare'. It is strange that he is able to see the problems in the legislation but that his Federal colleagues cannot. What must the community do in the meantime while the economic gurus in the Government decide how to fix up the mess they have created for themselves, administratively and electorally? How grateful the rest of Australia must be to the Queensland Government for calling an election. I for one do not believe that this Government would have said a thing about reviewing the tax if it did not see the prospect of defeat at the ballot box. After all, the Government is counting on another 18 months to be able to convince the public how good the tax is. The Government foolishly believes that the bitterness and anger caused by the fringe benefits tax will fade in time. But, of course, in Queensland it does not have 18 months, so it has had to promise something now. The Prime Minister and his Ministers in this chamber can carry on as much as they like about not knowing about the anomalies that the tax would create, but the Opposition knows, and the people in the community know, that the Government has been aware of them all along. Not one person in the community who is affected by the fringe benefits tax has not written or is not writing to the Government or the media to tell them about it. The Prime Minister and his Government are starting to panic. Members of the public no longer look to the Prime Minister as their hero. They do not believe in him, and they do not believe in his Government either. Who can blame them? On the same day that the Government admitted that there may be some problems with the fringe benefits tax, that it is an administrative nightmare, other Ministers warned farmers that they will be liable for gaol sentences if they do not pay up. For weeks we on this side of the chamber have been attempting to get answers from the Government about how people are to calculate the tax. During the last sitting week I asked the Minister for Finance how people should calculate and record car usage. His answers conflicted with the statements of both the Treasurer and the Treasury. Confusion abounds everywhere. Only last Friday Treasurer Keating wrote to members of Caucus telling them to get out and defend the fringe benefits tax because he was frightened that the Opposition has some dastardly plan in store. One has to feel sorry for the clock collector. It seems that, every time he goes overseas to try to shore up confidence in the Australian economy, his Prime Minister decides to try his hand at Treasury matters. What did Treasurer Keating say in August about the proposed change of plans? He said: `It's a furphy, a total furphy. The Government is not going to change this tax. We didn't fight for this thing to see it squandered by some pressure group getting in touch with the Labor Leader's office'. A few days later he said: `There are not going to be any administrative changes'. That was in August. But how times have changed. Let me mention a few things about the Australian Democrats. They must be in a bit of a dizzy turn, too, at the moment. At last they have come up against another party that changes its mind on policy more often than they do. Where were the Democrats when the elderly cripples sought exemption from the fringe benefits tax? Where were the Democrats when the Opposition was telling the Government about another anomaly concerning the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Where was the rural expert, Senator Macklin, when the Opposition was trying to tell the Government about the anomalies affecting primary industry-the cost of rental accommodation for workers and the cost of meat, fuel and elec- tricity? Where was the economic expert, Senator Siddons, when complaints about the fringe benefits tax on cars and business were raised? It was Senator Siddons who claimed that it was the Democrats who worked out this supposedly very simple formula that we are currently stuck with. Perhaps all the employers and employees in the community who may be listening to this debate today and who are as confused about log book keeping as the Treasurer is would like to contact Senator Siddons and have it all explained to them. There is no doubt that the motion moved by Senator Chaney today is the correct one. It refers to: The inadequacy of the Prime Minister's undertaking to make administrative changes to the fringe benefits tax and the need for its repeal lock stock and barrel. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.21) —This urgency motion moved today by Senator Chaney on the question of fringe benefits tax is really part of a plan by the Opposition to destroy or to sabotage the income tax cuts that are to start on 1 December for the great majority of pay as you earn taxpayers. The fringe benefits tax is part of this Government's strategy to crack down on tax avoidance in the Australian community, and the revenue from the tax will be earmarked for those very significant personal income tax cuts that are to begin on 1 December 1986. Members of the Liberal Party, in dealing with taxation, want a return to the past. They want a return to the golden age of tax avoidance in Australia when taxation was regarded as being voluntary for the wealthy. Every time we on this side of the Senate try to hit tax avoidance in the community, members of the Liberal Party and the National Party try to block us. On every occasion the Opposition has opposed the key elements of the Government's taxation package. It has opposed the fringe benefits tax, it has opposed the disallowance of entertainment expenses and it has opposed the introduction of the capital gains tax. Those measures were and are key elements in financing the Governments overall taxation reform package. That package redistributes the tax burden; it does not increase it. The extra revenues received in the form of the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax and from the disallowance of entertainment expenses are to be paid out as income tax cuts to many thousands of Australian pay as you earn taxpayers on 1 December this year. On every occasion the Opposition has taken the opport- unity to oppose the revenue measures in this Government's taxation package. It has opposed the fringe benefits tax which, as I have pointed out, is integral to the financing of the personal income tax reductions. Members of the Liberal Party and the National Party want to preserve the tax privileges for the few but deny significant personal income tax cuts to the many. That is what it is all about. The fringe benefits tax is a key element in financing the package, as I have already pointed out. In the current financial year $325m will be collected by the fringe benefits tax to help finance the personal income tax reductions. A further $575m will be collected next financial year-1986-87-to help finance personal income tax reductions in the community. They are very large sums indeed. When added to the $330m accruing to the Government next financial year as a result of disallowing the free or tax subsidised lunch, they amount to very significant sums and major contributors to the Government's tax cuts. Of course, clearly there could be no significant personal income tax cuts in the community if, as Mr Howard wanted, the fringe benefits tax were thrown out lock, stock and barrel. It just would not be possible to get the revenue to finance those income tax reductions if a major source of revenue such as the fringe benefits tax-$575m next year-were to be thrown out lock, stock and barrel. The fact is, as I pointed out, that the Opposition is trying to sabotage the personal income tax reductions for Australian taxpayers later this year. Let me get the fringe benefits tax debate into some perspective. There has not been very much perspective this afternoon from Opposition spokespersons. For example, only 11 per cent of taxpayers will be affected by it. I am not talking about 91 per cent, 81 per cent or 71 per cent. The fact is that only 11 per cent of taxpayers will be affected by it and they will be the people who will be paying higher levels of tax to help finance personal income tax reductions for others. The tax on fringe benefits is an equitable and fair tax. It will help restore the ability to pay principle to the Australian taxation system. Previously, persons receiving all of their remuneration in the form of wages and salaries paid tax on the whole of their income, whereas persons receiving substantial fringe benefits within their total remuneration package paid taxation on only the cash element of their remuneration. So, a very inequitable situation existed before the advent of this tax in Australia. Two persons with the same total remuneration were paying vastly different amounts of taxation under the system the Liberal Party and the National Party want to perpetuate in Australia. Under the Fraser-Howard Government there was a proliferation of fringe benefit payments in a very short period. The very rapid growth in the number of payments and the number of persons receiving them clearly had very little to do with economic change in the Australian community; rather, the sheer rapidity of the growth of fringe benefits can be demonstrated to have been a tax avoidance mechanism. Various items were paid for by employers. Private school fees for children were being paid by employers. We had employer provided travel and holidays and employer provided contributions towards medical fees. We had the so-called company car. What a misnomer that is. Vehicles were made available for the private use of employees, but meanwhile taxpayers in general had to allow a company tax deduction for the purchase of those motor vehicles. They were actually subsidised by the taxpayer through the company tax system as tax deductions but provided for private use by employees. What a misnomer that is. We had the growth of companies known as remuneration consultants in the larger capital cities under the Liberal Party Government. These grew up very rapidly. I must say that I found very little social benefit stemming from their activities because what they were aiming to do was to find ways around the income tax laws, to devise remuneration packages outside the income tax system. That was their rationale. They aimed to beat the publicly made laws of this country and to develop non-taxed forms of remuneration. The result was rather startling. There are examples available to this Government which show that up to 40 per cent of the total remuneration for some top executives in business came in non-cash form, that is, in a non-taxed form. When 40 per cent of a total remuneration package is being paid in this way, I think it is very clear that the term `fringe benefit' is a misnomer. When 40 per cent of total remuneration is in that form it is hardly a fringe benefit. Members of the Liberal Party perpetuated a system under which that type of person received 40 per cent of his remuneration in a non-tax form and paid income tax on only 60 per cent of the total, whereas somebody receiving the equivalent total remuneration in the form of wages and salaries paid tax on 100 per cent of his income. That really conflicts with the principle of horizontal equity which, broadly stated, suggests that persons in similar economic circumstances should be paying similar amounts of taxation. Those cases clearly do not conform with the principle of horizontal equity. I recall hearing in this chamber earlier this year Senator Chaney trying to lecture Government members on the horizontal equity principle. I think he was talking about family allowances or the dependent spouse rebate. He suggested that the horizontal equity principle was very important in the taxation area but clearly he chooses to adhere to that principle only when it suits him. He certainly does not adhere to the principle of horizontal equity when discussing the taxation of persons who receive their remuneration in the form of salaries compared with the taxation of persons who receive their remuneration in a non-cash form. That is the great inconsistency in Senator Chaney's position. Let us keep this debate on the question of the fringe benefits tax in perspective and look at what has been going on in the Australian community in terms of the payment of these benefits. An Australian Bureau of Statistics employment benefits survey reveals what has been happening in the Australian community. For example, in just one 12-month period there was an 18.1 per cent increase in the number of Australians receiving entertainment allowances and an 11 per cent increase in the number of Australians having their medical insurance contributions paid by their employers. The Australian economy did not change by 11 per cent in one year and it certainly did not change by 18 per cent in one year. Clearly those increased payments were a form of tax avoidance. The other thing which must be kept in perspective about fringe benefits and their taxation is how those benefits are disproportionately available to the most privileged sections of the Australian community, to the wealthiest groups. Again I refer to an Australian Bureau of Statistics employment benefit survey. The most recent one available is dated August last year, and it shows, for example, that some 7.1 per cent of Australian employees received some form of transportation fringe benefit. Turning that around, that suggests that over 92 per cent of Australian employees did not get a transportation fringe benefit. Let us look at the income levels involved in the payment of transportation fringe benefits. For example, compared with the 7.1 per cent of the community getting those benefits, of those earning incomes of below $200 a week only 3.3 per cent received a transportation fringe benefit. That is less than half the average figure. If we look at the highest income category in the Bureau's statistics, we see that rather than 7.1 per cent of those earning above $560 a week getting a transportation fringe benefit, the figure is 18.8 per cent. Clearly those fringe benefits-essentially the availability of company cars-were highly skewed to the wealthiest and those in the highest income groups in the Australian community. No doubt that is one of the reasons why the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia, which both speak for privilege in this country, are making such a fuss about the fringe benefits tax. As I have pointed out, the taxation of fringe benefits is very important in financing the Government's taxation reductions to be introduced on 1 December. We could not bring in significant reductions in personal income tax without this very important tax on fringe benefits. As a result of that package, on 1 December the tax free threshold-that is, the amount of income exempt from income tax-will not be $4,595 as it is at the moment; it will be increased to $5,100. That is one of the changes for the great bulk of Australian taxpayers being financed by the introduction of the fringe benefits tax. We will also be paralleling that with reductions in marginal income tax rates. For example, the 46 per cent rate will be reduced on 1 December to 43 per cent, going down further on 1 July next year to 40c in the dollar-a tremendous reduction in that personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate-currently 60c in the dollar, which is the rate that this Government inherited from the Fraser-Howard Government-will be going down to 55c in the dollar on 1 December and to 49c in the dollar on 1 July next. The result of those changes is quite interesting. For example, on 1 December a person with a taxable income of $400 a week will receive a tax cut of $5.10 and a person with a taxable income of $300 a week will receive a tax cut of $3.75. Our package will restore integrity to the Australian tax system. It will have more respect because it will be more profoundly based on the ability to pay principle. The Opposition would abandon our tax measures which crack down on tax avoidance. It would abandon the fringe benefits tax and, as a result, would jeopardise these significant and substantial personal income tax reductions for many people in Australia. The Liberals and the Nationals have absolutely no credibility on the question of taxation reform in Australia. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.36) —What kind of integrity is being restored to a tax system when the Government promises tax cuts in September and then defers them to December, particularly after those cuts were part of the so-called deal we have just heard Senator Maguire talk about? He is claiming that the fringe benefits tax is being imposed so that there can be tax cuts. Firstly, the tax cuts have not taken place as promised; and secondly-this is even more significant-after those tax cuts come in Australians will be paying more in tax than ever. Income tax in total will be going to record levels this year despite these so-called tax cuts. For Senator Maguire to get up here and talk about integrity when in fact the promise as a result of the deal done by the Government has not been kept-we have not seen the tax cuts that were supposed to be brought in in September-demonstrates the incredible nonsense being spoken in this debate by Government members. What did the Minister in charge of this matter, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, have to say? All he did was abuse the Opposition. He made no effective defence whatsoever of this appalling tax. The reality is that the fringe benefits tax is in a mess. It has been in a mess since the Government introduced it five months or so ago. The significant difference from five months ago, however, is that the Government is now admitting that the fringe benefits tax is in a disastrous mess. Senator Brownhill —`Silver' has, but his colleague hasn't. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Yes. As my colleague says, old `Silver' has admitted that it is in a mess but the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is still happily overseas and will no doubt come galloping back on what is left of his cart, which is now well and truly before the horse. The curious response from the Government today underlines its impossible situation with regard to the fringe benefits tax. Anyone who has been listening to this debate, to the incredible nonsense from Senator Maguire and the extraordinary abuse which we have come to expect from Senator Walsh, will be in no doubt about that. This fringe benefits tax, it must be remembered, is not a tax on profits; it is a tax on people. It is a tax on what people receive. Companies, farmers and small businesses who are trading at a loss will still have to pay this iniquitous tax. Let us get clear the basic ground rules for this tax. This is a tax on people, on small businesses and on farmers who may well be suffering losses at present, but this Government does not care about that. It has no concern for these people and it is only the fear of electoral defeat, including the inevitability of electoral defeat in Queensland, as my colleague said a few minutes ago, that has prompted the Government to look into these unintended consequences, as the Government calls them, of the fringe benefits tax. The people of Queensland are in a particularly fortunate situation. They have the opportunity to send a message to Mr Hawke and his Government about what they think of this fringe benefits tax. They have an opportunity that the rest of Australia does not have yet. I hope the rest of Australia remembers when the time comes and takes the opportunity of sending that message. Queenslanders have the opportunity to give that message next month. Let us recognise that not only did Senator Walsh not have any effective defence of the fringe benefits tax, but Senator Siddons of the Australian Democrats also had his customary two bob each way. I remind the Senate that if it had not been for Senator Siddons and his Australian Democrats this fringe benefits tax would not have existed. The Democrats should never be allowed to forget that. It is all very well for Senator Siddons to say now that there are problems and that something should be done about them. The fact is that he and his Australian Democrats sided with this Government to bring in this iniquitous tax. Senator Walsh responded to the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, who made a very cogent argument about the severe and disastrous impact of this tax on those sections of the community which are least capable of looking after themselves. Senator Chaney pointed out that there are serious problems involving quadriplegics and people requiring assistance of a continuing nature, and that the tax hits them as well. Surely not even Senator Walsh could ignore that, but unfortunately he did. His only response was to say that by bringing up these matters the Opposition wanted to bring back the boozy lunch and pay pensions to millionaires. Senator Chaney —Totally irrelevant. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Chaney said, it was totally irrelevant and in fact demeaning of him and of the Senate. This is a massively serious situation, as at last the Prime Minister is admitting, and it is one that deserves a serious answer. We did not get one in this place from the Minister in charge. Five months after we pointed out the real problem that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) now admits exist, there has been no response of any substance. That is the essential point. The bulk of the problems that the Prime Minister is now admitting are unintended consequences-in other words, he has fallen over his own feet- Senator Brownhill —He is a slow learner. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —He is a very slow learner. The bulk of these, either in outline or in specific terms, were pointed out to him at the time. In the debate on 2 June I pointed out the consequences this tax would have for the National Trust. There was absolutely no response to the points I made at that time by any responsible Minister-if it is possible that there is a responsible Minister in this place-nominally in charge of that matter. It is not simply an administrative problem, as the Government is now trying to pretend. The problems strike at the very heart of this tax. It is a tax which has major problems because of its very structure. That is why I support the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, saying that it must be removed lock, stock and barrel. The structural defects in the tax are clearly evident from a letter written by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Hurford-currently the Acting Treasurer-to one of our colleagues in the House of Representatives. This letter, which was received only in September, relates to matters raised by Mr Coleman, the honourable member for Wentworth, on 5 June. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer said in that letter: You will recall that . . . expressed concern that fringe benefits tax would apply to non-cash benefits provided to a `live-in' assistant who looks after her quadriplegic son. This has been referred to by other speakers today. What I think is very important is when the Minister went on: The Government received a number of representations seeking exemption from the tax. However, after very carefully considering them, it decided that for reasons of equity it would not widen the field of exemption beyond that announced on 19 September 1985 for religious institutions. Even that single exemption was very tightly drafted in the Bill introduced into the Parliament. You will be aware that, in addition, the recently enacted fringe benefits tax legislation exempted public benevolent institutions from the scope of the tax. That was due, I might say, to the intervention of the Opposition, and in particular my cousin Senator Peter Baume, who moved that amendment. The important thing is this: The Acting Treasurer says that these things cannot be changed on the basis of equity, and that the reason they cannot be changed on the basis of equity while this tax exists is the tax itself. Surely, if this tax were a reasonable tax the changes could be made, but the Acting Treasurer says himself that these changes cannot be made to improve the situation of the quadriplegic because of the nature of the tax itself. No pretence from the Government that it is only an administrative problem can get away from the clear reality exposed in this letter. It is because of the nature of this legislation that the particular problems of people like quadriplegics and a whole range of people whom we have heard about over the last few days-many of these problems were raised months ago-cannot be properly addressed. That is why I have great concern about the statement from the Prime Minister that the Government will examine these things. I cannot see-if, of course, the Acting Treasurer is correct and was not telling fibs to my colleague in the lower House-how it is possible to make those changes within the guidelines the Treasurer himself outlined. Let us look at the way the Prime Minister behaved yesterday in the House of Representatives when he started to give ground, when he, if you like, created the first hole in the dike. I can assure him that he will need more than his hands and even his feet-once he takes them out of his mouth-to stop that breach in the dike. What an extraordinary statement for the Prime Minister to make. He accused the Opposition of being derelict in its duty in not having raised these matters before. `Why has the Government not heard about them?', he said. `Is the Opposition derelict in its duty? It has know of these problems for weeks and weeks and only now is it asking questions about them'. What absolute bunkum. The letter I just quoted related to representations made by the Opposition on 5 June. The speech I referred to that I had made about the National Trust was on 2 June. The examples go on and on of representations made not only by the Opposition but also by concerned people who are massively worried about the impact of this fringe benefits tax. How could the Government pretend, as it started its retreat-I think from Goulburn-in the House of Representatives yesterday that it had only just become aware of the problems? It must be aware of the volume of real and deep concern that the whole community has over this tax. It is curious that 10 minutes after the Acting Treasurer assured the House of Representatives yesterday that there would be no changes, Mr Hawke said that the Government would have to remove some unintended consequences. That is the simple reality of what has happened. But what do we get when we come into the Senate and discuss this serious question of how we fix up this mess? All we get is the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) attacking the Opposition, trying to make political points rather than dealing with a matter which is of major concern to millions of Australians, who either directly or indirectly will be or have been affected by the incidence of this tax. I am particularly concerned about those who are either losing their jobs or are losing benefits which are of major significance particularly to those on lower incomes, who will no longer receive some of these benefits because their employers can no longer afford to give them to them now that they are being taxed. Is it not curious that the Minister for Finance decided to quote what the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, said six years ago on the question of accommodation in remote areas of Queensland to try to demonstrate that somehow the Opposition did not know where it was on this matter? The Opposition knows only too well where it is on this matter and where it has been on this matter. I can assure the Senate that we have a very determined view of what will happen on this matter when we are in government. There will certainly be a withdrawal of this tax. It is to be withdrawn lock, stock and barrel. But the reality is, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that abuses involving tax avoidance will be dealt with. However, let us hear how the Australian Labor Party responded six years ago to the question of fringe benefits. I quote from Mr Hayden, the then Leader of the Labor Party who is still a member of Caucus and a senior Minister: The concession given to subsidised housing at development townships and sites is a legitimate one . . . it is important for all workers on development sites throughout Australia to recognise that their living standards could be severely reduced and taxation payments substantially increased if the Government proceeds with its present intention to tax subsidised housing. Six years ago the then Government listened to what Mr Hayden had to say. All I say to the Government at this stage is that, for heavens sake, it should get its house in order and stop going back in time and trying to make political points. It should try to fix up what is a serious mess. It should try to fix up the 139 pages of legislation, the 176 pages of explanatory memorandum, the two booklets of 69 pages, the 14 rulings of 115 pages, the pamphlets, the Press releases and the videos. A television mini-series will probably be needed next. We are now to have more changes. How on earth will the taxpayers of Australia possibly cope with this tax within 20 days and have their tax returns in? As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has said, if they do not get their tax returns in they will go to gaol. That kind of threat is the only coherent response we are getting from this Government to a matter which has caused widespread concern among the community, a matter which was brought to the attention of this Government by the Opposition months ago and on which the Government must now act. Motion (by Senator Coates) agreed to: That so much of standing order 64 be suspended as would prevent the time for this debate being extended by four minutes. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.53) —I strongly defend the fringe benefits tax and reject the utter hypocrisy and whingeing of the Opposition in calling for its repeal. Senator Chaney should be ashamed of himself for his tactics of using 78-year-old pensioners and quadriplegics, not because the Opposition cares about them, but in order to support the interest groups it has always supported-the already wealthy and pri-vileged in this community who have benefited overall more than anyone else by the absence of a fringe benefits tax until now. It is interesting that Senator Messner is not speaking in this debate as he is the Opposition spokesperson on taxation. Perhaps it is no wonder. It was he who pointed out that the Opposition could not justify supporting only the popular aspects of the tax package and opposing the unpopular aspects. The Opposition has repeatedly admitted the existence of fringe benefits rorts and rip-offs, yet has consistently refused to eliminate them. Moreover, it has positively hindered the Government's attempts to stop the fraud. Mr Howard just offers a whingeing chorus against the alleged mountains of paper work. Not long ago, in May, the shadow Treasurer was interviewed on the Carleton-Walsh Report and asked whether the Government was not morally right to impose a tax on fringe benefits. Mr Carlton, MP, responded: Yes I think the Government is quite morally right to clamp down on things that are beyond the pale. No question about that. Then there were the comments last year by the President of the Liberal Party of Australia, John Valder, a Howard supporter, on what he thought was a confidential video interview. He said that he regarded the growth of fringe benefits as a disease and that he thought it was good that the Labor Party was doing all the hard work in cleaning it up so that the future coalition government could benefit. That is shocking hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal Party, but it shows its real attitude to the fringe benefits tax as being necessary. I emphasise that the principle is that non-cash benefits should be just as taxable as cash benefits. That is all that this is about. One cannot have it any other way. Mr Howard is on record as saying much the same thing. The trouble is that employees have almost never declared such benefits in the past and employers have almost never reported them in group certificates. The necessary records must be kept, whoever is responsible for paying the tax. So the excess paperwork argument cannot be sustained. The root of the problem was that as well as legitimate fringe benefits, which still ought to have been taxable as they had a private value, there were those which were provided because some people were prepared to rort and abuse. The result was that those who did not have the lurks and perks had been asked to subsidise the taxation system. It is very telling that those who are complaining most about the fringe benefits tax are also the loudest in calling for a bigger cut in the deficit, cuts to wages and cuts to welfare payments. One of the main whinges about the fringe benefits tax is that it removes incentives. What a lot of nonsense. Do we need a system that provides incentives through tax evasion? It should be remembered that the fringe benefits tax is part of an overall tax reform in which incentives will be provided through the reduction in income tax rates. The opponents of the fringe benefits tax should also remember that the fringe benefits tax is optional. The benefits in kind can be replaced by cash over which the employee can have total control. Senator Siddons in his speech said that the fringe benefits tax was a tax that the employee should be paying and not the employer. It is imposed on the employer because it is administratively simpler and because it involves a mere fraction of the number of people who would otherwise have to deal with the tax. If the employee were to pay the tax records would still have to be kept so that the employee could be advised on his or her group certificate how much of the fringe benefits were taxable. Fewer records and calculations are required under the Government's method of imposing the tax because each business need bother only with the total fringe benefits for all employees rather than have to allocate specific amounts to each individual. I repeat: The value of non-cash fringe benefits can be cashed out anyway so that no fringe benefits tax need be bothered about. Some opponents of the tax have raised the question of the taxing of non-business activities, such as the National Trust being taxed on accommodation provided free or at concessional rates to people who care for buildings. The point is that such accommodation is still a private benefit and ought not to be a substitute for income. There is an alternative for organisations such as the National Trust: They could pay for the benefits provided in the normal way and charge a rent in exchange. There are alternatives to the payment of this tax. However, if people want to continue to provide free or concessional accommodation, they pay the fringe benefits tax accordingly. Other misleading claims have been made, especially about the taxing of the provision of occasional services or goods to an employee. People who make those misleading claims ignore the fact that there is an exemption for the first $200 worth if the aggregate taxable value of free or discounted goods and services provided to an employee per year. There is a lot of misrepresentation about this whole issue. If the fringe benefits tax were to be repealed, as is asked for by the Opposition in its urgency motion today, what would then happen? There would be a legitimisation of even greater tax evasion. Business would no longer bother paying salaries to people at all. It would just pay all their bills, not only for their cars, school fees and holidays but also their grocery and electricity bills. This would reduce the amount of income taxable salary to a minimum. So, not only would there be no revenue from the fringe benefits tax, but also there would be vastly reduced income tax, as less salary would be paid, being replaced by more untaxed fringe benefits. So a repeal of the fringe benefits tax is just not on. There is gross exaggeration about the paperwork required for this tax. A lot of nonsense is talked about log books for motor vehicle usage and there is a lot of confusion. Of course, this confusion is aided by the Opposition and its mates in the New Right. There is confusion about the fringe benefits tax and the substantiation requirements for tax deductions. As far as substantiation is concerned, I think we would all agree-we should, anyway-that a person who wants to have a tax deduction for business expenses, such as a car, should have to justify that with the proper records. As far as the fringe benefits tax is concerned, this is a different issue from substantiation; it concerns benefits provided by an employer to an employee-if a fringe benefit is provided, for instance, for the private and not the business use of a car, one must expect to have to distinguish between the private and the business use, again with proper records. In any case, no log book is necessary for the substantiation of a tax deduction if there is low business use or if one of the available formulae is chosen. As far as the fringe benefits tax is concerned, the operation of a log book is optional but if it is used most people will have to make only one entry per day. A lot of nonsense is spoken about multiple entries, the need for an entry for every business trip in a day. If a person is using his or her car for business uninterrupted all day, only one entry is needed. More than one entry is needed only if private use of that vehicle occurs during the day. So all this talk about 15 minutes being required every day for keeping a log book is just nonsense. Thirty seconds or sixty seconds is more like the requirement. In conclusion, the well-to-do people in this country, with the support of the Liberal and National Parties, merely want to continue evading their taxation and side-stepping their responsibilities to the Australian community. This Labor Government has made a commitment to tax reform and it will stick to that commitment. It must be remembered that this is a total tax package involving tax reform which will bring relief to pay as you earn workers and to the better off, the higher income earners on the very much lower marginal rates, who will also get benefits which they never acknowledge as being provided in this tax package, such as no longer having to pay tax on share dividends. The imputation provision is a very big benefit for business and for those who are better off in this country. The business people of this country should not complain about having to keep some records in exchange for these benefits. I wholeheartedly support the fringe benefits tax and oppose the urgency motion moved by the Opposition. Amendment negatived. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G. Boswell, R. L. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G. Carrick, Sir John Short, J. R. Chaney, F. M. Teague, B. C. Collard, S. J. Townley, M. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Georges, G Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sanders, N. K. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Haines, J. Tate, M. C. Harradine, B. Vigor, D. B. Jones, G. N. (Teller) Walsh, P. A. McClelland, Douglas Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Evans, GarethHill, R. Bolkus, N. Jessop, D. S. Colston, M. A. Knowles, S. C. Devlin, R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As a result of the demise of the House of Assembly on 30 June this year there is now a vacancy on the Australian Capital Territory Building Review Committee. There is provision for a Chairman and five members, one of whom is to be a member of the House of Assembly. Three members form a quorum for meetings of the Committee. I ask that the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) give attention to the fact that the Committee is now permanently one member short. This puts greater pressure on other members to attend meetings so that the Committee can function properly. I hope that at the earliest possible opportunity he will take the appropriate steps to amend section 10, I think it is, of the enabling legislation to see that the Australian Capital Territory Building Review Committee is brought up to strength so that it can function properly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 7 October, on motion by Senator Coates: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.14) —I commend the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to the Senate. I joined the Committee in the course of its compiling of the report. I was amazed at the obvious total disorganisation within the Public Service. The report outlines a remarkable story of the Public Service growing like Topsy, bypassing the normal reporting procedures and proliferating in an uncontrolled and an unaccountable way. Not all non-statutory bodies are of this type, thank heavens. In particular, the incorporated bodies conform fully to their rules of incorporation, and usually fulfil their objective in a responsible manner. The only reservation the Committee makes about the operation of these incorporated but non-statutory organisations is that in the past there have been instances of these organisations either spawning or entering into association with other organisations whose powers exceed those of the non-statutory body. This has led to a large number of anomalies. This was originally raised by the Auditor-General in connection with the operation of Asia Dairy Industries. This report reveals an extraordinary level of incompetence, an extraordinary lack of accountability and an extraordinary financial mess among the non-incorporated statutory bodies. Non-statutory bodies spent nearly $2,000m last year-something for the Coalition Waste Watch Committee to look at. Of this, the taxpayer funded around $300m, at best guess. At best guess was all the Committee could achieve because more than a quarter of all non-statutory bodies did not know what they spent. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) might like to look at this in more detail. Perhaps the most interesting finding of the Committee was that most of those departments which deal most directly with the public lack committees for consulting public opinion. The worse offenders seem to be those who support the more underprivileged. The departments which supported the fewest consultative committees were Aboriginal Affairs, Communications, Social Security, Veterans' Affairs, Treasury, and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Some of those departments with the fewest consultative committees are the departments which deal most closely with people in need, such as the Department of Social Security. They would seem to be the ones who would profit most from close ties with the community they serve and an understanding of their clients. Public feedback is vital when there is significant client contact or when commercial services are provided, as in the case of the Department of Communications. In the United Kingdom, volunteers on users' councils keep such bodies as the Post Office in touch with community needs, and with community attitudes to the service they provide. This is a useful model for what can be done. I believe the idea should be taken up within the Australian Public Service. A very small secretariat can service such a group for a fraction of the cost of a single advertising campaign of the type which was involved in such spendthrift programs as Priority One: Young Australia. These groups can examine and report publicly on any aspect of a department's or an authority's operations which directly affects the public. This means management has a very strong incentive to identify problem areas quickly, and to provide a more effective service to the public. People's needs become the starting point for improvements. The ongoing nature of this scrutiny helps to create an atmosphere of co-operation. After a little while the initial defensiveness breaks down and better administration can result. If departments and authorities know that they are under effective and continuing scrutiny they will squeeze the most from available resources. I was shocked that a large number of non-statutory bodies were mentioned in the report as not reporting to Parliament or even reported on to Parliament. Waste and inefficiency are best tackled by creating a climate in which better decisions are made in a more timely fashion. There will be no incentive to use inefficiency as a pretext for building new empires. Many non-statutory bodies seem to be part of the Public Service empire-building activities. Departments are already putting more effort into training and information collection and processing as a result of freedom of information legislation. The greater the access that the media and public have to relevant material, the better procedures become to avoid appeals against poor decisions. It is extremely important-and this report starts the process-that we know what bodies we can appeal to and what are the structures within the Public Service. This report is just one part of the analysis of the structures of the Public Service. It is not just an ordinary tree like a business organisation; it consists of a whole lot of statutory bodies, non-statutory bodies, companies, interdepartmental committees-IDCs-and a framework of interrelating operations. Until the Parliament and the people of Australia understand the structure and the operations of the Public Service we will not know how to operate and use that particular resource effectively. We need to upgrade both the process of reporting and the process of providing service to the public. We must make certain that systems that we set up are, in fact, fully controlled and well audited. Another major deficiency the Committee found with non-statutory bodies was this lack of defined reporting procedures. The Committee recommends that the reporting procedures be defined the moment the body is set up. Indeed, I would recommend that there also be community consultative committees for bodies which deal a lot with the public, that they report directly to the public rather than internally to the Department or to the Minister, and that there should also be at least annual reporting to Parliament in all cases where a body acquires any type of autonomy. Ministers will start taking more interest in the administration and the system within their departments if they think that the deficiencies they may have previously ignored will be aired publicly. I believe that this report is yet another milestone in the move to try to open up the Public Service and to provide open government and open public service to the Australian community. Those in senior administrative positions will no longer turn a blind eye because of the added risk of exposure, and individuals will take responsibility for their action if, and only if, organisations or committees such as the Standing Committee of Finance and Government Operations continue their detailed scrutiny of these areas. All public servants will then strive for maximum effectiveness in the employment of resources. In this way we will have greater accountability and greater efficiency overall in the Public Service. We will also probably cut down considerably on the proliferation of non-statutory bodies if they are no longer seen to be a way around the normal rules of Public Service accountability to the Parliament and to the public. We must have open government, and the only way to achieve that is by constant vigilance. I commend the Committee's vigilance in bringing this report to the Parliament. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.23) —As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I would like to say a few words in relation to this report on non-statutory bodies which the Chairman, Senator Coates, tabled yesterday on our behalf. I support his remarks and those of Senator Vigor, who is also a member of the Committee. In many ways this report on non-statutory bodies is a path-finding report. I believe it deserves very widespread reading, both inside and outside the Parliament, because it deals with a range of government organisations about which I think all of us know very little indeed. As our Chairman said when tabling the report yesterday, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, since it commenced its work into statutory bodies in 1977-in that context I pay tribute to one of my predecessors on the Committee, former Senator Peter Rae-has tabled a number of reports on the activities of Commonwealth statutory authorities and certain other Commonwealth Corporation. While undertaking those investigations it became very clear to members of the Committee that they, and indeed the Parliament and the wider community, knew very little about the activities of another very large group of government bodies, namely, the so-called non-statutory bodies, or NSBs. The Senate will recall that in 1983 the Committee sought and received from the Senate a reference to investigate and report on the activities of those bodies. The Committee produced an interim report in October 1984 and the report tabled yesterday is a follow-up to that report. It is a much more detailed and investigative report and reveals some very interesting facts, although as a committee we fully recognise that perhaps there are some doubts about the authenticity of all the information contained in the report because of the difficulty we had as a committee in obtaining information on non-statutory bodies. One of the problems in that context was the very question of defining a non-statutory body. That is something the Committee has addressed in this report and I think it will be of ongoing future benefit. Despite those difficulties we had in this investigation, as the Chairman said, we did gain considerable insight into non-statutory body activities for the year we were looking at, 1984-85. Through the information supplied to us by the various government departments, we identified a total of 598 of these non-statutory bodies, which provided completed questionnaires. All departments except the Department of Finance have some non-statutory bodies attached to them. In that sense the information that has come forward is very helpful. We found some disturbing facts along the way as well. First of all, as I have already mentioned, there was a lack of knowledge by members of parliament about the activities and the existence of non-statutory bodies. In fact, there was a lack of knowledge by many Ministers of non-statutory bodies within their portfolios, and a lack of information within the departments generally as to even what was a non-statutory body and what might be the responsibilities and accountabilities of such bodies. We found evidence of a great lack of reporting by non-statutory bodies. For example, we found that only 54-less than 10 per cent-of the 598 non-statutory bodies we surveyed had published or tabled in the Parliament an annual report for the 1984-85 financial year, although there were other bodies that had produced reports other than annual reports during that time. The information coming forward and available to the Parliament and to the wider public from non-statutory bodies is very much lacking. Disturbingly, we found a considerable lack of cost identification in terms of the operation of these bodies. That lack of cost identification was not a matter just for the non-statutory bodies but, indeed, for the departments within whose portfolios the bodies resided. Given the existence of such a huge number of non-statutory bodies-we have probably understated the real number-I think it is absolutely essential, for cost and accountability reasons, that a great deal of effort now be put into improving the financial accountability and financial information provided by those bodies. As I have said, related to that we did find a lack of knowledge of the accountablity of these bodies in terms of what really were their responsibilities, their role in the total scheme of things, to whom they should be reporting and to whom they should be fully accountable. We had problems defining non-statutory bodies. We have made some recommendations in this report which I think will be helpful in sorting that out. As I said, our data is not infallible. To readers of the report-my parliamentary colleagues and others-I would caution placing too much weight on particular figures, but the trend and overall direction of information in the report I think are very helpful. We have made a key recommendation that a central register of non-statutory bodies be created and maintained by some co-ordinating department and that that register be established by 30 June 1987. At the moment there is no register of NSBs at all and that is a very considerable problem if we are to keep track of the existence of NSBs, their accountability, their actions and so on. I regard that recommendation as a very important one, provided-I think this can be achieved-that it does not create a whole new bureaucracy and a whole new cost structure in itself. I think the register can be maintained without that happening. Yesterday, when tabling the report of the Committee, the Chairman gave three notices of motion which were basically designed to amend the original reference that the Committee received in 1977 in relation to statutory authorities. In essence, the notices of motion were designed to widen that reference. My understanding is that that measure will not, in itself, create a heavy additional work load on the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations because it is an extension of an existing reference rather than a considerable new addition. Finally, I join the Chairman in his thanks and congratulations to the staff who supported us on this very important, and I think in many ways path-finding, inquiry. It is one which I hope will be of considerable benefit to the Senate, to the wider Australian community and one on which we can build and will need to build in the future. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.31) —in reply-If no one else wants to make a contribution I will speak briefly in reply. I think it is disappointing with many committee reports that the main contributors in debate are merely the members of the committee. One wonders how much other honourable senators have had a chance to read the reports. I think we are all aware of the difficulty of taking in reports from other committees. However, this debate provides a further opportunity to bring the important work of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to the attention of the Senate and the public. I would like to thank members of the Committee for participating today and in the preparation of the report. I emphasise that one can look at the list of 598 non-statutory bodies and be horrified at that number but there are some very important bodies included amongst them as well as some whose existence one could certainly question. I emphasise that we have made no judgments in this report about particular non-statutory bodies even though there was temptation in the case of some. As we have time in the future we will be looking at selected portfolios as an exercise in looking at the justification for particular non-statutory bodies. One of the things about which we all need to make a judgment is to be clearer about when it is appropriate for a body to be non-statutory or statutory, that is, to have some parliamentary approval. Probably some statutory authorities could just as easily be non-statutory and there are probably plenty of non-statutory bodies which ought to have some sort of parliamentary authority for their continuing existence, but that is something about which a judgment can only be made in each individual case. I look forward very much to a prompt government response. I am glad that the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Senator Walsh) is in the chamber at the moment. I urge him for a prompt government response and I certainly hope that the Government will agree with the Committee's recommendation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 24 September, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.35) —Efficiency audit reports by the Auditor-General's Office are an extremely important part of keeping the Public Service honest. These audit processes do not happen often enough or in sufficient depth. It is a very serious matter when an efficiency audit, of the type that was carried out on Australia Post, is discontinued. I commend the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on its findings that even when such an audit is disconti- nued there should be a report from the Auditor-General to the Parliament because a negative finding is as important as a positive finding in such reports. In the case before the Public Accounts Committee efficiency audit was basically a two-stage project which started off generally with several officers, in the initial stages, and eventually went down to one quite different officer as the process continued. There are considerable differences of opinion within the Audit Office, and, I think the Public Service, about what efficiency audits should be about and how much time they should take. The Audit Office has a system of allocating time to various tasks undertaken by officers. It seems very strange that in this report no excuse figures are given in evidence to the Committee even though a vast amount of evidence-in fact more than half of the report-consists of appendices which contain evidence about the original report. All we can get is estimates based on the most basic and simple calculations of the effort that was expended and the areas that were visited. One really needs very much stricter guidelines on what is involved in the audit process and how the results are followed up. I support fully the PAC which suggests that even if an audit is discontinued in the middle a report about that audit should be made to Parliament. In this case the matter had to be taken up by a parliamentary committee before it reached this Parliament. The draft audit report dealt with automation of counter services within the Post Office. Australia Post has an extremely bad record on automation. When the Redfern Mail Exchange was opened equipment was rushed in without time being given to proper testing and development. As a result the system was plagued with very avoidable problems right from the outset. I believe that some sorting equipment was still not installed in April 1985 even though it arrived in 1982. This information comes from questions on postal sorting technology which I asked in an Estimates committee hearing. The letter indexing equipment arrived in Australia in March 1983. The Federal office of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union put a ban on the equipment and expected negotiations to start with the Post Office management about three months later. Australia Post headquarters did not start negotiations until April 1985, two years later. The equipment just sat in storage. I am still waiting, a year later, in 1986, for information on what is happening. It seems to me that there are real problems within Australia Post in terms of managing the introduction of new technology. The reply which I received to a question on electronic mail was that Australia Post did not know what was happening in New Zealand, which I mentioned, hence an answer could not be given to any of the questions dealing with the handling of electronic mail. I was quite appalled at that type of answer. Yet an ef- ficiency audit of Australia Post was discontinued, and no proper reasons were given for the discontinuation. Many reasons are ruled out in the report as to why the audit was discontinued. It was not because of the problems associated with administration of counter services or because of problems of security of stamps, but because time seems to have run out and the Audit Office decided to discontinue the project. Yet I am digging up these types of problems in Estimates committee hearings that are not being dealt with. I believe that there are still a number of questions to be answered. I turn to one problem I noticed this year. I placed on notice a series of questions during the Estimates committee hearing concerning Australia Post tender CP 2078, which is a very important tender for banking and agency terminals for post office counters. These matters were raised at the Public Accounts Committee hearings. It is important to outline what has happened, because it looks as though, at the very least, some serious mistakes have been made-mistakes which will cost Australia Post and therefore Australian taxpayers a lot of revenue. One disturbing feature of the tender process was that tenders opened on 8 January with an announcement in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette dealing with purchasing and disposals. That announcement read: Electronic Counter terminals for Post Offices (CP 2078). Tender. DC: AP71. Inquiries, W. Birdjan, tel. (03) 668 1729. The tenders closed on 21 January, which was still within the holiday period. The telephone number apparently related to somebody in Australia Post headquarters but the tender documents included one for an officer of the Commonwealth Bank. There is also considerable doubt about the propriety with which the tender arrangements were attended to. The Estimates Committee received a `Yes Minister' departmental reply when I raised the matter. I hope that greater care will be taken by Australia Post in responding to the questions taken on notice than has gone into the red herrings and other sidetracks which have been supplied to the electronic funds transfer services company which was contacted by one of the unsuccessful tenderers in this matter. Let me quote from a letter from that company's Managing Director to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy): Our technical staff who have had, collectively, over 150 years' experience in designing, implementing and managing network development projects considerably larger in scope and performance than the Australia Post requirements, quite frankly regard CP 2078 as hopelessly inadequate unless its purpose is simply to, de facto, place the control and conduct of this work in the hands of the Commonwealth Bank. I believe that Australia Post still has serious problems. I believe that there needs to be an efficiency audit. There should be a full examination of the types of activities within Australia Post that I have described. I believe that the discontinuance of the efficiency audit, whatever the reasons given, was quite unreasonable and that it should be completed. I request the Government to ask the Auditor-General to look at some of the aspects of Australia Post, details of which I have given-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 24 September, on motion by Senator Childs: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, General Business orders of the day relating to consideration of committee reports pursuant to sessional orders be not further proceeded with. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the fourteenth report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Australian Capital Territory Effective Self-Government Bill 1986, the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986, the Hazardous Goods Bill 1986, and the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 14, dated 8 October 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-Pursuant to sessional order No. 7 authorising the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment to inquire into matters raised in the annual report referred to it for examination, the Standing Committee held a hearing on 22 September last on the effects on the natural environment of Christmas Island of recent and proposed development in the island's phosphate mining industry. The Senate may recall that I tabled a brief report on Christmas Island on behalf of the Committee last June. In that report we said that we would continue to monitor the situation on Christmas Island. The recent hearing was for the purpose of obtaining information on developments since then. Christmas Island is now at a most important stage in its history. This is reflected by current media interest. The information our Committee obtained at the hearing from officers of the Department of Territories and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service was most useful. For the information of honourable senators, I seek leave to table the official Hansard report of the hearing and some additional documents which were sent to the Committee by witnesses. Leave granted. Consideration resumed. SALES TAX LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1986 The Bill. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.48) —Last night we asked the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, a number of questions concerning the operation and scope of the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill. One of the statements that he made was that the amendments that we are now dealing with were technically deficient. He made that statement without giving any further clarification. The amendments which we have moved remove most of the Bill but leave swimming pools and other items covered by this tax. I believe that Senator Walsh is mistaken in saying that the amendments which are before us now and which we are discussing are technically deficient. I would like to know why he made this claim. On what basis was it made? I would also like clarification on the last of the questions. Some of last night's questions were in fact answered earlier in a statement read by Senator Gietzelt which covered the area of imported and licensed software. However, I do not believe the question which I asked concerning local customisation of software and the taxability of the component put in by an Australian firm in customising software has been answered, nor has the Government really given any sensible answer on how it is going to overcome the rorts which will obviously stem from the ability to deliver software on any media other than magnetic media or a particular hardware storage device. I would like the Minister to provide me with the time scales under which he would expect to be either closing those loopholes or in fact repealing this legislation if, as claimed by the Australian Democrats, this legislation introduces more rorts into the system than it actually removes. I seek Senator Walsh's statement on both of those points. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.52) —The trouble in dealing with Senator Vigor is that if one answers one question one will just get a hundred others. I will see whether the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has an answer to that. I do not have one. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. SALES TAX ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1986 Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. (Quorum formed.) Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.56) —This package contains two Bills, the Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986. It is interesting to note that the Institute of Sport, which is what these Bills are all about, has come about through a bipartisan effort. The late Hon. Frank Stewart was, I suppose, mainly responsible for its establishment and then the Hon. Bob Ellicott really brought it to fruition in about 1980. The Institute of Sport itself has the support of all the parties in this Parliament. Let me say that right from the start, even though we are opposing this legislation and an amendment to the second reading motion is being circulated in my name. When this legislation was debated in the House of Representatives, the speakers on our side all made the point that we are not against the Institute of Sport in what it is doing and what it is trying to achieve. We do have problems with this legislation because we are not in agreement with the setting up of another statutory authority. The Australian Sports Commission is quite willing and quite able to do the job which has been set for this newly-created statutory authority. The Institute has had its problems; there is no doubt about that. As a matter of fact, last year the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) was the subject in the other place of a censure motion because of problems with the Institute of Sport. Accountability was certainly very slack. That was pointed out by the speakers in the other place when it was debated. It ended up with a censure motion being moved against the Minister over the bad way in which it was being run and the lack of accountability. Interestingly, there is still a problem there. As I understand it, as recently as a month ago there was a further police investigation into the Institute and the actions of some members or a member of the Institute; so all is not well. The Minister must bear a lot of the responsibility for the failure to tighten up the place and run it as well as it should. While that is going on one cannot have good morale amongst the people out there. We have young people training at the Institute and we have people training them. There are people there who are going to represent us on the various sporting fields of the world. We expect them to do well, we expect them to give of their best. While this uncertainty about administration is going on, it can only cast a pall over them. It is hoped that that investigation bears fruit shortly and the whole sorry state of affairs gets tidied up. Having said that, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has brought these Bills before the Parliament. As I said, the Government is setting up another statutory authority and we see no reason for that whatsoever. We have the Australian Sports Commission, to which there are good people appointed who are quite willing and able to take over the running of the Australian Institute of Sport without setting up another statutory authority. That is the reason we are moving our amendment. Already we have had a debate on the Australian Sports Aid Foundation legislation. We opposed that as it would have set up something which was not necessary and indeed such a foundation would leave itself open to accusations of political usage as far as donations channelled towards it are concerned. As I said at the outset, the Institute of Sport is there. It has all-party support and it has had all-party support from its foundation. We wish it well and we hope that its internal problems can be tidied up as soon as possible. We do not see the necessity for another statutory corporation as the Sports Commission can do the job. To give effect to those thoughts, I move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Australian Institute of Sport Bill: Leave out all words after `That', insert: `the Senate is of the opinion that this Bill should not be proceeded with as it does nothing more than add to the burgeoning number of statutory authorities already in existence when the functions of the proposed Institute of Sport could well be performed by an existing body'. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.01) —The Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 place the Australian Institute of Sport, as a public company, in liquidation and recreate it as a government statutory authority. The Government's reason for the change is to give greater parliamentary supervision over the public moneys invested in the Institute. I think it is extremely important to have greater parliamentary supervision and not merely ministerial supervision as the present legislation provides. The Australian Democrats will be moving a number of amendments to the Bills in the Committee stage, the effect of which will be to give the Parliament a much greater supervisory role. We will not be supporting the Opposition's amendment to the second reading, which basically guts the Bills and throws the proposal out. I believe it is extremely important to keep the Australian Institute of Sport in existence. It fulfils a very important role in producing a climate of excellence in Australian sport, in training sportsmen and sportswomen for world events and in developing a consciousness of excellence in sport over a wide range of different sports. However, the Institute has had a number of management hiccups. Its management must be improved without producing a bureaucratic empire-building process. It is important for Australia to have a centre of excellence such as the Australian Institute of Sport which serves both the officials of sports and the athletes who stay there. The Opposition has supported the need for greater control and accountability to the Government and to the Parliament and I hope that it will support the amendments which the Democrats will be moving to strengthen even more the process of control by the Parliament of this organisation's activities. To oppose and throw out the Bills would not be an effective way of managing this type of operation because the Institute will carry on in its current form under the ordinance under which it was set up. So really it is an empty argument to say that if the Bills were thrown out it would result in any saving. The Institute offers a highly specialised and professional service to people in sport. It must be an autonomous organisation and must not end up being tied up in complex sport politics which surround the administrative structure of the Sports Commission. The Australian Institute of Sport Bill gives the Institute a change in status. Instead of reporting through an Australian Capital Territory ordinance the Institute will have full statutory powers under the new legislation which the Bills will set up. The change in status and the greater accountability to Parliament will hopefully cure some of the problems and the excesses which were identified in the Price Waterhouse audit last November which left the management of the AIS in some degree of low morale. I believe it is important not only to improve the standard of competitors in various sports but also to support those officials, coaches, referees, umpires and linesmen-who need training in the proper operation of the `nuts and bolts' activities involved in running sport effectively. Indeed programs such as the national training centre program and the visiting athletes program should allow more athletes to benefit from the skills and knowledge which are available at the Australian Institute of Sport. The Democrats welcome the intention of the Institute to reduce its involvement at a community level, particularly through the satellite coaches program and the identification of athletes and sports officials directly through operations of the Institute, and for it to become more involved in joint ventures with State organisations and other institutions such as sporting organisations which can act as spotters for the type of talent that we must find to bring the most excellent sportsmen and sportswomen in Australia under the Institute's care. It was the Institute moving out to try to form a broad pyramid in each of the sports and offering services directly to people in each of the States that resulted in the overlap of the Sports Commission and the Institute. I believe it is very important for the Institute to work with corresponding State bodies and organisations to fulfil those roles and to concentrate on the sports medicine and sports development programs which I think in the long run will give Australia a competitive edge and a sense of excellence in international sport. I now come to the amendments which the Democrats will be moving in the Committee stage. We believe it is important that not only should the Institute develop people's talents but also that it should be involved in the process of recognising talent. We wish the Bill to be as broad as possible, so our first amendment is based on the recognition of talent as well as development of talent in people in sports. As I said earlier, we believe that the Institute should be involved with sport in the broadest possible way. Not only should the players who compete in a sport be involved in training but also the officials, umpires and referees. That is the subject of the second amendment we will be moving. Our third and fourth amendments are based on the need to report to Parliament. Particularly we are seeking to have any ministerial directive that is given to the Institute reported to each House of Parliament within five sitting days of that directive being given by the Minister. The next amendment basically states that we want the Institute to operate on a triennial rolling plan. We want to know three years ahead what the Institute of Sport is doing and we want that plan updated each year. We want that to be the basis of a reporting structure to Parliament. The Government seems to believe that such organisations can operate on a year to year basis or even triennium to triennium basis. However, it is very difficult to manage an organisation such as this, or a university or any other organisation, that involves continuing programs on a year to year strategic plan. It is not really a strategic plan if it is not going to be a rolling plan. The second last amendment we will move at the Committee stage deals with the Board. Basically, we wish to incorporate into the Bill the requirement for equal opportunity, for affirmative action. We are saying that appointments to the Board shall be such that its members shall consist as far as practicable of equal numbers of men and women. It seems very reasonable that as our community is made up approximately equally of men and women, their involvement in sport and their views should be equally represented on the board of such an organisation. This is a model of the type of amendments we will be moving an amendment to to similar Bills in the future. We are also very concerned about the Chairman of the Board having special status. The Government has insisted in the Bill that the Chairman of the Board shall have a casting vote in the case of an equal vote. We believe that it is much more reasonable to follow the normal practice where in the case of equality of votes the question before the Board shall be resolved in the negative. These are very simple administrative changes. The Democrats support the basic thrust of making the Australian Institute of Sport a strong and independent body. We support its continued existence and we wish it luck and every success in trying to make Australian sportsmen and sportswomen develop sufficiently to be able to compete on an equal footing and to do better than people from all over the world. We believe that the Institute is fulfilling an important role for Australians and for Australian sport. We believe that the Bill, with the amendments we will move at the Committee stage, will produce a stable administrative environment and a good reporting structure of which both the Government and this Parliament can be proud. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(6.16) —The Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 represent the next chapter in the saga of the Australian Institute of Sport. They transfer it from being a company to a statutory authority, and that is the reason why the Opposition is opposing the Bills. We do not see the need to create another statutory authority. We have created enough of them. I remember objecting previously to the Australian Sports Commission. We received that body per kind favour of the Australian Democrats voting with the Labor Government. That Commission now has 20 Board members who do not have enough to do. It could adequately supervise the activities of the Australian Institute of Sport. The administration of sport in Australia is quite gravely fractured between the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Australian Institute of Sport, the Australian Sports Commission and the Sports Aid Fund. People have to traipse to many different offices whenever they want to carry out negotiations with the Federal Government concerning the administration of sport. The original concept of the Australian Institute of Sport, I suppose, derived from a figment of the imagination of Mr Whitlam and his Government. After an Olympic Games in which Australian athletes performed well but had not won many medals I remember much criticism to the effect that we did not have same kind of government commitment to athletes as the Eastern bloc countries have, where sportsmen are just another branch of the Public Service and where all their training, dietary needs, income, in fact all their wants, are looked after. They are trained specifically for sport and given a healthy dose of drugs to go about it, too. It was felt that this kind of system would be beneficial to Australia. So the idea of the Australian Institute of Sport was conceived. The Institute has had its ups and downs. I notice that they were referred to as hiccups by Senator Vigor when he was talking about them, but they were a little more than that. When the Institute started it was quiescent for a number of years. It stood as a threatening body which had all the other sporting bodies in Australia worried about what its activities were to be and how it would interfere with them. That was about eight years ago. About six years ago it was resuscitated. Its main troubles were discovered just last year and it had to be investigated by Price Waterhouse, I think. It found that there had been excessive staff spending, excessive expenditure on meals for staff in restaurants and on other entertaining, excessive travel expenditure, excessive expenditure on furniture, excessive allowances, or higher duties, as they were called. There is a very dubious spot merit fund. It had some very shaky tender procedures. It was no wonder that at that stage it ran into a budget deficit, a shortfall that was quite serious at the time. Yet the Government claims that the Australian Institute of Sport is vital to the development of sport in Australia and that it will be responsible for a re-emergence of Australia's pre- eminence in sport. What sport is the Government talking about? Is it talking about, say, the Davis Cup? Australia has a proud history of many years of doing well in the Davis Cup and winning world championships in other areas. Just last week we won the semi-final to go into the challenge round of the Davis Cup. One of our players, Wally Masur, has a connection with the Australian Institute of Sport but he did not actually play in the semi-final. The Government cannot be talking about tennis, although I know that it has quite a commitment to tennis coaching. It could not be talking about the world golf championship which Australia won just last week with a team which I am sure had no connection whatsoever with the Australian Institute. Australia lays claim to being the world champions in rugby at the moment. There is one country which plays rugby which Australia is having some difficulty in playing. One could not really claim to be the world champions unless one had beaten that country. We have a pre-eminent position in the world in rugby league. How much did the Australian Institute of Sport contribute towards winning the America's Cup? It was a completely private show the whole time. It is a ridiculous claim that the Australian Institute will put Australia back into a position of pre-eminence. I dare say that we had better not talk too much about cricket at the moment. The Australian team is competing in India. I do not think the Institute has much to do with creating pre-eminent cricketers in Australia. Australian rules, an enormous and expanding sport-expanding even in Queensland-has no connection with the Australian Institute of Sport. Maybe the socceroos and the hockey teams have a connection. We have a world champion in boxing on our doorstep right now. I am sure that he has never heard of the Australian Institute of Sport. So I wonder what sports the Government is talking about. I know that the Government has a big commitment to track and field, gymnastics and swimming. I suppose that is predicated on the theory that only the Government can afford to bring world famous coaches to Australia to coach these people. I suppose that is applying the theory that only the Government can run the post office and the railways. I do not subscribe to that theory or to the theory that only the Government can bring these world class coaches to Australia. When the Institute was originally proposed Franz Stampfl was the coach whom the Government was talking about bringing here. The Government says now that without the Institute we could not do it. The functions of the Institute have been defined in the legislation. They are quite extensive and have been expanded to quite a considerable degree. They include program development and implementation and the management and development of facilities. The raising of money for the Institute is defined as are the powers of the Institute, the provision of scholarships, commercial sponsorship, which I will talk about in a minute, marketing and community access facilities. In regard to sponsorship, I can imagine this Government looking around seeing the wonderful sport that is organised in Australia today and all the advertising and money that goes into it and being very keen to get its hands on that sort of money. I am sure that was the genesis of the Sports Aid Foundation. I am certain that it is the intention of the Government that the money that goes into the sponsorship of sport will be a recognised business expense for advertising only if it goes through the Sports Aid Foundation. That stage has not been reached yet, but I am sure that it is the aim of the Government. Once the sponsorship funds are in the hands of the Minister he would be able to decide just what sports were sponsored. That would take it out of the hands of the people who wanted to sponsor a particular sport. Only the sports the Minister thought were deserving would be sponsored. I can imagine that the sort of sports that would attract the Minister may not be the sports that would attract the funds, and the funds would fall off. In addition one could expect a delineation of which companies could sponsor which sport. For example, would breweries and tobacco companies be allowed to sponsor sport? What would happen if the prevailing winds of public opinion were suddenly that tobacco companies should not sponsor sport? An awful lot of money could be lost to sport. One of the aims of the Institute now is to decentralise sport. But sport was always decentralised in this country. The Institute tended to centralise it. The Institute was to be a home of the elite. It was to bring them all to Canberra and finish their training. Now the Government's policy is to decentralise sport. I remember that one of the early fears was that certain sports would be specialised to certain places. For example, Perth was noted for its hockey. So there was a definite move to make Perth the hockey capital of Australia. That meant that any kids in the east who wanted elite coaching in hockey would have had to go to Perth to get it. Similarly, Townsville was to be made the swimming capital of Australia. So any kids in Perth who wanted to concentrate on swimming would have had to go to Townsville. This is ridiculous bureaucratic thinking. Instead we should be leaving our States to run their own sports. Fortunately, the idea must have been strangled at birth because it did not eventuate. However, I know it was a phase the Government went through. Throughout history sportsmen have had to travel to get the best coaching. That is normal. It happens with music and the arts. One has to go to where the best coaches are. The important thing to note is that it was all done free for the Government, and free of the Government, too. It did not have to be done. The Institute's role is being expanded in regard to the elite sportsman. It is now to include recreation. It is to include safety, which no one can argue with. It is being expanded to include fitness for the disabled. I am not against fitness for the disabled. The Australian disabled have put in some world class performances around the world. Perhaps the best use we could make of the Institute of Sport is to look after our disabled and leave our elite sportsmen to the devices which have been supplied for them by sporting bodies over many years. Sports medicine is to take a big role in the expanded activities of the Institute of Sport. Sports medicine is a very big and expanding area. It will cost a lot of money, but it will be well worth it all the way. It all started well before there ever was an Australian Institute of Sport. I am rather pleased to say that I had a pioneering role in sports medicine. Sports medicine is the medicine of the healthy. It is teaching people how not to overstress their bodies, how not to get injured, how to be able to get back on the field next week. If one has star athletes one does not want them off the field injured all the time. It is very hard if one is organising sport and the tickets have all been sold when suddenly the star cannot go on because of some minor injury or illness. This has all been done free for government in the past. I see a burgeoning and controlling role for sports medicine which will interfere with the administration of sporting bodies in Australia. When we think of the differences in sports medicine needed, in, say, boxing, tennis, rugby and track and field, we realise that they are all vastly different areas that need different kinds of specialised care. The Australian Institute of Sport will try to fill that role when it does not have a hope of doing it. In fact, it can only give a restricted advisory and probably controlling service which will be a nitpicking nuisance to everybody and a great cost to the people. The Australian Institute of Sport has an expanding role which will get bigger, as happens with all government instrumentalities. This Government has chosen a statutory corporation to control this expanding body and will ignore the role that could be played by the Australian Sports Commission. Turning to the administration of sport, I was fortunate enough to hold a senior executive position with a major Australian sporting body for many years. We were responsible for local administration and organisation, metropolitan organisation, intrastate organisation, interstate organisation, national organisation and international competition and organisation, in addition to junior development and organisation for the veterans, one of whom I happen to be now. This sort of administration for each sport involves an enormous amount of work and an enormous number of people. Currently it is all done free in Australia by voluntary workers who are very hard to replace. It has all been self-financing and we have had coaching at all levels. Participants in just about all sports need coaching at all levels. The Australian Institute is supposed to be looking after only the elite sportsmen. But even elite sportsmen need different coaches for different parts of their game, or different events that they have to go into, and it is virtually impossible to say `Here is the athletics coach' or `Here is the gymnastics coach'. We need a great many specialised coaches in different areas. No doubt certain sports in Australia are very supportive of the role and activities of the Australian Institute of Sport. I can imagine that, because they are drinking at the public trough and having a good time whereas other sports are excluded. I think we will now see an explosion of sport whereby different sporting bodies want their activities defined as a sport so that they can get into the public trough also. This will not be good for Australian sport. Could white water canoeing be classified as a national sport? The canoeists classify themselves as such, and there are international competitions in this sort of thing. I do not know whether they would be coached in Canberra but I imagine that everybody from white water canoeists to the West Preston old boys poker school will be applying for sports status in Australia. It is obvious that sports administration in Australia is quite fractured today among the Department, the Institute, the Sports Commission and the Sports Aid Foundation. I do not believe that a statutory corporation will be the answer. I can remember predicting in the debate on the Australian Sports Commission that these problems would occur. They have occurred and the Government is now taking this action to fix them. I can promise honourable senators that this action will not fix them, because sports administration is too diverse and too specialised to be handled by a body such as this. It will cause disruption to sport in Australia. I have named the sports that I am sure do not have any connection whatsoever with the Australian Institute. At the moment in most of those sports we have world pre-eminence. I have looked at the amendments to be moved by the Australian Democrats. One of them could have some merit but it will not fit in with what is proposed by the Government. We must reject the Bill. I support the amendment that was moved earlier by Senator Collard. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(6.35) —I must disagree in some ways with my learned colleague Senator Sheil, who has just spoken. I am not one who worries particularly about the way the Australian Institute of Sport is going. As a matter of fact, I do quite the opposite. I have been to the Institute quite often. If we are to have the Institute, I cannot see any reason why it should not be in the same category as the Australian National Library, the Australian National Gallery and the Australian Sports Commission, which are quangos under this Government. We know the history of the Australian Institute of Sport. In the time of the late Frank Stewart the possibility of establishing a national institute of sport was investigated and, after a series of investigations, a report was tabled in November 1975. We had a bit of turmoil in this country and a change of government following the election in that year. Things slowed down a little after that until a Liberal Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Ellicott, took up the proposal and was able to get the Government to establish the Institute. I am told that the expeditious way of doing it at that time was to make it a public company. It was done for expeditious reasons rather for than any other. The Institute was established on 24 September 1980 and it commenced operations on Australia Day, 1981. I believe that 151 athletes in eight residential sports attended the Institute in its first year. Athletics, basketball, gymnastics, netball, soccer, swimming, tennis and weightlifting were the first residential sports in Canberra. Last year some 297 athletes in 13 residential sports participated in activities at the Institute and more than 2,200 people in 52 sports attended with the assistance of the national training centre program which started in 1982. Maybe what Senator Sheil has just said is right. Perhaps we should watch that the representatives of every minor sport around the country do not try to get money from the Institute. I do not believe that that should be the aim of the Institute. I think it should be dedicated to those things that I call real sports and I for one will be watching to see that that happens. It is good to see some of the work that the Institute is doing with the other sporting institutes and establishments around Australia. Of course, we have institutes in New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. They are all important, but I believe that we should not decentralise to too great an extent. Much as I dislike the idea of people coming to live in Canberra, I believe that, as the Institute has been established in Canberra, we should keep to that philosophy and should not allow competition between the States to ruin something that can be of benefit for the whole country. In 1980-81 the Institute had 28 staff. It now has 150. That is something that worries me a little, and it is something that I will try to keep an eye on. I believe that we have to take care to control the growth in the areas of management. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) pointed out in his second reading speech that under the Australian Institute of Sport Bill the Institute will be able to operate with fewer overall constraints than in the past. I think it has to have some constraints, but because it is now operating as a quango it will have to report to the Parliament and the Parliament will have an opportunity to comment upon its reports and upon any excesses it observes. Also, the legislation will ensure appropriate accountability to the government of the day and, as I said a moment ago, through it to the Parliament. We must have this accountability. I have already mentioned that the new arrangements will bring the Institute into line with other national institutions. I mention particularly the work of coaches at the Institute. Many people do not realise the long hours these gentlemen and ladies work. Many would find it difficult to do their job without the extreme tolerance of their families. They find it hard to take their holidays. If one looks at the ages of the people training at the Institute of Sport one realises that the coaches not only have to assist them in their sport but also almost have to father or mother some of the younger people. We must remember that if the athletes do well they get the praise but if they do not do quite so well the coaches are the ones who cop it in the neck; they are the ones who get blamed. I am pleased to see in the functions mentioned in clause 6 of the Bill special mention of the coaches. I am also pleased that the sports medicine program is specially mentioned in the functions of the Institute of Sport. When setting up a company or any organisation one sets down the guidelines for its operation and that is what clause 6 of the Bill does. Senator Sheil has mentioned the raising of money by the Institute by appropriate means. I do not see that as a bad thing; it is doing that at the moment. I would be only too pleased if the Institute could raise all the money it needs in order to operate. We should remember what Don Bradman said about coaches. He said that the role of coaches `is not only to encourage and improve athletic skill, but also to mould citizens who will be a credit to society and who will add to our nation's standing and reputation in all parts of the world'. The coaches at the Institute are doing this. Many of the coaches and other staff at the Institute are very much committed to the work that they are doing and to looking after the athletes there. I commend their activities to the Senate. Perhaps it is appropriate that this legislation has come into the Senate today because tomorrow I will have the pleasure of hosting a meal in the private dining room for the Institute of Sport basketball team, which I have seen train and play on several occasions this year. Soon some of the members of the team will leave the Institute. I wish them well, as I do all athletes who attend and graduate from that place. I hope that they are of benefit to this country when they leave. We have to remember that the Institute has been going for only a relatively short time and that some of the effects of the training that is now being given to athletes at the Institute, including the young and not so young people-I think the oldest athlete there is about 31-will gradually come back to this country. As long as there is control on the overall operation of the Institute it will get my blessing. Even though some of the people in the basketball group, for argument's sake, will leave the Institute soon, the coaches there are already selecting for next year. It is a continuous and demanding job. Many Australians do not realise just how demanding it is. I am pleased that this Bill recognises this fact. I believe the Institute is already helping this country to earn international recognition for training sports men and women. I have always had a great interest in sport and, although we can always pick examples to show that we could get on without it, I believe that this Institute certainly does not subtract from the sports ability of the people of Australia; it only adds to our potential. Over a long term it will definitely be of benefit to the athletes there at the moment, and when they are out in the world and offering to help others I am sure the country will benefit. Although the Institute costs a fair deal of money to operate, to a large extent it is money well spent. It is easy to find examples, particularly in government, of where money is wasted, but I would much rather see money spent on a place such as this than on other areas. I would much rather see it spent at the Institute of Sport than on a rich man's sport such as racing for the America's Cup. I think we have spent some $27m on that-I am open to correction but it is a large amount of money-yet the Institute each year does not cost more than half of that amount. I have visited the Institute on many occasions. Its approach to sport and the behaviour and the attitude that is instilled into its sports men and women leaves little to be desired. We will benefit from this Institute as time goes by. Perhaps it is as well to remember again what Sir Donald Bradman said: . . . whilst I applaud our Government's newfound encouragement for the sporting fraternity, I hope nobody gets carried away by the mistaken notion that financial help and good facilities guarantee success. They merely open the door. Success must still be motivated from within. Hard work and dedication remain essential for all individuals who must embrace with equal fervour, opportunity and responsibility. With good coaches and good financial control the aims suggested by Sir Donald Bradman can be obtained from the people at the Institute. I realise that others wish to speak this evening. I have a list of athletes from the Institute who have done well and I seek leave to incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- The 1984 Australian Olympic team, which included 52 athletes (29 men and 23 women) and 13 officials who were scholarship-holders or coaches at the AIS Five AIS athletes (all swimmers) won medals at the 1984 Olympic Games Three AIS swimmers won 1984 USA National Swimming Titles At the 1982 Commonwealth Games 26 of the 70 gold medals won by Australians went to AIS athletes Robert de Castella, one of the world's leading marathon runners, is a former AIS athlete A number of AIS coaches have been selected as national or assistant national coaches. Eight AIS track and field athletes represented Australia at the 1983 World Championships. Five AIS track and field athletes competed for the Oceania team in the World Cup Athletics held in Canberra in October 1985. The AIS supplied 9 players for the Australian Women's Hockey Team which defeated West Germany and England in a series of test matches in Australia in 1985. Nine AIS gymnasts (5 women and 4 men) were selected in a team of 13 to contest the 1985 World Championships. The AIS Men's and Women's Basketball Team won the 1985 Oceania Basketball Championships held in Fiji. Michelle Pearson of the AIS won a gold medal at the 1985 World Student Games in Japan. The AIS Water Polo team was undefeated in a 12 match tour of Europe in August 1985. Six members of the AIS Soccer team represented Australia in the 1985 Youth World Cup finals in USSR. Five AIS team members were selected in the Australian Water Polo team which competed in the 1985 World Cup. There have been creditable performances in the international tennis arena by AIS players such as Patrick Cash, Anne Winter, Wally Masur and Simon Youl. Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. Under these Bills the Institute will be more responsible to the Parliament than it is at the moment. It is to be hoped that when its reports are presented in this Parliament we will have sufficient time to debate them. Of course time is always one of the problems. We do not always get an opportunity to examine things as closely as we would like. We should at least have presented to us documents in a form that enables us to look closely at places such as the Institute. Whilst I will support the amendment that has been moved, I do not think that everything that is being done at the Institute is bad; I think most of it is very worthwhile and it certainly gets my support. Debate (on motion by Senator Puplick) adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave- I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the new fringe benefits and capital gains taxes are administrative nightmares, impose on business a massive paper burden, contain inequities and inconsistencies and should be repealed; and (b) calls on the Government to introduce legislation to remove all anomalies and problems confronting: (i) isolated local councils; (ii) mining operations; (iii) other businesses operating in remote areas and overseas destinations; (iv) the elderly and infirm; (v) non-profit making organisations; (vi) small business; and (c) calls upon the Government to make plain its intention to deal with anomalies and apparently unintended effects of the Income Tax Assessment (Capital Gains) Act, particularly section 160zzs, 160zzt and 160zl and to amend the legislation to give proper effect to shareholders' rights; and (d) notes with concern that the Commissioner of Taxation has issued a ruling known as it No. 2121, which- (i) appears to catch those family arrangements which have been legitimately established with the purpose of providing limited liability to family assets such as the family home or to provide a `going concern' legal entity for the contractors' business; and (ii) in many cases has been employed by the Commissioner of Taxation to penalise contractors whose circumstances do not warrant such heavy-handed treatment. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.51) —I rise this evening to take up two distinct but very important issues which are of national significance and worthy of serious debate. One of those issues is the fringe benefits tax. There is no doubt that that issue is being treated very seriously by the Australian community. Even the Federal Government is coming to the realisation that there are grave problems and consequences flowing from this tax. That is something about which I will say something later. The other issue of national significance, which unfortunately has been receiving no constructive attention from the Federal Government, is the proposed Alice Springs to Darwin rail link. Only yesterday in the chamber the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) ranted about this project and described Canadian Pacific Railway Corporation as being involved in a shonky report on the viability of the railway. Senator Walsh seems to be increasingly incapable of discussing, debating or considering this project in a rational and sensible way. While one can commiserate with the Minister, as he must have rather a lot on his mind these days with his Government's fortunes declining and facing the certainty of defeat at the next election, one cannot excuse his flippant and off-hand dismissal of the Alice Springs to Darwin line when he clearly has not objectively studied the facts. Cold hard facts are not the sorts of matters Senator Walsh tends to address when he answers the questions his obliging colleagues ask about matters so dear to his heart, such as the rail project. In the interests of setting the matter straight, I wish this evening to state the facts, as I have endeavoured to do before. As early as 1911 the Commonwealth accepted an obligation to build the line and that obligation was confirmed in 1949 when Commonwealth legislation made it clear that the Commonwealth was committed to building and paying for the line. In 1982 the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, pledged that the line would be built by 1988. The then Opposition, in the lead-up to the 1983 Federal election under the leadership of Mr Hawke, made an unequivocal pledge that it would build the line and, indeed, Australian Labor Party spokesmen went so far as to say that only a Labor government could be trusted to build the line. After its election, the Labor Government immediately repudiated its pledge and came back with an offer which required the Northern Territory Government to find 40 per cent of the total cost of the line. That the Territory Government rejected this offer should come as no surprise, for the Territory was justified in pressing its case that the Commonwealth should meet its obligation. Of course, as far as the Territory was concerned, it was a case of where the money would come from. The result was that the Commonwealth completely walked away from that obligation. In order to demonstrate that it was justified, the Federal Government set up the Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, which investigated the feasibility of the line. The inquiry was headed by Mr David Hill. We hear of him now as being in charge of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. He was then the head of the New South Wales Rail Authority, an organisation which consistently records huge losses. Not surprisingly, Mr Hill found that the line was not viable within the terms of reference of his inquiry, but it is worth considering that specifically excluded from the terms of reference of the inquiry was an assessment of the defence implications or benefits of the railway. Only weeks after Hill's findings were announced came the publication of a document from three respected defence studies specialists, including Dr Desmond Ball, of the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. The document deals specifically with the defence implications of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. Those specialists concluded that it was essential as a means of transportation of personnel and equipment in the event of any northern defence threat. Indeed, if one looks at the development of the Tindal Royal Australian Air Force base and sees the enormous development that has taken place there-it will be the home base for the FA18 fighter squadron in the not too distant future-with the new roads and new housing, one can see the benefit of a railway to service that very important defence link. Leaving aside that glaring omission from the terms of reference, there were a number of other inadequacies in the Hill study which were subsequently revealed when the papers of the inquiry were made available under the Freedom of Information Act. It should be noted that there were no detailed working papers prepared by the Hill inquiry. The inquiry made no independent assessment or projection of the likely task traffic. There was no justification for the particular methodological approach adopted by the inquiry. No analysis or assessment was made of the adequacy of critical cost assumptions for design and operating standards. No social audit methodology was developed, despite the clear statement that this was to be a social audit inquiry. Mining traffic forecasts were arbitrarily downgraded without any consultation with the Northern Territory Government, despite the fact that the inquiry stated that forecasts were based on the Northern Territory Government's submission. A major failing of the inquiry was its failure to cost the national benefits of the railway and its reliance only on corridor benefits. The list goes on. The Northern Territory Government was entitled to be appalled at the cynicism of the Hill report and the Federal Government, which welcomed the report with open arms. The Northern Territory Government very properly engaged the consultants of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corporation, a world-renowned company the reputation of which is beyond dispute. It carries 85 million tonnes of traffic per annum in North America. Its expertise is unquestionable and, most importantly and in stark contrast with Mr Hill's outfit, Canadian Pacific makes a profit. The railway authority of which Mr Hill was chairman has lost some $800m per annum and relies on Commonwealth funds for its survival. Canadian Pacific conducted a truly independent inquiry into the economic feasibility of the line and concluded that in strictly economic terms the railway extension is viable for a broad range of traffic forecasts and provided sound justifications and bases upon which it reached this conclusion. In the course of Senator Walsh's attack yesterday he criticised the Canadian Pacific report as shonky and made a number of other allegations which are simply incorrect. Firstly, his statement that the Northern Territory intended to flog off housing to a private institution was wrong. No such decision has been made by the Northern Territory Government. The Northern Territory Government has not yet made any decision by way of raising finance and there is no prospect or intention of selling off houses. What Senator Walsh said yesterday was a repeat of the stories put about by ALP persons in the Territory. It is irresponsible of the Minister to repeat allegations which are unnecessary, unhelpful, and which have caused considerable distress to a number of Northern Territory citizens. In repeating the allegations, Senator Walsh's behaviour is unacceptable. Senator Walsh also claimed that the so-called proposed investment was not rational. The facts are that the Northern Territory Government's whole approach to the railway-this has been stressed time and time again in public statements by the Chief Minister-has been that the investment, if it is to be made, should be done on an entirely rational basis. If there have been any irrational decisions, surely they have been the decisions taken by the Federal Government in its investments in other railways. Canadian Pacific rationally analysed the costing of the railway and found a number of savings over and above the estimated cost of the project as projected by Hill. These savings are, firstly, a $97m to $117m evaluation of savings beyond the Alice Springs-Darwin corridor within which rail construction will take place; secondly, $109m to $141m modification of track design and construction schedule; thirdly, $40m-elimination of non-economic passenger services from passenger evaluation; fourthly, $30m to $40m-improved estimation of road maintenance cost savings; fifthly, $13m to $32m-salvage of track-laying equipment and welding plant at the end of the construction period; sixthly, $8m to $11m- consideration of change from three-man to two-man crews on freight trains; and seventhly, $246m-alternative forecasts of the initial tonnage, annual growth and average distance on each tonne of freight that is moved. The Canadian Pacific report in present term values using a 7 per cent discount rate estimates that the project would provide a real return of $54m to $264m depending on traffic projections. Does that sound like a careless, irrational or shonky analysis? As I have said, Senator Walsh said that the Canadian Pacific report contained three wrong assumptions. The first was that all traffic would travel the length of the line. He is wrong. The report bases traffic estimates on goods travelling an average of just over 1,000 kilometres when the line is around 1,400 kilometres. Secondly, he claimed that the report was based on the assumption that all south-north traffic would use the rail over road. Again he is wrong. The calculations were based upon an 80-20 split with rail carrying 80 per cent. That figure is achieved by the east-west Pacific rail link. That is a fair enough comparison. Senator Walsh stated that the report took into account alleged benefits to the rest of the railway system in Australia. On that he is right, but he cannot seriously believe that the benefits are merely alleged. They will definitely exist and are relevant. It is only natural that once the line is in place the option will be available for freight to be sent direct by rail from Sydney, Melbourne or any other eastern port and so the rail systems of the eastern States will benefit from the increased traffic. There are also savings on road maintenance which will flow from an increased reliance on rail traffic. If the Minister does not understand the real economic benefits which will flow from this project that reflects poorly on his capacity to grasp fairly simple economic facts. His comments yesterday, as I said earlier, were irresponsible and economic nonsense. The Northern Territory Government's railway executive group which was charged with the task of coming up with an honest appraisal of the ways in which the project could be funded had done just that. The group examined freight forecasting, construction, surveying and land acquisition considerations and operations and maintenance as well as financial evaluation. The group reported recently to the Northern Territory Cabinet and on the basis of its report the Northern Territory Government is pledged to going ahead with the project and financing it with private investments from companies involved in the transport, construction, freight forwarding and finance areas. I would have thought that Senator Walsh, who is so averse to the Federal Government providing any funds for the project in spite of its obligations to do so, would have applauded the initiative and self-reliance which the Northern Territory Government is showing in regard to this project. The Northern Territory is not going to be left behind simply because the Commonwealth is not prepared to meet its responsibilities. Other projects are going ahead at a great pace in the Northern Territory. I have already indicated that the gas pipeline which Senator Walsh dismissed as a pie in the sky is almost complete. This is a massive project whereby natural gas is being brought from Central Australia and is supplying towns along the Stuart Highway to Darwin. That pipeline will supply the new Darwin power house with gas. It is an immense private enterprise-Northern Territory Government project and, as I understand it, it has received no contribution from the Federal Government. The free trade zone, which is being developed, is attracting interest from Hong Kong and other Asian nations and, in conjunction with the rail link, will make Darwin a major port in the Pacific. Rather than constantly harping on about the Northern Territory, Senator Walsh would be well advised to take a leaf out of its book and get his Government to show the same initiative and encouragement for development of industry as is happening in the Northern Territory. That leads me to the second matter on which I wish to speak very briefly which is the anti-investment, anti-business and anti-enterprise policies which this Federal Government clearly favours. I refer specifically to the fringe benefits tax. I have a petition which was presented in the Senate today from some 1,868 Territory people and which opposes the introduction of this inequitable tax. Like hundreds of thousands of Australians, these petitioners know that, in spite of the claims of the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) that the tax is intended to catch the tax cheats, it is really penalising small business and imposing ridiculous burdens in pen-pushing and form-filling on Australians who are more interested in getting on with the job. The petition calls for the rescission of the fringe benefits tax. The fringe benefits tax will, firstly, increase both personal and company taxation, secondly, undermine employment levels through reducing profitability and international competitiveness of industry, thirdly, result in price increases, fourthly, force employers to withdraw voluntary incentives to employees paid over and above existing payments, and, fifthly, endanger stable industrial relations because of the potential for forced withdrawal of fringe benefits. Yesterday even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) conceded that the anomalies in the tax and the paperwork involved would mean that a review of the situation is called for. No doubt the Prime Minister has made this announcement with one eye on the Queensland election. The petition presented to the Senate this morning was drawn up and circulated by a group of concerned organisations in the Northern Territory. The organisations include the Northern Territory Confederation of Industry and Commerce, the Master Builders Association of the Northern Territory, the Motor Traders Association of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Mines and Metals Association, the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Small Business Association, the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines together with many hundreds of indivi-duals. These organisations also arranged for a comprehensive survey to be conducted to establish in dollars-and-cents terms the impact of the FBT on the private sector. The form and subsequent analysis were undertaken by an economist employed by the Department of the Chief Minister. The outcome of the survey showed that longstanding award provisions are now deemed to be fringe benefits taxable in the hands of the employer. These provisions are awards of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and were not introduced or contemplated as tax avoidance schemes. The sample, being 13.2 per cent of the private sector work force, was reliable. The benefits subject to the new taxation are estimated at $60m, and so tax would be about $26m. The highest tax payable was estimated at $1,451 in the mining industry and the lowest was $258 per employee in the pastoral industry. The weighted average came to $755 per employee. All this represents an increase in private sector costs of some 5 per cent. The report looked at the administration problems and found that all Northern Territory employer organisations are encountering massive difficulties in advising their members as to the interpretation of the legislation. We have certainly heard plenty about that in the Senate particularly in the last few days. I can imagine the problems of employer organisations now that the whole matter is under review. Not only is the Northern Territory having problems; everyone in Australia is having them. The administrative burden will impose as yet unknown operation costs while government has been forced to create an infrastructure which will destroy any revenue generation originally intended. The report's final conclusion is that the tax is unable to be consistently interpreted and is therefore unworkable and unenforceable. It may be that the Federal Government is on the verge of discovering this for itself. In the meantime I understand that officers of the Australian Taxation Office in the Northern Territory, in their zeal to enforce the tax, are adopting rather overbearing measures. It seems that they are so keen that they are harassing business people through phone calls and in some instances visits to business premises where, according to the Small Business Council, they are demanding that individuals fill out fringe benefits tax registration forms. I have placed a series of questions on the Notice Paper regarding these alleged standover tactics. I sincerely hope that any instances identified are not condoned by the Minister and that he takes appropriate action to put an end to this practice. The concern of the petitioners that I have mentioned is shared by thousands across the country. I commend all of those who are telling the Federal Government in no uncertain terms what they think of its fringe benefits tax. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(7.10) —Last month, on 12 September, Mysoon Shaath, a member of the terrorist organisation the Palestine Liberation Organisation visited Australia for 10 days. She entered Australia via New Zealand after attending a Palestinian Human Rights Conference there. In an interview with the Melbourne Sun during her visit, Ms Shaath revealed her PLO connections. Her status as an executive member of the Union of Palestinian Women, which is a direct affiliate of the Executive Committee of the PLO, leaves no room for doubt that she is in fact a member of the PLO. Her trip was co-ordinated by self-styled official PLO spokesman Mr Ali Kazak who heads the Palestine Information Office in Melbourne. On his own admission the office goes by that name rather than as the PLO Embassy only `because the Australian Government hasn't recognized the PLO yet'. Mr Kazak admits to be in regular contact with PLO leader Yassar Arafat. Mr Kazak and Mysoon Shaath deny that the PLO is a terrorist organisation. There is overwhelming evidence, however, to the contrary. For instance, the recent terrorist hijackers of the Pan American World Airways jet in Karachi have been traced to PLO training camps in Algiers. The Istanbul murder of innocent Jews in prayer is widely reported to have been masterminded by Arafat's chief of operations, Abu Jihad. The Achille Lauro incident 12 months ago is another well known PLO inspired terrorist attack. I have been informed by reliable sources who contacted the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on the Monday, following Ms Shaath's arrival and the Sun article, that the Department indicated it was unaware of Ms Shaath's visit. But communication with the Department of Foreign Affairs revealed that that Department did know of Ms Shaath's visit to Australia. So the Department of Foreign Affairs knew, but the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs did not. This amazing situation-this greatly worrying situation-may help to explain the extraordinary and deplorable fact that when the Opposition shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Cadman, made inquiries of the Immigration Department as to whether Ms Shaath was here with the approval of the Government, or if she did not have approval why she was here, he was told to put his request in the form of a freedom of information request. Two matters of grave concern arise from this episode: First, has New Zealand, in virtue of our special visa arrangements with her, become an easy access point to Australia for terrorists and would be terrorists? Secondly, the Hawke Government has failed in its responsibility to provide security for Australians against the entry of terrorists and would-be terrorists. The Hawke Government has quite clearly gone soft on one of the world's notorious terrorist organisations, the PLO. How else can Mysoon Shaath's presence in Australia, with the full knowledge of the Department of Foreign Affairs, be explained? The Hawke Government has even permitted the use of taxpayers' money to support PLO activities. Last October, the Australia Council gave the PLO, in the guise of Ali Kazak's Palestine Information Office, $5,000 of taxpayers' money. The Minister responsible for the Australia Council, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, has said that the grant was for a `cultural exhibition'. The Palestine Information Office's stated aim is to promote the PLO cause. This grant, therefore, amounts to a diversion of taxpayers' money to support the PLO. Not content with this small contribution, the Hawke Government has permitted the diversion of more taxpayers' money to sponsor Mr Kazak's contribution to our bicentennial publication, the Encyclopaedia of the Australian People. This publication has the Government's blessing and will enjoy pride of place as the authoritative guide to the Australian people. To date, precise information on Mr Kazak's contribution is unavailable, but that it will be promoting the PLO cause is surely likely. These developments require a detailed explanation by the Hawke Government. If Mysoon Shaath's visit to Australia represents a shift in the Government's policy, after many years of bipartisan policy that members of known terrorist organisations, including the PLO and its affiliates, not be allowed entry to Australia, the Australian people have a fundamental right to be told of this policy shift. The Australian people also have the fundamental right to be told why their taxes are being given in the form of grants to such organisations as the PLO or its affiliates. A fundamental responsibility of any government is to maximise the security of its people. It appears that, either through a deliberate policy shift or through inefficient intelligence or administration, the Government is not adequately fulfilling this responsibility. If our visa and other arrangements with New Zealand or any other country are weakening our security against the arrival of terrorists or members of terrorist organisations in Australia, the loopholes must be closed immediately. It is not just Australian citizens who appear to be being put at increased risk. World leaders and other notable figures frequently visit Australia. Next week, the Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, will visit us. A few weeks later the Pontiff will visit. Both these leaders have already been the subject of assassination attempts in their own countries. It is absolutely essential that Australia's security arrangements for visits such as these be, and be seen to be, at their highest level. The Mysoon Shaath episode raises doubts in this regard. I call on the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, who is at the table, to assure the Senate that she will arrange to have this matter reviewed as a matter of urgency and of the highest priority. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.17) —Having had time to read the Hansard record of the answer given by the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, to Senator Devlin yesterday regarding my criticism of the national drug offensive, I can only presume that it is one of those occasions of which Senator Grimes availed himself, to quote him, `when people sometimes make statements in the heat of the moment that they may later regret'. I hope that he has now regretted the answer he gave Senator Devlin yesterday. Yesterday Senator Grimes claimed that I had claimed that We Help Ourselves-which is one of the organisations at the street level in New South Wales-had received nothing when in fact it had received $104,000. He stated that I had also claimed that GROW, which is another organisation dealing with drugs at the street level, had received nothing. Senator Grimes said: In fact, it claimed $33,000. In regard to the Opposition's task force on drugs, he stated: The task force claimed that only the New South Wales Government contributed to the cost of life education mobile vans, whereas both the State and Federal governments provided $782,000 under the campaign. Senator Grimes has, I very firmly believe, misled the Senate. I will choose one of four agencies to explain what I mean. Let us look at We Help Ourselves. In 1984-85 that organisation received $20,800 in grants. In 1985-86 it received $125,414 as a result of State ministerial approval in November 1985. This much larger sum included one-off payments for repairs and maintenance and money for a new half-way house, as well as increased recurrent funds for two additional staff. However, following the National Drug Summit and Mr Hawke's statement of a State and Federal commitment to spend $100m over a period of three years'. We Help Ourselves received an allocation for the 1986-87 financial year of only $104,373. That is very close to Senator Grimes's $104,000. He claimed that that organisation received that amount under the drug offensive. I believe that is a dreadful attempt to mislead the Senate. There is no way that yearly recurrent grants can be considered as money granted as a result of the national drug offensive. I can assure the Senate that the feeling at the street level in New South Wales where our survey was done is running very high. The non-government organisations have virtually been ignored. Only $2m of the $8m that has been granted this year has gone to non-government bodies. Government bodies have received $6m. Almost half of that $2m has gone to one of those non-government organisations. The sum of $6m has gone to government bodies. Of course, those bodies are usually funded by State or Federal departments. Indeed, NADA-the Network of Alcohol and Drug Agencies, which is the umbrella group for 90 per cent of the non-government organisations in this area-wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Health, Mr Anderson, as soon as he took up his new portfolio and asked him to meet with a delegation from the executive of that organisation to discuss the needs of the agencies in the community and the needs of the users. There has been no acknowledgment at all of the letter by that Minister for Health. Senator Grimes, in his answer yesterday, said something which is obviously not the case. He said: The task force claimed that only the New South Wales Government contributed to the cost of life education mobile vans, whereas both the State and Federal governments provided $782,000 under the campaign. This is obviously not the case. Indeed, to quote the task force, it said that life education centre mobiles did indeed receive funding for new vans. Senator Grimes says that we claimed that no money was received. Obviously, that is an error that the Minister has made, I hope not deliberately. Finally, Senator Grimes-I believe in a very childish way-attempted to connect my criticisms of the handing out of grants in the State of New South Wales as a result of that survey to the way things were carried out in my home State. Indeed, just the opposite occurred. Money in my State was given to street level organisations. It was given to the Lions Club, the Salvation Army and other street level organisations. This is in direct contrast to the State of New South Wales, where the William Booth Institute of the Salvation Army at Darlinghurst was refused, as was Mancare. Neither of those Salvation Army organisations received anything. I have risen in the adjournment debate purely to put the facts in Hansard. I let Senator Grimes know that I would be doing this but he has not chosen to come into the Senate. I do not know whether he has been too busy to do so but perhaps he has been. I am not claiming that he did not come in by choice, but it is wrong for the Government to claim that recurrent funds being given to organisations at the street level are indeed moneys from the drug offensive. People working in those areas cannot and will not be hoodwinked. For the Government to attempt to hoodwink the Australian people generally is, I believe, wrong. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(7.25) —I would like to refer to the Australian Parliamentary Disarmament Forum which was held on the Friday immediately following the last sitting week of the Parliament, including the records that have been kept of that meeting, and briefly I thank all those associated with the Parliament who enabled it to take place. The Forum was organised by the Parliamentary Disarmament Group, which consists of members and senators from all parties and of which I happen to be one of the co-convenors. My fellow co-convenors from the other parties asked me to co-ordinate the arrangements for this forum, which I was happy to do. You, Mr President, together with Madam Speaker, addressed us at the Forum and Madam Speaker opened the Forum. Our guests that day were the five ambassadors representing in Australia the five nuclear armed nations-the United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and Great Britain. These five ambassadors made arrangements, in accepting our invitation, for three additional delegates each to attend with them. These delegates included experts in disarmament and arms control who came especially from home capitals to be at the Forum and make contributions. The program for the day was set out and circulated to many members of Parliament. I seek leave to have the program incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PROGRAM 8.55 All attending the Forum to be seated 9.00-9.10 Welcome to Delegations, Parliamentary participants, Observers and Press by the Co-convenors 9.10-9.20 Opening by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and/or the President of the Senate 9.20-9.25 Outline of Forum arrangements by the Co-ordinator 9.30-10.25 Session One: Great Britain: `The United Kingdom's Approach to Security, Peace and Disarmament' 10.25-10.40 Morning Tea 10.45-11.40 Session Two: France: `France's Approach to Security, Peace and Disarmament' 11.45-12.40 Session Three: China: `China's Approach to Security, Peace and Disarmament' 12.45-1.50 Lunch 1.55-2.50 Session Four: Soviet Union: `The Soviet Union's Approach to Security, Peace and Disarmament' 2.55-3.50 Session Five: United States: `The Approach of the United States to Security, Peace and Disarmament' 3.55-4.20 Final statements by the Co-convenors and Ambassadors 4.20 Close The Sessions-Each session will last 55 minutes 20 minutes-Ambassador's introduction of delegation and the presentation `Approach to Security, Peace and Disarmament' by the Ambassador and/or other members of the delegation 30 minutes-Parliamentarians' questions 5 minutes-Concluding summary statements by the Ambassador and/or other delegation members Senator Baden Teague Co-ordinator Senator TEAGUE —The procedure throughout the day was for each ambassador in turn to give a 20-minute presentation of his own nation's approach to peace, disarmament and security and for that to be followed by 30 minutes of questions from the members of parliament who were present. Thirty-five members of parliament participated in the day's proceedings and there was a very lively exchange of questions and answers of real substance. Some 70 observers, representative of the Australian public, were able to be present at our invitation. They ranged from secretaries of departments and heads of defence services to year 11 students from schools, but with a wide representation of peace groups and other community groups, such as the National Federation of Women, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and various party representatives. During the Forum we ensured that we kept a careful record of all that was said. Hansard has already produced the first proofs of the record of the whole day and the proof version amounts to some 140 pages. We hope to make it available, on a responsible cost basis, to all interested members of the Australian public and inquirers from overseas. Secondly, we made arrangements for the whole day to be filmed to enable television programs to be produced and, in particular to enable the production of six video cassettes, one being a collage of the day and the other five being individual programs based on the five sessions because the five ambassadors, together with their delegations, presented in turn their country's position and then faced questions, doing so in the order of Great Britain, France, China, the Soviet Union and the United States. We hope that in this, the International Year of Peace, we achieved on that day a greater understanding between the representatives of those nations and the members and senators of the Australian Parliament on the issues before us in this area. We hope also that the records I have referred to will be useful and beneficial over the coming years, especially to young Australians in schools and in other places who may view the videos of the day's events. Finally, I would like specifically to thank all those in Parliament House who assisted this Forum. It was a Forum in which some 35 members and senators participated but in fact more than 100 members and senators, in addition, gave us direct letters and statements of well wishes and apologies because although they were unable to attend they supported what we were doing. We were delighted at this enormous amount of interest in the Forum. On every aspect we gained support from everyone in Parliament House, from yourself down, Mr President, in regard to the arrangements that were made for our meeting in Senate Committee rooms 1 and 2, including the necessary security arrangements and television and media facilities. The Senate attendants were magnificent in the way they prepared the room. I have to place on record that some Senate attendants arranged the room from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. because a Senate Estimates committee sat in the room until 3 o'clock in the morning. The whole day's proceedings were enormously facilitated by everybody. Fortunately not one incident detracted from the day. I conclude by summing up in a few sentences my own evaluation of the substantial findings which arose from the day's dialogue. Interested members of parliament and the public will be able to refer to the full Hansard record on these matters. In trying to evaluate the day's proceedings, I suggest that three most significant arms control and disarmament matters were referred to. Two of them amounted to good news. First, there was almost universal support for the achievement of significant reductions in the level of armaments, and we all look to these words being made good by action. There was cautious optimism towards this being achieved in the short term. Secondly, the forum believed that a comprehensive chemical weapons ban ought to be achieved and is likely to be achieved in the coming 12 months. There was a difference of views on the third and most insistent matter, unanimously agreed to by members of parliament, that a world wide comprehensive nuclear test ban be achieved. This was not the view of the nuclear armed nations that came before us on that day. I am sure that Australians, Australian parliamentarians and Australian governments will continue to press for this goal until we gain the assent of the nuclear armed nations. We see this as an achievable and beneficial outcome. I thank the Senate for this chance to note that this was a most significant day in the history of this Parliament and one which we all believe was worthwhile. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(7.35) —I will refer the remarks made by honourable senators to the appropriate Ministers for their response. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.35 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 282. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 284. Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Berry Fruits) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Books) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Computers) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Electric Motors) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Metal-Working Machine Tools) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Metal working Machines and Robots) Act- Declaration by the Minister under sub-sections 8 (2) and (4), dated 28 September 1986. Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Paper) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Penicillin) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Ships) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Two-stroke Engines) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statute-No. 60-Courses and Awards Amendment (No. 2) 1986, dated 3 September 1986. Christmas Island Act-Regulations 1986-No. 2-(Christmas Island Assembly Ordinance). Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 264. Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 247. Customs Act- Notices 1986- Nos 8 and 9-Specified rate in respect to the diesel fuel rebate, dated 14 August 1986 and 19 August 1986. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 248. Defence Act-Determination 1986 No. 57. Designs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 263. Excise Act- Notices 1986-Nos 15 and 17-Specified rate in respect to the diesel fuel rebate, dated 14 August 1986 and 19 August 1986. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 249. Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 252. Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 251 Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 253. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 275. Home and Community Care Act-Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Queensland, dated 9 July 1986. Lands Acquisition Act- Land, etc., acquired for telecommunications services-Grenville, Victoria. Statements (6) by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Price Determination, dated 24 September 1986. Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 254. National Library Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 285. Navigation Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274. Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 259, 260. Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Public Service Act- Determinations 1986 Nos 69, 70, 73, 74. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 256. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 283. Radiocommunications Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1986 No. 278. Radiocommunications (Frequency Reservation Certificate Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 276. Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 279. Radiocommunications (Temporary Permit Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 280. Radiocommunications (Test Permit Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 277. Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1986 No. 281. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 258. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance 1986-No. 56-Credit (Amendment) (no. 3). Ship Construction Bounty Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Shipping Registration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 267, 268. Subsidy (Grain Harvesters and Equipment) Act-Return, for year 1985-86. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 250, 265, 266. Telecommunications Act- By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 71, dated 10 September 1986. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 45, dated 10 September 1986. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 257. Trade Marks Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 261, 262. Trade Practices Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 255. Wool Industry Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 286. Governor-General's Proclamations-Commencement of Acts: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986-1 October 1986 (Gazette No. S 491, 26 September 1986) Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Act 1985-1 October 1986 (Gazette No. S 495, 29 September 1986) Health Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Sections 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20 and 21, and sub-section 47 (2)-26 September 1986 (Gazette No. S 492, 26 September 1986) Shipping Registration Amendment Act 1984-Section 8-1 October 1986 (Gazette No. S 491, 26 September 1986) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1255) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) How many Senior Executive Fellowships have been awarded since the scheme's inception. (2) Who has received such Fellowship Awards and what was the specific purpose of each Award. (3) What has been the cost of each Award. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Fifty-two Senior Executive Fellowships have been awarded since the program's inception. Two fellowship holders withdrew, leaving a total of 50 awards which have been or are due to be taken up. (2) and (3) Table 1 below shows the recipients, purposes and (where fully acquitted) costs of Fellowships taken up between March 1984 and June 1985. Details regarding Fellowships taken up in 1985-86 are given in Table 2. Recipients and purposes of Fellowships tenable in 1986-87 are shown in Table 3. Recipients who withdrew from the program, and the purposes for which they were awarded Fellowships, are shown in Table 4. Table 1 The following officers took up Senior Executive Fellowships between March 1984 and June 1985. Name Home Organisation Designation Program Total Cost $ Dr H. C. Anderson... Health (ACT) Principal Medical Officer, Level 3 Study extent and efficacy of controls on the medical profession 27,111.00 Mr A. R. Bagnall... Bureau of Statistics (ACT) Deputy Statistician, Level 4 Study management systems and techniques and program budgeting 40,326.30 Mr R. M. Beetham... Treasury (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4 Review developments in operation and control of financial systems 28,958.84 Mr M. W. Buckham... Defence (ACT) Deputy Secretary, Level 5 Gain work experience in a defence related industry, and with the Netherlands Government 24,939.00 Mr J. L. Carroll... Finance (ACT) Deputy Secretary, Level 6 Examine ways of reducing tension between program objectives and finance objectives 28,281.32 Mr J. G. Digby... Primary Industry (ACT) Assistant Director, Level 1 Assess the impact of new technology on animal health agencies 27,803.15 Mr J. W. Foley... Public Service Board (ACT) First Assistant Commissioner, Level 4 Study recent developments in management and organisational systems 21,004.17 Mr P. R. Griffin... Health (ACT) Assistant Director-General, Level 1 Examine health and administration in the US and Canada 29,328.57 Mr F. R Harvey... Defence (Vic.) Regional Secretary, Level 2 Study the government policy and administration interface with the management of the armed forces 16,449.00 Mr R. Hopkins... Resources and Energy (ACT) Assistant Secretary, Level 1 Investigate energy research and development programs 25,922.54 Dr M. M. Kehoe... Veterans' Affairs (ACT) Chief Director (Medical Services), Level 5 Study problems facing health authorities 25,481.88 Mr F. C. Keith... Inter-State Commission (ACT) Secretary to the Commission, Level 3 Examine the distribution of transport powers and responsibilities between governments under federal systems 28,610.96 Mr N. R. Lind... Trade (ACT) Assistant Secretary, Level 2 Study the administration of intergovernmental economic associations 22,546.69 Mr R. G. Mills... Taxation Office (ACT) Senior Assistant Commissioner of Taxation, Level 3 Review developments in achieving compliance with tax laws 30,970.36 Mr J. M. Moten... Defence (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4 Review current USA approaches to defence policy analysis and weapons development programs 21,610.00 Mr F. G. H. Pooley... Treasury (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4 Examine the impact of regulation on the private finance sector in the UK, USA and Japan 33,390.79 Mr J. D. Pyne... Attorney-General's (Qld) Deputy Crown Solicitor, Level 2 Examine the use of computers in the management of legal offices 23,393.38 Mr S. M. Todd... Industry, Technology and Commerce (NSW) Regional Director, Level 1 Study interaction between industry, tertiary education institutions and governments regarding technology developments 25,442.56 Mr J. Ward... Resources and Energy Assistant Director, Level 1 Study mineral resource assessment and data collection and dissemination 17,924.83 Mr I. R. E. Wingett... Health (ACT) Assistant Director-General, Level 1 Assess care of the aged programs 18,261.10 Mr R. W. L. Wyers... Transport (ACT) Assistant Director, Level 2 Evaluate the administration of government business undertakings 16,107.40 Table 2 The following officers took up Senior Executive Fellowships between July 1985 and June 1986. Name Home Organisation Designation Program Total cost $ Mr E. M. Anderson ... Arts, Heritage and Environment (ACT) Assistant Secretary, Level 1 Evaluate environmental impact assessment practices 28,611.00 Mr L. C. Clements ... Bureau of Statistics (ACT) Assistant Statistician, Level 1 Study developments in statistical techniques relevant to price indices 32,628.53 Mr. P. B. Eyles ... Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 3 Examine practices relating to post-arrival services and multiculturalism 44,059.00 Mr R. F. Gordon ... Capital Territory Health Authority (ACT) Senior Assistant Commissioner, Level 2 Study community health service planning and administration 33,536.69 Mr N. D. Honan ... Primary Industry (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 3 Examine consultative processes and mechanisms in relation to producer price programs for agricultural commodities 31,918.29 Dr J. F. Hookey ... Human Rights Commission (ACT) Senior Assistant Secretary, Level 2 Study administrative relationships between complaint handlers and lawyers in human rights agencies (not yet acquitted) Prof. B. L. Johns ... Industry and Commerce (ACT) Director, Level 4 Evaluate recent research developments in industry economics 27,000.86 Mr B. R. Jones ... Resources and Energy (ACT) Assistant Secretary, Level 1 Study federal/state relations in the United States and Canadian electricity industries 18,784.54 Mr R. A. Judge ... Treasury (ACT) Deputy Life Insurance Commissioner, Level 1 Update knowledge of current practices in the life insurance industry 33,664.75 Mr H. D. Kelaher ... Health (ACT) First Assistant Director-General, Level 3 Review overseas health care financing and delivery options Not yet acquitted Dr K. H. Lokan ... Health (VIC) Director, Level 1 Examine radiation health regulatory practices in overseas federal government systems 20,572.66 Mr A. Radzevicius ... Attorney-General's (NSW) Registrar, Level 1 Evaluate the use of computers in court management 28,519.74 Mr J. W. Ray ... Employment and Industrial Relations (ACT) Assistant Secretary, Level 2 Examine vocational, educational and training policies and programs for youth 33,466.90 Mr K. J. Walters ... Housing and Construction (ACT) Associate Director, Level 2 Evaluate procedures to ensure quality in building design, construction and commissioning 28,017.95 Mr G. S. Whitley ... Territories (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 3 Study city-state government administration 39,153.84 Mr D. E. Wilson ... Housing and Construction (ACT) Assistant Secretary, Level 1 Assess the impact of computer developments on job design, organisation design, and career development 26,333.09 Mr D. D. Wood ... Defence (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4 Study approaches to developing and sustaining defence industries 34,849.00 Mr B. Yates ... National Library (ACT) Assistant Director, Level 3 Review developments in information technology and their impact on library administration 20,727.79 Table 3 The following officers have been awarded Senior Executive Fellowships to undertake overseas visits tenable until June 1987 (costs not yet known) Name Home Organisation Designation Program Mr P. N. Atcherley... Defence (ACT) Deputy Secretary, Level 5 To examine United Kingdom, US and Canadian Government approaches to Defence logistic activities and their application to the Australian context Mr J. B. Bowdler... Employment and Industrial Relations (NSW) State Director, Level 3 To assess labour market policies, programs and services in the USA and update general management skills Mr M. A. Cranswick... Attorney General's (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4 To attend management courses at Harvard and Henley and interview senior public servants in Australia, America and the UK for their views on ways of improving performance in government administration Mr J. R. Ford... Treasury (ACT) Australian Government Actuary, Level 4 To update information on current overseas actuary practices, especially occupational and national superannuation Mr J. P. Forestler... Science (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 3 To research overseas policies of cost recovery in relation to questions of public interest Mr G. J. Fraser... Territories (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 3 To attend an advanced management course at Cornell University and examine intergovernmental financial and administrative arrangements Mr J. D. Moore... Treasury (ACT) Deputy Secretary, Level 6 To examine developments in USA federal-state relations and regulation of financial institutions Mr J. B. C. Preiss... Public Service Board (ACT) First Assistant Commissioner, Level 4 To research developments relevant to public sector labour/management relations and to assess the role of organised labour in management and administrative systems Dr A. D. Richards... Housing and Construction (ACT) Assistant Secretary, Level 2 To examine program budgeting and performance monitoring in public and private sector organisations Ms M. J. Scott... Community Services (ACT) Assistant Secretary, Level 2 To assess developments in community based support services for aged and disabled people, to explore approaches to community services affecting migrants and to explore methods of devolving administrative systems Mr P. B. Westerway... Communications (ACT) First Assistant Secretary, Level 3 To explore the future development of publicly funded broadcasters. Table 4 The following officers were awarded Senior Executive Fellowships but did not take them up. Name Home Organisation Designation Program Mr B. H. Manning... Veterans' Affairs (ACT) Assistant Secretary, Level 1 Assess overseas methods for handling environmental poisoning episodes Mr E. M. W. Visbord... Prime Minister and Cabinet (ACT) Deputy Secretary, Level 6 Evaluate world economic prospects and prescriptions (Question No. 1280) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1983. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) In 1983-Nil. In 1984-Two positions; one from SE, Level 1 to Level 2 and one from SE, Level 2 to Level 3 at an additional cost, based on present salary rates, of $10,147. In 1985-Nil. In 1986-My Department undertook a major reorganisation of its Central Office Senior Executive Service structure. The reorganisation achieved a reduction from 10 to 9 Divisions and saved 6 SES positions. It included the establishment of a new rural science and technology unit, a policy projects task force as well as reviewing all other major Departmental units to ensure their top structures reflected current requirements and responsibilities. Introduction of the new structure was achieved by the creation of new positions and the abolition of those no longer required rather than by reclassifications. Details of the positions created and abolished, the dates of effect and salary costs are as follows: Date Variation Salary cost based on present rates $ 13 Mar. 1986... Create 1 x SE, Level 1 + 49,682 15 May 1986... Create 5 x SE, Level 4 4 x SE, Level 3 + 322,595 + 239,012 26 June 1986... Create 15 x SE, Level 2 Create 3 x SE, Level 1 Abolish 8 x SE, Level 3 Abolish 26 x SE, Level 1 + 816,705 + 149,046 - 478,024 -1,291,732 24 July 1986... Create 1 x SE, Level 2 + 54,447 5 Aug. 1986... Abolish 1 x SE, Level 3 - 59,753 22 Aug. 1986... Create 1 x SE, Level 2 Abolish 1 x SE, Level 3 + 54,447 - 59,753 These changes represented an overall reduction of 6 Senior Executive Service positions and a saving of $203,328 in a full year at present salary rates. (Question No. 1338) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: What is the source of the funds used for providing drinks, food and staff for the Treasurer's traditional Budget Night function in the Parliamentary Dining Room. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The cost of providing drinks, food and staff for the Treasurer's traditional Budget Night function in the Parliamentary Dining Room is met from funds appropriated for State Occasions and Official Hospitality administered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.