Wednesday, 15 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: Anzac Rifle Range, Malabar, New South Wales 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 Brownhill (from 47 citizens) and Sir John Carrick (from 134 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal System in Australia, the State and Federal and criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education System, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children the unborn, the handicapped the aged and the infirm, employer and the employee relationships and the Australian Society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 108 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 297 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: (i) the fringe benefits tax will place enormous cost increases on employers throughout Australia; (ii) in so doing, the fringe benefits tax will raise the cost of employing labour particularly in remote locations and it will inevitably worsen the already high level of unemployment in Australia; (iii) much of the cost of the tax will be carried by employees as employers reduce benefits; and (iv) the cost of the tax will harm small business particularly as these businesses will be unable to pass on the cost of the tax and as a result many may be forced to close. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Government to repeal this unfair tax before it damages Australian business and thereby reduces the standard of living of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 10 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 Senator Michael Baume (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 182 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 22 citizens) and Vigor (from 103 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the fringe benefits tax will place a costly and unfair burden on independent schools. The fringe benefits tax will have the most damaging impact upon schools which provide boarding accommodation for children as they are also required to provide accommodation for staff members to live in and supervise the boarders. Independent schools have limited resources and this additional impost will ultimately have to be passed onto parents, many of whom are already heavily committed to the financing of their children's education. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Parliament to recognise that the future of Australia depends upon the education given to its children and to exempt schools from the operation of the fringe benefits tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (i) the welfare of many employees and their families depends upon a healthy expanding gold mining industry; (ii) the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations; (iii) the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represents a threat to the profitability of these industries and will therefore cause widespread unemployment and depression throughout the whole gold mining industry. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Government to reject any proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining or prospecting thereby ensuring that the spectacular growth of the industry over recent years is continued. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 69 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that your Petitioners: Request that the Hawke Government: Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners most humbly pray- That the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing Policy. by Senator Kilgariff (from eight 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 pin-point 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 menance to the nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australia-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia humbly pray that the Federal Government join with the Tasmanian Government and institute an independent review of the Callaghan Report into the Structure of Industry and the Employment Situation in Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Newman (from 39 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 wide-spread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that Australia should not host nuclear weapons in its territory or in Australian waters; and that the presence of nuclear-armed warships makes a priority nuclear target of ports being visited; and that the safety precautions for handling and deployment of nuclear weapons are inadequate to guarantee safety from accidents; and that the following warships, all capable of launching nuclear weapons deployed in the British or United States navies, will be in Australia between 29 September to 13 October-HMS Illustrious, HMS Beaver, HMS Fort Grange, HMS Manchester, HMS Amazon, HMS Olmeda, USS Missouri, USS Paul F. Foster, USS Oldendorf; and that these warships capable of carrying nuclear weapons will be participating in the 75th Anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy We therefore call upon the Australian Government to: prohibit the entry of nuclear weapons to Australia; and to deny access to Australian ports of foreign warships unless an assurance is received that they are not carrying nuclear weapons; and to require that foreign warships participating in the anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy not be carrying nuclear weapons in Australian territorial waters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coates (from 611 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that any decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to reduce the local content of the program, the `Country Hour', would represent yet another severe blow to Western Australian rural people; that even under current programming Western Australian country people receive little locally produced radio, and in view of the inefficiencies in the operations of the ABC disclosed by the Auditor-General, your petitioners call upon the Government to improve the efficient operation of the ABC before it reduces the local content of important rural programs such as the Country Hour. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 108 citizens). Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-Mr President, I present the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it it not in the correct form, from 470 citizens requesting that the Senate oppose legislation to discount CPI DFRB/DFRDB payments: We the undersigned object to the unfair legislation to discount CPI DFRB/DFRDB payments by 2 per cent. We request that the Senate intervene on our behalf in opposing the legislation and ask the Senate to remind the Hawke Labor Government that the DFRB/DFRDB scheme is not a welfare payment but an entitlement under the existing DFRB/DFRDB Act. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —by leave-I present the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it does not contain a prayer at the end thereof, from 110 citizens opposing the capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax legislation: We, being very concerned members of Australian society hereby voice our disapproval of the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the negative gearing provisions and the substantiation provisions recently passed by Parliament. Such taxes do not assist the business community but do create excess paper work, do not provide incentive and are detrimental to the country and create hardship to the taxpayers affected. Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate take note of the following apology made by former Senator C. G. Primmer to Mr Ivor G. Bowden in respect of public statements made by Mr Primmer concerning Mr Bowden: APOLOGY TO HIS EXCELLENCY MR I. G. BOWDEN I withdraw without reservation or qualification all accusations, allegations and innuendos which I have at any time made within and outside the Parliament, against Ivor Gordon Bowden, an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs, formerly Australian Ambassador to Iran and Australian Commissioner in Hong Kong and currently serving as Australian Ambassador to Pakistan. While I acted in good faith I acknowledge that I have produced no evidence to sustain these attacks and that successive, competent investigations, whose verdict I unreservedly accept, have on each occasion cleared his name. I regret and apologise sincerely for the distress which these unwarranted attacks have caused him and his family and for any damage which these attacks, including those contained in the letter I wrote to the Head of State of Pakistan on Mr Bowden's appointment as Ambassador may have done to his career and to his standing in the community. I also apologise to those other persons in Government service whom, in the course of my accusations against Mr Bowden, I unjustly accused of improper actions in the course of their duties. Dated the 2nd day of October 1986. CYRIL GRAHAM PRIMMER Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate take note of the following apology made by former Senator C. G. Primmer to Mr P. G. F. Henderson, AC, in respect of public statements made by Mr Primmer concerning Mr Henderson. APOLOGY TO MR P. G. F. HENDERSON, AC I completely and unreservedly apologise to Mr P. G. F. Henderson, former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs for the statement made by me on 30 April, 1982 in the course of a radio programme on the ABC. I also completely and unreservedly apologise for any related public statements made by me which have had the effect of damaging Mr Henderson's public standing, reputation and career. I acknowledge and Mr Henderson recognises that although I made the statements in good faith acting upon information that had been supplied to me, in fact I had been misinformed and none of the statements were true. Dated the 2nd day of October 1986. CYRIL GRAHAM PRIMMER Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the agreement between Australia and the United States relating to the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap, dated 19 October 1977, means that Australia is free to notify the United States that it desires to terminate the agreement with one year's notice from 19 October 1986; (b) notes, too, that the United States co-operating agency is alleged to be the United States Department of Defense whereas in fact the Central Intelligence Agency is using the Department of Defense as a cover; (c) deplores the refusal of the Hawke Labor Go-vernment and its Liberal predecessor to admit to the existence of the United States National Security Agency at Pine Gap; (d) condemns the Government for its refusal to tell the nation what else Pine Gap does beyond its monitoring and verification role and what its role would be in a nuclear war fighting scenario; and (e) calls on the Government to give one year's notice of termination of the Agreement to the United States from 19 October 1986. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that it is my intention at the placing of business today to withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name for the next day of sitting and relating to Part VII of the Children's Ser-vices Ordinance 1986. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator REID —I moved for disallowance of Part VII of that ordinance because in my interpretation of it the ordinance would require that community groups such as Sunday schools, Brownies, drama classes and bush walking groups be required to be registered and to seek exemption from the operation of the ordinance. It is my view that that is absurd. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) agrees that those groups should not be registered. He has given me a letter and a list of the groups which he regards as exempt. It is my view, though, that the ordinance still requires them to register and ought to be amended. I seek leave to incorporate the Minister's letter dated 7 October 1986 and written to me and the attachment headed `Childcare care of a specified class' in which he enu-merates the exempted groups. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senator Margaret Reid Senator for the ACT 1st Floor Ansett Centre 4 Mort Street CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Reid I refer to your notice of disallowance of Part VII of the Children's Services Ordinance (1986) which was tabled in the Senate on Wednesday 20 August 1986. I understand that your concerns about Part VII are that it would require any place where more than four children are cared for at any one time to be licensed and therefore community organisations such as Brownies, Scouts and Little Athletics would require a licence as child care providers and, that the new licence conditions under consideration by the Department, would impose onerous burdens on private day care centres. The Australian Law Reform Commission recommended four children because that reflected the operational standard in all States and Territories including the ACT. Whilst Part VII of the Ordinance applies to all community and business child care centres, it has always been intended to exempt a number of categories of care. Section 119 of the Ordinance was designed expressly for that purpose. It provides that the Minister may exempt specific child care or child care of a specified class by instrument in writing which must be laid before each House of Parliament and which is subject to disallowance. Attached for your information is a list illustrating examples of the types of child care which I propose to exempt from the licensing provisions. The exemptions will relate to types of child care and be drafted in a way which will, as far as possible, avoid the need for individual care providers to seek specific exemption. This will ensure that difficulties do not arise for particular individuals or organisations providing care as an incidental to some other community or business purpose. It will also ensure that a consistent and impartial attitude is taken to the giving of exemptions. On the question of the new licence conditions, these are being prepared in consultation with community groups, private day care operators and parents. The final form of the conditions will not be settled until after further consultation with all interested parties. It is relevant that the underlying principle of the legislation is the best interests of the child. In this regard I draw your attention to Section 5 (2) which requires that a power which affects or concerns a child must be exercised in such manner as will best lead to the proposed development of the personality of the child and to the child's becoming a responsible and useful member of the community. Such conditions as may be attached to a licence would be developed subject to section 5 (2) and must accordingly place the emphasis on the interests of the child and not those of the provider. I also draw your attention to Section 14b which provides for an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where a licence is granted subject to conditions. I trust the above information satisfies your concerns about Part VII of the proposed Ordinance and you will consider withdrawal of your motion on notice. I have forwarded copies of this letter to Senator the Honourable Peter Baume and Senator Austin Lewis. Yours sincerely GORDON SCHOLES CHILDCARE CARE OF A SPECIFIED CLASS Exemptions Religious: Sunday School Clubs/Groups: Brownies Cubs Girl Guides Girls Brigade Boys Brigade Police Boys Club Gymnastics Road Safety Classes Tots Tumbling Ballet Classes Drama Classes Speech Classes Sport: All Team Sports, Events and Training Sessions Riding Class Bushwalking Groups Skating Skiing Ethnic Schools: Language Classes Children's Holiday Camps Music: Choir Instrument Classes and Performances Youth Orchestra, Workshops Art: Classes Photography Modelling Mannequin Parades Cookery Classes Social: Birthday Parties, School Socials Playgroups with Parents in Attendance Senator REID —I have indicated my intention to withdraw the notice of motion because today is the last day for resolving the matter. I have no doubt that the problems I see in this ordinance can and will be resolved. But Senator Cooney, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, has also given notice to disallow the ordinance and that will come up in some days' time. If at that time it is necessary for me to proceed with this disallowance because of the view I hold, I will do so then. If it has been resolved, that will be the end of the matter. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, (a) noting Qantas's position as Australia's national flag carrier; (b) recalling the preferential loan and funding arrangements extended to Qantas by all Australian governments; and (c) bearing in mind the protection extended to Qantas from overseas competition through aviation regulations and policies; expresses regret and disappointment at Qantas's refusal to show, in flight, a film warning of the consequences for drug offences overseas and urges Qantas to acknowledge its national responsibilities. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Sessional Order of 22 February 1985 relating to the consideration of Government papers be amended by adding after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: ``(2a) Where a statement by a Minister is presented and a motion is moved to take note of that statement in accordance with paragraph (1), the time taken by debate on that motion shall be disregarded for the purpose of the limitation of time provided by paragraph 2 (b).''. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recalls the comments made in the 1985-86 Annual Report of the Goodwin Retirement Villages: ``The ever-growing demands for aged care, especially in the area of the frailer and more dependent aged, is a constant worry for Goodwin and presents a challenge to all in Canberra. A major concern of the Board continues to be the shortage of nursing home beds''.; (b) notes the Statement on the Care of Aged People presented by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) on 17 September 1986 in which the proposed distribution to the year 1989 includes only 20 new nursing home beds for the A.C.T.; and (c) regards this decision as ignoring the fact that there are in Canberra in excess of 200 frail aged assessed as requiring nursing home care now. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave, Mr President, to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to certain obligations that Australia has as a party to the Treaty on a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. This Bill is complemented by the projected amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 relating to the dumping of radioactive waste, and the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986, relating to the application of safeguards to nuclear material, which cover obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty referred to but not provided for in this Bill. Enactment of this body of legislation, and the making of some related regulations are prerequisites for Australian ratification of the Treaty. The implementing legislation in fact goes beyond the minimum that is technically required for the purpose of ratification: it covers all the substantive provisions of the Treaty. This course of action was chosen by the Government to reflect the Government's commitment to the objectives and provisions of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, as well as ALP policy on the manufacture, testing and stationing of nuclear weapons in or and by Australia. Honourable Senators will recall that on 6 August 1985, the fortieth anniversary of the first use of atomic weapons, the Heads of Government of countries members of the South Pacific Forum and meeting at Rarotonga, endorsed the text of the Treaty and opened it for signature. Ten of the thirteen countries eligible to sign have already done so. Apart from Australia, they are the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu and Western Samoa. Four countries have already ratified the Treaty, namely, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Niue and Tuvalu. The Treaty will enter into force when the eighth instrument of ratification has been lodged with the depositary who, as established in the Treaty is the Director of the Bureau for South Pacific Economic Cooperation at Suva. Many see the Treaty as the South Pacific Forum's most ambitious and far-reaching endeavour so far. Whatever the truth of that, the Treaty shows that the Forum has come of age not only as the authentic and collective voice of the South Pacific region but as an actor able to make that voice clearly heard on the world stage. The Treaty was an initiative of Australia's and specifically of the Hawke Government. The Government, as soon as it gained office, began work to achieve consensus within the South Pacific on a Nuclear Free Zone. Australia promoted the concept at the Fourteenth South Pacific Forum which met at Canberra in August 1983. In August 1984, the Fifteenth South Pacific Forum meeting at Funafuti, Tuvalu, endorsed a set of principles proposed by Australia as a basis for a Zone and appointed a Working Group of Officials with Australia in the Chair to prepare the text of a Treaty. It was that text which Heads of Government endorsed. If the initiative for a Zone was Australia's, the Treaty itself constitutes a genuinely collective effort by the thirteen member countries of the Forum. Not only was it endorsed by the thirteen Heads of Government, but virtually every member country of the Forum contributed substantially to the work of development and drafting. Some countries made the main running on some aspects and some on others. Every country can see its hand in the text we now have. Forum Governments in drafting the Treaty drew on, among other things, the provisions of existing international arrangements prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and establishing demilitarised and nuclear weapons free zones, notably the Antarctic Treaty (1959)-the earliest of the post-World War II arms limitation agreements-the Treaty of Tlatelolco (1967); the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 and the Seabed Arms Control Treaty (1971). Forum Governments gave particular attention to the NPT, which, with 134 parties, is the most-widely supported of all international arms control agreements and especially to its Article VII which recognises the right of any group of States to conclude regional treaties so as to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories. The Treaty of Tlatelolco which broke important ground by establishing the first nuclear weapons free zone in a populated region, namely Latin America, created a precedent valuable to the work of Forum Governments. That they were able to draw on the Latin American achievement is evident in the fact that the Treaty of Rarotonga goes beyond it in several respects. The Treaty is widely recognised around the world as a significant measure. It has been welcomed by the international community, especially at a time when the world has little to point to by way of progress on arms control and disarmament; and the Forum has been congratulated on it. I note, in passing for example, that in September 1985 the Third Review Conference of the NPT in its final declaration welcomed the achievement of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty ``as consistent with Article VII of the NPT''. I draw attention also to the communique issued by 46 Commonwealth Heads of Government following their meeting at Bahamas in October 1985 which welcomed the Treaty as ``an important step in global and regional efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation''. Recently, on 25 September, the joint assembly of African, Caribbean and Pacific and EEC countries at which some 78 States were represented adopted a resolution lending support to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, urging the nuclear weapon States to sign its Protocols and urging France to end its nuclear testing in the Pacific. The Treaty expresses the strong community of interest which members of the South Pacific Forum share in environmental and security matters and reflects the deeply felt and long-standing concerns in our region about nuclear testing, the ocean-dumping of nuclear waste and the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. It commits the parties to important obligations in those areas. It also reflects, in the words of the preamble, the determination of the people of the South Pacific ``that the bounty and beauty of the land and the sea in their region shall remain the heritage of their peoples and their descendants in perpetuity to be enjoyed by all in peace''. At the same time the Treaty does not seek to undermine the factors that have created and sustained the very favourable security environment which the South Pacific enjoys. It does not in any way conflict with Australia's defence arrangements, notably ANZUS. It does not run counter to our support for stable nuclear deterrence. It does not impede in any way our ability to co-operate militarily with our allies. The same is true of this Bill. On the contrary, it seeks to build on those factors by, for example, the provisions against nuclear weapons which will help to ensure that the South Pacific, unlike other parts of the world, does not in the future become a theatre for nuclear confrontation. I turn to two important aspects of the Treaty: the boundaries of the Zone and its title. Forum Governments in developing the Zone considered two approaches. an incomplete ``patchwork'' approach, with the Zone confined to the territories of countries which adhere to the Treaty a ``diagrammatic'' approach, with a boundary line circumscribing the Forum countries as well as large areas of the high seas. Forum Governments strongly preferred the diagrammatic approach since it was easier to visualise and clearly identifies the region to which the Zone was intended to apply. They set the boundaries of the zone in the East, to abut on the existing nuclear weapons free zone in Latin America, in the South, to abut on the completely demilitarised zone established by the Antarctic Treaty, in the north, to follow the equator but with some humps to accommodate the Exclusive Economic Zones of Papua New Guinea, Kiribati and Nauru and, in the West, to run along the outer limit of the Australian territorial sea. Australia's external territories in the Indian Ocean are also covered by the provisions of the Treaty of Rarotonga but our Antarctic territories are not since they have long been subject to the Antarctic Treaty. Greater detail on the negotiating history of the boundaries of the Zone and other aspects of the Rarotonga Treaty is to be found in the report by the Chair of the Working Group of South Pacific Forum officials. The report is germane in interpreting the Treaty and bears on this legislation. Even though Forum Governments chose the diagrammatic approach I stress that Forum members, like all other countries, are able to agree to provisions affecting the actions of other States, only in relation to their own territories and, to a much more limited extent, in areas of jurisdiction outside their territory. Beyond that, Forum members can only undertake Treaty obligations in relation to their own actions, and actions on their own ships and aircraft. The Treaty does not seek to mislead or create false expectations by pretending to legislate in disregard of these constraints. Neither does the Bill now before us. I refer also to the title of the Treaty and, in particular to the appropriateness of the term ``Nuclear Free''. Clearly it is beyond the legal power and practical capability of Forum Governments, including the powers and capabilities of the Australian Government, to exclude all things nuclear from the Zone. Moreover, whatever Forum Governments sought to do within the Zone, it would remain part of a world in which nuclear weapons exist and the peaceful use of nuclear energy and materials is widespread. I draw the attention of Honourable Senators, in this connection, to the term ``nuclear weapon free zone'' which has long been established in United Nations and other international usage, for example, the Latin American and Antarctic Zones which do not preclude transit or visits by ships. In the case of the Treaty of Rarotonga, however, its key obligations go beyond those relating to nuclear weapons and encompass as well the dumping of nuclear waste and strong safeguards on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It is for that reason and because no freedom is absolute that Forum Governments concluded that the term ``Nuclear Free'' should appropriately form part of the title of the Treaty and the Zone. The Bill at hand gives effect to the provisions of the Treaty throughout the Commonwealth, in all States and in every external Australian Territory. It extends to the Australian Antarctic Territories since Antarctica too is free from nuclear weapons by virtue of the Antarctic Treaty. I turn now to the specific clauses of the Bill and draw the attention of Honourable Senators to its interpretative provisions at Clause 4. Honourable Senators will see that in Clause 4 the term ``nuclear explosive device'' has the same meaning as it does in the Treaty, namely, ``any nuclear weapon or other explosive device capable of releasing nuclear energy, irrespective of the purpose for which it could be used. The term includes such a weapon or device in unassembled and partly assembled forms, but does not include the means of transport or delivery of such a weapon or device if separable from and not an indivisible part of it''. I stress that the inclusion of delivery systems in the definition of a nuclear explosive device would have presented serious difficulties since such systems capable of being used with conventional weapons members in their conventional defence forces. How, for example, is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between military aircraft which could be either conventionally or nuclear armed. Or for that matter between rockets that can and do deliver non-nuclear or even civilian payloads but may also be used to deliver a nuclear warhead. On the other hand, the term ``nuclear explosive device'' as defined in the Treaty, and thus in this Bill, includes so-called ``peaceful'' nuclear explosive devices as well as nuclear weapons because, technically and in non-proliferation terms, it is impossible to distinguish between them. That is an important point of difference between the Treaties of Rarotonga and Tlatelolco since the latter seeks to make that distinction. I now turn to the specific prohibitions in the Treaty of Rarotonga and the manner in which they are reflected in Part II of the Bill before the Senate. The Treaty includes an obligation on Parties not to manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over any nuclear explosive device by any means anywhere inside or outside the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. The Bill provides in its Clause 8 that the manufacture, production and acquisition of nuclear explosive devices is prohibited. In its Clause 9, it goes on to equally prohibit research and development for the purpose or directed towards the manufacture or production of a nuclear explosive device. And Clause 10 prohibits possession of or control over nuclear explosive devices. These three provisions thus give effect to Article 3 (a) of the Treaty. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty of Rarotonga prohibit Parties from having, among other things, control over nuclear explosives. In drafting the legislation and extending this prohibition to individuals it has been necessary to make provision to ensure that this prohibition was not interpreted in ways not intended by the Treaties. Thus, for example, a visiting Head of State or Senior Military Officer from one of the nuclear weapon States has `control' over nuclear weapons and vehicles which carry them although these weapons may be as far way as on the other side of the planet. A visit by such a person to Australia is clearly not contrary to the Treaties and the Bill explicitly provides that it is not a contravention of the Bill. It could also be maintained that some Australians have control over nuclear explosive devices if they are in a position to interrupt communications between foreign ships or aircraft which carry such weapons and their foreign command centres. The example which springs to mind is an Australian employee at North West Cape where the Defence Minister has explained to us, Australia could intercept and prevent a message to fire a nuclear device despatched to, for example, the commander of a nuclear missile-capable submarine. Clearly, this is not what the prohibitions of the NPT and the Treaty of Rarotonga on ``control'' of nuclear explosives were intended to cover, and the Bill explicitly provides that any such ``control'' would not be a contravention of the legislation. The Treaty in its Article 5 requires Parties to prevent the stationing of any nuclear device in their territory. The definition of ``stationing'' contained in the Treaty also applies to the Legislation. It draws from the definition of stationing in the Latin American Treaty: that Treaty says that stationing means stockpiling or storage of nuclear explosives or their installation or deployment. Deployment of a nuclear explosive weapon in normal usage means that it is set out ready for combat. This definition of stationing was thought to be sufficient for the Latin American Treaty but the Forum Working Group which drafted the Treaty of Rarotonga wanted to make doubly sure that it had a fully comprehensive definition of stationing. It therefore added the concepts of emplantation or emplacement which come from the Seabed Arms Control Treaty of 1971. To ensure that the prohibition on stationing is all-inclusive, the drafters of the Treaty of Rarotonga added to these international established concepts a reference to transportation on land or inland waters, so that there could be no possible circumvention of the prohibition through the deployment of nuclear explosives on mobile platforms. Some may claim an inconsistency here with the fact that the Treaty of Rarotonga explicitly recognises the rights of parties to permit foreign ships and aircraft to visit their ports and airfields, to allow foreign aircraft to overfly their territory and to allow foreign ships to navigate in their territorial seas, over and beyond the rights of navigation which they already have under international law and which could obviously not have been abridged by the Treaty. A similar understanding was registered in connection with the Latin American Treaty. This is not an inconsistency but reflection of a deliberate intention to make clear the distinction between the stationing of nuclear weapons by the parties to the Treaty themselves or by others on their territory and each party's sovereign right to continue collective security arrangements with external powers. In the course of Australia's defence co-operation with the United States and the United Kingdom it may happen, for example, that nuclear weapons are temporarily present in Australian waters and ports by virtue of visits by those countries naval ships. Thus, the Treaty of Rarotonga and the present legislation which gives effect to it, in no way impede Australia's ability to maintain military cooperation and exchanges with its allies and friends and particularly with the United States under ANZUS. We can continue to receive visits by United States ships and aircraft to our ports and airfields. United States aircraft can transit our air space and our waters. United States ships and aircraft can participate in exercises in Australia and its territorial waters. Allied and friendly warships can go into dry dock in Australia. All this is permissible under the Treaty and under the proposed legislation because it does not constitute stationing. The Treaty definition of stationing and Article 15 (2) of the Treaty of Rarotonga make this clear and it is reflected in Clause 15 of the Bill. Clause 12 of the Bill prohibits the testing of nuclear explosive devices by rendering it an offence for any person to undertake or carry out a test of such a device. Following the text of the Treaty, the Bill in Clause 13 prohibits any person from doing ``any act or thing to facilitate the manufacture, production, acquisition or testing by any person (including a foreign country) of a nuclear explosive device whether in or outside Australia''. This gives effect to the Treaty obligation not to ``assist or encourage'' these activities. The concept of facilitation was extensively discussed by the Working Group of officials which drafted the Treaty. The prohibition is clearly against taking action to facilitate. This means action deliberately directed at the prohibited activities, not action undertaken for other purposes which can give the unintended effect of facilitating. For example, Australia and several other Forum countries regularly broadcast meteorological information which may be useful to the French authorities in deciding on the timing of nuclear tests at Mururoa. Clearly, the Treaty does not require Australia or other Forum countries to cease broadcasting meteorological information. Equally clearly, it would require us to refuse refuelling facilities for foreign military aircraft primarily engaged in supporting a nuclear testing program. The prohibition on facilitating the production of nuclear explosive devices does not in any way interfere with Australia's ability to support stable nuclear deterrence. This fact is explicitly recorded in the report of the Working Group. But, equally clearly, the prohibition on facilitating the manufacture or production of nuclear explosive devices by any country means that Australian uranium cannot be exported for use in nuclear explosives. That would be contrary to the Treaty of Rarotonga and it would be contrary to the legislation I now propose. It has been the policy of successive Australian Governments since 1977 that Australian uranium should only be exported under conditions which give grounds for confidence that it will not be diverted into the manufacture of nuclear weapons or so-called peaceful nuclear explosives. The Treaty of Rarotonga makes this a binding legal international obligation. The Bill now before the Senate renders it a matter of Australian law. I am aware of assertions to the effect that the Government's decision to lift the embargo on uranium exports to France is in some way inconsistent with the Treaty. This is not so. Australia's stringent safeguards agreements, including that with France, provide that Australian uranium will not be diverted to military or nuclear explosive purposes and that Australian uranium and derived generations of nuclear material will be covered by IAEA safeguards to verify compliance with this. Uranium exports under these conditions are entirely consistent with the strong safeguards on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy embodied in Articles 4 and 8 of the Treaty of Rarotonga. On safeguards to ensure the peaceful use of nuclear material, I simply note here that provision for imposing and maintaining such safeguards, pursuant to Australia's obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of, and Annex 2 to, the Treaty of Rarotonga, is made in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986. Similarly, Provision for the prevention of the dumping at sea of radioactive waste and other radioactive matter, pursuant to Australia's obligations under Article 7 of the Treaty, is made in the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 through the amendments recently tabled by my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment. That legislation also includes provisions against aiding and abetting activities which it prohibits, thereby giving effect to the Treaty prohibition on facilitating dumping. The Bill provides appropriately severe penalties (including up to 20 years imprisonment) for offences committed under Part II relating to the Treaty prohibitions. In view of the severity of these sentences the Attorney-General's consent will be necessary to institute any proceedings against individuals or corporations under Part II. Lesser penalties are imposed for offences under parts IV and V relating to inspections, investigations into possible breaches of the legislation and hearings in camera. The Crown will be bound by the Act although it will not be liable to prosecutions for offences under it. The Treaty makes provision for special inspections in the event of an alleged breach of the Treaty by a Party to it. These inspections are to be carried out by international inspectors appointed by the Consultative Committee established by the Treaty and on the basis of a directive given to them by the Committee. These inspectors, referred to as Treaty inspectors in the Bill, will be subject only to the direction of the Consultative Committee. Nevertheless, to ensure that the Australian Government can comply with its Treaty obligations and take all appropriate steps to facilitate any such inspection in Australia, the Bill gives Treaty inspectors appropriate powers under Australian law to enable them to carry out their inspections. In addition, the Minister may appoint authorised officers to accompany Treaty inspectors, with powers under the Act to facilitate treaty inspections, and may call upon inspectors from the Australian Safeguards Office to assist the authorised officers and Treaty inspectors in their work. It would be the Australian Safeguards Office inspector who would secure warrants if these were needed, for the Treaty inspection. I should add that the Treaty expressly permits host governments to appoint representatives to accompany Treaty inspectors while in the country. Regulations conferring privileges and immunities on Treaty inspectors, as required by the Treaty, will be made under appropriate existing legislation in due course. The inspectors from the Australian Safeguards Office, in addition to their role in assisting Treaty inspections, are also given such powers as are necessary for them to investigate possible breaches of the legislation. These powers are substantially the same as those accorded inspectors under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986. May I reassure honourable senators, that this legislation will involve no financial expenditure on the part of the Government. The Australian Safeguards Office is already fully competent to discharge the tasks required of its inspectors under this Bill. I conclude by stressing that this Bill is not simply a legal instrument to give effect to Australia's obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. It is not simply an expression of the desire of the Australian people and of this Government to do whatever can be done to strengthen the peace and security of this nation. It is an expression of the urgent need for Australia to make the fullest practical contribution, within our means, to reduce for all humankind the risk of nuclear war. The Government cannot emphasise the point heavily enough that nuclear weapons, deployed in global defence systems for more than a generation, will not disappear overnight. The nuclear powers have made it clear that they will not disarm unilaterally or easily. The Government recognises that success in arms control and disarmament will be won, not by grand and satisfying gesture, but by painstaking and often tedious work. I instance the consistent effort that the Government and its officers have devoted to encouraging a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean, establishing a network of seismic monitoring facilities in Australia as part of a worldwide system to monitor a ban on nuclear testing, negotiating arrangements to keep the arms race from outer space and (most importantly) taking the initiative towards a comprehensive and verifiable ban on nuclear testing. The Government is proud to include the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone among these initiatives. I commend the measure to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave, Mr President, to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- On 15 April 1986, the Acting Treasurer announced the Government's decision to phase out the operations of the Rural Credits Department (RCD) of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). The principal objective of this Bill is to facilitate the winding up of the RCD and to abolish the Department once its operations have ceased. The RCD was originally established in 1925 to meet the seasonal funding requirements of primary produce authorities and co-operatives. RCD funds have been made available at market related interest rates in recent years and, with the deregulation of financial markets, this has resulted in a much reduced role for the RCD with the great majority of seasonal funding requirements being fulfilled through commercial sources. The decision to wind down the activities of the Rural Credits Department stems from the recommendations of the Australian Financial System Inquiry and the Review Group on the Australian Financial System. Both committees considered that in view of the developments which have taken place in financial markets since the Department was first established it was no longer necessary, or desirable, for the RBA to continue to be involved in providing seasonal advances. Both groups noted, however, that termination of the RCD should be preceded by an appropriate transitional period to enable RCD customers to arrange alternative sources of finance. In line with this recommendation, the Government, in phasing out the operations of the RCD, has implemented transitional arrangements to allow those remaining authorities and co-operatives which utilise RCD advances to have access to the facility for the duration of one full commodity season following the announcement of the Government's decision. Clause 11 of the Bill, which provides for the winding up of the Rural Credits Department, would restrict the Reserve Bank from making an advance or discounting a bill after 30 June 1988, or such later date as is determined by the Treasurer. This is to allow sufficient time for remaining customers to exercise their final drawing rights. As at 30 June 1986, the capital and reserves of the RCD stood at $140 million. Clause 11 of the Bill provides that, as the activities of the RCD are wound down, the capital and reserves of the RCD which are surplus to its operational requirements can be distributed to either the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund or Consolidated Revenue, as determined by the Treasurer following consultations with the Board of the Reserve Bank. When the activities of the RCD have ceased and its capital and reserves have been distributed, the Department may be abolished on a day fixed by Proclamation. I would also note that, under existing legislation, half of the profits of the RCD have been applied to rural research. Funds available for this purpose from the RCD should be increased by approximately 9% to $3.0 million in 1986-87 through the normal transfer of profits earned by the RCD in 1985-86. Consideration will be given to supplementing funds available for rural research in future years as the activities of the RCD are phased out. The Bill contains other consequential amendments to the Reserve Bank Act 1959 in relation to termination of the RCD as well as the repeal of certain sections of the Banking Act 1959 which deal with the statistical returns to be provided by the RCD to the Reserve Bank. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1985 so as to authorise payments in 1986-87 arising out of decisions, taken at the 13 June 1986 Loan Council meeting, which fall outside the provisions of the Financial Agreement Act 1928. Specifically, this Bill seeks to authorise the payment of general purpose capital grants to the States in 1986-87; the prepayment of Capital Grants during the first six months of 1987-88, pending passage of similar legislation in that year; and, the alteration of the amounts that may be nominated by the States and the Northern Territory from their approved borrowing programs for the purposes of public housing in 1986-87. Capital Grants to States Since 1970-71 a portion of the State Governments' borrowing programs have been provided by the Commonwealth as interest free capital grants. The grants were introduced to help States finance works, such as schools and other capital works, from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The effect of these grants, therefore, is to relieve the States of those debt charges-that is, interest payments and sinking fund contributions-which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the overall financial positions of the States. In addition, there are no conditions attaching to the manner in which the grants are applied by the States. In the ten years prior to 1985-86 the grants represented one-third of the State governments' borrowing programs. In that year the portion of the programs provided as a capital grant was temporarily increased by 7 per cent to approximately 35.7 per cent, with the loan portion being reduced by an equivalent amount. This arrangement is to be continued in 1986-87. As the Loan Council agreed to limit the total State governments' Loan Council program to $1,204m in 1986-87, 23 per cent less than for 1985-86, the total amount of capital grants to be provided for 1986-87 is $429m. Public Housing Nominations The arrangements whereby the States and the Northern Territory are able to nominate part of their approved borrowing programs for public housing were introduced in 1982-83. The arrangements have contributed considerably to the financing of public housing in the States and the encouragement of the States to increase their own housing expenditures. As a condition of the payment of these funds, a State or the Northern Territory must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purposes of the Housing Assistance Act 1984. Subject to that, the nominated funds will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory at the loan terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, and hence will bear interest at the highly favourable rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years. In the Commonwealth Government's housing assistance package which the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing and Construction announced on 2 April, 1986, the Government indicated that it was prepared to allow the States and the Northern Territory to nominate up to 60 per cent of the loan portion of their programs for public housing. At the loan council meeting on 13 June, 1986 it was also agreed that Western Australia and South Australia, which nominated the whole of the loan portion of their programs in previous years, could again nominate the whole of the loan portion for public housing in 1986-87. This Bill seeks to give effect to those decisions. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory and I therefore commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Archer) adjourned. Messages received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the following Bills: Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill as an alternative to the amendment to which the House had disagreed. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —Pursuant to notice of intention to withdraw, given earlier today, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for the next day of sitting. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.18) —I move: That Regulations 2, 7 and 9 of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Inquiries) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 100 and made under the Broadcasting Act 1942, be disallowed. These regulations deal with a significant and unjustifiable intrusion upon civil liberties in the first case, and with significant and unjustifiable intrusions on the effective and efficient operation of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in the other two cases. I shall be quoting directly from a reply the Tribunal has made to an inquiry of mine to help establish the unsuitability of regulations 7 and 9. Before I deal with these individual regulations and the continuing saga behind their emergence in operation, I want to explain why the best course of action open to the Senate is, in fact, to disallow these three regulations. It is a timely coincidence that yesterday the eightieth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was tabled by Senator Cooney, the excellent Chairman of that Committee. Senator Cooney, in his tabling speech, drew attention to a number of serious flaws in the Acts Interpretation Act which restrict the Senate's ability to improve delegated legislation. As Senator Cooney said: . . . although each House of Parliament has a power of partial disallowance over Australian Capital Territory ordinances, there is no similar power of partial disallowance over Federal regulations and other instruments. In fact, the Committee report indicates that since 1957 the Senate has been unable to disallow even a single word or figure in an Australian Capital Territory ordinance. There is no restriction on what the Senate or the House of Representatives can remove from ordinances made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. However, this freedom has not been extended to the handling of regulations which we can disallow under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. All we can do in this case is disallow whole regulations even though there might be only a couple of objectionable words in each of the regulations. Yesterday, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee pointed out that action to remedy this problem was promised by the Fraser Government but not finalised before it went out of office. I join with the Committee in urging the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to deal effectively with this problem; otherwise amendments will have to be moved to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the near future. In this case, the Department is putting forward the extraordinary notion that if a group has fewer than 20 members it has to supply to the Tribunal the name of each of the members in any written submission to the Tribunal. I will come directly to why this does not sit well with the current legislation and to what the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal thinks of this requirement. For the moment, I point out that this intrusion upon civil liberties could be prevented by the removal of 18 words, one number and two commas in one part of one definition. The result would be that all unincorporated associations would have to provide particulars of the objects of their association and the names of the association's office bearers. This is quite reasonable in all the circumstances, instead of having two separate requirements depending on whether there are 20 members in the organisation or fewer than 20. The Senate does not have the power to make this sensible and straightforward deletion. It does not even have the power to delete the definition of `prescribed particulars' from this part of the interpretation provisions. To fix the matter, we have to remove the whole of regulation 2. Regulation 2 contains those definitions which basically are there for clarity, as many of them are tied to specific sections of the Broadcasting Act. The regulations will survive basically intact if we remove this section of the interpretation provisions. It is a pity, though, that the Senate is not able to take the most constructive course. This problem should be solved in the near future. In relation to this matter, I want to mention also that paragraph 4 (1) (b) requires that an application to the Tribunal must state what substantive power is being invoked in that application. The difficulty is that even learned counsel appearing before the High Court of Australia have got such matters wrong in the past. Perhaps, if the application form to the Tribunal were designed with some boxes next to the Tribunal's list of substantive powers, people could just tick what they thought was relevant. However, the forms are not like that. Some people may well be put off making an application because they are not sure about these powers. It does not matter that sub-regulation 4 (4) says that strict compliance with the regulation is not necessary and substantial compliance is sufficient. The damage will be done earlier because people will be daunted by the bureaucratic requirements and hence will decide not to make applications. Surely the Tribunal can work out what powers it thinks it is acting under. Why have these useless and convoluted requirements been put into the regulations? Regulation 4 would be improved greatly by the removal of paragraph 4 (1) (b). However, the Senate is not allowed to take that constructive step at the moment. The Australian Democrats will not seek to toss out the whole regulation because of the disadvantage that would place on individuals and groups wanting the Tribunal to exercise one of those powers. We stop at pointing out the way some people will feel shut out by all the unnecessary formality. We hope that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will be able to take some administrative action to minimise this problem that it did not create. In the explanatory statement accompanying the regulations there is another extraordinary paragraph that I want to follow up. It reads: No provision is made by the regulations at this stage for review on the merits by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Review Council proposes to consider the desirability of such a review of the Tribunal's procedural decisions as part of a reconsideration of rights of review of the Tribunal's decisions under the Broadcasting Act. The ARC review is likely to commence during 1986. This sort of approach is quite frightening. It could come only from a department hellbent on shackling and crippling the Tribunal. It could come only from a department that has learnt no lessons from the litigation and extra expense that was created during the Perth inquiry as a result of the Department's dereliction. The Department seems to be completely away from the real world in its Belconnen tower. It is more or less saying that it wants to open up even more opportunities for litigation in this case. That is beyond belief. I hope that we can move in the opposite direction in relation to area inquiries, and have a freer operation of the Tribunal without all the usual legalities, QC's and legal proceedings. The last sentence in the quotation about the ARC's activities anticipated for this year has a choice irony about it. We are dealing only now with the fruits of the Administrative Review Council's expedited work from 1980 and 1981. If this type of delay happened in the private sector-we are now in 1986-there would be wholesale sackings at the policy and implementation levels within the firms concerned. It probably means increasing promotions in the Department, as good people continue to leave in droves because there is such a paralysis in the area. After all, we have seen major changes in the operation of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal since the wild west days of its early years. Policy statements and practice notes have been coming out regularly. Decisions have been formally recorded in the course of hearings. The results of court challenges have modified procedures. So, in a sense, to hang a regulatory peg on what was recommended five years ago is very anachronistic. To have the Administrative Review Council do another review just as new regulations come in seems a little strange to say the least. It is not good enough for the Department continually to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. The Department should be kept right away from deciding what conditions the Tribunal will work under. There is a clear conflict of interest as the unimaginative activities of the Forward Development Unit have made clear. This Parliament and nation cannot afford to let major broadcasting problems fester because the Department either is not interested or is not up to it at policy level. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Inquiries Regulations came virtually a whole year after the passage of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985. Instead of being available at the start of this year as expected, nothing turned up until late May. In the meantime some notices relating to the new radio services were issued and withdrawn because of defects and the absence of regulations. These delays are costing the Government licence fee revenue each time they occur. The whole saga is available for reading under the freedom of information legislation. The history of regulation 2 which I am seeking to disallow, shows precisely what is wrong with the Department and why the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal should take over the carriage of the regulations which affect it. We discover that originally the Department did not see any distinction between unincorporated associations with fewer than 20 members and the other types of unincorporated associations. A departmental briefing note, which I received through the Minister, says: The Department did not initially instruct the draftsman to include this provision following strong representations from the ABT that the requirement for such information was an unfair and onerous obligation to impose on such bodies and involved an unnecessary workload for the Tribunal. That note continues with public interest groups saying that the requirement to submit all the names was an unfair invasion of privacy. After all, section 22aa of the Broadcasting Act says that the criterion for the Tribunal to take note of a document is that it be relevant to the inquiry. Then comes the clincher: However, during the later discussions it became clear that industry argued in the strongest possible terms for the inclusion of this basic information. Basically the Department takes its obligations to consult the industry as meaning that it does what the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters want it to do when they start pounding the table. I found it rather eerie for the Department to talk of balancing the interests of the broadcasting industry, the public interest groups such as the Media and Communications Council and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with those of the commercial organisations-FACTS and FARB. This is precisely why the Department gets into so much trouble, as in fact the supplementary licence fiasco and the equalisation disaster show. The Department can think only in terms of what its client groups want. It is not interested in and perhaps no longer capable of starting with what is best for an open, accountable broadcasting system and, indeed, I am very greatly saddened by this case. I believe that many fellow Australians are saddened in the same way. I believe that we need some degree of remedial action. Why now should groups with less than 20 members submit all the names of members but other groups not? What is magical about the number 20? In the Estimates committees proceedings I was told it emerged from an extensive consultation. In fact, I quote, 20 was supposedly: . . . a reasonable level to establish in requiring an organisation to list its local membership rather than just its office holders. It happens to be the number recommended by the Administrative Review Council in 1981. But what do we find when we go to that report? Paragraph 54 of that report states: The Council has accepted suggestions by some people who made submissions to it that the procedure should make provision for particulars to be available of the composition of unincorporated associations participating in inquiries and of their objects of association. All we know at this stage is that it was not FACTS because that group did not get involved in this inquiry at all. I have already pointed out that the rules of standing before the Tribunal were liberalised last year. I add that the ARC's recommendation of a register of unincorporated associations has, in fact, been discarded. It does not require much intelligence to realise that there really is no way of checking whether or not an association has at least 20 members. So what we have here is some gratuitous voyeurism-some early detection scheme for suspected ratbags, but something which is really ineffective. Yet the legislation says that the relevance is the only criterion for the Tribunal to consider a matter. Let me quote what the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal had to say when responding recently to a letter of mine seeking information about the Tribunal's experience of these regulations. It said: We regard the information required under regulations 4 (2) and 10 (2) as irrelevant to the inquiry process. Section 22aa of the Broadcasting Act 1942 makes it clear that any person lodging an application or a relevant submission is a party to proceedings at an ordinary inquiry. It does not really matter who that person is. The essential issue is whether what is being said is relevant to the inquiry. In some inquiries, especially inquiries into program standards, it could be that the numerical strength of a particular opinion might affect the weight given to a particular opinion (although we have to be careful about relying on mere volume), but names and addresses of any one but the submitter are never likely to be of interest to the Tribunal, and their inclusion in the material to be supplied in an inquiry gives the erroneous impression that the Tribunal regards them as significant. I wholeheartedly endorse this approach. The Australian Democrats would have been satisfied with earlier drafts of the regulations which stipulated that just the office bearers and the total membership figures should be included. Naturally, groups should be encouraged to spell out more information about their objects and activities, but a full disclosure of names somehow smacks of Big Brother. The process whereby this provision slithered into the regulation is a terrible indictment of the Department's method of setting up these regulations. I come to regulation 7. Regulation 7 also goes back to 1981, by a curious coincidence. However, this time the opposite of a clear-cut recommendation of the Administrative Review Council is being implemented. It amounts to a hidden subsidy for those who are often vociferous about the user pays principle. It certainly flies in the face completely of the Government's attempts to recover as much as possible of the stated costs of procedures under the freedom of information legislation. Perhaps this could happen only in the Department of Communications. Regulation 7 quite reasonably requires the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to notify licensees about relevant submissions lodged in the course of an inquiry. It then places an obligation on the Tribunal to furnish these licensees or their umbrella organisations with copies of all the relevant submissions free of charge. This service is of course available only to those most able to pay for it; that is, the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, and individual licensees. Senator Coleman —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. A standing order of the Senate states that speeches shall not be read. I draw your attention to the fact that Senator Vigor is reading every word of his speech. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Vigor, I must say that it is my impression that you are reading but you might give confidence that you are not if you look up more frequently when you are addressing the Senate. You are not permitted to read your speech but you are perfectly entitled to read quotations. Senator VIGOR —I have some detailed material in my notes. Basically, the removal of regulation 7 would enable the Tribunal to recover some of its expenses of providing this sort of material. It is important that the Government should be consistent in these matters and be prepared to recover the costs of photocopying from those people who are supplied with copies of material put before the Tribunal. It is an utter disgrace that the Government should be putting up the cost of freedom of information services at the same time as it is providing free photocopying for FACTS, FARB and those types of organisations. It is for that reason that the Democrats oppose regulation 7. I hope that the Department will provide information about the anticipated cost to the Tribunal of supplying such documents. If this measure is not supported by the Opposition, I hope that the Senate will have information available to it to see how the cost compares with the costs the Government intends to recover under freedom of information provisions. I turn next to regulation 9, which basically binds the Tribunal in senseless red tape. Under regulation 9 it is almost impossible for the Tribunal to conduct an inquiry it initiates in less than three months. If the Opposition is honest in its view about deregulation and if the Government and the Opposition are reasonable, they will see from this regulation and from regulation 8 that the times involved in regulation 9 mean that it will take at least three months for any type of inquiry, however simple, to be put in train if the Tribunal initiates it. There would be much greater control over the workload of the Tribunal if the Tribunal could have greater control over the inquiries it initiates and handle each case effectively. It would also serve the Broadcasting Tribunal well if it had the ability to expedite inquiries in which only a few people were involved. The Tribunal, in its letter to me, made the following comments about administrative inflexibilities: The significant problem already manifest is that the Tribunal must deal with any application for an amendment of the program standards through the inquiry process laid down in the regulations. There are two difficulties with this. The first is that there are already signs that the Tribunal will receive a large number of applications designed to facilitate the showing of one particular program, or to `pick off' particular aspects of the Tribunal's standards. The Tribunal has prepared some information on the application for amendment of the standards which have been lodged under the new inquiry process. In order to save time, I seek leave to have the document-which comprises two pages from the Tribunal-incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- APPLICATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR PROGRAM STANDARDS INQUIRIES The following applications for inquiries to vary standards have been received since 23 May 1986, when the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Inquiries) Regulations were Gazetted. 1. Application from FACTS to vary Television Advertising Condition 11 to allow advertising time lost as the result of a commercial-free broadcast of the wedding of Prince Andrew and Miss Sarah Ferguson to be made up by increased advertising during the same time zone on other evenings in the following week. 2. Application from WA Health Department to suspend the limitation on foreign content for advertisements relating to health and safety issues which do not promote any particular product. 3. Application from Austrama Television Pty Ltd on behalf of Network Ten to vary the Pre-school Children's Television Program Standards to allow the displacement of pre-school programming on Melbourne Cup Day by an all-day Cup coverage. 4. Application from TVW Enterprises Ltd to vary the Pre-school Children's Television Program Standards to allow the displacement of pre-school programming on a number of days over the summer period by various tennis tournaments. 5. Applications to vary TAC 11 to allow displacement of advertising to allow the broadcast of a program ``The Prince and Princess of Wales ... In Person'' with limited advertising breaks and the advertising time lost as a result to be made up by increased advertising during other programs. Two applications have been received: TVW Enterprises Ltd has requested an ad hoc variation; the Seven Network has requested a general variation to the standards to provide for displacement of advertising to allow the transmission of programs with advertising restrictions attached to them. In both cases the applicant had already contracted for the program with limitations on advertising breaks included in the contract. 6. Application from FACTS to repeal Television Advertising Conditions 13 and 14 (two of 16 standards establishing advertising conditions for television). In addition to the above, letters have been received which were not accepted as applications as the standards in question had been subject to a recent inquiry and no new information was provided: 1. Request by TVW Enterprises Ltd to allow alcohol advertising outside AO time on Melbourne Cup Day. 2. Request by Australian Parents for Drug Free Youth to amend Television Program Standard 21 (advertising of alcoholic drinks) to prevent personalities with appeal to young people under the age of 18 years from being involved in alcohol advertising on television. The following points should be noted about these applications and requests: (a) Of nine received, only two were from ``the pu-blic''; all others are from licensees or their representatives; (b) Five of the nine are for ad hoc variations to standards to facilitate the broadcasting of parti-cular programs in the manner preferred by licensees; (c) One is to repeal two particular standards which are part of an inter-related package of standards regulating advertising; (d) One is to vary a standard to facilitate one particular advertisement which could have been made so as to comply with the foreign content standard, or could have been broadcast as a community service announcement. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Most of the applications until now have been from broadcasters. But the Tribunal expects the general public gradually to catch on and use the process. The letter goes on to point out in general terms that the Tribunal is adversely affected by this particular regulation. I make that point to the Senate. We cannot afford to wait for the Department to patch up problems which become apparent to it in six months time or so. We need action right now to get the broadcasting system back into kilter. The disallowance of regulations 2, 7 and 9 would, I believe, be a useful start. The transfer of responsibility from the Department to the Tribunal of these powers, which is the effect of the disallowance, would allow problems to be dealt with speedily and effectively and be part of a deregulatory process. I recommend that all people in this place who are in favour of deregulation should support this motion for disallowance which, I believe, moves in the right direction to get a properly managed broadcasting system and an effectively operating Broadcasting Tribunal. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.42) —The Opposition will not support Senator Vigor's motion for disallowance of part of these regulations. I submit that, in regard to many of the things which Senator Vigor said, he has presented a picture of the operations of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which is not in accordance with fact and has indicated the potential effect of these regulations according to certain claims which he has made which, again, I believe are not in accordance with the facts. One thing which Senator Vigor has pointed out is the lack of power in the Senate to deal with parts of a regulation and to delete only parts of a regulation. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which was presented only yesterday-the eightieth report, dealing with application of the Committee's principles, report of the Acts Interpretation Act, and legislation considered in 1985-86-makes this point very clearly in paragraphs 2.18 and 2.19. The purport of that is that, in order to disallow part of a regulation which the Senate might find objectionable, a whole regulation must be disallowed. For that purpose, Senator Vigor has sought the disallowance of the whole of regulation 2 because he objects to the definition of prescribed particulars. The effect of removing the whole of regulation 2 will be to deny any part of the interpretation clause of these regulations. Therefore, the Tribunal would be expected to operate under a regime in which it does not have any guidance by way of regulation or, indeed, in the Act itself, as to what the interpretation of the regulation is to mean. Questions such as party, proceeding, public documents, substantive power, approved form, inquiry and inquiry documents would stand without definition because of the removal of regulation 2. It was for that very reason that Senator Vigor, who was originally agitated about the application of regulation 4, did not proceed to include it. He realised that, by disallowing the whole of regulation 4 when his only objection was to regulation 4 (1) (b), he would have brought about a situation in which the work of the Tribunal would have become impossible. By disallowing regulation 2 precisely the same effect is achieved. Before I deal with each of the regulations which it is sought to disallow, I want to deal with the letter, which has now been incorporated in Hansard, from the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Miss Deirdre O'Connor, addressed in reply to Senator Vigor, on this matter. I think it to be quite improper for the Chairman of the Tribunal to have addressed such a letter to Senator Vigor. I think it to be quite improper for the holder of a statutory position to write or respond to somebody who is not the Minister to whom he is responsible drawing attention to matters to which he has objection and which ought properly to be determined as matters of public policy subject to the scrutiny and review of the Parliament. I do not believe that it is proper for an office holder, such as the Chairman of the Broadcasting Tribunal, to be seeking the assistance of senators, or anybody else for that matter, to have disallowed a series of regulations which the Tribunal finds to be objectionable when the central issue is whether the Government, as a matter of public policy, with the review and oversight of the Parliament attached to that, regards the regulations as being the correct way to proceed. What sort of situation will we have if every one of the statutory authorities starts writing to the Parliament saying: `We do not like what the Government is doing about this. We therefore encourage you to disallow regulations. We therefore encourage you to put up a view purporting to be a Tribunal view which is at variance with the Government view'? I think that is absolutely disgraceful on the part of the Broadcasting Tribunal and it is absolutely improper. It even goes to the extent, for instance, that there is an error of fact in the letter. The letter states in part: In some inquiries, especially inquiries into program standards, it could be that the numerical strength of a particular opinion might affect the weight given to a particular opinion (although we have to be careful about relying on mere volume), but names and addresses of any but the submitter are never likely to be of interest to the Tribunal, and their inclusion in the material to be supplied in an inquiry gives the erroneous impression that the Tribunal regards them as significant. Neither the existing regulations nor the regulations which are before us require names and addresses to be given. Regulation 2 under the heading `Prescribed particulars' states that the following information must be provided in relation to unincorporated associations: . . . the name of each member of the association or, where there are more than 20 members of the association, the name of each officer of the association. The regulation does not require addresses and for the Tribunal, in its letter, to imply that addresses are either currently required or will be required in the future is simply a misleading statement. The other point that needs to be made is that the Tribunal had plenty of opportunities, as Senator Vigor well knows, to make its views known to the Government in the process of consultation which took place prior to the drawing up of these regulations. In the briefing which Senator Vigor was given by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) it was indicated: The regulations were the subject of very extensive consultation with industry groups (the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations-FACTS, the Federation of Australian Broadcasting Stations-FARB; the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia-PBAA; public interest bodies (Media and Communications Council) and the ABT. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has had its crack at these regulations; it has had its opportunity to tell the Government what it thought of these proposed regulations; it has been given every opportunity; and the Government has now come to a decision, which it presents to the Parliament by way of regulations. The Tribunal, having had one crack at the thing, now decides to use the forms of the Parliament by way of a letter addressed by the Chairman to Senator Vigor to once again try to win a battle which has already been settled. I do not believe that that is the correct way for statutory authorities to proceed. I am not one who is known in this place as a defender through thick and thin of the Department of Communications, but for Senator Vigor to make the implication that the Department was the one that was at fault over the extraordinary saga of the Perth television inquiry is absolutely unfounded. The problem as far as the Perth inquiry was concerned was the intervention of any number of grossly overpaid members of the legal profession. If there is any fault-and I note that I have stirred Senator Chaney into some degree of agitation-it lies in an Act which provides for a great deal of legal representation and for a situation of constantly going backwards and forwards with appeals to the Federal Court, the full Federal Court and the High Court of Australia. I think in the Perth inquiry the Minister was enjoined at some stage in something like 16 cases. The fault lies, therefore, in the structure of the Act; it does not lie with the Department of Communications, if in fact, the legal profession cuts a swathe through the processes which ought to be relatively uncluttered for the establishment of these licences. I turn to each of the three regulations which Senator Vigor seeks to disallow. The first is the question of `prescribed particulars' in regulation 2 which was the subject of a very extensive investigation by the Administrative Review Council. The Council dealt with this matter in its report to the Attorney-General entitled `Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Procedures' which was presented in 1981. Paragraph 54 of the report states: The Council has accepted suggestions by some people who made submissions to it that the procedure should make provision for particulars to be available of the composition of unincorporated associations participating in inquiries and of their objects of association. Paragraph 55 states: RECOMMENDATION 11 (a) The regulations should provide that where an application or submission is made on behalf of an unincorporated association, it should contain: (i) either a list of the members of the association or, where the membership exceeds 20, a list of its officers and a description of its membership, and (ii) A statement of the objects of the association. So this very issue which Senator Vigor seeks to have disallowed has been the subject of investigation by the Administrative Review Council, a body which has established its reputation of a degree of sensitivity to civil liberties and to administrative law procedures. This regulation follows precisely the recommendation of that Council. Senator Vigor is apprised of this information because in the briefing which he was given by the Minister for Communications, the Minister said: In order to assist in resolving this issue the Department sought advice from the Attorney-General's Department and received advice that where the information sought related to a function or activity of the ABT, it would not be contrary to `Information Privacy Principles' which have been developed to regulate the collection storage and access to personal information. So it has been tested by the Administrative Review Council and recommended. It has been tested by the Attorney-General's Department against its information privacy principles and been found to be perfectly sound. Both of those facts were known to Senator Vigor; both of them ought to have been more directly addressed in terms of dealing with this matter. I do not see that the principles of natural justice require anything else when one is faced with a series of accusers saying that certain things should be done, certain standards should be introduced and certain licence conditions or standards should be varied, than one being entitled to know who it is who is making that claim. For instance, it is perfectly legitimate to know whether in fact an application for the change of a licence condition has been generated by a public interest group or perhaps by four sacked employees. Indeed, if there is an assault upon the standards laid down for the advertising of tobacco products from a group calling itself Citizens for Free Speech, it is perfectly legitimate to find out whether it is a fact that it is a group of five people, all of whom are senior executives of tobacco companies. It seems to me perfectly fair and reasonable that that information should be public information. In terms of the advice of the Administrative Review Council and the Attorney-General's Department and the principles of natural justice which are at stake here, the Opposition does not support that disallowance. We come then to the question of the alleged subsidy to the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters and the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia which is indicated in sub-section 5 of regulation 7 in regard to the provision of information and the provision of copies of documents. One has to look at this matter in relation to sub-section 3 (b) which gives the Tribunal the power or, indeed, the requirement to ensure that organisations receive a copy of each relevant submission lodged with the Tribunal in relation to an inquiry. What the Tribunal, of course, could do under these circumstances is order the person making the submission to provide a copy of the submission to all of the affected parties. Indeed, Miss O'Connor's letter to Senator Vigor says in part: In some cases, it is appropriate for us to deal with this requirement by directing submitters to serve copies of their submissions on the applicant or affected licencees . . . . The Tribunal says that in some circumstances that may not be a fair way to go. It also says: For example, if the ordinary citizen lodges a written submission in response to a Tribunal notice, it may be very difficult and often unfair to require that citizen to serve additional copies on one or more affected licencees. So this is the position: The Tribunal is required to ensure that the affected parties get copies of the documents. It can do one of two things. It either requires the submitters to provide them or it provides them itself. I cannot see in this instance that the transfer of the financial burden from the submitter to the Commonwealth is unjustified. If Senator Vigor is saying that he would prefer to have a situation in which individuals making submissions to the Tribunal are in fact required to pay the cost of ensuring that everybody who is affected by the submissions gets a copy of the submission, I think he will find that the enthusiasm with which some of the public interest groups may have embraced him on this occasion will turn out to be extremely short lived. The Opposition does not believe that the prescribed organisation sub-clause of that regulation in fact serves anything other than a very useful public purpose. I come lastly to the attempt to remove regulation 9, which is the public notice of inquiry regulation. Here again, I believe that the Senate has not been put in possession of all the facts by Senator Vigor. His claim is fundamentally that it will always take a minimum of 10 weeks for these inquiries to be completed. If, however, he reads regulation 9 in conjunction with regulation 8, which is headed `Disposal of certain matters', he will find that the number of short cut procedures available to the Tribunal dealt with in regulation 8 allow for a substantial shortening of the time involved. Indeed, the new procedures place much greater emphasis on documentation rather than, as has existed in the past, an emphasis on time consuming oral hearings and cross examination. So the claim made about regulation 9 does not stand up when one reads it against the discretions given to the Tribunal in regulation 8 to provide for a short circuiting of the procedures. I think that that adequately deals with the matters which have been raised. I repeat: Regulation 2 seems to us to be perfectly fair in terms of protection of privacy and natural justice principles; regulation 7 seems to us to be perfectly fair as far as providing written material to prescribed organisations is concerned; and regulation 9 is perfectly fair when one reads it in conjunction with regulation 8. I conclude, therefore, only by drawing attention once again to what I believe to be the very undesirable precedent established by the Chairman of the Broadcasting Tribunal, in addressing to Senator Vigor a letter seeking to overturn regulations which the Tribunal had an opportunity to participate in developing, and which are properly matters to be determined by the Government and by the Parliament. If we let this sort of procedure get out of hand, the lack of control which is already evident over statutory authorities will become even more manifest, and I believe that to be most undesirable. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(11.01) —There are some things in what Senator Vigor said which I think ought to be agreed with, and a lot in what Senator Puplick had to say, although there were some things which Senator Puplick went to which should be rebutted, such as his fairly savage attack upon the legal profession, which is something he can never refrain from entering upon. His ability as a speaker, which we in this chamber have all heard of, and his ability to grapple with legal concepts, should lead him to take up the practice of law and to serve the public, as many people in that profession do, very nobly. Be that as it may, the point we have to agree on as far as Senator Vigor goes is that it is an unnecessary fetter upon the power of the Senate not to be able to disallow part of a regulation. I think that the rule of the Acts Interpretation Act which says that the Senate must disallow the whole of a regulation and not part of it is a very poor rule and it ought to be changed as a matter of priority. It is in the hands of this Parliament to change it. Having said that, I now come to the substance of Senator Vigor's argument. With respect to him, I think there may be a misconception as to what these regulations are all about. I do not think that we can look at the matter, as he has done, simply from the point of view of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Perhaps the best way of entering into that concept is to read what is in the explanatory statement. When regulations are passed explanatory statements are set out explaining what the regulations go to. In the second paragraph of that statement this appears: The Broadcasting Act 1942 provides for commercial and public broadcasting services and establishes the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal as an independent body with licensing and supervisory powers in relation to those services. The Act sets up the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal as an independent body with certain powers. The explanatory statement goes on: Section 17a of the Act lists the most significant powers of the Tribunal which are classed as substantive powers. These reflect a broad range of powers including, for example, a power to grant licences. If we think about that for a minute, we will understand how significant that power is. In other words, this Tribunal can grant to bodies the ability to make a lot of money and to broadcast to many people throughout the nation the sorts of things that they feel appropriate. It is a very significant power that the Tribunal holds. Another power is the power to determine standards for programs. In other words, it has the power of censorship in a sense, which is a very broad and significant power. It also has the power to approve transactions relating to the ownership or control of licences. On reading that again, we realise the very wide and extensive powers that the Tribunal has. It has the power to reprimand licensees. In other words, it can impose sanctions upon them, and it can issue directions to licensees. Anyone wanting to enter into the field of public or commercial broadcasting must realise the significance that the Tribunal has. Properly, the Parliament has set up a procedure whereby those affected, or likely to be affected, by what the Tribunal can do, can go before the Tribunal and put their case. That is a very fair way of doing things. In other words, if somebody is going to determine our rights, our privileges, what we can or cannot do, is it not only fair that we go before that body and have our say, in terms of either written or oral submissions or both? Indeed, there is provision to do just that before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The next question is how we go before it. Will the Tribunal's members literally sit in the shade under the banyan tree and dispense licences or reprimands without any sort of regulation or rules as to the way they should go about it? Of course not. These regulations set up the procedures whereby the Tribunal is to operate. It is at that level that objection has been made to it. From what I can gather the main objection is that if there are 20 or fewer people going before the Tribunal, either to make or to resist an application or to apply for something, they have to provide their names. What is so extraordinary in the requirement of people having to provide their names? That is what the regulation simply says: . . . `prescribed particulars' in relation to an unincorporated association means particulars of the objects of the association- that is proper and, as I understand it, there is no objection taken to that requirement- and the names of each member of the association, or where there are more than 20 members of the association, the name of each officer of the association. If people have such an approach to things and they want to go before the Tribunal, why should they not tell it their names? That is all it requires. Would honourable senators object if five people were making an application and were told to give their names? I suggest that that is a very ordinary requirement. I suggest that in any legal proceeding the person against whom one is battling ought to identify herself or himself. Simply to say that the whole legal process-that is what the inference is-should be able to proceed behind some sort of name such as the Honest John Broadcasting Group, the Trustworthy Media Men or the Sunshine Girls, and to conduct proceedings on that basis, seems to me to be quite bizarre. We would then get back to the John Doe and Richard Roe situation, and the Smith and Jones situation, and the Tribunal sits there and says: `We are not terribly interested in who you are. Simply say what you want, as you will. Send a record along, don't even come yourself'. Senator Puplick has said that a letter from the Chairman of the Tribunal to Senator Vigor of 13 October 1986 contains some perhaps unfortunate statements because, amongst other things, this was quoted by Senator Vigor: We- that is the Tribunal- regard the information required under regulations 4 (2) and 10 (2) as irrelevant to the inquiry process. In other words, the Tribunal is saying that it does not matter who comes before it or what the character is of the person applying for a particular licence or what the character of a person is who is interested in something going on before the Tribunal. It says that the character and the history of the person is irrelevant. It also says that the sorts of financing that might be behind that person are irrelevant. For a tribunal to write a letter divorcing its ability to look at the character, the background, the finances and the history of a person who makes the application and to regard all those as being irrelevant, it seems to me is to restrict itself too much in its considerations. I would have thought that it would subject itself with respect to an application by way of prerogative writs and all sorts of other things. Perhaps, to be fair to the writer of the letter, that is not quite what is meant, because it goes on to say this: Section 22aa of the Broadcasting Act 1942 makes it clear that any person lodging an application or a relevant submission is a party to proceedings at an ordinary inquiry. It says that that is relevant. What may be meant by that is that in the old days the person making the application had to show some proprietary interest in the proceedings to get a hearing; whereas now that does not matter so much. Indeed that is probably what is meant by this letter. But certainly by the way in which it is expressed it would mean otherwise. It is unfortunate that the head of the Tribunal which has to hear evidence should write a letter apparently criticising the Tribunal's ability to look at evidence, which I would have thought was very relevant to many of its considerations. I go to the next objection, which is the objection to regulation 7 which in effect requires that the Tribunal give notice of the material it has before it to all interested parties. I would have thought that that was a very fair regulation and very properly in the rules that govern this area. If a person has to come before a tribunal, make submissions and, in the end, accept its decision, surely he should know the material of those who are putting a proposition adverse to his. Surely, any hearing ought to be conducted on the basis that there are no traps, that there is no ambush, and that the evidence that one party has is well and truly available to the other; so not only does the tribunal know what the evidence is but also both parties know what it is so that a proper conclusion can be reached. All regulation 7 does is to make sure that all those who come before the Tribunal are well apprised of what is going on. It is said: `Why should the Tribunal have to provide those documents? Why should the Tribunal have to photostat, or have photostated, documents and send them to the applicants?'. It does that so that the matters before the Tribunal can be better dealt with. The Tribunal can then be assured that all the relevant information has been provided to all interested parties; so no party can come along and say `I did not get that document', or `Had I known that it was part of a submission I would have acted differently. I ask for an adjournment'. So time and tide are wasted. The provision of material to the various parties obviates those problems. Finally, there is the objection to regulation 9 because it is said that it is time wasting. Let us look at regulation 9 (2), which states: A notice, under sub-regulation (1) at the commencement of an inquiry shall be published- (a) where the inquiry relates to the grant of a licence (other than supplementary licence) otherwise than by way of renewal-within 28 days after the specified date referred to in sub-paragraph 82 (1) (b) (i) of the Act . . . and- (b) in any other case-as soon as practicable but within 28 days after the commencement of the inquiry. It goes on to specify other time limits. It sets out time limits so that those who may be affected by applications before the Tribunal are given notice. I ask Senator Vigor to look at this whole matter in the context of interested parties to an application who are, first of all, notified in time and given enough time to prepare their case and, secondly, given the material that is necessary for them to prepare a defence or an answer to the Tribunal, whichever is the relevant position. If we look at all these regulations as a whole we see that they are very much akin to regulations that guide courts in their actions. They are very close to the orders that the courts rely on to conduct their affairs in a proper, practical and effective way, doing justice to both parties. If we took away any of these regulations which are objected to we would find, in effect, that people who are entitled to know how things are going, what the state of play is before the Tribunal and how they should go about preparing their cases, would be denied that opportunity. I think they are sensible regulations. Senator Puplick has touched upon the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal itself has had an opportunity to put a submission before those who would decide how these regulations would be made. The regulations were subject to very extensive consultation with industry groups and with the Tribunal itself. We have the results before the Senate today. If the regulations were disallowed, what regulations would provide a proper guide to the Tribunal, so that not only is the Tribunal given a chance to exercise its functions but also those who come before it are given a chance to put proper submissions? In putting proper submissions they are entitled, as anybody is, to engage the services of a lawyer. Some calumny has been heaped upon the heads of lawyers. The law is an old profession of mine. Lawyers have served the public very well not only at law but also in this very chamber which they have graced over the years. Senator Puplick —And favoured. Senator COONEY —And favoured. I say without any facetiousness at all that people who are well versed in preparing applications to go before bodies such as the Tribunal can have their applications dealt with expeditiously and in a way that justice is done to all parties, and in many cases at a reasonable cost. I must concede that there are times when my colleagues perhaps charge a little more than should be expected, but by and large the judicial system and the process set up in this community whereby rights are adjusted among the citizens are well served by the legal profession. Senator Sanders —Are you willing to declare your interest? Senator COONEY —I have declared my interest. There is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, I will not sit down without at least putting in some defence of the defenceless lawyers who have been maligned here today, not only by Senator Vigor-who, having listened to me, will no doubt change his attitude-but also by Senator Puplick who should not have done that. Having made a brilliant speech in all other respects, he failed to pay tribute where it was due. I hope that Senator Vigor, having listened to Senator Puplick and me and now that this matter has been put in its proper setting, will see that this motion should not be passed and no doubt will not be passed by the Senate. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.18) —in reply-I must raise a few points that have been raised during the debate, particularly those made by Senator Puplick with his characteristic eloquence. He tried to paint a picture of corruption and malpractice in the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I wish to put that matter straight immediately. I wrote to the Tribunal on 2 September 1986 to get clarification concerning the Tribunal's attitude. I informed the office of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard that letter asking the Tribunal for its opinion. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 2 September 1986 Ms. Deirdre O'Connor, Chairman, Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Dear Ms O'Connor, I wish to bring to the Tribunal's attention my motion to disallow the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Inquiries) Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 100. There are some significant civil liberties matters involved about which I have already contacted the Minister for Communications. I also understand that a significant additional administrative burden is already being imposed on the Tribunal as a result of these new procedures, and that scarce valuable staff resources are being tied up because there is no flexibility allowed in the response to requests for exercise of the Tribunal's powers. I would be grateful for any information the Tribunal can supply about the operation of these Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Inquiries) Regulations to date, and any problems encountered. Yours sincerely, David Vigor Senator VIGOR —I also point out that after replying to me, both verbally and in a letter, the Chairman of the Tribunal, in fact, sent a copy of her letter to Mr Duffy. I did not incorporate the whole letter previously, but considering that it has been the subject of considerable discussion I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. During my first speech I incorporated only the appendices. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- CHAIRMAN 13 October 1986 Senator David Vigor Senator for South Australia Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Vigor Thank you for your letter of 2 September 1986 bringing to our attention your motion to disallow the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Inquiries) Regulations. I note that you refer to ``significant civil liberties matters'' involved in the Regulations. I assume that you are referring to regulations 4 (2) and 10 (2), which require unincorporated associations to provide a list of members or (in the case of larger organisations) office-bearers with any application or submission to the Tribunal. We regard the information required under regulations 4 (2) and 10 (2) as irrelevant to the inquiry process. Section 22aa of the Broadcasting Act 1942 makes it clear that any person lodging an application or a relevant submission is a party to proceedings at an ordinary inquiry. It does not really matter who that person is. The essential issue is whether what is being said is relevant to the inquiry. In some inquiries, especially inquiries into program standards, it could be that the numerical strength of a particular opinion might affect the weight given to a particular opinion (although we have to be careful about relying on mere volume), but names and addresses of anyone but the submitter are never likely to be of interest to the Tribunal, and their inclusion in the material to be supplied in an inquiry gives the erroneous impression that the Tribunal regards them as significant. On the question of additional administrative burdens, I do not think that the Tribunal has yet had sufficient experience of the new process to reach final overall conclusions about the relevant burdens imposed by the old process and the new process. However, I can identify one area where the Tribunal has experienced a significant problem already, and another where problems could arise in the future. The significant problem already manifest is that the Tribunal must deal with any application for an amendment of the program standards through the inquiry process laid down in the regulations. There are two difficulties with this. The first is that there are already signs that the Tribunal will receive a large number of applications designed to facilitate the showing of one particular program, or to ``pick off'' particular aspects of the Tribunal's standards. The Tribunal has prepared some information on the applications for amendment of the standards which have been lodged under the new inquiry process: ATTACHMENT A. Note that the bulk of applications so far have been from broadcasters. Once the availability of the new inquiry process becomes widely known to the public, the number of applications can be expected to increase. Sections 17b and 17c of the Act require the Tribunal to hold an inquiry where a valid application is received. This makes it extremely hard for the Tribunal to keep control of its agenda for revision of the program standards, even though we are making use of our powers to join and defer inquiries. We are also now finding that the mere processing of the applications is a considerable additional burden on the Tribunal's resources for very little valuable outcome. The second difficulty is that the inquiry process in the regulations was really developed for quasi-judicial licensing functions, and is generally not suited to an inquiry into the determination of particular program standards, which is a legislative kind of function. To go through an inquiry process, with parties, hearings (possibly with rights of cross-examination etc), at the behest of a special interest group (whoever it may be) is often an inappropriate way to proceed in the revision of program standards. It could positively inhibit public debate on issues where it is most important. Yet under the current law, we have no discretion to proceed in any other way unless the matter is urgent (see s. 17c (7) of the Act) or relatively trivial (see regulation 8). Note that the ability to abridge an inquiry where an issue is trivial applies only to applications lodged with the Tribunal. If the Tribunal itself wishes to amend a standard, even if only to change a single word, it must open an inquiry file, draft issues for the inquiry, prepare a notice in accordance with regulation 9, publish the notice in accordance with regulation 18, allow 6 weeks for submissions, and then consider the responses (if any) and prepare a report. We have found already that an inquiry initiated by the Tribunal takes an absolute minimum of 10 weeks from start to finish, so that even non-controversial changes cannot be implemented quickly. The other issue that could be of concern to us in the future is the requirement in regulation 7 that the Tribunal should, so far as practicable, ensure that each affected licensee receives a copy of each submission lodged in an inquiry. A similar requirement applies to any person who has lodged an application for the exercise of a substantive power. In some cases, it is appropriate for us to deal with this requirement by directing submitters to serve copies of their submissions on the applicant or affected licensees (or the relevant industry association), but in many other cases it will simply not be fair or practicable to make and enforce such a direction. For example, if an ordinary citizen lodges a written submission in response to a Tribunal notice, it may be very difficult and often unfair to require that citizen to serve additional copies on one or more affected licensees. It may be equally unreasonable to reject the submission if the submitter objects to supplying additional copies. The result under regulation 7 could be that the Tribunal is obliged to become an unpaid photocopier of documents for affected licensees. This is all very well as a voluntary practice adopted from time to time according to the circumstances, but the new regulations would make it mandatory. Yours sincerely DEIRDRE O'CONNOR cc: The Hon. M. J. Duffy MP Minister for Communications Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. I come to the substantive matters of this debate. Firstly, let us consider regulation 2. If the definitions were left to the Tribunal we would have a freer and more reasonable requirement for making submissions before the Tribunal. I support the disallowance of regulation 2. However, I will comment a little further about some matters associated with my attacks on the Department. I wish to bring to Senator Puplick's attention the fact that the Perth hearings were extended by over 40 days because the Department failed to specify the technical conditions associated with the licence, which left an enormous loophole which the Tribunal was unable to handle under its powers. That is a major reason why there were such extended hearings in Perth which cost both the commercial applicants and the public purse a lot of money. If that matter had been tightened up and properly thought through those 40 days, or at least a large proportion of them, could have been saved. The Tribunal has the ability to initiate inquiries under the Broadcasting Act. Regulation 8 allows it not to open an inquiry in response to a request if it feels the matter is of little importance. Senator Puplick implies that this gives it the freedom necessary to expedite inquiries. That is not the case. Regulation 8 deals only with situations where the Tribunal has not initiated an inquiry. The Tribunal has no way, once an inquiry has been called on its own motion, of expediting it. I bring to the notice of the Senate the part of the letter from the Chairman of the Tribunal, which has been incorporated in Hansard. It says: We have found already that an inquiry initiated by the Tribunal takes an absolute minimum of 10 weeks from start to finish, so that even non-controversial changes cannot be implemented quickly. Regulation 8 does not help the Tribunal at all in these cases. These regulations will have to be revised. It is a great disappointment that both the Government and the Opposition will not support our motion for disallowance. I hope that we can find a better way of doing things. The Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats are pushing for the ability to be able to change one or two words and to make sensible amendments to regulations so that we will not have this type of process in the Senate. It would certainly help us to be better legislators if we had more fine tuning on disallowing parts of regulations. I commend this matter to the Senate for expeditious action. I hope that the Government will take notice and introduce soon legislation to bring into effect an ability for the Senate to be able to change all regulations, down to the level of a single word. I commend to the Senate the disallowance of regulations 2, 7 and 9 of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Inquiries) Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 100. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Sanders had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after ``That'', insert: ``this Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Animal Welfare for report by the first day of sitting in 1987, and that the Committee give particular attention to whether- (a) the Bill would weaken the supervision of animal exports, such as by the delegation of powers by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, resulting in decisions to export being made by persons who are neither qualified nor informed to assess properly whether an export is in the best interests of the animal or human communities; (b) the removal of the requirement for applications for permits to be gazetted would undermine basic democratic principles by denying the public any meaningful participation in permit decisions; (c) at a time when our native fauna and flora is under ever-increasing threat, strong legislative steps should be taken to close loopholes in existing laws, rather than creating even greater opportunities for those who wish to over-exploit our native species; and (d) there ought to be stronger supervision of the export of animals covered by the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species''. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(11.25) —Before the adjournment of the debate yesterday I was saying that Australia is dealing with a multi-million dollar smuggling business. There is considerable evidence to link the wildlife smuggling trade with drugs. It is a serious problem, one to which too little attention has been paid to date. Only five cases of wildlife smuggling have been brought to court since the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act came into force in 1984. That indicates both the difficulty of the problem and the attitude to wildlife smuggling. The prevention of wildlife smuggling is not regarded as a major priority by Customs nor by the authorities that have anything to do with it. Whether that is because of a lack of resources, lack of interest or lack of direction I do not know. The Federal Government should direct more attention to this problem. The Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, of which I am a member, has heard considerable evidence from Customs officers. They have expressed concern at the situation, at the lack of resources and the obvious links between wildlife smuggling and other illegal imports and exports. Australia's geographical position and the size of our country make thorough surveillance difficult but the same problems exist for those involved in drug detection. That problem should not prevent more effort being expended. It is to be hoped that the Federal Government will look at this matter and take it much more seriously than it has in the past. I am persuaded by the argument that if controls were lifted on the export of several varieties of our birds, particularly the galah and the cockatoo, to which I referred yesterday, that may help to reduce the illegal trafficking. People in the bird industry have some concerns about liberalising exports. They are concerned basically because of the need for specialised supervision by appropriate authorities. There are administrative and other restrictive difficulties. These would definitely need to be addressed. However, in a period in which we are trying to encourage more exports-exports are probably paramount in everyone's mind at the moment-this is an opportunity that should not be overlooked. Returns would come not just from sales but also from ancillary industries, such as transport services. Additionally, Australia would be viewed more favourably by pet lovers around the world who cannot understand why they are forbidden to buy galahs and cockatoos when they know that in Australia those birds are often regarded as pests and disposed of accordingly. An example of a ridiculous situation is that the Taiwan Zoo, which is keen to obtain some Australian kangaroos for its collection, is buying them from the United States of America. I accept that the controlled legitimate export of wildlife would require extensive supervision with specialist knowledge and perhaps would be a costly administrative exercise. At a time when the Government wants to keep spending to a minimum and economic restraint to the forefront it may be a bit of a problem but I believe that the concept is worthwhile. Clauses in this legislation which strengthen penalties for those caught smuggling are important. However, they are not tough enough. After all, when the potential booty is worth, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, a $5,000 fine is probably most inappropriate. I welcome also the increased protection for people who provide information to Customs authorities on smuggling operations. We are all aware of the penalties dished out to informants in the drug trade. Concrete boots are reasonably common. With the financial rewards for wildlife smuggling, it is only reasonable to assume that similar retribution would occur against informants on wildlife smuggling. One final aspect which I feel should be emphasised is the liberalising of the export of pets from Australia. In many pet purchases, very often no descriptive receipts are issued. For example, in the case of budgerigars, a bird is a bird is a bird. Only an expert would be able to distinguish one breed of budgie from another. However, some budgerigars cannot be exported at present. I hope that the new relaxation of laws regarding pet exports does not open up a new, lucrative trade in illegal exports. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Australia is very rich in flora and fauna. I hope that all Australians realise the value of their heritage and what wonderful natural resources we have in such things as our birds, animals and flowers. Therefore, it is important that we as individuals and as a government take seriously the threat imposed by illegal exports of our wildlife and support legislation that will help to control the legitimate movement of birds and animals, while providing penalties for those who attempt to export them illegally. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(11.32) —I am sympathetic to the intention of the amendment proposed by the Australian Democrats to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986. The amendment endeavours to bring the legislation, which is being amended by the Government, under the scrutiny of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare so that detailed examination can be given to it, having in mind the problems that have been revealed to the Committee in evidence before it. Although I am sympathetic to the intention of the amendment, I do not believe that it will be supported. I am beginning to believe that the amendment does not need to be supported because the Animal Welfare Committee will carefully scrutinise the Government's amendments. In fact, the Committee has the legislation under scrutiny. It is fairly evident that the legislation as it now stands and, for that matter, as it is being amended, does nothing substantial to correct the serious problems which our wildlife species face. That is the basis of a report we expect to bring down. We are concerned about the legislation because of revelations which have been made that the Australian Customs Service plays only a very small role at the Customs barrier in the protection of species which are being exported, sometimes live but mostly as products derived from the exploitation of wildlife species. Other evidence seems to indicate-I direct this remark to Senator Puplick-that legal trade in wildlife species, and the products derived from wildlife species, is often a mask and a cover for substantial illegal trade. That is why I recommend some caution to those who are suggesting that we solve our problems, especially the problems which the rural sector faces, for example, the problem of the damage done to crops by flocks of birds, by legalising their export. I suggest that the solution is not to legalise their export, but to seek other means to solve the problems farmers face and the problems that the birds themselves face as a result of the competition between commercial production and the need for the birds to live freely in their environment. Senator Sheil —Have you got any ideas? Senator GEORGES —To a certain extent we are pre-empting the investigation by the Committee. The Committee will bring down certain recommendations. We have some ideas. Those ideas are tempered by harsh reality. Sympathetic people-most people are sympathetic-would say: `Let us give the greatest possible advantage to our wildlife species. Let our wildlife species and their environment be protected'. That is a very, shall we say, sympathetic option to take but in reality it is not easily achieved. The Committee is considering it, which is why, possibly, we are taking longer with the inquiry than we would like to take. The solution is not to make legal something which is illegal at present. As I said previously, legal trade can be a cover for considerable illegal trade. I do not want to go back to the days of the great debate on applied ecology and the turtle farm project. In order to sell the products of a device designed to produce turtles in a domestic environment, all that was stimulated in the community was a desire to gather and display turtle products. The end result would have been to stimulate the harvesting of turtles from the wild. There are all sorts of problems. The Committee is investigating them. It will investigate the legislation. I agree with Senator Sanders that the Government's amendments do little to improve the controls that are supposedly in place. There has to be some in depth consideration of the problem which probably will lead to a complete overhaul, not only of the legislation, but also of our approach. The concerns which Senator Brownhill has expressed are quite real. His solutions, however, will probably not meet that real concern. I suggest that the Democrats' amendment, although well-intentioned, is not necessarily the best way to deal with the matter. Although the Senate Select Committee is not likely to receive the reference-I know what the numbers are as well as Senator Sanders; nevertheless he has brought the matter forward for debate by moving an amendment-the Committee will be considering the amendments and the whole legislation. No doubt it will bring down some recommendations to the Senate in its report. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.40) —The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986 is a Bill amending legislation which was originally countenanced in the days of the previous Fraser- Anthony Government, and very necessary legislation it was too. It really brings together and helps us to meet our obligations for the protection and conservation of the world's wildlife under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. I indicate at the outset that the Opposition will not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Sanders. Three members of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare have taken part in this debate, and that is good, as well as one other speaker, Senator Puplick, from my side of the House. We will not be supporting the amendment for the reasons basically outlined by Senator Georges. I think that the Senate Select Committee, in its hearings and in the work it has before it, will pick up most of what is envisaged in the amendment moved by Senator Sanders. Indeed, I would be very disappointed if the Committee did not do that. We will not be supporting the amendment. I would not want to see this Bill held up unnecessarily because, as has been indicated by previous speakers, it does tighten up in some areas and strengthen the ability of officials to detect and to prosecute those wildlife traffickers, who we abhor, who make money out of our indigenous wildlife. Anything that can be done to stop that trafficking and to bring those people to justice has to be commended. This Bill does tighten that up, so we would not want to hold it up. That, besides the reason that I think that the Committee has all the power to do the things that Senator Sanders had indicated he wants done, means that we will not be supporting the amendment. We are not against the intent of the amendment; I just think the matter can be handled if things take their course. The previous speakers outlined the Bill, the various aspects of it and the necessity for it, so I will not detain the Senate too long. But I do want to pick up a few points on the way through. First of all, one of the amendments allows the export of invertebrates. There is a program going on now instigated by the James Cook University at Townsville on the export of clams. This has been found necessary because the clams in the reefs of the South Pacific have been very severely depleted, possibly by the sort of plundering that has gone on on our Great Barrier Reef with overseas fishermen who come in and decimate the clam life on the reefs. One way of helping out our South Pacific neighbours is by breeding our giant clams. I understand that this is being done by the James Cook University on Orpheus Reef. Once the clams have been bred they cannot be exported to help these other nations build up their clam populations without this legislation going through. That is one of the very necessary amendments to this legislation. The changing of the legislation for the pets of people departing this country has already been acknowledged and I have no objection to that. One other section allows the regular import and export of prescribed specimens, for example, by scientific institutions to develop biological control agents. They will not be required to make individual application for each shipment. They will receive a single authority, subject to the regular reporting of shipments. I think that is very necessary also. Currently the Alan Fletcher Research Station in Queensland does a lot of biological research into the control of weeds in Australia. One project which immediately comes to mind and which Professor Ovington is quite aware of is the biological control of mistflower, which is spreading particularly in south-east Queensland. The only other method of control is the use of herbicide, which is to be avoided if it possibly can. There is a biological control which looks as though it will be available. Unfortunately that has been held up, but I have had discussions with the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and Professor Ovington is chasing that up. I use that as an example because when one goes down this track, quite often one wants to get in through the year whatever samples one is wanting to test. Once permission has been given to do that, one has a blanket permission to bring in two or three lots instead of having to go back every time to get that permission, whether it be for a bug, a spore or whatever. It is another amendment which I welcome. Provision has also been made for the interchange of material between approved zoological organisations and scientific organisations. That also is to be welcomed. Indeed, Senator Puplick, in his contribution to this debate, mentioned a lot of the great work which has been done by zoos around the world and by individuals around the world and in Australia to build up the numbers of what were very seriously endangered species, to the extent that those species can be once again released in their natural habitats. For those reasons, along with the reasons suggested by those who have taken part in the debate, we certainly will not be opposing the legislation. I will just pick up a couple of things that have been said, particularly by Senator Sanders. Once again he raised the usual argument about the woodchip industry and the toll on wildlife that happens in that industry. Nobody denies that, whatever happens, when man comes into an environment there is a toll. There would have to be a toll in the woodchip industry. There is a toll when one puts a roadway through an area. There is a toll when one puts a railway line through an area. I spent many years in western Queensland in unfenced country and knocked over the occasional emu or horse and plenty of kangaroos, sheep and cattle. There is a toll and there would have to be a toll in the woodchip industry. That is accepted. It is also accepted that when regrowth occurs, the wildlife comes back in very large numbers. Senator Sanders —Not the same species. Senator COLLARD —And of the same species. For that reason, the woodchip industry very deliberately only take sections of trees out in coops so that the animals that are indigenous to that area can survive, and when the regrowth occurs, they breed up quite well. Senator Georges —They didn't do that in the first place. That is the real problem. Senator COLLARD —I am the first to admit that. There are many things that we did not do correctly in the first place. Mining is another one. We have all learnt as we have gone along. The rehabilitation of mining areas and the provision of coops to allow indigenous species to go to are things that we have learnt. We would not want it any other way now. If we had not taken notice of that we could rightfully stand condemned by everybody. Senator Georges —You will acknowledge that we are still learning? Senator COLLARD —Sure. We can learn something new every day. One of the other things that Senator Sanders mentioned was the Administrative Appeals Tribunal inquiry into the management program of kangaroos, particularly in Queensland. I think that the ANPWS stands condemned for its handling of this particular situation in that the inquiry, interestingly, was all about the 1985 management program but, for some reason best known to itself or because of some mistakes in its procedures, the documents that were brought before the AAT went to great pains to point out in paragraph 15 on page 14: Three documents, each entitled Kangaroo Conservation and Management in Queensland, one dated March, 1975 (the 1975 document), one dated June, 1977 (the 1977 document) and one dated March 1984 (Exhibit 1), were put before the Tribunal at that earlier hearing. Each of those documents had been in existence at the date of publication of the gazettal declaration, and there was no indication as to which one was intended to be referred to in that declaration. It ultimately transpired that both the applicant and the respondent were proceeding on the assumption that what had been intended to be approved by the Minister was the document dated March, 1984, but which the quotas therein set out for the culling of several species of kangaroos replaced by different quotas which had been approved by the Minister on 14 February 1985 in respect of the year 1985. So there is the Administrative Appeals Tribunal telling the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service that it had not got its act together properly. Indeed, the 1985 management program was a very different program from the 1984 program. Senator Sanders also quoted some figures which have been bandied around at other times. On page 1205 of the Senate Hansard of 10 October 1986 he is recorded as saying: In 1985, 1,343,167 Queensland kangaroo skins entered the trade in New South Wales. He went on to cite quite a few other very specific figures; but never have those figures been substantiated. The citing of unsubstantiated figures to indicate that something might be wrongfully going on does the conservation cause no good at all; it just calls its credibility into question. Once the carcass has been tagged, irrespective of in which State the kangaroo has been shot, the skin can enter the trade and go anywhere in Australia. It might go to Queensland to be tanned and then to New South Wales to be made into shoes or to Victoria to be made into handbags. I have even heard that kangaroo skin is used in South Australia to make whips. The figures given by Senator Sanders, and even the figures in the Sydney Morning Herald, which also have never been substantiated-- Senator Georges —The real problem is that nothing can be substantiated. That is how bad the system is; it is a real mess. Senator COLLARD —It gets back to some of Senator Georges's remarks earlier. We have a program. The problem gets back to the tagging. That is where the substantiation can be done. Once the matter gets beyond the freezer boxes with the carcass and the tags, the product is very hard to control, as is any other product. If Senator Georges's Committee points up a problem-deficiencies, corruption or whatever-we will be able to address ourselves to the matter. But the problem comes back to a management program and tagging. If that is where the problem is and procedures need to be tightened up, let us do it. In Queensland, and in every other State, there are people who try to flout the system. Once found out they are prosecuted with the full weight of the law. Senator Sanders —That is not so. Senator COLLARD —It is so. If the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare comes up with instances of people deliberately flouting the law and not being prosecuted, it is in the hands of the Committee members to bring that matter to this chamber and to the people of Australia. I know of people who have been prosecuted. As well as being fined, the carcasses in their possession were impounded. That is the only point at which effective control can be exercised. I repeat that if the Committee can point to methods of abuse and how they can be better controlled, all power to it. It has the opportunity to bring the matter to this chamber. At the current stage there is a conflict between the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, on the quota for Queensland. The quota requested by Queensland for the 1985 management program was in the vicinity of 1.86 million to 1.84 million. The quota agreed to by Minister Barry Cohen was 1.3 million. After that quota was agreed to, a scientific committee was set up to look into it. It has become known as the Sharman committee. Everybody agreed to the establishment and the personnel of the committee. Interestingly, that committee agreed to a quota for Queensland for the 1985 management program of 1.84 million, but the Minister, for reasons best known to him, did not agree to that. People may think that will mean those extra 500,000 kangaroos will not be shot. I point out that-the same as with birds-since the development of the rural areas of this country macropods have bred up in large numbers because we have provided them with water which they would not otherwise have had. We have provided them with crops and improved pastures. Indeed, I recall telling a previous United States Ambassador when the kangaroo meat substitution scandal was on that he should not knock eating good roo meat because it is acknowledged to be high protein and the roos have been fed on the best crops and the most improved pastures that we have available. The cattle and the sheep have only what is left to eat. This is what has happened. Because of the crops, the improved pasture and the water the-- Senator Sanders —It was their land to begin with and they were kicked off it. Senator COLLARD —If we had not provided those conditions, the roos and the birds would have died in any drought year. Indeed, they still do in their thousands. Since the development of our rural areas we have allowed their numbers to breed up so there has to be a managed culling program. Senator Georges —So you shoot the lot of them. Senator COLLARD —Nobody shoots the lot. As Senator Georges should know, the relevant authorities can give permission for pests to be culled. Unfortunately, that type of culling does not provide secondary industry with hides and carcasses. The extra culling recommended by the scientific committee set up by the Minister would have provided extra carcasses, hides and jobs in Queensland and the kangaroo population would not have been in any danger. It is acknowledged by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation that currently there are about 20 million to 30 million kangaroos in Queensland. It is also acknowledged that the large numbers of roos cause a severe cost detriment to the rural area of Australia. I raise this matter under this Bill because this Bill controls the export of the specimen products. Senator Haines —Speaking of substantiated numbers-- Senator COLLARD —They are substantiated numbers. If Senator Haines is going to tell the CSIRO that it plucks figures out of the air as she does, so be it. Senator Haines —You are plucking things out of the air. Senator COLLARD —I am not; I am just citing CSIRO figures. They are there for all to see. We support the legislation. The amendments which are proposed are necessary. We will not support the amendment as moved by the Australian Democrats. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(11.58) —I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate. I think the concerns of substance that have been raised during the debate are adequately covered in the second reading speech. I refer particularly Senator Sanders to that speech. I do not propose to take the time of the Senate by repeating the points made in the speech. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Sanders's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Sanders, N. K. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Archer, B. R. McClelland, DouglasAulich, T. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael McIntosh, G. D. Baume, Peter McKiernan, J. P. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R. Black, J. R. Morris, J. Boswell, 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. Coleman, R. N. Reynolds, M. Collard, S. J. Richardson, G. F. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R. Devlin, R. Tate, M. C. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Elstob, R. C. Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(12.06) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 7, clause 16, line 35, leave out `or'. (2) Page 7, clause 16, after proposed paragraph 42a (2) (c) insert the following word and paragraph: `; or (d) specimens that are live native Australian animals of a species included in the sub-phylum VERTEBRATA, other than fish.'. The purpose of the amendments, other than to correct a typographical error, is to ensure that multiple transaction permits are not available for live native Australian vertebrates, other than fish. This means, for example, that there could be no multiple transaction permits for the export of kangaroos. This has always been the case, and was inadvertently reversed in the course of the drafting process. The omission, fortuitously, was identified during the debate in the House of Representatives, and thus I have moved this amendment. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(12.07) —I welcome the Government's amendments. It did concern us that there would be multiple permits for kangaroos. It behoves us to tighten up in every way the shipment of kangaroo hides. I point out that I was quite surprised to hear Senator Collard cite figures of 20 million to 30 million kangaroos in Australia, as if the figures represented some sort of gospel, given by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. In fact, no one knows how many kangaroos there are in Australia; absolutely no one. There is no estimate. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service cannot come up with a decent estimate. Nobody can give us any estimate. It behoves us, before we implement a program of culling, which means killing, kangaroos, or basing an industry on kangaroos, to know how many kangaroos there are. Yet we are told over and over again that there are plenty, that since the numbers killed every year are remaining constant, there must be plenty of kangaroos. But in resource management this is a very fallacious argument. Anyone with any knowledge of resource management will realise that if one does not include catch effort-the effort made to take an animal, a fish or any manner of wildlife-one simply does not know how many there are. In the anchovy industry off the coast of South America, the catch figure was kept up every year until the industry collapsed completely. In Tasmania-my wonderful home State, the home of the woodchipper, the miner and the Hydro-Electric Commission-we had an animal called the Tasmanian tiger-the thylacine. Numbers of this animal were considered to be very plentiful-so plentiful, in fact, that there was a bounty on its head. The bounty remained until long after the last thylacine had been killed. So it is a fallacy merely to say that one can kill a certain number of animals every year and that this proves there will be plenty left. I welcome the amendments moved by the Government. We support those amendments. I urge the Government, having regard to its enlightened amendment, to take a good, hard look at the whole kangaroo culling program and to inform the National Parks and Wildlife Service that all of us would appreciate its taking a good, hard look at the whole situation. It should take its responsibilities seriously, control the industry and protect the wildlife, rather than taking the course, which is common to many bureaucracies, of taking the bureaucratically easy path of going along with what the industry wants. The industry is becoming very powerful indeed in the kangaroo area. The tail is now wagging the dog. The industry was set up to use the by-products and is now dictating policy. Often the National Parks and Wildlife Service yields to the demands of industry to the detriment of Australian wildlife. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.11) —The Opposition, for which I lead on this occasion, has great pleasure in supporting the Criminology Research Amendment Bill 1986. This Bill deals primarily with the addition of the Northern Territory to the Criminology Research Council and amendments that flow from that; an increase in the size of the board of management from six to eight-the same size as the new Council so the board will then comprise the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, three persons nominated by the Attorney-General, and four persons nominated by the Council-the granting of specific authority to the Institute to collect information and statistics without detracting from the role of the Australian Bureau of Statistics; the provision of information and advice to the Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory departments, agencies and authorities dealing with the administration of criminal justice; collaboration with bodies in Australia and overseas; and, finally, the granting of power to the Attorney-General to request the conduct of particular research matters or training programs by the Institute. The Board of Management is obliged to give priority to the Attorney-General's request as the Attorney-General specifies. Before saying anything further about the legislation, I am sure that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) would want to join with me in recording a tribute to Mr Bill Clifford, the previous head of the Australian Institute of Criminology, who died on 6 June. This Bill was introduced prior to Mr Clifford's death. Nevertheless, I think he was one of the most significant figures in the development of criminological studies in Australia. He had a distinguished international career culminating in a four-year term as Director of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch. He became Director of the Institute in 1975 and he held that position until his retirement in 1983. I believe that Mr Clifford was one of the outstanding figures in terms of research into crime, criminology and punishment. He had particular interest in the control of social behaviour which he developed during his studies, in particular, in Japan and he was an outstanding public servant. On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate our appreciation of the great work which he undertook. Research into crime, the causes of crime and the nature of punishment is a very old area of study. One can trace back to the works of Cesare Beccaria, the first scientific attempt to come to grips with the study of crime. Beccaria published his great work Treatise on Crimes and Punishments which first appeared in Italian in 1764 and was subsequently published in English in 1880. Beccaria's treatise was the first succinct and systematic statement of principles governing criminal punishment. It was the first to be based upon some attempt to undertake some genuine scientific work and, interestingly, Beccaria was the first modern writer to advocate the complete abolition of capital punishment. To that extent he established a tradition which has been adhered to in civilised countries and by civilised people ever since. I think it most unfortunate that we see in Australia today the rise yet again of the debate about the reintroduction of capital punishment. I think since the days of Beccaria onwards scientific study and research have indicated that the death penalty is not a deterrent, that it is a cruel and unusual punishment, that mistakes are frequently made; and that civilised persons should not countenance that sort of approach to punishment. Beccaria's work was very influential once it was in English. Jeremy Bentham, one of the great social reformers and pioneers in England, was very much influenced by Beccaria's work. I mentioned Beccaria because I think there tends to be a general lack of knowledge about the importance of scientific research in terms of the establishment of what are the facts about crime; everybody thinks that he knows all the details of what constitutes criminal behaviour, how widespread it is, whether it has or has not increased over recent years and what the response should be to alleged upsurges in crime or a particular type of criminal behaviour. The Institute has identified a number of areas important enough to require continuing research and coverage. They include crime and criminal justice statistics, policing and public scrutiny, courts and sentencing, penal policies and corrections, Aboriginals and criminal justice, violence against women and children, corporate and white collar crime, juvenile justice, something that wallows in the absolutely awful name of victimology-part of what ought to be done is that criminologists ought to be penalised for the cold blooded murder of the English tongue-specialist research topics, particularly those relating to drug marketing and drug enforcement strategies, and the general position of women as the victims of crime. In the annual report of the Institute in recent years one has seen very good reports of work done on censuses on national corrections, prison trends, juveniles under detention, prosecutorial discretion, enforcement strategies of Australian business regulatory agencies and political terrorism. The Institute is not a major consumer of public funds. It was given a grant of just over $2m in 1985 and it had been provided with $2.3m in the 1985-86 Budget. I do not believe, given the important work that the Institute does, that that is other than money well spent. I want to draw attention to a couple of more recent reports and publications by the Institute of Criminology. It publishes an excellent journal entitled Reporter. In volume 7 No. 1 of March 1986 my attention was particularly drawn to two areas-the report of a conference on child abuse and a very good report on Dr Jocelynne Scutt's work relating to media exploitation of women. Both of these areas are increasingly of community concern. It is interesting to see that the Institute has drawn attention to them in its most recent publication. Indeed, it has provided considerable discussion about the approaches that need to be taken in order to have an understanding of what constitutes the main dynamics of child abuse and to what are the consequences of the presentation of women by the media in particular stereotype roles. Those are among the important issues to be addressed. I refer to a more recent publication-the July 1986 publication, which I think is the first of the series-entitled `Trends and issues'. Dr Paul Wilson of the Institute, who is perhaps the most publicly known criminologist in Australia, is the general editor of this publication which comments on trends and issues in crime and criminal justice. This particularly interesting edition of the publication is entitled `Uses and abuses of drug law enforcement statistics'. I repeat the point that I was seeking to make earlier: Everybody who believes that they know everything that there is to be known about crime and criminal behaviour and therefore can automatically assume what the penalties are would do well to read this material. For instance, the publication contains extremely good figures on the percentage of drug offences involving cannabis, heroin and cocaine, and those figures are broken up State by State. I think it is of some significance to know that, while in Victoria cannabis accounts for 74 per cent and heroin for 16 per cent of drug offences, in Queensland the figures are 94 per cent and 2 per cent respectively. The publication states: . . . drug offence rates vary considerably across the country. In 1983-84 the highest rates are found in Queensland and South Australia. New South Wales, commonly regarded as having the most serious illegal drug problem in Australia by virtue of its population and being the entry point for a large proportion of illegal drugs, is ranked fourth, after Tasmania, in rates of recorded drug offences. How one goes on to interpret these statistics in terms of whether they reflect on the nature of sentencing, the penalties, the law and the competence of the police forces, is a matter for debate. But it is important in the first instance to get these sorts of figures down on the record. The document further states: . . . enforcement statistics are often used in a biased and unscientific manner to illustrate particular points of view in the drugs debate. That, I think, is particularly important. The use of raw statistical data without a clear understanding of the methodology by which the data has been gathered, the analysis which has gone into the data and all of the other factors which relate to the production of raw statistical information are some of the useful functions which the Institute and its research projects provide. This extremely valuable document also states: Informed debate on drug issues and proper evaluation of law enforcement policies are not possible until we increase the range and quality of data collected on illegal drug use and strategies to control it. The document concludes: With such information our drug control policies could be constructed on a firm and factual base and could realistically be evaluated. I think what we are doing in terms of this piece of legislation is giving some greater flexibility, scope and purpose to the work of the Institute. We are giving the Attorney-General power to commission and direct that a particular type of work be done. I believe that this is a significant advance and something which should be greatly valued. I think two other areas which have been the subject of recent publication or research by the Institute are of interest. People perhaps will not be surprised that my attention has been drawn to a talk delivered by Dr Wilson to the South Australian Police Association on 10 April 1986 which glorifies in the brilliant title of `Serial and Lust Murder: Questions on Police Management and Response'. Needless to say, the title immediately got me in. As a result I have managed to obtain from the Institute a copy of Dr Wilson's paper. In fact, the paper is very interesting because the thesis put forward by Dr Wilson in fact deals with the relationship of a particular type of pornography with the predisposition that people have towards the commission of certain types of criminal activity involved, particularly in this case, with what Dr Wilson calls lust killings. He says: While I would not suggest that sexual/sadistic pornography `causes' lust killings, I do believe that this material can easily reinforce predispositions towards committing these particular types of crimes by fuelling existing tendencies within the potential murderer's psyche. He continued: Of course, even if I am right this is not a sufficient reason to censor what normal men and women see or view in their own homes. He concludes that paragraph by indicating that he would `far prefer to see education and voluntary boycotts of this material than legislation'. I think that is quite correct. I certainly do not believe in moving back into the realms of censorship to deal with these matters. I believe that by and large the good sense and good judgment of the majority of the Australian community can be relied upon in that regard. But here again I think this is a useful contribution to the debate about the nature of pornography, about the effects of pornography and about the causes of a particular type of violent crime. Dr Wilson has advanced the debate on a number of fronts. For instance, his discussions on the question of the validity of maintaining a belief in insanity as a defence in capital cases I think again helps to advance a better understanding of what we are trying to do. The last point I want to make concerns research. I have not been able to find any written material on this subject although I have heard a radio report. I would like to make, as it were, a commercial and say that I would be most interested to see any material that is available. From the radio report I gathered that someone called Dr Hatty had been studying the question of suicide in prisons and had indicated that approximately half of all the deaths which take place of people in custody are the result of their committing suicide. In fact, if that is the case, there are certainly a number of quite profound indications for the way in which our penal institutions are conducted. This finding certainly has some very significant implications in regard to the sorts of people who might or who might not appropriately be sentenced to terms of imprisonment. I have been very concerned about the sorts of pressures which have been placed on our penal institutions in New South Wales in the course of the last couple of years. Over a period I have had the pleasure-I might say perhaps the privilege rather than the pleasure-of visiting most of the gaols in New South Wales. I might add that I have done so purely in a spirit of research and endeavour and for no other purpose. But it seems to me that in New South Wales in particular the question of the appropriate segregation of first offenders is an area which has not been properly addressed. I believe that there has been some reform in a number of areas. I well recall some years ago, when my very dear friend John Maddison was Attorney-General and Minister for Justice in New South Wales, going to a number of prisons and talking to a number of prison officers about the way in which prisoners were segregated when they came into the system and the way in which it was determined where they should be sent. In those days there were continued prosecutions for homosexual offences. I well remember an officer of the New South Wales Prisons Department, as it then was, telling me, without realising the irony of what he was saying, that the way in which they solved the problem was to sort out all of the homosexuals when they got into the detention centres and to ship them all off together to Berrima. The whole of the homosexual population was contained in Berrima Gaol and some of them had to share cells. I shall never forget him telling me that as far as he could recall he had never had any complaints. I suppose from time to time one comes across these fairly quaint approaches to the administration of penal laws in Australia. However, it is certainly true, if we are to continue systems of keeping people in prison, that we will need a great deal of research into the effects. For instance, it used to be claimed some 15 years ago-I think these figures are still fundamentally accurate-that of people who were brought before the courts and sentenced, approximately 70 per cent actually went to gaol and 30 per cent were out on some form of release such as weekend detention, licence, or whatever. But those figures have now turned around and of the people brought before the courts and sentenced only about 30 per cent actually end up being sent to prison. Therefore, what is happening is that the population of the prison system is getting progressively worse, if one can use that term. In fact whereas prisons used to have a great range of offenders, they primarily now contain much worse offenders. The most violent, the most intractable criminals are being sent to them. Obviously, under those circumstances there need to be significant changes in the way in which penal institutions are managed and in which sentencing is dealt with. I will not go into the alarming statistics which one sees, for instance, about the confinement of the Aboriginal population in gaols. There is absolutely no doubt that a gross violence is being perpetrated against the Aboriginal community throughout Australia when one compares the percentage of Aboriginals who are in prison with their percentage in the population, and in particular when one looks at the relative statistics between males and females as far as that is concerned. If the Institute is able to address these sorts of questions in terms of research, data and statistics, we as legislators will be in a better position, given that the Commonwealth has very limited jurisdiction and limited direct involvement in this matter, Federal offenders being primarily incarcerated in New South Wales institutions. We will be provided with more information, and I believe that will help us to look at the issues of law reform and penal reform and at the whole way in which the criminal justice system in Australia operates. I am grateful for the opportunity to indicate, on behalf of the Opposition, our support for this legislation. I am most impressed with the ongoing work which the Institute has done. I believe that it has made, and continues to make, a valuable contribution. We in the Opposition will continue to look carefully at the research mat- erial that is produced by the Institute. I hope that as a result of these amendments some of that work can be facilitated and some greater flexibility in the operations of the Institute can be brought about. We certainly wish this Bill a very speedy passage. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(12.32) —I pay tribute to the excellent contribution made by Senator Puplick, who has mentioned many of the things that I would have mentioned had I intended to speak for longer than I shall today. The purpose of the Criminology Research Amendment Bill 1986 is to amend the Criminology Research Act 1971. That Act set up the Australian Institute of Criminology, the Criminology Research Council, the Criminology Research Fund-which is jointly funded on an equal basis by the States and the Commonwealth-and a board of management for the Institute. Since the word `criminology' is often used incorrectly, although not as often as it used to be when people read detective novels and thought they had read about criminology, and since its scope is not well understood, I would like to give a dictionary definition of it and then explain the importance of the study of criminology to contemporary Australian society. I have deliberately chosen the Macquarie Dictionary, not only because it is Australian but also because it seems to be more up-to-date with the contemporary usage of language. The Macquarie defines criminology as: the science dealing with the causes and treatment of crimes and criminals. Criminology is the study of the nature of crime, the factors associated with criminal behaviour, and the treatment of offenders, which is often somewhat optimistically referred to as `correction'. It is a social science which calls on a number of other branches of science and their skills and research findings, such as sociology, law, psychology, psychiatry, general medicine and forensic science. It is a valuable tester and dispeller of myths, such as the myths that harsher penalties always deter criminals, that church-going or making divorce harder to get will reduce the rate of juvenile offences, or that the stranger is always the greater danger to women and children. I studied criminology as an academic discipline in the mid-1960s. It was a very valuable experience, not only the theoretical study but also the opportunity I had, which not many people even today have, of actually visiting prisons and seeing prison conditions of the sort that the previous speaker, Senator Puplick, referred to. My studies made me immediately aware of the great lack of Australian based research in the area, or even of basic data, such as crime statistics which could be compared, say, between States or over time-I understand that that is still a problem-let alone evidence on the effects of particular preventive or corrective practices, such as release for community work, parole and so on. Since the 1971 legislation was passed, much has been achieved. Fifteen years is a very short time in which to develop research in a very complex area. Much remains to be done even if the context of the research remains static, which of course it does not. One example of that is the great increase in the last 15 years of drug-related crime. Fifteen years is also not a long time in which to educate the community, or even its decision-makers, such as ourselves, about the work being done in criminology research. We still hear of police statistics and even police theories being quoted as evidence, say, of the effect of sentencing policies on the causes of crime, rather than seeking advice from the people who are able scientifically to collect and specifically evaluate the available evidence. This lack of qualified advice was evident in relation to the drug offensive, as referred to by Senator Puplick. Governments of all varieties have not made full use of the criminology research results which are available. I am glad to have this opportunity to commend the work of the Institute and its excellent quarterly publication, the Reporter, and also its various research papers which are available from time to time. The work of the Institute has been very valuable to parliamentary committees-for example, the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, of which I am a member. We have had very valuable input from members of the Institute. I hope that parliamentary committees and other reviews within the community will increasingly seek submissions and evidence from the Institute. In addition, it also illuminates and encourages community debate. As an example, I would like to mention some of the seminar programs that the Institute has held this year. These are only about half of the year's programs: It has held seminars on child abuse, on the jury system, on drug markets and law enforcement strategies, on law and psychiatry-that was an international congress of very great moment-on women and crime, and on the privatisation of correction. Last year I was a member of a review team which examined the functions of the four statutory authorities which are the responsibility of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). These are the Institute of Criminology, the Institute of Family Studies, the Law Reform Commission and the Human Rights Commission. That review reaffirmed the value of those authorities and their continued support as separate bodies. It made some recommendations regarding their future functions, and this Bill embodies some of those recommendations as they apply to this Institute. The Bill also includes the Northern Territory, which for obvious reasons was not covered 15 years ago. It will now be represented in the structure of the Institute. I want to give two examples of matters which came out of that review and which have been embodied in this Bill. The Bill gives the Institute specific authority to collect information and statistics separately from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is extremely important to the work of the Institute because different methods of data collection and data of different categories are required from those that the ABS collect; that is, it is a specialised area of statistical collection and analysis. In accordance with the findings of our review, the amendments enable the Attorney-General to request the Institute to carry out a particular research or training project as a matter of priority. I stress the word `request'. The provision does not detract from the autonomy of the Institute. I am sure that its board of management will always give due weight to any such request received. I also note with pleasure that this Bill removes gender specific language from the Criminology Research Act to make it gender neutral. Finally, I commend the Bill and hope that it will lead to further fruitful work in criminology research and to better liaison with government so that wider use is made of the resources provided by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Criminology Research Council. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.41) —Although the amendments to the Criminology Research Act encompassed in the Criminology Research Amendment Bill 1986 are mainly of a machinery nature they are very sensible and the Australian Democrats give them our whole-hearted support. In particular we support the amendment which provides for the Northern Territory to be a participant in this scheme which will increase the size of the board of management. We also support other measures which will enhance the activities of the Australian Institute of Criminology. Senator Zakharov has already referred to those measures, particularly the one which relates to the collection of statistics. As honourable senators will be aware, the Criminology Research Council and the Institute established under the Act do extremely valuable work for the community. It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of research in this area. Research is an essential adjunct to the law and to law enforcement processes. The administration of the criminal justice system without research would be blind. Criminology research is an area of great significance to the wider community and to any civilised society. Senator Puplick raised a number of points on that in his speech a short time ago. The development and the maintenance of a humane and just society cannot be achieved unless our planning is based on fact and unless our decision making is informed decision making. More often than not, unfortunately, the debate about crime and the criminal justice processes tends to emphasise how bad things are and how much worse they are now than they were X years ago. Nowhere is this more true in Australia than in the community debate on organised crime. A frightening picture is built up of the tentacles of organised crime reaching into every sphere of life. The media scenario is that Mr Big seems to have replaced the communists under the bed, or if he is there as well it must be getting very crowded. This gets close to something Senator Puplick referred to in his speech. To combat this threatening problem, draconian measures are floated in the media and taken up with alacrity in the community with, I believe, very little regard being given to the civil liberties of individuals or, more importantly, to whether any of those measures will have the intended results. While it is certain that crime exists in our community and that it is manifesting itself in an organised way in certain spheres-the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and other inquiries have certainly identified these for us-it is equally true that solutions can and must be found. I believe that our responses to these issues will not be constructive and they most definitely will not be effective unless we are properly informed as to the content and the results of what it is that we are trying to do. Quite apart from responding, it is vital that we, as politicians, inform ourselves about ways in which crime can be prevented. A preventative approach is clearly of benefit to the perpetrators of crimes, to the victims, as well as to the wider community. It seems to us that while a great deal is often talked about and an enormous amount of energy and money is spent in apprehending criminals, very little attention is actually directed towards the prevention of crime. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator MACKLIN —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was making some comments about the Criminology Research Amendment Bill. In summary, the points I had made were that I believe that the only way that genuine reforms of the criminal justice system will be successfully implemented in Australia will be through the educative role of bodies such as the Institute of Criminology and the Criminology Research Council. From the 1985 annual report of the Australian Institute of Criminology we see quite clearly the valuable work that has been done in this area. Research has been reported on crime statistics, public security, sentencing, correctional service policy, Aboriginal people and criminal justice, violence against women and children, corporate and white collar crime, juvenile offenders, victims of crime, terrorism and drug enforcement policies. These areas have often been cynically exploited and treated as political footballs, as complex problems and also with a fair amount of disregard for the well-being of the people involved. Independent bodies such as the Australian Institute of Criminology do much to destroy many of the myths and prejudices which surround this area and which have affected decision-making by legislatures. For example, Mr John Walker's study of the use of remand in custody orders has revealed some disturbing matters. Remand in custody involves deprivation of an accused person's freedom in conditions comparable to those in which convicted people are punished. The data in the study, contrary to the common notions of human justice, suggests that on occasion the police and the courts use remand in custody as a means of incapacitating the alleged offender while investigations continue and magistrates sometimes use remand to give alleged offenders a taste of prison. Deprivation of freedom in such circumstances can be regarded only as the most serious infringement of civil liberties. As the study concluded, some form of monitoring system is urgently required. The research grants awarded by the Criminology Research Council are being used to fund equally valuable projects. These range from a study of agency approaches to the implementation of environmental legislation to the crime prevention strategies for services for unemployed youth. The cost of policing and enforcement of the courts and correctional services for the criminal justice system in Australia approximates $2,000m a year. The amount spent on the Institute of Criminology in 1984-85 was only $2m-that is, $2,000m against $2m. This is an example of the misplaced priorities we so often see. Not only that; it is false economy. There is no doubt that the cost of our law enforcement agencies and our correctional services would be reduced if we put more money into preventative measures. This can only be done by developing these preventative measures through appropriate research. The subject matter of this Bill encourages discussions as to whether we can find more effective ways of dealing with crime in our society. Hopefully, the on going debate about this will lead to improvements. That can only be applauded. This brings me to one of the most important consequences of the work done by the Institute and the Council; that is, the use made of this information by legislators around the country. I often wonder, for example, how informed honourable senators, members of the House of Representatives and our State colleagues in the various parliaments around Australia are about the deterrent effects of penalties which we include, almost as a matter of course, in legislation. Most of the available studies indicate that tougher penalties do not deter criminals. In the sphere of domestic violence, for instance, experts emphasise the use of non-arrest alternatives such as mediation counselling, rehabilitation and referral to other agencies. We all pay lip service to the need for rehabilitation in the criminal justice system, but how many of us know whether it happens and, if it does, to what effect? I wonder whether members of parliament are sufficiently sensitive to the fact that certain programs work with certain offenders but that there is no right program for all offenders. Do we pay sufficient attention, in formulating laws in this chamber, to the links between criminal activity and unemployment, poverty, the lack of educational attainment and racism? From what I have seen here, I doubt it very much. The problem is two-fold: First, there is the need to fund and support research bodies adequately, so that information is available on prevention strategies and necessary reforms. Secondly, and equally importantly, it is vital that this information be used by legislatures in their deliberations. For example, it would be extremely useful if relevant research findings were made available by the Government prior to debates on certain pieces of legislation. I urge the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is at the table, to have discussions with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to see whether at the next Criminology Research Council meeting-or by referring the matter directly to the Australian Institute of Criminology-it is possible to have agreement that research findings will be made available to us when relevant legislation is about to come before us. It is all well and good that we applaud the contents of this Bill. Everybody who has spoken so far in the debate has done so. It is much more important that these studies be used in our deliberations as comprehensively as possible. I refer now to some aspects that the Institute of Criminology, through its ongoing research, might be able to influence in the wider debate about various crime issues in Australia. I refer to a debate that is taking place on mandatory sentences for drug offences. That debate is occurring in my State of Queensland. As a remedy, mandatory sentences seek to restrict the discretion of a judge of the court in his sentencing options. They are an extremely popular reform in many ways because they seem to follow the notion of getting tough with criminal offenders and getting tough on drugs. Hence, that notion has been able to find a fair amount of support in the community and the media. This also appears to be a relatively quick and direct solution to the problem that the community is facing. Despite the popular nature of this operation, we should look at the research in this area to see whether that type of move is as beneficial as the popular myth seems to make out. I quote from a report by the United States Justice Department which reviewed mandatory sentences in the United States in the last 10 years. It made the following comment, which is an appropriately cautious comment for a justice department to make, however, the content is clear. It said: It is difficult, perhaps fundamentally impossible, to substantiate the popular claim that mandatory sentencing is an effective tool for reducing crime. That seems to be a rather laid back way of saying something. The report refers to the review that was done of the New York criminal code in regard to mandatory sentencing, which is probably one of the best known examples in criminology of what has occurred. Essentially what was said to be the United States' toughest drug laws ever were enacted in New York. The law contained three major provisions: First, long term mandatory sentencing for heroin dealers; secondly, restrictions on plea bargaining for heroin dealers, which we do not have to deal with so much in the Australian context; and thirdly, mandatory sentencing for certain categories of repeat offenders. The prescribed prison terms were truly staggering. The law established three categories of heroin dealers. Class A-1 included major dealers, defined as people who either sold one ounce or possessed two ounces of heroin. The mandatory minimum prison terms for these people were 15 or 25 years and a maximum of life imprisonment. Class A-II included middle level dealers, defined as those who sold one-eighth of an ounce or possessed one to two ounces. The penalties for these people were six to eight years. Class A-III included minor or street dealers, defined as those who sold less than one-eighth of an ounce, and the mandated prison terms were of one to eight years. Despite the combination of harsh penalties and the enormous publicity surrounding this operation in New York, the review found that it had little or no effect on the crime rate. Its impact was examined in the study from a variety of different angles. The first angle was that heroin use in New York City was as widespread four years after the law came into force as it was when it came into force. The second angle was that serious property crime, the kind generally associated with heroin users, increased sharply, by 15 per cent, as did serious property crime in the surrounding states. Hence New York was not out of pattern. It showed the same pattern as the general area. The third angle was recidivism-the law did not appear to have had any effect at all. It is interesting to ask ourselves why. The research is very interesting. The answer is that deterrents and incapacitation are wonderful theories but do not seem to work all that well in practice. The review of the drug law concluded: Mandatory sentencing laws directly affect only an end product of a long criminal justice process-the convicted offender. Following arrest, three key decision points affect the outcome of a case: The indictment, the conviction and the sentence. For a deterrent to work, there cannot be any slippage between the three. However, in New York, in the four years after the law came into force, the percentage of drug arrests leading to indictment declined from 39 per cent to 25 per cent. At the same time the percentage of indictments leading to conviction fell from 86 per cent to 80 per cent. Thus, while 33.5 per cent of all drug arrests before the law came into force led to conviction, only 20 per cent did so four years after the law came into force. To put it another way, the drug offences conviction rate declined by one-third, thereby seriously undermining any intended effect of the law. The people who were convicted stayed longer in gaol. But if the intent of the law was to cut down on drug dealing, it does not seem to have worked. The percentage of convicted offenders receiving the various prescribed penalties certainly went up. Judges imposed harsher penalties under the law, as they were required to do, but only two-thirds as many convicted offenders ended up being dealt with. The reason for that is quite clear. As soon as the penalties went up, there was a reaction. About two and a half times as many defendants sought trial because of the penalties involved. Since a trial in New York takes, on average, 15 times as long to deal with as one in which a guilty plea is entered, it is fairly obvious that the prosecutors simply tailored the number of cases they were to deal with to fit the time they had available. So the number of people who appeared before the courts dropped alarmingly. If one puts the various percentages together, the overall effect was that 11 per cent of the people arrested for heroin sale before the law came into practice went to prison. Four years afterwards the figure was still 11 per cent. In other words, the law had had absolutely nil effect. Senator Zakharov referred to the need for the Australian Institute of Criminology to keep its own statistics. The interesting thing is for us to try to work out what happens as a result of laws, apart from what we might wish to happen. The debate that has taken place in my State of Queensland has been rather superficial. Everybody says that it is good to have these harsher penalties for drug dealers. But if the aim is to reduce the amount of drug trafficking, to focus just on harsher penalties seems to me to be departing from what legislators ought to be doing, that is, directing themselves to the real issues and seeking real solutions to the problems, not just the solutions which might make them popular in the Press. Getting tough by levelling harsher penalties may make us feel good but it does not help those who are pushed into the drug trade. I ask the Minister to take seriously the comment that I have made which is that where it seems appropriate in legislation that comes before us, the Australian Institute of Criminology may be asked to do its literature searches and to come up with a useful survey of literature and research in areas which may be made available on call to any member of parliament who wishes to have that information. Simply having research done is useless unless that research is applied. The place where, presumably, a lot of that research has to be applied is in this chamber and in the other place. I ask the Minister to consider this matter seriously. Justice and humanity demand that, as much as possible, we inform ourselves of the effects of the laws that we pass. I commend the work carried out to date by the Institute and by the Council. The Australian Democrats support this Bill. My only hope is that the very good work both of these groups have done to date does not go to waste in terms of debates in this chamber on relevant legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(2.19) —I understand that during the course of this debate on the Criminology Research Amendment Bill, which unfortunately I have missed, there has been nothing but praise both for the legislation and for the Australian Institute of Criminology. That information comes to me from its Director; so I hope that it is reliable. Certainly I hope that is the attitude of the Senate. It is a first rate organisation. It has done first rate work and this particular legislation will enable it to go on performing that work in the future. There are many areas that have been mentioned in the course of the debate, I understand, as potentially proper subject areas for the attention of the Institute. I am sure that within the limits of its resources and the resources that the Government, with all the best will in the world, is able to provide to it, that it will do its best to pick up those suggestions. I thank the Senate for its support of the Bill and I commend it a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(2.21) — An amendment has been circulated which I believe is uncontroversial. It is simply a transitional provision to retain the membership of the Board during the time that is needed to get these changes into place. I move: Page 9, after clause 29, insert the following clause: Saving of existing appointments ``30. A person who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, held office- (a) as a member of the Board of Management of the Australian Institute of Criminology appointed by the Attorney-General under paragraph 9 (1) (a) of the Principal Act; (b) as a member of that Board appointed by the Criminology Research Council under paragraph 9 (1) (b) of the Principal Act; or (c) as a member of the Criminology Research Council appointed by the Attorney-General under sub-section 35 (3) of the Principal Act, shall continue to hold that office, subject to the Principal Act as amended by this Act, as if the person had been duly appointed- (d) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (a) of this section-by the Attorney-General under paragraph 9 (1) (b) of the Principal Act as so amended; (e) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (b) of this section-by the Council under paragraph 9 (1) (c) of the Principal Act as so amended; or (f) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (c) of this section-by the Attorney-General under sub-section 35 (3) of the Principal Act as so amended.''. I commend the amendment to the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(2.22) —I just want to raise the point I raised in the second reading debate. I would like the response of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to the proposition that the Criminology Research Council and the Australian Institute of Criminology provide information to members of parliament where it seems appropriate in terms of Bills coming before us. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(2.23) —I will certainly draw that point to the attention of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). It is obviously drawn to the attention of the Australian Institute of Criminology people by virtue of their presence here today. I can see no difficulty about that and I am sure that the Institute would be willing to do literature searches and things of this kind to the extent that that would prove helpful. That is a matter for the Minister to take up with the Institute and I will ensure that Senator Macklin's request in that respect is brought to his attention. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 September, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(2.24) —`Good freedom of information legislation is that which would set a minimum of procedural obstacles by way of delay or complexity of costs and afford the maximum of practical assistance to those who are pressing requests for access to information'. Little wonder it is that Senator Gareth Evans has his head in his hands as his very own words are quoted back to him as part and parcel of the exercise in which we now see Senator Evans once again involved on behalf of the Government in the murdering of freedom of information legislation. The days of Opposition were easy for Senator Evans. When the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs produced its report on freedom of information, Senator Evans had been criticising the lack of response on the part of the government of the day to all of the recommendations of that Committee-the recommendations for easy access, for waiver of charges in the public interest and for limited charges to be imposed. On 11 September 1980, Senator Hamer asked him: Would a Labor Government accept those recommendations? Senator Evans replied: I can make, so far as I possibly can, Senator, an absolutely unequivocal statement of my belief-I hope it goes further than a belief-that an incoming Labor government would fully respect and adopt all the significant recommendations that are contained in the Senate Committee report and would introduce a Bill in those terms. That is my understanding and the position of my colleagues on the subject matter. I believe that is an accurate statement of what will in fact happen. Those words need to be supplemented only by one quotation from the current Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen: Freedom of information is a basic democratic right and it lies at the heart of the democratic system. Or, as Senator Evans again said on that previous occasion: There is the notion that freedom of information is not really a democratic right at all but rather a luxury or a privilege that is to be doled out in small doses to a duly grateful peasantry. The peasantry on this occasion is certainly not duly grateful for the treatment which is being meted out to it by Senator Evans and his Government in this shabby piece of legislation which attempts to wind back the clock on freedom of information. After all, as Senator Evans has reminded us on a number of occasions, one cannot trust governments or public services to try to make available to people proper information that might help them in dealing with matters of concern to them. Indeed, as the Sydney Morning Herald editorial said on 7 October, quoting those words of Mr Lionel Bowen: True, so why is Mr Bowen, now the Attorney-General, proposing to make it more difficult and more expensive for the public to use the Freedom of Information Act? If the Government's and the bureaucracy's motives were not so suspect, the argument for more economic rigour would be more readily acceptable. As the Age article on 9 October said: A bill is now before the Senate which, if passed, will make FOI so costly that most ordinary people will not be able to use it for anything except seeing their personal files. Rights which are not used tend to disappear. Senator Evans, it can be understood, finds himself in an exquisitely unique position as far as freedom of information is concerned. The one-time champion, the one-time advocate and the one-time defender of freedom of information now comes along here with a poisoned chalice in order to murder this piece of legislation by a combination of increased charges and increased complexity. It flies in the face of everything that he promised to do in opposition, everything that he promised he would achieve in the first six weeks of his own Attorney-Generalship, and it is no wonder he sits there in embarrassment and later will have to get up and defend what, for him, is the indefensible. It seems that even Senator Cooney has been reduced to total silence as far as this debate is concerned because, despite the lecture we got earlier today about the values of the legal profession in standing up for the rights of ordinary citizens, these luminaries of the legal profession opposite-Senator Evans and Senator Cooney-will, in fact, troop into the division lobbies when we come to the appropriate stages in dealing with this legislation, in order to make freedom of information more costly, more complex and more genuinely difficult for people to actually obtain. As far as the specific provisions of the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986 are concerned, I will outline them briefly. The Bill will introduce a $30 application fee for an FOI request. It will increase the charge for agency research and retrieval time to $15 an hour. It will introduce a charge of $20 an hour for agency decision-making and consultation time. It will introduce an application fee of $40 for internal review requests. It will provide that no fee or charges will be payable in respect of requests for access to personal income maintenance documents. It will maintain the present 45 days time limit on answering requests from 1 December 1986. It will strengthen provisions for refusal of requests on work load grounds. It will reduce the grounds for the remission of charges. It will reduce the obligations on agencies to publish section 8 and section 9 statements and to provide statistics, and it will make what are called miscellaneous and consequential amendments. The heart of this legislation lies in the new charges. Let us examine the bogus evidence upon which the Government has come to the Senate in order to deal with the question of charges. Most interesting is the way in which the Department of Finance has behaved in this matter. In the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department for 1984-85 the costs of the Department of Finance under freedom of information legislation are shown as $65,630. In the annual report of the Department of Finance for the same period those costs are shown as $123,160. In other words, the Department of Finance has managed to concoct a set of figures which are twice the figures of the Attorney-General's Department. Perhaps I should put it another way: The Attorney-General's Department has managed to concoct a set of figures which are half those of the Department of Finance. On the basis of this bodgie evidence one is supposed to believe that there is some extraordinary explosion in the cost of freedom of information services. That is not the only example that can be given. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal told the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, initially, that its cost for freedom of information requests last year was $15,924. However, the Attorney-General's Department had managed to get that up to $25,666. When one inquires about the reasons for the discrepancy one is told that it all depends on what set of overhead figures are used-66 per cent, 80 per cent or 85 per cent. At various stages various departments use any one of the three figures, presumably depending on what time of the month it is or the particular condition of the individual making the determinations. Senator Gareth Evans —A sexist remark. Senator PUPLICK —If Senator Gareth Evans believes that only a certain section of the population is affected in that way, that is his problem. I turn to the evidence presented by the Government. The Attorney-General, in the second reading speech and in the financial impact statement which was attached, made some comments about what are alleged to be the costs of freedom of information legislation over the last year. Mr Bowen claimed originally that the preliminary figures for 1985-86 show that there will be a cost to the revenue of $14m. Nevertheless, when the Department of Finance came before the Senate Committee to make its presentation it was prepared to put this figure up to in excess of $19m. We have had a series of exchanges in which the Department of Finance has said that the cost of FOI rose from $17.6m in 1983-84 to $19.2m in 1984-85-a 9 per cent increase. However, the actual figures show a decline. Taking the Attorney-General's own figures given in his second reading speech and related statement, the cost of FOI will reduce from $16m to $14m. It takes the most extraordinary effort, even on the part of the Government, to turn a reduction of $2m according to the Attorney-General into an increase of 9 per cent according to the Department of Finance. This is given as some rationale or excuse for claiming that freedom of information is becoming so costly and so much of a burden upon public revenues that a new higher system of charges must be introduced. The Department of Finance has concocted a marvellous way in which it thinks these charges should be calculated. I quote from a letter which the Department of Finance provided to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in which it is said, among other things, concerning the $4m allegedly to be raised by these new charges: The estimates assume some 12,800 chargeable requests, an average of four hours per request for search and retrieval time and an average of 11 hours per request for decision making/consultation time . . . The basis for calculation of costs for each request is an average of 11 hours to make a decision and to consult and four hours to search. In addition, it is anticipated that there will be 1,000 chargeable requests for internal review. From the figures of the Department of Finance, that works out to give an average cost of in the vicinity of $310 for each freedom of information request. One knows that the figures on freedom of information requests have been padded out by Commonwealth departments consistently including, as FOI requests, requests made by members of the Commonwealth Public Service for access to and information on their own personnel files. When Dr Peter Wilenski, the Chairman of the Public Service Board, came before the Senate Committee he freely admitted that this was a complete travesty of the way in which freedom of information calculations were expected to be made; that departments have been putting into FOI requests personnel requests for access by public servants to their own personnel files; that this has served both to inflate figures and to inflate costs; and that access which should be provided under established Public Service Board guidelines is not being properly applied within departments. The Government stands accused on this occasion of both fudging the figures on costs and fudging the figures on requests, and using those bogus figures to bring about a situation in which representatives of organisations, such as the National Secretary of the Returned Services League, make representations to senators that these charges will substantially disadvantage their members. Mr Pearce from the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association gave evidence to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee stating that these new arrangements will make the whole system of freedom of information less viable for individuals. The Opposition has a series of amendments which it proposes to move to this legislation. They touch upon three particular areas-the making of multi-document requests, which is referred to in the legislation; the power to remit charges in certain instances where the public interest is involved; and the reduction of the 45-day time constraint for the answering of requests. I will be dealing in the committee stage with each of those areas. I want to say something at this stage on the question of charges. These changes have come before us in a piece of legislation which the Opposition has taken to be a Budget Bill. We will therefore deal with it differently from the way in which it would be dealt with if it had come to us, as the last attempt did, by way of amendment to regulation or by way of a piece of legislation which was not seeking to raise revenue within the context of the Budget. Much as it disconcerts members of the Opposition to be in a position of not voting against the increases in charges as part of the Government's financial strategy within the Budget-the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, has given a commitment not to interfere with the Government's financial arrangements within the Budget-it is not our intention to move for the charges section of this legislation to be struck out of the Bill. In fact, we know that on this occasion, given what the Australian Democrats have said, that would be possible, if we so moved. Nevertheless, a principle which we have established, in dealing with the Government's financial legislation arising out of this Budget, is an overriding commitment. It is one which we have made and which has been given clearly by the Leader of the Opposition, and we will not depart from it on this occasion. But it ought to be made abundantly clear that this legislation is the Government's legislation; these charges are the Government's charges; these imposts are the Government's imposts. If it had not put them in a piece of budgetary legislation, with these sorts of financial implications, the legislation would not have had passage through the Senate in the way in which it will have passage as a result of what I have just said. The second area was the area of the 45 days-the attempt to prevent the automatic reduction at the specified date on 1 December 1986 from 45 days to 30 days for the handling of requests. This was originally set by the Senate Committee at 60 days, with an automatic reduction to 45 days, followed by an automatic reduction to 30 days. The Attorney-General now comes along to the Parliament and says: `That 45-day period should not be reduced to 30; it should be maintained at 45'. But what did he say when he was the Opposition spokesman? He sent a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That is referred to in paragraph 8.40 of the Committee's original report. What did he say in that submission? He said that it ought to be-without any difficulty at all and from the point of introduction-no more than 10 days. The submission which he made to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee was that it ought to be 10 days-not just that it should be eventually reduced to 10 days, but that it should be 10 days from the introduction of the legislation. That 10 days has now grown to 45 days. It has not only grown to 45 days, but we are now told by the same person, Mr Lionel Bowen, that the automatic reduction to 30 days, which he and Senator Evans criticised as being far too long at the time, should now be maintained at the present, higher 45-day mark. We have a great deal more to say about that, and we will move an amendment to delete from this legislation the attempt by the Government to remove the requirement for the 45 days automatically to become 30 days. We then have the case of the curious explanatory memorandum or, I should say, explanatory memoranda. When we deal with proposed new section 24 (1), we find some extraordinary comings and goings by this Government. New section 24 (1) is designed to introduce a system whereby multi-document requests may be refused if an agency or a Minister is satisfied that they will clog up the work of the department. In the Government's original explanatory memorandum on this matter, headed `Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986, Explanatory Memorandum, Circulated by Authority of the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, the Honourable Lionel Bowen, M.P.', we read this: Section 24 (1) will provide that a multi-document request may be refused where the agency or Minister is satisfied at any time after receipt that the likely total work would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations, would interfere substantially and unreasonably with the performance by the Minister of the Minister's functions, or would result in substantial delays in dealing with other requests. One would have thought that that test-that there would have been a substantial and unreasonable burden-might have been a fair test. But having looked at that, the Attorney-General's Department, the Attorney-General or somebody went into a fairly flat spin, because that explanatory memorandum was withdrawn. In fact, in the House of Representatives the Attorney- General tried to deny that it had ever been issued in the first place, and a new explanatory memorandum was put out. The section, in the second explanatory memorandum, is explained in the following terms: Section 24 (1) will provide that a multi-document request may be refused where the agency or Minister is satisfied at any time after receipt that the likely total work would substantially divert the resources of the agency from its other operations, would interfere substantially with the performance by the Minister of the Minister's functions, or would result in substantial delays in dealing with other requests. You will note, Madam Acting Deputy President, that the term `unreasonably divert' has been deleted from the second explanatory memorandum. So instead of the test as it originally was, being `substantially and unreasonably divert', it is now simply `substantially divert'. The additional protection which one might have thought the original explanatory memorandum offered to people to challenge the determination of the Government to refuse requests has been substantially and unreasonably weakened. No satisfactory explanation has been given, other than the most feeble of all-that is, that it was a printing error, that somebody else did it, that some clerk, official or government printer ought to be held accountable for a document which was nevertheless circulated with a cover page indicating that it was authorised by the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General. The final point to which we will draw attention in seeking to amend this legislation is the provision which currently exists for the remission of charges on the basis of public interest. We will move to strengthen the ability of the person making the decision to give access to a document in the general public interest on the basis of waiving the normal fee or charge. If one refers again to the original Senate Committee report, at paragraphs 11.40, 11.41 and 11.42, one will see that that report argues as cogently as was possible-in fact, it argues with brilliant cogency-for the waiver of fees. I say that the language in that chapter is as tightly argued and as formidable as it possibly could be because I know that that was one of the chapters in the report which was actually written in long hand and drafted by Senator Gareth Evans when he was a member of the Committee. There simply can not be anything more cogently and more strongly argued than this question of waiver of fees, written in Senator Gareth Evans's own beautiful script which now, of course, is cast into the rubbish bin of history once Sir Humphrey has managed to turn Senator Evans into Minister Evans. Of course, this is exactly what has occurred: The bureaucracy has sought to weaken and damage this legislation. It was to be the great weapon in the armoury of the public-or, as Senator Evans said on that wonderful occasion, a duly grateful peasantry-in order to advance their own protection, to advance their own cause, to keep government honest, to keep the facts on the table, to allow for the smooth public administration of the country. And here it is no more than two parliamentary terms away from those ringing words of Senator Evans, no more than two elections away from those wonderful submissions of Lionel Bowen, that we find the two of them, as neat a conspiracy against the public interest as one could possibly imagine, coming into the Parliament in order to support and argue for a piece of legislation of this mean and miserable character. One knows that Senator Evans will not do so with any great enthusiasm or with any great heart. One knows that Senator Cooney cannot even bring himself to open his mouth on the subject, lest he fall into the trap of denouncing this absolutely monstrous piece of legislation. Nevertheless, there it is. As I have said, the charges sections of this legislation, because they are taken by us to be legitimately part of the Government's budgetary arrangements, will not be voted against by the Opposition. However, those three areas-the multi-document request, the waiver of charges in terms of the public interest and the attempt to stop the reduction of time from the 45 days-will be argued against strenuously. We will move amendments against them and we will expect, of course, the unqualified support of the Australian Democrats on this measure. Senator Vigor —Highly qualified support. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Vigor's support should be unqualified because the sheer logic of the whole matter is such that it should commend itself even to Senator Vigor, even if it did not a couple of hours ago when he was dealing with other matters. Senator Evans will be discomfited to know that we will have a great deal more to say about this legislation as the debate proceeds but all I can promise him is that while we will say it with as much fervour as Senator Evans said it when he was in opposition, it will still be with considerably less time and with considerably more determination to stick to the arrangements and promises we made than he and Mr Lionel Bowen have been able to assume and to demonstrate. I conclude by saying that not only should they be ashamed of themselves but from the look on Senator Evans's face I can see that he at least is. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(2.51) —We have just heard a rousing condemnation of the Freedom of Information Act from Senator Puplick. I notice that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) is congratulating Senator Puplick and I think that should be on the record. Senator Puplick used two phrases: One was that the Opposition would not be voting against the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986. Let us be very clear what that means. The Opposition will vote for it and the Australian Democrats will make sure, by calling a division, that the Opposition is voting for those very things that Senator Puplick so eloquently just condemned. He called the legislation a poisoned chalice and the Opposition is steadying the Government's hand so that the Government is able to drink from the poisoned chalice. This is all in the name of some pseudo-operation that the Opposition has come up with called Budget Bills, that is, it continues to draw its salary for the second half of the year but it does not intend to review any legislation while it does so. Senator Puplick called it Government legislation. I find that an extraordinary admission coming from Senator Puplick. No legislation belongs to the Government; all legislation belongs to the Parliament because only the Parliament is able to pass legislation. This Government will be able to pass this legislation only with the help of the Liberal and National parties. The Bill ought to be entitled the destruction of the freedom of information laws amendment Bill. The Freedom of Information Act began operating in December 1982; so it has had a very brief history indeed. Many of its Australian Labor Party advocates at that time are now Ministers and since they are Ministers presumably they are now impelled by a different view, that is, they have been discomfited by the freedom of information legislation because it has brought out inconvenient facts at inconvenient times. That is one of the important things about freedom of information, for example: The MX missile material, the Daintree rainforest material, the fate of Australian aid to the Philippines, the fake testing in the United States of America of chemicals used in Australia, the social security fraud, the surveillance of doctors in the Medicare investigations, Budget planning, tax avoidance, defence planning. The list goes on and on of items that through freedom of information have been brought out at an inconvenient time to the Minister concerned. We now see the results of this Government's discomfiture with this Act. Let us not forget the issues about which we are talking here. We are talking about the right of citizens in Australia to have information about the activities of those who govern them, that is, the government of the day and the bureaucracy. In a democratic society one would think that such a right would simply be taken for granted. Knowledge is power and in this circumstance those who have the monopoly of information obviously intend to keep that monopoly of information to themselves. Four years ago, after an extremely hard fought campaign of which the Minister for Resources and Energy was part, the Freedom of Information Act came into force and the public was given a legally enforceable right to know what is going on. In many ways it was circumscribed but it was still a start down the track of that enforceable legal right to know what is going on. It was a simple matter of justice, a belated achievement at the time but it was an achievement of great proportions to Australia. In the last four years we have seen this Act under continual attack from within the Government and the bureaucracy. One of the main focuses of this attack has now emerged in this Bill and that is costs. Nobody, the Government least of all, will ever admit that he has any disagreements with the fundamental principles underlying freedom of information. It is just the unfortunate and unintended consequences presumably of the Freedom of Information Act about which the Government is concerned. We are now about to see a collusion, a dirty deal entered into by the Government and the Opposition, to destroy this Act. Last November this Senate disallowed attempts to increase the powers of the Freedom of Information Act under regulations. It should be noted that the Opposition parties, quite rightly at that time, supported that disallowance. This time, however, the Government has been one bit smarter. It has introduced this Bill as part of the 1986 Budget. I forecast that this will be exactly the same fate for the Australia Card because the Government, with foresight, introduced it as part of the Budget although obviously it had been around before as had these charges. This Senate had had a debate about them and disallowed them last November. So this measure is not new and it could never be claimed as being anything new. This Parliament is now about to pass not only this legislation but also legislation about the Australia Card. Having got this legislation into the Budget context, so called-the Opposition has decided that it will sit on its hands because it will not review legislation at this time of the year-we now find that like the wine tax and so many other measures that have affected various sections of the community, the Opposition will not only allow it to pass, but also will not vote against it, to use the phrase Senator Puplick used. It will actively vote for it. It will cross the floor and join with the Government to start the dismemberment of a very important and very great development in Australia's democratic history. When in opposition the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, said that freedom of information is a basic right that lies at the very heart of the democratic system. Obviously, that is now about to be an excessively qualified right and a right I believe, in terms of what the Government is doing, that is wrenching the heart out of the democratic system, to use Mr Bowen's term. In government Mr Bowen, rather than looking at the heart of the democratic system, is now gravely concerned-to use his phrase-about the cost of administering the Act. It now appears that the price of freedom will be rather more than mere vigilance on the part of the Senate. Debate interrupted. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate both in his capacity as the Minister representing the Prime Minister and as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Representatives yesterday that Australia would not participate in and would not facilitate participation in the strategic defence initiative. Is the Minister aware of the statement by United States Defense Secretary Weinberger as reported in the Australian Financial Review on 6 June this year? In expressing the hope that Australian expertise might be involved in the strategic defence initiative program, he said: A Government agreement is not necessary at all. Noting that the Minister has previously said that Government institutions such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation will not be participating in the program, I ask: Has the Government attempted in any way to prevent private sector participation in the research aspects of the strategic defence initiative program? If so, what specific action has it taken to block such participation? Lastly, if no restriction exists on the private sector, is the Minister aware of any Australian involvement in the program? Senator BUTTON —There are a number of parts to the question directed to me by Senator Chaney. He is right in saying that I have previously expressed a position in the Senate about the SDI program and indicated the Government's attitude to that program in general terms, particularly casting doubts on the credibility of the program in scientific terms and the desirability of the program in terms of its contribution or otherwise to raising the level of international tension. Insofar as organisations like CSIRO are concerned, I understand that the Government's position has been made clear to those organisations but I would like perhaps to elaborate on that answer at a later stage because I am not quite clear at this time what precise steps have been taken in relation to that. With regard to private sector involvement, I think I would again give the same answer: The Government's intentions and policy stance on that position have been made clear. There are, of course, difficulties about answering that part of the question which goes to what extent research activities of one kind or another are in fact related to the SDI program. For example, there are peripheral research activities being conducted by Australian companies which may have a marginal relevance to the SDI program. I do not know; that is very difficult to assess. For example, research into various types of computer technologies, research even into things such as advanced welding techniques, could be said by somebody who wanted to make a spurious case on this matter to be related to the SDI program. But at present I know of no Australian companies which could in any way be described as being directly involved in the SDI program. I will seek further information on that question for Senator Chaney and try to provide it as soon as possible. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Minister for that answer. However, I would just seek clarification on one point. The Minister has indicated that as far as he is concerned he knows of no Australian private company or non-government body that is participating in research. He said in his answer with respect to the private sector that the Government position had been made clear. Has the Government in fact in its statement meant to indicate to the private sector that it should not participate or is that in fact a matter which has been left up to the private sector? Senator BUTTON —I do not think the Government has made any direct approaches to private sector companies saying that they may or may not be involved or that they are on the fringe, as it were, of being involved in SDI research. I do not think the Government has made any approaches to such companies and said: `You shall not do it'. Let me obtain further clarification of that matter for the honourable senator. I will try to provide an early answer. Senator DEVLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. The Government announced in August 1985 a range of economic measures against South Africa which included a direction that Commonwealth departments and authorities could no longer enter into certain contracts with South African majority owned companies. What steps have been taken by the Government in relation to its purchasing activities to implement these sanctions? Senator GIETZELT —I think it is a well known fact that the Australian Government has taken very energetic steps to impose where possible sanctions against the purchase of goods from South Africa. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has asked his ministerial colleagues to direct their departmental heads and the officers of statutory authorities under their ministerial responsibility to implement the Government's policies with regard to sanctions against South Africa in their purchasing operations. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services has also issued instructions to Commonwealth Government departments and authorities by way of two Commonwealth purchasing circulars to realise those objectives. So, in general, the Government has stopped Commonwealth agencies buying supplies of South African goods or goods of South African origin or purchasing from South African owned firms. This policy applies to the purchase and sale of goods and services for Commonwealth purposes both in Australia and overseas. Government contractors are required to refrain from sub-contracting work to South African companies or incorporating South African origin supplies in Commonwealth orders. So I think the Government has done whatever is possible to do at this stage to ensure that its policies in respect of South Africa are implemented by all agencies and departments under its controls. Senator KILGARIFF —Will the Minister for Resources and Energy say whether it is the Federal Government's intention to seek World Heritage listing for stage 3 of Kakadu National Park? If so, what effect will this have on the development of the ore bodies within that area? Senator GARETH EVANS —No decision has yet been made with respect to seeking World Heritage listing in relation to stage 3. Of course, that decision has been made and announced and begun to be implemented so far as stage 2 is concerned following on the earlier listing of stage 1. But the detailed future of stage 3 remains, as has been said on a number of public occasions, to be finally determined. Senator MORRIS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article on the front page of yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald dealing with the reluctance of the National Farmers Federation to be involved in the review of the fringe benefits tax? If so, can the Minister indicate what are the principles of the tax the Government has excluded from discussion with the NFF? Senator WALSH —I saw that report and, indeed, a number of other reports covering the same subject in the Press yesterday. I suppose it is to be regretted that the National Farmers Federation decided to take the attitude it did. It is, however, worth noting that the NFF headed by Mr McLachlan, who is a member of the New Right or the extreme Right, as I think it should be more accurately described, has not gone as far as the Federal Opposition has now gone. Mr McLachlan claims that the NFF is objecting not to the principle of imposing a tax but to the way in which the tax on fringe benefits is to be imposed. That was similar to the policy line which was run previously by Mr Sinclair and Mr Hunt and Sir William Knox in Queensland from the Liberal Party-that is, that section 26 (e) would be enforced. Of course, the Commissioner of Taxation scuttled that well and truly yesterday, but I will leave that aside for the moment. That line run by the two leading National Party members of the Federal Parliament, by the Liberal Party leader in Queensland and a number of other people was, however, overturned when Sir Robert Sparkes stood over Mr Sinclair and forced him to make this statement: The only way to treat fringe benefits is to provide a total exemption . . . I repeat: The only way to treat fringe benefits is to provide a total exemption . . . That was Mr Sinclair repudiating himself, repudiating the statements once made by the Leader of the Opposition, repudiating Mr Hunt, repudiating Sir William Knox, repudiating even the National Farmers Federation, and repudiating even the extreme Right, as represented by Ian McLachlan, who does not challenge the principle, so he says, that fringe benefits should be taxed. So we now have the position where the Leader of the National Party has gone to the extreme of the extreme Right. He has fallen right off the planet. I have also noted, of course, that Senator Bjelke-Petersen said: Our position is that the current legislation should be scrapped and that the Government should enforce taxation of benefits in the hands of the recipients under section 26(e) of the Taxation Act. Mr Sinclair has repudiated Senator Bjelke-Petersen as well. I would have thought that Senator Bjelke-Petersen was far enough to the right to please Margaret Thatcher. But Mr Sinclair has now gone beyond that as well. He says that the only way to treat fringe benefits is to provide a total exemption. In other words, he is saying: `Let's declare to the world that the taxation system is wide open to the sort of rorting and wholesale tax evasion which was so popular when John Howard was Treasurer'. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator WALSH —I was trying to discern something intelligible or intelligent from the babble of voices opposite, but I have failed to do so. The PRESIDENT —I would ask the Minister to ignore the interjections and concentrate on Senator Morris's question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. In conclusion, Senator Morris, it is regrettable, I think, that the National Farmers Federation has chosen not to accept the Government's invitation, although it is not terribly surprising. I suppose the one little ray of sunshine here is that at least the National Farmers Federation is not as extreme as the National Party under Mr Sinclair has become, after he was stood over by Sir Robert Sparkes. Senator SANDERS —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment: How much Commonwealth Government money has been spent on ranger facilities, wages and other expenses in the Franklin-Lower Gordon Wild Rivers National Park? Is the Collingwood Bridge ranger facility to be transferred to Queenstown? Is any part of this facility to be transferred? Will the Government ensure that this vital ranger establishment, which serves 500 to 1,000 Franklin River rafters each year, is consolidated rather than downgraded? Senator RYAN —The costs of ranger facilities, wages and other expenses in the Franklin-Lower Gordon Wild Rivers National Park are met from contributions by the Commonwealth and Tasmania governments for management of the whole-- Senator Lewis —I thought he said that this was without notice. Senator RYAN —Mr President, this is extremely childish behaviour by the Opposition. I will read it out, and then I will table it. I am sure Senator Sanders will be pleased to hear that the total Commonwealth contributions were $500,000 in 1983, $498,000 in 1984-85 and $2m in 1985-86. A further $2m is to be contributed this financial year, bringing the total to $5m. The combined budget for the area is allocated to programs approved by the World Heritage Area Ministerial Council. This arrangement does not enable me to distinguish exactly how many dollars of Commonwealth funding have been spent in the Franklin-Lower Gordon Wild Rivers National Park on the items listed by Senator Sanders. However, I am able to advise that the injection of Commonwealth funding for management of the area enables the employment of six additional rangers, two park assistants and one office assistant in the Franklin-Lower Gordon Wild Rivers National Park. Three of the rangers are stationed at the Collingwood Ranger Station. The Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council has not considered any proposal for the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service to transfer the Collingwood ranger station to Queenstown. Currently the three staff of the ranger station are accommodated in three caravans and a small cabin, but the Tasmanian Government has asked the Ministerial Council to consider a proposal that a permanent ranger station be constructed in the park on the Lyell Highway. The Council has not yet addressed this proposal. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I ask the Minister to table the paper from which she was reading. Senator RYAN —I do so happily. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to newspaper reports of a `toughly worded speech' made by the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Richard Woolcott, in the course of which he urged the United Nations to adopt drastic budgetary measures without which it may not survive its current financial and organisational crisis. Can the Minister expand on the nature of this crisis and comment, if possible, on the possibility of the restructuring of the United Nations to reflect, among other things, the anti-discrimination requirements of its own various covenants? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the Press reports of the statement by Mr Richard Woolcott, who is, as Senator Giles says, Australia's permanent representative to the United Nations in New York. The statement does accurately reflect the Government's concern about the need for major reform in the administration of the United Nations and its commitment to work towards a more effective and more efficient organisation. These views were expressed at the United Nations most recently by Mr Hayden, in his speech, I think, to the General Assembly on 1 October this year. Mr Woolcott's statement was addressing the report of the 18-member group of high level intergovernmental experts, the so-called G18, which did recommend a number of reforms to improve the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the UN. The proposals deal with such issues as improved program management, staff savings and more efficient intergovernmental machinery. The report also discussed the need for a more responsive budget setting process. I am not sure about the extent to which that report addressed the question of effective implementation of the human rights covenants of the United Nations and the UN human rights machinery, but that is something I will pursue further with the Minister and give Senator Giles a further reply, if one seems useful. Mr Woolcott's statement, I add finally, endorsed many of the recommendations of the G18 and restated Australia's support for reform. Mr Woolcott urged that the necessary decisions be taken during the current session of the General Assembly. I repeat that it is the Government's hope that significant reform will be accomplished because it is only through such a process that the United Nations' present financial and, some might say, political crisis will in fact be overcome. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the Minister to the continuing increase in our current account deficit. I ask: Is it not a fact that our economic recovery rests heavily on a dramatic improvement in our balance of trade? Is it not a fact that there has not yet been a turnaround in private industry investment notwithstanding the 40 per cent drop in the value of our dollar over the past two years? In these circumstances, does the Minister agree that the course on which Mr Keating has now embarked, of talking up policy and the dollar to attract capital inflow to cover the current account deficit, is fraught with danger in that any inflow from such talk will be speculative, and although speculative funds might provide a short term gloss to figures, they will not provide any long term solution to our problems? Senator BUTTON —The word `speculative' was used in Senator Lewis's question, and of course the question contained more speculation than interrogation of me. It was a highly speculative argument which was encapsulated in his question. I do not agree that the economic recovery of this country rests, as he put it, on a dramatic turnaround in the trade deficit. I have said on a number of occasions, as have other Government Ministers, that we do not expect a dramatic turnaround in the trade deficit. The Australian trade deficit problem has been accumulating for many years. It has become worse in recent years and, to use the honourable senator's words, we have seen in the last 12 months some dramatic illustrations of the problem which has been there for years. The sins of many years, inflicted, of course, by governments other than this one, cannot be turned around and expurgated in a dramatic way. I must disagree with the honourable senator's first speculation, which is that there can be a dramatic turnaround in the current account deficit. The second speculation related to private sector investment. The Government has been conservative, in my view, in the estimates which have been made in the Budget Papers in respect of private sector investment in this country. Consequent upon the embryonic J-curve effect there is a lot of discussion in Australia about investment at present, and that discussion will undoubtedly continue and lead to an improved investment performance which in turn will lead to a steady turnaround in the current account deficit. Senator Lewis also asked me about the Treasurer, in the honourable senator's words, `talking up the dollar' in the United States, leading to speculative investment. That is the wildest speculation in his question. I do not know to which particular statements of the Treasurer the honourable senator was referring, but I know that a number of prominent Australian businessmen taking part in a conference in New York some 10 days ago delivered speeches in which some suggested that the Australian dollar had been undervalued in recent weeks. A number of them made statements which were very cautiously optimistic about the Australian economy, and a number of them made statements which suggested that they felt it was a very appropriate time for non-speculative investment in Australia. It was not just the Treasurer, if that is the allegation against the Treasurer-and I do not accept that allegation-made those sorts of statements; a number of Australian businessmen made them as well. I have at least one of the speeches which were given and I would be happy to make it available to the honourable senator at an appropriate time. Senator CHILDS —The Minister for Community Services will recall that I referred him last week to the malicious tactics used by the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Australia in its campaign for increased nursing home benefits. Could the Minister indicate whether there have been any further attempts by this Association to exploit the fears of nursing home residents in New South Wales? Can he give any reassurance to these patients that their interests will be safeguarded? Senator GRIMES —As I said last week, Cabinet will shortly be considering, as it does every year and as it has done every year for the last 20 years I think, an increase in the nursing home benefits which will, I expect, be paid in November this year. There has been no indication by the Government or by any member of the Government that we would not take into account increases in costs and therefore increases in nursing home fees, any more than any other government has done. I was disappointed, although I must say not surprised as I indicated last week, that some of the private nursing home proprietors would have used the sort of tactic they have in implying that the Government will not have such increases. As for further developments on last week's effort, Senator Childs probably knows that there has been considerable agitation, again I repeat, by some private nursing home proprietors in New South Wales trying to worry those people who use their facilities, and in particular trying to worry the relatives of those people who use their facilities. In particular, one group of individuals decided to ring offices of members and senators impersonating the relatives and, in one case, a nursing home client in order to press the case. It was only because of the interrogation skills of a member of one senator's staff that eventually these people were trapped into admitting that they were not nursing home clients, and in one case that they were nursing home proprietors. I must say that some of the nursing home proprietors in this country, particularly some in Senator Childs's State-I emphasise only some of them-are some of the most unsavoury characters that a Minister for Community Services, and previously Social Security, would have to deal with. That has been the view not only of the Minister but also of several previous Ministers who have spoken to me, including Ministers in previous governments. It is a pity that those decent people who are working in this area and who own nursing homes should have their reputations associated with the few, particularly some of the large entrepreneurs, who use the tactics that they are using at the moment. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —On 19 August I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation a question about the possibility of a private firm building a new international terminal at Brisbane Airport in conjunction with the building of a hotel. On 20 August the Minister informed me that the tender for a combined hotel-international terminal was being examined as part of the normal tendering process. Is it correct that the Government has now decided not to proceed with the building of a new terminal as part of a hotel complex at Brisbane? Can the Minister give the reasons why this decision was made? Is it a fact that the Government claims that it has not the money to build a new international terminal in Brisbane, despite the growth of tourism in Queensland and the fact that Expo 88 is to be held there? If this is so, should not the Government be encouraging the private sector to build the international air terminal in Brisbane for it at no cost to the taxpayer so that it will be ready for Expo 88? Senator GIETZELT —I recall the previous occasion when Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me about the Brisbane Airport. Subsequently I was able to get a reply to her. I recall that there were some substantial problems with the Government's proposals in respect of suggestions about constructing and developing the Brisbane Airport. There was some regard to legal difficulties which were apparent at that time. In view of those circumstances I think that I should get a precise answer from the Minister to see whether he is able to advance his response on this occasion to the fresh questions raised by the honourable senator. Senator McINTOSH —I refer the Minister for Education to an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald entitled `ESL Cuts: Cavalier accuses Ryan'. Can the Minister confirm that she has received a letter from the New South Wales Education Minister concerning the English as a second language program? Can the Minister explain to the Senate the consequence of this communication? Senator RYAN —I can confirm that I have received a letter from Mr Cavalier, the New South Wales Education Minister, part of which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning. It is regrettable that I am in a position to confirm that to the Senate because it is my strongly held view that communications between ministerial colleagues, particularly in areas where there is some controversy or some misunderstanding, are best handled confidentially and it is always my practice to do so. However, for reasons best known to himself, Mr Cavalier allowed part of the letter-which I might say is a very long letter-to appear in the Sydney Morning Herald, or it appeared by some other means. I do not think its appearance really assists in what ought to be the top priority for Mr Cavalier in the New South Wales Government as it is for our Government, for me, to arrange Commonwealth-State education funding programs so that children who are in need of ESL teaching suffer no diminution in the services available to them. That is my objective. That is the objective which has been achieved in our negotiations with other States and major non-government systems. Of course, it is our objective concerning New South Wales. It seems that Mr Cavalier has other objectives in mind at this stage. I hope he will consider and review his position. However, since this has been made a matter of public knowledge in this rather regrettable way, I need to place a couple of things on the record about the capacity of the New South Wales Government to use Commonwealth education allocations for a variety of purposes, including maintaining ESL classes. As I have said before in this place, our Government is of the view that the New South Wales Government, when reaching agreement with us about the allocation of extra recurrent funding for next year, ought to give the highest priority to ESL-related programs. Those extra recurrent funds to which I refer are substantial. The New South Wales Government will receive an additional $18.4m in extra recurrent money in 1987 as part of an overall package received from our Government of $147m for its recurrent program. The New South Wales Government will also receive $9.3m in ESL general funding from 1987 as well as a special allocation of $1.5m in additional funds for ESL made available after the Budget. Anyone who follows that figuring must agree that these funds are more than adequate to compensate for the $7.3m reduction in the direct ESL general program. At this stage, the New South Wales Minister has chosen to propose that none of the extra recurrent funds be allocated to ESL. Instead, New South Wales has proposed to spend all that money on professional development for teachers. The Commonwealth accepts that professional development for teachers is an important objective. However, we do not believe under present circumstances that those programs deserve as high a priority as ESL programs. Today I wrote back to Mr Cavalier asking him to reconsider his view and to use that substantial extra recurrent funding to which I have referred to give a higher priority to ESL programs so that it will not be necessary for any such reduction in ESL teaching in the New South Wales system to occur. The particular proposals on professional development that have been made to me by the New South Wales Minister have not been agreed to. I have asked him to reconsider. It is very important that all honourable senators whom I know are very interested in this matter agree that the important outcome is that Commonwealth funds available for education purposes in New South Wales be used according to the best possible methods, including the maintenance of necessary ESL programs. Senator WALTERS —My question is to the Minister for Finance. In view of the Minister's much aired views on the cashing out of fringe benefits by employers and taking into consideration the policy of reviewing Australian Public Service conditions of employment, does the Minister have any plans to alter the salary packages of public servants so that fringe benefits become assessable in the hands of the recipients, thereby saving taxpayers the millions of dollars which will be spent by government departments on calculating and meeting the fringe benefits tax liability? An example of just one Department's costs is that of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which told an Estimates committee that it estimated for that Department that `between one and two staff years will be required to monitor and control the payments of fringe benefits tax'. In reaching a decision on this matter has the Minister had any discussions or advice from persons within the Public Service who are likely to be in receipt of fringe benefits as part of their salary package? Senator WALSH —Cashing out is an option available to those who claim that it is far too onerous for them to administer the fringe benefits tax. Those claims, almost without exception, are bogus. They are made because it is judged to be much more acceptable to the public to say `We think it is too hard to administer and we are protesting about it for that reason' than it is to say: `We are protesting about this because we have been up to our ears in tax evasion and we will stay up to our ears in tax evasion if we can bluff the Government or get a compliant Opposition in the Senate to prevent the legislation being passed in the first place'. It is in that context that the cashing out option arises. A question very similar to this was asked last week. Perhaps I should apologise because when I was asked-I cannot remember by whom-whether the total staff or administration cost to the Australian Public Service of the fringe benefits tax had been assessed I said that the so-called Waste Watch Committee had organised questions to be asked of every Department and I thought that the Waste Watch Committee would have the answers, unless it ran out of toes and was unable to total up the figures, in which case I suppose it could have sought Senator Watson's assistance or perhaps that of Senator Walters. Senator Tate —Are you having a go at Tasmanians? Senator WALSH —I understand that Senator Watson was an accountant although, from the way he behaves here, not a very good one. Senator Walters —I take a point of order. Will the Minister please answer the question and behave himself? The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore the interjection and come back to the answer. Senator WALSH —Yes, Mr President. The fact is that Senator Watson said-no, Senator Walters, that is right; I should be able to tell the difference, although a newspaper once published a photograph of me with Senator Walters's name underneath it-- Senator Grimes —Sue! The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to stop boasting and answer the question. Senator WALSH —Yes, Mr President. I decided not to sue, being a believer basically in a free Press and even of the freedom of the Press to misrepresent. The resources required to administer the matter within the Australian Public Service are not vast. The small amounts of fringe benefits which are provided are of the type that do not readily lend themselves to cashing out. That is not so in the great majority of cases in the private sector. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister consider that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is indulging in tax evasion when the amount of fringe benefits in that Department alone is $642,000? Senator WALSH —No, I do not. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has one of the higher fringe benefits costs. The Government's estimate of the revenue yield from the fringe benefits tax is of the order ultimately of about $700m. If one wishes to take the implicit assertion of Mr Hay, Mr Ansett and Mr McLachlan, that sum is $2 billion from the small business sector alone. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Firstly, could the Minister tell the Senate whether the co-operating agency at the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap is the United States Department of Defense or the Central Intelligence Agency which has been using the Department of Defense as a cover? Secondly, could the Minister say whether the United States National Security Agency is another co-operating agency which operates from Pine Gap and whose role includes interception of communications into and out of Australia, including commercial and political information? Finally, could the Minister outline the role of Pine Gap in a nuclear war fighting scenario as envisaged by the United States Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, in his 1984-88 program presented to Congress, as opposed to a deterrent function and state whether the Australian Government would terminate the agreement if it were evident that the Joint Facility had such an offensive role? Senator GARETH EVANS —The document formally entitled `Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United States of America constituting an Agreement Amending the Agreement relating to the establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility of 9 December 1966', which document is from the Australian Treaty Series No. 24 of 1977, states that the co-operating agencies responsible for the operations of the facility at Pine Gap are the Australian Department of Defence and the United States Department of Defense. I also remind the honourable senator in this respect that on 27 May this year I advised her, in this chamber, that there are no National Security Agency facilities in Australia. As to the latter parts of her question, the Government does not accept, as I have said to her on previous occasions here, that United States strategic policy is offensive in nature or is based on a nuclear war fighting posture. We are satisfied that United States nuclear strategy remains defensive in orientation, that it is designed to deter all conflict and that it is not a nuclear war fighting strategy. I remind the honourable senator, as I have in the past, of President Reagan's declared view that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought; a view that was repeated by Secretary Weinberger, as the honourable senator may recall, in his speech to the National Press Club in April. Were the Australian Government to terminate the agreement over the facility, to which I have referred, it would reduce the contribution to verification of compliance with arms control and disarmament measures made by the joint facilities and would reduce significantly prospects for arms control agreements-prospects which, despite the disappointing outcome of the recent meeting at Reykjavik, remain alive. Furthermore, such a termination would add to the possibility of nuclear war by accident or misunderstanding. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the various proposals by political parties, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and others that unemployed juveniles be given the opportunity by compulsion or otherwise to undertake educational training or meaningful work in consideration of receiving unemployment benefit. I refer also to various statements over the years by members of the Australian Labor Party that International Labour Organisation conventions to which Australia is a signatory preclude the compelling to work of recipients of social security benefits. I ask: Is there any restriction, ILO or otherwise, which stands in the way of an Australian government seeking to impose training or work for a payment of unemployment benefit? Could a compulsory scheme be introduced, or is only a voluntary concept possible? Senator BUTTON —I do not know the answer to that question. I will seek an answer and provide it to the honourable senator as soon as possible. Senator MAGUIRE —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of persistent National Party claims that it best represents Queenslanders living in rural and provincial areas? Does the Minister have any information on non-metropolitan unemployment in Queensland since the National Party was last elected to government in that State? If so, what do the figures tell about job prospects for Queens- landers living in provincial cities and rural areas compared with the prospects of other Australians? What are the economic management implications of the figures? Senator WALSH —I am certainly aware of the repeated claims by the National Party that it best represents the interests of non-metropolitan Queenslanders. I think it also claims to best represent the interests of Queenslanders in general. I do not know which claim is the more absurd. The claims have about as much relationship to reality as the equally repeated claim that Queensland is the free enterprise State. Those who saw newspapers this morning and yesterday morning would realise how much enterprise there is in Queensland, if free enterprise means allowing market forces to determine outcomes rather than heavy-handed government intervention. The truth is that the Queensland Government presides over the most regimented economy in the country and has done so for many years. In December 1983 unemployment in rural areas, or non-metropolitan areas, of Queensland was lower than the national average rate. In Queensland it was 9 per cent, against a national average unemployment rate of 9.5 per cent. But since January 1984 the national average unemployment rate has decreased steadily, while the Queensland non-metropolitan unemployment rate has increased steadily. For the 1984 calendar year, the average national unemployment rate was 9 per cent, while in Queensland it had grown to 9.8 per cent. If one looks at the more recent monthly statistics for 1986 until the end of August, one finds that the Queensland non-metropolitan unemployment rate was consistently about 2 per cent higher than the Australian average unemployment rate. Of the averages for all of those months, Queensland had a rate of 9.5 per cent in non-metropolitan areas and the national average unemployment rate was 8.1 per cent. So over the whole period it was a bit higher than 2 per cent. The Queensland National Party Government is committed to providing plenty of jobs for politicians in rural areas. There is a ratio of one politician to about every 2,000 people, I think, if one counts the lot. There are plenty of jobs for National Party politicians. The Government is committed to that. But there are not too many jobs in non-metropolitan Queensland for other people. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to media reports of the exchange between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Qantas Airways Ltd over the national flag carrier's refusal to show a Department of Foreign Affairs film entitled `It's Not Worth Taking a Trip with Drugs'. I ask the Minister: Is it true or fair to assert, as Qantas is reported as stating, that the Department of Foreign Affairs `simply shoved the film at us on a take it or leave it basis'? Did the Department threaten Qantas with a Press campaign if the airline failed to show the film? Is Qantas right in asserting that `the Department is scrambling to get runs on the board in the wake of the hanging of Barlow and Chambers'? Is it not true that Qantas sought to sting the Department of Foreign Affairs for thousands of dollars to show this film? What action will the Government take to stop Qantas deceitfully referring to itself as `the spirit of Australia'? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Vanstone asked four questions. The answers to them, as best I am aware, are as follows: In the first place, it is not the case that the Department of Foreign Affairs, as is reported, simply shoved the film at Qantas. Rather, officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs consulted with Qantas throughout the development of the film clip. Secondly, it is not the case that the Department threatened Qantas with a Press campaign if the airline failed to show the film. Thirdly, it is not the case, as someone from Qantas apparently asserted, that the Department was scrambling to get runs on the board in the wake of the hanging of Barlow and Chambers. That is a very unsavoury allegation and is utterly without foundation. This Government is deeply concerned by the particular horrific example provided by the Barlow and Chambers case of what ignorance of another country's laws can mean for Australians involved with drugs. Hence, the Government's initiative in getting the film made. Senator Vanstone is on slightly firmer ground, however, with her final question, which refers to the fee reportedly demanded by Qantas for the showing of the film. It is the case that Qantas sought charges amounting to an estimated $80,000 to $90,000 per annum to show the film. It is probably fair comment to say that in thus responding I do not think, and the Government does not think-certainly the Minister for Foreign Affairs does not think-that Qantas has done much to earn its `spirit of Australia' tag. It ought to be acknowledged in this respect that Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd has agreed to show the film, as has the Greater Union theatre chain, within Australia. In doing so they have displayed a considerably greater spirit of public service to all Australians than our national airline has displayed, apparently, on this occasion. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Given that there have been many claims of insufficient research being carried out in Australia and of the need for government encouragement for research, can the Minister say what support is being given currently to industrial research? Specifically, can he outline the national teaching company scheme and say what benefits the scheme will have for local industry? Will the Minister also point to any further steps which are to be taken to encourage research for industry in Australia and to what extent the allocation of research moneys is co-ordinated with other research funding by the Government? Senator BUTTON —The question of industrial research and development in Australia is crucially important. We had perhaps the worst performance in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development during the 1970s in terms of private sector research and development, and that is something from which we must recover, as we have to recover from a lot of other things that happened in the 1970s. I do not think Senator Watson, Liberal, Tasmania, is indicating that what I just said is wrong. I think he accepts what I just said. This Government has provided significant resources to encourage research and development activities in private industry. The 1986-87 Budget provides $100m in tax incentives-that is, revenue forgone-for expenditure on research and development in private industry; $12.5m has been provided in grants to support worthwhile research and development which will not benefit significantly from the tax concession, mainly because the companies are small or perhaps have insufficient cash flow and are not eligible for the tax concession for those reasons; a further $2m is provided to support light industry research associations to supplement industry funding; and $1.2m has been provided for technology research and development, including $750,000 for the teacher company scheme, to which Senator Crowley referred in her question. The teacher company scheme is designed to foster interaction between industry and tertiary education institutions by the placement of graduate researchers in industry to conduct industry relevant research projects under joint industry and academic supervision. The scheme aims to assist local industry to benefit from Australian scientific and industrial research. It encourages innovative companies and academics, through a system of grants, to come together to develop business efficiency within those companies. Twenty companies and researchers from institutions around Australia have been selected and given grants under the scheme. Other steps have been taken to encourage research for Australian industry. For instance, within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's five research institutes, an estimated $107m will be spent on research this financial year. Budget allocations have risen over the past three years, with priority being given to biotechnology, generic manufacturing technologies and information and space technologies. Research and development activities are increasing significantly in Australian industry, largely as a result of the implementation of the tax incentive. I expect the proportion of industry based research to rise considerably as a proportion of total Australian research. The reaction to the new tax incentive scheme for R and D has been very encouraging. Indications from over 1,000 company registrations are that companies anticipate investing over $500m on R and D in 1985-86-one third more on R and D in real terms than in 1984-85-and further increases are expected this financial year. The Government, by these mechanisms, is seeking to redress the balance between a highly funded government research sector and a poorly funded private research sector, which was the hallmark of this country in the 1970s. Senator Lewis earlier today asked me a question about anticipations about reducing the trade deficit in this country and whether that deficit could be reduced dramatically. I said that, in the Government's view, it could not. It is the sort of things addressed by Senator Crowley's very perceptive question, if I may say so, which should be drawn to the attention of people like Senator Lewis, because it is questions associated with research and development in the private sector, product development and so on, which will lead ultimately to a much healthier trading situation for this country in respect of manufactured products. Although Senator Lewis was not with us when I was giving the answer to Senator Crowley's question, I hope he will read the Hansard very carefully. Senator MACKLIN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the story in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning which reports on the Queensland Government's determination to establish a food irradiation plant in Brisbane by September 1987? Will the Government give a guarantee that it will use all its constitutional powers to prevent the Queensland Government establishing a food irradiation plant in Queensland until the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has completed its report into the numerous safety questions surrounding the issue of food irradiation? Senator GRIMES —The Minister for Health informs me that his attention has been drawn to a report of the establishment of a food irradiation plant in Queensland, and denials by the Queensland Government of approval of any such project. The Minister also informs me that he has been informed that the Commonwealth has no powers over the States in the matter of the establishment of food irradiation plants. In June this year the National Health and Medical Research Council approved a recommendation for the establishment of food irradiation guidelines, and these guidelines were conveyed to the States. Because of considerable concern by consumer representatives, the Minister for Health agreed to the Australian Consumers Association conducting an inquiry on the impact of food irradiation on consumer health and the environment. That inquiry is now under way. The House of Representatives Committee inquiry to which Senator Macklin referred was established in September to examine the use of ionising radiation for commercial sterilisation, disinfestation and food preservation, and will complement the ACA inquiry. While States have total autonomy to establish food irradiation plants, the Minister for Health has asked all State Health Ministers not to proceed with the establishment of food irradiation plants until the results of the inquiries are known. The Queensland Health Minister has responded and indicated that the responsible Minister is now the Minister for Primary Industries, and the Federal Minister for Health is awaiting his reply. I believe that this question will be solved in this country, as it has been in other countries, by sensible inquiries by appropriate authorities and not by rhetoric and scare tactics in this place. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Special Minister of State aware of the article by David Monaghan in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning under the headline `Developer threatens to cut off Lib cash'? The resort developer of the Gold Coast, Mr Michael Gore, insists that he told Mr Howard, the Leader of the Opposition: `Either come up with a sensible policy or we will close the cheque books'. If, as is suggested, one businessperson has donated more than $1m to the campaign funds of the Liberal Party of Australia, is it possible that Commonwealth electoral laws have been breached? Does the Minister have any comment to make on this blatant attempt at cheque book corruption? Senator GARETH EVANS —It does appear that cheque book politics is becoming an increasingly recurring phenomenon within the Liberal wing of politics. I remind the Senate of Senator Cook's question in this respect on 23 September which I am still endeavouring to obtain an answer to. The situation is, as honourable senators should be aware, that under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, all political parties, candidates and Senate groups are required to disclose details of gifts received and electoral expenditure incurred. Moreover, the donor of a gift, or a number of gifts over the disclosure period, of $1,000 or more must be identified in the return. The disclosures made by the Liberal Party of Australia and other parties in relation to the 1984 election are on the public record. Electoral expenditure reported by the Liberal Party for this election totalled $4.8m, so there was not much room for too many $1m donations among the contributions that have been disclosed. No doubt it will be interesting to check the record, as Senator Richardson no doubt will, to see what further information is there about the particular $1m donation to which the newspaper article refers. The States, of course, do not have similar disclosure laws and no doubt the record of donors to the Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia in particular would be of great interest, although no doubt again so many of those are laundered through the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation that we might not have as much information as democracy would otherwise require. The vulnerability of parties to cheque book corruption of the kind outlined in this article and which one has reason to suppose is occurring elsewhere in the Liberal Party has been addressed through the public funding provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. One notes in this respect that the Liberal Party received $2.6m of public funding for the 1984 elections, which ought to have been enough to divert its attention away from attractions of the kind offered by Mr Gore and his colleagues. I note finally, from the convenient memory lapse of the Leader of the Opposition, as reported in this Press item, when Mr Gore's comments apparently were drawn to his attention, that he rather wishes he had never met the gentleman in question. No doubt his embarrassment relates to the unwanted exposure by Mr Gore of the nature of the Liberal Party's funding and the sort of people who expect that party to respond to their beck and call. They are a pretty tacky collection and their tackiness has been well exposed by the article to which Senator Richardson referred us. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to Senator Gareth Evans and follows the answer he just gave. I draw his attention, as I have drawn the attention of Senator Walsh, to the concerns expressed by the Liberal Party in Western Australia about the purchase by the State Energy Commission of the gas reticulation works of the Fremantle Gas and Coke Company Ltd, a transaction which appears to have netted the participants a profit of some $20m over a period of 12 months. I ask the Minister, in light of his reply, whether he will similarly examine that transaction and examine to what extent the participants have been donors to the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia and whether there are matters which similarly ought to be his concern as he is expressing concern about the matters which were raised in the previous question? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is not even a prima facie basis upon which Senator Chaney can relate the subject matter of that question either to the reply that I have just given or to any other matter that is within the jurisdiction of the Special Minister of State. The matter to which he referred does not give rise to any conceivable question of political party donations, disclosed or otherwise. Equally clearly, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to any other matter within a Commonwealth Minister's jurisdiction. Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday Senator Michael Baume asked me a question concerning an accident on 9 October involving a Commonwealth vehicle. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has advised me that he has advice from the Minister for Trade that the Commonwealth vehicle was driven by Mrs Muriel Dawkins, the Minister's mother, at his direction. I am further advised that it was being used in accordance with entitlements for the use of Commonwealth vehicles by Ministers and office-holders. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services will be taking action in accordance with its standard procedures for accidents involving Commonwealth vehicles. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 15 October, from Senator Peter Baume: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to abandon its anti-investment taxation measures, particularly the capital gains tax, which have created the housing crisis presently facing Australian families.' Yours sincerely, (PETER BAUME) Senator for the State of New South Wales Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.04) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to abandon its anti-investment taxation measures, particularly the capital gains tax, which have created the housing crisis presently facing Australian families. Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Taxation and Housing Good housing is vital for each of us-housing which is adequate, affordable and of good quality. Housing ranks high in the needs of Australians and their families. Today not only are Australia and Australians in deep trouble economically thanks to the Hawke Labor Government but also access to housing is disappearing for Australians, again thanks to the Hawke Labor Government. The hopes for housing are being dashed for Australians thanks to the Hawke Labor Government. The Australian housing industry is in trouble at present, again thanks to the Hawke Labor Government. Several facts need to be stated. For four quarters running there were dramatic falls in new housing commencements in Australia. That is a fact. By June 1986 new housing starts were at an annualised rate of 117,000-down from something over 150,000 not so long ago. That is another fact. There are careful and sober predictions that housing commencements will fall as low as 105,000 in the 12-month period coming up. It is a fact that Professor Fred Gruen of the Australian National University advised earlier this year that the drop in commencements of owner occupied housing was likely to be as high as 17 per cent-one in six-by the middle of June 1986. It is a further fact that between February and April 1986 approvals for home units, flats and town houses fell by 20 per cent-by one-fifth-nationally and by as much as 43 per cent in my city, Sydney. This is the stuff of crisis. Not only that; building costs are rising at a rate well ahead of inflation. Employment prospects in the building industry are diminishing. Even the Government's own indicative planning figures will mean the loss of a further 15,000 jobs in the housing industry. Again, this is a gift from the Hawke Labor Government to those who want to work in the housing industry. Stockbrokers such as Ord Minnett are advising their clients that if they are wise they will start selling the shares they hold in building supply companies. That is the judgment of the stock-market. Stockbrokers have judged correctly that housing is in crisis and housing investment companies are not good bets at present. There is indeed a crisis in housing provision in Australia. Young Australians seeking homes today-either their first home or a larger home-face greater difficulties in so doing than they have for generations. It is not that there is no money around, because there is; it is just that home buyers cannot afford to use that money. The New South Wales Housing Minister, Mr Frank Walker, told a meeting recently that building society lending had dropped by 35 per cent in his State. Frank Walker is a Labor Minister. I believe him. If building society lending is down by 35 per cent, that is one indicator of the crisis. He correctly blamed the Hawke Government. Interest rates are very high and they are going up. The new loan rates are now 15 1/2 per cent. Young Australians know from bitter experience than an interest bill that was manageable when they took on a mortgage has very likely become unmanageable with the passage of time and rising interest rates. The rates for second mortgages, which many Australians need, are just prohibitive and becoming more so. So fewer Australians today are able to finance themselves into home ownership. That is indeed a crisis. As financial pressures on home buyers rise, as interest burdens exceed people's capacity to pay, we find first that more families have debts which are so large that they cannot handle or service them. Secondly, we find there are increasing amounts of mortgage arrears. Indeed, the number of notices of arrears received by the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, a Government body, which receives notice of the arrears in mortgage payments, rose by 70 per cent between January and June this year. That is another indicator of a crisis in home ownership facing Australia today. Not only that; young Australians face an increasing number of repossessions of homes. An increasing number of families have insufficient cash to live on after they have made their mortgage payment. It is said that a family should aim to spend about 25 per cent of its weekly income on its shelter needs. The Government's housing poverty report identified 700,000 families as having severe difficulties in meeting home mortgage payments or rent payments. We know that there have been estimates that as many as 20 per cent of families are paying not just 25 per cent of their incomes but more than 35 per cent of their weekly incomes in an attempt to pay off their mortgages and stay in their homes. The Reverend Canon Whitham of the Anglican Church's Home Mission Society, as reported in the Weekend Australian of 6-7 June 1986, said that in 85 per cent of marriage counselling cases in which his organisation was involved, overcommitment to mortgage repayments and other debts was a factor in marital breakdown. We are asserting today that Australians attempting to own their own homes are facing an enormous and increasing crisis, and the evidence is there. Not only that, but the access by young Australians to government support, if they wish to buy or own their own homes, is less now than it was. Support for home purchase has diminished markedly since the Hawke Government took office. Our first home owners scheme, the subsidy scheme which we implemented when in government, was changed substantially, and then the changed scheme was wound back. Certain housing interest payments were previously allowed to be set off against one's income, so that one got some tax relief. That scheme has now been wound back, too. As fewer Australians can seek home ownership, more move into mobile homes or caravans. We have figures which show that the number of Australians living in caravans has increased by 100,000 to a figure of over 400,000, and that increase has occurred just in the past year. In addition, of course, more Australians are thrown onto the rental market. If they cannot own their homes, they have to seek to rent homes. If they try to rent homes, what do they find? There is less rental accommodation available; few vacancies for rental accommodation; high and rapidly increasing rents; and, not surprisingly, more and more Australian families are unable to own a home, unable to rent a home, unable to find or obtain decent homes for themselves and their children. How do we support those assertions? We know that vacancy rates in the Sydney market as recently as August have been as low as 0.7 per cent. That is an all-time low in the availability of rental accommodation in Sydney. It is about one-quarter of what was thought to be an adequate amount of vacant rental accommodation to service the Sydney market. We know that vacancy rates for rental accommodation in Sydney, Perth, Hobart and Launceston hit an all-time low in February this year. We know that in the year between June 1985 and June this year there were 37 per cent fewer houses and 6 per cent fewer apartments advertised as being available for rental in Australia. We know that in Perth over the same period there were 41 per cent fewer apartments advertised. People looking for homes find that there are very many fewer being advertised. Not only can they not own their homes; when they come to rent, they find that rental accommodation is not available. They find, of course, that rents in Sydney have soared. I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 2 October 1986, a couple of weeks ago, which states: Residential rents in Sydney have soared by about 20 per cent this year, and another 10 per cent hike is tipped before the end of this year. The average rental for a three-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment on the lower North Shore is around $250 a week. Of course, not everyone has to have a house of that standard. But rents in Sydney are high and rising fast at present. As rents go up faster than prices-this is due, of course, to the shortage of accommodation-we find people's incomes being stretched even further. We know that in Hobart rents went up by 38 per cent in the year between May 1985 and May 1986. The rental crisis, brought about in part by the lack of accommodation and in part by the cost of accommodation, is very severe. It is surging ahead of the rise in prices. There are so few apartments available that in Sydney recently, when one apartment in an eastern suburb was advertised, 60 people applied to rent it. These problems are worsening rapidly, to the further disadvantage of Australians and of their families. There is a crisis; it is a crisis which is worsening, and has worsened recently. We want the Government today to acknowledge that there is a crisis, because that is the necessary first step. Will the Government acknowledge that Australians are having trouble finding homes, finding places in which to live? If it does that, at least that is a start. But this crisis can be associated clearly with certain policies put into place by the Hawke Government since its election 3 1/2 years ago. It is Hawke Government policies that have made home ownership in Australia more difficult. It is Hawke Government policies that have made investment in rental accommodation almost impossible. First, there was the capital gains tax. That was the tax which we were not going to get, the imposition of which represented just one of many broken promises by the Hawke Government. Secondly, there was the form of the capital gains tax, and that has driven people away from building or buying housing for rental. It has driven people to put their money into their own homes, which are free from capital gains tax. People have been upgrading their own homes, whereas previously they might have invested the same money in rental properties. It has helped to drive people towards putting money into bonds or into the money market, rather than into property for rental. The situation was worsened further by the decision of the Hawke Labor Government to outlaw negative gearing to finance the construction or purchase of extra rental accommodation. So the crisis particularly affects the rental sector of the market. It affects the availability of rental accommodation; it affects the amount of rental accommodation; it affects the location of rental accommodation; and it affects the quality of rental accommodation. The Government will tell us that it disapproves, on principle, of negative gearing. That is the Government's right. It said so, and it has said so often. But what it has not addressed, and what it will not address, are the consequences which flow from its decision to outlaw this form of financing for investment housing. I put it to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that this decision, like all decisions, has costs as well as benefits. Whatever ideological benefits the Government sees in outlawing negative gearing, there are costs as well. The costs have included less building for investment, less building for rental and less rental accommodation available for Australians who need it. Frank Walker, the New South Wales Housing Minister, understands the situation that exists in New South Wales. He recognises the costs of what the Government has done. He has said so. I will quote part of an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of Friday, 10 October 1986. He talked about the unintended consequences of the Federal Government's economic policies having disastrous effects on housing. He stated: . . . the Federal Government must urgently review its policies on interest rates and taxation that affected housing. I am sure the Federal Government did not intend to exacerbate the housing crisis but that is what has happened. He went on to talk about the ban on negative gearing being one of those consequences. The Housing Industry Association of Australia has said exactly the same thing. Where does this leave Australian families? Where does it leave the dream of home ownership? Where does it leave the dreams of families wanting to live in their own homes, in their own dwellings? It is not a problem for a Minister in this Government on an income of about $100,000 a year; it is not a problem for a Labor senator who may be on a salary which is quite adequate and who has a home, anyhow; it is a problem for young Australians, unmarried people, migrants and for those who have been relocated between States; it is a problem for the poor, for Australian families and for thousands of people who cannot build, who cannot buy, who cannot rent, and who have been forgotten by the Labor Government, which has abandoned any pretence that it represents a traditional Labor constituency or traditional Labor voters. It does not represent them; it has forgotten them. This Government, by its actions-high tax, delayed benefits, broken promises, extra costs, high interests rates and national insolvency-continues to put the interests of those people at risk. If we cannot own houses and if we cannot rent them, can we turn to public housing for relief and for decent housing? Apparently, we cannot do so with any great hope or any great effect, because another feature of Australian life during the 3 1/2 years of the Hawke Labor Government-and scarcely an achievement, might I say-is that today we have even longer and lengthening lists for public housing in Australia. Outstanding applications for public housing have increased by 50 per cent in the 3 1/2 years since Bob Hawke was elected Prime Minister. In January this year Victoria had over 33,000 outstanding applications for public housing relating to about 100,000 people. Australia traditionally enjoyed, under Liberal and National Party governments, the world's highest rate of home ownership. We talked about little capitalists-Australia was made up of people who owned their own home-and there were about 70 per cent of them. We on this side of the House at least were proud of this fact. It is part of the Australian ethos, the aspirations of all Australians and the dreams of young Australians and their families that we own our own home, if not immediately, then some time down the track. Clearly, the achievement of this dream has been made more difficult since the advent of a Labor government in Canberra. The facts speak for themselves and I have set out some of them today. The facts represent a tragedy for individuals, families, parents and the entire Australian community and it is a tragedy compounded by the lack of rental or public accommodation on which they can fall back. Action is needed now to do something about that crisis, even from this disgraced and moribund Government, on the way out though it may be. Action is needed now to allow a start to rebuilding to make home ownership or rental possible. This urgency motion proposes a course of action to help achieve that improvement. That action is to recognise that the Government has gone down a wrong track and to turn back from some of the taxation policies which have been so centrally responsible for the housing crisis which I have described and whose features I have set out in the last 20 minutes. Those policies have turned off access to home ownership and home rental. This should not be an issue of ideology. It is a matter of equity for Australians wanting a better life; it is a matter of a fair go for Australians wanting a house of their own, a house to rent or an apartment which they cannot get now. The way to help Australians own and occupy their homes is to restore conditions in which they will prefer to direct resources to real estate for themselves or for others rather than to place them on the money market for a quick return. We want to make it better for people to invest in the future of Australia and Australian families than for them to invest in quick cash returns. The Government must recognise the crisis and respond to it. The motion I have moved seeks the support of the Senate for action which recognises the problem and which tells us how to respond. I commend the motion to the Senate. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(4.23) —I find it amusing to say the least or ironical that the acolytes who would make the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, Prime Minister profess concern about the level of residential building activity because when John Howard was Treasurer he presided over the lowest level of residential building activity there had been since 1961. Since 1961 John Howard has held the record. The general prescription of the Opposition for overcoming Australia's economic problems, the most serious of which is our current account deficit, has three legs to it. The first is to bring back the free boozy lunch, the second is to pay pensions to millionaires and the third is to make Mercedes and even Rolls Royce cars tax deductible. In a nutshell that is the Opposition's trilogy for restoring the country to health. Precisely what linkages exist between that trilogy of policies and the current account deficit or investment in self-sustaining growth is, of course, impossible to identify. One thing is very clear: The Opposition in public is against the Government's tax reform package. The Opposition has decided to opt for the strategy which Senator Messner counselled it against in September last year. Senator Messner, in a minute that was promptly leaked that night, displaying the customary teamwork, cohesion, mutual loyalty and respect which exist within the Liberal Party front bench, said that the Opposition cannot be seen to be taking all the goodies, that is, the tax cuts, and simultaneously opposing the nasties, that is, the cleaning up of the taxation base. Senator Messner said at the time that if the Opposition does that it will have resorted to opportunism, humbug and hypocrisy. That is exactly what it has done and we have heard a lot more of that humbug and hypocrisy today. The plain fact is that the delivery of the tax cuts requires that the whole of the tax reform package be adhered to. The fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the ending of the boozy, free lunch and all of the other things have been legislated for and one cannot separate the massive cleanup of the income tax base from the tax cuts which will be delivered on 1 December this year and 1 July next year. If a government were to do what the Opposition claims should be done, that is, have no fringe benefits tax and no capital gains tax, what we would have is a massive erosion of the income tax base. In regard to the former-the fringe benefits tax-I think I can do no better than to quote John Howard in the days when he was somewhat more honest than he is now. On 11 July 1980 he said: 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 . . . I do not think it can be put any better. He put it lucidly and in a moral sense. He has now completely abandoned any morality in his taxation policies. In regard to capital gains taxes and intended and unintended effects-these are phrases which seem to fascinate the Opposition-as a demonstration of one reason why it is essential to have a capital gains tax, I refer to an article written by Terry McCrann in the Melbourne Age published on 15 April this year. By no stretch of the imagination could he be regarded as an apologist for this Government. Terry McCrann set out step by step the details of a company takeover, specifically Elder Smith's takeover of Henry Jones, an arrangement or a deal over which the present Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr John Elliott, presided. I quote directly from McCrann, who stated: Nevertheless, the fact that Elder Smith took over Henry Jones, rather than the reverse, did have some beneficial spin-offs for Mr Elliott and a number of other colleagues. Shortly before Elder Smith unveiled its bid for Henry Jones, the leading executives in Henry Jones outlaid $19,000 in taking up 1c paid shares under an executive incentive scheme. The Elder Smith offer delivered a clear-tax-free-profit of $4.16 million to those executives. Mr Elliott himself cleared $657,000 on a $3000 outlay. Some people might ask some questions about company law which allows that sort of activity to take place but I do not intend to deal with that matter or pass any opinions on it. One thing of which we can be certain in the future is that if executives manage to arrange that sort of deal, which so massively advantages themselves, they will at least pay capital gains tax on it. If the Opposition had its way they would not. The Opposition wants to return to the roaring days, or the golden age, of tax evasion which John Howard presided over between 1977 and 1983. That is what the Opposition wants and that is the real reason why it does not want any fringe benefits tax or any capital gains tax. It wants to return to the roaring days, the golden age, of tax evasion over which John Howard presided between 1977 and 1983. What the country needs-even some members of the Opposition can see this-is productive business investment, that is, investment in self-sustaining economic growth. They have the right idea, but when one looks at the specifics of what they propose, instead of productive business investment which leads to self-sustaining economic growth, we have from the Opposition recommendations for the free boozy lunch being brought back, to pay pensions to millionaires and to make Mercedes and Rolls Royce cars tax deductible. This is a tax policy bereft of a capital gains tax which would encourage speculation rather than investment in self-sustaining economic growth, speculation which will bid up the price of existing assets but do little to promote investment in the economic sense. Once we have that tax policy, of course, to cap it off the Opposition would police the system in a very slack way-that is, police the tax system in a way that allows the development of Slutzkin schemes, cherry picker schemes, art donation schemes, macadamia nut schemes and finally of course, John Howard's crowning glory, the bottom of the harbour schemes. That is the sort of tax system we had when John Howard was Treasurer and that is the sort of tax system we would have again if John Howard ever becomes Prime Minister. For at least two reasons I do not believe that John Howard ever will become Prime Minister. The first is that the Liberal Party will probably roll him from the leadership before the end of this year. The second, of course, is that the Liberal Party has a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election as long as John Howard is its leader. So I do not expect John Howard to be Prime Minister. But if by some mischance or misfortune he should be, that is the sort of tax system that we would have again-the sort of tax system over which he as Treasurer presided between 1977 and 1983. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) pointed out yesterday, throughout most of the period to which I referred-that is 1977 to 1983-the Commissioner of Taxation sent a sequence of 28 increasingly frantic letters to the then Treasurer begging him to legislate before the income tax base was eroded away. A frantic letter was followed by an even more frantic letter. What did the then Treasurer do? He did nothing; he sat on his hands and did nothing. Ultimately, after about three years, he had introduced into the House what is now Part IVa of the Income Tax Assessment Act which, incidentally, is not foolproof. It has been got around in at least one instance already, but I will not go into that at this stage; it will be explained in debate on some subsequent legislation. Not until the scandals were exposed in the McCabe-Lafranchi and Costigan reports did the then Treasurer take any action against the most blatant of the tax evaders who flourished in that period of the late 1970s and the early 1980s during which he was Treasurer and responsible for taxation policy and the administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act. That was the former Treasurer's dealings with the last Commissioner of Taxation. Mr Howard does not seem to have had any more luck with the present Commissioner of Taxation because, although the former Treasurer refuses to say so explicitly, the only way in which an Opposition tax policy regarding fringe benefits could have any superficial credibility would be if the Opposition were committed to the effective enforcement of section 26(e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Mr Howard will not say that; of course, he will not say that for very good reasons. If he were to admit that that is what he thinks should be done, it raises the question of for how far back would Mr Howard enforce the existing Act. Mr Howard, having implicitly declared that section 26(e) is enforceable, would be obliged morally and legally to enforce it for at least some years into the past-I would suggest some five to seven years. That is the secret agenda of the Liberal Party. That is its secret tax policy which it is not going to unveil because it would frighten too many people who would not know for how many years they would receive backdated assessments for income evaded under section 26(e) of the existing Income Tax Assessment Act. The Government does not believe that section 26(e) can be enforced and that is why it decided to introduce new legislation for the taxing of fringe benefits. That Government's view is the view of many members of the Opposition. Mr Sinclair, Mr Hunt, Sir William Knox and even Senator Bjelke-Petersen have all expressed the view that section 26(e) should be enforced. Mr Howard has not publicly endorsed that view but they have said publicly that the enforcement of section 26(e) would take care of abuses of fringe benefits. Today's Australian Financial Review contains an article which states: . . . during a speech in Sydney yesterday, the present Tax Commissioner, Mr Trevor Boucher embarrassed the Opposition further with an attack on the methods the Coalition is promoting as an alternative to the Government's fringe benefits tax. Mr Boucher said, of section 26(e) of the Tax Act which the Opposition believes it could rely on- this is a quotation from Mr Boucher- `. . . Anyone who would say that all that is needed is a return to application of the old law is either ignoring history or has a poor memory, not to speak of a lack of appreciation of the technical inadequacies in that law.' So poor Mr Howard has not had much luck with Tax Commissioners, past or present. The last Tax Commissioner-fortunately for the Tax Commissioner and unfortunately for Mr Howard-left on the record the 28 increasingly desperate letters which he wrote to Mr Howard as Treasurer, increasingly frantic letters saying: `Legislate-you must legislate in order to stop the further erosion of the income tax base. Legislate against the sorts of schemes that were being organised by people like Brian Maher, who is now in the slammer, and a few other people who ought to be and, of course, exploited up to the hilt by a number of prominent Liberals, particularly in Western Australia.' It is highly significant that of the 15 members of the Liberal Party finance committee in Western Australia, no fewer than five of them flogged off companies to Brian Maher's agents under what were clearly dodgy circumstances. In other words, they flogged off companies which owned nothing but money, that had no assets but money and contingent tax liabilities in the case of Tremog Ltd of $1.7m. They flogged them off for much more than they were worth once the tax liability had been taken into account, not as going businesses but as shell companies which owned nothing but money. Blind Freddy-even an accountant like Senator Watson-could have told us that those deals were shonky. Tremog was controlled by the chairman of the Liberal Party's finance committee in Western Australia at the time. He personally gained from that deal alone around $600,000 which was effectively stolen from the taxpayers of Australia. That is the sort of thing that Mr Howard presided over. We can catch people and ensure that it does not happen again in one of two ways. The first way, of course, is the credible threat of retrospective legislation. While that unholy alliance of about half the Australian Democrats and the tax evader supporters in the Liberal and Country parties has half the numbers in the Senate-I forgot to add Senator Harradine in that unholy coalition-that route is not viable. The other route is to have a proper capital gains tax which will ensure that if people do not pay tax on that sort of income derived from fraudulent activity under the income tax Act or under tax applied on what is normally in law regarded as income, they will pay it on capital gains. That is why this legislation is essential. It is also essential, of course, for a number of other reasons that I mentioned earlier. The absence of a capital gains tax in Australia has been a major cause not only of the present plight of the agricultural sector-a matter on which I have spoken a number of times-but also of the long term malaise of the Australian economy. The tax system has been designed in such a way that what was encouraged was not investment in an economic sense-that is, investment of the type which will generate employment and self-sustaining and expanding economic growth-but speculation. What was encouraged was not economic investment but speculation, directing money, because of the tax system, towards bidding up the price of existing assets instead of it being invested in self-sustaining economic growth. If the tax system, bereft of a capital gains tax, which Australia has not had until now, was so successful at promoting investment, the question must be asked: Why, then, on an almost continuous basis since the end of World War II, has the Australian economy performed worse than the economies of most comparable countries? Why has productivity growth in Australia over the last 10 years been particularly low? Why has investment in Australia over the last 10 years or longer been particularly low? All of that happened under the tax systems which the Opposition would have us resurrect. It failed then and it will fail again. The sort of tax system the Opposition wants, as I said before, is the sort of tax system which produced Slutzkin schemes, cherry picker schemes, art donation schemes, macadamia nut schemes and, finally, bottom of the harbour schemes. They are the results of John Howard's taxation policy, the sorts of policies which the Opposition wants to bring back. If people cannot see what is intrinsically or logically wrong with that sort of taxation system, I ask them to look at the results. What did John Howard's taxation system finally produce? It produced the biggest economic crash that Australia has seen since 1930. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.41) —We are debating today an urgency motion which I must say I find rather extraordinarily worded, which says: The need for the Government to abandon its anti-investment taxation measures, particularly the capital gains tax, which have created the housing crisis presently facing Australian families. It seems to me as though a Liberal Party committee got together, could not decide whether we ought to be debating the taxation measures introduced by this Government or the housing crisis, decided to put them together and then, rather extraordinarily, emphasised the impact or alleged impact of the capital gains tax on the housing crisis. I could have understood it if it had chosen to have a hack at the consequences or alleged consequences of negative gearing on the problems facing Australian families in acquiring housing, but to lay the emphasis on the mild form of capital gains tax that we currently have in this country is rather extraordinary. But then, the motion comes from a party which does not have a tax policy anyway, so perhaps it is not surprising. Certainly there is a housing crisis. Senator Peter Baume is perfectly correct in his assertion that there is a very real problem facing Australian families as far as access to housing is concerned, whether that is housing ownership or access to rental, whether it is private or public housing that we are looking at. But the crisis is a continuing one; it is not one which has suddenly sprung up overnight or even in the last year to two. Repossessions, which Senator Baume mentioned, are not something new in 1986. They have been a continuing problem and one which I, and indeed many young couples, remember well from the last years of the Fraser Government in the early 1980s, when escalating interest rates then were the cause of a lot of people having to sell their homes because they simply could not afford the increase in mortgage repayments. That was occurring in days when there was no capital gains tax and when negative gearing was rife. So the logic of arguing that there is somehow a connection between the introduction of the particularly mild form of capital gains tax that we have and an end to tax rorts and the housing crisis, is a rather peculiar one even for this Opposition. Certainly the argument that the capital gains tax has caused the housing crisis is rather novel. As I said a moment ago, I could have understood it if the question of negative gearing had been raised, because there was an argument put last year, in a number of submissions to us and in a number of letters to editors and so on, that the removal of negative gearing was going to have a dramatic impact on the availability of residential housing. We were not particularly persuaded by the arguments, for a number of reasons. First of all, while there was a claim that negative gearing was going to bring on an immediate and permanent crisis in rental accommodation, the industries involved, that is, the investment and real estate industries, did not come up with particularly persuasive figures. In fact, it is difficult to determine whether negative gearing was keeping rentals low by subsidising landlords and encouraging construction of rental accommodation, or whether the reverse was the fact, that indeed negative gearing, by increasing the attractiveness of investment in rental accommodation had so increased the competitiveness for limited rental housing stock that purchase prices and rents were as a consequence increasing. However, even if the first argument is the correct one-that is, that negative gearing did increase the amount of rental accommodation available and did result in decreased rents-the question has to be asked whether that is an appropriate way of making sure that appropriate, adequate and affordable housing is available to those who want it. Certainly we, and a number of other organisations, including a number of welfare groups, did not believe that that was so. Negative gearing, of course, amounts to a subsidy paid by the ordinary pay as you earn taxpayer to an investor who has purchased negatively geared property. The investor may pass on some of that subsidy by way of lower rental, but all too frequently the lion's share of that taxpayer's subsidised assistance is retained by the investor in the form of tax exempt income. It is as simple as that. It seems to me that a far more efficient means of providing rental accommodation in particular to those who are least able to compete on the open market would be to increase the amount of funding available for public rental accommodation; that is, we believe the assistance should go to the needy directly rather than via government subsidies to the people who own the properties-subsidise the user rather than the provider. The other alternative, of course, is to increase government expenditure on the provision of public housing or public rental accommodation. Furthermore, as has already been recognised in other countries, there is far more equity in the argument that tax deductions should be allowable for the owners of homes so that they can reduce the cost of their high interest mortgage repayments than in the argument for giving a tax deduction to absentee landlords through negative gearing. As far as the capital gains tax is concerned, an argument can, I suppose, be made that capital gains taxes marginally decrease the attractiveness of investment in housing other than the family home. The effect of that particular tax on investment in housing has, however, we submit, been significantly overstated, for the obvious reason that it is not levied on that portion of the profits attributable to inflation, unlike, I might add, the American tax system which the Opposition appears to think so highly of and which, indeed, in this case makes no allowance for inflation and taxes nominal profit in a way in which the Australian capital gains tax does not. It is a much harsher tax applying in the United States than now applies in Australia, as Ross Gittins pointed out in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald a little less than a month ago. He pointed out that in the United States the tax on capital gains will be much tougher. He said: At present, you only pay tax on 40 per cent of your capital gain, at a maximum rate of 20 per cent. Under the scheme that was being discussed in the United States at the time Ross Gittins wrote this article, a person would pay tax on 100 per cent of the gain at a maximum rate of 33 per cent, or 34 per cent for companies. He said: Our new capital gains tax will be levied at a maximum rate of 49 per cent, but we only pay tax on the real gain. The new US system makes no allowance for inflation, so it is much tougher than ours. Certainly, there has been an unnecessary amount of outrage over the capital gains tax that the Australian Government is now applying. I for one cannot see that it will have a dramatic impact on the availability of housing in this country. We argued throughout the tax debate that a capital gains tax was both necessary and equitable, there being no argument in equity, for example, for someone being able to earn income by means of a capital gains having put no effort of his own into it while people who receive their income through salaries or wages have to pay tax at a variety of marginal rates. Those who are suffering due to the housing crisis over which the Opposition is weeping today fall into the category of people who do, in fact, pay the full tax on salaries and wages, that is, ordinary taxpayers on low or very moderate incomes. They are not into the business of negatively gearing and they are certainly not much into capital gains tax exempt situations. As far as economic efficiency is concerned, the absence of a capital gains tax distorts economic activity by encouraging investment in property rather than in income producing activities necessary to generate new industries and hence to increase employment. So there is, if you like, a double whammy by allowing that sort of tax exemption to exist. As I said a moment ago, we certainly agree with Senator Peter Baume and with that part of the Opposition's motion which states that there is a housing crisis presently facing Australian families. But it is not a crisis which is totally attributable to this Government's tax policies because it did not commence with the Hawke Government taking office. In fact, it has existed for decades. If one looks at figures for 1981-82, the last full year during which the Opposition was in government, we find that a very similar housing crisis existed. Outstanding State housing authority applications for rental accommodation stood, for example, at nearly 110,000. The amount of money provided to the States for the provision of public housing in that same year was only $255m-$150m less than four years previously and $240m less than the amount provided by the Hawke Government last year. If one looks at Commonwealth funding for public housing over the full period of the Fraser Government the funding fell from $800m to $300m in constant 1984-85 prices. There was no expression of concern by the Liberal Party then as far as housing or a housing crisis was concerned. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that it is not really interested in public housing or in providing housing accommodation for those people who are on low incomes. What it is really interested in is returning a number of tax rorts to those people who are better off than most in the community. The picture as far as private housing is concerned is not much different from that relating to public housing. As the available statistics indicate, during the last two years of the Fraser Government dwelling approvals were in the vicinity of 139,000 and 116,000 respectively, whereas in 1985-86 they were in excess of 140,000-not much of an increase, but something of an increase. If one looks at lending for housing, the amounts for 1981-82 and 1982-83 were $6.5 billion and $7.1 billion respectively, while the figure for 1985-86 was $11.5 billion, which represents, I suggest, a significant increase even after allowance is made for inflation. However, there is no solace in the fact that the housing crisis is not the product of this Government's policies or actions. It is there and something needs to be done about it, but giving tax incentives via negative gearing or tax free capital gains is not the answer. Instead, there needs to be a massive injection of capital into housing, both public and private, and a reduction in housing loan interest rates. It was ludicrous that with the support of this Opposition the Government was earlier in the year able to buy off the banking sector to the tune of several hundred million dollars at a time when the banks were making record profits in order to stop them from increasing existing housing interest rates from 13.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent which they were going to apply to new loans. Those sorts of interest rates are almost impossible for the average Australian family to contend with comfortably and still live reasonably well on the money they have left over from their salaries or wages. We acknowledge that there is a housing crisis. We dispute that it has been caused by any of this Government's tax reform measures, in particular a capital gains tax. We argue that it is, in fact, the legacy of previous governments assisting speculators rather than users, and we say that it will not be eliminated until the Government ensures that sufficient public housing is available to those whose income is too low to make purchase feasible and that interest rates are affordable for those who want to fulfil the dream, which Senator Peter Baume mentioned several times during his speech, of home ownership in its own right. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(4.57) —In debating this issue, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, despite his usual vitriol, deliberately avoided dealing with the question of housing and in effect pleaded no contest. One can understand why he left the chamber shortly thereafter. I address what is one of the most enduring economic and social tragedies currently besetting thousands of Australians, that is, the acute shortage of housing and accommodation stock. I think we are all aware of the plight of the homeless in Australia. Not to have a roof over one's head must be the height of social dislocation and the product of a great deal of alienation, and no doubt leads to very many of the problems that confront young people and others, especially first home buyers. In many ways a home of one's own is the ultimate security blanket but it is not to be disparaged; it has always been regarded as the great Australian dream. Unfortunately, it is now rapidly fading into a mirage. If we seek to analyse why this is, unfortunately it seems to be for all the right reasons. I refer to what Mr Frank Walker, the New South Wales Socialist Left Housing Minister, had to say. He said: The `unintended consequences' of the Federal Government's economic policies are having disastrous effects on housing in NSW. He was speaking only a matter of days ago. He said: I am sure the Federal Government did not intend to exacerbate the housing crisis, but that is what has happened . . . the Federal Government's decision six months ago to deregulate interest rates on new lending for housing had done little to ease the housing shortage. He might be interested to know that the Brotherhood of St Laurence disagrees with him. It says that that has been one of the few benefits that have flowed from that decision. Mr Walker went on: The abolition of negative gearing and introduction of a 4 per cent depreciation allowance on new private rental accommodation had failed to generate significant new development. He wants an increase from 4 per cent to 8 per cent in the depreciation allowance, which is an initiative supported by the Housing Industry Association of Australia but is one which seems not to have found any favour with the Federal Government. He further called for an urgent review of the first home owners scheme. Finally, he said that building society lending had dropped by 35 per cent and that the waiting list for public housing in New South Wales stood at more than 57,000. So it it pretty clear even from the words of one of the Federal Government's ideological compatriots that housing is in a disastrous state. It is a classic case of unintended consequences and a case study in the perils of ideological politics. Setting out to change the social landscape without regard to the economic implications can lead to very many blind alleys. In this instance, the problem seems to have flowed from a determination not to see the big picture, just the little issues-rich landlords, greedy investors, filthy profit-makers, `renteers' and avaricious banks. These are all part of the demonology, but they are not the real problem. The real problem is that the Government did not get its Budget strategy right. Housing is not a problem if one has a $17,000 travel allowance which will enable rent on one's property in Canberra to be paid whilst one's three-storey terrace in Elizabeth Bay is being renovated, but it certainly is a problem for many thousands of ordinary Australians. The Government by its actions clearly no longer has a commitment, if it ever did, to meeting the very real emotional and social needs of so many Australians who have a belief in this country's future and want to own their own homes. Senator Walsh talked as though he sometimes reads Terry McCrann. Perhaps he does so for the wrong reasons, because he seems to delight in reading about dry and wet Slutzkin schemes and so on. But he really has not read much of what McCrann says about the social implications of some of the Budget decisions. For instance, it is quite clear that if the Government had paid attention to the real underlying financial difficulties it would have introduced a Budget which made some economic sense and did not simply have the grossly unintended consequences that we are now facing in the housing area. We have seen the concentration on the accord, the determination to pass on wage increases irrespective of capacity to pay and the determination to achieve a beads and mirrors Budget deficit of $3.5 billion. That figure was achieved at a very great cost. It was achieved by gathering in the order of $1.4 billion in additional revenue, by currency speculation windfalls of about $600m, by deferring pension increases and by deferring the elimination of poverty traps. These are all measures which are the last things required at present. It does not need to be said that if the Government had had the courage and gumption to do what both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) now wistfully wish they had done-to have adopted option C-they would not be confronted with all these desperate measures which are clearly designed to increase revenue rather than cut expenditure. Senator Cook —That shows ignorance. You don't know what is in option C. Senator ALSTON —The aspect of option C relating to an increase in the indirect tax base could easily have been dealt with in isolation from all those other items that the Government finds it necessary to maintain because it insists on spending well beyond its means. Again, that choice seems to have been put in the too-hard basket. Let me deal with some aspects of poverty which really are critical at present. If one applies the Henderson poverty line test which was enunciated more than a decade ago, one finds that it is necessary to have an income after tax of $246.60 for the average house with husband, wife and two children. That assumes accommodation expenses of about $55 a week. The reality, as we know, is nothing like that. It is almost impossible to find rental accommodation anywhere at that price. People who own their own homes are less likely to live in poverty than are rent-paying tenants on the same income. For the majority of Australian families, housing is the most important asset and the biggest single investment decision. In the Government's commissioned study by the Department of Housing and Construction into homelessness and inadequate housing we find that in Australia there are as many as 100,000 people without secure housing-that is, homeless-and 700,000 families who have incomes below the poverty line after they have paid for their housing. I can do no better than quote the shadow Treasurer, Jim Carlton, who says: The report highlights the contradiction inherent in the Government's objectives of providing income relief and rental assistance to low income earners while at the same time pursuing taxation measures and high interest rate policies which will force rents up and mortgage repayments up. There is the crux of the problem. If there is to be any hope of people being able to buy their own homes, the level of interest rates obviously is critical. I applaud the Government's partial decision to free up home interest rates. Those seeking first mortgages are paying interest rates in the order of 15.5 per cent. One would have thought that that was a little beyond the reach of very many of those people who could be described as being in the lower income brackets. The problem of poverty is acute. It is compounded by the difficulties of owning one's own home. Perhaps that will not be achieved by most of those people in their lifetimes. In Australian Society of February 1986 a report of the Social Welfare Research Centre said: The problem of poverty after housing cost cannot be reduced to a simple choice between raising rental assistance to recipients of social security payments and building more dwellings for rent by local authorities . . . This ignores the fact that more than a quarter of the families involved are purchasing their own dwellings. Again, simply to penalise those who are in the process of buying their own homes, on the basis that they can well afford to maintain increased mortgage payments, ignores the reality of the difficulties they face. I now turn to what, in effect, are the six major reasons why one can say that the effect of the Government's taxation and financial policies has been a critical housing shortage in this country. Despite the studied ignorance of the Australian Democrats, the capital gains tax is a very real problem. The fact is that prior to its introduction any person who bought an investment property for the purpose of gaining assess- able income-by that I mean making it available to tenants, receiving rent, declaring that as income and paying tax on it-did not then pay any tax on the profit that was derived from the sale of that property. That is no longer the case. We are now looking at paying 49c in the dollar on the real increase in profit. It is fatuous to compare that with the United States system. We are comparing that with the previous situation in Australia when investors had an incentive to purchase, were prepared to do so and were not frightened off. Now it simply is not worth their while. Apart from the capital gains tax, which my colleague Senator Peter Baume rightly pointed out has led to people simply preferring to put their money into the matrimonial home as the last great tax haven, high interest rates are a crippling disincentive. The abolition of negative gearing and the ineffective 4 per cent depreciation allowance have resulted in the Master Builders Association survey showing that there has been a surge in housing rents since the tax reforms have been introduced. It is quite clear that investors have found it necessary to raise rents to maintain investment yield. If they do not do that, they sell out altogether. Landlords simply are not interested in being hemmed in by all sorts of government restrictions and regulations on their investments. If they sell to those who want to own their own homes, that leads to an even more acute shortage of rental stock. The problems are compounded by State regulations. The New South Wales Government is hell-bent on introducing a whole range of rental controls which will make life intolerable. The Residential Tenancies Act in Victoria will have the same effect. These matters cannot be ignored and treated as State issues because they are impacted upon by Federal initiatives. A high rate of return is available to investors elsewhere in so many fascinating financial instruments. There is a veritable smorgasbord of financial trusts and alternative investments. Why should anyone get into housing stock as an investment? In light of the present uncertain economic outlook, it is quite clear why people are shying away from investing in housing. The three growth areas to which one can point-it is really not a matter of great pride-include, firstly, the luxury market. In New South Wales, for instance, it is quite possible to rent a penthouse at Circular Quay for $2,500 a week. Large corporations are falling over themselves to pay up to $4,000 a week for city apartments. The top of the range properties in Sydney's eastern suburbs are commanding rentals of $3,000 to $3,500 a week. The Federal Opposition Shadow Minister has drawn attention to another growth area-caravans and mobile homes. It is clear from the investigations that have been carried out into that phenomenon that there has been a dramatic increase of something like 100,000 in the last 12 months to the current figure of 400,000. As a result of the relaxation of Foreign Investment Review Board controls on real estate, there has been an explosion in the commercial investment area. None of this has anything to do with the provision of housing for those who really need it. None of it has anything to do with coping with the fundamental problem, that is, restructuring the Budget and bringing back the incentive for people to purchase housing. None of it tackles the Budget questions this Government has studiously ignored. The tunnel vision approach the Government now adopts shows that it is all too hard and too late. The Government simply is not prepared to move away from a system that requires it to maintain a whole range of taxes which have not served Australia well, which have punished unmercifully those who would like to have housing of their own and which will do nothing in the longer term to restore the balance which is so desperately needed. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(5.12) —Senator Peter Baume's motion typifies basic Liberal philosophy. It points to the difference between the two parties. Senator Baume's suggestion to abandon the capital gains tax is an affirmation of his belief in the trickle-down theory that is so common to pretty well all members of the Liberal Party. That theory is that if the wealthy get a tax break or an advantage not available to the great majority, all we have to do is hope, pray and have faith that they might just let a little of that advantage trickle down to the poor, to those at the bottom end. The theory ignores the logic that for that to happen, the poor, the ordinary Australians, have to pay a higher tax burden just to give a tax break in the first place to the wealthy few. That is the system the Liberal Party encouraged when in government and which it now says it wants to go back to. The Australian Labor Party, since its election to government, has made one of its first priorities a campaign to introduce fairness and equity to the tax system. Fairness and equity are foreign words on the other side of the House. They are not just words but principles to which those on this side of the House are committed. We do not have the interests of just a few at heart; we want to try to look after the vast majority of ordinary Australians. The reality is that those in our community who have a vested interest in getting rid of the capital gains tax try to do so by masquerading and camouflaging their real beliefs behind a veneer of social concern. That veneer is so shallow and thin that it takes in no one. Let us consider the tax reform measures we introduced during the last years that can impact upon the housing sector. We abolished the quarantining of negative gearing-not, I hasten to add, any retrospective abolition. We introduced a four per cent depreciation allowance on new rental accommodation and the capital gains tax. The Government's capital gains tax and negative gearing decisions undoubtedly will introduce some of the fairness, equity and efficiency into the tax system I mentioned earlier. They will ensure a more equitable treatment of taxpayers, regardless of the form in which they obtain their income, and they will ensure that investment will take place in the areas of the highest social return, rather than just the most lucrative tax concession areas, as has been the case for years. The reduction of the tax advantages associated with negative gearing, therefore, have to make the tax system fairer. The number of high income taxpayers who exploited this feature of the tax system over the years was growing. To minimise their tax liability negative gearing became the order of the day. The Government, in wanting to introduce fairness and equity, did not abolish those privileges. It set a date in 1985 and said that everything before that day would remain as it was because it did not seek to affect people who had planned their lives and incomes around the existing situation. The Government did not make the law retrospective. However, we said that from that day forward we would stop negative gearing. In the end, one has to remember two things about the rental market: First, a great part of it is not negatively geared and, therefore, this decision has no effect on it. Secondly, and more importantly, because the part of it that is negatively geared was overwhelming negatively geared prior to July of last year, it makes no difference anyway. So those decisions did not affect it. The capital gains tax is hardly a new radical tax introduced by an ultra-socialist government in Australia. Most countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and most of the top nations in the world, even the top 20, have a capital gains tax. It is common everywhere else. It was held back in Australia because for years we had governments, run by the Liberal and National parties, who wanted to protect the wealthy. Even countries such as the United States, which I will get to later, the bastion of free enterprise and capitalism, have capital gains taxes. The capital gains tax was and is secretly supported by so many people on the other side. It is just that for political considerations they do not want to admit it at the moment. I will take them through some of their previous statements a little later if they are patient enough to wait. As well as granting a complete exemption for the taxpayer's principal residence, the capital gains tax was also made fully prospective. It was never made retrospective, so it cannot therefore have an effect on places bought and sold prior to the specified date. Most importantly, the tax is only on the real gain, not on the nominal gain as it is in so many countries. It does not affect the family home, which is the major factor in the housing industry. It is the area where housing industry activity is best and most often judged. It affects properties acquired only after 19 September 1985. The four per cent depreciation allowance will encourage funds into the construction of new private rental housing. It will also fund capital improvement to existing rental properties. So it should provide over time a boon to the industry, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) outlined when he made the announcement in the first place. More importantly, the impact on rents and the supply of rental housing will be gradual. It will take place over time. It will not happen straight away. Let us consider other factors that affect rent increases. One does not have to look to Labor Party sources. The Master Builders Association, hardly a Labor Party front, says that prospective changes in tenancy laws in Sydney and Melbourne are important factors in rent increases. They are State matters. They are not matters over which this Parliament has any power. Anti-landlord legislation, as it is termed by the Master Builders Association, is causing landlords the most concern. I can understand that. I have tried for years to agree with something that Senator Baume said. I have to confess that I have found something today. There is no doubt, and we certainly do not pretend, that interest rates do not impact upon the housing industry. Obviously, there have been increases in interest rates in recent times. Fortunately, the signs in recent weeks have been that the increases are starting to drop-off. The Executive Director of the Real Estate Institute, Mr Phil Roberts, has said that pressures compounded by interest rates being too high are forcing buyers to remain in the rental market, rather than back out. In terms of what the Government says about interest rates, the Liberal Party, the Real Estate Institute and the Master Builders Association can all rest easy tonight because we have put in place policies which will ensure a gradual fall in interest rates over time. The signs are there already. The pressure is off interest rates now. We are starting to see a gradual reduction. If we monitor that position over time, when we redebate the matter, perhaps in a year's time, we on this side of the House will be more than proud of our performance. In trying to ascertain the sort of response one should give to a resolution that calls for the abandonment of the capital gains tax, one has to look at the alternative-the Liberal Party's position. As always, on any tax matter, precious little information has been provided to us so that we can find that out. The Australian people have Buckley's chance of finding out. It is left to us to try to ferret out some information for the Australian people. We need do no more than look at the performance of John Howard, the current Leader. When he left office, taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product, was higher than when he came into government in 1975. All he did was to preside over seven Budgets and, at the end of that period, ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers were paying more. That is a matter of record and nobody can argue with that. But we have to go further and look at what John Howard says and thinks about this whole matter of tax. As I mentioned last week and as I have said many times in this respect, it was Commissioner Costigan who really said it all about the Liberal Party's record on tax, when he said that the only growth industry-I think he compared its growth to the heady days of the Victorian goldrush-that actually existed within the period of Liberal government was the tax avoidance industry because there was no inclination or determination on the part of the Liberal Party Government to do anything at all about tax avoidance. That is an assessment that I noted yesterday caused something of a furore in another place, but the facts are that the protection afforded to so many people involved in illegal tax activities over time meant that that industry grew and grew. It was left to Paul Keating and to Bob Hawke to do something about it, which they have. The capital gains tax is just another step along that road to eliminating all the loopholes and the rorts to make sure that everyone pays a fair share of taxation. It is interesting to note what John Howard has said about the capital gains tax because his position on that is a little bit cloudy. I would like to take honourable senators back to 29 September 1986 when he said that, as far as he was concerned: I'm very attracted to what Reagan has done. What Reagan is doing is being examined very closely as part of developing our own tax policy. It must be a close examination because it has taken so long. He wants to go along the road of President Reagan. He is looking at the model of the United States of America, so let us look at some features of the United States model that Mr Howard finds so attractive. The United States model, if we can call it that-I hesitate to use the words-includes a retrospective capital gains tax on the full nominal gain. We have to ask ourselves if that is what attracts John Howard, because when we look at some of his other statements it may well be that that is the attraction. That is what he said in September 1986. On 24 August 1984, when asked about the desirability of a capital gains tax-this is a classic answer-he said: I think I was asked at the last National Press Club luncheon the same question and I said then that there are arguments within a total restructuring of the system for what you have said. In short, in 1984 John Howard said that there were arguments to support a capital gains tax. When he became Leader of the Opposition he recanted and said: `No, we will not have a capital gains tax'. Fortunately, the Australian people will not be in the position of having him as Prime Minister to see what he would do then, but if ever that happened, God forbid, my rough guess is that straightaway he would change his mind again. The capital gains tax will stay for decades to come, no matter who governs this country. Why? Because it is fair and equitable, it is in place and it is one of those things about which John Valder said: `We hope that the Labor Party does all the difficult things so that if we ever get back, we will not have to'. John Howard's record on capital gains goes up and down, just like the polls. The Opposition does not know where it stands on tax policy. It does not know what it is saying. The capital gains tax exists in practically every other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country-the wealthy are called upon to pay a reasonable share of the burden. In the United States of America-the bastion of capitalism and free enterprise-there is a capital gains tax at a full rate on the nominal gain, and it is retrospective. In the Labor Party we do not intend to do anything like that. We do not need to. But as part of an overall review, in the coming years we will make sure that the system gets fairer and fairer, that everyone pays a burden and that no one is able to opt out by rorts or by paying batteries of smart accountants and smart lawyers to get them off their taxation obligations. Under this Government everyone will pay a fair share. By the end of the next four to five years of this Government, we will see a tax system that works better, is more efficient and, most importantly, is fair to all Australians and is equitable. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.26) —I am very pleased to be able to rise to support this motion. It is a matter of grave concern to the whole nation, but from listening to the representatives from the Government bench this evening, one would not think that there was a crisis in the housing industry at all. First of all, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) I think failed to mention the housing industry at all. Senator Peter Baume —Not once. Senator NEWMAN —Not once. Thank you, Senator Peter Baume. Now we have just had a flourish around the taxation system from Senator Richardson, who tried to convince us of the purity of his Government's heart. Unfortunately, as in most cases when it comes to this Government's tax package, it may have been well-intentioned, but the Government has made an awful muck-up of things. We are now dealing constantly with unintended consequences. On this side we certainly do have a fascination for that phrase because it is one that the Government seems to have to use every time something is brought to its attention. I cannot quite make up my mind whether it is a malevolent government or whether it just consists of bumbling idiots, but one way or another it certainly is having a major impact on the whole nation. One would not expect our side of politics to be continually quoting the Labor Minister for Housing in New South Wales, but once again I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that Mr Walker has condemned his Federal colleagues for exacerbating the housing crisis. He has said that `the Federal Government must urgently review its policies on interest rates and taxation that affect housing' and that `unless they change course, they will lose government'. I would be very glad to see Labor lose government but that will not help the people who are in the housing crisis in Australia today. This Australian Government is so obsessed with catching fat cats that there are unintended consequences in everything it does. It is placing an intolerable burden on people trying to set up a home for themselves and their families and it is putting people out of work in the domestic building industry. A submission was given to this Government in April this year by all the States and the Northern Territory called `Housing-the Other Australia'. That submission drew attention to the growing number of people facing a housing crisis. Those governments are aware of it, even if this Government is not. Those people are either homeless, inadequately housed, or paying a disproportionate amount of their income on high rents or mortgages. In this country, we have 40,000 people with no secure housing who sleep out of doors or in refuges. We have another 60,000 people on the verge of homelessness who are dependent on government resources. Over 700,000 households are below the poverty line after paying their rent or mortgage costs. The waiting list for public housing was 146,000 in June 1985 and the submission estimated that, unless the Federal Government gave $1000m in this Budget, waiting times on that public waiting list would grow. The Government did not give that money. It provided $693m, about $300m short of the required level to keep those people on the public waiting list from slipping back. Why is that so important to this debate? The reason is that increasing numbers of people who in the past would have wanted to rent privately are being forced on to public lists. So these tax measures are affecting the public housing lists as well. They are affecting them in another way: State governments are compelled to enter the commercial markets with high rates of interest to help to subsidise a growing percentage of their tenants who need rent rebates. So in a number of different ways this Government's handling of the economy is making not just those in the private rental market and the private housing industry suffer; it is making the public housing industry feel the pinch as well. That sets the scene. Australians wanting to own their own home in Australia today should beware that the capital gains tax does not give all the exemptions it sounds as if it might. Some one running a hairdressing business from home, selling goods from home or practising a trade or profession from home will not receive a capital gains tax exemption. The capital gains tax will apply to a new family home purchased by a young couple while they are still living with their parents, before marriage. It will also apply to a young couple who are renting and who purchase a block of land for their family home and then take some time to build their home. The exemption is available only if upon completion of the new home it is occupied for at least 12 months. We all know that this is a mobile society. If people are posted away they lose capital gains tax exemption for their new home. If people are building themselves, are not saving fast enough and the time lapse between the acquisition and the occupation of their new home exceeds four years, the tax will have to be paid on their home on a pro rata basis. If either of the parties has any interest in a matrimonial home that is the subject of a dispute in the Family Court of Australia, or if both of them have, further problems will arise in relation to the capital gains tax. Many families these days like to buy a few acres of land on the edge of town on which to put their home. If a family home is built on a block of more than two hectares it is subject to capital gains tax. Old people who take a unit or flat in a retirement village may not be exempt from paying capital gains tax either unless they have a title, a lease or shares in the owning company. Many retirement villages do not grant such rights to ownership. Terry McCrann is no friend of this Government but he recently spelled out what happens in the United States of America. A person on the average wage needs to earn something like an extra $4,500 each year to meet the annual interest payment on a $50,000 home loan. In Australia such a person would need to earn an extra $14,500 to meet the interest bill-on a modest home. I think that says a lot about where this country is going for young home owners. There are a couple of reasons for that. In the United States interest rates are around 9 per cent compared with 15.5 per cent for new home loans in Australia. But also, in the United States interest payments on homes are tax deductible. I turn now to people wanting to rent homes. The Government's new measures have meant increased rents as investors try to recoup the tax. My colleagues Senator Peter Baume and Senator Alston have already referred to this. This is terribly important in Australia because 80 per cent of people who rent housing do so from the private sector. These measures are having and will increasingly have major impact on many Australians. So when Government members talk about taxing the fat cats and cutting down the tall poppies they must remember whom they are cutting down at the same time-the people who want to rent private houses. What is available now is coming to be in short supply, and the lists of those waiting for housing are increasing. My colleagues have covered that fairly thoroughly this afternoon. Rents have increased already in the capital cities of Australia and they are predicted to rise yet again. Once again, this affects the people who are least able to afford the rises. We hear the Australian Labor Party continually saying that it is the friend of the disadvantaged. It has a very funny way of showing it. I fear that the Labor Party must be economically illiterate, as I said before. The Real Estate Institute of Australia, in its monthly survey of Australian residential property markets, reported that the vacancy rate was a very tight 0.7 per cent. The Institute's Executive Director, Mr Phil Roberts, said: This is the lowest figure recorded for Sydney since the surveys began some 10 years ago. He went on to say: But Sydney's figure shows a strong demand for rental accommodation, the potential for considerable hardship for some tenants and a crying need for urgent remedial action. He said that Sydney's tight rental market resulted from a number of factors, as Senator Richardson mentioned earlier, but that high amongst them was the buffeting property investors had taken over the past 18 months. That situation applies not just in Sydney, where there is a Labor government which is out to get the people who are prepared to invest their life savings in real estate for letting. In my home city of Launceston, which is not such a high market area for purchase and rental of property, the Launceston Women's Shelter, with which I am associated, used to be able to get people on to public accommodation lists which last year involved a wait of 15 months. The wait is now 18 to 24 months. On the private market, a family wanting to rent a three-bedroom cottage-not a grand one-six months ago was asked to pay $75 to $90 a week. Such people are now expecting to have to pay $100 to $130 a week. That is what has happened because of the reduction of investors thanks to this Government's taxation and high interest policies. The combination has been disastrous for the people dependent on the rental market. That is not all that has been affected by these measures. We must not forget the employment consequences. There are over 800,000 businesses in Australia. Ninety-eight per cent of them are small businesses and 64.6 per cent of employees in small businesses in Australia are employed in the construction industry. So when this Government takes action that it thinks is affecting the tall poppies let it remember the building workers at the end of the line. The measures that this Government has taken have led to a virtual closing down of construction for the private rental market. Mr Bill Kirkby-Jones, the Managing Director of the Housing Industry Association of Australia, has said that small investors have deserted the market in droves. The introduction of the 4 per cent depreciation allowance was thought by the Government to go some way towards helping to offset the negative gearing provisions introduced last year. It has been insignificant. It is quite clear that it was not enough to keep people in the market. The latest housing figures show that total dwelling approvals for August fell by over 11 per cent on the figures for July on a seasonally adjusted basis. It is now clear that the recent Indicative Planning Council forecast of 122,500 starts for 1986-87 is in serious jeopardy. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, promised 135,000 starts as recently as April this year. That is a good indication that this Government does not know the impact of its measures. Sadly, what money is going into housing very largely is being taken up by the middle classes to extend existing homes. Because of the exemption from capital gains tax of family homes, this is where the available money is going; not into the area which has caused great concern. Back in May the Institute of Chartered Accountants criticised the proposed capital gains tax and warned that it would seriously hamper development and limit growth. The Government would not listen. We told it then; the Institute of Chartered Accountants told it. Lots of people told it. But it knew best. Sadly, the expectations of the Institute are being met in full. Once again the Government is striking at families-families which are trying to set up homes for themselves. It is striking also at the small business contractors. It is striking at the poor, who are being forced out of the private rental market and who are being asked to wait longer and longer for public housing. I, like the New South Wales Housing Minister, am concerned about the battlers who are struggling to find a home. I agree with him that these policies are hurting a large section of the community. Honourable senators opposite do not address these problems. But as a nation we cannot afford the unintended consequences of this Government. For the sake of our fellow Australians, I urge the Government to reconsider its taxation measures. They are hurting Australian families. Give them a go. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.41) —This is an attempt by the Liberal Party Opposition to bore the Senate and those hardy souls who listen to parliamentary broadcasts by trying to form a marriage of extraordinary inconvenience between an anti-capital gains tax push and an argument about housing. It is a convenience which I think was adequately exposed by Senator Janine Haines, of all people, in her contribution to the debate. So far we have heard from the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, who exposed the Liberal Party's penchant under the Howard-Fraser Administration for tax avoidance schemes which enabled the tax system in Australia to fall into disrepute. We heard about the legendary Slutzkin wet and dry schemes, the macadamia nut schemes, the bottom of the harbour schemes and the cherry-picker schemes. Of course, we were taken as well on a tour of the Perth Attorney-General's bottom drawer in which there languished for many years papers which, if activated, would have stamped out some of these schemes. We heard, of course, as well from Senator Graham Richardson, who exposed the argument of Opposition senators who, from time to time in this debate, have relied upon the tax reform package in the United States. He pointed out that their opposition to capital gains tax is inconsistent if they support the United States model. He pointed out that the United States model has a retrospective capital gains tax, and a capital gains tax on the full gain. We heard as well a parade of crocodile tears from Liberal senators, who have the unique ability to pretend to argue in defence of the poor while arguing for the restoration of privileges to the rich. It is a unique form of argument. It is most insincere, unconvincing and, of course, in the end, electors judge that type of argument by deeds, not by the words it contains. It is only by resorting to the former Howard-Fraser Government's record that one can see what the deeds would be, and the deeds make horrendous reporting. Senator Kilgariff —Then why don't you go to the electors now? Senator COOK —Honourable senators who interject will not find any comfort when I expose what that record is. The thing that irks me most about this debate is that it is a continuance of the campaign of fear that the Opposition wants to generate about the Australian economy. Members of the Opposition in this country are out to knock the Australian economy, to destroy the rising confidence that there is in the way in which the economy is being handled. When they were in government they were economic vandals. In opposition, they are economic saboteurs. The theory that seems to spring heartily to the lips of most Opposition senators when they are having a confab among themselves about strategy is that if they can only talk down the Australian economy, if they can only bad mouth the sterling work of the Government, if they can carp, criticise and condemn, they hope that, out of all of that cesspool of hate and bad will, the gloom and doom that that generates will open an opportunity for victory. Therefore, they set about, in opposition, being economic vandals, because they hope to do things to the Australian economy which will create a lack of confidence generally and which will lead to a recessed standard of living so that, in that circumstance, they will come to power. It is about time that the Opposition in the Senate faced what the Australian people want-that is, to see all parties in Australia pulling together, working around common goals, in order to lift the Australian economy so that there will be a better standard of living for all. Those who act as economic saboteurs will not be rewarded at the ballot box. In any case, all of the polls still show that the people respect the Hawke Government for having better policies for economic management than the failed and tired policies of the Howard Opposition, which have been tried and rejected. One of the most distinguishing points of this Government is, of course, its willingness to tackle the hard, in-built rorts in the whole system. One of the most central ones that it has faced, fought and is bringing off, is a change to the tax regime in this country which, under the Liberals, enabled tax avoidance and evasion to flourish, which placed the load of tax payments on the backs of middle and low income earners and which enabled the rich to escape their tax obligations. The Opposition recognises that we have faced those problems and have worked out a tax package based on equity, efficiency and simplicity in order to sort out that system. What it is now complaining about is that that system is working. As this debate is taking place, the Australian dollar is holding up on the international exchange. Interest rates are beginning to edge down to the point where it is now being forecast that the prime rates of lending will be cut in some cases soon. Senator Peter Baume —Tell us about the housing crisis. Senator COOK —Senator Baume will hear about housing; do not worry. He will not like it when he hears about it. There are fewer industrial disputes; wages are moving in a modest way and below the levels of the consumer price index; there is increasing confidence generally; and there is an expectancy by the broader population that, because of the tax changes we have made, ordinary wage and salary earners will receive significant tax cuts in December and in July next year, as those people who have been escaping their tax obligations are caught in the net of our package and are required to pay tax. We know, too, that it was the previous Government, after all, which had the lowest level of housing activity in Australia of any government since 1961. So the Opposition's arguments on housing do not stand up when one looks at its previous performance. I turn to the record of this Government, because a lot of ill-chosen words have been spoken about housing development in Australia. It is a record of which this Government is proud in regard to the industry activity that has been generated, the provision of jobs and the objective of meeting the social needs that we as a political party hold dear. When we came to office the housing industry in this country was in a parlous shape. In 1982-83, the dying years of the Howard-Fraser Government, only 105,000 commencements were made, compared with 152,700 commencements in 1984-85-an increase of 45 per cent on the 1982-83 Howard-Fraser figures, and the highest commencement rate since 1973-74. In 1985-86, 136,000 commencements were made-still an increase of 30 per cent on the 1982-83 figures. The Indicative Planning Council, a housing industry body set up under this Government, headed by Professor Fred Gruen, predicts that in 1986-87 there will be 125,000 commencements Australia wide. The major reason for the decline in the prediction for commencements in 1986-87 is the truth that anyone who studies the economic situation in Australia knows-that is, the Queensland economic performance is holding down the rest of Australia. The predicted decline of 7,000 commencements in Queensland is one of the reasons why those figures have come in below the previous levels. We know of-it is legend in this place-the mismanagement of the Queensland economy, the lame duck of the Australian economy; the one that causes all of our figures to be in a down cycle. In the housing construction industry the employment figures have risen significantly since this Government came to power. In August this year 491,000 people-almost half a million-were employed in the housing construction industry, which was 70,000 more than the May 1983 level. Of course, the Government took major action in April this year to assist the housing industry and protect housing borrowers when it announced the housing assistance package. As part of this package it paid a subsidy of about $150m to the banks to safeguard the one million borrowers paying an interest rate of 13.5 per cent to the banks. It allowed the banks to lift their interest rates to 15.5 per cent for new borrowers and it got banks to agree to lend at least $6 billion in 1986-87 to promote low start loans. This is a quite significant injection of funds, particularly for people at the lower end of the scale. Lending for housing has increased significantly since that decision was made. In the three months to July housing lending was running at around $7.5 billion as an annual rate. In August and September bank lending for housing was at least double the figure for the months prior to April 1986. The 13.5 per cent ceiling will remain, lending is strong, deposit growth on banks is still okay and the Government has fiscal and wages policies in place to take off the pressure on interest rates. Current interest rates are declining, as I have said. In October 1983 we started the first home owners scheme which reflects our vital concern for first home owners. Under that scheme they get up to $6,000 which they can use as a deposit or lump sum payment to reduce the interest. Compare that figure with the maximum assistance of $3,500 given under the Liberals. Since the first home owners scheme was introduced in October 1983 nearly $1 billion-in fact $970m-was committed Australia wide for the 214,000 successful applicants. It has provided a massive boost to that industry. In the public housing area one has to consult only the Liberal Party's housing policy to see that its interest in the public housing sector virtually does not exist. In our case, the total funding for public housing from the Federal Government in 1986-87 will be $1,275m; that is, $694m in grants and $582m available in low interest loans. That figure is up 130 per cent on what the Liberals provided in 1982-83 and I have a table which demonstrates the State distribution. This will lead to an increase of 17,500 in the public rental housing stock, compared with only 8,700 in the first half of 1982-83, the last year of the Liberal Government. In total, public housing funding with State contributions will be over $1.9 billion in 1986-87, the highest ever, and it will lead to over 22,000 new housing commencements. That is part of our record. This urgency motion is launched on tax reform, an area in which this Government is prepared and proud to debate the issues. I think there are three significant areas of tax reform that ought to be mentioned: The quarantining of negative gearing, the introduction of the 4 per cent depreciation allowance on new rental accommodation and the capital gains tax. The new quarantining of negative gearing arrangements affect the rental properties negatively geared prior to 17 July 1985. It should minimise any possible outflow of current investment from the private rental market, that is, it does not affect the great bulk of rental stock. The reform package includes a new 4 per cent depreciation allowance for investment in rental property. This will encourage funds to be put into the construction of new private rental housing and capital improvements to existing rental properties. A lot has been said in this debate about the capital gains tax. The key is that it is not a punitive capital gains tax; it is a necessary reform in the armory of all taxing measures to have a proper capital gains tax in place. We now have that. It is a prospective tax and a number of the furphies that have been circulated about it are consistent with the scaremongering activities of the Opposition. The impact on rents and the supply of rental housing is likely to be gradual and the changes will occur over time. As I have said in this urgency debate, this Government has a proud record on tax reform. However, one area of tax reform that needs to be mentioned in addition to those I have mentioned is that the imputation system will eliminate the old double tax on company income and that will be an incentive for investors. It will correct an efficiency distortion in the taxing scales and it will encourage funds into productive investment, unlike what was going on under the previous Government when, in the absence of a capital gains tax and a proper tax package, the investment that occurred in Australia often went into speculative areas, not productive wealth creating areas. The bottom line is that the Liberal Party comes into this Senate and criticises our performance which I have just enunciated. It comes here without any clothes because it has no tax policy of its own. It is about time that the Opposition put up or shut up. It can go around criticising performance, it can go around criticising achievement, it can go around criticising a government which has the guts and courage to face one of the hardest political obstacles of all-that is, rearranging the tax scales to a more equitable level-but it cannot go around with any credibility if it fails to produce its own blue print so that what it would do can be seen by the people at large. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.55) —in reply-This has been an extraordinary debate. There have been three speakers for the Australian Labor Party, not one of whom has acknowledged or admitted that there is a housing crisis in Australia today. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, did not talk about the state of Australia's housing. Whatever else Senator Walsh is, he is an honest person and he could not talk about it and pretend that it was all right. Senator Cook has given eloquent reason to understand why he languishes on the back bench and why he will stay there because he wants to tell us how good the housing situation is in Australia today. Senator Cook has made the classic mistake that Labor people make; he tried to tell us all that the Labor Party is doing by way of input into public policy and therefore assumes that the public policy area is all right. Today we have demonstrated, with figures of what is going on today in the community and what is happening right now to Australians, that Senator Cook is wrong; that it is not all right. It is far from all right. Australians are not able to move into home ownership today. That is the fact. Fewer Australians than anyone imagines-with all these whizz-bang schemes which Labor is putting into effect-think that things are wonderful. They are not wonderful. Senator Cook did not address the fact that the rental market in Australia is a disaster. It is not a disaster for Senator Cook, with his salary and an established house, but it is a disaster for Australians looking for rental accommodation because they cannot find it and what is available costs too much. Senator Cook did not address that matter because either he could not or would not. It was a pathetic performance. We did not hear one word of acknowledgment from the Labor Party that there is a crisis or that it had some answer to it. Although Senator Haines was less than complimentary about our motion, she readily acknowledged that there is a housing crisis in Australia today. She, representing the Australian Democrats, had it right and the Labor Party had it wrong again. Labor speakers want to talk to us about what our prospects would be in a contest before the people today. We invite them to take us on and try us. There is nothing we would like better today than to let the Australian people judge because we know that this Government-it is moribund and bankrupt-would be swept from office. Today's performance is the kind of performance that, whatever the Labor Party thinks of its tax regime, it did not even have the wit or the willingness to acknowledge that a crisis exists in Australia today in owning, renting, locating and acquiring housing. That makes it unfit to govern this country. We not only demonstrated but also produced adequate, contemporary figures of what is going on today. The crisis is there and we know that it has been brought about by the policies of this Government-I presume it is the unintended consequences of those policies. Nevertheless the crisis has been brought about by the policies we have set out in the Senate today. It is not good enough for those who traditionally look to Labor governments for their support and help to have this inadequate and poor performance from the Government that they elected. It was absolutely pathetic. We believe that the motion is a good one. Question put: That the motion (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Powell, J. F. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Siddons, J. R. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Vigor, D. B. Jones, G. N. Walsh, P. A. McClelland, Douglas Zakharov, A. O. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Knowles, S. C. Colston, M. A. Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Aulich, T. Townley, M. Morris, J. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Cooney: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(6.08) —I rise to speak on the eightieth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which was tabled last night by Senator Cooney. I would like, as Senator Lewis did, to commend Senator Cooney for the way in which he chairs that Committee. Chapter 4 of the eightieth report commences with a number of quotations. I would quickly like to refer to a few of them because they say something very important about the history of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Sir Robert Garran was a very significant figure in Australia's legal and constitutional history. In 1930, he said: A committee could scrutinise regulations. But a good deal of its work would be thankless, as it would not discover very much to find fault with. It would certainly be the least interesting of the committees. In 1958, some 28 years later, Sir Robert said: The Senate has taken a good forward step. It has established a Regulations and Ordinances Committee. . . . I should like to see the Committee further developed and better advertised. Further down the track, Senator Wood, a former Chairman of the Committee, recounted a conversation that he had had with Sir Robert and said: As a man who helped with the framing of the Constitution, Sir Robert replied that this was the most important Committee in Parliament because its duty was to see that Parliament ran this country with legislation and that the Executive did not do so by regulations and ordinances. That is an interesting progression of thought. The eightieth report represents a very important statement by the Committee of its attitude and approach to delegated legislation. The report should be required reading for policy advisers and legislative drafters if they are to avoid infringing the Committee's bipartisan principles of scrutiny. In one sense the Committee is a difficult one to serve on because of the heavy workload of instruments that it processes. In the past year nearly 900 instruments have passed through the Committee and it was sufficiently concerned to write to Ministers concerning 60 of those instruments. One frustrating aspect of our work arises when the Committee writes to a Minister to repeat a point which had already been made to that or another Minister on an earlier occasion. Honourable senators will see in the report a number of themes repeated over and over again. Although the Committee has adopted the practice of being as open as it can be about its work, making statements in the Senate and incorporating or tabling its correspondence, it still seems to take a very long time before particular flaws in delegated legislation are dealt with and weeded out. The Committee has asked the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to give general instructions to his Department about these kinds of matters, and he has been very responsive on this issue. The Committee is anxious to see that flaws which it identifies are not repeated, because the exercise of drawing these flaws to the attention of Ministers in order to get them fixed is not so much a waste of the Committee's time as it is a waste of the Minister's time, because the problem could have been avoided by reference to the Committee's reports and tabled correspondence before drafting of the offensive instrument. Apart from discussing how the Committee interprets and applies its principles, the report is important because it identifies and discusses major flaws as seen by the Committee in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, which are the Acts conferring disallowance powers on this Senate. These flaws allow delegated legislation to be retrospectively prejudicial to individuals without any express mandate for that retrospectivity in the parent Act of Parliament, and they make it possible for delegated legislation to be virtually permanently in force without the need to table it in both Houses of the Parliament which granted the power to make the legislation in the first place. The Senate has no power to disallow regulations partially, although this power has been sought repeatedly and indeed, under the previous administration, it was promised. We can partially disallow ordinances, but nothing else. Clever drafting can mean that the only way to knock out a really offensive provision in regulations would be to disallow pages and pages of inoffensive and innocuous provisions, because the offending part could not be partially disallowed without the disallowance of a whole regulation. The rules governing the revival of repealed laws need to be overhauled to prevent the possible repetition of the difficulties which faced the Senate when it disallowed the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985 last year. These are serious flaws which must be addressed as matters of priority if the Senate is to continue to claim to have effective disallowance power which cannot be evaded by artificial devices. This Committee, on behalf of the Senate, claims to be the world leader in the scrutiny of delegated legislation, but these flaws, to a certain extent, undermine the reality of that claim, and because of that they must be dealt with. In a sense we would be called a `fix it' committee. If the delegated legislation, regulation or ordinance infringes the Committee's principles, we write to Ministers telling them of the infringement, we point out the importance of the issue and we try to persuade the relevant Minister to remove or remedy the offending clauses. When we get undertakings to amend, we are happy to commend Ministers for their genuine commitment to rights. The Committee has had success with these procedures under this Government and under the previous Government. One of the previous chairmen of the Committee, Senator Devitt, in 1974, reported that the trend at that time was for the Committee to investigate approximately 20 per cent of instruments being made. It is a measure of the continued impact of the Committee on the conscientious efforts of legislative drafters that the Committee now investigates about 10 per cent, which is quite a significant reduction. That is a measure of the success of the Committee's persuasive approach. But in the end, if the persuasive approach does not work, there are disallowance powers, and when the Committee makes a reasonable assessment of a matter which infringes rights and where a Minister or his or her officials refuse to be persuaded, this Committee is confident that the Senate will back the Committee's judgment. It has done so for the past 55 years, and particularly for the past 15 years, during which the Committee has not had occasion to move for disallowance. Sometimes ministerial undertakings are withheld until the last minute before a disallowance motion is due, as if to test the resolution of the Committee. We have had the experience of sitting as a committee in an in camera hearing with official witnesses at 10.30 the night before a disallowance debate, repeating verbally what we had already said three or four times in correspondence over numerous weeks prior to that time. That is another of the frustrations of working on the Committee. The people who draft delegated legislation and advise on it do not all seem to realise what the Committee is about. We are open to persuasion but not bluff, and in Professor Douglas Whalan we have the best legal brains available to advise us. The Committee protects its position by giving protective notices of motion to allow time for discussion. But sometimes the Committee does not get ministerial responses as soon as it would like, simply because sometimes our concerns are not taken as seriously as they should be. However, one of the features of the Senate Standing Orders is that once a notice is given, it can be taken over by any senator for disallowance on policy grounds, and that is the gauntlet that the Minister is made to run by his Department if it delays for so long in replying to the Committee that we have to give a notice of motion. At the end of the day, infringements on the rights of Parliament or on personal rights will be removed from delegated legislation, or the instrument will be disallowed. But it would greatly facilitate our work, with great respect to Ministers, were they to instruct their advisers to address the Committee's concerns with more speed and less protectiveness. For some reason, although the Committee in its correspondence goes to some lengths to set out its concerns and even in the initial letter to answer obvious rebuttals of those concerns so that we can quickly get to the kernel of any issue-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.18) —I rise to commend the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances to the Senate. This Committee is a very hard working one, as is shown by the long list of regulations, ordinances and by-laws which have been considered during this year. I wish to raise a few points that come out of the report and which I believe need to be picked up in legislation. I also wish to give notice that if the Government does not pick them up, I would hope to be able to introduce these measures as legislation. I note that in paragraph 2.26 of the report, under the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 1) Act 1982 the Government at that stage moved that an ordinance or a regulation which had not been tabled in the Parliament within 15 days of its being set up was not automatically void. In fact, if that instrument-whatever it was, whether it be a regulation or a by-law-were not tabled as required under the Acts Interpretation Act, it would be taken to apply for the whole of the 15 sitting days before it went out of existence. I believe that this is a problem because it leaves us with regulations that can operate for a small amount of time. Instead of the regulation never having existed, it would have existed until the automatic disallowance for tabling it took effect. It is extremely important not to have such loopholes within the law because we could have a similar, or almost the same, instrument brought back into being immediately as the Parliament had not disallowed it. It would be possible continually to try to by pass the processes of parliament, not that that would get people very far. It is a real problem to have that type of loophole in the law. There have been some changes to the ability of the Senate to change Australian Capital Territory ordinances. I believe that these changes have been very beneficial. We have used them this year to improve delegated legislation in the Australian Capital Territory. We can change those ordinances right down to the last word by deleting a word or a figure from a particular line in an ordinance to produce a different effect. This is not possible in regulations under the Acts Interpretation Act. This should be changed to allow the Senate to change or delete any single word sentence or clause in a regulation made under a given Act and whose liability to disallowance comes under the Acts Interpretation Act if the Senate so wishes unless the government acts, I will be introducing some legislation, or maybe an amendment to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, this year to try to reverse this situation. I think we should even go further because basically it seems pretty ridiculous that we can amend Bills in this place but we cannot at this stage amend delegated legislation in any way other than by deletion. If we are to use the Parliament in the most effective way possible, we should allow the Senate, and the Parliament generally, to amend-if that is required by the majority of the Senate-delegated legislation. I hope to move such amendments in the reasonably near future to try to support that type of proposal. The instance today when I moved to disallow a regulation under the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Inquiries) Regulations-No. 100 of the Statutory Rules 1986-is an example of how we could have saved an enormous amount of time if it had been possible to change one or two words or sentences in the regulation instead of carrying on a full-scale debate about disallowing either the whole of each of the regulations in turn or the whole group of regulations, which were the only two options available to the Senate. I definitely recommend to the Government that it consider this proposal at length. I also commend the Committee on the excellent work it has done in forcing the Government to look more closely at the delegated legislation which has been put before this place. On a regular basis we have had a number of ordinances or regulations which have been under threat of disallowance while the Committee discussed with the Government some provisions which may have an effect either on civil liberties or on the appropriateness of the delegated legislation. In most cases these motions of disallowance are not proceeded with because the government backs down on the particular proposal and changes the ordinance or undertakes to do so. This Committee fulfils an extremely useful task. I refer to one example which I was involved in where that role did not work totally as expected, that is, the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985. Basically this ordinance made certain that all the outdated New South Wales Acts which applied in the Australian Capital Territory, except those which were directly listed in the ordinance, ceased to exist. The problem was that there was no list of the Acts that would cease to exist. One of those was the Trade Union Act 1881 which was of some use apparently to an organisation that wanted to register under its provisions. The failure to list the Acts in the ordinance meant that those people were disadvantaged. It was picked up by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and the whole ordinance expired through the effluxion of time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.00) —As I would not like to see this report taken off the Notice Paper, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, General Business, Orders of the Day relating to the consideration of Committee reports pursuant to Sessional Order, be not further proceeded with this day. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —I present the 256th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts entitled `Forward Obligation of Government Expenditures'. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —by leave-The inquiry into forward obligation of government expenditures was initiated by the Public Accounts Committee following the finding by the Auditor-General, in his September 1985 report, that significant weaknesses existed in the forward obligations control systems of several departments. This finding arose from audits at the departments of Finance, Aboriginal Affairs, Local Government and Administrative Services, and Territories. Audit found that: The departments have not kept accurate records; monitoring by Finance was inadequate; approved limits to forward obligations have been exceeded by substantial amounts on a number of occasions; there was no mechanism through which the government could be regularly informed of such breaches; and there was a reluctance by departments to accept responsibility for the inadequacies discovered by Audit. Because the Auditor-General's comments had service-wide implications, the Committee sought submissions from all departments. Additional information was sought from Treasury and the Department of Finance. Some 29 departments responded to the initial request. Procedures to secure government approval to enter into expenditure commitment against Budgets of future years-that is, forward obligations-have existed for some time. Such procedures are essential in cases where financial commitments cover several years. Purchase of defence equipment or property by the Commonwealth, or contractual arrangements, such as the cleaning of airports or the maintenance of computer equipment, are typical examples where the forward obligations system would be used extensively. The forward obligations system was introduced in its current form in 1976, at a time when the Government attached particular importance to the objective of reining in the rate of growth in government spending. The stated aim of the procedures was the application of a forward programming system to enable the Government to regulate the extent to which commitments involving future Budget allocations could be made. This forward programming system was to apply across a broad range of Budget expenditures to minimise the extent of Budget `lock-in'. The Committee examined the Auditor-General's findings within the framework of the broad objectives set for the forward obligations system in 1976. Information obtained through submissions, discussions with officers of the Department of Finance and further research indicated that: Forward obligations covered less than 20 per cent of budget outlays; The breaches against approved limits reported by Audit had a relatively minor impact on overall expenditures. This was because, in most cases, departments have been able to find offsetting savings to the funds they needed, over and above the approved forward obligations limits; Non-compliance tended to bear mainly on internal program management, rather than on overall budgetary control; The Forward Estimates system, which covers all Budget outlays, has become the best available indicator of the extent of Budget `lock-ins'. The 1985-86 Budget Statements noted that, in that year, Forward Estimates formed the basis of individual portfolio targets for the first time, and that these targets served as guidelines in the determination of Budget estimates; and The existing legislative and policy framework placed primary responsibility for forward obligations with departmental secretaries. The Committee concluded that the forward obligations system, while important to departments, had limited value to overall Budget strategy and control. In addition, the budgetary impact of the breaches reported by Audit were found to be relatively minor, once offsetting savings had been taken into account. These findings suggested that tighter monitoring by Finance and regular reporting to government on possible future breaches were unlikely to have a significant impact on overall Budget outlays. In addition, greater involvement by Finance would not be within the spirit of the current policy of devolution of financial responsibilities to departmental secretaries. The Committee also concluded that it was time to review the purpose and the operations of the system. This was because the environment in which the forward obligations system was introduced a decade ago has changed considerably. The Committee noted that, in response to the Auditor-General's findings, the Department of Finance initiated an internal review of the forward obligations system. The review proposes that Finance's monitoring activities be, in future, limited to only the major forward obligations categories, and that monitoring of expenditures against all other obligation limits be the responsibility of departmental secretaries. The Committee recommends that the current review of the forward obligation system by Finance be expedited; and that the new regulatory framework arising from this review specify that the system's main objective is to authorise departments to enter into forward commitments in certain expenditure categories, and limit the extent of monitoring by Finance to cases where commitments could have a significant impact on overall Budget outlays. The Committee further recommends that in developing the details of the new regulatory arrangements, the policy of greater devolution of responsibility to departmental secretaries be given as much weight as possible. In this context, the Committee considers that monitoring arrangements by Finance which rely on global obligation limits for departments would be preferable to arrangements which monitor obligations at the program level. I would like to express the Committee's appreciation of the effort put in by departments in preparing their submissions, and thank the Department of Finance for the supplementary information it prepared for this inquiry. I commend this report to honourable senators. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of my colleague Senator Tate, I present the fifteenth report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986 and the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill 1986. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 15, dated 15 October 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.08) —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was indicating the opposition of the Australian Democrats to the whole range of measures that the Government has introduced in the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill. The Freedom of Information Act is basically being dismembered and its effectiveness destroyed by the Government's desire to make sure that the information which citizens should have will not be available to them, at least without a great deal of expense. Not to put too fine a point on it, the amendments in this Bill, if passed, will cripple the Freedom of Information Act by putting the cost of access beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. People making requests now will have to pay a new application fee of $30 before public servants will begin to respond to the request. Even if one is refused access one will not get back the $30. It will cost another $40 to make an internal review request. In exercising this $40 right of appeal to another bureaucrat-senior to the first-it should be remembered that the second bureaucrat probably has been consulted in the first place anyhow. Even worse, the hourly charge for search and retrieval has been increased to $15. This is a useful basis on which to penalise the person making the request for the department's incompetence in not being able to find the material in the first place. Worst of all is the introduction of a $20 per hour charge for agency decision making and consultation time. The mind boggles as to what exactly might end up appearing under that type of heading. Unfortunately, it would be too costly to find out under the Freedom of Information Act. The iniquitous provision for a $20 fee per hour for agency decision making and consultation time will no doubt be used by the bureaucracy to charge for its inefficiency and delaying tactics under the guise of decision making. A mere description of these provisions indicates how seriously the operation of the Act will be impeded. But just how valid is the argument the Government is putting with regard to costs? Senator Puplick raised this matter at some length. I do not want to go over the same ground he traversed but it is worth noting that the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, in his second reading speech said that in 1984-85 the operation and administration of the Freedom of Information Act cost the Commonwealth between $16m and $19m, depending on the precise allowances made for overheads. The preliminary figures for 1985-86 indicate a cost of between $14m and $16m. The Attorney-General describes this as a situation which Australia simply cannot afford. One wonders why something so important cannot be afforded when each year the Federal Government spends an estimated $108m on propaganda of various sorts. It is perfectly alright to use money for propaganda purposes in astronomical amounts, but it is not all right for citizens to be able to find out the information they want. That suddenly becomes too costly in our democracy. One can consider other factors. One might consider the $14m to $16m. One factor that comes to mind immediately is the cost of artworks, furnishings and communications equipment for the new Parliament House of $17.5m. Not only does expenditure on the Freedom of Information Act compare unfavourably with other areas of expenditure, but the costs have been queried recently by the former Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor Jack Richardson. Earlier this month Professor Richardson criticised the changes embodied in this Bill and expressed the view that the Government was exaggerating the long term costs of protecting this fundamental right. That case was made very clearly by Senator Puplick. One can conclude only that the Government has reasons of its own other than costs for this destructive attack on the Freedom of Information Act. Increased costs and the consequences of introducing them are not the only problem with this Bill. The Government has devised another way to make the system unworkable. In this area, I am pleased to say, the Opposition has got it right and we will be supporting its amendment accordingly. I refer to the multi-document request clause. This extraordinary provision allows a Minister to refuse a request for more than one document on the grounds that it would present a substantial diversion of resources and deletes the present requirement that that diversion be unreasonable. Obviously, departments would be able to exploit the situation and effectively deny access when they did not want their processes opened to public scrutiny and examination. It does not take very much imagination to see how this exploitation could occur. Every department whose filing system was in disarray could refuse almost every freedom of information request simply because it was in disarray. It could say that any request made to it was unreasonable. Every request necessarily increases the delay in answering every other request. So this, too, could be used as an excuse. As most documents are circulated to other departments, departments can now say that they must consult other departments-a further delay. The list of ramifications and excuses under this clause is endless. It is no exaggeration to say that it will sow the seeds of destruction of any effective freedom of information system for ordinary citizens in our community. I am not talking about the friends of the Government such as the multinationals and large companies which simply have direct access to Ministers. I am talking about ordinary citizens who try to get information. Apart from these implications, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has expressed concern about the multi-document request clause. This merely strengthens the Democrats' opposition to this preposterous amendment. Another issue of concern to us is that charges would no longer be waived simply because the release of information is in the public interest. The Government has argued that the public interest provision has been the most difficult to administer. Surely this is Yes Prime Minister material. Next we will hear that not all questions have been answered and that there are constitutional implications. Those two items will probably end up in the Minister's response, but this one must take the cake. One suspects that the activities of consumer groups and lawyers working on behalf of disadvantaged clients have had far more to do with the Government's decision to abolish the obligation on bureaucrats to consider waiving fees than the difficulty of administering the public interest consideration. We all know that it is easier to defeat ill-informed critics than well briefed ones because knowledge is certainly power. The best way to ensure that end is to keep as much information as possible from those critics. In the United States people in the categories I have mentioned are protected from exorbitant fees under the United States Freedom of Information Act, but we are confronted with a Government that wants to move from that type of protection. Added to this, the Government wishes to retain the 45-day limit on handling requests and has abandoned the plan to reduce that time to 30 days. In both of these areas the Australian Democrats will be supporting Opposition amendments to rectify the Government's proposals. Finally, it strikes the Australian Democrats as the height of absurdity that the Government has introduced these amendments while the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is investigating the first three years of the Freedom of Information Act in operation. The Committee is required to review experience and to make recommendations. It has had over 100 submissions and 60 witnesses. Its report is expected in November. Having pre-empted the Committee's report in such an extraordinarily flagrant way, we believe that it is quite unreasonable and unconscionable for this chamber to pass this Bill. Therefore, at a later stage we will be seeking to have this legislation deferred until the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee of this chamber has had a chance to report. At best, we believe that the Government is acting without that report, a report of this chamber, prepared by an all-party committee, which we believe would bring added, useful and vital information which would enable us to make a reasonable decision with regard to this Bill. Why do we ask our Committee to carry out a long and detailed inquiry if the very chamber which has set up that Committee does not even bother to wait for its report? In short, this Bill is an utter disaster. If the amendments are passed, the Act will be fatally flawed, and let nobody be in any doubt about that. It will be this Labor Government which started the rot. Quite frankly, I do not expect the Opposition parties, when they come to power, to do any better despite the honeyed words we have heard from Senator Puplick in this debate. It will be on the head of this Labor Government that it started the destruction of this vital piece of legislation which is so vital to democratic institutions in this country. I am reminded of similar attacks on the Freedom of Information Act in the United States of America in the first few years after it started in 1966. In the United States, however, the Watergate scandal shocked the American public and the media so much that that particular Act was saved. Indeed, not only was it saved but also it was strengthened against further attack and, in fact, it has survived far better than this Bill will unfortunately survive by the time these amendments are passed with the collusion of the Opposition and the Government. I hope that Australia does not have to suffer the trauma of a Watergate experience before we recognise how vital the Freedom of Information Act is to our citizens and to our media in protecting the Government, and ultimately us, from this vandalism that is about to be perpetrated on freedom of information in Australia by this Government and by the Minister at the table who, to his credit, did so much to make sure that we had this legislation but who is now to be the person to respond in its initial destruction. It seems to me to be an extraordinary situation-a situation that I believe no-one can take any heart from-that we should see this Government turn around so much in respect of this matter in the short period it has been in office. I want to express the Democrat's complete dismay and utter disgust at what is going on in the chamber tonight. I have already quoted the view of the Attorney-General that freedom of information is a basic right at the very heart of our democracy. I remind the Minister at the table of the words he used when he described good freedom of information legislation as `that which would set a minimum of procedural obstacles by way of delay or complexity of costs, and afford the maximum of practical assistance to those who are pressing requests for access to information'. I hope that honourable senators on both sides will look at what we are about to do and will consider that at least one course that might be acceptable to the majority of honourable senators, if they cannot, for whatever reason, vote against the Bill, will be to consider seriously that we wait until the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has reported to this chamber. I believe that its report will add weight to the comments that I have made tonight and to the comments that Senator Puplick made on behalf of the Opposition. I ask the Opposition to consider seriously the Democrats' request that we at least delay this legislation so that, in the light of the recommendations of our own chamber Committee, we can see whether or not we will be able to modify it, or perhaps the Government, in that space of time, might have second thoughts about the action it has embarked upon. In any event, it seems to me that that delay is not against this so-called doctrine of Budget Bills that the Opposition has trotted out. It does not violate that so-called doctrine. It is merely in keeping with the need to wait until we hear the Senate Committee's own review. It took Australia an enormous long time to put this piece of legislation into effect. It has had a very short working life. It is shocking and distressful that we should now be chopping it about in such a way that it will lead to its ultimate demise as an effective adjunct to the operation of democracy in Australia. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.25) —In the foreword of the 1983-84 annual report on the Freedom of Information Act, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) wrote: While some problems in administration have been identified, the Act is working well and achieving its stated purpose of extending as far as possible the right of the Australian community for access to information in the possession of the Australian Government. Indeed, that was the signal for the type of attack we are seeing tonight to start. It started last year. It was due only to the conscience and uprightness of Senator Missen, who managed to get the Opposition to vote against the regulations which were put forward in this place last year, that we were spared last year the demise of freedom of information in Australia. I believe this will come to be dubbed the freedom from information Bill because basically what is happening is that the Government and the Opposition are conspiring together to put information out of the price range of ordinary individuals and ordinary Australians. They are doing this for various reasons which are not related to their personal convictions. In the past we have heard Senator Gareth Evans make strong pleas for freedom of information. I believe that he is honest in this. Yet he is the Minister who is bringing forward this legislation today. Today we have heard Senator Puplick wax lyrical, as he always does, on the issues surrounding this particular legislation. He said why it is unreasonable for the prices to go up, yet he said the the Opposition is going to support the Government in raising the fees. That just does not make sense. I would like to dwell on this issue of the two types of legislation which the Opposition seems to recognise as going through this Parliament. One type of legislation results from statements by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on one particular night in August when he says `this is the Budget'. From that moment on, if the Government claims that the legislation going through the House comes directly from the statement mentioned on that night, it can rely on this group of people-the Opposition-who are being paid by Australians to actually monitor what the Government is doing, not to vote against it because it is a Budget Bill. That is one type of legislation that goes through this House. Another type of legislation is announced in the Governor-General's speech and that is obviously not as important as the legislation in the Treasurer's speech in the eyes of the Opposition. Other types of legislation are declared from time to time in this Parliament that the Opposition is able to vote against. I find it very difficult to understand why the Opposition should abrogate its responsibility to vote against bad legislation, whether it is legislation declared on one particular night of the year by the Treasurer, and treat it differently because of that, or whether it is declared or put into this Parliament in some other way. I believe that a real indictment of the current political system is that people who have ability, knowledge and conviction are being forced by the party system to vote in such an unthinking and unreasonable way. I feel very sorry for them in this particular case. In fact, this problem will be faced with the identity card, if that comes up, if the Government claims that it is a Budget issue. I believe that, for the sake of all Australians, the Opposition must realise that the Government can just simply put some money bits into a Bill but that there can also be some non-Budget bits in that Bill. The Opposition, in fact, is moving to amend the non-budgetary bits currently, and we are supporting it in this area. But it has given up the ultimate sanction against the Government of throwing the legislation out. We are willing to support any move, if the Opposition still has this hangup in the next period of sitting, to divide off the monetary sections from the other sections of the Bill and to consider them separately, to free them so that we can act in the interests of the people who elected us to this place. I believe that is very important. I turn now to the Government. It seems par for the course that when something improves, the Government seeks to close it down or make it ineffective. It is doing just that with the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal due to the dislocation which will be caused by the new inquiry regulations that Senator Puplick was also part of allowing to continue today. This is exactly what is happening with the freedom of information legislation. The Government wants to turn it into freedom from information. The Government is acting as an agent for the mandarinate within the Public Service, which does not want to be oversighted by this Parliament. Parts of the Public Service do not want to be questioned on what they do by anybody-by the Parliament or by the people of Australia. The mandarins at Treasury and the forces in the Department of Finance would love to be able to manipulate the strings of this country totally as Sir Humphrey would and to have the Ministers represent them rather than the people of Australia. They are exactly the types of actions that we are seeing, unfortunately, from Senator Gareth Evans. I would have thought better of him-that he would have taken up the interests of the people and stood up for open government, which he has been a champion of for so many years. Senator Puplick —Be fair. It would not have happened if he were Attorney. Senator VIGOR —Roll on the day when Senator Evans will again be able to bring us free information and open up the Public Service to full scrutiny. That is what we should all stand here for, not the type of secrecy, hiding and excuse making which goes on. The annual report covering the operation of the Freedom of Information Act for 1984-85 shows that things got even better; the average cost per request dropped from $917 to $584 over that year. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) says in his foreword that this is due to `improved and more efficient administration in processing requests'. I would like the Senate to ponder on that for a moment. Freedom of information has actually resulted in public servants improving their performance in terms of information storage and retrieval. I believe there will be a net saving over all the operations of public servants because if they found it very difficult to find information for ordinary citizens they probably also found it very difficult to get information for their own use in the normal day to day running of their departments. It is not surprising that freedom of information is again under attack so shortly afterwards. It is very unfortunate that this Senate is contemplating taking such an unprincipled stand in trying to pass this legislation quickly when the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is part way through an inquiry into this legislation. Government departments really ought to have much better document retrieval as a result of FOI. In fact, that is being found to be the case by the Committee. The Committee has blown the gaff on the inflated costs that have been given for the operation of freedom of information legislation. On 7 November last year, before this matter blew up, I drew attention to the 88 per cent on-cost figure being used to inflate the stated costs of freedom of information. This basically added $2 1/2m to $3m to the cost of freedom of information being obtained from the Public Service. Almost a year later, in evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, the Department of Finance has admitted that 60 per cent is a far more reasonable figure. An officer of the Department made these comments on 28 August this year: The Attorney-General's Department consulted with me and a colleague in the last few weeks about this question about what a proper overhead was. We came to an agreement that the long-standing basis on which overheads had been calculated was probably an exaggeration. If my memory serves me correctly, this was particularly because using the Public Service Board's formula had involved the Attorney-General's Department in what it believed was some double counting. The double counting I think arises because the Public Service Board's formula includes some indirect staffing costs in its 85 per cent, whereas the Attorney-General's Department has always been assessing all salaries costs and then looking for non-salary additional elements. We concluded that, short of a proper assessment agency by agency, circumstance by circumstance, a good operating figure is more likely to be in the range of 50-plus to 60-plus per cent than the 85-plus per cent. The difference between a 50 per cent overhead and an 85 per cent overhead is enormous. Yet the Government is using this type of shonky figure in determining to raise the overall costs. I repeat that this sort of activity results in plus or minus $3m being given in the Bill for the costing of freedom of information. What we spend in this area is a pittance compared with the enormous amounts that the Government spends on advertising and public relations activities in the departments-probably five to ten per cent of total expenditure. Would it not be better to give people the information they want rather than pumping propaganda out at them as is happening through many of the general advertising programs? A really interesting breakdown that we cannot get is the amount that is spent on internal review processes and how much goes on preparation for Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearings and for various court cases that result from information being refused. In 1984-85, 38 per cent of requests for internal review resulted in extra documents being released. The Government wants to impose a $40 application fee, without refund, for cases in which decisions in the first instance are wrong. They basically must have been wrong if the appeal reverses them. So penalties are being imposed because the Public Service is wrong. No penalties are being applied to departments which try to bluff and to keep their information private rather than disclose it but which disclose material just before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearings are about to start. That sort of thing should not occur without some type of disciplinary action of the officers who squander both public and private money through their obstinacy in refusing access to information to people who have a right to it. It is an attitudinal problem within sections of the Public Service. That attitudinal problem starts here, because unless we actually tell public servants that their responsibility is to serve the public, we will not get anywhere in terms of instilling an understanding of and a new attitude towards open government within Australia. It is a policy of the Labor Government to have open government. Mr Hawke campaigned on that policy during the election campaign before last. One other frightening thing about the legislation is that it attempts to charge for decision-making time. We have heard about the $20 per hour charge for procrastination. I hope that some sort of consolidation of time spent will be made, that we will get some type of report on how this money is charged and some type of statistic on what type of thinking time public servants need. As far as I can see, these public servants are being paid for making up excuses, and people who are good at making up excuses are seldom good at anything else. I will follow through that view during Estimates committee hearings in those areas in which the Australian Democrats perceive that departments are taking an unreasonable approach towards, or are hostile to, freedom of information legislation. I believe we should note that the Treasury is one of those departments which were singled out in evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Treasury took five hours to search for and retrieve about 30 documents relating to increases in national productivity. It released only two of those documents, one of which was a telex which originated from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. On the other hand, in regard to the same request, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations took two hours to find and retrieve 24 relevant documents and give access to eight of them, which seems to show a much better attitude towards people. I think it should be commended. I wonder what will happen if there is a perceived benefit, in terms of increased charges, from procrastinating over decision-making operations. Departments will see it as serving the Government, as earning money to think up better and bigger excuses because of this $20 charge for each hour. I would like the Minister to justify this particularly heinous charge for which there does not seem to be any justification. Another area that I want to deal with concerns reporting to parliament. I would like to ask the Minister a question about service-wide collation of figures on the number of requests falling into the personal documents category and the costs of processing those requests. It seems that there will be an exemption for the personal documents category. Currently it is very difficult to extract from any of the statistics that are provided any information about the difference between public interest and personal documents. I would like to know whether, under the new scheme, with the added cost, there will actually be a report to parliament on the information that we are looking for. Will we be able to look separately at the performance of agencies in this area and at the number of documents they actually provide associated with each request? There is a need, which is not catered for in this Bill, for information about internal review. I would like to know from the Minister whether there will be a service-wide collection of data on the time spent and the costs attributed to internal review processes. What steps will the Government take to counsel agencies with unreasonable costs for internal review or with records of quite bad primary decision-making? It is extremely important that we make certain that we have a reasonably efficient Public Service. FOI has allowed us to do this. Departments fooled the Senate and lied to the Senate, until FOI brought forward certain documents; for example, the Department of Defence in relation to the Army land grab at Cobar. This type of process means that we can keep a reasonable Public Service that will serve the public. If the Government closes all avenues by which people can get truthful information about how government operates, it will turn us more and more into a dictatorship and make it less and less of a responsible system of government. I feel that it will be extremely important to have decent statistics from all departments on applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. What further steps will the Government take to discourage agencies from just toughing it out and only releasing documents at the moment that they reach the doorstep of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? People are being held up, and large legal costs are being incurred both in the private sector of the community where these documents are required and in the public sector, because of the attitude of senior public servants. I commend to the Government a rethink of these very high charges that it will impose and a rethink of the unreasonable constraints it is putting on people who want information from the Government. It should make certain that, whatever happens as a result of this legislation or as a result of the existing legislation, where it has not been amended, we get statistics on which we can make sensible decisions about the future of freedom of information and decisions about the effectiveness, co-operativeness and efficiency of various parts of the Public Service. I ask the Minister to comment on what type of statistics will be gathered and what type of reporting will be made to parliament on the effects of this Bill. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(8.48) —I want to speak briefly on the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986. I will speak first about its origins. It is worth remembering that the present Freedom of Information Act had its origins during the 1977 election campaign, when the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, pressed by a number of Liberals, put in the policy speech that we would introduce freedom of information legislation if we were re-elected. The argument was, of course, the overwhelming importance in a democracy of the public having reasonable access to information held by the Government. After the election the then Prime Minister took steps to implement his policy promise. It is quite obvious that the Public Service thought he was insane to have made such a promise. In the best Yes Minister style, it produced a Freedom of Information Bill which was properly described as a freedom from information Bill, which would ensure that practically no information would get out. What was not made exempt was released only at the discretion of Ministers. When this Bill reached the Senate I and a number of others voted to have it referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for thorough examination. Four of the six members of that Committee are still serving in the Senate-Senator Puplick and I from the Opposition, and Senator Evans and Senator Tate from the Government. The report of that Committee was decisive in producing an excellent Freedom of Information Act. We recognised the importance of access to information and that the access should be affordable and within the means of people who might want it. I can remember Senator Evans, in particular, waxing extremely eloquent-or perhaps extremely loquacious-on the subject of the importance of these matters. I agreed with him, rather more briefly, about the importance of these matters. What has happened is that there has been a total reversal by this Government of the reasonable access to information held by the Government to the public. Look at what the Government is doing. It is introducing a $30 fee for a request. Senator Haines —What don't you oppose it? Senator HAMER —I will come to that in a moment. It is increasing the charge for agency search and retrieval time to $15 an hour, introducing a charge of $20 an hour for agency decision making consultation time, introducing an application fee of $40 for internal review requests-this is not repayable-and reducing the grounds for the remission of charges. The Government claims that these charges will increase revenue by $4m a year. The Opposition is committed to the integrity of the Budget process. The Government is responsible for the economic management of this country and the Budget must be looked at as a whole. Therefore, we are not prepared to oppose a Budget measure that raises revenue when it is part of the budget. That is a matter of principle and one by which we stand. The Australian Democrats have no pretensions of being an alternative, or even a possible, government and they do not have such inhibitions. Nevertheless, we believe that the Budget must be looked at as a whole and this measure is properly part of the Budget. However, that does not deal with the fact that this particular Bill deals with a large number of other matters which have nothing to do with the Budget at all. It is also curious that this Bill amends regulations. I think the Government is aware that if it introduces regulations, as it did last year, to raise charges they will probably be rejected by the Senate. So what the Government has done is to introduce amendments to regulations as a Budget Bill. That is an effective tactic but it does not justify the Government in introducing a large number of other extraneous matters which have nothing to do with the Budget. When our constitution was being framed a great deal of attention was paid to preventing Bills on financial matters having other provisions tacked on to them. Yet that is just what this Bill does. Knowing that we are committed not to resisting, not to opposing a Bill that is integral to the Budget, what the Government has done is put a large number of other provisions, which have nothing to do with the Budget, in this Bill. I do not for a moment accept the Government's claims of cost savings in the Bill. It could be argued that freedom of information increases efficiency and saves costs in other ways, but the cost savings associated with these measures are not, in any sense, part of the Budget but revenue is. The Government has introduced administrative matters into the Bill. I will give a couple of examples. The Government is maintaining the present 45 day limit on answering requests rather than reducing it to 30 days as it should have. It is strengthening the provisions relating to the refusal of requests on work load grounds-of course, people could work a little harder if they wanted to-and it is reducing obligations relating to published statements and providing statistics. These are all administrative matters which should not in any way be regarded as part of the Budget. It is highly improper of the Government, using the known attitude of the Opposition not to reject Budget Bills, to try to get legislation through by tacking on measures that have nothing to do with the Budget. I will press, and I hope others will support me, that in future Budget Bills are solely concerned with Budget matters and that other issues, which should be debated and probably referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for thorough examination, are presented to the Senate separately. I will be very interested to see how eloquent Senator Evans happens to be on this subject. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.55) — The Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986 does not involve the destruction of freedom of information legislation or the freedom of information concept. It merely involves a modification of some aspects of it for reasons which are defensible by reference to the financial and administrative burdens that the present legislation involves and are defensible by reference to the nature and extent of those burdens at a time of the kind of economic stringency this nation and this Government are currently facing. I can understand some of the disappointment that has been expressed about this Bill. I share some of that disappointment myself. However, I do not think it was entirely fair of Senator Puplick to construct his entire speech from my previous contributions which are on the public record. What I think needs to be appreciated in understanding why the Government felt it necessary to bring this legislation forward is the way in which costs were exploding, the way in which cost recovery was receding and the way in which this was all happening at a time when there was really a need for very great financial and economic discipline as far as this Government, or any other government, is concerned. The reality is that the current economic climate warrants a more stringent attitude to cost containment than seemed possible at the time when this legislation was first enacted and first substantially amended. There has been bipartisan support for charges being imposed. The only issue is how much is charged, who actually pays for it and in what circumstances. The basic point-I think it will be appreciated-is that freedom of information is about access to information; it is not about free information. To date, taxpayers have been subsidising FOI applications when many users can afford to pay more than they have been paying. I refer, in particular, to corporate applicants and newspapers which are a particular category of corporate applicant that are very well able to pay more than they have been for access to material. It needs to be appreciated that less than one per cent of FOI administration costs were recovered in 1984-85. That amounted to $22,000 out of $16.3m and in 1985-86 the figure was around $75,000 out of a total notional figure-the final figures have not yet been precisely calculated-of $15m. Those figures need to be looked at against a background where significant cost recovery, through charges, is accepted in other jurisdictions. For example, in Victoria there is a $20 per hour search and retrieval fee with a maximum of $100 per request. In the United States of America agencies set their own fees with the State Department, for example, setting a $12 per hour search and retrieval fee. In Canada there is a $5 application fee plus charges if processing exceeds five hours. It needs to be appreciated that the cost recovery experience of other jurisdictions has been substantially greater than hitherto has been the case in Australia. Let me give some comparative figures to make that point clearer. I said that in Australia in 1985-86 the proportion was less than one per cent of cost recovery. In fact, it was just half a per cent on the figures now before me which are as follows: Total requests were 36,580, total costs were $15m in round figures, total charges collected were $75,000, average cost per request was $400 and average revenue per request was $2.08. Compare those figures with the situation in Canada where there were 2,654 requests, total costs were $3.4m, total charges collected were $33,000, average costs per request were $1,242 and average revenue per request was six times that in Australia-$12.46. One per cent of the total cost of running the system was thus recovered. It is not a high proportion but it is a higher amount than that collected in Australia per request. In the United States a considerably higher amount per request is collected in terms of the total proportion. Let me give the Senate the figures: 309,768 requests; total costs of $99.3m; total charges collected, $5.1m; average cost per request $321; and average revenue per request $16.42. The average return per request in the United States, the home of freedom of information of a kind that appeals so much to the Opposition and the Australian Democrats, is $16.42 compared with a figure in Australia of just over $2. It is important to appreciate that there is scope in our system for there to be greater cost recovery. It is legitimate for that to be pursued when one considers the experience of other jurisdictions, quite apart from the particular circumstances of financial stringency in which this Government finds itself at this time, for reasons with which we are all familiar. The further point I want to make and stress very strongly is one that Senator Vigor mentioned along the way, and that is that a very substantial proportion of applicants for FOI access will not be paying any charges at all because of the very nature of their request being a request for personal documents. Applications for personal documents by whoever they are made will remain totally exempt from charges of any kind. Senator Puplick —Will the cost of them be calculated and recorded? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. I think one can make notional estimates of what is involved here. I am happy now to put on the record some figures which demonstrate the order of magnitude of the sacrifice, if you like, that is involved by the Government in continuing to exempt applications of this kind from charges. Material has been prepared for and today submitted to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs by an inter-departmental committee which was set up to report on costs of freedom of information legislation. It has been put to the Committee today-whether it is publicly released is a matter for the Committee-- Senator Macklin —Why did you bother? You wasted more money. You are not interested in its report. Senator GARETH EVANS —One of the reasons that we are proceeding with the legislation is that so many of the findings in this report confirm the strategies that the Government has here embarked upon, and one such instance is the particular matters which I am now referring to which I am happy to have incorporated in Hansard with the leave of the Senate. Senator Haines —What is it? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a table from the inter-departmental committee report which has been submitted to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee today which estimates FOI costs for 1985-86 by document type, which breaks it up. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 11 ESTIMATED FOI COSTS 1985/86 (by document type) Requests Staff years Cost/ Request* Total* cost per cent per cent $ $m Personal... 24,544 (73.8) 112.0 (47.4) 194 4.7 Business (private sector)... 2,273 (6.9) 32.9 (13.9) 637 1.4 Personnel... 4,005 (12.1) 30.5 (12.9) 340 1.4 Policy... 1,195 (3.6) 26.5 (11.2) 997 1.2 Internal administration... 372 (1.1) 10.2 (4.3) 114 0.4 Law enforcement... 97 (0.3) 5.4 (2.3) 2,632 0.3 Business (public sector)... 134 (0.4) 5.0 (2.1) 1,906 0.3 Other... 608 (1.8) 13.9 (5.9) 980 0.6 Total access costs... 236.4 (100.0) Mean 310 10.3 Plus non-access costs... 78.0 3.5 Total FOI costs... 315.0 13.8 * Including 60% on-costs. Senator GARETH EVANS —The table makes absolutely clear that the requests for 1985-86 that were of a personal document character constituted 73.8 per cent of the total requests that were made and that the total cost associated with the processing of such requests was $4.7m. I have other figures which indicate by contrast the percentage of the requests for other classes of document and the costs and the percentage of the total cost represented by those other classes. For example, business private sector documents made up 6.9 per cent of total requests and $1.4m worth of the total cost figure. Personnel requests made up 12.1 per cent of the total and $1.4m was involved. Senator Puplick —How are they different from personal? Senator GARETH EVANS —Personnel requests are from staff. Maybe that has properly added to the number of personal documents. Personnel requests, to the extent that they involve personal documents, would also be exempt from the charge. So that is another $1.4m to add to the $4.7m, making $6.1m out of a total of just under $14m on this calculation and a total of 84 per cent. Senator Haines —You aren't winning too many friends with your argument. I think you are actually defeating your case. Senator GARETH EVANS —On the contrary; what I am demonstrating is that these are all categories of documents and costs which the Commonwealth is acknowledging ought not to be the subject of fee charges at all. By far and away the largest category of users of FOI are people, first, seeking personal documents and, secondly, also for the most part personal documents that are in the category of personnel documents-that is to say, staff members seeking information from agencies about employment matters which will usually involve personal files but which may not involve personal files in every case. But when we compare the figures with law enforcement documents, other business documents, policy documents and internal administration documents-the other classes-we will see by contrast that the percentages are obviously quite small of the total number of requests and in each category the total costs involved are not especially great although in total, of course, they add up to a very substantial saving of the kind that the Government has already indicated that it expects to make from this legislation. What precisely the amount of the saving will be, whether it is $3m, $4m, $5m or whatever, remains to be seen. But it is savings of that order of magnitude. They are significant savings, and they cannot be denied. So the basic point remains that the Government is making deliberate cost savings because there has not been sufficient contribution to the revenue from the operation of the system to date. But it is making those cost savings and getting additional cost recovery in areas, which, by and large, involve seekers of information who can afford to pay for it because very often here one is talking about corporate clients. We are not seeking to deny access, to deter access or in any way to discourage access by imposing fees that do not otherwise exist to that large category of people seeking access to personal documents who, on the face of it, are likely to be the group of people who are most likely to suffer if some costs were imposed. So I think all of those points are important to appreciate in weighing, evaluating and understanding what it is the Government is doing in this legislation. There are many more points that no doubt honourable senators will want to take up at the Committee stage. I will do my best to answer them one by one when we get to them in that context. The only point on which I would conclude, in the light of the explanation and the further information that I have offered, is that with all its modifications, with all the ways in which the Bill has be reshaped in some significant respect by this amendment legislation now before us, it does remain a vital and effective freedom of information legislation of a kind thoroughly deserving that name and description and thoroughly deserving the legitimate pride of this Parliament which gave it birth. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume Peter McIntosh, G. D. Black, J. R. McKeirnan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Newman, J. M. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Cooney, B. Reynonds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Teague, B. C. Grimes, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Jones, G. N. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. McClelland, Douglas Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Powell, J. F. Vigor, D. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.15) —We have spent some not very fruitful time today listening to a series of second reading speeches on the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986 from Opposition senators defending the indefensible, justifying their support of the increase in fees that is being introduced in this legislation on the somewhat specious ground that this is somehow a Budget Bill, notwithstanding the fact that Part III of the Freedom of Information Act, which is the most contentious part, at least as far as we are concerned, is substantially merely a rerun of the 1985 regulation which was defeated. How the Opposition can argue that this is, therefore, a Budget Bill simply because it contains some amounts of money, is anybody's guess. I can only assume that it is supporting this legislation in the hope that it will be in government after the next election and will therefore benefit from the quite significant increases in charges that are being introduced in this Bill, as well as a number of other changes. It is not insignificant to introduce a $30 application fee for a freedom of information request. It is certainly not insignificant to increase the charge for agency search and retrieval time to $15 an hour. It is not insignificant to many ordinary people to introduce a charge of $20 per hour for agency decision making and consultation time when one considers exactly how that could be abused by agencies and departments wanting to delay providing information. It is by no means insignificant to ordinary people in the community, who want access to information to which they feel entitled to have access, for the Government to introduce an application fee of $40 for internal review requests. This is not a Budget Bill, whatever the Opposition, led by Senator Puplick from his newly found vantage point of the seat of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, may think. He is indulging in some sort of delusion of grandeur. We have nothing more in this legislation than a rerun of the attempt by the Government to increase charges and impose fees in a regulation that the Opposition parties, to a person, to the best of my knowledge, enthusiastically opposed some 12 months ago. To make matters more ludicrous, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is currently winding up its inquiry into the operation and administration of the freedom of information legislation that this Federal Government has. The Committee has had about 100 submissions so far and it has heard about 60 witnesses. I understand that it has completed its public hearings and that it is in the process of writing its report. It would seem to me that those are extremely good reasons for this chamber not to proceed with an amending Bill to an Act which is under investigation by one of what I would consider to be the most prestigious committees in this place, and a committee on which Senator Puplick sits. One wonders why, when he is certainly not prepared to take it seriously enough, he cannot put aside this piece of legislation until the report from that Committee has come down. What we are seeing happen here is something that my colleagues canvassed earlier during the second reading debate, a process of impending access to information to some people who are most in need of it. We have a piece of legislation which purports to provide freedom of information without actually providing the information. The freedom of access is there if one can afford it; the information is not unless one can afford it. I am appalled at the specious and hypocritical reasoning that has been put forward by the Opposition as justification for not opposing those fee increases while it is quite prepared on the other hand to play around with other clauses that do not contain a dollar sign anywhere in them. Consequently it is my intention to move in a moment that the Chair reports progress, which is something not unusual during a Committee stage when further information is required, and that the Committee have leave to sit again only after the presentation of the report by the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request to be making of this chamber, given that the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee has reached the stage of preparing its report that it is quite likely to bring that report down during this Budget session and that it is ludicrous for us to be looking at ways of changing the administration and operation of the freedom of information legislation when we have not heard what that Committee feels about it. The position of the Democrats on this issue has been made fairly clear during today's debate. That is why I shall move that the Chairman report progress and ask for leave to sit again following the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the operation and administration of the freedom of information legislation. I move: That the Chairman of Committees report progress and ask leave to sit again. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Powell, J. F. Vigor, D. B. Baume, Michael McIntosh, G. D. Baume, Peter McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Cook. P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sheil, G. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Withers, R. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses 1 to 9-by leave-taken together. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.30) —I wish to make a point in response to a couple of comments made by Senator Haines. While undoubtedly Senator Haines knows a great deal more about the workings of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs than I do-I am a member of that Committee and Senator Haines is not-I think it is appropriate simply to comment that the likelihood of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee being able to report in this Budget session, as has been alleged, is very small. We have not yet concluded all of the hearings that we wished to undertake. As the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is in charge of the legislation, has mentioned, only today have we received the report of the inter-departmental committee, which we have been seeking to assist us in our deliberations. The report will certainly be lengthy. Given the work which is always inherent in the preparing and checking of drafts and the making of final corrections, I do not think that the record should be left unchallenged on the basis that the Committee is near reporting. As a result, the assertions by Senator Haines about the Committee's work can be taken at face value. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.32) —The statement Senator Puplick has made on the inter-departmental committee report as well as his assertion that it will take longer than this Budget session for the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee report to reach this chamber are further proof that the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill ought to be delayed. Senator Puplick makes the admission that those reports are intended to provide this chamber, that is, senators from all parties, with the information needed to help them in their deliberations. Apparently, the honourable senator is quite cheerfully prepared to ignore the fact that we have not had time to pay any sort of attention to the information in the inter-departmental committee report. Nor is he prepared to give us the opportunity even to see the report from the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee which may well come down this session. Even if it does not, it is germane to what is in this Bill. We are making amendments to the operation and administration of freedom of information legislation in Australia. That is the brief that was put before the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. How we can make any properly informed decisions without the sort of information that can be gleaned either from the inter-departmental committee or from the information supplied to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee in the submissions it has received and by the witnesses it has heard I do not know. Senator Puplick may be able to read minds; I have not that capacity. Nor should we in this chamber assume that information is known when it is not. Senator Puplick's concern about my beliefs as to when the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee is likely to report simply justifies our argument that the piece of legislation before us tonight should not be proceeded with while that report is still in abeyance. Clauses agreed to. Clause 10 (Processing of requests, &c.). Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.35) —I move: Page 4, clause 10, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c). This is the first of four amendments which have been circulated on behalf of the Opposition. Clause 10 in sub-clauses (b) and (c) seeks to amend section 19 of the principal Act to reduce the automatic reduction of the time limit to 30 days-that to occur after 1 December 1986. Section 19 sub-section (3) provides the mechanism whereby the time within which a request has to be responded to is progressively reduced. Sub-section (3) in its existing form provides: (a) a case where the request is received before 1 December 1984-60 days; (b) in a case where a request is received on or after 1 December 1984 but before 1 December 1986-45 days; and (c) in any other case-30 days. This is in accordance with the original recommendations of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee that as the bureaucracy became more familiar with the operation of the Freedom of Information Act it should be able to respond in a reduced number of days. Our own experience in the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, as Senator Vigor pointed out in his contribution, is that departments claim that their greater familiarity with the Act is allowing them to shorten the time taken to make a decision and that the effect of the Act on the operations of many departments has been to improve their record-keeping and retrieval systems. I have already drawn attention to the fact that, when the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee conducted its investigation and reported in 1979, Mr Lionel Bowen, at that stage the Opposition spokesman on Attorney-General matters, made a submission to the Committee saying that the time limit should be 10 days. The Government is now seeking to maintain the 45-day limit and to prevent the automatic reduction of the time to be taken to 30 days. We are opposed to that attempt to require the departments, after 1 December 1986, to respond within a 30-day period. For that reason I have moved the Opposition's amendment. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.37) —The Australian Democrats will support this Opposition amendment which means that in this place the numbers are sufficient for the amendment to be carried. This then raises a rather interesting philosophical, not to say practical, point for the Opposition. If this amendment and the other amendments which the Opposition intends to move and which we intend to support are rejected by the Government, the Bill will be returned to the Senate. As everybody in this place knows, for a Bill to become law it has to be passed in exactly the same form by both Houses of the Parliament. If the Government chooses to return the Bill to the Senate, what will the Opposition do then? Will it cave in-which would certainly be consistent with its behaviour to date-or will it press the amendment and insist on the changes that it wants to make to clause 10-the amendment that Senator Puplick has just moved-and the amendments that it wants to move to clauses 11, 13 and 14 a little later? If it does press them, it will delay the Bill-one of the sacrosanct Budget Bills that this Opposition enthusiastically supports while deploring the contents. If it delays the Budget Bill it has produced the grounds for a double dissolution and all its high sounding rhetoric about not interfering with the Government's Budget has gone down the proverbial gurgler. So I hope for the Opposition's sake that the Minister here tonight, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), will prevail on the Government graciously to accept this Bill in its amended form. Otherwise it will be doing Opposition members a terrible injury in forcing people outside, as well as itself, to realise that they are-I suppose that `hypocrites' is an unparliamentary term. I am sure that there is a suitable alternative; I just cannot think of it at the moment. The Democrats will be supporting the Opposition's amendment to clause 10, as I foreshadow we will be doing in regard to the amendments it has circulated in relation to clauses 11, 13 and 14. I will await with bated breath the Government's reaction to all of that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.41) —One of the few pleasures I have in piloting the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill through the Parliament is watching the Australian Democrats and the Opposition working themselves into a lather attacking each other for their attitudes to this legislation and the procedures associated with it. Senator Haines —No, you have it all wrong. They attacked you for the content of the Bill but they are supporting it. I am attacking them quite cheerfully for not opposing the Bill when they are opposing its contents. Senator GARETH EVANS —Everyone is attacking everyone else but the only ones who are doing it with any passion are the Democrats and the Opposition. That is giving me my sole pleasure in the conduct of this legislation. I do not know what the Government's attitude will be if the Bill is amended. That is a matter for the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Government to decide. I will convey the circumstances of this exchange and whatever happens during the evening to these amendments and the Government will no doubt make the decision that is appropriate in all the circumstances as a result. As to the substance of the amendment now before us, it is designed to ensure that the present statutory response time of 45 days to 30 days-I am sorry; let me start again. I am getting very tired. Senator Puplick —No wonder you do not have any passion. Senator GARETH EVANS —I told the honourable senator I was not very passionate about this; I cannot afford to be. The Act presently provides that on 1 December the present 45-day time limit will be reduced to 30 days. The Bill now before us is designed to maintain the 45-day period intact. Senator Haines —We have worked that out. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is true. It is now sought to retain the status quo, which is not really the status quo but which will be the status quo on 1 December. The Government wants to keep the time limit at 45 days. It does not want to reduce it to 30 days. The reason is that the way the system is being administered at the moment, only 54 per cent of requests are met within a 30-day deadline and 46 per cent of them would overrun. Substantial additional administrative costs would be involved in meeting that earlier deadline in an economic and financial environment where it would be very difficult to meet the burden of such additional costs. It ought to be appreciated in particular that a 30-day deadline would sharply increase Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviews which are invariably costly because a deadline overrun gives an automatic right of appeal. It needs to be appreciated further that overruns have been due to increased demand and the complexity of requests rather than any inefficiency in the system. Productivity has increased since the legislation has been in force. I am told that eight staff days per request was the situation in 1982-83. We are down to 1.9 staff days per request now. But while the great bulk of requests can clearly be accommodated within quite narrow time frames, many requests, particularly those with any complexity at all, cannot be met within that timeframe. It is for those reasons that what was originally the aspiration, certainly, of the Government that we would be able to move to a 30-day period, has been unable to be realised and why we want to maintain the Bill in the form in which it has been moved by the Government. I regret that the Opposition is not supporting the Government's position. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 11 (Requests may be refused in certain cases). Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.46) —The purpose of clause 11 is to establish a new regime to be known as multi-document requests. At present under the Act people administering it may treat a series of related requests for documents as if they were one request. The authority for that is to be found in the decision of Sir William Prentice in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision on Shewcroft's case. Nevertheless, the Government now proposes to bring together this regime so that multi-document requests may be determined by the authority to whom the request is initially made. The Minister or agency may determine that to meet the request would be a substantial burden upon the department, would substantially divert the resources of the agency from its other operations, would interfere substantially with the performance by the Minister of the Minister's functions, or would result in substantial delays in dealing with other requests. I do not intend to traverse the ground I went over in my speech during the second reading debate on the question of the meaning of the words `unreasonably divert' because other matters are to be brought forward. The first, and perhaps the most important of these matters, arises by way of example. The example I give is the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled `Land Acquisition in New South Wales by the Australian Army-First Report'. During the Committee's investigation the Department of Defence sought to conceal documents from the Senate Committee and from requesters in general. It did so by claiming that the requests which had been made to it by the No Base Central Tablelands Association, I think taken together rather than as individual requests, imposed upon the Department an unreasonable burden in asking for all documents relating to the event. It claimed that this was an unreasonable burden and that the requests should not be acceded to. Eventually, after a great deal of legal and political pressure, the Department of Defence was forced to cave-in. The Chairman of the Committee, Senator McIntosh, who is in the chamber this evening, will recall the words on page xviii under the heading `Conduct of the Department of Defence'. It states: The Committee is not satisfied that the Department of Defence has co-operated fully or openly with this inquiry. Throughout the inquiry, material obtained from the Department under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by interest groups opposing the proposals repeatedly contradicted or undermined evidence presented to the Committee by Departmental witnesses. In other words, the Department of Defence was shown, by the documents obtained under freedom of information legislation, to have failed to co-operate fully and properly with the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Department was rightly called to account by the Committee on that occasion. But had this particular piece of legislation been in operation at the time, the Department of Defence would have been able to claim that the multi-document request being made by the No Base Central Tablelands Association had the effect of substantially diverting the resources of the agency from its other operations and it would have been able to use that as a blanket refusal mechanism for the documentation which, when it eventually got out and got into the hands of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, demonstrated the extent to which the Department of Defence was involved in a deliberate cover-up and a deliberate attempt to mislead the Parliament. I give that as one example, and one example only, of the effect that had this piece of legislation been in place at the time the Senate Committee was at work on this reference, its activities would have been frustrated. The other point to which I draw attention is the report of the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills which was tabled only an hour or so ago in this chamber. Fortuitously, the report came in tonight and under the heading `Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986', the Committee comes to the conclusion that clause 11 would amend section 24 of the Principal Act in a way which would have a retrospective effect. The Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills has taken evidence from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). The Attorney-General had this matter drawn to his attention. Senator Haines —Are you sure that it was actually tabled? Senator PUPLICK —It was tabled by Senator Robertson on behalf of Senator Tate earlier this evening. I am in enough trouble without getting hanged for contempt if the document in fact has not been properly tabled. Nevertheless, the Attorney-General responded to the Committee and the Committee analysed what the Attorney-General had to say and concluded that, even after it had examined the Attorney-General's response, and I quote from page 73: Accordingly the Committee continues to draw new paragraph 24 (1a) (b) to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) in that, by reason of its retrospective application, it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. I will not go into the Orwellian text of the Attorney-General's letter, which at one stage supports the proposed amendment and rejects the criticisms of clause 24. It reads: The diversion of resources caused by these requests impacts chiefly on other FOI applicants whose requests are considerate of resource requirements. What that piece of newspeak actually means is fairly mind-boggling, but undoubtedly Senator Gareth Evans, with his usual erudition, will be able to sort that out. I therefore indicate that the consequences of this amendment will be that every department whose filing system is in disarray will be able to use this is as a mechanism to refuse almost every FOI request. Therefore, every multi-document request can basically be treated in this contemptuous fashion because it can be argued that any request will cause the department, agency or Minister concerned to bring about delays in dealing with other requests. By the very nature of the application, of course, it will cause delays in something else occurring. As a result, clause 11 provides this extraordinary new blanket amendment. Two points upon which I principally rely, therefore, are the Scrutiny of Bills Committee comment about the retrospective nature of this-in other words, that there will be a capacity to aggregate documents already in the system, which have not yet been determined, with documents arriving in the system after the legislation comes into effect in order to claim that they are part of the multi-document request, therefore prejudicing the status of requests already in process-and secondly, that we have a clear example in the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in relation to the land acquisition matter that had this exemption been in place, very valuable information would have been withheld, both from the affected persons and from the Senate Committee, and that the Committee would not have been in a position to expose the maladministration and the cover-up that the Department of Defence was engaged in on that particular occasion. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.56) —As I indicated a moment ago, the Australian Democrats will be supporting the Opposition in relation to clause 11, substantially for the same sorts of reasons that Senator Puplick has just outlined. Essentially, passage of this clause would mean that departments would be able to exploit the situation that would then obtain and effectively deny access where they did not want their processes open to public examination. Quite frankly, that flies significantly in the face of what this legislation is all about. Certainly, the concerns that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills raised with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) were answered in part. The Attorney-General was able to satisfy the Committee reasonably about the concern that it raised with regard to a non-reviewable decision. The Attorney-General's response, while somewhat prolix, placated the Committee sufficiently for it to say in its digest of today that the Attorney had in his response answered the Committee's concerns in relation to that aspect of the new section 24 that is to be established under clause 11 of this Bill. The concern, as I said, related to the fact that the Committee was concerned that although a decision to refuse to grant access to a document was subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, such review might not extend to a decision under paragraph 24 (1a) (b), that a request was one of a series of related requests and therefore was a multi-document request for the purposes of sub-section 24 (1). The question of possible retrospectivity was not so satisfactorily answered and the Committee has continued in this report to draw to the attention of the Senate, as Senator Puplick indicated, its belief that under principle 1 (a) (i) of its terms of reference, the new paragraph 24 (1a) (b) could, by reason of its retrospective application, be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Democrats, therefore, are happy to support the Opposition in moving for the deletion of clause 11. Given the enthusiastic support that the Government has given for including this clause in the legislation, I will be fascinated to see just exactly what it does when confronted with the fact that a fairly significant clause it obviously placed in there after due consideration has been deleted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.59) —I again regret that the Australian Democrats and the Opposition have chosen to combine forces to assault this particular worthy amendment that is proposed by the Government. The amendment is proposed at a time of Budget constraints, I repeat again, to meet resource problems-- Senator Haines —That is a tautology even for this time of the night. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I have repeated it before and now I am repeating it again. It is not a tautology at all. Eat your heart out Rex Mossop, or Alex Buzo, or both. It is to handle a few exceptionally large and costly requests. They are the only ones with which there are significant resource problems. But these sorts of cases do arise. Senator Haines —How many is a few? Senator GARETH EVANS —That remains to be seen. Many are called but few are chosen. Senator Haines is familiar with the distinction. Laurence Maher, a Melbourne solicitor, a friend of mine, sought documents relating to the Westinghouse anti-trust settlement. The cost to the Government was $80,000. The cost to Conzinc Riotinto of Australia, the private company involved in resisting that application, was another $120,000. Senator Haines —If it had not resisted, it would not have cost so much. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a perfectly understandable response but not one that necessarily appeals to the Government at a time of financial stringency, particularly when it must be appreciated that the merits of the particular application were subsequently held to be not especially great so far as legislation was concerned, and Mr Maher failed in his various attempts before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to override the claims of exemption that were made by the Commonwealth. Contemplate this: Mr Kevin Newman, a former Liberal member of parliament, sought documents on every overseas travel item involving Ministers of the Crown. Over 10,000 items were involved, adding up to 170 days work in processing. The cost to the community was $43,000. In the Swiss aluminium case an Australian alumina exporter sought documents justifying a substantial tax assessment that was made. The cost of that application to 30 June this year has been over $60,000 for the Commissioner of Taxation alone. There is a separate matter involving the Department of Trade which is now before the High Court of Australia. The point is that a number of applications are being made that on the face of it involve very substantial burdens and impositions upon Government departments. This clause, of course, would not operate to strike out applications in any way automatically simply because they are burdensome in terms of the time involved. This is an entirely discretionary provision for the agencies and obviously one that would be relied upon only in circumstances in which costs and the burden involved were so substantial as to be unconscionable. Agencies will have to publicly justify their resources judgments and decisions to the Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Obstinate officials can and will continue to be exposed by the ground rules that will continue to exist under this legislation if this amendment is passed, as we hope it is. The other point that was made in relation to this clause went to the concerns of the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills, alleged claims of retrospectivity and goodness knows what else in the way in which this document was framed. It needs to be appreciated that it is in only a very limited context that this alleged issue of retrospectivity arises and that is where the claim in question is part of a series of related requests, processing of which series of requests is not completed before the commencement of the legislation. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his communication to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee did not accept that there was any breach of the basic principles that are applicable in these circumstances. His argument is set out in a thoroughly detailed, logical and cogent document. Whether it is thought to justify the description that Senator Puplick offered of it of Orwellian newspeak is something that I leave to this Committee to judge for itself. The best way of ensuring that the record is complete and that the Government's position on this is understood is for me to simply seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of the Attorney's letter and I so apply. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ATTORNEY-GENERAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 M86/13619:AW Dear Michael, The Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 12 of 1986 raises two concerns about clause 11 of the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986. Both relate to new paragraph 24 (1a) (b) of the Freedom of Information Act proposed by clause 11 of the Bill. The first concern is that a request made before the new s.24 comes into force might be able to be rejected by reason of its aggregation with other post-amendment requests for the purpose of applying the ``multi-document request'' ground for refusal of access. The effect of s.8 of the Acts Interpretation Act in relation to the proposal to replace s.24 with a new provision is that existing rights under the present s.24 will not be affected except to the extent that express provision is made to the contrary. Such express provision is, in my view, made in proposed new s.24 to the limited extent that undecided requests extant at the date of commencement of that section will be able to be dealt with under that provision where they are part of a series of related requests which is not completed before commencement. Other requests extant at that date will continue to fall to be considered under existing s.24 to the extent that that section was applicable before commencement to that request. I am able to confirm that it is the Government's intention that new s.24 should so apply. However, I do not consider that the new s.24, in giving effect to that intention, will unduly trespass on existing rights because: experience indicates that only a small number of requests will be affected; those requests are, in the main, in the nature of ambit claims, ``fishing expeditions'' and the like which make disproportionate demands on the limited resources available to meet requests made under the Act; the diversion of resources caused by these requests impacts chiefly on other FOI applicants whose requests are considerate of resources requirements; for these reasons the amendment is being proposed at a time of Budget constraints in order to meet a resources problem in handling a few exceptionally large and costly requests; the s.24 (3) obligation on agencies to consult with an applicant and provide an opportunity to remove grounds for refusal will continue unaffected; the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has already recognised that agencies are entitled to aggregate related requests for the purpose of applying existing s.24 (1): see Re Shewcroft and Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1985) 7 ALN N307; and where a series of related requests is not completed until after commencement the total workload will not be clear until then and, moreover, there would be difficulty in dealing with different requests in the series on different criteria; the s.24 provision is discretionary and agencies will be instructed to apply it to existing requests in only the clearest cases (e.g. not where an applicant has already been advised that a request will be processed). The Committee's second concern is that some aspects of the decision to refuse access under new s.24 may involve unreviewable administrative decisions. There is no basis for this concern. Sub-section 58 (1) of the Act supplements s.43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to confer on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal very broad powers to review any decision that has been made in respect of a request and to decide any matter in relation to the request that could have been or could be decided under the Act by the agency or Minister concerned. The terms of these provisions are sufficiently broad to embrace all relevant aspects of a decision to refuse access under new s.24. I trust the foregoing will allay the concerns of the Committee. Yours sincerely, (Lionel Bowen) Senator Michael Tate, Chairman, Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Parliament House, CANBERRA. A.C.T. 2600 Senator GARETH EVANS —I thank the Committee. Against that background, I believe the amendment is perfectly defensible in concept and in drafting and I commend it accordingly to the Committee, even though in a spirit of philosophical appreciation that that commendation is unlikely to prove effective. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.05) —I have a question to ask Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. He indicated that the provision is to stop if not frivolous requests at least ones that require a great deal of time and effort on the part of the departments concerned and hence a great deal of cost. Firstly, I would like to know how the departments know before they have started the search how long it will take and hence what the cost will be. Is there some little flag on the sort of requests that are likely to be made that indicates beforehand that a request will be lengthy and hence costly? Secondly, since I am quite sure that Senator Gareth Evans knows far more about the American freedom of information legislation than I do, can he indicate whether there are any circumstances in Australia in which a situation which I understand exists in the United States of America could also apply here-that is, the applicant being let loose among the files to find the information that he or she is seeking? I understand that that provision exists in some circumstances in America. I am not particularly clear what are the circumstances in which that can be done or what restrictions are placed on access to what files. I would be interested in the Minister's response firstly on the mind-reading exercise that apparently goes on to work out whether a request will be lengthy and expensive and, secondly, the possibility of introducing something similar to the process that I understand applies in some circumstances in the United States of allowing the applicant access to relevant files in order for him or her to find the information that is required. I am happy if the Minister wants to leave his reply until a little later. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.08) —I might need to take the second question, about the United States of America experience, on notice. As to the first one, if there is one thing public servants are usually pretty good at it is identifying whether a particular task is likely to prove lengthy and burdensome. Senator Haines —On whose definition though? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think the concept is familiar to them. One hopes that it is. Senator Haines —I mean, what is burdensome to one public servant may not be to another or even to the applicant. Senator GARETH EVANS —What mostly matters is how the request relates to the circumstances not so much of the energy and hormonal zest of a particular public servant but, rather, the circumstances of a particular agency or the office that is concerned. What might constitute a minor diversion of a single employee for a very large agency which could well afford to have a single employee occupied for three or four days on a particular task might for a very small agency be a thoroughly unconscionable disruption for the same job length to occur in that context. If it is a small agency with a handful of personnel and the job involves four of five full staff days, for example, to process a particular request and the judgment is made that the job is likely to be of that order of magnitude-judgments of that kind can be made in prospect after very quick scrutiny of the state of files and the nature of the request-the substantial burden of that test would appear to be potentially satisfied, bearing in mind always that it is not an automatic test but one that is within the discretion of the agency concerned and the subject to review and appeal if the agency abuses its position. The test, as we see it, will be simply whether the likely total work in dealing with the request would substantially divert the resources of the agency from its other operations, whether it would substantially interfere with the performance by the Minister of the Minister's functions or whether it would result in substantial delays in dealing with other requests. I think it is probably the first of those that is likely, in practice, to prove to be the most significant. Senator Haines —It is a pretty subjective judgment. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a subjective test. All of these things are subjective. But if one tries to build in objectivity in terms of numbers of days and so on and use a test of that kind it may be one that will operate in a far more restrictive way in practice than an open ended, more subjective looking test like this. Senator Haines asked whether an applicant in Australia can be let loose among files to find out what he wants. The answer is not under FOI. Under the Archives Act one could get special access rules if the records are with Archives, but usually only for documents of a significant age. I think Senator Haines asked me something else as well with reference to the United States. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.11) —I did not ask the Minister that. I thank him for reading the note from his advisers, but either they mis- heard me or I was not terribly clear. Since I said it twice, I suspect that the former was the case. I want to know whether there is any potential for introducing something similar to that which applies in the United States. I do not want to know whether it exists in Australia. I was aware that it did not exist under FOI. I want to know whether the Government has given any consideration to whether there is any potential for something similar to happen, so that an applicant can be let loose, among files, as apparently happens under certain circumstances in the United States. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.12) —If it does not exist now, the potential obviously is there for it to exist in the future. Senator Haines —That is going to get over your clause 11 problem, isn't it? Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that there are precedents for this sort of thing under the Archives Act, it may be a procedure which would have some potential application. Clearly, by definition almost, if one is talking about sensitive classes of documents, in respect of which there may be claims of exemption, to let someone loose among the files in question with an opportunity to see them before the claim for exemption can be put in train, would be completely to undermine the practical utility of the avenue of exemption. Senator Haines —Sir Humphrey would love you. Senator GARETH EVANS —He would not even mind my language actually, not to mention the concepts that I am advancing. I am improving; this is what happens when one has been a Minister for 3 1/2 years. I am afraid that that is the best I can do and Senator Haines will have to like it or lump it. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.13) —I have listened to this discussion-I will not call it a debate-over the hours that it has been continuing. I feel that it is time to explain what happens in the United States, because I was very familiar with the system and I had great occasion to use it. I ran an environmental law group. In the United States freedom of information is the one thing that allows people like Ralph Nader to operate. Ralph Nader could not make a living in Australia because there is no freedom of information here, as we would understand it in the United States. As to the matter of letting people loose among files, this does happen. I was a lecturer at the University of California at Santa Barbara. I taught environmental defence courses. I often had my students combing through files. We were very interested in the Santa Barbara oil spill. Under the freedom of information Act my students were allowed to go through the filing cabinets of the United States Geological Survey and, in so doing, discovered that there was a variance in the drilling program which was granted by the USGS, which eventually ended up in a court case. Senator Gareth Evans —I bet that they were not allowed back after that. Senator SANDERS —Yes, they were allowed back, and the bureaucrats welcomed them back, for the reason that if one has freedom of information the bureaucrats have no worries. They do not have to worry about leaks; they do not have to worry about their necks being on the line. If there is true freedom of information, the bureaucrats are quite happy to give the people what they have paid for. It is the people's information; it is not the Minister's. I notice he is laughing. It is not the bureaucrats' information; it is the people's. They paid for it. They deserve to have access to it. The Minister and his Government are denying access to the people's own information. Frankly, I am ashamed of them. Senator Haines —Or making us pay for it. Senator SANDERS —Making us pay doubly for it. We pay for its collection in our taxes and we pay again when we want to see what it is. I think it is actually unworthy of this Government to go back once again on its policies and promises and make what little freedom of information we have available more unavailable by pricing it out of the market-place. Sooner or later the only people who will be able to afford freedom of information will be CRA Ltd and the multinationals. The transnationals will know what is going on in this country, but the people will not. That will be to the detriment of our society. Clause negatived. Clause 12 agreed to. Clauses 13 and 14-by leave-taken together. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.16) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 5, clause 13, leave out paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: `(b) by inserting in paragraph (3) (b) ``or a person on whose behalf the application was made'' after ``applicant'' (second occurring).'. (4) Page 6, clause 14, proposed new paragraph 30a (1) (b)- (a) sub-paragraph (i), leave out `and' at the end of the sub-paragraph; and (b) after sub-paragraph (ii), insert the following word and sub-paragraph: `or (iii) the giving of access is in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public,'. These two amendments essentially strengthen provisions whereby fees may be waived in the public interest. I am not anxious to detain the Committee overly long this evening. I think there is a prospect of dealing with the legislation this evening. Amendment No. 3 seeks to leave out paragraph (b), as proposed by the Government, and to insert in paragraph 3 (b) of the original legislation the words `or a person on whose be- half the application was made'. That paragraph would require the Minister to take into account-and I quote the words that would be used in the amended form-`whether the document to which the applicant seeks access relates to the personal affairs of the applicant or a person on whose behalf the application was made'. It then continues. That is the status which would allow the Minister or agency to remit charges for people making applications on behalf of another. The second amendment, to page 6, clause 14, adds a new paragraph 30a (1) (b) which, by strengthening the public interest amendments, will provide, in the words of the last part of that amendment, `where the giving of access is in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public, then a capacity exists for a Minister or agency to waive the charges'. The original Senate Committee and Senator Evans in his comments were strongest when they stated that there ought to be a considerable strengthening of the public interest test throughout the whole legislation. Senator Evans has done a most extraordinary volte face on this matter. He has changed clothes so much on this that he reminds me of a political transvestite. But the whole approach that is being launched into as far as this is concerned is quite undesirable. The two amendments, taken together, that have been moved by the Opposition will streng- then the capacity of Ministers or agencies to reduce or waive fees where the interests of a person who is being assisted by somebody else in the seek of information or where the interests of the public in general, or a substantial section of the public, are involved. I think that that is very much in accordance with the spirit of the freedom of information legislation and very much in accordance with the principles which the Senate Committee and Senator Evans in an earlier incarnation advocated with such strength and force, and about which the Opposition remains entirely persuaded. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.20) —I indicate on behalf of the Australian Democrats that we will be supporting the Opposition amendment. The points I made on the public interest clause in my speech at the second reading stage do not need to be repeated but I strongly support the matter raised by Senator Puplick. The extremely strong recommendation in the original report to which he referred of strengthening that public interest clause is an essential part of this operation. I can but reiterate the point that this measure is an extraordinary departure from that very important first principle that was enunciated in that report. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.21) —I support my colleague Senator Macklin and follow on by asking for some undertaking from the Minister that we will be able to get figures broken down into categories on how much will be spent annually on the internal review processes associated with each of these amendments. Obviously, this amendment will produce a new category under which it will be useful to get statistics. I believe that it is extremely important that those running the country know exactly what is happening. To be able to handle this type of legislation we should know about the usage of these FOI facilities. Will additional data be collected now that an application fee is about to be imposed? In what circumstances will agencies, which have bad primary decision making records-that is, which have to take decisions to various appeal processes-be taken to task within the administrative operations of the Government? Will any figures be produced on the cost of preparing cases for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and higher court proceedings? At some point during the Committee stage of the debate we would like an undertaking from the Minister that such statistics will be available well beyond those that have been incorporated to date. I would like to know what action is being taken against departments that have released documents virtually on the door step of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and that have basically cost both the public and private sectors a lot of money. If the Minister could give us some indications on these matters, it would be useful. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.23) —As to Senator Vigor's set of questions about the sorts of statistics and data the Government intends keeping on the costs of doing various things, running appeals and so on, it is the Government's intention, as I understand it, to gather data and to continue gathering data on most, if not all, of the particular matters to which Senator Vigor referred. I do not think we want to accept that as a mandatory obligation nor would I wish to give any firm undertaking in that respect until the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has had an opportunity to fully appreciate what might be involved in Senator Vigor's question. There is a desire, as there has been in the past, to keep the maximum amount of information about the way the system is working and the costs that are being incurred in relation to it and I give him that assurance that that objective will continue. Implicit within the collection of such data is, obviously, continued close supervision by the Attorney-General's Department of the way in which the system is being administered by the other agencies and that implies a degree of discipline over the way in which the system is being operated. There are, of course, extensive guidelines prepared by the Attorney-General's Department governing the way in which various classes of decisions are made. One would hope that the Freedom of Information Act continues to be applied in a flexible spirit and one that genuinely reflects the open access spirit of the whole legislation. The only points I want to make in defence of the existing amendment and in rejection of the Opposition proposal to qualify it is that while it is the case that the public interest criterion is being removed as a mandatory criterion for the remission of charges, it is still to be a relevant consideration for the purposes of most parts of the operation of the legislation. An agency failing to properly consider public interest considerations, where that is relevant, would be open to investigation by the Ombudsman and correction by the Federal Court of Australia under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. I believe that under those circumstances removal of the mandatory public interest criteria, which is here involved, is not something that is challengeable or colourable in the way that has been alleged by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. Accordingly, I urge them, with no greater prospect of likely success than has been the case in the past, not to proceed with their demolition of this part of the legislation but to accept it in the spirit in which it is offered and to vote for the Government amendment. Amendments agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Progress reported. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting Australia's rising inflation, increasing unemployment, worsening balance of payments crisis, record interest rates and declining investment-- (a) deplores the confusion created by the misleading and contradictory statements made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the state of the Australian economy and calls on the Federal Government to: (i) reduce the record spending budgeted for this year, (ii) restructure the industrial relations system as recommended by the Federal Opposition, (iii) reduce the heavy burden of Government regulation, and (iv) abandon its damaging anti-business taxes; and (b) condemns the Treasurer for trying to paper over these defects by reverting to his old habit of falsely talking-up the economy. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.29) —On 19 March 1985 the Senate agreed to become part of a joint committee to inquire into certain matters relating to video material. This followed considerable debate in this chamber on the setting up of a Senate committee to inquire into similar matters. The Joint Select Committee on Video Material was set up to inquire into such matters as the effectiveness of certain legislation which had been introduced in relation to the classification of video material and, in particular, X-rated videos and their importation. It was to inquire into whether the present classification system was adequate, whether video retailers were observing the conditions of sale or hire for X-classified material, whether this material was being made available contrary to the law to people under the age of 18 years, whether the regulations were adequate to identify the categories of prohibited material and a number of other things. I would like to suggest that these things were urgent at the time the Committee was set up. Some 17 months have passed and we have heard nothing from that Joint Committee. I am wondering whether there is any way, Mr President, whereby you could inquire of the Chairman of that Committee just when we are going to get a report, because these are important matters. X-rated videos are banned in all states of Australia and as a result the Australian Capital Territory now is the mail order capital for X-rated videos. We asked for a moritorium on the sale of X-rated videos so that they could be banned until the Committee reported, but the Minister conscientiously and consistently refused to have anything to do with that. So the fact is that X-rated videos have been available from the Australian Capital Territory. I am not suggesting that they are being made available to people who should not be getting them or that the police are not policing their distribution. However, the matter came up again the other day when I received a telephone call from the proprietor of a video shop. This man told me that he had been contacted by the Australian Taxation Office. He was asked a number of questions in respect of the operation of the fringe benefits tax. He was asked whether or not he ever looked at any of the videos himself or took them home. He was told that if he did he would be required to pay a fringe benefits tax based on the value of any such video. Any self-respecting video proprietor who has material in his shop which is classified by someone else but in relation to which he bears the legal responsibility for the contents must look at the material particularly if it is hired to customers under 18 years of age. He has an obligation to see what is in the video. We all know that videos classified as other than X-rated have contained material at the beginning or the end of the tape that advertises X-rated videos. For the Taxation Office to go around suggesting to video shop proprietors that they cannot look at the material without paying a fringe benefits tax must surely border on the absurd. Questions have been asked here and in the other place about the review that is to be undertaken of the unexpected consequences of this legislation. We do not yet know how anybody can make a submission to this inquiry, how it will be carried out, when the inquiry will be finalised and when the changes will be made. On 9 October the Prime Minister said: I have indicated that there will be a review of the sort that I have talked about. If anyone wishes to bring forward anything through the consultative process in which we will engage, he will be able to do so. Presumably when he said that, he also meant, of course, that she will be able to do so as well, but we have not had any details of how the consultative process is to take place. Tonight I particularly want to refer to the situation that I mentioned of the proprietor of a video shop being told that if he takes a video home to look at a fringe benefits tax must be paid. I say that he has a responsibility to look at his videos. He has the legal responsibility to see that what he lets out of his shop in fact complies with the law and that he is not in breach of the law in any way. I suggest to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is in the chamber at present, that he assist in trying to ensure that the video committee that was set up on 19 March 1985 presents a report. We are entitled to know the stage its inquiries have reached. I think we are entitled to have a report in view of the seriousness of the matters that we are looking into. I certainly hope that someone will talk to the Taxation Office about whether or not it is really on the right track when it starts asking these sorts of absurd questions which go to the heart of something as serious as a man's responsibility for running his business, when he is hiring videos and is legally responsible for the consequences of what he is in fact hiring. This obviously is a matter which needs to be reviewed. However, I would really suggest that it does not need to be reviewed because it is just too absurd to contemplate. However, hopefully, amongst all the absurdities of the fringe benefits tax, this one will be ironed out. Mr President, I would like you to find out when the Committee will present its report because I think it is time we knew a bit more about this matter. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(10.35) —I would just like to give a very short resume of a letter that recently fell into my hands. Anyone who is in any doubt about the sorry state of business and especially agriculture should read that letter. The letter was forwarded just before the Budget session by a farmer who was finding it difficult to pay an account. The letter reads: Dear Sirs, With the end of the financial year and the coming Budget in our minds we submit the following heart rending story:- In reply to your request to send a cheque in payment of my account, I wish to inform you that the wolf is at my door and the present frame of mind of my bank manager makes it almost impossible. My shattered financial position is a result of federal laws, State laws, outlaws and mother-in-laws. Through these laws I am compelled to pay workers' compensation, payroll tax, group tax, road tax, sales tax, excise tax and, in the unlikely event of my making any profit, I have provisional tax and, last but not least, income tax and fringe benefits tax. For my family and business protection, I have to carry life insurance, public liability, burglary insurance, accident insurance, old age insurance and Medicare private insurance. I am required to get a firearms licence, driver's licence, dog licence, not to mention a marriage licence. My business is so governed that it's no easy matter for me to find out who owns it. I am inspected, expected, suspected, disrespected, rejected, dejected, examined, re-examined, informed, required, summonsed, fined, commanded and compelled so that I provide an inexhaustible supply of money for all Government bureaucracy. I can tell you honestly that except for the miracle that happened, you would not be finding my cheque enclosed. The wolf that was at my door had pups in the kitchen. I was able to sell them and, so I survive another week in this rat race called business. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.37) —in reply-I think the only appropriate response to Senator Brownhill's contribution is a long drawn out groan. That sort of document was doing the rounds when my grandmother was a girl. I think that the attempted addition of a topical reference to fringe benefits tax is about the only relevance that that has to anything that is conceivably happening in the real world. I was fascinated with Senator Brownhill's obvious concern about the requirement for people to have marriage licences. I am sure that that particular aspect of his contribution tonight will go down well in a family oriented and marriage enthusiastic party like his own. But apart from all that, we had Senator Reid's contribution about pornographic videos, a familiar and recurring theme in Senator Reid's contributions to this place. I do not think it is appropriate that a Minister should be asked to comment on the progress of a committee. In fact, I am not even sure whether the honourable senator was asking me or the President to pursue this matter. But it is a parliamentary committee that has been established to look at the question of the way in which X-rated video systems are operating in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a committee on which the Liberal Party of Australia-Senator Reid's own party-is represented. I suggest that she devote her attention not so much to raising this endlessly on the adjournment but stirring her colleagues into life and producing the report that she is so keen to have. As to the question of the possible application of the fringe benefits tax to a circumstance where someone is, in the course of business but out of hours, scrutinising the content of a particular film for its legality or suitability for hire, obviously there is no question under those circumstances of anything remotely resembling a fringe benefits tax being applicable. If it is a matter of the stock of a video retailer or cinema distributor being available for home consumption as part of the perks of the job, I suppose that might give rise to questions of that kind in particular circumstances. But it all depends on the circumstances. I think that here, as elsewhere, common sense will prevail within the Australian Taxation Office in the administration of this measure. But beyond that, Mr President, I suggest we all go home. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.40 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1271) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1983. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) There have been no reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions since the Department was established. The initial structure was established in 1985. (Question No. 1285) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 September 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 Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following supplementary information in response to the amended question of 17 September 1986: (1) Since 5 March 1983 one Senior Executive Service position has been reclassified and one Clerical Administrative Class 11 position replaced by a Senior Executive Level 1 position. (2) On 13 April 1984 the position of Senior Assistant Secretary (Motor Transport) in the Federal Office of Road Safety was reclassified from Senior Executive Level 1 ($48867) to Senior Executive Level 2 ($53632). On 10 September 1984, a Senior Executive Level 1 position ($48867) replaced a Clerical Administrative Class 11 ($40686-42388) as Regional Director (Queensland). The salaries shown are the current rates of remuneration for the subject classifications. (Question No. 1291) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, 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 Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) None. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 1333) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: Has the Minister for Housing and Construction's Department prepared any reports, either in 1986 or 1985, concerning the move by the Royal Australian Navy from Sydney to Jervis Bay; if so, what were the topics of these reports, and how much did the reports cost to prepare. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department has prepared numerous reports in 1985 and 1986 on the relocation of elements of the RAN from Sydney to Jervis Bay. The reports concern environmental aspects of the relocation including maritime and ecological studies and planning studies for the relocation of the Newington Armament Depot to Jervis Bay. The cost of the reports has been estimated at $500,000. (Question No. 1346) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) When does the Minister for Aviation expect a decision will be made on the upgrading of the pavements at the Tennant Creek airport. (2) Can the Minister say how his conclusion was reached, given the Minister's statement of 6 June 1986 that aircraft movements at the aerodrome were not sufficient to justify the upgrade. (3) What studies have been or will be undertaken prior to any decision on the availability of the present operations of F28's into the airport. (4) Is the Minister aware that Ansett which operates the F28 service into Tennant Creek regards it as a commercially viable operation; if so, how does the Minister justify his statement that it is difficult to justify expenditure on the aerodrome, when to fail to do so will lead to the curtailment of a profitable remote area airline service, in the face of airline, passenger, local and Territory Government opposition. (5) What work has been done on the pavements of the airport since the Minister's press release was issued on 6 June 1986, promising immediate action to improve the condition of the pavements. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A decision that the Commonwealth would take immediate action to improve aircraft pavements at Tennant Creek to ensure continuation of reliable air services was announced on 6 June 1986 by the Minister for Aviation. (2) In his statement of 6 June 1986, the Minister commented that the Tennant Creek Council had sought works costing $4.5m as a condition of transfer of the aerodrome under the Commonwealth's Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan. That estimate was based on F28 standard of operation and it was in this regard that the level of expenditure was difficult to justify. (3) The future of F28 operations is the subject of a review currently being conducted jointly by the Department of Aviation, the Northern Territory Government and the Tennant Creek Council. (4) Because of Tennant Creek's small population, the low numbers of aircraft movements and passenger loadings, expenditure of public money to provide for F28 services does not appear justified. The Minister, however, is satisfied that the allocation of $1m of public money to provide upgrading of the aerodrome to commuter aircraft standard is warranted. (5) Following the Minister's announcement of 6 June 1986, the Department of Aviation immediately commenced the preparation of a planned scope of works to reinstate pavements at the Tennant Creek Aerodrome. That has now been completed and the resultant proposal has been forwarded to the Department of Housing and Construction. It is anticipated that a contract will be let by mid-October 1986 for upgrading of the drainage for the main runway. Tenders for runway, apron, taxiway and access road repairs are expected to be called early in January 1987. (Question No. 1380) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) It is correct that the Department of Aviation's planned change from a domestic to an international system of Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), is set to take place within the next 2 years; if not, when is it proposed that this change will take place. (2) Where is international DME installed, in Australia, at present, and where is it proposed to be in operation in the near future. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Aviation currently operates an Australian designed domestic distance measuring equipment (DME (D)) facilities from 108 locations throughout Australia. The System is incompatible with the ICAO international DME (DME (I)) system. The Department also operates DME (I) facilities and when the currently approved programme is complete there will be 32 DME (I) facilities installed of which 25 will be colocated with DME (D) facilities. The DME (I) facilities meet the requirements for international and domestic wide bodied aircraft operations. Most modern aircraft are already equipped with DME (I) when purchased. There is neither an approved programme nor any date set for a changeover from DME (D) to DME (I). The Department of Communications is seeking the early decommissioning of the DME (D) facilities to permit the allocation of two additional VHF TV channels in Australia. The domestic aviation industry have supported a timely changeover from DME (D) to DME (I). An acceptable programme and changeover date has yet to be finalised with the aviation industry, after which Government approval will have to be sought in the budget context. There are no funds in 1986-87. The changeover would be expected to be completed within seven years of Government approval. (2) The Department currently operates DME (I) facilities at 21 locations as follows: Adelaide, Alice Springs, Brisbane, Caiguna, Cairns, Canberra, Coolangatta, Derby, Esperance, Hobart, Kununurra, Mallacoota, Melbourne, Mildura, Moomba, Mount Hope, Mount Isa, Norfolk Island, Perth, Port Hedland, Sydney. Under the currently approved programme another 11 facilities are planned for installation over the next three years. Currently these 11 DME (I) facilities are proposed for installation at the following locations: Barmount, Collinsville, Cunnamulla, Geraldton, Learmonth, Lord Howe Island, Mudgee, Parkes, Taroom, Thangool, Walgett. The actual locations may be subject to change as a result of regular review of priorities, which includes consultation with the aviation industry.