Thursday, 13 November 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Puplick (from 278 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that whereas: 1. Identification cards and numbers severely threaten our freedom to live unfettered by excessive bureaucratic surveillance; 2. The Government has been unable to present any realistic justification for the introduction of ID cards and numbers. We humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should reject any proposal to inflict ID cards and numbers on the freedom loving people of Australia. by Senator Mason (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and that the Government issued in December 1985 guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft operational standards for superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (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 give 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 menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Siddons (from 270 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned concerned citizens of Australia shows that: the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap is a vital part of United States plans to fight a nuclear war, thus implicating Australia in these immoral plans; spy satellites such as those linked to Pine Gap are used to spy on both allied and non-allied countries, including Australia; these activities of Pine Gap are a destabilizing influence in a dangerously uneasy world, raising the level of fear and distrust between nations; the significance of Pine Gap to the U.S.A. is such that it is a prime nuclear target; Pine Gap desecrates an Aboriginal dreaming track. Your petitioners therefore strongly urge that the Australian Government give to the government of the U.S.A. the one year's notice required to terminate the lease on the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable George Georges-Senator for Queensland and the members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament: We, the undersigned citizens and electors of Queensland do humbly pray that the Senators of Queensland will: (i) Oppose the introduction of the $250 Tertiary Administration fees that were announced in the Federal Budget on Tuesday 19th August 1986. (ii) Vote against any legislation that would attempt to establish this Fee, given that it is setting a precedent for further increases in fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Georges (from 296 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the imposition of the $250.00 Administrative charge will: (1) Prove a disincentive for all students-particularly part-time and mature age students-from continuing their tertiary studies. (2) Lead to higher levels of youth unemployment as fewer students will now enrol in tertiary studies. (3) Impose economic hardship upon the student population at large. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should Vote to reject the imposition of the administrative charge, or, at the very least, vote to impose a lower fee on students who are not full-time. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Siddons (from 45 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 there is a need for an Independent and Multi-Cultural Broadcasting Corporation to give a firm legislative and financial basis for the SBS Network. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Pass Senator Vigor's Bill with all expediency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Siddons (from 38 citizens). We, the undersigned concerned Australian citizens hereby petition the Honourable Senators to totally reject the current proposals for an I.D. Card and the proposed Data Protection Agency. We believe that they represent potentially undesirable interference in the lives of honest Australians. Provisions for protection of individual privacy cannot be guaranteed as Statutes are easily altered by future Governments. We believe that there are more efficient methods to prevent fraud in the areas of taxation and social security without the use of these two proposals, which go well beyond the reach of the true role of democratic government, i.e., that citizens may live quiet and peaceable lives. The I.D. Card and Data Protection Agency have strong potential under this or future administrations to interfere with the quiet and peaceable lives of its subjects. We, your humble petitioners, in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Siddons (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (i) That we are disgusted at the behaviour of the Women protesters who located themselves outside Parliament House during late October, in hindering public access and obstructing Members of both houses of the Parliament from going about their duties as duly elected representatives of the people of Australia; (ii) That we are gravely concerned at the lack of action by the Federal Government with relation to this incident; (iii) That we are also gravely concerned that the prevention of males from entering public property is a huge backward step for equality of the sexes; (iv) That we understand the women may have their views and are entitled to them, but their methods of expressing them are illegal; (v) Notes with concern that these people have received grants from the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled: (1) Refers the action of the women in hindering Members and Senators in their duty to the Privileges Committee; (2) Will call on the government to evict, by force if necessary, any protesters that set up camp outside Parliament House; (3) Recommend prosecution of these women for trespass and breaches of the Sex Discrimination Act. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That Tasmania has a high proportion of practising professional and amateur artists, crafters, designers, writers, dramatists and musicians producing high quality work. We believe that Tasmanians should take pride in their creative output through proper presentation of their activities on radio and television programmes. We believe that such programmes are vital to the community, and this need will not be adequately fulfilled when decisions on local and regional programmes are made in Sydney or elsewhere other than in Tasmania. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will request that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation should retain the locally produced radio arts programme `Artsview', locally produced musical programmes, and introduce a local television programme with special emphasis on the visual arts. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from 271 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth that: There should be no drugs removed from N.H.S. Lists on Prescription available to pensioners. There should be no payment cuts on the pre-absorbed Consumer Price Index payable in November 1986. by Senator Tate (from 3,569 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives, after 19 November 1986, and a motion is moved for the second reading of the Bill, debate on that motion shall be taken to be adjourned upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an Order of the Day for the first day of sitting in 1987, without any Question being put. (2) That immediately after debate on a motion for the second reading of a Bill is adjourned in accordance with paragraph (1), or following the giving of notices on a subsequent day, a motion may be moved without notice to refer that Bill to a standing committee for inquiry and report by a day not later than the first day of sitting in 1987. (3) That this Order cease to have effect at the commencement of the first day of sitting in 1987. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I withdraw, as a consequence, General Business Notice of Motion No. 223 standing in my name relating to the introduction of Bills. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate Notices of Motion Nos 2 to 5, 8 and 9 and 13 to 17 standing in my name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 15 of 1986, the Public Service Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 130, the Air Navigation Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 141, the Navigation Orders as contained in Navigation (Orders) Regulations Orders Nos 5 to 11 of 1986, the Defence Determination No. 46 of 1986, the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) 1986 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 37 of 1986, the Credit Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Australian Capital Territory Regulations 1986 No. 17, the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 55 of 1986, the Domestic Violence (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance 1986 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 53 of 1986, the Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 48 of 1986 and the Motor Omnibus Service Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Australian Capital Territory Regulations 1986 No. 13. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —These are all matters which the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances describes as protective notices given to preserve to the Committee the ability to take effective action while it wrote to Ministers and considered their replies to the Committee's concerns. At our meeting this morning the Committee was very pleased to consider and accept a number of explanations and assurances given by Ministers concerning various pieces of legislation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the Committee's scrutiny of each of the items. Leave granted. The summary read as follows- Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 15 of 1986) The Committee was generally interested in the continuing major reform of A.C.T. criminal law by Ordinance (in this case relating to forgery) and particularly interested in the extent to which an evidence and proof provision in sub-section 135e (2) satisfied the test devised by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee for justifying the imposition of an evidentiary burden on an accused. The provision made it an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse to possess an implement known to be designed for forgery. Intention to forge was not an element of the crime. The test provided that an evidential burden should not be placed on a defendant unless the prosecution would otherwise face extreme difficulty in circumstances where the defendant was presumed to have peculiar knowledge of the facts in issue. The Committee accepted that the justification for possession of such an incriminating implement must rest peculiarly with the defendant and it was not unreasonable that to avoid conviction he or she should establish a reasonable excuse for such possession. Regarding the use of Ordinances to achieve major law reforms the Committee decided that it would table its Eight-first Report on this matter. Air Navigation Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1986 No. 141) These Regulations conferred discretions on the Department of Aviation to grant or refuse licences for low flying and for use of firearms from an aircraft. An unfair refusal without a right of appeal could destroy the livelihood of professional aviation animal cullers or crop sprayers. The Committee accepted the Minister's undertaking to make the low flying discretion subject to review by the Administration Appeals Tribunal and to provide for a high level internal review of the firearms discretion. Public Service Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1986 No. 130) Sub-section 22b of the Public Service Reform Act 1984 deals with the establishment of equal employment opportunity programs. Sub-section (13) permits regulations to be made to modify that section to apply to different Commonwealth authorities. The Public Service Regulations (Amendment) modified the section to make it apply to defence staff employed under the Naval Defence Act 1910 and the Supply and Development Act 1939. The modification was by way of repeating in a Schedule to the Regulations the terms of section 22b of the Public Service Act. The Regulations in making this modification gave the Minister for Defence power to suspend the application of equal employment opportunity programs to those employees if the Minister declared this to be necessary by reason of defence or civil emergency. There was no requirement for gazettal, tabling or disallowance of such a declaration. The Committee requested publication and parliamentary procedures to protect the rights of individuals and make the Minister's discretion directly accountable to Parliament. However, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters told the Committee that since the relevant sub-regulation merely repeated the text of sub-section 22b (17) of the Act, disallowance of the regulations would have no effect. The unaccountable power to suspend the equal opportunity programs was vested in the Minister for Defence by the Act itself. Sub-section 22b (17) was inserted into the Public Service Reform Act by a Senate amendment in section 8 of the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Act 1985. Navigation (Orders) Regulations Orders Nos. 5 to 11 These Orders comprised hundreds of pages of tightly packed, technical and complex regulatory provisions. The Minister for Transport agreed that, to facilitate the Committee's scrutiny and for the information of other interested persons, the Order should be accompanied by Explanatory Notes. Also where the provisions of International Maritime Codes are incorporated into Australian law simply by reference in Marine Orders, the Committee will be supplied with copies of these Codes for scrutiny. The very extensive range of unreviewable discretionary decision-making powers conferred on officials under the Orders will be examined as a matter of priority by the Department of Transport and the Attorney-General's Department with a view to providing for appropriate merits review procedures before the end of the Budget sittings 1987. Defence Determination No. 46 of 1986 This Determination conferred a wide, unreviewable and subjective discretion on an approving authority to pay a furniture hiring and insurance allowance to certain service personnel. The Minister for Defence agreed to amend the Determination to provide a set of stricter guidelines for the exercise of the discretionary power in order to remove its unnecessary subjective elements. Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) 1986 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 37 of 1986) A drafting error had the effect that, contrary to the intention of the Attorney-General, the consent of the DPP would continue to be required before any prosecution for incest was initiated. The Attorney-General had intended that such consent should be required only for a prosecution for incest with a relative over 16 years of age. The amending Ordinance was made to operate retrospectively to correct the error. The Committee however, was concerned to determine whether during the period of retrospectivity anyone had been prosecuted for incest without the still legally necessary consent of the DPP. The Attorney-General described the very extensive measures he had taken to inform courts, lawyers and prosecutors of the error as soon as it was identified. He also assured the Committee that during the retrospectivity period no relevant charges were laid. Credit Regulations (Amendments) (A.C.T. Regulations 1986 No. 17) There appeared to be an unreviewable discretionary power conferred on the Director by regulation 26 to register or refuse to register certain non-licensed credit providers. The Minister explained to the Committee that the discretion was not in fact a substantive one because the mandatory language of the regulation and the policy of the Ordinance made it clear that the Director possessed no substantive discretion to refuse an application. Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Amendment Ordinance 1986 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 55 of 1986) This Ordinance retrospectively imposed on employers an obligation to pay certain long service leave entitlements for certain supervisors who had been unintentionally and unwittingly excluded from the scope of the Principal Ordinance. The Committee was concerned to establish whether any employer had not in fact made the relevant payments and would therefore be prejudiced by the retrospective obligation to do so. The Minister explained that all relevant employers had continued to make the relevant payments and the retrospectivity did not therefore retrospectively affect any employers' rights. Domestic Violence (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance 1986 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 53 of 1986) This Ordinance was described as containing miscellaneous amendments to the Domestic Violence Ordinance 1986. However, one of these was an amendment to the Crimes Act as it applies to the A.C.T. Its effect was to reflect, by enactment, the common law powers of police officers to enter private property in an emergency not necessarily related to domestic violence. The Committee considered that such a reform should have been located in a more appropriate Ordinance as it was not consequential on the Domestic Violence Ordinance. The Attorney-General told the Committee that the power would eventually be located in a single new reforming Crimes Ordinance for the A.C.T., much of which had already been put in place by a series of Ordinances amending the Crimes Act. The Attorney-General also undertook to amend the Ordinance expressly to limit the exercise of police powers and any use of force by reference to a test of reasonableness. Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 48 of 1986) Motor Omnibus Services Regulation (Amendment) (A.C.T. Regulations 1986 No. 13) This legislation repealed parts of the pre-existing legislation which had expressly set out the powers of inspectors. The Ordinance proposed that inspectors would have such powers as the Minister would direct. The Committee was concerned that there was no requirement for gazettal, tabling or disallowance of such a wide ministerial power. The Minister for Territories told the Committee he would repeal the provision because it was not in fact necessary for inspectors to have any powers other than the power to inspect bus tickets and this could be conferred by drafting determinations in an appropriate way. Determinations are subject to parliamentary control. Senator COONEY —I thank the Senate. I also seek leave to table for the public record the Committee's correspondence with Ministers on all these matters. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —I table the correspon- dence. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Industries Assistance Commission-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 45 (4) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. 2. Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council, Adelaide, 3 July 1986. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff) agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Alston for the period from 12 November 1986 to 5 December 1986, inclusive, on account of absence overseas on Parliamentary business. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every Order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.07) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1986 This Bill to amend various taxation and other laws will give effect to further budget decisions of the government. In particular, it will advance the due dates for payment of instalments of company tax by early balancing companies and introduce measures to overcome arrangements to avoid provisional tax by the manipulation of income distributions of closely-held partnerships and trust estates. Legislation to provide for the payment of a $200 filing fee for applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review certain decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation is contained in this Bill. Amendments of the capital gains and capital losses provisions of the income tax law to give effect to the announcement by the Treasurer on 22 July 1986 are included in this Bill. The Bill also proposes amendments of the income tax law to attribute a wholly Australian source to certain payments of natural resource income to non-residents and to provide for payers of natural resource income and certain royalties to non-residents to make regular remittances to the Commissioner of amounts retained from such payments. Exemption provisions of the income tax law are also being amended by the bill to reflect the introduction of the government's new age-related study assistance scheme-Austudy. Payments under this scheme, including payments of a kind formerly made under the secondary allowances scheme, are to be made subject to tax. Extension of the rebate of tax available in respect of taxable amounts received under certain life assurance policies to amounts received under policies issued by the State insurance office of Victoria is a further measure in this Bill. Also proposed by this bill are amendments of administration provisions of the Australia Capital Territory tax law consequential on two Australian Capital Territory tax Bills that I will introduce shortly. Finally, the Bill will strengthen the management of the Australian Taxation Office by creating a third position of Second Commissioner and correct several minor drafting errors identified in the taxation laws. Mr President, I now turn to discuss in greater detail the more important aspects of this bill. Instalments of Company Tax This bill gives effect to the Budget decision to advance the due dates for payment of instalments of company tax by early balancing companies. These are companies that, by agreement with the Commissioner of Taxation, have adopted accounting periods ending other than on 30 June. In many cases these companies balance on a date after 30 November in lieu of the succeeding 30 June. Under the existing law, a company's income tax liability for a year of income is met by the payment of three quarterly instalments in August, November and February in the following financial year with the balance paid after the issue of a notice of assessment. Each instalment is generally equal to one-quarter of the company's tax for the year preceding the year of income. As the dates for payment of instalments are, under the present law, the same irrespective of the company's balancing date, a company that balances early enjoys a deferral of tax compared with a company that balances on 30 June. This Bill will remove this advantage by providing for instalments to be payable by early balancing companies 1 1/2, 4 1/2 and 7 1/2 months after the end of the month in which the accounting period ends. This will mean that the interval between the end of the accounting period and the date for payment of instalments will generally be the same for all companies. However, a company with an accounting period ending before 31 December in lieu of the succeeding 30 June will be treated as if its accounting period ends on 31 December. The new arrangements will be phased in over 3 years to lessen their impact on companies that could otherwise be called upon to pay up to 1 1/2 year's tax in the current financial year. Instalments that would otherwise be payable before 30 June 1987 are to be paid in three approximately equal amounts on dates not earlier than 15 June 1987, 15 June 1988 and 15 June 1989. The measure will produce gains of $220m, $230m and $240m in 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, respectively. Provisional tax The Bill will also give effect to the Budget decision to amend the income tax law to overcome arrangements for the avoidance of provisional tax. The arrangements involve the manipulation from year to year of distributions of net income of `closely-held' partnerships or trust estates between partners or beneficiaries. They rely on the ability of a person to furnish to the Commissioner of Taxation his or her own estimate of taxable income for a year of income and to have provisional tax recalculated on the basis of that estimate. By varying the distribution of the net income of a partnership or trust so that a partner's or beneficiary's income in alternate years is only slightly above or below the tax free threshold, liability for provisional tax could be completely, or almost completely, eliminated. The new measures will effectively deny to a taxpayer the right to vary provisional tax on account of a reduction in income from a family partnership or family trust estate-as defined in the Bill-where the Commissioner considers that the reduction is the result of an arrangement that, objectively viewed, had the dominant purpose of reducing the provisional tax. Where a taxpayer has made application for a variation of provisional tax and the Commissioner has formed such a view, an amount calculated in accordance with provisions in the bill and referred to as the `provisional tax benefit' will be added to the taxpayer's estimated taxable income before effect is given to the application. However, addition of the provisional tax benefit amount is not to result in a provisional tax liability greater than that originally imposed on the taxpayer. Notice in writing of the amount of the provisional tax benefit is to be given to the taxpayer who will have rights of objection and appeal corresponding with those available against an assessment. The estimated revenue effect of this measure is $50m in 1986-87. There will be no revenue effect in subsequent years. Capital gains tax The Bill will give effect to the announcement on 22 July 1986 that the capital gains and capital losses provisions of the income tax law would be amended in relation to certain options granted after 19 September 1985 by a company. Under the existing law, where a company grants an option to acquire shares of the company, and the options are exercised in a later year of income, the capital gains tax applies in the year of grant but the gain is excluded when the options are later exercised. If the options are not exercised, the gain on the grant of the option remains subject to tax in the year of grant. There are no capital gains consequences where the options are both granted and exercised in the same year of income. As announced on 22 July, the Bill will provide that, where a company grants options to acquire shares in or debentures of the company, there will be no capital gains tax liability to the company in the year of income in which the options are granted. Instead, the liability will arise in the year in which the options expire, and then only in respect of options which expire without being exercised. The amendment will equally apply to similar options granted by a trustee of a unit trust. The Bill also contains several technical amendments of the capital gains and capital losses provisions, details of which are given in the explanatory memorandum on the Bill. These amendments are not expected to have any significant effect on revenue. Natural resource payments and royalties The Bill will also give effect to the decision, announced on 7 April 1986, to amend the income tax law to ensure that certain income derived by non-residents of Australia and directly related to the development and exploitation of Australia's natural resources-referred to in the bill as `natural resource income'-is treated as having a source in Australia. The amendment will, subject to an exception I will mention shortly, make natural resource income derived by a non-resident assessable in full. The amendment will apply to payments made after 7 April 1986 that are based on production and recovery of natural resources after that date. Until that date, payments of certain natural resource income had been treated, under a long-standing agreement between the Commissioner of Taxation and one of Australia's taxation treaty partners, on the basis that only 50 per cent of the payments had a source in Australia. That arrangement will continue where natural resource income is paid to a non-resident who, as at 7 April 1986, had an entitlement to receive income subject to that agreement, provided that the non-resident was at that time a resident of a country with which Australia had a double taxation treaty. A non-resident taxpayer who does not satisfy these criteria will not, after 7 April 1986, be entitled to the benefit of this agreement, although any payments made after 7 April 1986 based on production and recovery of natural resources on or before that date will be assessable on only 50 per cent of those payments irrespective of the country of residence. A person liable to make a payment of natural resource income to a non-resident is required, under the existing law, to retain tax that is, or may become due, by the non-resident. Under provisions included in the Bill, the amount retained is to be remitted to the Commissioner within 14 days after the end of the month in which the payment is made. The requirement to remit is, by the Bill, to apply also to payers to non-residents of royalties, other than film and video tape royalties. These royalties are, under the existing law, subject to retention requirements similar to those just mentioned for natural resource income. The Bill will give the force of law to administrative arrangements under which most payers of royalties have, in the past, remitted tax deducted on a regular basis to the Commissioner. The legal requirement to remit deducted tax to the Commissioner will apply in respect of payments made after the day on which royal assent is given to the Bill and will be supported by appropriate penalty provisions. The Crown priority that applies to pay as you earn deductions and deductions under the prescribed payments system in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency of the payer is to be extended to amounts that are required by the Bill to be remitted to the Commissioner. The gain to revenue from these measures is estimated to be $6m in a full year, but for 1986-87 estimated collections are $11.7m, reflecting the earlier receipt of amounts that would not otherwise have been collected until 1987-88. Tribunal and Court Fees Measures contained in this Bill give effect, in relation to the various taxation laws, to the Budget decision to introduce a general filing fee of $200 for most applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. With a taxation objection decision that is reviewable by the AAT, the $200 fee will be payable when the Commissioner of Taxation is requested to refer the decision to the Tribunal. If a request for reference to the Tribunal is not accompanied by the fee, the request will be treated as not having been lodged. As announced in the Budget, the fee will be refunded where the application is successful. In relation to taxation decisions, this will be where a decision on an objection is varied to any extent in favour of the applicant. The fee will also be refunded where the request is withdrawn by the applicant before the Commissioner has forwarded it to the Tribunal. The fee will be payable where the objection decision that is subject to a request for review by the Tribunal is served after a date to be fixed by proclamation. The various taxation laws generally provide for the review of decisions on objections by a Supreme Court of a State or Territory as an alternative to a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill also provides for the payment of a refundable $200 fee where a person requests review of an objection decision by a court. The $200 fee for court requests will apply to objection decisions served after a date to be fixed by proclamation. This measure is expected, at the current rate of requests for reference, to yield $2m in a full year. Educational Allowances The income tax law will be amended as a consequence of amendments of the Student Assistance Act 1973 that provided for the introduction of the Government's new age-related student assistance scheme called `Austudy'. Austudy will replace the tertiary education assistance scheme, TEAS, the adult secondary education assistance scheme, ASEAS, and the secondary allowances scheme, SAS. As a result of amendments of the income tax law in 1985, TEAS and ASEAS payments have been subject to tax since 1 January 1986. The second reading speech on those amendments, foreshadowed that SAS payments would become taxable from January 1987. The main effect of the amendments now proposed will be to tax, from 1 January 1987, Austudy payments to people who, under existing arrangements, would have qualified for SAS payments. Recipients of such payments will, however, be entitled from 1 July 1987 to the beneficiary rebates available to recipients of unemployment benefit. I note that people currently in receipt of TEAS and ASEAS payments are to be entitled to those rebates for 1986-87 under amendments of the income tax law recently considered by the Parliament. Short Term Life Assurance Policies This Bill will extend, to recipients of taxable bonuses and similar amounts paid under life assurance policies issued by the State Insurance Office of Victoria, eligibility for the income tax rebate presently available on similar amounts paid under certain other life assurance policies. Bonuses received under a life assurance policy within either 4 or 10 years of its commencement date-depending on that date-are generally subject to tax. Where such a bonus is included in a taxpayer's assessable income, a tax rebate is allowed to the recipient to broadly compensate for the tax paid by the policy issuer. Although State government insurance offices do not pay Commonwealth tax, the rebate was extended last year to short-term policies issued by certain of those offices. This was on the understanding that the relevant State governments would reimburse the Commonwealth for revenue forgone by allowing the rebate. The State Insurance Office of Victoria has since commenced to offer similar policies and this Bill will extend application of the rebate to amounts paid under those policies. In return, the Victorian Government has also agreed to reimburse the Commonwealth for revenue forgone. The Bill will further amend the rebate provisions as a consequence of the recent renaming of the State Government Insurance Office (Queensland)-to which those provisions presently refer-as Suncorp Insurance and Finance. Second Commissioners of Taxation Finally, this Bill will provide for the creation of a third statutory office of Second Commissioner of Taxation. The third Second Commissioner will have the same powers and functions as the two existing Second Commissioners. Second Commissioners of Taxation have all the powers and functions of the Commissioner of Taxation except the general administration of the taxation laws, the authority to report to Parliament on the working of those laws and the power to delegate to subordinate officers. The Government sees a need to strengthen the top level management of the Australian Taxation Office to cater for the increased responsibilities given to that Office, to assist in oversighting improved administrative arrangements in the Office and to co-ordinate implementation of the Government's tax reform initiatives. Mr President, as an explanatory memorandum providing detailed explanations of this Bill and the remaining three Bills in this legislative package is being circulated to honourable senators, I will not trouble the Senate with further explanation of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL 1986 This Bill will give effect to the 1986-87 Budget proposals to impose new and increased stamp duties in the Australian Capital Territory. The measures are part of wider proposals to increase the Australian Capital Territory revenue-raising effort so that Australian Capital Territory residents make a more equitable contribution to meeting territorial expenditures. The specific changes to the Australian Capital Territory stamp duty law are as follows: First, the marginal rate of duty payable on transfers of interests in land is to be increased-for properties valued at more than $100,000-from $2.50 to $3.50 for each $100, or part of $100, of the excess over $100,000. This should produce a revenue gain of some $3m in a full year. Secondly, this Bill will impose Australian Capital Territory stamp duty on leases of land granted by the Commonwealth. Since the introduction of Australian Capital Territory stamp duty in 1969, duty has been imposed on all transfers and sub-leases of Crown leases of land, but not on the initial grant of such leases. That exception is now to be removed, so that duty will be payable on the same basis for all dealings in Crown leases in the Australian Capital Territory. The rates of duty on the grant of Crown leases are to be the same as those on transfers. That is, duty payable will be $1.25 for each $100 or part of $100 where the value of the lease is $14,000 or less, increasing to $1.50 up to $30,000; $2 up to $60,000; $2.50 up to $100,000; and $3.50 over $100,000. The estimated revenue yield from this measure is about $2m in a full year. The Bill will also amend the Australian Capital Territory stamp duty law to include the value of chattels with residential property in the value of the property for stamp duty purposes. This amendment will remove the opportunity to minimise stamp duty by overstating the value ascribed to chattels. In a full year, a revenue gain of some $300,000 is expected. The final measure concerns the rate of duty on the non-rent component-for example a premium-of consideration for a lease of land other than a Crown lease. At present, marginal rates of duty similar to those on transfers of interests in land are payable on the non-rent consideration. The higher rates applicable to the non-rent component could distort the choice between non-rent and rent consideration for a lease. The rate of duty on the non-rent component is to be aligned with the rate of duty on the rent component-that is, 35 cents for every $100, or part of $100. As little consideration in non-rent form is presently paid for leases in the Australian Capital Territory, there will be no significant effect on revenue. The new duty on the grant of Crown leases will apply to leases that commence on or after the first day of the month following that in which this Bill receives the royal assent. The other changes to the Australian Capital Territory stamp duty law will apply to instruments executed on or after that day. Mr President, an explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAX (TRANSFERS OF MARKETABLE SECURITIES) BILL 1986 This Bill proposes a new Act to impose Australian Capital Territory tax on the registration, by a company incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory, of transfers of marketable securities listed in a register kept outside the Australian Capital Territory. This will give effect to the proposal announced on 10 June 1986 to counter the practice-known as the Darwin shuffle-that avoided Australian Capital Territory stamp duty on marketable security transfers by the use of registers outside the Australian Capital Territory. The rate of tax to be imposed by the Bill is 15c for every $25, or part thereof, of the unencumbered value of the marketable security. This is the same as the rate of Australian Capital Territory stamp duty imposed on the transfer of a marketable security listed in an Australian Capital Territory register. The Bill provides certain exemptions from the tax, which are based on, and are broadly consistent with, existing exemptions under Australian Capital Territory stamp duty and related tax laws applicable to transfers, purchases and sales of marketable securities. In addition, an exemption is to be provided for marketable security transfers that are subject to a broadly equivalent amount of duty or similar tax in the jurisdiction of registration. Such transfers will be prescribed by regulations. In other cases where duty or tax is paid in another jurisdiction, a credit against Australian Capital Territory tax will be allowed. In other words, the Bill will in practice operate only where Australian Capital Territory stamp duty-or its equivalent-has been avoided and then only to that extent. The administration and collection of the tax is provided for by amendments of the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Act 1969 contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986 that I introduced earlier. Mr President, the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators also explains the provisions of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1986 Mr President, this is the last Bill in this package of four taxation Bills. It will amend the sales tax law to bring it into line with the customs and excise laws that apply to vice-regal exemptions. The Bill will limit existing sales tax exemptions to articles for the official use of the Governor-General, the Governor of a State or a member of the family of the Governor-General or of a State Governor. Personal-use articles purchased by such persons will no longer be exempt from sales tax. Nor will articles for the personal or official use of non-Australian members of the staff of the Governor-General or of a State Governor. This will place Australian and foreign staff members on an equal footing for sales tax purposes. The existing vice-regal sales tax exemptions go back to the time when Governors and their staff were generally citizens of Great Britain. That is no longer the case and thus there is no longer any justification for the sales tax exemptions in question. Another amendment of the sales tax law being made by the Bill will make it clear that a general exemption item does not override a specific taxing provision. As a matter of statutory interpretation, that has always been the approach adopted in the administration of the sales tax law. The amendment will, however, put the issue beyond doubt. Mr President, the amendments contained in this Bill are not expected to have any significant effect on revenue. Details of this Bill are also set out in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) 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 Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.09) —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- This Bill proposes amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to, in particular, incorporate into that Act various excise tariff proposals tabled in this Parliament as at 1 October 1986. Included in the Bill at clauses 4, 5 and 16 are provisions to remove from excise control stabilised crude petroleum oil, naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas-LPG-and condensate produced from the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Island where the Jabiru project is located. The Excise removal is part of a package of measures associated with the Government's policy of imposing a resource rent tax-RRT-on production from off-shore petroleum projects developed in any off-shore permit area for which no production licence was in force on 1 July 1984. The RRT will therefore not apply to the Bass Strait and North West Shelf permit areas. The introduction of RRT was announced by the Government on 27 June 1984 and its first application will be to production from the Jabiru project. The balance of the RRT legislative package is expected to be introduced later in this Budget sitting by my colleague the Treasurer. I now turn to the other excise tariff alterations in the Bill. The majority involve alterations to the excise duty rates on refined petroleum products mainly brought about by the volatility of world oil prices for indigenous crude oil since early this year. Honourable senators will recall that on 24 February 1986 the Government announced that it had decided to adhere to the long-standing policy of determining crude oil excise on the basis of import parity pricing. At the same time it was announced that because of the significant fall in oil prices and its resultant impact on the revenue there was no alternative to an increase in the excise duties on petroleum products. In accordance with these principles a number of excise duty alterations have been made to petroleum products since 15 March 1986. These changes are set out at clauses 7, 9 to 13 and 15 of the Bill. In his Budget Speech the Treasurer announced an increase in excise duties on petrol and diesel fuel of 3c per litre and increases in other refined petroleum products effective from Budget night. The increases which are set out at clause 14 were necessary because of the substantial reduction in revenue from petroleum product taxation caused by further declines in international oil prices. Despite these increases there is expected to be little change in total Commonwealth revenue from petroleum product taxation in 1986-87 compared with 1985-86. It is worth noting that at each change to the excise duty on refined petroleum products corresponding changes were made to the rates of rebate of excise on diesel fuel. Eligible primary production continued to receive the full rebate of duty. The other significant excise alterations in this Bill are at clause 8 proposing a change to the duty on LPG, and at clause 14 (a) proposing a change to the duty on manufactured tobacco. The LPG change is made in accordance with the Government's LPG excise policy which briefly provides for the LPG excise rate to be calculated on the basis of 60 per cent of the amount by which the weighted average price for naturally occurring LPG exceeds $147 per tonne. The average price is calculated as a weighted average of the price received from exports and local sales of LPG. Finally in relation to clause 14 (a) increases in tobacco duty were foreshadowed in the 1983-84 Budget when measures to progressively align the excise rate for tobacco with that applying to cigarettes and cigars were announced. The increase in the rate of excise duty applicable to manufactured tobacco at clause 14 (a) which was announced in the Budget completes the alignment of the tobacco rate with that applicable for cigarettes. Financial impact statement The removal of Jabiru production for excise control as proposed by clauses 4, 5 and 16 is an integrated package with the introduction of RRT for that project. No receipts are expected from RRT on Jabiru in 1986-87. Receipts thereafter are uncertain and will depend upon the profitability of the development. The increases in refined petroleum excise effective from 15 March 1986, 17 April 1986 and 17 May 1986 and the 14 June 1986 decrease in excise, at clauses 7, 9, 10 and 11 respectively, were expected to result in a net increase in revenue of $564m in 1985-86 and $1,980m in 1986-87. The 18 July 1986 and 16 August 1986 excise increases and the 13 September 1986 excise decrease at clauses 12, 13 and 15 are expected to result in a net decrease in revenue of $420m in 1986-87. The increase in the LPG excise rate at clause 8 is expected to result in a revenue increase of $0.2m in 1985-86 and $0.8m in 1986-87. Finally because of a decline in the use of manufactured tobacco, the Budget increase in tobacco excise is not expected to result in any revenue increase. The alterations at clauses 6 and Part 3 of the Bill make corrections to existing provisions and therefore have no financial impact. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) 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 Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.10) —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 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 which is now before the Senate contains fifteen schedules of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Schedules 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 to the Bill, operative on and from 15 March, 17 April, 17 May, 14 June, 18 July, 16 August and 13 September 1986 respectively, alter the rates of customs duty applicable to refined petroleum products. In each instance the customs tariff rates are varied in line with changes to the rates of excise duty applicable to equivalent locally produced goods. Schedule 2 to the Bill, operative on and from 15 April 1986, implements two changes which formed part of the Government's economic and rural policy statement. The first change removes the two per cent revenue duty on certain agricultural chemicals falling with tariff item 38.11 in Schedule 3 to the principal Act. The second change concerns goods falling within item 84.24 in Schedule 3 to the principal Act. In its economic and rural policy statement the Government announced that the customs duty on certain cultivation machinery would be replaced by a bounty. Following a suggestion by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on cultivation machinery the Government has now decided to make all goods falling within the item duty free and eligible for bounty. Schedule 4 to the Bill, operative on and from 18 April 1986, implements the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on electric motors and generating sets. The Government has accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendation that the long term general tariff rate of duty for alternating current and universal electric motors should remain at 25 per cent and that interim assistance at a general tariff rate of 30 per cent for certain motors should revert to the long term rate of 25 per cent. The Government has also accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendations in respect of the long term rate to apply to alternating current generating sets, except in respect of sets having a rating exceeding 500 kilovoltamperes. Sets having a rating not exceeding 5KVA will be subject to a general tariff rate of 25 per cent phasing after one year to 20 per cent and to 14 per cent after a further year. Sets having a rating exceeding 5KVA but not exceeding 25KVA will be subject to a general tariff rate of 20 per cent phasing to 15 per cent after one year. Other alternating current generating sets not exceeding 500KVA will be subject to a general tariff rate of 15 per cent. The Industries Assistance Commission recommended a long term rate of 15 per cent for all alternating current generating sets. Alternating current generating sets having a rating exceeding 500KVA are currently bound at a rate of free under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As there would be significant adverse trade implications should the Government seek release from this binding, it has been decided that alternating current generating sets exceeding 500KVA should remain at a rate of free. Schedule 5 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 May 1986, removes the 5 per cent duty previously applicable on certain engine-powered lawnmowers from New Zealand. This action follows a further review under the intermediate goods provisions of the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations-trade agreement. Schedule 8 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 July 1986, contains four changes. The first change removes the 4 per cent duty which otherwise would have applied to certain furniture and parts of New Zealand origin. As a result of representations by the Australian and New Zealand furniture industries to their respective governments, agreement was reached to bring forward by 12 months the removal of the trade restrictions on these goods. The second change removes the 2 per cent revenue duty on sulphur falling within item 25.03 in Schedule 3 to the principal Act. This change forms part of the Government's decision on the report of the Government study group on fertiliser production and consumption in Australia and the Industries Assistance Commission's report on fertilisers. The third change provides for the continuity of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on electric motors and generating sets. This decision was originally operative on and from 18 April 1986, but some restructuring of the principal Act was required on 1 July 1986, because of the introduction of the revised system of tariff preferences for developing countries on that date. The rates of duty originally implemented are not altered in any way. The final change corrects a drafting anomaly occurring in the numbering of a sub-section of the Customs Act 1901 referred to in item 31 of Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act. Schedule 11 to the Bill is operative from 8 p.m. on Budget night, 19 August 1986. This Schedule contains tariff changes which increase the customs duty on imported manufactured tobacco and refined petroleum products. The increase of $1.90 per kilogram in the rate of duty applicable to manufactured tobacco completes the alignment of the excise portion of the tobacco rate with the excise portion of the rate for cigarettes which was begun in the 1983 Budget. The excise duty, and as a consequence the customs duty, on refined petroleum products is being increased by 14.365 per cent, based on the rates which came into operation on 16 August 1986. The change equals 3c per litre for motor spirit and diesel fuel. Schedule 13 to the Bill, operative on and from 10 October 1986, provides the mechanism for the restoration of duty free admission of certain parts for use in ship repair. The Government's package of assistance for the Australian ship repair industry includes the removal of the duty on imports of certain parts for ships. This was included to assist ship repairers to hold down costs of inputs and improve their competitiveness. Previously most ships' parts were admissible under a Customs by-law. This by-law lapsed on 1 July 1985 when the old commercial by-law system was terminated. This matter has previously been rectified in relation to parts for use in the construction or modification of ships. The amendments in this Schedule now rectify the anomaly that exists where certain parts used in ship repair-unlike the same parts used in construction or modification-do not enter free. Schedule 14, operative on and from 1 January 1987, implements customs tariff assistance arrangements for books to complement a new book bounty scheme recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on book production. The Government has accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendation for the continuation of the bounty but has decided to reduce the bounty rate in line with its Budget decision to reduce bounties generally and thus reduce expenditure outlays. The new scheme will operate until 30 June 1989. This will enable the Government to consider assistance for the printing industry as a whole, following receipt of the Industries Assistance Commission's report on pulp, paper, paper products and printing due in February 1987. Customs duties on goods of tariff items 49.01, excluding Australian telephone directories and timetables, and 49.05 will be free from 1 January 1987. Customs duties on books falling within tariff items 48.18, 49.07.9 and 49.11.9 in Schedule 3 to the principal Act and Australian telephone directories and timetables of tariff item 49.01 will continue at a general rate of 25 per cent. Other books falling within tariff items 49.02, 49.03, 49.04 or 49.06 will remain free of customs duty. Schedule 15 to the Bill contains provision for the implementation of a general tariff rate of $2,100 per tonne for imports of those cheeses and curd falling within tariff item 04.04.9 in Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1982, in excess of the 1985-86 level of 11,500 tonnes. It further provides that this tariff be implemented from a date to be fixed by proclamation. There is a sunset provision under which, if activated, this section of the act will cease to have effect from 30 June 1992. New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the forum Island countries are excluded from the potential ambit of any such tariff action. Australia has become one of the major world growth markets for cheese, consuming some 125,000 tonnes in 1985-86, including more than 20,000 tonnes of imports. No other major developed country market is as open to imports as Australia. Even under the proposed arrangements, which will accommodate dutiable imports equivalent to the level of 1985-86 imports, the Australian cheese market will still be more open than that of any other major developed dairy producing country. The cheese tariff provisions contained in this Bill are designed to bring stability and predictability into our import regime while the industry faces adjustment pressures due to reduced assistance under the new marketing arrangements which came into operation on 1 July this year. Financial Impact As stated earlier the changes in the rates of customs duty set out in Schedules 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 on imported petroleum products equal changes made to the excise rates applicable to equivalent locally produced goods. The changes in the rates of excise on petroleum products have been made to offset the estimated revenue loss or gain to the Commonwealth caused by the adjustments to the import parity price for locally produced crude oil. At the time of the 1 March 1986 import parity price adjustment, 75 per cent of the revenue loss from crude oil was estimated to be recouped through higher excise rates on petroleum products. For the adjustments on 1 April, 1 May, 1 July and 1 August, the full amounts of the estimated loss in revenue were to be recouped. In the upward 1 June 1986 import parity price adjustment, excise rates on refined petroleum products were reduced to fully offset the estimated gain from the crude oil levy. Similarly with the 1 September import parity price adjustment no additional tax revenue will be recovered by the Government as a result of the increase in the price of indigenous crude oil. The removal of the 2 per cent revenue duty on the agricultural chemicals in Schedule 2 to the bill is estimated to be at a cost to the revenue of approximately $250,000 per annum. The removal of duty from the agricultural machinery covered by that Schedule is expected to result in a loss of revenue of about $2m per annum. There may be some loss of revenue resulting from the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on electric motors and generating sets but it has not been possible to make any reliable estimate. The loss of revenue resulting from the removal of duty on certain engine-powered lawnmowers from New Zealand is estimated to be a loss of revenue of approximately $160,000 per annum based on imports of 18,000 units per annum. The removal of the 2 per cent revenue duty on sulphur is expected to reduce duty collections by approximately $1m per annum. The removal of duty from furniture and furniture parts from New Zealand is estimated to result in $400,000 in duty not being payable. The increases in excise duty and customs duty on refined petroleum products contained in the 1986-87 budget are estimated to result in increases in revenue of $625m in 1986-87 and $715m in a full year. The budget changes relating to manufactured tobacco are expected to increase revenue collections by approximately $2m per annum. The net financial impact of the restoration of the ships parts duty concession will be negligible. Some revenue gain would accrue if the provisions relating to cheese and curd contained in Schedule 15 to the Bill are activated and imports exceed a level of 11,500 tonnes per annum. The Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on book production is expected to result in a reduction in customs duty collections of approximately $0.5m per annum. There are no significant administrative costs associated with any of the measures contained in the Bill. A summary of amendments for each Schedule in the Bill has been prepared and copies are available from the Records and Tables Office. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to: That Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Durack for the disallowance of Regulation 4 of the Companies Regulations (Amendment) 1986 be postponed until the next day of sitting. Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(10.13) —We are debating the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1986-87 cognately with the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1986-87, which arise from the 1986-87 Budget. As was correctly pointed out by Senator Messner, who led for the Opposition in this debate, these Bills need to be considered in the light of the growing global economic difficulties. In this way we can identify the enormity of the problems facing this small country with its small economy in a world context. Senator Messner's overwhelming problem, when he tried to deal with this issue, was that he could offer no solutions, partly because the monetarist theories his Party has so slavishly followed are now increasingly seen as the cause of the world's economic problems rather than the solution, and partly because his Party has no credible stance on issues such as taxation and the economy. While Senator Messner correctly tried to put things in a global perspective, he was unable to provide anything other than superficial and glib assertions. Senator Messner's argument on tax has been admirably dealt with by my colleagues Senator Maguire and Senator Cooney, who yesterday very effectively answered the economic issues raised. I want to bring to this debate a realistic perspective of the world economic situation. Senator Messner spoke about his concern over rising world debt, including ours. That is the point he emphasised, but he failed to identify the major reasons behind the buildup of this debt. It is important to do that because it is now internationally recognised that the financial system propping up the world at present is in real difficulty. One of the major reasons for the deterioration is the massive Third World debt. That debt is a result of the global downturn in the production of commodities and raw materials. Current world debt is in the order of $US900 billion, amounting to more than one-third of the Third World's gross domestic product. For many countries the ratio of debt repayment to national export earnings is now insufferable. Indeed, this very day a conference is taking place in Lima, Peru, of the 30 most underprivileged countries. The 30 countries that head the list of indebtedness are meeting in a three-day conference to consider what they might do. They will be considering proposals to repay debts with goods, to stretch repayment periods and to convert loans to grants. So for the first time the underprivileged and poor countries of Africa, Asia and South America are together considering their desperate position-and it is a desperate position. In contrast to the early 1970s, when repayments typically averaged only one-fifth of export earnings, they now amount to one-half, two-thirds and in some cases more than the total visible exports of some countries. This reduces not only the feasibility of paying back debt capital but also the ability to import from the industrialised world. This debt crisis also endangers financial institutions in the industrialised world. Debt due from the four largest Latin American countries alone is equal to double, or more, the reserves of the top 10 private United States banks and two of the top four British banks taken together. That shows the enormity of the debt problem that major Third World countries face. Global debt is too important a matter to entrust to the private banks of the world alone. There are also key relationships between interest rates and debt servicing capacity. High interest rates not only mean high interest payments but also weaken the debtor's capacity to pay. High interest rates kept the United States dollar strong by attracting foreign capital to the United States, but they thereby made capital less available for other countries, driving up the cost of imports in developing countries and leaving less foreign exchange available for debt servicing, without necessarily increasing the exports of those countries because the lower import costs in the United States give rise to protectionism in that country. Although we saw last year the Group of Five countries trying to lower the value of the United States dollar, to some extent successfully, I am concerned because the US still has a massive deficit. It has that massive deficit because President Reagan continues to base it on a tremendous armaments budget that is on the never-never plan. It is not being paid for out of the current United States Budget. It has accumulated to massive proportions. The deficit, by its nature, acts as a threat to world trade. The international community has been forced to drop some of the most hard line and damaging manifestations of monetarism. In particular, the concept of free trade and financial deregulation has had to be rethought. Australia has to give consideration to this matter because it is under pressure to follow the United States. In Europe, countries other than the United Kingdom have attempted to negotiate and to consult with each other in order to make sure that there are not massive movements in their currencies and that the right level of currency occurs so that there is no disruption to their trade and the development of their industries. We also have to consider the limits of the concept of free trade because it is used so blithely and so easily to mean so many different things. Although there must be a major emphasis on the development of free trade so that the economies of the world can prosper and so that we will not slip into a recession or even a depression, we must make sure that we are not gullible and that we do not just adopt slogans. Often in the past we have been urged by other countries to reduce our tariffs. While we must attempt to reduce our tariffs it has got to be done in a most orderly way. We in Australia tend to forget-when we are often lectured by the financial Press-that we should take down the protection we give our industry. We have to remember that there are 20,000 non-tariff barriers in other countries throughout the world which are often much more subtle than the methods we use. This Government has in a planned way-I suggest that this is absolutely necessary in the steel and heavy engineering industries-made sure that as we reduce our tariffs we protect our industries. It has made sure that we do not have the disruption and the complete chaos that can occur if we holus-bolus reduce the barriers that are necessary to protect our own industries. It is a more difficult world. With the election of the Democrats in both the Senate and the Congress in America it appears that there are more difficult times ahead for our farm goods sector. But this is just a small part of our problem as a small economy still reliant on the sales of commodities. We have to accept that the supply side of the global economy has been transformed since World War II. Some 200 companies now account for one-third of the world's total production. For more than a decade transnational production in different countries has been greater than total world trade. The transnational companies' use of devices such as transfer pricing make notions of free trade futile. So, too, does the growth of what has wrongly been termed free trade zones. These zones are industrial development areas in remote or underdeveloped parts of a country which are often guarded by special security forces. The companies operating within these zones are multinationals which have been encouraged by governments which want to industrialise at a faster rate. These zones are notorious for poor wages and conditions and they operate under such favourable circumstances for their multinational owners that even to consider competing against them on the grounds of free trade would be ludicrous. It is in this context that the Government is currently considering the textile, clothing and footwear recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. I certainly hope that the Government rejects the most extreme recommendations of the IAC and seeks to make sure that we maintain a healthy textile, clothing and footwear industry. It is an industry that is essential to the regional development of this country. It is particularly important to the women it employs and to the high number of ethnic people who work in it. There is another reason why we must firmly reject any attempt to return to the monetarist theories which dominated the world during the 1970s and early 1980s. Monetarism imposed impossible conditions on the governments of the Third World debtors which, as I have said, along with the massive worldwide build-up in armaments has taken valuable resources away from the Third World. As Global Challenge, the publication of the Socialist International, puts it: Friedmanite and monetarist influences, combined with the market philosophies of the New Right, have seriously damaged the prospects of global development and imposed the cost of crisis on the world's poor. For example, the monetarist International Monetary Fund has imposed draconian policies on the Third World poor by insisting on massive expenditure cuts in housing, health and education in those Third World countries. In my view there is a great deal of merit in the arguments contained in the book Global Challenge which reflects the consensus of views of Socialist International, the International Organisation of Labour, Social Democratic and socialist organisations throughout the world. It provides a new model for world development-the recovery of growth through redistribution rather than redistribution through growth, which has not worked. For 10 per cent of what the world now spends on arms each year we could begin a process of global recovery and achieve a decade of new development for the north and the south of the globe. I am not suggesting that we should take that one-tenth of the armament figures from the armament budgets as that is probably unreal in the world in which we live today. What is being put forward by Socialist International is that a figure of 10 per cent could be taken each year and used for the development of the countries of the south. When we consider that meeting of 100 delegates in Lima today we realise that we have to do something for those countries that face bankruptcy, otherwise the whole world financial structure could be brought to its knees with the bankruptcy of any of those countries. We must argue for the redistribution of resources which will lead to economic growth-it is as simple as that. If we do not, and if we reply on the discredited monetarist principles of trickle down effects these poor countries will become poorer and finally will become bankrupt. So we have a fundamental alternative to the monetarist and New Right philosophies. Socialist International makes many recommendations in restructuring the global trade and financial structures in order to provide for a more stable and more equal world. This gives us the element of a world strategy based on recover, redistribution, development, disarmament and democracy. Monetarist governments have imposed a high interest rate, low public spending regime which, in turn, has exacerbated the position of the poor in their own countries. We have no better example than the Fraser-Howard regime in the 1970s. In the decade before 1982 the number of people in poverty increased by 55 per cent-from 9 per cent of the population to 14 per cent-and the number of unemployed rose more than fourfold. This leads me to discuss an even greater error that I believe the Fraser Government committed in the belief of promoting Australia as a quarry of the world. It said `We will have no more economic problems', and it talked up the resources boom. It is ironic that Senator Messner, who was leading for the Opposition, was troubled by what was in effect his own Government's actions and his actions as a Minister in that Government. This Labor Government is now having to deal with the consequences of the legacy of the Fraser Government. In fact, the Australian people are having to pay the price for the ill-timed and foolish gamble of the Fraser Government where so much public borrowing was made to deal with the proposed resources boom that did not occur. Relatively, however, now we find that public borrowing levels are no longer a problem. I am concerned about the private borrowing levels. In my view, they will need to be watched very carefully. Private sector debt, fuelled strongly by speculation and take over mania, has become a most pressing issue. The drive for short term profits has caused alarm among many economic commentators. A couple of very respected commentators-Max Walsh and Ken Davidson of the Age-have drawn attention to these problems. I notice that even the Business Review Weekly has to concede that there are some danger signals. In its annual glorification of Australia's richest 200 people it pointed out: There are parallels- with the 1920s- The new entrepreneurs, like those of 60 years ago, are exploiting the miracle of leverage to build big equity holdings. It continued: Banks are lending against the security of shares at a time when share markets are very high. I am concerned-I believe we need to monitor it closely-that the institutions which wheel and deal in takeovers and corporate raiding do so at the expense of ordinary taxpayers, and we will have further problems. When we consider these appropriations and the stringent limitations this Government has placed on government spending, it is of concern to see an accelerating trend which is reported in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 October. A survey of 150 companies showed that the corporate tax rate, which is officially 46c in the dollar, was effectively 26c in the dollar. This is worse than the heyday of the bottom of the harbour schemes in 1980, when the corporate tax rate was effectively 37.12c in the dollar. We are talking about the top 150 companies; we are not talking about small business, which in general is paying the rate of 46c in the dollar. What is most galling is that the taxpayer continues to fund the companies involved in the takeover area, such as Bell Group Ltd, Industrial Equity Ltd and Bond Corporation. While 46c in the dollar is the rate, Bell, for example, pays 28.02c in the dollar; IEL pays 4.66c in the dollar; Elders pays 10.35c in the dollar; and Bond Corporation pays 13.95c in the dollar. So the top 150 companies in Australia-the representatives of the big end of town, as I would put it-are not paying their fair share of corporate tax. Although the Government has plans in place with its imputation proposals, it is of great concern and something we must examine very carefully. In relation to the tax paid by Elders-honourable senators will recall that I said that Elders paid 10.35c instead of 46c in the dollar-I note with interest that Elders is controlled by the Treasurer of the Liberal Party of Australia, John Elliott. As far as I am concerned, he is living off the backs of wage and salary earners through the tremendous taxation concessions he has had as a result of his takeover bids, but he does not want to invest in Australia. I think most Australians are appalled that this businessman and Treasurer of the Liberal Party should say that he will not invest in Australia. It is outrageous and, if I could also use the expression of Senator Messner, very sinister. It is sinister because what John Elliott would really like to see is a government cowering in submission to the most ruthless elements in the corporate sector. Seeing, as we do, at this moment these people in the New Right-or the old extremist of the corporate area, whatever one wants to call them-demanding that the Liberal Party of Australia follow their extremist views, which in many cases are pre-fascist in their approach to economic matters, is certainly something which I believe is reprehensible. As far as I am concerned, it is reprehensible because we have already seen that the wage and salary earners of this country have made massive sacrifices. The wages share of gross domestic product was 64 per cent in 1982-83. In 1985-86 it fell to 59.3 per cent-the lowest level since the early 1970s. In contrast, the share of GDP which went to profit in 1985-86 was 40.7 per cent-the highest share since the early 1970s. This compares with a share of 36 per cent in the last year of the Fraser Government. I am not contesting the importance of creating profit. I am not suggesting that it is not proper that we encourage corporations to make profits. But this must be on the basis that they are loyal to Australia and that those profits are ploughed back into industry, into development and into Australian jobs. I oppose the concept that some of the extremists in the Opposition maintain, that we should be guided by what Mr Everingham, the member for the Northern Territory, succinctly described as the greed or avarice for profits, without concern for the national interest and for creating employment in Australia. So when I consider what Senator Messner said on behalf of the Opposition-he had the audacity to say that the Australian Council of Trade Unions was sinister in its desire to see up to 20 per cent of superannuation funds reinvested in Australia, and therefore in long term rewards in terms of increased employment in industry-I am flabbergasted that the Opposition should be so disloyal to the need to increase the development of Australian industry. I say to Senator Messner and the Opposition that when this matter is further developed by the ACTU and the Government they will find that all the reputable insurance, assurance and superannuation funds will be only too happy to have long term investment and to invest a percentage of the money available in Australian industry. Senator Siddons —Provided they are all treated equally. Senator CHILDS —I think it is important, of course, that they be treated equally. But also I am not very happy with some of the fly by night people in this field who are only concerned with the maximum amount of profit in the short term and who will go overseas regardless of the long term interests of the Australian people. Senator Siddons —Would you agree, Senator, that this would require a government law along those lines? Senator CHILDS —Certainly I agree with the honourable senator's approach on this. I have been very consistent in believing that we must develop Australian industry and, indeed, I am proud to say that I am Chairman of a Senate committee that is trying to encourage the revitalisation of Australian industry. I think it is most sinister that people should not see their primary concern as the development of Australian industry and making sure that capital goes into Australian industry and that capital does not become just a matter of speculation. Senator Chaney —Mr Fitzgibbon pointed out that one could get more money on deposit. Charlie Fitzgibbon pointed out his own concerns about that. Do you deny he is a patriot? Senator CHILDS —Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon is a patriot and he has argued for a properly planned approach to the economy of Australia. I do not have any difficulty with believing that we must plan the resources of Australia in such a way as to develop Australian industry. That means examining many things in this country. I believe that this Government has shown with the industry plans that it has already developed that it will do just that. In the next decade under Labor governments industry after industry in Australia, I believe, will find that they have effective plans that will increase their productivity and develop new industries. We must certainly make sure that this is Australia's priority, facing, as I have described, the tremendous problems that any realistic assessment of the world in which we now live will show. If I react to all the interjections, I shall take up someone else's time, so I conclude by referring the Senate to a remark of someone whose views are worthy of consideration-Galbraith. He said that he could never understand why it was that the rich needed tax cuts and, therefore, rises in income in order to restore their incentive, whereas the poor needed to have their incomes cut in order to restore their incentive. That applies to the world at present, and it certainly applies in Australia. We must ensure that we are identifying with the people who are today struggling in Lima, Peru and with the problem of bankruptcy for the 30 poorest countries of the world. We must also be concerned in our own country that we follow economic policies that will create growth here. In these appropriations this Government is laying the foundation so that we shall be able to develop our industries and this country's economy for the next decade. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.41) —It is intriguing to hear Senator Childs talk critically of a previous government for talking up what he described as a resources boom when he has clear evidence that there was a resources boom in respect of investment which, unfortunately, did not carry forward into a resources boom in respect of earnings from that investment, largely because there was a downturn in world economics. It is intriguing in that context to hear a member of the Australian Labor Party talking about talking up a situation when we have this nation's Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) engaged right now in one of the most disreputable efforts to talk up an economy. On 11 November the Prime Minister deceptively said that members of the other place would recall that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had made it clear `that there was an expectation that economic conditions would improve in this country in the first half of 1987'. He went on to say: I am very pleased to say that the most recent economic indicators are consistent with the expectation then expressed. He pointed to the following factors: . . . the greater confidence in the Australian dollar, to the indicated improvement in consumer confidence and also to the increasing evidence that domestic manufacturers are recognising the opportunities offered to them by the significant depreciation that has occurred in this country. If honourable senators have ever heard pie in the sky stuff, this is it-deliberate deception and a deliberate misconstruction of the reality of what is happening in this nation right now. In just three-quarters of an hour's time we shall see the latest evidence of governmental deception of the people when the balance of payments figures come out. It will be another disaster. Let us remember what this Government said about the balance of payments last year: How it would get a little bit worse before it got an awful lot better. Leave out the rest-just retain the word `awful' and the Government is right. As we remember, in the Budget last year the Government told us how things would get so much better and how the balance of payments deficit on current account would be less than the $14.7 billion forecast. Of course, we can see now that last year it was far worse than was forecast, and that this year it will blow out enormously. We shall already have a deficit of about $6 billion in four months by the time the figures come out today, and we are still getting the nonsense that we have been getting continually from this Government. It is a deliberate campaign of deception. What is the reason? It is to talk up the Australian dollar, to tide things over so that the Government can-hopefully, perhaps-run for an early election next February, before the house of cards crumbles, a house of cards that is being deceptively and dishonourably created by this Government to try to fool the Australian people about the real nature of our economic standing. One has only to look at the ANZ Bank `Business Indicators' spring 1986 issue, which says: However, for there to be any significant reduction in imports and increase in exports new investment will be needed. What is happening to new investment in Australia? Can the Labor Party tell us about a great new surge of investment? Of course it cannot. Not even Bob Hawke, in his misleading statements in the House of Representatives, can pretend that there is anything like an investment resurgence going on. Yet even the economists in the Labor Party-those who can add up, and those who are not such lateral thinkers that they think one and one make 11-cannot pretend that there is any investment going on in this nation. There is in fact a fall in the level of investment, yet everyone recognises that to solve the basic problems involved in the balance of payments current account, there must be an increase in investment. The ANZ spring 1986 bulletin said: In the absence of an investment led recovery, the outlook for the economy is grim. That is not what the Prime Minister said. I wonder who is right? Do we believe the Prime Minister, who talked up the economy all of last year and was shown to be totally incorrect, who kept on talking about what interest rates would do, and was proved to be totally incorrect; or do we believe people who do not have the vested interest that the Prime Minister has in deceiving the people about what is going on in our economy? Do we believe the people who know what is happening in the real world? Let us look at the real world, and at what is happening in the balance of payments area on which our future depends-our ability to export and our requirements to import. Let us look at the situation in which the Prime Minister pretends that there is a great and buoyant economy where everything will be all right again, as he consistently and mistakenly has been saying for so long. Let us look at what is happening and the impact on our balance of payments. Right now we are facing the prospect of a cut of about $6.25 a tonne in prices for Australian coal sales to Japan, along with reduced volume. Let us remind ourselves that coal is our major single export. We have expectations of a reduced Japanese demand for Australian iron ore as Japanese steel output is forecast to fall from 104 million tonnes this year to as low as 80 million tonnes after 1990. We have uncertainty over prospects for Australian oil exports and imports following the turmoil in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries after the sacking of Sheikh Yamani. We have a cave-in by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. to an upsurge in industrial unrest at its steelworks over superannuation. We have had the submission by Borg-Warner to demands for an immoral and improper payment to settle a strike, which ended 3,000 stand downs caused by bully-boy union tactics. We have had a sharp rise in housing interest rates which underlines the continuing impact on the economy of the Government's policy of high interest rates, designed to hold up the Australian dollar. Let us recognise that the high level of interest rates in Australia, which fluctuate every now and again-for example, last week they were down a bit-are deliberate government policy. They are not by accident; they have not magically happened. They are a deliberate exercise of government policy to protect the Australian dollar. Let there be no suggestion to the contrary. We have also the lowest motor vehicle registration figures for nine years following the further 9.6 per cent seasonally adjusted drop in September. We have the prospect of patchy local demand for steel, with BHP forecasting an 8 per cent fall in 1986-87 in the internal demand for steel due to sluggish private fixed investment, weak commodity prices and uncertain economic prospects. On top of all that, we have the failure of the Government's review of its fringe benefits tax to do more than trim about 10 per cent off the edges in unintended consequences, leaving the tax about 90 per cent unchanged. Honourable senators should remember that this is a tax on business, a tax on the people who are supposed to be making the investments that are needed to get Australia out of the mire. They should recognise that behind all this, secretly, in a speech to a Washington audience the Treasurer's senior economic adviser has admitted that there will be no internal economic growth this year. We have not heard that from the Treasurer yet. We have not heard it from the Prime Minister, who says that everything is wonderful and that everything will turn up next year. He urges us all to trust him. Why would anyone trust this man? We have not even been told in this Parliament that there will be no internal economic growth this year, yet the Treasurer's office is prepared to tell American investors. Apparently they are much more important than the people of Australia. The people of Australia can be kept in the dark about the fact that the Budget forecast of minimal economic growth is now wiped out to no economic growth. There is something even more disturbing to me in the Prime Minister's approach. He has been reported-I understand that this is correct-as having told the Caucus that everything was very good indeed. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, he painted an optimistic picture of the future of the economy. He told Caucus that with a more stable dollar and unemployment figures which were not discouraging, there was reason for optimism and that the Government had been through the worst period. Why do we have a more stable dollar? If ever I have seen any self-delusion-I presume it is deliberate because Government members could not be so foolish as this-it is by this Government. Why on earth does the Government think the dollar is relatively strong at the moment? Is it because we have a great, outstanding, unbelievable future? Not according to the experts, including the experts overseas, who have just been visited by Mr Keating and members of his office. The reality is that the only reason Australia is an attractive haven for foreign short term money at the moment is that the Government has put a floor under the Australian dollar. It has instructed the Reserve Bank to do so. The Reserve Bank buys dollars under US60c and has put the floor there. Everyone knows that it is there, so there is a guaranteed level below which the dollar cannot fall. Yet at the same time the Government is maintaining massive interest rates. Let me tell the Government this: There is no better haven for hot short term money in the world at the moment than Australia, not because Australia looks wonderful or the Australian economy is great. It is exactly the contrary; it is because this Government has placed a floor under the dollar and by massive interest rate policy it is providing an enormous guaranteed return to foreign investors in this country. There is no better game in the world for foreign investors to get into on a short term basis than Australia at the moment because there are no risks as long as the Government maintains the floor under the dollar. Also there are very high returns as long as the Government maintains its high interest rate policy. This is where the fascinating bit comes in. In other words, the only risk a foreign investor has is if the Government changes its mind and its policy. What would encourage the Government to change its mind? Quaintly, if our foreign exchange and balance of payments figures started to improve-in other words, if we started to do well and there was good news about our balance of payments-the Government would not need to maintain the record high interest rates or the floor under the dollar. Therefore, good news for Australia would be bad news for the foreign investors because there would then be no need for the Government to maintain its record interest rate policy, which is slamming Australian homeowners, destroying the prospect of investment in Australia, and which is disastrous for our economic recovery, but which gets the Government out of a hole on foreign exchange. So clearly, every time there is bad news, which forces the Government to keep up interest rates, foreign investors are delighted. That is why we have had this positive response. Every time a dreadful balance of payments figure comes out, why on earth do Government members think it is so wonderful? They seem to believe that it shows that the foreigners still have confidence in Australia and that the Government is still on the right track. Government members are deluding themselves and that is the most dangerous and damaging aspect because apparently they genuinely do not know. If they were deliberately wicked-there are suggestions that that could be so, but I doubt it; I think they really do not know-it would be a different matter. I think that Government members really do not know the motivations behind the people from overseas in putting their money in Australia. They do not realise that it is only because of the Government's policies, which are costing the Australian people so much, that foreign investors are putting their short term money in Australia. Government members do not know that good news, a good result, would be the last thing that those short term foreign investors want because in those circumstances the Government might be able to reduce its interest rates, thereby reducing the benefits that foreign investors would receive. Let us hear what Salomon Brothers, the leading American broker in this area, has said about the Aussie dollar. It says that the Australian dollar's rise: . . . appears to be related to the willingness of the Australian authorities to maintain a high interest rate policy for a longer period than financial markets had anticipated. This is despite the fact that recent economic indicators suggest that the Australian economy may be slipping into a recession. There we have the brokers in America saying that they recognise that our economy is slipping into a recession, that this Government does not know what it is doing, and that its policies are all wrong in terms of the future of the Australian people, but that those policies are not bad for anyone who has some money and wants to slip into Australia because it is the best game in town. That is because this Government is providing a guaranteed base for the dollar and record interest rates to attract foreign investment. If it is self-delusion which is encouraging the Government to take this kind of approach, where it seems to think that everything is all right and that everything will be wonderful next year, I must say that I am appalled at the incompetence of this Government, but not surprised. If, however, this is deliberate deception to prepare the ground for an early election in February or March, it is disgraceful, but nonetheless typical of the sort of economic management for political purposes that we have had from this Government. It is economic management based on political objectives which take no account of the long term future or benefit of this nation. We have already seen this in the way in which the Government massively increased its spending in its first Budget here, adding $2.5 billion of its own new spending programs at a time when the rest of Australia recognised that this was a disastrous course to set out on. The fact that the Government started on that course immediately it came to office set the scene for disaster. It was told that by the Opposition at the time, but it pressed on regardless. Was that self-delusion at the time or was it deliberate deception again? The Prime Minister said that we had to create 300,000 jobs during his first term in office, no matter what the cost in the long term to the Australian economy, no matter how many of those jobs would ultimately be destroyed as the economy slumped into recession, facing enormous difficulties. We have seen for political purposes this Government increase its spending even in the current year. The current appropriations relate to spending that is increasing by 6.9 per cent in money terms and slightly increasing in real terms after taking account of inflation. The so-called enormous spending cuts which got such publicity, which have been touted throughout the nation as if somehow the Government has been respectable, are not cuts on what was actually spent last year at all. They are simply cuts from what the Government wanted to spend. They are simply cuts on what a continuation of the enormously increased programs that have taken place over the last three years would have meant in terms of spending. So the Government has not cut spending by one cent this year. It has gone on with its policies of record spending, record taxation, and of course, in this context, record deception of the people of Australia. I want to deal very briefly with the issue of tax because, when there is record spending and the disasters in the balance of payments, which have been exacerbated by our extraordinarily and unnecessarily high levels of government spending, the other side of that equation is record taxes. Of course, one of the problems in the tax area relates to relations with trade unions. We must remember that the tax cut that is supposed to take place on 1 December is simply a trade-off, and no more than that, for the 2 per cent cut in indexation which took place earlier this year. It is simply a trade-off. It is a way to soften or wipe out the blow which was dressed up by this Government as a responsible and real reduction in benefits to employees as a result of the unfortunate decline in our fortunes internationally. In other words, because we were not earning enough overseas and had to devalue, the cost impact of that should be denied on wage earners. To offset the discounting, the wage earners would get a tax cut. Of course, the consequence of that is that someone has to pay for that tax cut. Who is it? Of course, it is the business community in Australia, which is facing the fringe benefits tax and all those other taxes required to offset the revenue losses, as well as inflation; that is the other element to offset the revenue losses. So what do we get to pay for these tax cuts? We get a fringe benefits tax and a package of other taxes worth something like $800m. This belts the business community, the very people whose investment future is absolutely vital. A healthy investment future for those people is absolutely vital if we are to get out of our present trading mess. Yet, according to this Government, they are the people who are dispensable and who have to pay for the deal done with the union movement in order to keep the accord mark 2. How realistic is that accord mark 2 anyway? We are seeing it change now through discussions about accord mark 3. The Government seems to have no other basic policy than to maintain these so-called accords which it claims have been absolutely essential to its success. If what this Government has had is success, for heaven's sake, can we really afford to have accords that bring this kind of success? The reality of the prospect of breakdown is very serious indeed. We can look at the industrial unrest around at the moment, at the nurses' problems. Throughout Australia there is a resurgence of industrial unrest. The figures brought out last month about industrial unrest in Australia are the worst for three years because at last there is a real testing of the strength and the reality of these so-called accords. We should take note of the fact that Moody's Investor Services Inc., which recently downgraded Australia from AAA to AA1-- Senator Messner —Isn't that the first time it has ever happened? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Messner says, that is the first time that we have ever been downgraded. One of the points that Moody's made was that any breakdown in the accord between the Government and the unions: . . . would be a clear harbinger not only of higher inflation and lower industrial productivity, but of diminished international competitiveness and ultimately the need for greater borrowing to offset wider fiscal and current account gaps. There is no doubt, as Moody's has indicated, that every optimistic comment you can get about Australia, apart from those from the Prime Minister which are clearly deceptive or incompetent, is conditional upon the unions being responsible, or the unions not pursuing the level of industrial unrest being pursued at present. Let us recognise that among the most disruptive of the unions at the moment is the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia, Mr Crean's old union. He is the man who is apparently and allegedly in charge not only of the labour movement in Australia but also of this Government. Yet his union is the one causing so much industrial disruption. I will revert to the issue of taxation. We have had an enormous increase in tax. After the tax cuts that take place next month, Australian taxpayers will still be paying far more than they did last year. They will certainly be paying far more than when this Government came to office, once the figures are adjusted for inflation. The people of Australia will remain far worse off, even after these tax arrangements, than they were when this Government came into power. Of course, the key point is that so is the business community worse off. This brings to my attention the role of the Australian Taxation Office. We have seen the Commissioner of Taxation take a political role on two occasions in the last couple of months. As Mr Howard has said, this is totally improper. Clearly, what the Commissioner is doing is responding to some very effective attacks on the administration of the Tax Office, which has resulted in very large amounts of money not being collected in Australia. Of course, the response at the moment is to the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure which revealed that in the last three years about $39m was unspent on computer equipment that should have gone into that Office to increase its ability to act effectively. In today's newspapers we have seen a report of a survey conducted by the research professor of tax law at the University of Melbourne, Mr Bernard Marks. Senator Messner —A very good man too. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Messner says, he is a good man. He notes that the Australian Taxation Office has effectively been making tax laws that are either inconsistent with legislation, against political intent or do not have the sanction of law. One article states: It said tax laws were often drafted by parliamentary draftsmen acting upon the advice of the Taxation Office that differed from the announcement heralding the particular change. The article continued: In some cases tax reform legislation- I must say that I am offended by the use of the word `reform'; often it is change, not necessarily reform- which had been backdated contained measures which were not announced or even expected at the time of the reform announcement. The article further states: He said that in many cases ``it would appear that the real (tax) policy is made by the bureaucracy''. That is the important point. There appears to have been a hidden agenda within the Tax Office, I suspect in order to cover up inadequacies in its operations. Let us look where this hidden agenda exists. Let us look, for example, at the prescribed payments tax. That was a proposal announced by the previous Government, and a sensible proposal it was. But, when this Government introduced that legislation, it did a lot more than introduce a prescribed payments tax. One of the items on the hidden agenda in that legislation was the capacity to force subcontractors to become employees. Not one line in the explanatory memorandum of the prescribed payments legislation, not one word in the second reading speech of the Treasurer, said anything about giving the Tax Office the capacity by statement to convert people from subcontractors to employees, with all of the implications that flow from that, including implications relating to the sort of compulsory unionism that is brought about by standover tactics within the building industry. This sort of hidden agenda is intolerable and I suggest that the Tax Office stands condemned for sneaking in behind people's backs, with no reference having been made to it in a second reading speech or in an explanatory memorandum, the kind of thing which overturned the 1955 tilers High Court of Australia decision relating to who is a subcontractor and who is not. If this Government or this Tax Office wants to change the law fundamentally in an industry, it should come forward honestly and straightforwardly and do so. It is inevitable that whenever we have a government overspending, making excessive demands on people, we will get a Tax Office being put under this kind of pressure. The Tax Office is simply responding to the pressures put on it by a government whose appetite for money is insatiable because it insists on maintaining policies that are destructive of the Australian economy, which take far too big a proportion of its resources and which it has been established have damaged, I hope not irreparably, Australia's prospect of recovery. They have certainly damaged private investment in Australia, which now of course is shuddering to a halt. Yet we have the Prime Minister continuing to try to delude us. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 12 November. Senator Peter Baume-This might be a convenient time to seek some advice from you, Mr Chairman. It seems to me that we have before the Committee three sets of amendments. We have one set of Opposition amendments and two sets of Government amendments, many of them relating to the same matters and the same clauses. I notice that in at least one case alternatives have been offered by both the Government and the Opposition in relation to proposed amendments. I think that occurs particularly with Government amendment No. 2 on one sheet which seeks to amend clause 4. I am keen to have some orderly management of the amendments. I understand there is a fair amount of agreement between both sides of the Parliament on some of the amendments and certainly some agreement as to the purposes of the amendments. I would like your advice on how we should proceed. The CHAIRMAN —Where the Government and the Opposition have offered the same amendment I will call the Minister first to move his amendment and that will be dealt with by the Committee. If the Opposition is not satisfied with that, it can raise further amendments. Where there are two amendments on the same subject or the same point which conflict, if there is no other reason for precedence I will put the Opposition amendment first unless there is some other agreement. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.14) —I move: (1) Page 2, clause 2, line 3, leave out `Sub-section 7 (1), sections', insert `Sections 7,'. This amendment is consequential on the major amendment later. There is agreement between both sides and I have nothing to add at the moment. I will talk in more detail about it when the Committee deals with clause 4. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 3 agreed to. Clause 4 (Amount of grants). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.16) —The Opposition appreciates that the process undertaken by the Government will be in two broad stages. The Government is proposing first to identify certain classes of people, or classes within classes of people, perhaps migrants of a particular ethnic background in a particular locality; and secondly, having done that, we understand that the Minister would then make a specific determination in relation to an application to grant 100 per cent funding for people within that class. The Opposition mentioned yesterday, during the second reading debate, that it was its belief that, in order to maintain the greatest possible amount of public confidence in the process being undertaken, the process should be at least theoretically disallowable by the Parliament at each stage. We indicated that this was particularly desirable because the question of 100 per cent capital funding was involved and this is a new concept explained by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) during his second reading speech. We do not argue as to the principle and as to the purposes which are being sought to be achieved, but we want to make sure that certain sections of the public do not get the impression that this power could or would be misused by any Minister of the day. I do not believe for one moment that Senator Grimes would misuse that power, but there will be Ministers following Senator Grimes so, as we suggested yesterday, we would like both steps of that process to be disallowable. The Minister indicated in his second reading speech that a number of decisions were to be moved to gazettal and were to be made disallowable as gazettal decisions. We have drawn up this amendment to try to bring the clause into line with the gazettal procedure the Government has laid down. We propose that it would be necessary for the Minister to lay before each House of the Parliament within five sitting days each certificate which would be issued under paragraph 9 (1) (b) and each determination under sub-section 3, they being the two steps of the process. Having been laid before the Parliament, the Parliament would then have the capacity to disallow them-we have suggested in the amendment within 20 sitting days, although I must say that that is entirely a matter on which I would hear argument-and, once that period had elapsed, if there was no disallowance the instrument should then come into effect. With the Committee's indulgence, I indicate that I have read the Government's amendment which is being circulated as an alternative approach. This amendment does several things: First, it provides disallowance capacity only for part of that process, only for one of the two steps; secondly, it does it in a different way. What we have suggested is putting it in the form of a gazettal which would not have effect until the period for disallowance had finished. The Government has proposed that it be done by way of an instrument having effect like a regulation which would, in fact, start to have effect immediately and would continue to have effect unless and until it was subsequently disallowed. The theoretical disadvantage of that is that, if the Parliament were disposed to exercise its power to disallow under this clause, it might have the effect of finding an organisation which then said: `But we believed that we had received approval. You have now disallowed it and we have incurred a certain amount of activity and maybe some expense, and we think that is improper'. On the other hand, as we said to the Minister yesterday in the chamber, and I say it again now, I find it very unlikely that people will be seeking to use this power. It would be there, as it were, as a reserve capacity if people felt particularly aggrieved by any decision. Because of that, it may be quite appropriate to use a regulation making power, as the Minister has suggested. Under those circumstances I will now formally move the amendment which we have circulated, but I do it on the basis that if the Minister makes certain assurances to me and indicates the advantages of his amendment, I may subsequently seek the permission of the Committee to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN —I think it might be appropriate, as amendments (1) and (2) are consequential on amendment (3), if you moved all three amendments together. Senator PETER BAUME —I seek the leave of the Committee so to do, Mr Chairman. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: (1) Page 2, clause 4, paragraph (a), proposed new paragraph 9 (1) (b), after ``Secretary'', insert: ``certificates, in writing, that the Secretary''. (2) Page 2, clause 4, paragraph (b), leave out ``sub-section'' (first occurring), insert: ``sub-sections''. (3) Page 2, clause 4, paragraph (b), after proposed new sub-section 9 (3), add the following sub-sections: ``(4) Each certificate under paragraph 9 (1) (b) and each determination under sub-section (3) shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the certificate or the determination, as the case may be, is signed by the Secretary. ``(5) If either House of the Parliament, within 20 sitting days of that House after a certificate or a determination has been laid before that House, passes a resolution disallowing the certificate or the determination, the certificate or the determination, as the case may be, shall be void and of no effect. ``(6) If neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with sub-section (5) disallowing a certificate or a determination, the certificate or the determination, as the case may be, commences to have effect on the day immediately following the last day upon which such a resolution in respect of the certificate or the determination could have been passed by either House.''. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.24) —There has been a certain amount of horse trading, in a proper sense, on this matter. Senator Peter Baume raises matters which have been raised many times in this place before and they are important. The capacity of the Parliament to ensure that Ministers do not act irresponsibly is an important right. It is also important to the level of anxiety amongst people involved in the nursing home area that we ensure that they believe that the system is impartial and that the decisions that are made concerning funding are non-political decisions in the party political sense. At the same time, this has to be balanced with sensible administrative processes. As Senator Peter Baume said, the capacity of the Government to provide 100 per cent funding for special groups is a new one. As he said, to introduce an amendment of the type that the Opposition introduced would bring the process to a halt until the 20 days that he suggested in his amendment were up, which would mean a period of uncertainty for the organisations involved. The Government believes that, if it is going to proceed in this way, it should in fact have an instrument of regulation, such as a regulation whereby the time is 15 days, as it is with every other disallowance, which would preserve the capacity of the organisation at least to plan ahead in that time. I think that is important. As Senator Baume said, if we were to proceed down this path-it is a unique path; I will come to that in a minute-it is extremely unlikely that the Parliament would disallow such a proposal. I think it is extremely unlikely, even in the unlikely possibility of the Opposition coming to government, that any Minister would act in the irresponsible way that obviously some people out there think they might. What I put to Senator Baume and the Opposition is that it is one thing to provide for parliamentary scrutiny of the foundations of decision making; For example, in this case deciding what classes of people-be they Aboriginals or people in an ethnic group or in another disadvantaged group-should be defined as financially disadvantaged and then become eligible for 100 per cent funding. That classification may even be a group in one area. For instance, I suppose one could say a particular ethnic group in a particular district could be classed as financially disadvantaged and therefore eligible for 100 per cent funding. Subsequently the Minister or the Department would make an administrative decision that organisation X in that area should be funded at 100 per cent to provide the service for that particular disadvantaged group. If we are going to introduce a situation whereby the capacity of the Parliament is to disallow that administrative decision, we are taking a step into a new area-we are not quite taking a step into the void, but we are taking a step into a new area. Senator Baume puts the case, and I can understand that case, that what we are doing here in providing 100 per cent funding is a new step in this area; that there are other organisations which provide the same sort of service-namely, accommodation for the aged; that they may have some anxieties that in our capacity to fund special organisations at 100 per cent we are giving the Minister and the Government the power to give those organisations a considerable advantage over ordinary groups. As an example, we may have a religious group seeking funding for a nursing home. Under the normal circumstances-under the circumstances in this legislation-the decision to fund nursing homes is not disallowable by this Parliament, in fact by this House because it would be the Senate that would do so. Another religious group, another political group-I suppose that is the biggest worry-or another activist group of some kind may seek to run a nursing home for a particular disadvantaged group. They could get 100 per cent funding and that could be disallowed. We are setting up two classes of people. Senator Peter Baume's argument would undoubtedly be-who am I to argue with it?-that in providing 100 per cent funding for one group and 80 per cent funding for another we are setting up two classes of people. If we accepted the amendments moved by Senator Baume we would add long delays to the action we would like to take to respond to the needs of financially disadvantaged and underserviced groups. Both the determination that that group is disadvantaged and the subsequent certification that a proposed facility be provided for that group would be disallowable at any time until 20 sitting days had passed. The amendment would mean that the certification was void. The problem is that the disadvantage to that group by preventing action being taken to respond to real needs until after that full disallowance period is reached can mean a considerable period. For instance, if I and the Government decided to fund a group in a couple of days time, 20 days time may take us well into the next session of Parliament-I suppose even into April. Therefore, if we are going to proceed down this track we would prefer to have the normal disallowance provisions so that valid planning decisions-not decisions to spend vast sums of money-can be made in that time. If parliamentary scrutiny is to be provided, we cannot see any reason for not having the traditional 15 days and having revocation taking effect only from the date of the disallowance. I would prefer the disallowance to apply only to the determination of particular groups. I have had discussions with Senator Baume and I believe that this is both important legislation and an important principle. It will have the effect of lowering the level of anxiety of those organisations in the community which are a little disturbed by our capacity to fund organisations at 100 per cent and which may be disturbed that, at some future date, this capacity would be abused. I am circulating amendments which will have the effect of making both the certification and the determination disallowable under the normal 15 days. This would allow normal planning to go ahead, as is the situation with a regulation. Although this will be of some administrative nuisance to the public servants who have to administer the legislation, we believe the numbers of cases will not be many and that once the first formulation of how to do it is decided the others will follow fairly naturally, bearing in mind that I do not believe that, certainly in my time or in the time of anyone I know in this place, such a disallowance provision would be utilised. I must say, though, that if we find that the sort of proposal I am putting forward, which is a modification of Senator Baume's proposal, creates administrative difficulties, I, or a future Minister in this area, will undoubtedly bring it back to Parliament. I point out that what we are doing is different from what is done in normal circumstances, but that does not mean that we should not do it, of course, and I have never let that stop me from doing anything in this place. I do not think the argument about administrative difficulties is strong enough to prevent us from doing this and accepting it. To ease the anxieties of those in the community who are concerned, I propose, and I think Senator Baume would agree, the amendment I am now circulating in substitution of his amendment, which is a more acceptable and more practical one, with the proviso that, if we do have difficulties, those difficulties will have to be corrected at a later date. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.32) —I am concerned that the proper rights of Senator Harradine or Senator Powell from the Australian Democrats are not overridden. Therefore, I will seek leave of the Committee in a moment to withdraw my three amendments. Before I do so I wish to say that I have seen the proposed amendment now circulated by Senator Grimes and I am happy to accept it. I am very grateful for what he has said today. There is one really quite significant advantage in going down the regulation route; that is, that in a two-stage process officers will be able to start the second stage almost immediately, whereas under my amendment they would not have been able to start the second stage until the time allowed for disallowance of the first stage had elapsed. So it will hasten things a little. I think it is a better arrangement. I simply want to give the Democrats or Senator Harradine a chance to take a different course if they so desire. I now seek leave to withdraw my three amendments. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.33) —The Australian Democrats strongly support this part of the legislation, which enables special consideration to be given to special groups. We are pleased that the accommodation has been able to be reached between the Government and the Opposition. Therefore, we will be supporting the Government's amendments and we are happy to give the Opposition leave to withdraw its amendments. Amendments-by leave-withdrawn. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.34) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, clause 4, line 25, insert ``certifies, in writing, that the Secretary'' after ``Secretary''. (2) Page 2, clause 4, lines 29 to 33, leave out paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: ``(b) by adding at the end the following sub-sections: `(3) The Minister may determine, in writing, that a class of persons specified in the determination is a class of financially disadvantaged persons for the purposes of this section. `(4) Sections 48, 49, 49a and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply to certificates made under sub-section (1) and determinations made under sub-section (3) as if in those provisions references to regulations were references to certificates or determinations, references to a regulation were references to a provision of a certificate or determination and references to repeal were references to revocation. `(5) Certificates made under sub-section (1) and determinations made under sub-section (3) shall not be taken to be statutory rules within the meaning of the Statutory Rules Publication Act 1903, but sub-sections 5 (3) to (3c) (inclusive) of that Act apply in relation to such certificates and determinations as they apply to statutory rules. `(6) For the purposes of the application of sub-section 5 (3b) of the Statutory Rules Publication Act 1903 in accordance with sub-section (5) of this section, the reference in the first-mentioned sub-section to the Minister of State for Sport, Recreation and Tourism shall be read as a reference to the Minister administering this Act. `(7) Section 5 of the Evidence Act 1905 applies to certificates made under sub-section (1) and determinations made under sub-section (3) as that section applies to an order made by the Minister. `(8) In this section, ``financially disadvantaged person'' means an eligible person included in a class of persons determined by the Minister, under sub-section (3), to be a class of financially disadvantaged persons.'.'' Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 5 and 6-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 7 (Interpretation). Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.36) —The Government's amendment is the same as Opposition amendment No. (4). I pointed out yesterday that Opposition amendment No. (4) is acceptable to the Government because it maintains the status quo. Given that no services have ever been prescribed, there would be no adverse effect if we agreed to this amendment. However, as a result, and for the sake of consistency, the corresponding provision relating to the Nursing Homes Assistance Act, clause 25 (1) (a), will also have to be omitted. Therefore, we have incorporated the Opposition's amendment and the consequential amendment which will be necessary, into our amendment. I move: (2) Page 3, clause 7, lines 35 to 39, leave out sub-clause (2). Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.37) —I move: (5) Page 5, clause 8, proposed new sub-section 39aa (5), at the end of the sub-section, add: ``, unless the Minister considers that it is necessary to do so in order to meet the need for nursing home beds in a region''. This amendment seeks to add certain words to the end of proposed new sub-section 39aa (5). The matter I raised in the second reading debate relates to our concern that, with altering conditions-they can be quite rapid in many regions in Australia-the need may emerge for extra nursing home beds and the Minister may be left with only a limited capacity to act in respect of those needs. It was put to us by industry sources that we should seek to establish an independent tribunal and that the Minister should have the capacity to vary the numbers in respect of the findings of such an independent body. We are not attracted to the idea of an independent body. We think, in the end, it is an executive decision for the Minister, say Senator Grimes, to make. But we think that, where there has been an influx, say, of elderly people into an area where previously there were no elderly people, where no allocation has been made for the provision of nursing home beds, or where the demography has changed quite rapidly, there should be a capacity for the Minister to make such a decision. I mentioned yesterday areas of my city of Sydney where certain ethnic groups have moved into particular suburbs and locations, often very rapidly. The demography is changing because aged people are congregating, and I draw attention to the retirement areas on the central and north coast of New South Wales. Where those kinds of circumstances exist we believe that the Minister should have a residual discretion to vary the determination to meet particular needs in a town or a region. The words we propose to add to clause 8 would leave with the Minister such a residual capacity. I believe that Senator Grimes would exercise that power, for example, only if he were convinced that an area had legitimately been overlooked or that its needs had changed and he wanted to give it an extra allocation of nursing home beds. We are simply seeking to give the Minister that extra capacity and extra discretion. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.40) —I would prefer not to accept this amendment to the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986-I think for very good and valid reasons. As Senator Peter Baume said, this matter caused some anxiety in some sections of the nursing home industry which apparently wanted an independent tribunal. I pointed out to them that I do, and future Ministers will, get independent advice from the advisory councils, and I think it is important. I also think it is important that the functions of government, as much as possible, remain with government and are not handed over to independent tribunals of this type, which are certainly not omniscient. I would have thought the experiences of Ministers on both sides of the chamber in recent years would suggest that this is not a sensible proposal. Therefore, I am glad that the Opposition has not agreed with that. This amendment would mean that the bed numbers specified in a Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice-I remind honourable senators that we have to gazette the numbers from time to time-were not firm. I think this would create some difficulties. I can understand Senator Peter Baume's expressed concern that the new arrangements would not permit the Minister to allocate beds to areas of atypical need or where the need changes from time to time, but that is simply not the case. It is just not true. The basis of the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition is that the Minister and the Government should have the capacity under the legislation to respond flexibly to the real needs which may be identified in relation to all those things of which Senator Peter Baume spoke, such as movements of ethnic groups. I remind the honourable senator that the number of beds for ethnic people is determined on a State-wide basis, and another determination specifies where they should be located. The Bill provides the Minister with this flexibility. While the ceiling on bed numbers within States and regions and for special groups is fixed by the Gazette notices that are in force from time to time, new gazettals can and will be made as needed. Under the legislation the Minister would have the capacity to respond to urgent needs, which may not have been apparent when bed distributions were being planned at the start of the financial year, by issuing a revised gazettal notice. In other words, I will be able to gazette new figures. I think this course is preferable to the amendment moved by the Opposition in that the act of gazettal makes public the Government's actions and the Minister's actions in a particular area. I will gazette it; it will be made public; people can see what is happening and can argue about it if they like. Under the Opposition's amendment the Minister can depart from the gazetted planning figures without even notifying the Parliament, without notifying anybody. I do not think that is desirable. I think it is important that what we are doing in an area is made public so that people can see what is going on. There is an analogy with the previous concerns of the Opposition spokesman. What we have done in this legislation in this area is preferable to the Opposition's proposal. We have allowed the Minister the capacity to respond to atypical need but in a public and an accountable way, which would not occur if the Minister could do it all at will and, if the amendment were carried, without anyone knowing that he had done it. I do not think that is very wise. The Bill should stand as it is. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(11.44) —During the second reading debate on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 I discussed the licensing of new beds. I raised the issue of the possibility of new beds being licensed which would not attract government subsidy. Can the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) answer as to whether he thinks that is a reasonable proposition? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.45) —I mentioned this matter in my summing up in the second reading debate. It is possible under the existing legislation. There is nothing to stop anyone going to the State authorities, having a nursing home licence issued, building that nursing home, ha-ving customers in that nursing home and not receiving one cent of subsidy. Nothing in the Commonwealth legislation can or would prevent that happening, nor do I intend to do anything to prevent that happening. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 9 to 12-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 13 (Alteration to conditions applicable to a nursing home). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.46) —by leave-I move: (6) Page 9, clause 13, proposed new sub-section 40AD (1ad), leave out `or otherwise'. (7) Page 10, clause 13, proposed new sub-section 40ad (1ad), leave out `or otherwise'. In my speech in the second reading debate, I drew attention to the use of the words `or otherwise' in two places in the Bill. I remind the Committee of the problem. The clause provides that the Minister may, at any time, take certain action on application in writing by the proprietor of a nursing home `or otherwise'. That means he can just take the action. We might as well leave out the words `on application . . . by the owner of a nursing home'. It means that the Minister can take the action at any time at all. It seems to the Opposition that certainly in the case of private participating nursing homes we are talking about something that might be the private property of a person or group or corporation, which may represent the investment of people's life savings, the only capital they have. If it were decided that the Minister should take certain action, which in this case might be to reclassify or redesignate certain beds within a nursing home in accordance with the provisions that we have been discussing in relation to this Bill, the Minister should do it only if it were something to which at least the owner of the nursing home was party. We are attracted to the words `may, at any time, on application in writing by the proprietor of a nursing home' take certain action because, in that case, the Minister would be responding to a request from the owner of the facility. The words `or otherwise' really make a mockery of that. It means that it is not a question of the person applying in writing; it could be done in any sense. I understand that it was not intended that the words should have that kind of effect and that the Minister faces some administrative complications. The words appear in proposed new sub-sections 1ab and 1ad. Certainly the Opposition has some sympathy with the Minister and officers in relation to the administrative problems that they face, but our duty really is to look at the legislation as it is presented, read the words, work out what they mean or might mean and propose amendments on that basis. We believe the words `or otherwise' should be deleted. We invite the Minister to try to convince us why they should not be deleted and whether any other course of action might be taken to overcome the problem which I have raised. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.49) —I thank Senator Peter Baume for his invitation. This is about the third time I have taken it up. This matter causes nightmares for Ministers and shadow Ministers. I am very grateful that I am not a Minister in the Senate with former Senator James Cavanagh sitting opposite me in these circumstances-not that I am putting down the capacity of Senator Peter Baume. The clauses that he refers to relate to the Minister's ability to vary or revoke a determination that a specified number of beds in a nursing home are approved in relation to special needs groups, groups to which we have referred in other debate in this place. Such a determination can be made at three stages of the approval process: When the approval in principle is given; when the final approval is given as a home comes on stream; and when a home is varied, such as when an extension is completed. The need for the words `or otherwise' arises from the counting provisions that are in clause 8, particularly proposed new sub-sections 39aa (7), (9), (10), (11) and (12). These provisions define the number of beds to be counted as special needs beds. In order to avoid double counting under these provisions it is necessary, administratively, to be able, for instance, to revoke a determination made at the approval in principle stage and to make a new corresponding one under the appropriate section of the Act when the home receives that final approval. The effect of double counting would be to inflate the numbers of beds attributed to a State and, in fact, to frustrate the Government's capacity rationally to plan new provisions. In the absence of the capacity provided by the words `or otherwise' there would be a considerable additional administrative imposition on proprietors seeking to wend their way through what is in fact-although it is a bit better-an already complex approval procedure. There is a risk that a proprietor, I suppose, could even seek to frustrate the administration under the legislation by declining to submit an application that would ensure double counting was avoided. So we are in fact concerned not only about the administrative capacity of the Department to act sensibly but also not to put an excessive burden on proprietors of nursing homes. I can understand very well the Opposition's and Senator Peter Baume's concern that the words `or otherwise' may inadvertently provide the Minister with the capacity to force a proprietor to provide a certain number of special needs beds against his will. My first comment on that is that it would be an extraordinarily silly Minister who did attempt to inflict on a nursing home proprietor a group such as a migrant group-or any group-that he or she was unwilling to care for. That would not be in the interests of the proprietor or the group concerned. Secondly, it would be quite unjust, as Senator Baume has said. There are certain safeguards in the legislation, however, to curb misuse of this power, apart from those common sense ones. Clause 13 (b) of the Bill, which appears on page 10, demonstrates the intention that the Minister shall not make a determination in the latter stages of the approval process which is inconsistent with an undertaking given at the approval in principle stage. Proposed new sub-section 39aa (5) in clause 8 prevents the variation or revocation of special needs determinations where this would be inconsistent with the gazetted allocations. There are avenues of review of decisions by the Federal Court of Australia under the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act. In addition, in the event of a Minister varying a condition and thus causing a proprietor to be in breach of his conditions, any action to revoke his approval on that ground would be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The words `or otherwise' allow the Minister under proposed new sub-section 40ad (1ab) to make nursing homes subject to the condition that the operations of the home are to be carried out in a manner consistent with the special purposes of the home. In this case the power is necessary for two reasons: To allow consistent administrative steps to be taken following any action under the previously discussed provisions; and to enable a special purpose to be specified in relation to existing nursing homes where there are special needs beds, such as Montefiore homes in Melbourne, to regularise an existing situation. Having said all that, and bearing in mind that there are all those curbs and that it would be a very silly Minister indeed who acted in the way that undoubtedly some nursing home proprietors may consider he or she would act, I accept that it would be better if the legislation were written in another way to achieve the same effect and to get rid of the words `or otherwise'. But neither my departmental advisers nor the Parliamentary Counsel, or anyone else that we have been able to talk to, including Senator Baume, has found a way yet. I believe that to take out those words would in fact create administrative difficulties beyond the benefit that the leaving of those words in at the moment would provide. I am certainly willing to guarantee-and certainly will-that between now and the autumn session, when we will have statute law amendments coming up, and probably there will also be further legislation in this area, we will seek and find an alternative way of wording this legislation. I can assure Senator Baume that in the meantime I will not be abusing those words `or otherwise'. I think that frequently in this place we have to balance administrative good sense with absolute guarantees that nothing nasty will happen in the woodshed. In these circumstances I urge the Opposition to accept that guarantee and not disturb the legislation in this way, because the unintended consequences of such disturbance of the legislation would be worse than the unintended consequences possible as the legislation is now. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.57) —I thank the Minister for the assurance he has given us of the action he intends to take, and on the basis of that assurance I seek leave to withdraw the two amendments. Amendments-by leave-withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Clauses 14 to 24-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 25 (Interpretation). Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.58) —I move: (3) Page 12, clause 25, lines 17 to 26, leave out sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: `(1) Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after the definition of ``Secretary'' in sub-section (1) the following definition: `` `special needs group' has the same meaning as in section 39 of the National Health Act 1953;''.'. This amendment, amendment 3 circulated in my name, is in fact the amendment I referred to when we were dealing with amendment 2. It leaves out sub-clause (1) and inserts the sub-clause referring to the necessity to make this change under the National Health Act. This arises as a consequence of our accepting the original amendment moved by the Opposition. It is a consequential change and needs to be put into the legislation to take into account what we have done. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.59) —I think it only remains for me to say this to the Minister: Yesterday afternoon we were caught short, I understand, when the Bill went into Committee rather quicker than I had anticipated and I want to express my gratitude to the Minister for having sought the adjournment of the debate at that stage. I want also to thank the Minister for the way in which it has been possible to deal together to try to enhance and improve what the Opposition believes to be important legislation. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(12.00) —The Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1986-87 and related Appropriation Bills give effect to the Hawke Government's August Budget, brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). In debating these Bills, it behoves me to make some remarks about that Budget. That Budget succeeded wildly beyond the dreams of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the former failed Treasurer of the Fraser Administration, who predicted that the Budget deficit would be about $4 billion; of course, the deficit came in at $3.5 billion, and Mr Howard was wrong again. One of the key features of the Budget is that it is a Budget in which there is zero growth in outlays. In fact, Commonwealth expenditure, in real terms, has not increased. It is a Budget designed in those terms because there is a recognition by the Government that the economic policies that we had been pursuing had led to expansionary growth in the economy to the extent that it was beginning to overheat and that we were sucking in imports at a great rate, and since the devaluation had had an effect, the price of those imports was pushing up the rate of inflation, and there was a need to ease back a little. The Budget has that effect, and we are now looking forward to a Budget for recovery and one which, once we adjust to the massive alteration in the terms of trade that was suffered earlier this year by Australia, should be a budget for growth as well. In recognising that the Budget is appropriate economically, it should also be mentioned that it contains some elements of which some of us on the Government benches did not approve. One of which I did not approve was the sale of Australian uranium to France. However, as part of an overall economic package, it cannot be said that the Government has failed the test of confronting the difficulties of what are harsh economic times. It has cut government expenditure back to zero growth. In pursuance of the Government's other two major economic objectives-the final conclusion of its tax reform initiative, and the final landing of an agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions for an accord mark 3 on wages-we should be expecting that, over the early months of next year and into next year proper, there will be increasing growth in the economy, and we shall be replacing our imports with Australian manufactured goods and competing more effectively on the world market with our exports. I want to comment on a couple of aspects of the tax package reforms because, although this is a subject that is spoken about much and a subject on which much heat is generated, very little light seems to have been brought to the debate. The tax package as a whole will raise, according to an estimate by the Treasurer, $1.5 billion, but the Government, in providing tax cuts to the vast majority of Australians, will be outlaying $4.5 billion in cuts to marginal tax rates, which will benefit ordinary wage and salary earners, in December of this year and in July of next year. Indeed, when the cycle of tax cuts, coming, as they will, seven months apart, is complete, the top marginal rate paid by higher wage earners will be reduced from 60c in the dollar to 49c, and that is a remarkable tax reform. No reform of commensurate character or size has been undertaken by any previous conservative government, and although we are yet to see the details of the Howard tax package-and we probably will not see them until the last minute, so that the electorate will have an inappropriate time span on which to judge the real meaning of what promises to be an opportunistic tax hand-out by the Opposition-the real record of this Government will have been to achieve significant reform in taxes paid by ordinary men and women in the street. They will have had the benefit of that. The Treasurer, two weeks ago, announced further revisions to the fringe benefits tax, as the Parliament is aware. Those revisions have reduced by $75m the revenue yield to the Commonwealth from the fringe benefits tax. That $75m has been forgone in order to simplify the tax, but its main principles have been kept intact so that salary earners and business entrepreneurs who were escaping taxation by replacing wages or salaries with benefits in kind will be taxed, and the total value of taxes raised by the fringe benefits tax is now estimated to be, in a full year, about $700m. Senator Messner —But you are still catching remote area people, aren't you? Senator COOK —I am glad that the honourable senator has raised that question because that is the next subject to which I was about to turn. Consistent with my earlier comment that, on the subject of remote area benefits, more heat was being generated than light, let me talk about the effect of the changes on people living in remote areas-because it is quite significant. Before going into some detail about the area with which I am most familiar, the iron ore province of the Pilbara in my State of Western Australia, let me say that recently I had the benefit of discussing with senior executives of Mount Isa Mines, from Queensland, their objections to the fringe benefits tax in remote localities. They produced for me a chart showing what the total tax outgoings for Mount Isa Mines was in Queensland. From memory, that chart showed that Mount Isa Mines paid, all up, $114m in taxes. Five per cent of what it paid in taxes it paid to the Commonwealth; the balance, apart from about one per cent, it paid to the State of Queensland. Of the balance, $87m that it paid to the State of Queensland was paid, by that company's estimation, in excessive freight rates to the Queensland Government. In fact, the Queensland Government, which boasted in the recent election campaign that it did not apply a number of State taxes, squeezes mining developments in that State, and in the case of Mount Isa Mines-a significant mining developer in coal and other minerals-it does so to the tune of $87m in excess of the real cost of shipping its ore to the loading ports. That $87m is to be compared to a total tax bill of $114m. If the Opposition in this place wants to argue that the cost of properly paying taxes on fringe benefits is impeding the development of the minerals industry, if it is to have any credit it should explain before doing so why its partner in coalition, the National Party in Queensland, imposes an $87m cost-out of $114m-on the development of mining operations in that State. I turn to the Pilbara. I have a close understanding of the tax arrangements for remote localities in that region. Indeed, the review brought about a further change in the fringe benefits tax to be paid by operators in remote areas of Australia, and the total sum to be gathered is reduced by $20m. Let me take the iron ore industry. When the Government first announced what the tax changes were to be but before the legislation was tabled, the mining companies in Western Australia combined to produce a report under the auspices of the respected accountancy and auditing company Coopers and Lybrand which, again from memory, showed that the total cost of fringe benefits tax on remote locality operations would be of the order of about $28m. After that impact was considered and after the Government announced its legislation, we believe that the total cost would have been reduced to $17m. Coopers and Lybrand conducted another study which showed that the cost would have been $28.3m on an aggregation of the expenses of all the four individual companies. Although since the announcement there has not been a release of the latest study by that same auditor of the likely effect, it is estimated by reliable sources that the reduction has been another $10m, so the real cost is about $18m. When one considers the value of the fall in the exchange rate of 40 per cent in the mining industry in terms of a windfall gain to that industry, and a number of other measures conducted by this Government, then in my view in the circumstances that is not an unreasonable cost. So despite the generation of argument, I think that in recognising the need for the Commonwealth to close off that loophole in fringe benefits tax, a proper and most reasonable outcome has been achieved. I turn to the next major and most important economic event in Australia. I refer to the reaching of an agreement with wage and salary earners, and hopefully approval by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, for a significantly new discounting of wages and its achievement in the context of an agreement entitled by media commentators `Accord Mark III', with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The first thing to be said is that Australian wage and salary earners have been among the most eminent of all Australians who have sacrificed their wages position in real terms for the benefit of this nation and the good of the economy. I have before me a chart which I am indebted to Dr Don Stammer of Bain and Company for producing. The chart appears in a speech he delivered to the Confederation of Australian Industry in August entitled `The Outlook for the Australian Economy'. The chart he reproduces is sourced as being the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development main economic indicators and is headed `Real Wages'. The chart shows that in the period 1983-85 real wages in key economies of the world such as Japan rose by 6.1 per cent. In Germany real wages for the same period rose by 4.1 per cent. In France they went up by 3.7 per cent. In the United Kingdom for the same period, under the Thatcher Government, they leapt by 12.7 per cent, and in Holland by 0.4 per cent. There are only three economies in which they fell. The most dramatic fall was in New Zealand; in Canada they fell by 1.4 per cent and in the United States they fell by 0.6 per cent. In Australia real wages went down by 6.5 per cent. That happened because unions had practised wage restraint through the terms of the accord with this Government and forwent wage increases, realising that tax cuts would be forthcoming and that they would be rewarded through the social wage for that restraint. The net reduction in real terms on employers in this period has been 6.5 per cent. This has been a period in which record profits have been generated across a wide spectrum of the Australian private sector. At a time in which there are still many calls for restraint, it is vitally important that it be understood that the restraint that has been borne in the community has been borne by wage and salary earners, and mostly by low and middle order wage and salary earners. It is to them that this nation owes a huge debt of gratitude as they organise themselves to come to grips with the economic crisis that confronts Australia. In the context of that position the Australian Council of Trade Unions last week adopted at a national conference of unions an in-principle agreement to apply to the Arbitration Commission next year for a two-tiered wage system. It is interesting to see that almost hot on the heels of the agreement by the union movement again to practise responsible wage adjustment in recognition of the economic circumstances, it has been heavily criticised. The Australian Federation of Employers, led by the doyen of the New Right Mr Andrew Hay, is reported in this morning's Australian Financial Review as saying that his organisation will apply to the Commission further to deregulate wages. This is in the context of record profits in the private sector, but he believes that wages should be further deregulated. The Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council should at least be praised by the Government for giving some broad approval to the two-tiered system for which the ACTU has announced support, thus giving life to the possibility of a tripartite accord, in which all the social partners work for the Australian Government to confront the economic problems of the nation. I note that Mr Andrew Hay is not the only doyen of the New Right, or the only New Right activist, who wants wages to be cut to nothing and living standards to fall further without Mr Hay or the others practising any restraint at all. This morning's newspapers also carried reports of an address by Mr John Spalvins last night saying that the new two-tiered wages proposal should be thrown out because it would lead to a wages break-out. One wonders what Mr Spalvins would think if the full wages policy of the Liberal Party were to be adopted and market forces were to apply. Mr Spalvins would recognise at least that under the two-tiered system there is considerable containment of what wage increases might be and what the outcomes will achieve. But under a totally deregulated market, although there would be massive and graphic exploitation, particularly of young workers, female workers or workers in areas of the economy in which there is no bargaining power at all, those at key points of the economic process and of the industrial economy would be able to explode their wages to a much higher level than is comfortable. However, as I have said, it is to the ACTU that this nation owes a debt of gratitude in that it has been able to accommodate to the changes in the macroeconomic circumstances. I trust that the Commission will adopt the proposal and that at the end of 1987 we will see a wages outcome that is compatible with the economic strategy of this Government, but also compatible with the living and employment conditions of ordinary wage and salary earners, too, as tax cuts and social wage considerations help to compensate for real wage reductions. I now turn to the question of the iron ore industry in Western Australia as a leading export industry-an industry that offers up to Australians the possibility of contrasting the two styles of the political, economic and industrial relations approach. I refer to the consensual style, as it has been labelled by the Hawke Government, the approach of getting together around a table all the major players in an industry and sorting our a way in which that industry can be more competitive, or the New Right confrontationist approach as practised at Robe River by Charles Copeman through Peko-Wallsend Ltd, the majority shareholder in Robe River Iron Ore Associates in Western Australia. It is interesting to note that the lockout which Peko imposed on the Robe River employees, which also had a detrimental effect on the local community and small business people in that area as earnings were cut, cost on responsible estimates at least $9m to Robe River. When one considers the Western Australian Industrial Commission's judgment as to fault and the awarding of compensation in excess of $1m to the workers who were locked out, one realises that Peko shareholders have taken a profits plunge at least of the order of $10m. That was done for no extra advantage in terms of trading with our major clients overseas. Indeed, the reported antics of Mr Copeman in slamming down a telephone when speaking to a senior Japanese steel industry executive are not only offensive to the Japanese, but are also typical of the arrogance that the New Right has displayed in Australian politics. When a responsible company such as the Nissan Motor Co. says of the Besco Batteries dispute that the Peko company is behaving unethically, one has to question whether our major trading partner regards this manifestation of ultra-rightism in the Australian political, economic and industrial landscape as something to be encouraged at all. On the other hand if one looks at the other three major iron ore miners in the Pilbara region of Western Australia and the way in which they have worked with both the Western Australian and Federal governments through the West Australian Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council, one sees a vastly different picture emerge by contrast. Let me go back to 1983 before the Consultative Council was established. In that calendar year 102,000 man days were lost in industrial disputes in the Pilbara region. In the first calendar year of the operation of the Consultative Council, that level of industrial disputation had fallen to 55,000 man days. Last calendar year it dropped even further to 26,000 man days and this year, before the madness of Robe River broke out, the results were on track to a similar outcome. That has been achieved simply because a degree of understanding has descended upon the area about the market problems that are faced by workers and companies in that region and there has been a realisation through the consensual or `social partners' approach of the Hawke Government, that by pulling together and achieving a better market share and better competitive performance in that industry, there are more spoils to go around for all involved. Certainly for workers in a commodity based industry that is looking at a world market flooded with iron ore there is the consideration that not only can they maintain their own living standards if their industry becomes more competitive-and consistent with that they can improve them as well-but, fundamentally, they will obtain job security by being better competitors. For the shareholders in the mining companies there is the recognition that if there is to be a dividend payable on their shares, there must be a better competitive performance. For governments, which extract royalties from the performance of those industries, there is a self-interest advantage as well. When all those factors are put together, there is no reason why the authoritarian arrogance and dictatorial and confrontationist approach so typical of the Fraser years that we have come to see at Robe River should be continued. The results under a more co-operative approach, as I have indicated in the figures of man days lost, speak for themselves. If it were a tale that related only to industrial disputes, it would be impressive, but it does not stop there. If one looks at productivity per labour unit employed, one sees that in the 1983-84 financial year, 7,200 tonnes were shipped per labour unit employed in the Pilbara region. In the 1984-85 financial year, under the co-operative approach of the Western Australian Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council, that level had skyrocketed to 11,200 tonnes per unit of labour employed. That is a graphic comparison to the $10m lost to the Peko operation and it has been achieved by using the central philosophy of this Government and not the confrontationist philosophy of the previous Government which is now espoused by the New Right. To say all that is not to say that there is not a highly competitive world market in iron ore. Indeed, in today's Australian Financial Review it is reported that Japanese steel makers have posted a deficit of 180 billion yen. That says a bit about the processes used in Japanese steel making these days. While our share of the Japanese iron ore market has declined, on the latest figures it is pleasing to see that the total tonnage exported by the West Australian iron ore industry as a whole increased in 1985 over 1984 and stood at a higher figure than in 1983, 1982 or 1981. That increase was both in tonnes and in the Australian dollar value. That industry has been successful in diversifying its markets away from being involved almost exclusively in the Japanese market to the emergent markets of the People's Republic of China, the Republic of South Korea, Taiwan and to markets in Europe as well. We can compete with the world's leading suppliers, such as Brazil, and still sell iron ore to European markets where the Brazilians enjoy about a $5 per tonne cost advantage over Australia. Bearing in mind that these Bills are related to the Budget, let me conclude my speech by dealing with what I think is the most fundamental comparison that this Government can make between its performance and those of its predecessors and its would-be replacement. We on the Labor side of the House are concerned not only with growth, personal liberties and freedoms, but also with the production of an equitable outcome for ordinary Australians in our society. Let us look at education expenditures under the Labor Government. From 1975-76 to 1982-83-the Fraser years-education expenditure rose by 1.6 per cent in real terms. From 1982-83 to 1985-86-under us-education expenditure went up by 8.4 per cent. In the Fraser period government outlays on health fell by 22.4 per cent in real terms. Under us, they went up by 50.7 per cent. Between 1975-76 and 1982-83 social security and welfare payments rose by 11.8 per cent in real terms. In many fewer years-that is, from 1982-83 to 1985-86-such payments rose by 10.3 per cent. In housing, which is a key right of ordinary Australians, from 1975-76 to 1982-83 expenditure fell by 35.8 per cent in real terms, while under us in a shorter period it rose by 63.5 per cent. If one looks at the distribution of income in Australia one sees that those at the lower end of the income scale have benefited more under a Labor government. Those living in poverty and those unable to make ends meet have been better attended to and their needs have been more adequately addressed under a Labor government than they were under a Liberal government. The other central achievement in the three-year period-and this Budget signifies that latest major economic statement by this Government-600,000 new jobs have been created as well. On the basis of those achievements, on the basis of the achievements in industrial relationships and on the basis of the settings for the macroeconomy that this Budget has put down, I think it is entirely right for the commentators and pundits to speculate that the Australian economy will come right towards the end of next year if nobody panics and everyone works together under the Government's guidelines. Then we will be able to share the abundancy that that will produce more equitably among ordinary Australians. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.30) —In the debate on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1986-87 and cognate Bills, I want to speak mainly on matters relating to the Department of Resources and Energy. With every day that goes by we can foresee with a good deal of accuracy a steady drop in our self-sufficiency in oil production. That point was made by a member of the Opposition in the other place quite recently. We have plenty of coal, and more economical and cleaner ways of using coal are being researched. Nevertheless, coal is a finite and non-renewable resource. Every generation of human beings in the future is likely to put a high value on the hydrocarbons because of the enormous range of useful manufactured products they can provide. I stress that that is what their proper function ought now to be seen as, rather than as a fuel to be burned. If we simply go on burning them up, for the most part without any regard even to efficient burning, we can expect our descendants to look back on us with horror as the generation of barbarians who massively destroyed irreplaceable human assets without much regard for the needs of the future. However, it is reassuring to see that the Federal Government is now making some gestures in the direction of alternative and permanently renewable energy resources. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has programs to increase the efficiency of photovoltaic conversion of light into electricity and into the storage of solar energy. These two programs are quite large, with spending of over $2m. Grants under the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council programs include several in the solar energy field, including solar ponds, and one to Murdoch University to assist wind power potential. We need to go much further with these things but at least now there seems to be some recognition within the Government of the need to plan for the future, and some understanding that the time may well come when we do not have oil of our own and when we do not have access to cheap oil. Even today's oil price may seem cheap compared with what it might be in 10 or 15 years time. I note a recent Press release from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) stating the Government's view of the changed nature of the Atomic Energy Commission to become the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which the Australian Democrats applaud. We just want to see that Bill come forward. Let us get it through the Senate and get this good new era started. In the Committee stage of this debate I will more properly raise matters of detail in that area. I want to mention briefly the case for nuclear power as it now stands, for a variety of reasons. The first is that it is still being freely canvassed as the only reliable energy source for a future world, although I feel that increasingly smaller numbers of people are taking that position. The second is the regrettable fact that the Australian Labor Government persists in touting for the nuclear industry, encouraging the sale of our uranium even to such countries as France while France continues with impunity its nuclear tests in the Pacific. Nuclear power is dangerous and uneconomic and is a continuing cause of deep divisions in virtually every community. The moment of truth for the nuclear industry was the Chernobyl reactor tragedy on 26 April this year. At this stage it is good to look at responsible views of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident. I will quote one of them which I think is sufficiently appalling to demand attention, and certainly to warrant repetition. It states: . . . the available data suggests that the number of excess cancer deaths arising from radiation from the accident might be some 10,000 or so. Of these, a few hundred may occur in the immediate evacuation zone, about 5000 elsewhere in the USSR, some 3000-5000 in Eastern Bloc countries other than the USSR, and about 1000 elsewhere in Europe. The number of excess cancer deaths arising from ingestion of radionuclides (notably caesium-137) through the food chain cannot be determined accurately from the data at this stage, but indications are that the number of these deaths would be comparable to those arising from external radiation effects. That suggests another 10,000 deaths. These figures do not come from an anti-nuclear group. The quote is taken verbatim from the report of 19 September of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I take it that it can be regarded as conservative rather than otherwise. We are talking about 20,000 agonising and protracted slow deaths from a single accident. As nuclear plants age, even under the most stable social conditions imaginable, such accidents must happen again. No technology is perfect. Human beings err. These are constant, known facts in human society. Unfortunately, from them more Chernobyls, more massive tragedies, can be predicted with utter inevitability. Such accidents will take a very heavy toll on life and cause enormous quantities of illness-long term illnesses such as cancer-because so many of the world's nuclear reactors are located in areas of high population density. It is interesting in this context to get the contribution of nuclear power into a reliable perspective. According to an excellent energy brief published by the Economist on 24 May this year, nuclear power delivers only 2 to 3 per cent of total world energy to the end user. For instance, hydroelectricity, according to the same source, still provides 70 per cent more power than does nuclear energy. So it is a fact that the world could turn its back completely on nuclear energy without much difficulty. Efficient conservation measures alone could fill that gap. That is beyond doubt. The whole nuclear power situation is distorted by the fact that a few countries are very heavily committed to nuclear generation. One such country is France, with more than 60 per cent of its electricity coming from nuclear energy, and Belgium, with more than 50 per cent. The case of Belgium is rather interesting. While in that country earlier this year, I was intrigued to see-I believe it is the only country in the world in this category-that it is able to street light all of its major highways throughout the night from border to border. Indeed, people who fly over Belgium recognise it by the long strings of lights blazing right through the night. This massive road lighting is scarcely necessary. It is certainly not an economic use of electric power. It is made possible only because of the huge amount of nuclear electricity generated in Belgium which has to be used up one way or another. That is so typical of the nuclear industry. It creates vast quantities of power, irrespective of whether the consumption requirement is there. Of course, this applies very much to smaller countries and to the Third World. After France and Belgium, the nuclear contribution falls off quite rapidly. For instance, Japan generates 20 per cent of its electricity that way and Britain and the United States of America around 15 per cent. One of the unfortunate things about the world-history should teach us this if nothing else-is that there is no guarantee against war. There has always been war in human society, although perhaps all of us in this place regret that deeply. Somehow or other wars continue to break out. This is especially the case in the world at present where the causes of and reasons for war are becoming exacerbated as time goes on. It ought to be axiomatic that the nations who rely heavily on nuclear power have placed themselves in a very dangerous position. An atomic power plant is obviously an attractive target for anyone wanting to knock out an enemy completely because such an attack would create major areas of radioactivity. Indeed, reliance on nuclear power, to the extent that, say, France or Belgium have become reliant, must make it almost impossible for nations to do other than lose any war in which they might become involved in the future. Again, it is axiomatic that a mere threat of attack on the reactors of France or Belgium from any enemy would virtually guarantee the surrender of those countries immediately, purely on that positive threat. Their only alternative to surrender would be total destruction of their society and the death of virtually all of their people. Faced with that problem, I suggest that countries that use nuclear power extensively have made themselves hostages to fortune. I am sure that strategists in other countries that do not have nuclear power, and the people who may want to attack those countries, have noted this and that it is a very big factor in the future. It is naive to think that this would not happen. The bombing of Hiroshima, the blitz on London and Coventry and the fire bombing of Dresden make it plain enough that any measure is considered justified to gain a victory. That in itself is a compelling reason why the world must abandon nuclear power as fast as possible and turn to alternatives. It is also a compelling reason to believe that all of those who contribute to nuclear power, to its continuation in the world, or who assist it in any way, are culpable to the extent that they ought to recognise those facts. The second reason, other than that strategic one, is economic. A major world problem is the appalling poverty of so much of the Third World. This is due substantially to the fact that it does not have an industrial output anywhere near adequate to finance the development that it needs. This imbalance is not being corrected. As time goes on it becomes worse. As that rate of disproportion increases, it must bring war and terrorism to the world. It is not possible to expect people to starve to death quietly. They will not starve to death quietly; they will eventually organise themselves to the stage where they will fight wars against the more fortunate part of the world to get what that more fortunate part of the world has. Not to recognise this is to display an intolerable degree of naivete. It is in the world's interests, then, to redress this balance effectively and promptly. That ought to be a proper course of action for the world, including this country, because it is obviously the more fortunate countries of the world that must take the lead in that regard. The Third World has to an interesting degree a major potential asset which could be used and which would be of benefit to the whole world-relatively large regions of desert with high temperatures and high sunshine rates. The Third World, then, is ideally suited for solar energy development and generation. This has long been recognised but the point is that the demand for power is in the cooler industrial regions. Solar energy, it is said, cannot be transported. Many people, who I suggest have not been doing enough reading recently, say that this is the end of the argument, but of course it is not. That assessment is not true. In fact technology does exist which would allow solar energy to be stored and transported, and intensive research work is going on into those processes in many parts of the world. I had the opportunity earlier this year to visit Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science, one of the world's major research establishments and in my opinion one of the most remarkable centres of learning on the planet. I was interested to learn that one of the main uses to which a $10m solar furnace, now under construction and due to be completed by next year, will be put is the separation of substances into their constituent gases through the use of solar heat. This process, thermochemical dissociation, is regarded as very promising for the very reasons I have stated, and indeed the scientists I discussed it with said it was very interesting that I was the first politician they knew of who had been to see the process and who realised what they were working towards. They said the process would allow solar energy to be stored and transported. Gases can be moved over long distances very readily through small-bore pipelines, as we know well enough in this country. Of course water can be dissociated into oxygen and hydrogen but much lower temperatures will dissociate ammonia into nitrogen and hydrogen. It is worth noting that in both cases the base product is hydrogen. To dissociate water, temperatures of some 2,000 degrees centigrade are needed, which requires very expensive materials in the actual plant. Also, the rate of dissociation is low. However, dissociating ammonia requires temperatures of only 700 degrees centigrade. As some honourable senators may recall, a group at the Australian National University here in Canberra holds patents on the most efficient system of dissociating ammonia known. This research has been led by Professor Stephen Kaneff of the Department of Engineering Physics at the ANU. I was advised by him recently that about $1m supplied to fund this research over the next five years would complete the system. That funding has not been forthcoming for a variety of reasons. I do not know what they are. It seems to me that it would be an excellent investment and it is worth noting in this context that the United States Department of Energy last year allocated $5m to the same area-that is, the chemical dissociation of substances using solar energy. To my mind the future advantages to Australia of this research ought to be obvious. We have the huge areas of sunlit desert which would provide cheap heat on a completely renewable basis into the future to fuel the process. That can be done, beyond doubt. I am assured by the scientists that that is the case. We also have pipeline systems now carrying natural gas which at some future time, when that fuel has been depleted or exhausted, could carry hydrogen. There is another matter I would like to get into proportion. Solar energy has been criticised because it is said it would take up so much land. It would indeed take a lot, but not much in terms of the size of the planet, or even Australia for that matter. Professor Kaneff has estimated that it would require, at a 20 per cent conversion efficiency-which is quite reasonable these days-an area 600 kilometres square in central Australia to provide the present energy needs not just of Australia but of the whole world. Of course, such areas for solar collectors are more than available. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.45) —Mr Deputy President, I rise to address an issue, I think, of growing importance, certainly to the environmental movement in Australia, but increasingly to the wider community. It concerns the increasing health problems posed by toxic wastes and associated problems with environmental control in Australia. I think the community's awareness of the problem of chemical and metallurgical wastes has risen markedly in recent years, probably spurred on by the news of so many disasters, such as the Seveso disaster in Italy, which scattered dioxin over an extremely large area. The very well known disaster of the Love Canal in the United States came to light in 1979 and much more recently, of course, the Bhopal disaster happened in India. In the last week, the tremendously damaging killing off of large parts of the Rhine occurred through chemical wastes being spilt into the Rhine by Swiss chemical companies. Closer to home the potential for widespread harm is illustrated by the threat by an apprentice electrician, which was published in the newspapers, to pollute the metropolitan water supplies with PCBs which are, of course, readily available, and to decommission the generators and capacitors in electricity authorities. In general terms, however, the relatively low industrial concentration and sheer geographical size of Australia have tended to blunt the public's awareness of the magnitude of the problem. There can be little doubt, however, that the absence of major disasters in Australia has been largely due to good luck rather than good management. The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on this matter states quite clearly that there is no accurate information on a national basis on the generation, storage and disposal of toxic wastes. The industry has been essentially self-regulating, while disposal is the preserve of local government, which not surprisingly often lacks both knowledge and the resources necessary for effective regulation, planning and control. In the United States, where much more attention has been paid to this matter, the general definition now of toxic wastes is: The waste that may cause or significantly contribute to serious illness or death, or that poses a substantial threat to human health or the environment when improperly managed. Maunsell and Partners surveyed the generation and management of toxic wastes in Australia. It carried out its survey according to the following criteria: First of all, the persistent organics, including PCBs, dioxin and other chlorinated hydrocarbons; second, the acutely toxic teratogenic, carcinogenic and mutagenic organisms; third, inflammable wastes; fourth, explosive, reactive and oxygising wastes; fifth, toxic metals and organo metallics; sixth, toxic inorganics, for example, cyanide; seventh, strongly acidic and toxic wastes; eighth, gas generating wastes; and ninth, gas and liquid container cylinders. When one looks at that list one is struck by the vast potential for problems that exists in a society such as ours. The enduring and characteristic problem presented by toxic wastes is, of course, their latency period. The physiological harm which can be caused by continuing low level exposure to environmental carcinogenics may not manifest itself for anything up to 40 years. Similarly, mutagenic effects may not be suspect for quite an extended period and, because of the difficulties often found in identification of source and causation, the establishment of that final causal link, which is often necessary seemingly in our society to get anything done, is often difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate. Of course, if indiscriminate dumping has occurred, the potential for synogestic interactions is enhanced; in other words, the mixing of various chemicals which we have seen in Australia-for example, in my own city of Brisbane-which are only mildly to moderately carcinogenic individually but when put together have their potential for harm magnified extraordinarily. The durability of many of these toxins within our system is also well documented. Heavy metal pollution is virtually permanent and these substances are not biodegradable and, of course, are biocumulative. Groundwater pollution is something which interestingly enough is being taken up by almost every major international conference on water reticulation currently being conducted around the world-a recent one, of course, being conducted last week in Rome. The problem of groundwater pollution is extremely insidious and potentially one of the most destructive of the problems that are currently facing our country. Having acknowledged the dangers associated with toxic wastes, it is a little worrying that so little attention has been devoted to the monitoring, identification and disposal of these wastes. In fact, almost no action has taken place since the bringing down of the House of Representatives report which pointed quite graphically to the major problems that are looming around Australia and documented those problems in our major metropolitan areas. We have had legal and illegal dumping in sewers; we have the landfill sites both in Hobart and Melbourne; we have had drums filled with reactive wastes exploding on tips; we have had the problem in Brisbane, for example, at Willawong, with a privately run operation involving the leakage of toxins and toxic wastes; we have had a substitution in Brisbane of another dump which brought about massive deaths of birds. We have even had one death of a person living next to that waste. Again, seemingly very little attention has been paid to this, as though it is something we have come to expect in our type of society. We have had problems throughout Australia and indeed some of the ones, for example, Willawong, might even be put at the top of the list, but at least they are a planned disposal of wastes in some way. In other States such as Tasmania there are, in fact, no disposal facilities. One further dimension of this problem is the substantial quantity, as I have already mentioned, of PCBs stored by electricity authorities. Neither the locations nor the precise quantities are known; however, the amounts are sure to grow as generators and capacitors are moved into storage. We have clearly an enormous problem that is getting away from us. Undoubtedly part of the solution lies with the re-examination of our laws and regulations with a view to getting some uniformity between the States, Territories and the Commonwealth Government. The Federal Government has been urged to establish an environmental contaminants authority to seek this type of co-operation between Federal and State governments. Without this, the producers of toxic wastes, fairly obviously, will simply migrate to the State with the least stringent laws and continue their operations. Looking at the pattern around the world, one must be highly sceptical of the ethical regard that most of these companies seem to have for the way that they deal with their products. Uniformity could be obtained by State reference of the requisite powers of a Federal government and this might be another way in which it might be handled. It seems to me that any political difficulties that may be in the way really ought to be overcome and must be overcome given the urgency of the problem. We are unlikely either now or in the future to arrive at the type of problem faced in the United States with the Love Canal. However, given the fact that there is some increasing pressure within our metropolitan areas over land usage, I would expect that at some stage in the future some similar types of problems-though not identical-could emerge. Hence it seems to me that priority really ought to be given to planning and development of the safe destruction and containment sites on a regional basis for these by-products of our civilisation. Perhaps the use of section 96 grants to States under the Constitution could be an avenue for the encouragement of State development of such facilities. These potential problems will very rapidly find community acceptance. Unless we move rapidly, I think the community itself will put aside its out of sight, out of mind attitude which exists at the moment and could quickly become highly critical of those governments that have failed to address this issue at a time when the issue can be addressed. The problem could blow out to a point requiring extraordinarily large expenditures, such as were incurred by the United States Government in terms of the complete rehabilitation and removal of a town and rebuilding of a new town with houses and all that that entails. That type of extraordinary expenditure could in fact land on some future governments whether they be local, State or Federal. Now is the time to act while seemingly some type of containment is possible. Fundamental to a truly comprehensive scheme is the availability of Commonwealth powers and I would hope that the Commonwealth Government would see that this in fact is an obligation that it has and would seek co-operation with State and local authorities to undertake some urgent action so that we are not faced in the very near future with some massive destructive disaster. Then the people of Australia will ask us: `Why have you not done something?'. The information has been presented to this Parliament. It has been presented to the Government and it is well known. What is needed now is some attention to and some action on this very serious and, I think, growing problem within our community. Senator JONES(Queensland)(12.58) —I rise today to say something on the Queensland gerrymander, particularly in relation to the recent State election held on 1 November. I think it is important that some of the facts be placed on the record of the Senate in relation to that recent election held in Queensland. It is worth while noting at this stage that the National Party won 55 per cent of the seats, 49 out of the 89, with only 39 per cent of the vote. The National Party increased its outright control of the Parliament when in fact, compared with 1983 it went backwards in terms of votes. We have a situation in which 61 per cent of Queenslanders voted very deliberately against a party which governs with a majority of nine seats in its own right. Not only is it the least popular government in modern Australian history, but probably it has less support than any Opposition in this nation. The increase in seats in the latest Queensland gerrymander from 82 to 89 was designed solely and wholly to maximise the National Party's representation on the minimum number of votes required. It is conceivable that under this outrageous electoral rort, the National Party vote could fall to 35 per cent or less and it would still retain outright government. Differences between enrolments vary by as much as 160 per cent-the difference in numbers of enrolments between electorates. In the Queensland election, the issue was clear-cut. Parties other than the National Party campaigned on corruption, cronyism, electoral justice and accountability. The results are just as clear. Sixty-one per cent of Queensland voted for clean and decent government, against the dishonesty and discrimination of the National Party. Sixty-one per cent of Queenslanders voted for a fair and equal election. They voted against the disgusting distortions and inequalities of the National Party. Sixty-one per cent of Queenslanders voted for accountability of government through an all-party accounts committee and other means of reporting to the Parliament. They voted against the secrecy and the lack of public accountability that were the trademark of the National Party. The situation is that overwhelmingly 61 per cent of Queenslanders voted against the re-election of a government on three key issues in the 1 November election campaign. Queensland for the next three years will be governed by a party against which 61 per cent of the electorate voted. In actual fact, 61 per cent of the electorate passed a vote of no-confidence in the Government. Where else could we have a government in its own right which 61 per cent of its subjects believe is corrupt, dishonest, dishonestly elected and dangerously unaccountable? Even worse is the fact that the National Party majority relied on the preferences of the Liberal Party which campaigned directly against it. One could say quite easily that between 10 and 16 seats were given to the National Party by the preferences allocated by the Liberal Party in the State election on 1 November. Where else would one find a political organisation that directs its preferences to a party that has already kicked it out of coalition and now treats it with cynical contempt? Where else would one find a political organisation giving its preferences to a party whose president says it is corrupt and whose treasurer says it is riddled with cronyism? Where else would you find that sort of thing happening other than Queensland? This unaccountable National Party Government, protected as it is by the gerrymander, is the political darling of the tax avoiders, fly-by-night opportunists and in some cases convicted criminals. We saw the Bond payout of $400,000 for political protection and there is no doubt that a major portion of the $3m to $4m spent by the National Party in the recent campaign came from some of those undesirable sources. The Senate should be concerned not only at the way that the Queensland Government is elected but also at the type of government the electoral system delivers and preserves. When the majority of voters in any State are unable to express effectively their desire for clean, honest government, it is time for Australians, nationally, to display this outrage. I suppose an example of the electoral system is very clearly shown in the figures that are available to us now; the results of the election are very clear. In the west-far north and the country zones where the National Party won 21 of the 25 seats, 300,909 voters elected the 25 members. In the provincial zones and cities, where the Australian Labor Party won eight of the 13 seats, 240,320 elected 13 members. So there is a difference between the country zones and the city zones; 300,909 voters elected 25 members in the country areas and in the city zones 240,320 elected 13 members. In simple terms, in these non-metropolitan areas the difference of 60,500 overall enrolments means an extra 12 seats, almost all to the advantage of the National Party. The National Party has 21 of its 49 seats in the most blatantly gerrymandered electoral zone and all I can say is that I appeal to the people within the National Parliament that we bring down legislation to change the entrenched gerrymander in the entrenched National Party within the State of Queensland. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(1.05) —It is becoming increasingly fashionable in this Parliament to attack key personalities and large companies associated with mining, manufacturing and primary industry activities. Of course, on top of that list stands Charles Copeman of Peko- Wallsend Ltd. But unlike some of the investment mining companies in Australia, Peko-Wallsend is a true miner in the sense that despite current depressed commodity prices it continues to keep open a number of its unprofitable mines, thereby securing employment in remote regions and maintaining the future potential of the mine. An example in my State, of course, is the scheelite mine on King Island. When there is a change in management or ownership, there is often a change in attitude as to how those operations should be carried out. During the debate on the Pilbara problems, few people seemed to realise that Peko during the last financial year acquired a controlling interest in the management company of Robe River Iron Associates Joint Venture and, prior to that acquisition, the joint venture had arranged a lease from a subsidiary of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. As part of that lease arrangement it acquired the right to mine further iron ore reserves at Western Deepdale. This action effectively extended the life of the Robe River operations well into the twenty-first century. Also during that year the two largest Japanese steel mills, Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal, increased their direct interest in the joint venture by acquiring part of the equity which was previously held by Mitsui. While, on the one hand, assurances of adequate reserves and participation by major customers in a joint venture are reassuring, on the other they are not sufficient to ensure a successful and profitable operation. It is necessary to have cost control and to be internationally competitive in that mine. When Peko assumed control it became fairly evident that far-reaching management decisions would have to be made to ensure that the mine achieved a level of profitability which would justify proceeding with the quite major capital expenditure necessary to service the increased sales opportunities arising from the extended life of the project. Unfortunately, over the years many restrictive work practices had been imposed on that operation. In fact, the chairman in his annual report stated that despite persistent negotiations for their removal the situation deteriorated rapidly and resulted in losses being recorded in the last month of the financial year. On 31 July last, far-reaching changes to both management and operation practices were effected. After an unsettling period the operation was closed for 17 working days, which received national publicity. At the annual general meeting, I think in October, the chairman reported that it was pleasing that the operation had returned to a normal level and that most of the restrictive work practices had been removed, with considerable cost savings. These changes, of course, attracted widespread attention and reflected, no doubt, the level of public concern about the need to improve competitiveness by Australian industry. The Australian Government was initially very critical of the Peko operations, but it soon sensed a national feeling that something had to be done and joined the band-wagon. Unfortunately the Labor Government rhetoric has not been followed by subsequent action. Fortunately, we do have around Australia individuals like the John Leards and the entrepreneurs of Dollar Sweets as well as the Jay Pendarvises of Mudginberri, to name a few. They are standing up for jobs, unlike other bodies such as the Industries Assistance Commission which is continuing to destroy them or transport them outside Australia. I think it is about time that we saluted some of the people who are trying to maintain or create new jobs, rather than hero worship those who are trying to destroy them. The last casualty of the Hawke Government's inaction is a very competitive company, ANI Corporation Ltd, which sought government help against union thuggery. While Mr Hawke visited Kakadu and made futile attempts to cause job losses because he was uninformed about the Jackeys Marsh area's involvement in woodchipping operations-and he was blatantly wrong-500 jobs in Victoria were in the balance. What has happened? A $70m export contract with Hong Kong, which was initially hailed by the Australian Labor Party as something of a victory, has been lost because of industrial action by the Electrical Trades Union and the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation. If such action continues further jobs will be destroyed, further export markets will be lost and the dollar will continue to be unstable and to be propped up by the Reserve Bank. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) outlined plans, I think just a few days ago, to remove impediments that limit trade potential. What a farce. In theory it is good, but not in practice. It is of little consolation to industries right throughout this country which have been held to ransom by union thuggery. Whether the Minister for Trade's moves will be effective I believe is quite questionable. In July of this year union strikes over superannuation brought eastern Australian shipping to a standstill. In fact, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has been quoted as advising that 60,000 man-days have been lost nationally over superannuation claims in the past few months. These strikes have hit at major companies such as ACI International Ltd and Dunlop, and the list continues. Earlier this year the coal industry had a desperate battle to try to maintain market share and at a time when the industry was at its lowest ebb, a major disputation by the unions resulted in stoppages going over many weeks. Distant fields often appear greener, certainly to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) because he is now stating that 1987 will be much better than 1986. I suppose this might well be the case, if in the last few months of 1986 we continue to go down the drain as quickly as we are going now. There is no hope for Australia if there is not some improvement. But how much lower are we to go? With the fringe benefits tax, one of the unintended consequences that the Prime Minister has not done anything about, of course, is that this tax is going to lift the average weekly wage beyond the Budget forecast. That is an unintended consequence he did not take into account in his recent adjustments. The Government has taken great pride in its record on the reduced number of industrial disputes but they are on the rise again. Working days lost through industrial disputes in 1985-86 rose to 1.45 million, the highest level since 1982-83; in fact, they were 10.7 per cent above those in 1984-85. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has stated that Australia can no longer afford strikes if it is to become a successful manufacturing exporter. I ask: What is the Minister doing in relation to his own State, in relation to the loss of jobs as a result of the loss of the export order through ANI to Hong Kong? He went on to say that it is a luxury that this country cannot afford if it is to be a successful manufacturing operator. It is a luxury that he cannot afford, just to sit there and do nothing about the thuggery in relation to ANI. The rhetoric continues. In July this year the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) said that industrial action and inefficient practices on Australian docks were costing the country $1.2 billion a year. The report confirms that costs and delays associated with shore-based operations are damaging competitiveness of Australian exporters in international markets. We are complaining about our problem of balance of payments but what is the Government doing in the very areas which are causing problems? The report also points out that the companies which are trying to enter the export market for the first time are being particularly hard hit. The extra costs imposed on importers and exporters by delays could have a greater cost than the effect of a strike. We also have problems of bulk cargo movements; there is unreliability of railway rolling stock; the Government is being lethargic in relation to the setting up of a royal commission into grain handling; and there is a lack of consultation and commercial approach by rail and port authorities. These issues have to be examined if Australia is to get back on its feet again. It is about time that this Labor Party Government started governing in the best interests of Australia and started taking control of thuggery in the union movement. Sitting suspended from 1.15 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the record current account deficit for October of $1,753m. I ask the Minister: When does he expect this disastrous trend in our current account to be reversed? Does the Minister agree that general adjustment of wages upwards, as presently supported by the Government, and increased wage costs in the form of extra superannuation are absurd in our present circumstances and that the Government must revise its policies in these areas? Finally, what changes does the Government propose to address this ongoing crisis? Senator BUTTON —The current account deficit for the month, published today, was well within the range of the Government's anticipations. Opposition senators-Ha, ha! Senator BUTTON —Some people in the business and financial community say that the Opposition in this place does not even understand the issues, let alone have the capacity to debate them. That is what they say about members of the Opposition-that they do not even understand the issues. I remind the Senate that I said here three or four months ago that we were anticipating bad figures in respect of the current account deficit later in the year, in October and November. Senator Boswell —That's no excuse. Senator BUTTON —Of course it is no excuse. The excuses are to be found in the period when the former Government was in office. There were seven years of malign neglect in which all these issues were swept under the table. Members of the former Government restrained inflation on the admission of their own Prime Minister by keeping the dollar overvalued. That is what members of the former Government did, on the admission of their now trouserless Prime Minister. That is what they did in that period and that is where the seeds of these problems were laid. I will return to Senator Chaney's question instead of the rather absurd supplementaries that I have been given of an almost infantile level. In terms of the second part of the question, the Government has implemented a policy on wages since it came to office which has produced results tremendously better than the disastrous years of the Fraser Government. There have been no wage increases in this country under this Government of the order of 14 per cent and 16 per cent per annum. In fact, there has been a decline in real unit labour costs, a performance matched, I think, in no other country. That is recognised by people who have a better understanding of the issues than the lot opposite. In terms of the last part of the question, let me say first of all that the superannuation issue has been referred back to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with the support of the Government. That matter is now in the hands of the Arbitration Commission, the Government and industry putting similar submissions to the Arbitration Commission on that issue. Secondly, in terms of a general adjustment of wages, the Government has indicated the parameters for wages for this Budget year and they will be maintained. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I note with great regret the fact that the $1,753m deficit is within the Government's anticipation, but I ask the Minister to answer the question: When does he expect this disastrous trend to be reversed? Will he further tell the Senate whether the Government's record in respect of wages, of which he has been so proud, is good enough for our present circumstances? Does he still believe that the prospect of a 6 per cent wage rise this year is appropriate to Australia's present circumstances? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The answer to the first part of the question is that I am not in the business of predicting, except to say that in terms of our current account problem we are in this for the medium to long haul. I have said that on a number of occasions and I do not in any way intend to depart from what I have persistently said about this issue. For those who understand something of the structural problems of this country, what I have just said should not come as a surprise. It comes as no surprise to the financial community; it should not come as a surprise even to those opposite. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to media reports that the exploration company, Geopeko, has put a drilling rig into the Kakadu National Park. Can the Minister tell us what the Government intends to do about it? Senator GARETH EVANS —We have been advised that the Geopeko drilling rig was operating within the Kakadu National Park stage 2 in the vicinity of the Ranger 4 lease yesterday afternoon and again this morning. The Ranger 4 area contains two pre-existing mineral leases on which the Government cannot prevent further exploration, as both the Prime Minister and I indicated in answers in the Parliament on 10 October. We will of course use all our powers, and they are substantial and ample, to prevent mining in any such area should it come to that in due course. In addition to those pre-existing mineral leases in respect of which our powers to stop exploration activity are so limited, the Ranger 4 area also contains a number of lease applications on which the Government does not recognise the right of Geopeko to explore. As we understand it, the drilling in question that has occurred in the last day or so did occur outside the pre-existing mineral lease area and in areas which, as I have just said, we do not recognise as interests under the relevant legislation. We understand that Geopeko moved today to yet another lease area, Ranger 68, which is also a lease application of a kind which we do not recognise as an interest justifying or entitling it to explore, but it appears that the wet weather that has occurred up there has prevented it from actually attempting to drill. The Government is advised that the drilling rig has since left the park. However, in the light of all these events the Government has decided to lodge an application for a declaration and, if necessary, an injunction restraining Geopeko from any exploration activity outside the lease areas. Geopeko's action is highly provocative, as I think we can all appreciate, and we will simply not countenance it. The Government will fight Geopeko in the courts to prevent any exploration occurring outside the pre-existing lease area, where, as I have said, our hands are tied. As to the mining question, at the end of the day on those pre-existing lease areas where some exploration can take effect-although it does not seem that Geopeko is very interested in exploring on its unarguable areas-in respect of those areas and indeed in Kakadu as a whole I simply repeat the earlier statements that have been made very forcefully by the Prime Minister on this issue: That is to say, the Government will not countenance any mining in the existing Kakadu National Park. That is categorical and that is final. Senator PARER —Is the Minister for Education aware of comments by the Vice-Chancellor of Queensland University, Professor Brian Wilson, reported in last Saturday's Courier-Mail, that Queensland should find a way to become part of Sydney's western suburbs in order to get a fairer share of tertiary places? Does the Minister agree with Professor Wilson's claim that it is harder to find a tertiary place in Queensland than anywhere else in Australia and that a greater percentage of students are staying on to year 12 in Queensland than in any other State? What hope, if any, can the Government provide to young Queenslanders who are concerned about their futures, beyond the recent inadequate measures? Senator RYAN —I did see some report of Vice-Chancellor Wilson's remarks. There is only one point on which I am in agreement with him and that is his comment that there are high participation rates in the last two years of secondary schooling in Queensland. That is true. That is something we believe has come about as a result of the Commonwealth's policies, such as the participation and equity program and greatly increased allowances for students in that age group, and we are pleased to see it. However, if Professor Wilson's other comments were accurately reported, they are quite misleading. He seemed to be implying that there was going to be some privileged treatment of the western suburbs of Sydney with regard to university places. That is quite wrong. The proposal that the Commonwealth Government is currently considering is to make some university places available in the west some time during the next triennium-probably in the last year of that triennium, which would be 1990 or it may even be as far ahead as 1991. If we were able to do that we would not be doing it by taking away resources from any other institution within New South Wales or Australia. I have made it clear to the New South Wales Government and to the proponents of developing university places in the west that we cannot provide places by taking them away from someone else and certainly Queensland will be no loser. Our current proposal is to move some places which may already be allocated to New South Wales, say, to an existing university out to the west. We may be able to make additional places available as a result of the funding secured for the next triennium but that is really a matter for next year's Budget. So there is absolutely no question of any development we might like to see in the west detracting from commitments made in Queensland, any other State or any other part of New South Wales. It is certainly the wish of the Commonwealth Government to see the development of university places in the west and I believe that we will have the co-operation of the New South Wales Government in ensuring that development. But to get back to Queensland, I do not know how often I have to say in this place that, under the Hawke Government's higher education policies, Queensland has done better than any other State. The facts speak for themselves and if Senator Parer would like to address the schedules attached to the Commonwealth tertiary education assistance Bills he will see that the places allocated are higher per capita for Queensland than for any other place. Queensland is getting a larger share of per capita enrolments than any other State. I think, from memory, the growth in higher education places in Queensland will be in the vicinity of 9 per cent, whereas nationally it is 7 per cent. We are giving preferential treatment to Queensland because we realise that there is a backlog of neglect inherited from the Fraser Government in the Commonwealth field and inherited further back from the neglect of higher education in Queensland when it was a State responsibility. Of course, that neglect must be sheeted home to previous Queensland State governments. The history of Queensland's particular situation with regard to higher education places has been set out many times in this place. I would have thought that by now, Senator Parer, who has had some association with higher education in Queensland, would have understood that history; indeed he probably participated in it. The Hawke Government has given preferential treatment in each year's allocation of higher education places to Queensland. Queensland is getting a larger share of the higher education cake than it could justify on a per capita basis because we wish to make up that backlog, which was not our doing but the doing of the Fraser Government and previous Queensland State governments. So I think it is quite inappropriate for Senator Parer to raise this matter in the terms in which he has. I must say that I think it quite inappropriate for Vice-Chancellor Wilson, who certainly understands the history of higher education funding in Queensland, to suggest that developments in other parts of Australia somehow put Queensland at a disadvantage. Queensland is currently at an advantage in the funding of higher education places. It has been since the Hawke Government implemented its higher education policies, and it is our intention to continue to give preferential treatment to Queensland. I just wish that the Queensland authorities, including the leaders of higher education institutions, would admit the reality. Senator COLSTON —Did the Minister representing the Treasurer hear the Federal Leader of the Opposition say on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program this morning that the Government would pick up $8 billion in revenue from the cash economy? Can the Minister indicate whether the $8 billion figure for revenue forgone from the cash economy is accurate? Senator WALSH —I did hear Mr Howard's comments on AM this morning and I and my staff spent a bit of time looking around for something which would substantiate the $8 billion. Eventually, I found it. Its origin is incestuous. In fact, it comes from a Press release dated 2 October issued by-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister seems to be responding to a question which is based on an incorrect quotation of Mr Howard. Senator Gareth Evans —Misusing the Standing Orders again. Senator Chaney —Mr President, there is an abuse of this place by Ministers like the failed Attorney-General. I do not need to be corrected by him from his indolent seated position. The question contained a statement which purported to quote Mr Howard and I think it did so inaccurately. The reference to the $8 billion was to a quantum in the cash economy and not to an amount of taxation which could be collected. I think the question should proceed on the basis of an accurate statement if it is to be permitted at all. It is doubtful whether it is a valid question at all within the Standing Orders since it does not relate to the Minister's responsibilities. But if the question is to be allowed it should be based on an accurate quotation and not an inaccurate one. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —I thought that Senator Chaney was going to object to my reference to the incestuous origin of the Leader of the Opposition's statement, because that is what its origin is. A Press statement issued on 2 October by Senator Messner stated: It has been estimated- by persons unknown- the world of the cash transaction has been evading its tax responsibilities to the tune of $21b per annum . . . if the Government collected an average 40 per cent of the $21b lost to the underground economy annually, that would amount to increased Commonwealth revenue of $8b . . . Both figures are assertions, unsupported by any sourced evidence or any opinions of any consequence. Senator Messner's Press statement continued: . . . it's time the Government released the thumbscrews on the legitimate private sector-- That is, the banking sector and so on. As I have said, I heard Mr Howard speaking on the AM program this morning. I think this is a very important fact to put on the record because he was giving a list of things for which the Australia Card would be required. He said it would be required to withdraw from or deposit money into a bank. That is true; it will be. The production of the card will also be required for anybody who wants to open an account in a bank. That is very important, of course, because it means that, if one wants to open an account in a false name and continue to operate that account under that false name, as tax evaders and other law-breakers are wont to do, if or when the Australia Card is introduced it will no longer be possible to cheat the Commonwealth revenue or to indulge in other types of criminal activity. It is precisely that sort of activity on which the Opposition has set a course to protect and preserve. Leaving aside the rubberiness of the figures, Mr Howard's claim that the Australia Card will make no difference whatever to the level of transactions or activity in the black economy is patently false. To the extent that the black economy encompasses payments in cash which are claimed by the payer as deductions from his taxable income but not reported by the employee as taxable income in his hands, the Australia Card will eliminate that section of it. In those areas of the black economy or the cash economy where the payer is not claiming the payment as a deduction from taxable income, the receiver of the payment will sooner or later run into the problem that, unless he wants to stuff the money into a mattress-- Senator Ryan —Put it under the bed. Senator WALSH —Or put it under the bed with the red communists and whoever else inhabits that place these days-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, I ask you to stick to the matter of Senator Colston's question. Answers are getting a bit too long. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Sooner or later the recipient of the payment will want to dispose of that money in some way or other, such as by putting it in a bank. With an Australia Card he will not be able to use the device that people now use, which is to open a bank account in a false name. He will be required to produce his Australia Card in order to deposit the money, which will then attract the attention of the taxation authorities, which might start asking awkward questions about where all this cash came from. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to media reports to the effect that the Minister for Primary Industry is satisfied that the logging being carried out at Jackeys Marsh is not endangering National Estate values. I ask: Firstly, on what evidence was the Minister's judgment that no National Estate values were threatened based? Secondly, was the Minister aware that Dr Jamie Kirkpatrick, the botanist employed by the Australian Heritage Commission to produce a detailed report on the Jackeys Marsh area, recommended yesterday to the Commission that logging cease? Finally, if the Heritage Commission report to be presented to the Government within the next two weeks indicates that significant National Estate values are being threatened by the logging, will the Government immediately move to stop that logging? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, I am unaware of any head of power under which the Commonwealth Government could move into Tasmania and stop the State Government or anybody else cutting down trees. The Commonwealth, of course, could, if it chose to do so, have some effect on logging activity through the use of its export control powers. Implicit in the question-I think this is a fair interpretation of it-is that, because Dr Jamie Kirkpatrick, whoever he is, has recommended that the Government take steps to terminate the logging, the Commonwealth should automatically do that. I do not know how good a botanist he is, but it seems to me-this is only a layman's opinion-that he needs to know a bit more about the law if he makes that sort of recommendation and thinks the Commonwealth Government can just move in and stop somebody cutting down trees in Tasmania. I regard it, quite frankly, as an abdication of responsibility, that the Commonwealth should delegate that sort of power, even if it had it, to any particular individual. Those are the sorts of decisions which should be made by governments, by people who are elected rather than by people who are appointed. I am advised by Mr Kerin that the Government has not yet received the final reports from the botanist, the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Heritage Commission. When those reports are received the Government will consider them as part of the consultative process outlined in the memorandum of understanding. The Commonwealth's Advisory Committee on Tasmanian Forestry Operations is due to report on Jackeys Marsh within three weeks, and the Heritage Commission is expected to complete its detailed work on National Estate values within two weeks. The Government's unequivocal position is that the logging should be suspended pending the consultation processes outlined in the memorandum of understanding. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen the article in today's Australian Financial Review regarding the slow uptake of the heavy engineering package which was launched in July of this year? Is the Minister aware that, according to the article, only 11 heavy engineering firms have made formal application for a share of the funds and that only one company has obtained final approval of its application? The article suggests that it is the Government's insistence on unions changing work practices and on companies producing a basic business strategy which is the cause of the slow uptake. Can the Minister indicate the degree of progress in processing applications? What factors are contributing to the delay, if any is occurring? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the contents of the article in the Australian Financial Review this morning. The interest currently being shown in the heavy engineering package is as anticipated. We did not expect a rapid uptake of the scheme, for a variety of reasons. Senator Chaney —It is like the balance of payments deficit. Senator BUTTON —No, it is not like the balance of payments deficit. This is probably easier for the honourable senator to understand. Senator Chaney —You anticipate bad results. Senator BUTTON —It is not a bad result at all. If the honourable senator just listens to the answer instead of making smart interjections, he will appreciate that. At present some 11 engineering establishments have formally sought assistance under the package and a further 20 companies, some with more than one establishment, have indicated that they will be seeking assistance in the near future. Taken together, the number of applications pending and received account for about 20 per cent of all establishments currently designated as being eligible for assistance under the package. The Government is aware of concerns held by some eligible firms about the need for them to achieve significant improvements in methods of deploying labour and capital-that is, work practices in particular-before being able to avail themselves of some form of assistance. It is also aware that in some quarters the requirement for applicants to submit details of their corporate strategies or business plans with their applications is of concern. However, the Government has no intention of relaxing these provisions. Changing the work practices requirement would largely negate the main objective of the industry, and that is to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of firms within that industry. In this context I would emphasise that firm agreements exist within the Australian Council of Trade Unions to ensure that discussions on work practice agreements are undertaken constructively and within the parameters of the wage principles. If employees at particular plants are seeking to go outside these agreements, the matter should be brought to the Government's attention through the Heavy Engineering Board. Relaxing the requirements for applicants to provide details of the firm's viability and business plans would mean that the value of the assistance to the firm could not be adequately judged. Waiving this requirement could lead to funds being wasted on firms which may not be viable in the longer term. In this regard I wish to assure the industry that the provision of such information will be treated in the strictest confidence. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the question which I asked him more than one month ago on the existence, if any, of any legal or other obstacles, including International Labour Organisation decisions, preventing the compulsion of work on those receiving unemployment benefit. I ask: What is the answer to that question? What is the reason for such a long delay in answering? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the reasons for the delay, but I can see that there has been one, and I will chase up the answer as quickly as possible. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to Australia's vital need to boost export proceeds. I understand that one of the target sectors included in the Australian investment mission to Japan last week was the computer programming and software industry. Can the Minister report on the position of the industry in Australia and indicate whether it has a potential comparative world advantage to contribute significantly to Australian export proceeds? Senator BUTTON —This question comes on a very timely occasion, because today I am releasing the preliminary results of a survey of the Australian software industry which has been conducted by my Department and which confirms the Government's understanding of the industry's potential. The results of that survey show an annual average growth rate in the software industry sector of 50 per cent-a very strong growth by any standards. This growth rate within the industry was not confined just to the domestic market. Other results showed that 10 per cent of the total sales made by the industry would be in export markets. The survey will form a major component of a comprehensive study that will define the current state of the industry and its potential, and it is hoped that it will also expose any problems the industry may have in reaching that potential. The results are based on the response to a postal survey of 1,000 software firms and organisations conducted in August 1986. Almost 40 per cent of those surveyed replied, which is a very satisfactory response rate. The preliminary results of the survey show that the industry currently employs about 16,500 people, that software sales for 1985-86 were of the order of $600m, and that sales by respondent companies are reported to have grown, as I said, at an annual average rate of about 50 per cent since this Government came to power. In the period commencing 1983-84 the growth started. Exports in 1985-86 contributed over 10 per cent of total sales and are expected to increase their contribution significantly, and over 70 per cent of the respondents indicated that they had developed in Australia software for multiple sale licence or release. In 1985-86 respondents reported that this expenditure was approximately $67m, and it is anticipated that it will rise by 28 per cent to $85.5m in 1986-87. Senator Newman —This is Question Time. Senator BUTTON —For the benefit of Senator Newman I would also add that the survey indicates that a number of infrastructure problems-that is probably something the honourable senator could ask a question about-are currently confronting the industry. They include the availability of external finance, the availability of skilled staff, and the limited knowledge of overseas markets. These problems affect the industry's ability to export software. Any honourable senator opposite who has a keen intellectual interest in this matter can obtain a copy of the Press release from my office. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the documents from which he has quoted. Senator BUTTON —I table the documents. Senator REID —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Territories. The Minister will no doubt be aware of the industrial dispute currently affecting the collection of garbage in the Australian Capital Territory and the picketing of Australian Capital Territory rubbish tips. Given that the dispute has existed for some weeks, will the Minister give an assurance that the tips will be open this weekend? Will the Minister instruct police to take the necessary action to enable householders and private contractors to exercise their lawful right to dispose of rotting, stinking garbage which is accumulating? Senator GIETZELT —One of the lessons which the Opposition needs to learn is that when we have industrial disputes it is important that it be left to the parties concerned to resolve the difficulties without making it a party political matter in the Parliament. The Government has recognised the equity of the union's claims in relation to portability of entitlements between contractors and the recognition of service with previous employers. It also, of course, recognises that inconvenience is currently being caused in the Canberra community, and therefore it is doing everything within its power to resolve the dispute. It has agreed in principle to enter into arrangements which will meet the union's claims. When that situation has been resolved the garbage employees will be on the same long service leave benefits as all other private sector employees. The Government's offer is conditional on the union's agreeing to lift all industrial action as soon as is practicable. The Government has not agreed to the union's demand that long service leave arrangements be amended so that the garbage workers will be able to take two months long service leave after 10 years service, because such arrangements would put the garbage employees ahead of other Australian Capital Territory private sector employees. So the Government is endeavouring to resolve the matter in the interests of the community and in the interests of the conditions of those employed in the service. Senator REID —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister answered the question that I did not ask, and we are not disputing what he said. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask her supplementary question? Senator REID —The question that I asked was: Will the tips be open this weekend? Will the citizens of Canberra be able to exercise their right to take their own rubbish to the rubbish tips which exist but which are presently being picketed? Senator GIETZELT —Of course, if the dispute is resolved there is no difficulty. In response to the specific question that Senator Reid asked, she, of course, will accept the fact that I am not the Minister responsible-I only represent him-but I will certainly refer that matter to him for an immediate response. Senator HARRADINE —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of concern expressed yesterday in the Victorian Parliament about videos promoting incest finding their way into Victoria from the Australian Capital Territory under laws supported by the Commonwealth Government? Is the Minister also aware that the Attorney-General, Jim Kennan, promised to investigate this? Is the Minister further aware that recently the South Australian Community Welfare Minister, John Cornwall, launched a major survey revealing the devastating impact of videos approved by the Film Censorship Board under the same Federal Government laws, and that a spokeswoman for the authors of the survey, Barbara Biggins, condemned the undue delay of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material in reporting to Parliament? Is it not a fact that this delay cannot be justifiably used as an excuse by the Federal Government to sit on its hands? Is it not a fact that the Senate Select Committee on Video Material in March last year recommended that the Federal Government take action pending the outcome of the Joint Select Committee inquiry and that such action would have overcome the fears of the Victorian Parliament and Mrs Biggins? What action does the Federal Government propose to take to implement these interim measures which, besides a moratorium of X classification videos, the Senate Committee said should have regard to the many problems brought to it in evidence concerning the extent of violence and sex depicted on videos, their transmission by post and their accessibility to children? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Attorney-General seems to be displaying a much healthier sense of relaxation about this issue than is Senator Harradine. We are, of course, awaiting the report of the Senate Committee before taking action and making a decision as to what action is appropriate in this area. I will draw the attention of the Attorney-General to Senator Harradine's question and see what more immediate response he might care to make. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. How much has the Government spent so far on preparing the Australia Card, even though no legislation authorising such a card has even been presented to the Senate, let alone passed into law? What has been the cost of the so-called secret project at the Government Printing Office in Canberra on which 20 people have been employed full time for much of this year, and which is involved in preparing this card that a Senate committee recommended against six months ago after hearing expert evidence? Why has the Government wasted these large amounts of money on continuing with expensive preparations for introducing a card which a Senate committee found six months ago would not result in any meaningful reductions in fraud relating to either social security or tax? Senator GRIMES —I have no knowledge of any secret project in the Government Printing Office. All I know about this city indicates that if anything is secret it leaks out much quicker than if it is not secret. I am amazed that it has come up only now, but I will make some inquiries of the relevant Minister. I do not know how much money has been expended. I do know that the money was appropriated. It was clearly stated in the Budget, and we have had several debates on the matter. I shall refer the matter raised by Senator Michael Baume to the Minister for Health and get a detailed answer for him as soon as possible. Senator DEVLIN —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will be aware that Mr Everingham, in the other place, has made accusations that certain officers employed by the War Memorial have been profiteering from the sales of certain publications and so on. Has the Minister sought an explanation regarding the substance of these allegations? Senator GIETZELT —I deplore the use of the Parliament by members to slander public servants who are not in a position to defend themselves and who subsequently find in the newspapers grave allegations made by members of parliament against which they have little redress as the matters have been dealt with under privilege. I think there is a difference in some cases, of course, and I recall Senator Chaney dealing with a matter yesterday of a person holding public office who enters the political debate. There is a difference between what is said there in respect of his political utterances and those members of the Public Service who are obliged by law and regulations not to respond to political issues. Mr Everingham's attack upon three public servants who are not in a position to respond was a scurrilous and defamatory attack and was quite slanderous to the reputation of people who, in my view, are innocent in respect of any of the problems that exist in the Australian War Memorial. However, Mr Everingham made certain statements that suggested that both myself and the Department of Veterans' Affairs had failed to carry out any of the investigations we would be obliged to undertake. The very simple explanation is that those matters were never brought to the attention of the Department or the Minister. If those matters had been problems over time, they would have been, or should have been, brought to the attention of the previous Minister; but they were not. In those circumstances, when Mr Everingham made his attack, obviously I sought an explanation from the public servants concerned, three of whom work at the War Memorial. One of them is overseas on leave and obviously I cannot get any response from him at present. However, I have statutory declarations from two other senior officials, public servants who work at the War Memorial. In order to satisfy the exaggerated expectations of the Opposition in this matter, I will table their responses, which are statutory declarations denying emphatically that they have been guilty of any misdemeanour whatsoever. Senator SHORT —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In the Government's consideration of its dividend imputation proposals, can the Minister yet state whether individuals will still be able to obtain a tax deduction on the interest expense incurred in the purchase of shares, and whether they will be able to negatively gear that interest expense? If no such decisions have been made, when does the Minister expect that they will be made? Senator WALSH —I have a note from the Treasurer on this question. I am advised that interest deductions are available now, as I am sure Senator Short knows, under the general provisions of the tax law, where expense is incurred in deriving assessable income. Assessable income may be derived from the acquisition of shares, from dividends or from capital gains made on the disposal of the shares. The fact that tax payable on dividend income is subject to imputation credits for tax paid at the company level does not alter the fact that the income is assessable. The purpose of the credits is to remove the existing double taxation provision. The Government has made no decision to alter the tax treatment of interest expenses on borrowings used to acquire shares. A discussion of the taxation principles which underlie that treatment is contained in Treasury Economic Paper No. 12, which was released in May this year. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the question asked of him yesterday by Senator Chaney regarding the Australian Taxation Office and revenue losses. Has the Minister been able to ascertain the antecedents of Senator Chaney's question? In particular, I ask whether he can clarify the origins of Senator Chaney's quotation from the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure: Taxation revenue losses through non-detection of total taxpayer incomes could conceivably amount to several billion dollars each year. Senator WALSH —When Senator Chaney asked me that question yesterday, I said that I had not read the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, and nor, unfortunately, had I been briefed on it. I now realise that that was a great pity, because since then I have seen page 44, the relevant page of the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee report. There is a footnote on page 44 which names as the source of the $2 billion referred to in the text `Reform of the Australian Tax System', a draft White Paper published last year-page 37. Looking at that source, one finds at page 37 a discussion on tax that is being evaded either through understatement of income or through non-reporting of income. There is a table at the top of page 37 that lists understatement of business income, which is then defined as claims for what is in fact capital expenditure being claimed as repairs or recurrent expenditure, which is a deferral of taxation, of course, by its nature, rather than an outright evasion. It then goes on to name these other items: Non-declaration of fringe benefits received in kind, $700m, estimate; over-claimed employee expenses, $150m; unreported wage and salary income, $100m; non-declaration of dividend and interest income, $300m to $500m; and non-declaration of rental income. Those last three items would be substantially affected, if not eliminated, by the Australia Card. The over-claiming of employee expenses would also be likely to be influenced by the Australia Card. The only remaining item, then, is the fringe benefits tax. The really amazing thing about Senator Chaney asking that question is that the Opposition is exhorting and urging the Government to recover that $2 billion of taxation it had been estimated is not being paid now while it is opposing the very devices in legislation which are being put forward to enable us to stamp out that tax evasion. On the one hand, Opposition members say `You have got to collect this revenue which is not being collected', but on the other hand they say, `We promise to repeal the piece of legislation you put in to get $700m of it, and we are also committed to defeating the Australia Card'-which would recover most of the rest of it. I think I know what happened, and am sure that Senator Chaney is not at all happy about this. He was given a bum steer by the Opposition Leader's office. He was asked to come here and make a fool of himself by asking a silly question based on some very sloppy research. If Senator Chaney wants to ask any more questions about taxation, he should get a more reliable source than his Leader's office. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to Senator Walsh following his invitation. I refer to the report to which he has just referred at page 44. Is it not true that in the passage to which he referred, the passage that is footnoted with a reference to the draft White Paper, after stating that there is a loss of about $2,000m in tax revenue, the report goes on to state: While this loss is taxpayer initiated, part of the blame lies in the inadequacy of the ATO's system. I again ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that the Australian Tax Office fails to use the systems which are currently available to it, for example, its right to obtain details of all interest payments which are made to Australian taxpayers? Is it not that failure of the use of the present laws which are available to the Tax Office which is the main point of this report? Senator WALSH —The report certainly says, as Senator Chaney said, that the loss is taxpayer initiated and that part of the blame lies in the inadequacy of the Australian Taxation Office's systems. That is exactly what the Government believes, and is what the Government is trying to address through the introduction of an Australia Card, and also through the enactment of the fringe benefits tax legislation. Accepting as accurate the background papers and estimates on which the Opposition's original question was based, the fringe benefits tax legislation, which in this context incorporates the substantiation requirements, will collect $700m. Most of the remaining $1,300m or thereabouts listed in that table, at the top of page 37 of the May 1985 White Paper, if not eliminated would be very substantially reduced by the improved system which the Australian Taxation Office would have if the Australia Card were to be introduced. But the Tax Office, the Government and honest taxpayers are confronted with the threat from the Opposition and from the Australian Democrats that they will continue to protect tax evaders in the future as they have done in the past. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister deny what is stated by the Expenditure Committee that the loss of this money `in large measure can simply be attributed to the Australian Taxation Office's own internal inadequacies'? Senator WALSH —I cannot find that particular passage. I do not think it is a quotation; I think that it is Senator Chaney's interpretation of what is there. What I can find there is: . . . part of the blame lies in the inadequacy of ATO's systems? The Government agrees with that, and that is precisely what the Government is trying to remedy-the inadequacies of the Tax Office system. Senator Gietzelt —We inherited it. Senator WALSH —As Senator Gietzelt reminds me, we inherited it from the former Government. We are trying to improve those systems. A critical element in that improvement is, of course, the Australia Card. Senator Messner —You are a fraud. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Messner will withdraw that remark. Senator Messner —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator AULICH —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen statements by the Liberal spokesman on legal matters, Mr Griffin, in South Australia who has called in the Adelaide Advertiser for the introduction of an identification system similar to an Australia Card? Is this another example of the Liberal Party having it both ways on the real problem of beating tax evasion and social welfare fraud? Opposition senators interjecting- Senator AULICH —As I ask that question, Senator Newman is interjecting. Obviously, she supports tax fraud or she would not be interjecting on that basis. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. The reference to Senator Newman was highly objectionable and should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Aulich to withdraw that remark. Senator AULICH —Senator Newman has not objected and I understand the touchiness of the Liberal spokesman, but I withdraw. Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did see the reference to Mr Griffin's remarks in South Australia. I note that he also said that identity cards had worked well in Queensland without infringing people's rights, and that a similar system could be introduced in South Australia. Mr Griffin joins people like Mr Anthony and Mr Sinclair in the past, who have advocated the use of identity cards. Senator Gareth Evans —He and others. Senator GRIMES —As Senator Evans implies, if one goes through selectively the sorts of people who have advocated the use of identity cards, one wonders whether we should be advocating them ourselves. Mr Ray Braithwaite, who used to be the shadow Minister for Social Security, in 1982 said: What we need in Australia to effectively fight all forms of abuse is a proper identification of each Australian with a number, photograph and even a fingerprint. In 1985 he modified his attitude slightly by saying: Some of that information may not be necessary now, but my opinion hasn't changed. Concern for civil liberties has to be balanced against the level of social security fraud and overpayment. Mr Ralph Hunt on 5 June 1985 said: I will be making representations to the Government strongly supporting this aspect of the White Paper proposals- It advocated an identity card. Mrs Eda Ritchie, the mother of all the Victorian Liberals here in 1985, also advocated the use of an identity card. Mr Charles Blunt, the present shadow Minister for Social Security, said: The use of plastic cards as a means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing greater accountability on that small minority who seek to evade their responsibilities . . . The introduction of an ID system should require people to quote the same identity number to both the Tax Office and the Social Security Department. Mr Blunt also supported it in September 1985, November 1985, May 1986 and September 1986. He was joined in August 1985 by Mr Ian Spicer, the Executive Director of the Victorian Employers Federation, and by Mr Chris Cullen of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. Mr John Howard said on 15 September 1985 that the Government should give favourable consideration to an identity card. Mr Laurie Oakes said to him: But what about on the grounds of deregulation? If you support deregulation how can you support an ID card? Mr Howard answered: I don't think there is any inconsistency. I mean the United States has had a social security card for generations and yet the United States economy is the most deregulated economy in the world. I don't think there is any conflict at all. In June 1986 the Returned Services League, Senator Gietzelt's friends, put out a Press statement supporting it. On 28 June 1985, Mr Nick Greiner said that he supported the introduction of national identity cards. The report of his comments stated: They are in the interests of the community. Only people who were acting dishonestly had anything to fear. He did not believe there was a significant issue of civil liberties involved. The Australian Retailers Association is in favour. We all know about Mr Eric Risstrom, and we all know about Mr Eric Mayer from the Business Council of Australia. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Both in presentation and length clearly the Minister is debating the question. I ask you to request him to bring his answer to a close. Senator GRIMES —I will, Mr President. On 18 July 1985 these words were said: I believe that we should, as a party, be prepared to examine objectively any proposal which is put forward and to very carefully check any proposal against the sort of problems that have been raised. That was a quotation of Senator Fred Chaney about the introduction of identity cards. My final quotation is from the editorial in today's Australian. It states: The decision to oppose the introduction of the Australia Card straight after having been so forthright on the fact that a Coalition government would abolish the fringe benefits tax makes the Opposition look like the tax avoiders' party. The Opposition not only looks like it-it is. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health or the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. How and to what extent will a national identity card affect the detection and deportation of illegal immigrants? Senator GRIMES —Undoubtedly I will get a detailed answer from-- Senator Boswell —Have a go. Senator GRIMES —I will have a go, Ronnie; you need not worry. Quite clearly one of the means by which illegal immigrants can stay in this country and support themselves is by their capacity to obtain work without any questions being asked, their capacity to easily obtain social security benefits sometimes because of the difficulty in getting the proper identification procedures working effectively and by their capacity similarly to get Medicare cards. One would hope that by making it more difficult for them to do this and by making it easier to detect illegal immigrants, the Australia Card may assist us. However that is not the prime function of the Australia Card-- Senator Walters —In other words, it doesn't work. Senator GRIMES —Oh, Senator Walters! I do not know-she is incorrigible. I will miss you, Shirl, I will miss you badly. If honourable senators want some more detailed answers I will get them from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In passing, I wish to thank Senator Newman for sending me the free ticket and the opportunity to win a meal with Senator Walters in the near future. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. I noted the Minister's reponse that the existence of the ID card would make it easier to detect such people. But is it not a fact that immigration officers cannot require any suspected illegal immigrant to produce an ID card and that if they do so they may be subject to a penalty of $5,000 or to imprisonment? How will detection occur? Senator GRIMES —I did not say that it would be easier to detect them. I said that it would be much more difficult for them to support themselves under those circumstances in this country. That is consistent with the use of the card as it applies in many other countries in the world. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —by leave-Last week I led an investment mission to Japan. I also met with the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Nakasone, the Minister for International Trade and Industry, Mr Tamura, and leaders of the business and financial sectors, including Mr Saito, Chairman of the Keidanren, Japan's most important business organisation. The 12-member investment mission comprised key businessmen, a senior trade union official and government officers. Senior executives from 51 companies accompanied the delegation. The mission arose from an agreement reached between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Mr Nakasone in Japan last May that there would be an exchange of investment missions between Australia and Japan. Our discussions in Japan were dominated by the structural changes taking place in both Japan and Australia. The sharp appreciation of the yen, resulting from Japan's massive trade surplus, is placing cost pressures on Japanese industry. The Japanese economy will have to adjust to these developments. While this is accepted by the Government, it will nevertheless be a painful process. The adjustment required was highlighted in the influential Maekawa report last April, which recommended, inter alia: Shifting the economy away from its current dependence on exports to growth based more on domestic demand; greater integration between the Japanese and international economies; rationalisation of traditional manufacturing industries based on raw materials and establishment of off-shore production facilities; and development of technologically based industries such as micro-electronics, new materials and biotechnology. Following the Japanese elections last July Prime Minister Nakasone established a task force under his personal direction to implement the Maekawa recommendations. My discussions with him and Mr Tamura confirmed their determination to pursue these changes. Already some new directions have been established. A start has been made on measures to open up the domestic market to imports; measures to expand domestic demand have been foreshadowed; and Japan has emerged as the world's largest capital exporter, with a rising proportion of this investment going into manufacturing operations in industrialised countries, particularly the United States of America. At the same time as the yen has appreciated there has been a depreciation of the Australian dollar as a result of the slump in our terms of trade. Against the yen, the value of the Australian dollar has more than halved over the past 18 months. This has coincided with some basic economic reforms and adjustments to our industrial structure which have greatly improved our competitiveness. The combination of these reforms and the new yen-Australian dollar relationship lay the framework for an extension of the traditional economic relationship between Australia and Japan. Indeed, this relationship must change and broaden if we are to maintain strong economic ties with Japan. The appreciation of the yen has placed great pressure on Japanese industries which are customers for our resources-based exports. While these exports will remain very important, we need to look to new areas to expand trade between Australia and Japan. It is clear that Japan is a dominant force in the world economy. Japanese investment in Australia can strengthen our own position in the world economy. At the same time, there are obvious benefits for Japan. From our point of view, Japanese investment in Australian manufacturing industries can contribute to the industry revitalisation objectives we are pursuing through other policy measures. Ties with Japanese companies could, through their existing marketing networks, help Australian enterprises break new ground in exports of manufactures and services, both to Japan and more broadly in the international marketplace. The acknowledged strengths of Japanese industry in product design, quality control and management techniques could also benefit Australian industry. For Japan, it provides a means of addressing its important structural adjustment challenges through access to an industrial infrastructure which contains considerable scope for profitable expansion. Australia offers an impressive skills and research base and a wealthy natural resource base. Traditionally Japan has looked to Australia mainly for raw materials and there has been a lack of knowledge about our capacities in other areas. A major objective of the mission therefore was to demonstrate the capabilities of Australian industry, particularly in the following areas: The further processing of food, wool, metal and mineral resources; areas where Australia has world class scientific skills and technical capabilities such as computer software, biotechnology and telecommunications; and the automotive components industry where existing links with Japanese industry provide the base for competitive manufacture of components in Australia for both export and domestic use. The other major objective was to outline the structural changes that have occurred in the Australian economy recently and which provide the base for industry's improved competitiveness. These changes are well known to the Australian community but less well known abroad. Our presentations about the deregulation of the financial markets, the relaxation of the guidelines for foreign investment and the reforms made to the taxation system, especially the 150 per cent tax deduction for research and development spending, drew a very favourable response. During the mission's visit a major focus was the improved industrial relations climate in Australia. Japanese companies were particularly receptive to the involvement and presentations of Mr Bill Mansfield, Assistant Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The mission was united in conveying to the Japanese the determination of business, trade unions and government to work in co-operation to build strength into our economy. The tripartite approach to industrial development through the Australian Manufacturing Council was highlighted. I believe the mission made significant progress in shifting Japanese perceptions about the capabilities and competitiveness of Australian industry. Considerable interest was generated about investment prospects in Australia. An editorial in the most influential economic newspaper in Japan commented that presentations at the seminar `impressed on us strongly the image of a changing Australia' and that `it is high time for Japanese businesses to consider investment in Australia seriously'. This mission must be seen as the first step in a medium term program to attract Japanese capital and expertise to Australia. We were not aiming for immediate results but rather expect that as a result of the mission Japanese business people will examine the opportunities available for investment in Australian manufacturing industry. A number of specific business propositions, though, did emerge from the mission and these will be followed up by Australian and Japanese companies in the coming months. The Japanese Government will send a return investment mission to Australia in February next year. It will be led by Mr Amaya, a former Vice-Minister of the Ministry for International Trade and Industry, who visited Australia in 1984 as a guest of government to discuss industry policy. Preparation for the return mission is under way and I look forward to a successful outcome from Mr Amaya's visit. Another avenue for industrial co-operation with Japan is through Auscitec, the private sector committee established earlier this year. Auscitec, working with its Japanese counterpart committee, aims to match Australian and Japanese companies seeking joint ventures, including co-operation in third markets and in technological developments. There is a tendency sometimes for us to think that our problems are unique. Our own economic restructuring is not easy, but it is matched by the difficulties being faced by many other countries, including Japan. Discussions in Japan confirmed my view that, while restructuring is difficult and painful, the alternative of ignoring changes in the world economic environment is untenable. Both Australia and Japan are adjusting to economic change and this provides the opportunity and the need to broaden our traditional economic relationship. The investment mission succeeded in getting the Japanese to re-examine some of their past perceptions about Australia. I believe there is now a window of opportunity available to us. However, the competition for Japanese capital is fierce. To capitalise on this opportunity requires that we maintain the recent improvement in cost competitiveness and industrial relations. Our industry must also continue to upgrade its management skills, product quality and technological base. Above all, the attraction of substantial productive investment from Japan will depend on a vigorous, co-operative effort between business, trade unions and governments to ensure that we are able to build on the successful economic partnership of the last 30 years between Australia and Japan. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —The Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has just reported on a matter which is of great importance to Australia-namely, the promotion of investment in this country and particularly investment in our industry. The fact that the statement focuses on the potential for investment from Japan and that it follows and reports upon the Minister's visit to Japan to encourage that is simply a particular aspect of the broader problem that Australia faces-namely, how we are to get the investment which will modernise our economy and solve our economic problems. Whilst acknowledging the importance of the mission to Japan and accepting many of the points made in the statement, it would be a mistake simply to direct my remarks to the positives in the statement. It would be a little like saying to Emperor Nero `I think you are playing a very beautiful tune' and ignoring what was going on around the violin playing. Whilst I totally support the encouragement of investment in this country and whilst it is important that there be bipartisan support for that so that we will encourage such investment, it is also important to note what I see as the deficiency in the Government's approach, and that is that it is not providing a sufficient sense of urgency about the task which lies ahead. If I were to disagree with any part of the statement put down by the Minister, I would begin with the paragraph towards the end of his statement where he refers to the competition for Japanese capital being fierce. He says: To capitalise on this opportunity requires that we maintain the recent improvements in cost competitiveness and industrial relations. Clearly that is not good enough. One of the real deficiencies in the policies being pursued by the Government is that the idea is developing that we need to do no more than maintain the improvements where improvements have been achieved, for example, in the steel industry and the car industry, whereas the reality is that unless we have a commitment in this country to a continuous process of improvements in our cost competitiveness and industrial relations we will not offer what the Minister's statement concedes that we must offer if we are to attract investment, namely, the expectation that this country will provide favourable conditions for profitable expansion in the future. The reality is that it makes sense to invest in this country only if the Government can be seen to be coming to grips with all of the difficulties which at present stand in the way of investment in this country. Again in Question Time today we heard an attack on a member of the Liberal Party who had said that investing in Australia at this time was not very productive. Of course, that matter has been raised in this Parliament. I raised by way of interjection a similar comment made by Mr Charles Fitzgibbon, who pointed out that at the moment there would be more return from investing in fixed deposits than in Australian enterprises. The challenge which the Government has not faced up to is the need to pursue the changes which will make Australia a better long term investment prospect. The balance of payments figures released today explain quite adequately why the Opposition does not believe that the touch of complacency which has emerged in this area is appropriate. I rarely find myself in agreement with Mr Laurie Carmichael but I note that Mr Carmichael, who was very deeply involved in the production of the report of the Australian Manufacturing Council issued a little earlier this week, was reported in the Age of 11 November as saying that Australia needed to act quickly on the problems of manufacturing if it wanted to sustain its standard of living. He is reported as follows: We are looking at what's got to be done in the next six to nine months in order to get a return in five to seven years. Otherwise, your income as well as everybody else's is going to be seriously affected. I say quite seriously and absolutely that if it is not fixed in that time frame then the standard of living the Australian people have grown up with is going to slide and slide quite dangerously. The need for that sort of urgency, which is the same point as I stressed after receiving and reading the report of the Australian Manufacturing Council, is borne out by the abysmal balance of payments figures that we face during the current year. It is less than a year since Minister Walsh was saying that there was not really a problem, that the balance of payments situation was nowhere near as bad as that which applied in the last year of the Fraser Government. He conveniently glosses over the fact that there was an international recession at that time; but, even if he was right, the fact is that our record is getting steadily worse and the percentages that he was jeering about less than a year ago are now being exceeded in this country. In the first four months of this year our current account deficit has gone up 14 per cent over the same four months of last year. We heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate addressing that issue in Question Time today. He said that we had problems over the medium term in that regard. The point that the Opposition wishes to assert is that we face an urgent situation and the Government is taking a complacent and gradualist approach which is totally inappropriate to our present circumstances. The terrifying rise in our debt, including the fact that a substantial additional element of this month's current account deficit is debt servicing, is a reminder that this situation has to be turned around. When the issue was raised with the Leader of the Government today he simply gave us more of the same-business as usual. He referred in Question Time to the heavy engineering regime. Of course, that represents a classic example of the far too gradual application of the processes of change to an industry that faces a very serious and difficult future. The Minister has introduced a three-year plan and procedures which will result in the establishment of committees and the drawing up of rules about what work practices are to be attacked, instead of fostering a situation in which those work practices are being attacked now, today, at the places of work where they are causing inefficiencies. I agree with Mr Laurie Carmichael. We might disagree about the precise changes that need to be made with the rapidity he is urging, but I agree that if we are to attract the sort of investment Senator Button has been seeking in Japan and if we are to offer investors from that country or Australia, or from the United States or the United Kingdom, a future in this country we have to face up to the fact that a whole series of changes is required not over the next 10 years but now. There is no shortage of advice being given to the Government. Because time is limited in this debate I do not want to go in detail through the report of the Australian Manufacturing Council. However, that report touches on the many areas which will influence Australia's capacity to foster its manufacturing industry. Very few of the general principles which have been expressed would be disputed by anybody on this side of the chamber. Again, one has the sobering assessment in the report that the strategy and policies which are being pursued will be mostly medium to longer term. I again pose the question to Senator Button: What is he going to do now and what is the Government going to do in the very near future to avoid a further collapse of confidence in this country as our debts continue to rise? This extraordinary attitude which seems to be abroad within the Government that we can simply carry on until some medium to longer term strategy bears fruit is, it seems to me, a counsel which can have arisen only out of a desire to preserve the short term political situation rather than the real needs of this country. Senator Button —What would you do, Fred? Have a wage freeze, I suppose? Senator CHANEY —The Minister interjects: `What would you do? Would you have a wage freeze?' I asked the Minister a question today. I asked him whether he thought we could justify across the board wage rises in the present circumstances that Australia faces. The Minister reaffirmed the situation the Government adopted in the Budget in August of this year. If the Government genuinely believes that across the board wage increases are appropriate at a time when our balance of payments is in the state that has been announced today, I can only say that the Minister is not nearly as clever as he is reputed to be or that he is, as he sometimes has to, complying with the Government line with which he is not in agreement. I believe that there is a whole series of areas where the Government has to make quite substantial reversals of policy, and reversals which must be made quickly. How long does the Minister think we can sustain the present level of interest rates and go around claiming that we are trying to encourage new private investment? The Minister is party to a Budget which says that new private investment in this country will decline this year. He is leading an investment mission off to Japan encouraging investment here and yet he is doing nothing about an interest rate regime which makes investment in productive enterprise a stupid thing to do. That is the assessment not just of capitalists, but of trade unionists and others who are putting their savings to work in Australia. They are not putting them to work, they are putting them on deposit to take advantage of these very high interest rates. Too much of that money is being taken by government instead of going into productive enterprise. In the wages policy area we still have a government which, whilst it has referred the question of superannuation back to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, has yet to come out clearly and state that at the moment any wage rises which are other than productivity based and anything like an across the board add-on of 3 per cent is absolutely absurd given Australia's situation. I simply use this opportunity to draw attention to the fact that whilst the Minister is doing so many things which are in accord with what is required in this country, he is persisting and his Government is persisting with a framework which makes much of his effort totally irrelevant. If we look at the field of taxation, the Minister is trying desperately to encourage new capital investment in this country in a year when we have imposed capital gains taxes at marginal income tax rates. I ask the Minister: What is happening in the capital gains tax area in those countries with which we are competing for capital gains investment? Are those countries raising their taxes on capital? The answer is no. The reality is that we have a new fringe benefits tax which has been conceded by the Government to be effectively a further payroll tax. Is that the direction we want to go if we wish to encourage investment in productive enterprise? Of course, the answer is no. The Minister says that we want to encourage the tripartite arrangements between government, industry and labour. Again, I direct the Government's attention to the fact that there is a fundamental defect in what it is doing in those cases where, instead of encouraging direct dealings between the employers and their work force, it is encouraging the intervention of trade unions which are not based on any particular enterprise. The Government is encouraging the involvement of trade unions which have no direct interest in the increase of productivity and the improvement of the results of the investment. The reality is that this statement covers an approach to one segment of our problems which has the support of the Opposition. This Minister has been treated generously by the Opposition. We have supported all the constructive proposals he has put forward to advance the interests of manufacturing industry; but the Opposition believes that the Minister is fundamentally failing to come to grips with the need to provide a genuinely competitive environment. He is a party to too many decisions which are making his actions meaningless. In the case of trying to encourage Japanese investment, he will have to do much more to encourage a reduced cost structure in Australia, a more constructive approach to productivity at the work place, rather than involving external trade unions, and so on. This is a matter which I think warrants and deserves very considerable debate. Senator Button —See how we go. Senator CHANEY —The Minister says: `See how we go'. I close my remarks at this stage by simply reminding him that how we are going has again been measured by a record current account deficit in the last measured month. Senator Button —Oh, come on! Don't be silly. Senator CHANEY —The Minister says that that is silly. I say to him that it is very silly for the Government to be maintaining its Budget parameters or trying to maintain the policies it adopted at Budget time when we are so clearly going down the tube on our balance of payments and building up such massive overseas debt. The sense of urgency which is totally missing from this Government since it decided to trim its sails and sail for the next election is costing this country very dearly. It is a matter on which I hope the Senate will have a great deal more to say before we rise for the Christmas break in December. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I inform the Senate that Mr President has received the following letter, dated 13 November, from Senator Durack: 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 forthwith withdraw its nomination for World Heritage listing of Stage II of Kakadu National Park.' Yours sincerely (PETER DURACK) Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.27) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to forthwith withdraw its nomination for World Heritage listing of Stage II of Kakadu National Park. At 8.30 a.m. on 16 September last, the Hawke Cabinet met in a state of great panic. At 10.30 a.m. that day it faced a Caucus meeting of members who were in a most rebellious mood about the Hawke Government's environmental policy. That had been precipitated by a report in a newspaper two days earlier of a letter Mr Hawke had written in support of consideration being given to multiple land use in the Kakadu National Park area. For many months prior to these events the Government had been considering the question of a new management plan for Kakadu National Park to replace the one which had expired in December last year. At the same time the Government had been considering the question of whether stage 2 of Kakadu National Park should be nominated for World Heritage listing, stage 1 having been nominated and accepted for listing by the World Heritage Commission in 1981. Both these questions-namely, the new plan of management and the provision that should be made for mineral exploration and possible mining in the stage 2 area, and the question of whether stage 2 should be nominated for World Heritage listing-had been matters of great controversy within the Government. There was also great opposition to some of the extreme environmental approaches by the mining industry generally and by the Northern Territory Government. In fact only as recently as a week ago the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) wrote a letter to a number of people who had been expressing their concern to him. I have already quoted from this letter but I will quote from it again. He said: You can be assured that I am following these issues carefully with the long term objective of establishing a multiple land use policy in the Region which balances the interests of the mining industry with those of other land users. On the very morning of 16 September we are now told, prior to the Cabinet meeting at 8.30 a.m., the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen, who must have been up early that morning dealing with his papers, wrote a letter to assure the Northern Territory Government that there would be consultation with that Government on this question before a decision was made to nominate stage 2 for World Heritage listing. I quote from Mr Cohen's letter to the Minister for Mines and Energy in the Northern Territory, Mr Coulter, dated 16 September. The last paragraph of that letter states: In relation to the possible inclusion of Kakadu Stage 2 on the World Heritage List, procedures for nominating possible future Australian sites for World Heritage listing were agreed at the July 1984 meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers . . . and included, inter alia, a commitment by the Commonwealth to full consultation with State and Territory Governments. Should the Commonwealth decide to pursue World Heritage listing of the former Stage 2 area, your Government will be consulted in accordance with the . . . agreement prior to any approach being made to the World Heritage Secretariat in Paris. History has unfolded very rapidly. The Hawke Cabinet, faced with a rebellious Caucus, completely went to water. Cabinet got together a new approach in its state of panic at that meeting at 8.30 a.m. and when it met Caucus later that morning it was able to tell Caucus that it had agreed to a new plan of management for Kakadu National Park which conceded everything the environmentalists wanted. It was going to exclude mining operations from the park completely and put out of consideration any question of assessing its mineral potential before it made a decision on the new plan of management. In addition to the decision on the plan of management, which we have been debating in the Senate recently, the Government decided immediately to nominate the stage 2 area for inclusion on the World Heritage List. Without any further delay and without any attempt at consultation with the Northern Territory Government, as promised by Mr Cohen only a few hours or perhaps even a few minutes before that decision was taken, on the very next day the Government forwarded its nomination of stage 2 to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation World Heritage Committee for consideration by it. That nomination has now gone forward and it is to be considered by the World Heritage Committee next week or the following week. So this is truly a matter of urgency because the die has been cast by the Government. It still need not proceed with this nomination. It could withdraw it and allow a full and proper assessment to be made of this area before further consideration is given to put it on the World Heritage List. There is considerable doubt about the procedure the Government has followed which the World Heritage Committee seems to be adopting. Under its operational guidelines, adopted for the consideration of matters for World Heritage listing, a procedure and timetable are laid down which require that nominations of any properties for World Heritage listing should be received by the Committee on 1 January of a particular year. There must be considerable doubt as to whether this Committee, under its own rules and under the International Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural Heritage, is entitled to consider this matter in the haste which the Hawke Government is seeking to impose on it. Of course, there are good reasons for this consideration because very proper consideration has to be given by that Committee to the circumstances for acceptance of any matter for World Heritage listing. The World Heritage listing will be greatly devalued if the Committee does not consider fully whether properties qualify for listing, whether a country's nomination observes those requirements, or whether properties have been put up for some political reason as this nomination by the Hawke Government clearly is. This is being done to assuage the ruffled environmental lobby on the Government's own back bench and elsewhere. The conduct of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in recent weeks clearly shows his grotesque attempts to curry favour with that lobby. What a pathetic sight we have seen in recent days. The Prime Minister, weeks after he has made a vital decision about Kakadu, goes up to Kakadu at vast expense to the taxpayer and has himself photographed at a key site which is familiar to all viewers of Crocodile Dundee. But what was the point of his going to Kakadu after the Government had made its decision? Surely the Prime Minister should have made those inspections before the Government made its decision? The requirements for World Heritage listing under the Convention are very strict indeed. Article 2 of the Convention requires that areas should be: . . . precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value . . . natural sites or precisely delineated areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation and natural beauty. Those are the requirements of the Convention itself. The operational guidelines, which I have mentioned, refer to the requirements for listing properties. This is the sort of language used: Unique, rare or superlative natural phenomena, exceptional natural beauty-- Senator Ryan —That is it. Senator DURACK —The Minister obviously has not been there either. The requirements continue: Great concentrations of animals, sweeping vistas covered by natural vegetation-- Senator Robertson —You have never been there. Senator DURACK —Those are the requirements. As I said in the debate on the plan of management only a few days ago, I have recently been there. I went there before the Opposition made its decision, unlike the Prime Minister who only went there afterwards. I went there and saw the total situation. We are talking about a new area of 7,000 square kilometres. Maybe generously we could say that one-third of the that area would satisfy the requirements of the Convention which I mentioned. There are certainly areas of superlative natural beauty in the sandstone escarpments in the escarpment itself, in the rock galleries and in the wetlands. Two-thirds at least or, according to noted Australian conservationist Mr Harry Butler, three-quarters of this area certainly does not satisfy those requirements. As Mr Butler and Professor Mellanby of Britain's Monks Wood Experimental Station have said, 75 per cent of this country certainly does not satisfy those requirements. As Senator Gareth Evans so colourfully put it, it is clapped-out buffalo country. Mr Justice Fox conducted the major environmental study of this area. On 22 October this year I quoted in the Senate from his report, in which he described two thirds of it-I will not say 75 per cent of it-as lowlands that are somewhat monotonous scenically. He said it is mostly open eucalypt forest or woodland, country which is totally familiar in vast areas of Australia. It certainly does not come within a bull's roar of satisfying the requirements of the Convention which I have mentioned. We have already nominated stage 1, which comprises about 6,000 square kilometres and which contains within it-- Senator Robertson —Which you did not want. Senator DURACK —The Fraser Government nominated the area. Senator Robertson seems to have no regard at all for the facts of this matter. The 6,000 square kilometres contains examples of all the major features of the Kakadu region. Admittedly, stage 2 contains further examples-in some case maybe even slightly better examples-of some aspects of the grounds for nomination. Certainly, as I have said, not more than a third of that area contains further examples of what is already recorded on the World Heritage List. In listing stage 2 in addition to stage 1 a total area of 13,000 square kilometres, by virtue of the plan of management and World Heritage listing, will be totally excluded from any further assessment of mineral potential by the mining industry. It has been assessed by the Bureau of Mineral Resources as one of the most promising areas of mineralisation in the world, not only because of the uranium that is there but also because of a range of other minerals, such as gold, platinum, copper, silver, lead and zinc. Although the importance of the area as a uranium province has been established-uranium mines could be established there if it were not, again, for the troglodytes of the Australian Labor Party who dominate this Government and prevent further uranium mining taking place in approved areas-it has not been fully explored for uranium potential and there has been next to no exploration for the other minerals. That is the subject of this nomination and the subject of this debate today. We ask only that the Government think again and make a proper assessment of this area. The Government has made this sudden and panic-stricken decision under pressure from its left wing back bench members and others in the community, some of whom are represented in this place. No doubt some of those will be speaking on this today. That is why this nomination has been made. It is a complete sop to the environmental lobby. I would like those speakers who will take part in this debate today to tell us how this nation will ever recover from its economic problems. A current account deficit figure of record proportion was announced today. It is continuing at a level that is well above the Government's estimates, how will the Government rectify that when we prevent even the assessment of enormous potential export earnings? We have a government which has ignored this problem and which is preventing any assessment being made in the future of such a large area which the Government's departments acknowledge is of highly prospective mineralisation. As I have said, the Government made this decision in panic. It abandoned its attempts to consider the feasibility and desirability of multiple land use for such a large and diverse area as Kakadu National Park. It was in the process of giving that proper consideration when the prospect of facing a rebellious Caucus was too much for the weak stomach of the Prime Minister and a few other Ministers, such as Senator Gareth Evans, and it just gave in without a fight. The nomination has been made without the consultation of the Northern Territory Government, which maintains its strong opposition to it. I hope the Federal Government will allow the Northern Territory Government to appear before the Committee and will do everything possible to facilitate that so that this Committee will learn some facts about the nature of the area which this Government is seeking to have included in such a highly valued and precious document as the World Heritage List. Indeed, I hope the Committee will observe its rules and insist on proper procedures taking place. This is a trumped-up political exercise by this Government-that is all this nomination is-to get it off the hook and to try to mollify the loony Left in its Party and a rapidly dwindling environmental lobby in this country. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(3.47) —This is a most extraordinary urgency motion that Senator Durack has moved in the Senate today. He is claiming that it is a matter of urgency that the Government withdraw its nomination for the World Heritage listing of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park. The only sense in which the matter is one of urgency is that it is urgent to the Opposition that its hostility to this proposal be considered. In no other respect is there any urgency at all. Virtually all that the Liberal Opposition has chosen to do today is to come in and put, as a matter of urgency, its complaint about the fact that we are implementing Government policy and that it is a policy with which it does not agree. There is no sense in which it is a matter of urgency. Certainly if I can be clear about anything in this debate it is that the Hawke Government has no intention whatsoever of withdrawing the nomination. We are totally enthusiastic about it; we support it entirely; and, of course, we believe it will be successful. When the listing of Kakadu stage 2 is successful I believe it will be welcomed throughout Australia, not only by environmentalists but also by many other people who see the importance of protecting our natural heritage in this way. Of course, it will be welcomed very widely in the international community because, once an area attains World Heritage listing, there is recognition that it has universal significance and value. There is absolutely no question of the Government taking any notice at all of any pleas for withdrawal from this very important, positive and proper course of action. It is quite surprising that Senator Durack repeated in the comments that he has just made the view that somehow the decision to proceed with the World Heritage listing of Kakadu stage 2 was sudden and unpremeditated. This is quite extraordinary, even for someone such as Senator Durack. The intention of nominating Kakadu stage 2 has been around for many years and, indeed, was first acknowledged during the period of the Fraser Government, of which Senator Durack was a member, when it made the nomination of Kakadu stage 1. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that until the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made his announcement a few weeks ago there was no consideration of this matter. There has been ongoing, active and public consideration of the nomination since 1981. The Northern Territory Government, the Liberal Opposition, Senator Durack and everybody else has known that this has been the intention. We have never at any stage suggested anything other than that we would be proceeding along these lines. As for the specific timing of the decision, that was brought about by a number of matters but mainly by the fact that we wanted to demonstrate quite clearly that, as we had undertaken to do, we were going to proceed with the protection of Kakadu stage 2. In fact, one of the complaints that Senator Durack made in the course of his remarks concerned the guidelines for new nominations for the World Heritage Committee. Senator Durack may or may not be aware-but he ought to be aware-that the World Heritage Committee does not regard this as a new nomination but as an extension to an existing listing which the Committee itself nominated in 1981. Further, the United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation has suggested that there was no need to go through the lengthy procedures for a new nomination. So what we are really doing is completing a course of action which was commenced in 1981. As I said, any suggestion that suddenly, out of the blue, our Government discovered Kakadu stage 2 and decided to seek nomination for it on the World Heritage List is absolutely absurd. I am really surprised that Senator Durack could make those sorts of comments in this place. He also suggested in some of his comments that there was very little knowledge of the park and its outstanding characteristics on the part of the Government on a personal basis. That is absolutely absurd also. My colleague Senator Ted Robertson, who has been a Senator for the Northern Territory for a period in excess of 10 years, has spent a great deal of time in Kakadu National Park and has been a constant source of information to the Government about it. Many members of our Government have visited the park and spent time there. Senator Robertson —Including yourself. Senator RYAN —Indeed, as Senator Robertson pointed out, I spent some days there myself in the middle of 1982, and was at that time persuaded of the unique, rare, and special character of the park. I was persuaded of something else, too-something which is relevant to some of the concluding remarks of Senator Durack. Senator Durack suggested that by proceeding with this course of action-and, as I said, we have every intention of doing so-we are somehow harming the economic prospects for Australia generally and the Northern Territory specifically. I think it is his view that, rather than protecting this unique and wonderful piece of natural heritage, we should go and dig it up and see whether there is any more uranium there. I would like to point out to Senator Durack that it is my view-and I am sure it is a view that would be widely supported-that the tourism earning potential of national park areas of such exquisite and rare interest as that of Kakadu far outweighs any possible earnings that may or may not come about through the production of more uranium. We certainly do not have uranium in short supply. World uranium prices are not particularly good. It is a very narrow and short term argument to say that whereas the digging up of the park might lead to the discovery of more uranium mines the protection of it would harm the economy. I have spoken to many Northern Territorians in the 10 years or so that I have been visiting the Territory and many of them are most conscious of the tourism potential of their Territory. It seems to me that that is indeed the greatest economic potential that the Territory has. If national parks are properly cared for, if they are given international prominence-and this certainly happens as a result of World Heritage listing-economic benefits will flow to Territorians in a much more assured way than they would as a result of any speculation on the possibility of more uranium. I would like to return to the theme harped on by Senator Durack, namely, that this decision to nominate Kakadu stage 2 was sudden and brought about for political rather than policy reasons and so forth. I would just like to take him and other honourable senators who are interested in the matter through a little of the history leading up to the decision we have now taken and to which we will adhere. When the nomination of the stage 1 area was originally made in 1980 the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Paul Everingham, noted that additions would be made to the park when he agreed to the World Heritage listing. So as far back as 1980 the Northern Territory government, which is now claiming there was no consultation and so forth, was aware that a future extension of the park would also be listed. That was over six years ago. The Prime Minister at the time, Malcolm Fraser, also realised that the nomination of stage 1 excluded areas which might be considered suitable for World Heritage listing. He noted in a letter of 4 June 1980 to the Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation that this was a matter which could be progressively reviewed as the Kakadu National Park was developed. In inscribing Kakadu National Park in October 1981, the World Heritage Committee itself said that it: . . . noted that the Australian Government intended to proclaim additional areas in the Alligator Rivers Region as part of Kakadu National Park and recommended that such areas be inscribed on the World Heritage List and that in the Region the environmental protection measures specified in the relevant legislation continue to be enforced. So again, in the actual listing in 1981, there was an indication, a statement of intent, as to the future development of the park. When a bronze plaque commemorating the inscription of Kakadu National Park on the World Heritage List was unveiled near Jabiru on 19 November 1983, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen, foreshadowed a proposal to incorporate additional areas in the World Heritage listing-another very public, very clear statement of intent on behalf of our Government. Stage 2 of Kakadu National Park was proclaimed by the Governor-General in February 1984. In announcing the proclamation Mr Cohen again noted that stage 2 would be considered by the Government for nomination to the World Heritage List as an extension to Kakadu National Park as already listed. The proposal has been raised in many forums since that time. In December 1985 stage 2 of Kakadu National Park was amalgamated with stage 1 into Kakadu National Park. There was no addition to the area of national park nor any change in the status of the areas concerned. Amalgamation allowed the whole park to be operated under the name `Kakadu National Park' and under one plan of management. It was against this very sound development background of properly considered policy development, properly publicised to all interested parties in major statements over a period, that we as the Government took our decision on 16 September to seek World Heritage listing of Kakadu stage 2. It must be realised that this proposal is not a new nomination as such, but merely an extension to an existing World Heritage listing. This status, as I said earlier, has been confirmed by UNESCO and that is the reason why it is being considered later this month rather than next year. Of course the Northern Territory Government has protested against our decision to seek World Heritage listing. However, because of the special circumstances related to Kakadu stage 2, the Prime Minister has advised the Northern Territory Chief Minister that the Commonwealth Government will not seek to withdraw the extension of Kakadu from the agenda for the World Heritage Committee meeting in Paris later this month. Procedures for nominating Australian areas to the World Heritage List were agreed between the Federal and State governments at the 1984 meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. The agreement called for consultation. But there is no stipulation requiring the Federal Government to seek the prior agreement of a State concerning nomination. Of course, in the case of the Northern Territory, it would be a futile exercise to do that because it is quite clear that agreement would not be forthcoming. Also, of course, the Northern Territory Government does not own Kakadu National Park; nor does it manage it. The land has been declared a national park under Commonwealth legislation-an act carried out by the previous Fraser Government-and, as such, is managed by a Commonwealth body, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, which, I might say in passing, does an excellent job. It must also be realised that under the World Heritage Convention the inscription of a place on the World Heritage List demands genuine protection and preservation of the area in question. In the case of many of the most significant heritage areas in Australia-for example, South West Tasmania, again rescued from destruction by our Government; the Willandra Lakes region of New South Wales; Lord Howe Island; the New South Wales rainforests-the Commonwealth can ensure this only in co-operation with the States. That is why consultation on possible World Heritage nominations is so important. In the case of Kakadu National Park, however, the Commonwealth itself has the authority to ensure Kakadu's continuing management in accordance with World Heritage principles. So, in other words, the provision for consultation is in order to ensure that proper arrangements are made for the protection and conservation of the area. In the case of Kakadu and in the case of the Northern Territory Government, the Northern Territory Government has no role in that conservation and protection procedure and, therefore, the kind of consultation stipulated is really of no particular point. There is also no question that mining operations would be allowed to degrade the park to such a stage where its World Heritage status would be in danger. The Prime Minister has categorically ruled out the possibility of any mining operations in the existing Kakadu National Park. There has also been some suggestion that stage 2 does not currently warrant World Heritage listing. I shall say a couple of things in refutation of that, but I am sure that other speakers who are to follow me in the debate will be very well placed to speak at some length about the reasons why the Kakadu area certainly justifies this nomination. My colleague Senator Olive Zakharov has a great deal of knowledge in this area, as has Senator Sanders, too, so I shall not take up the time of the Senate by pointing out the various rare, exotic and very important aspects of the park which certainly in our view justify the nomination. Stage 2 should not be considered in isolation but together with stage 1, which itself is discontinuous and elongated. Stages 1 and 2 are complementary, sharing some features but each enhancing the viability and integrity of the other. Although stage 2 contains outstanding features in its own right, it is now the combination of stage 1 and stage 2 which is being proposed for inclusion on the World Heritage List. Kakadu National Park is one of only eight places out of the 216 inscribed on the World Heritage List which meets the criterion of `outstanding universal value' in relation to the natural as well as the cultural heritage. Stage 2 also meets both these sets of criteria. For example, on the natural side, stage 2 includes most of the catchments of the Wildman and West Alligator Rivers, and the downstream parts of the catchments of the South Alligator River and Magela Creek-which is a major tributary of the East Alligator River. Stage 2 is drained by a vast network of creeks which in the wet season carry huge volumes of water, combining with the outflow from stage 1 to inundate the extensive floodplains and swamps. It is quite clear from that description-I do not think that Senator Durack could argue against that description-that the two areas are properly now under consideration as one area. The interrelationship between them is very important, and of course, that is one of the major reasons for our concern to get the proper protection that will be afforded to Kakadu stage 2 by its World Heritage listing. It is not simply good enough to say, or to imply, as Senator Durack has done: `We have done Kakadu stage 1; that is enough; we will let the miners in to do whatever they want to do to Kakadu stage 2'. If that were to happen-fortunately it will not happen, because of the actions of our Government-the whole network of river systems and the whole water support system for stage 1 could be very drastically damaged. I remind honourable senators, too, that on the cultural side this is a most extraordinary area in terms of its record of Aboriginal cultural history. Aboriginal people have occupied Kakadu for at least 25,000 years, and probably for much longer. The Aboriginal residents in the park have long-established ancestral bonds with the area. Although their traditional lifestyle has been modified, traditional customs and beliefs are still important in their everyday life. Throughout stage 2, as in stage 1, there are a large number of Aboriginal sites of significance, including sacred sites, archaeological sites and art sites. If it were only for the importance of the Kakadu area in relation to Aboriginal culture, I believe that the area would justify nomination on the World Heritage List. Anyone who has been to Kakadu stage 1 and has had the opportunity, the privilege, the experience, of seeing the Aboriginal rock art in that area, in the outstanding caves of the Nourlangie Rock or the Obiri Rock, would, I think, support the strongest possible legislative measures to ensure the protection of such a unique heritage. I see that my time has almost expired, Mr Acting Deputy President. I simply say in conclusion that there are many other reasons why the Government has made this very important decision. They will be spelt out by subsequent speakers in the debate. As to the matter of urgency, there is no matter of urgency. As for the suggestion that our Government might retreat at this stage from the seeking of World Heritage listing for Kakadu National Park stage 2, that is entirely out of the question, as I am sure the majority of Australians think it ought to be. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(4.06) —I, too, wonder about the urgency. If there is any urgency, of course, it is to list this area as rapidly as possible to protect it from those who would despoil it. I wonder whether the urgency has anything to do with the fact that perhaps the Opposition feels that there is an election coming on and it wants to send firm signals to its friends in the mining industry that it is completely in favour of mining in all parts of Australia. Perhaps in such a manner it hopes to obtain election funds from the mining industry. I have no other reason to give for this peculiar urgency motion. In his presentation, Senator Durack cited as his authorities for the removal of the proposed listing of stage 2 of Kakadu the Australian conservationist Mr Harry Butler and British-based conservation expert Professor Kenneth Mellanby. It just so happens that very recently in the Northern Territory News, which is a rather hysterical little publication in Darwin, the front page headline read `Kakadu ``Fraud'' '. The article stated: Australian conservationist, Mr Harry Butler, today described the Federal Government's proposed listing of Kakadu National Park's Stage 2 as an attempted fraud. Who is Harry Butler and why is he saying this? Harry Butler is what we in the conservationist movement call a `biostitute'-a hired mouth. He made himself a reputation on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television by going around and lifting up rocks and finding cuddly little animals thereunder. However, what he really made his money at was trying to justify the environmental excesses of the mining industry and the oil industry. His whole empire-he has an empire, and he is a very wealthy man because he has been running around the country trying to justify these rip-off artists-his whole ball of wool, became unravelled over the Franklin Dam issue, at which time he was hired by Harry Holgate, the Premier of Tasmania, to come in and use his so-called scientific expertise to say that South West Tasmania was not a wilderness. Where have we heard that? He is also saying that Kakadu stage 2 is not a wilderness. When this guy from Western Australia came to Tasmania and said that south western Tasmania was not a wilderness, he even infuriated the Tasmanians who wanted to build the dam. They said, `It certainly is a wilderness. We may want to dam it, but it is a wilderness'. It came out that he had taken some $12,500, I think, and the media started questioning him very closely. He turned on the media and lost his entire credibility. I am afraid that the Northern Territory Government is simply not going to get its money's worth by paying for `conservationist' Harry Butler because he has no credibility either in Australia or overseas. Mr Butler is quoted as saying that the: . . . stage 2 buffer areas demarcated by Canberra also should not be included in the listing because they were irrelevant to conservation and the whole of stage 2 already had national park status. He is obviously working for the mining industry. He wants open slather, as do the NT Government and the Federal Opposition, in all parts of Australia, including Kakadu stages 1 and 2. He was further reported as saying: Years of Ranger uranium mining within Kakadu had not provided any evidence of environmental damage. Well, apparently this noted environmentalist, this wonderful conservationist, Harry Butler, does not consider two huge open pit mines, a whole series of tailing dams covering many hectares, tin processing sheds which extend metres into the air, and an entire township as environmental damage or environmental change. Obviously, the man has no qualifications at all. What about British-based conservation expert Professor Kenneth Mellanby? He came in and inspected the area and is throwing his weight into the fray. I first encountered Professor Mellanby some eight years ago when I debated him on television. At that time he was being taken around the country by a group of cattlemen who wanted to get access to national parks for grazing. He is a nice man who simply does not understand the Australian conditions. He is a British person. In Britain of course all the national parks are multiple use because they always have been. Britain was the forerunner in the industrial revolution and there is very little wild land left. To show exactly how far Professor Mellanby goes, I point out that he suggested on television as a serious proposition that we we actually open up the south-west of Tasmania to cattle grazing. Of course it is impossible. One cannot graze cattle in south-west Tasmania, it is completely unsuitable; but this environmental expert said that we should. He said that from his observations most of stage 2 was totally unsuitable for international recognition-I emphasise that this was the man who wanted to graze cattle in South West Tasmania. He further said: I believe there are some people in Canberra who want to create the world's top national parks for the sake of doing so. I sincerely hope that there are people in Canberra who want to create top national parks for the sake of doing so. I am glad that they are here, and I welcome them. What an extraordinary statement for him to make. These are the two environmental experts Senator Durack depends on for his pronouncements that this should not be made into a world heritage area. This area is internationally significant. A few days ago we were talking about Tasmania woodchipping and Senator Newman felt compelled to say to me: `Go home Yank'. I took exception to that as an ethnic slur, as I believe it is. It is almost universal that those of us who do come from some place else or who have come here more recently than other migrants who may have been here for several generations appreciate Australia more than the older residents, excepting, of course, the Aboriginal people. I think that we see it with fresh eyes. We come from places around the world which do not have the wilderness area that Australia is still fortunate to have. The rest of the world does not have the open spaces or the opportunity to set these areas aside as we do here. That is why we who come from other places that are less fortunate struggle so hard to preserve what we see in Australia from development. I believe in firm control over national park areas. I wish more areas were in national parks. I wish that the so-called national parks which are really State preserves under the control of State governments were also national parks controlled by the Federal Government The United States is a very developed country but to this very day, despite the inroads of President Reagan's Mr Watt in the Bureau of Land Management, national parks in the United States are pretty much inviolate. The government that established the first national park in the United States, Yellowstone, set it up very proudly. It had mineral and timber resources; it had a number of resources. The government there said `We are willing to set this aside in perpetuity'. For the first seven or eight years it was managed by a concessionaire who was flogging off the timber and the mining rights. When the people in Washington got word of this, Congress said `enough' and sent in the United States cavalry. The United States cavalry patrolled Yellowstone National Park for 30 years and kept out the miners and the loggers with drawn sabres. I would very much like to see that approach used in Australia. Senator Archer —I bet you would. Senator SANDERS —My fellow Tasmanian says: `I bet you would'. Senator Archer —Don't call me your fellow Tasmanian, for goodness sake. I can stand most things but I won't stand that. Senator SANDERS —Apparently the good senator claims that I do not reside in Tasmania. This shows the lengths the Opposition will go to to obfuscate and distort the facts. The fact is that exploration in itself damages the environment. Already we see that Geopeko is trying to defy the Prime Minister and the Government by working in Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. It has confirmed that it operated a rig outside the lease areas recognised by the Government near to an area visited by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, last week. It has done this as a provocation. What does exploration do? Exploration by its very nature affects the environment. Roads have to be built, drilling rigs are operated, spoiling heaps are created and it is in itself an environmentally damaging occupation. If minerals are found, the mines themselves are environmentally disastrous. What are they looking for in Kakadu? They are looking for uranium. Uranium is a mineral of death. There are no peaceful uses of uranium, only destructive uses. The so-called peaceful uses do not exist as we have seen from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale and the nuclear arms race. So not only is it damaging to the environment; it is actually dangerous to world security and peace to dig this stuff out of the ground. But I am sure that Senator Vallentine will amplify that area. What is at stake here is the principle of whether the people of Australia can keep the mining companies out of any areas whatsoever. The mining companies do not want to mine in Kakadu at this moment. They just do not like the idea that there is some place that they can be kept out of, that they cannot get in to the area at will. They want access to all Australia's land. In the Northern Territory the mining industry is aided and abetted by a totally subservient government. I had a discussion with the Chief Minister, Steve Hatton, when he was the Minister for the Environment. He was supposed to be the greenie of the Northern Territory Government. He could not conceive of a national park concept which would prohibit exploration. I said: `If you are going to set aside a national park, it should be for the future and it does not matter whether there are any minerals in it or not. You are not going to use them so you should not be allowed to explore'. This was inconceivable to him as the most environmentally aware member of that Government, and now of course he is Chief Minister. Unfortunately, what we see in the Northern Territory and in the mining industry is the worst side of human behaviour-the get-rich-quick syndrome. These people would happily sell their grandmothers' gold fillings for a profit. They have no thought for the future and no responsibility to the present. The Northern Territory Government is as incapable of looking to the future as is the Gray Government of Tasmania. Both governments unfortunately see their goal as making as much money in as short a time as possible and letting future generations worry about their economic, cultural and environmental well-being. Stage 3 has not been mentioned to this point in the debate. While we are fighting very strongly to make sure that stages 1 and 2 are free from mineral exploration, the conservation movement will also be very concerned to see that no mining takes place in stage 3 and that all three stages of the Kakadu National Park are included in a park which will then have the international significance it deserves. At the moment the Federal Government must stand firm against the mining industries, the Northern Territory Government, the Opposition and any others who would want to defile what actually belongs to all Australians. This is a national heritage and it must be preserved for all Australians, not only for now but for the future. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.20) —Today the Senate is debating as a matter of public importance the need for the Government to withdraw its nomination for World Heritage listing of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park. I rise to support the comments of my colleague Senator Durack, who lead the reasoned and rational debate from this side of the chamber. Senator Sanders's contribution has been one of numerous slurs and it should be ignored. Indeed, he has attacked Harry Butler whom Australians recognise as one of their foremost sons. Harry Butler has been honoured by Australian and has done much for conservation for Australia and its people. I do not think that there is anything more to say about Senator Sanders's contribution. It is also a great pity that the speakers for the Government cannot address this issue rationally instead of considering it purely as a potential vote catcher. This is what they are doing and in taking that path they are ignoring their responsibility to protect Australia's national interests. Honourable senators only need to look at the Press reports of a few weeks ago. In mid- October the support of senior Government Ministers for mining within Kakadu National Park was widely reported. Those senior Ministers were said to include the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who, it was said, strongly favoured more mining going ahead in the national interest. The Prime Minister even went so far as to write to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, who is responsible for national parks, to express concern about the fact that the plan of management proposed for the park was deficient in its failure to include provisions for the recovery of minerals from the park. That point of view is quite correct. Less than a month ago the Prime Minister was concerned with Australia's national interest-our desperate need for export earnings and our current deficit of some $8 billion. It takes something like one-third of Australia's overseas earnings to service the interest on that debt alone. What has happened since then? Where has the Prime Minister's concern gone? We were all exposed to the media coverage of Mr Hawke cruising around Yellow Waters and posing at Obiri Rock last week and the nation learnt that the Prime Minister is a `born again greenie'. I must say that that was a very recent rebirth. In the space of a month he has rediscovered an affinity with mother nature that is such that the national interest, with which he was concerned, is no longer relevant. At the end of his multi-media Kakadu junket last week Mr Hawke said that it would be an obscenity to mine in Kakadu. The real obscenity, of course, is the spectacle of the Prime Minister of this country jeopardising the economic future of Australia by depriving the nation of the right to develop its natural resources in return for some short term political gain and, of course, pats from the left wing of his Party. Apparently the Australian Labor Party has adopted the attitude that it must win the next election at all costs, even if that means selling out the people of the nation that it claims to represent. If the Federal Government's decision to seek World Heritage listing for stage 2 of the Park is implemented, the Government will have succeeded in debarring development of the richest and biggest uranium province in the world. The known uranium deposits in Kakadu are large and low cost. All were found in a very short period, essentially between 1969 and 1971, and very justifiably these can be considered the tip of the iceberg. If uranium mining could proceed with market forces and appropriate environmental concern being the only constraints, Australia and Canada would virtually control the world's uranium production. In the early 1970s Australia had a large competitive edge over Canada which has now been surrendered. Access to Kakadu for exploration and mining would see Australia rapidly retrieve the lost ground and would make a vast contribution to the nation's well-being. Certainly it needs that these days. The success rate in the very short period during which Kakadu was open to explorers was staggering and probably represents the lowest cost per tonne of ore found in the history of exploration in Australia, at least in modern decades. Of course the area is highly prospective not only for uranium but also for other minerals, including silver, tin, tungsten, cobalt, lead, zinc and gold, all of which are very desirable for Australia. Mineral exploration has been carried out for commodities other than uranium. While gold has long been known to occur with uranium in the South Alligator Valley, no systematic exploration for gold in the Kakadu region has occurred until recently with activity at Coronation Hill. This activity reflects the gold boom conditions prevailing at present in Australia. Additionally, knowledge of the gold resources in the Jabiluka ore body is incomplete. Some 11 tonnes of contained gold are indicated, but the total amount could be significantly higher. A preliminary resource estimate for gold at Coronation Hill is of the same order of magnitude as that at Jabiluka. Again, the ultimate resource could be several times greater. It is clear that this area represents a national resource of tremendous proportions and to attempt to close it off by the combination of placing it on the World Heritage List and implementing the new plan of management is not the act of a reasonable or rational government. The argument which the Government and the Australian Democrats trot out on this issue is that mining is inconsistent with national park status and that the environmental impact of mining would be to destroy the area. It must be remembered that we are talking about an area of more than 13,000 square kilometres in relation to stages 1 and 2. When the proposed stage 3 is added in, the area of Kakadu National Park will be more than 22,000 square kilometres. The area of the existing Ranger mine is only 0.02 per cent of the proposed total area of Kakadu. That is about one part in 5,000. It is quite realistic to state that less than one per cent in toto would ever be affected by mining. Additionally, in circumstances of carefully controlled exploration and with market forces prevailing, all ore bodies would never be found simultaneously and hence would never be mined simultaneously. Also, rehabilitation could proceed in concert with orderly mining. We have certainly seen orderly mining carried out in the Northern Territory, such as at Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt. Indeed we have seen the reclamation of the old uranium mine at Rum Jungle and with the modern techniques of reclamation this has done enormous good for that particular area. As I said, mining would be aggregated in small discrete areas within the belts of favourable rocks. Thus a minute area would be affected by mining and indeed rehabilitation would take place after it had been fully developed. It has been shown that mineral exploration activities can be carried out with minimal disturbance of the environment. The Federal Government is clearly ignoring the legitimate option of multiple land use within Kakadu. In doing so, as I have said, it is depriving the nation of valuable natural resources. At the same time it is depriving the Northern Territory of access to its natural resources. Honourable senators should be aware that development in the Northern Territory has proceeded at an impressive rate in recent years, particularly since the Territory obtained self-government in 1978. The progress which has been made has been made within the confines of a restricted resource base largely dependent on the pastoral, tourism and mining industries. There are of course other industries operating in the Territory, but these three are of very great significance in terms of the Northern Territory's economic development. The World Heritage listing of stage 2 will rob the Northern Territory of the right to develop a vast quantity of its natural resources. When the cry constantly goes out from Canberra that the Northern Territory is too heavily dependent upon the Commonwealth for funding, it is ironic that the Commonwealth Government is bent upon a course of making it even more difficult for the Territory to improve on its level of economic self sufficiency. The other industry which the Northern Territory has done so much to build up over recent years and which is threatened by the Federal Government's approach to Kakadu, is tourism. It is not so much threatened by the World Heritage listing of the area as it is by the plan of management, which looks set to prevent any large scale tourism accommodation being developed within the park. The assault on the Northern Territory which has been launched by this Federal Government over Kakadu is a disgraceful display of the Labor Party's attitude that if it cannot win votes in the Northern Territory it is not interested in protecting the interests of this part of the country. Surely this is borne out by the actions and comments of the Prime Minister in the last few weeks. This attitude has been made perfectly plain by the way in which the Federal Government has gone about seeking World Heritage listing. As a starting point it must be noted that the Federal Government is required to consult with the Northern Territory Government in relation to this matter in accordance with an understanding reached at the 1984 meeting of the Council of Conservation Ministers. That meeting reached an agreement that the Commonwealth Government would fully consult with State and Territory governments in relation to seeking World Heritage listing for national parks. In a letter to the Honourable Barry Coulter, the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, the Federal Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, specifically wrote: Should the Commonwealth decide to pursue World Heritage listing on the former stage two area, your Government will be consulted in accordance with the CONCOM agreement prior to any approach being made to Paris. No such consultation has taken place, and of course the Federal Government has set in train the procedure to have the area heritage listed. As a result of this lack of consultation, the Northern Territory Government has now decided that, in order to see that its views on the matter are heard, it will attempt to make representations to the World Heritage Committee in Paris this month. The Prime Minister has been informed of this planned action and has advised the Northern Territory Government of his view that under Article 34 of the World Heritage Convention the Committee can deal only with national governments. Clearly he does not want the full story to be put. In the light of that interpretation the Prime Minister has given a qualified and restricted indication that the Northern Territory Government may, in some indirect way, be able to present its case to the Committee. The Prime Minister said: I would be prepared to consider submitting to the Committee supplementary documentation to reflect the view of the Northern Territory Government on the cultural and natural heritage values of the stage II area. This contrasts starkly with the Commonwealth's invitation to the Tasmanian Government in 1983 to participate in its own right in relation to the Franklin Dam. It is by no means clear that the Prime Minister's offer would enable the Northern Territory Government to present its case in a compelling and unfettered way, and in view of this the Northern Territory Government has approached the World Heritage Committee directly requesting that it be invited by the committee, as a public organisation, to present its case and address particular problems surrounding stage 2 listing. This invitation would be in accord with Article 10(2) of the World Heritage Convention which enables the committee to invite interested parties to participate in its meetings. In response to the Northern Territory Government's approach the World Heritage Committee has replied that the Northern Territory Government's telex has been brought to the attention of the Australian permanent delegation to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation for appropriate action. The inference which can be drawn from this response is that the World Heritage Committee will prove reluctant to initiate an invitation to the Northern Territory Government to participate in its own right. It seems to me that the intention expressed in the articles is that interested parties are able to present their own views on matters which are the subject of the Committee's deliberations. The problem here is that the Committee does not want to get involved in a dispute between the Australian Commonwealth and the Northern Territory. Personally, I believe that regardless of the politics of the situation the Committee is obliged to hear the views of the Territory as an interested party. But assuming that it is not prepared to put its neck out and upset the Federal Government, the responsibility reverts to the Federal Government to support openly and unequivocally the Northern Territory Government's right to put its views independently to the Committee. The Federal Government should communicate that to the Committee without delay. One wonders why it has not already done so. Perhaps the Federal Government is just a bit concerned that the fraud which it is proposing to perpetrate on the World Heritage Committee will be disclosed. It may be worried that the committee will learn that while there are certainly areas of great beauty and cultural significance within stage 2, the vast majority of the of the area proposed to be listed is not worthy of the status proposed for it. Indeed, only this week two very eminent conservationists have indicated that to the Australian media. In closing, I note that Senator Ryan has said that the Government will not retreat, that that is out of the question. The Northern Territory and those on this side of the Senate are asking that the World Heritage Committee and indeed the Australian Government give this whole question an open go, a fair go, because there is good reason why they should not rush into the listing of this area. The area should be open to multi-use, and I believe that can be carried out without any damage occurring. I repeat that it is the experience of the Northern Territory that there would be no damage to this beautiful spot within this part of the Kakadu National Park. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(4.35) —The World Heritage listing of all stages of Kakadu National Park is highly desirable and I hope that the Federal Government will stand firm in its long-standing intention to have it so listed. As far back as the Fox report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry in 1975 it was recommended that the whole of the area-that is, stages 1, 2 and 3-be nominated for World Heritage listing. This particular area meets all of the eight criteria laid down by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation to qualify for World Heritage listing, and there are very few places in the world that qualify for such listing under each of the eight categories. It is acknowledged as the biggest and most important tropical wetlands area in the southern hemisphere. By not protecting stage 2 from the ravages of mining we would allow that to be damaged for all time. As well as its biological importance, it contains rare and important examples of Aboriginal culture which have not been mentioned a greater deal in the debate yet, but those examples of wonderful age-old art forms are well acknowledged. The rivers which flow through stage 2 are in their final stages, having come from stage 1. They are all part of the whole. It is most important that the whole area be considered as one system. It is ridiculous to try to remove stage 2 from the whole listing because the waters that flow from stage 1 will have a great impact on stage 2. The whole nation should value this beautiful area and should be very concerned that we passed on this heritage to future generations. The whole debate is really about mining and the question that needs to be asked is what is the point of declaring an area a national park or indeed having it World Heritage listed if mining is to be allowed. That is the crux of the whole argument, and of course that concerns the Opposition, the National and Liberal parties, backed up by the mining lobbies. They are trying to grab back the opportunity to explore for minerals in stage 2, and the mineral they are most concerned about finding there, of course, is uranium. That is a very dangerous sort of mining to get into and it is one that we should look at very carefully indeed. The Northern Territory Government is very short-sightedly looking for dollars from mining rather than looking, as it should, to provide more jobs, and socially useful jobs, by encouraging carefully planned and monitored tourism which will allow more Australians as well as people from other countries to appreciate the magnificence of this region. Mining is capital intensive and it is environmentally hazardous, particularly if we consider uranium mining which I believe is the major interest being pushed by the mining lobby. The present foray of Peko-Wallsend Limited to test its mining exploration lease is the real test for the Federal Government to prove its commitment, even through the courts of this country. Exploration leases which were put in place before the area was declared a national park should not be acted upon now because there will be a great temptation for future governments to allow leases to be given in those areas. That is why it is most important that this area be protected from the ravages of mining by its inclusion on the World Heritage List. There are already several important uranium deposits, two of which are being mined in that area, but I am concentrating my comments mainly on the Ranger mine which is just outside the area excised from the park so that mining could continue. We need to look at the environmental impact of uranium mining, which would be the great threat to this whole area if the mining lobby, backed up as it is by development-oriented politicians, had its way and managed to exclude stage 2 from World Heritage listing. I think it is intent on doing this as quickly as possible before the bottom falls out of the uranium market. Even the so-called peaceful uses of uranium have been largely discredited, in the last year in particular, since there have been several very serious accidents, the one at Chernobyl being the better known of these accidents, but there have been many other accidents at nuclear power plants, which is descrediting even the so-called peaceful purposes of the use of this ore. The environmental and social costs of uranium mining are extremely high. In the case of the Ranger uranium mine operated by Energy Resources of Australia Ltd there have been enormous problems in controlling the tailings. The problem at every stage of the nuclear industry is what to do with the radioactive leftovers. In this case the tailings dams have persistently overflowed their boundaries. The report just recently brought down from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on Ranger uranium and its water management system stated: . . . 24 occurrences involving the water management system which have given rise to regulatory concern- the word `occurrences' is the euphemism for an accidental release- of which 16 related to failures in the tailings pipeline or tailings dam seepage collector lines. . . . . Both the NLC and the Environment Centre considered that frequent spillages were in part due to Company attitudes and the lack of supervision and penalties. Further on, it is stated: The Committee believes that there are many areas of the Company's operations which warrant criticism. The Committee agrees with the Northern Land Council and the Northern Territory Environment Centre and others that the number of failures relating to the operation of the water management system is alarming. The Committee cannot accept that a Company which is located within an area of significant environmental value, claims to be as efficient as any operation in the world and claims to be one of the most regulated in the world, should have allowed the number of incidents to have occurred as have been reported . . . The Committee further calls for a temporary cessation of operations until such time as the system is rectified. The particular system that is being referred to is the piping system to get rid of the radioactive contaminants. Many efforts have been made by Ranger to deal with this. It is always looking for the cheapest way out. The 1975 Fox inquiry recommended that the accumulation of excess water could be avoided by building additional retention ponds around the mine to allow the water to evaporate slowly. This would have the drawback of concentrating radioactive wastes. The Ranger management opposed this recommendation because it was expensive. It argued for the direct release of the water into the nearby Magela Creek. This creek runs into the East Alligator River, which in turn courses through the Kakadu National Park. So this does have a very relevant bearing on the argument that stage 2 should be nominated for World Heritage listing. The latest plan the ERA has concocted to deal with these radioactive tailings-it has had constant problems ever since it started operating there-is to introduce a new dry method of dealing with contaminated tailings in an effort to relieve the controversy over the dam used to store the mine's wastes. It has just completed a 12-month trial of beaching, which means that it actually allows the contamination to dry out on the surface of the soil without having water covering it. This is even more alarming to conservationists as the dry tailings are known to emit high levels of radon. The problem has not been solved to any degree of satisfaction to either the Aboriginal people in the area who do not want the threat of the Magela Creek being contaminated, or to the satisfaction of environmentalists who are concerned about every stage of the Ranger uranium mine's operation and the consequences that actually has at the moment for contamination of stage 2 in Kakadu National Park. We should look at the uses to which the extracted uranium could be put. I have already mentioned briefly the so-called peaceful purposes of the use of this ore which has come under a lot of criticism in very recent months. I am firmly opposed to the use of the nuclear fuel cycle except for medical purposes at the moment, which would be the only exclusion. I think we should be pouring our research dollars into finding ways of producing the radioisotopes which are necessary so that we do not have to rely on the nuclear fuel cycle. I am sure that if the research dollars were there, a way would have been found around that problem. That is a requirement which needs a very small amount of uranium and it is a very concentrated and very highly regulated aspect of the uranium industry. Apart from that, at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle-from mining, through every stage of milling and transportation, right through to the production of nuclear power-there are enormous problems for the workers involved and for the environment. The main problem is that there has been no solution to the disposal of wastes. That is despite 30 years of intensive research on the part of the nuclear lobby which desperately wants to keep its industry going and to make it credible to the world's people, who are becoming increasingly concerned with the enormous amounts of nuclear waste we are piling up all around the world. Apart from that so-called peaceful use to which this uranium could be put, we also have to allow for the possibility that Australian uranium will end up in nuclear weapons systems. This is despite all the safeguards that are written on paper. I do not care how many times the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) try to tell the people of Australia that our uranium does not end up in nuclear weapons. Most countries in the world say the same thing, yet there is an enormous amount of nuclear weapons proliferation. We have to allow for the fact that once Australian uranium enters the nuclear fuel cycle it is not separated out from other countries' uranium. There is no magic tag on it which says `for peaceful purposes only'. I think the confusion stems from the fact that safeguards are written on paper, but there is no way that we can prove that Australian uranium is clear, that it is pure and that radioactive leftovers the come from Australian uranium have not been involved in nuclear weapons production. We cannot prove that at all. Nuclear weapons proliferation is one of the main problems facing the world at the moment. There is no way that the Australian Government or the Australian people should in any way be involved in helping towards that proliferation, unwitting though it may be. There are enough people around now who do understand the connections between the nuclear fuel cycle and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The two things cannot be separated; they are all part of the same package. Indeed, the original Atoms for Peace program in the United States of America was a cover for the weapons producing industry in the first place. The nuclear energy which was promoted then was meant to be too cheap to meter and environmentally clean. Both of those advertising slogans have been proven to be absolutely unfounded. It is a very expensive form of energy and it is certainly not a clean form of energy. I think that the danger is that when there is a leak of radioactive contamination it cannot be smelt and it cannot be seen. People tend to think that it is clean, but of course its consequences are absolutely devastating, as the people of eastern and western Europe are finding out now to their horror and as they will continue to find out for the next 10 years in the wake of the disaster of the melt-down at the Chernobyl reactor in the Ukraine earlier this year. There is no way that an Australian government of any political colour should allow mining to go on from any mine, particularly if it allows that to continue in a national park. It cannot go on if this is declared a World Heritage area, which is why it is most important that stage 2 is included on the World Heritage listing. I also think that it is most important that a basic statement is made as clearly as it can be that uranium mining in any part of Australia whatsoever is morally indefensible. To conclude, I would like to say that the Northern Territory Government seems to be making a last ditch stand and concocting a sense of urgency about this debate when it has known that this was coming up. In fact, since 1975, if it cared to go back to the records of the Fox report, and certainly since 1981, it has had plenty of time to make its objections known. I think the Australian people wholly support the Government, except for some very highly development-oriented people in the Northern Territory who, as I said, should be looking into tourism rather than into mining. Apart from those few people with vested interests in the very influential and wealthy mining lobby most Australians would highly support the Government's proposal for stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park to be incorporated in the World Heritage List. I hope that that will be done without this ridiculous notion from the Northern Territory getting any further credibility. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(4.50) —After listening to Senator Kilgariff and Senator Durack, I wonder what our political opponents would not sell to help their mining industry supporters. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has outlined the history of the developments which led to the proposed listing. I would like to add one point to that history. The Government made a 1984 election commitment that this would be done. The Opposition is often putting up matters of public importance claiming supposed broken promises by this Government. Clearly, it does not want to know about those promises which are quickly fulfilled, and this is one of them. Senator Ryan also pointed out that the Northern Territory Government neither owns nor manages Kakadu National Park. Indeed, I am very thankful for that because the Northern Territory Government seems to have a very strange understanding or knowledge of national parks in other parts of Australia or the world. This became very obvious on many occasions during the Senate National Resources Committee inquiry into the Kakadu region. National parks seem to be seen by many representatives of the Northern Territory Government as places where there should be little restriction on any land use, including agriculture, mining and other commercial enterprises, as long as what they see as beauty spots-very small areas-are preserved. Senator Ryan also alluded to the danger to the present World Heritage listing of stage 1 if the rest of the park were to be degraded by mining or some of these other activities. I point out that, if the World Heritage stages of the park were endangered, it would also be very detrimental to Australia's image as a nation which cares about its environmental and cultural heritage and carries out in those areas its responsibilities to the rest of the world. People elsewhere do notice. I was in Europe for Christmas 1983 and I was quite amazed by the number of people who were aware of what had happened in south-west Tasmania and what this Government had done to save the wilderness area of south-west Tasmania. I come now to the allegations that stage 2 does not warrant World Heritage listing. I will be dealing with that in some detail but at this point I will again refer briefly to Mr Harry Butler, who reportedly called the proposed listing an attempted fraud-that is, if the Northern Territory News accurately reported what he said. Mr Harry Butler is well known to the general public as the producer and the central figure of a high quality series of programs about Australian wildlife. It is less generally known that he makes his living as a consultant to mining companies including, I understand, a permanent consultancy to West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd. Some of us will remember his support of the Tasmanian Government during the Franklin Dam dispute. My memory is that the Tasmanian Government also retained him as a consultant. He supported the decision to build the Franklin Dam and destroy an area which now was World Heritage status. According to the Northern Territory News he is now a consultant to the Northern Territory Government on Kakadu. If he is a consultant to the Northern Territory and has been for any length of time either the Northern Territory does not listen to him or he has done a poor teaching job-I understand that he was originally trained as a teacher-because the Northern Territory Government's understanding of conservation principles is abysmal. Mr Butler's statement about attempted fraud appeared in Monday's Northern Territory News. He is also reported as saying: Another problem with the Stage 2 listing bid was it would set a standard for `second-rate conservation material' and could affect Australia's future attempts to gain a listing for first-class sites. It is hard to imagine what sites he would have had in mind, but it is interesting to note that he seems to have moderated those views. I understand that, in a video made for the Northern Territory, he concedes that the eastern part of stage 2 is valuable and that the western part has considerable importance as a buffer zone. Nevertheless, I believe that he might be better occupied going back to teaching. What are the factors which justify World Heritage listing? Senator Ryan referred to the network of creeks which feed the wetlands of stage 1. I point out that these are the wetlands which were included in 1980 in the list of the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat. The wetlands of stage 2 are of at least equal value and are an interconnected system with those of stage 1. In terms of natural heritage, Kakadu National Park stage 2 is of outstanding, universal value for a large number of reasons. It improves the integrity of the currently listed stage 1 because it is biologically complementary to it. It contains representative samples of a wide range of ecosystems, particularly those with coastal swamps, tidal flats, flood plains and lowlands. It is a very large area and that ensures that the integrity of most of the ecosystem is maintained. This is why the notion of the Northern Territory Government that only beauty spots need to be conserved is such a nonsense. The vegetation is rich in variety and visually beautiful in many cases and includes species which are not found elsewhere. Indeed, botanists believe that there are still many undiscovered species in the area, some of which may have food or medicinal value as the Aboriginals found. The bird life is very rich and varied in that area and comprises an estimated one-third of Australia's bird species. There is a wide diversity of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. I am no Harry Butler but when I was there two weeks ago I was delighted to find in a damp area, although it was the end of the dry season, large varieties of different sorts of frogs, geckos and other sorts of reptiles which could be easily seen and approached by people without fear. The area also provides a suitable habitat for some of Australia's endangered species, the most notable, of course, being the estuarine crocodile-I will not attempt to say its Latin name. In short, it provides a habitat for a wide range of rare or regionally endemic species of flora and fauna. The wetlands constitute one of Australia's major wetland regions and are frequented by very large numbers of a wide variety of water birds. Some of these water birds are migratory and come from other parts of Australia at different times of the year and also from other parts of the world, particularly Asia. They are an important wintering habitat for some of the Asiatic wading birds and they also act as dry season refuges for many of the local species. One of the important aspects of the area is the availability of both wet and dry areas within stages 1 and 2 of the park so that wildlife, in extremes of climatic conditions, can move fairly easily from an area which perhaps has been inundated to an area where they can survive until the next season. Conversely, those that need the wet can migrate there. The flora and fauna in the park have interesting and scientifically important affinities with those of South-East Asia and New Guinea. This is important in the study of pre-history. As most honourable senators will be aware, there was once a land link there and this gives some clue as to the age of the separation of those two continents and what has happened in the meantime. In addition to scientific research and educational opportunities this natural heritage also provides an outstanding mecca for a wide range of active and passive visitor use and it is one of the main reasons for the tourist attraction of Kakadu National Park. In economic terms, I would say that in the long term that offers far more to the Northern Territory economy, particularly in terms of jobs, than any possible other use of the area, particularly mining. Senator Ryan referred to tens of thousands of years of Aboriginal occupation. I point out that the Aboriginals who live in the area still carry out traditional practices, observe their religious ceremonies and pass on their knowledge to the younger generation. Similarly, the younger generation is being taught how to look after the environment and how to conserve the rock art. There are many Aboriginal sites of significance, including sacred sites. The archaeological sites of stage 2 represent one of the world's major cultural heritage assets. Many people go to see the ancient art sites in France. There is something to see here at Kakadu which is possibly far more important. It is expected that several thousand archaeological sites will be recorded in Kakadu. One of the pieces of work being carried out at the moment by officers of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is in seeking out those sites, classifying them and drawing them to the attention of people so that those sites can be conserved. Similarly, there are many old camp sites that provide some knowledge of the way the Aboriginal people lived in times past, their development of artefacts, their food gathering methods, their cooking methods and so on. Most of these sites are relatively intact. In particular, one of the sites excavated in stage 2 has provided some of the world's oldest evidence of the technology of edge-ground axes and the preparation of pigments 18,000 years ago. I find that quite mind-boggling. My time is running out and I just want finally to read a quotation from what the World Heritage Committee, a United Nations body, noted at the time of the inscription of stage 1 on the World Heritage List: . . . the World Heritage Committee noted Australia's intention to proclaim additional areas in the Alligator Rivers Region as part of the National Park. The Committee recommended that such additional areas should also be included in the World Heritage Listing. Finally, I would like to say that I and the Government will certainly be pressing ahead with this listing. Question put: That the motion (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— 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. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vallentine, J. Grimes, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. McClelland, Douglas Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R. Morris, J. Collard, S. J. Sibraa, K. W. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Copies of the Industries Assistance Commission annual report were not available until it was tabled, and I have not had a chance to examine it in any detail. However, it is of considerable importance to us, given the agreed importance of the strengthening of manufacturing industry in Australia. The Industries Assistance Commission is a fairly contentious body, and elements of manufacturing industry describe it in very unflattering terms as an industries destruction commission. I think that is very severe judgment on a body which, after all, does no more than report to government within the terms of reference that are given to it. In a very brief contribution this afternoon I will simply refer to a number of the comments which are made in the report and which I think are of importance. On page 3 the report states: What is clear is that, in a world of pervasive and unpredictable change, no particular economic structure can remain competitive for long; and no blueprint for an appropriate future structure can be designed with any confidence. Recent events have demonstrated the overriding importance of achieving a flexible and innovative economy. I think that is a very important statement to be made in Australia, for the sorts of reasons that were indicated in the statement that was made today by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, when he reported on his visit to Japan. One of the points made by him was that the Japanese economy is being forced to restructure in quite significant ways. Some industries are having to move out of Japan; new industries are having to be established; the economy is having to be directed in new courses to meet the Japanese situation, which, of course, is quite different from ours-its exports are an embarrassment, but it has economic problems, nonetheless, because its industries are no longer appropriate in all cases to its economy. If the strongest economy in the world has to face problems of restructuring, it needs to be acknowledged that the Australian economy, which is in such a parlous state, as evidenced by the extraordinary continuing high deficit in our balance of payments, has to face the need for change. To the extent that the Government is trying to promote that change, it will have the Opposition's support. The unfortunate fact, as I tried to indicate in a debate earlier this afternoon, is that, whilst acknowledging the need for change, the Government is tending not to acknowledge the need for rapid change. In further cementing some of the traditional arrangements and making, for example, the removal of work practices in the heavy engineering industry dependent upon quite complex negotiations, drawing up sets of rules and having union participation as against the participation of the work force directly in a particular plant it is leaving in place structures which are not in the interests of manufacturing recovery in this country. We require the maximum co-operation between employer and employee, not least in manufacturing establishments. It is only when we have a high degree of trust, co-operation and interaction between employer and employee that we will get the flexible and innovative economy to which the IAC is referring. I welcome the fact that the Industries Assistance Commission draws attention to `the overriding importance of achieving a flexible and innovative economy'. Those words have to be accepted as putting upon us an imperative to accept and promote change and be prepared to adapt at both the management and work force levels. Later in the report, in discussing the contribution of the Commission to a more competitive industry structure, it proposes: . . . a separate stream of broad inquiries which would focus on removing impediments to industry competitiveness. The Commission suggests inquiries in such areas as the effects on the economy of regulations, the various taxation measures, and controls and administrative arrangements applying to transport and handling of goods. Those sorts of inquiries are important. What is perhaps even more important is to accept that in all those areas change is needed, perhaps more quickly than lengthy inquiries would permit. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.15) —As the Senate would be aware, some time ago I moved a notice of motion suggesting that it might be more appropriate for the Industries Assistance Commission rather than a royal commission to conduct an investigation into the important issue of grain handling in Australia. I did this for a number of reasons but principally because of the speed with which the IAC could get on with an inquiry and bring forward a report. As we all know, Australia is a major producer of grains, such as wheat, barley and sorghum, and is responsible for about 20 per cent of sales on world markets. Over 90 per cent of this domestic production is exported. In 1985-86 wheat alone was responsible for exports worth around $3,600m, or 11 per cent of Australia's export revenue. This export performance was achieved virtually without any government support. I believed at the time that there were a number of reasons for a royal commission not being the appropriate body to carry out such an important investigation. The first and foremost reason was that the time involved in setting up a commission and the time taken for it to report would be too long, given the urgency of this issue. Already more than half a year has elapsed since the Government proposed this inquiry, and only now is the commission starting to move. It is interesting to note that the Government has not budgeted for a royal commission inquiry into grain transport and handling for 1986-87. Had the IAC been asked to report on grain handling, I believe the Government could well have had an interim report at this stage, with a final report early in the new year. The Government is not really interested in getting a quick decision. As all honourable senators would know, I have been a critic of the IAC, but I think it is about time the Government asked it to get off the backs of manufacturing in this country and to look at some of the other important issues. I refer to grain handling, the problems on the wharves, the transport problems and the dislocations that they cause and problems arising from work practices. I cannot lose this opportunity to comment on the future of the textile, clothing and footwear industries. Few commentators seem to realise that these industries are in the process of being, and will continue to be, restructured. I will give a few examples. Since the announcement of the current sectoral plan in mid-1980, the industries have invested millions of dollars in upgrading their plant and equipment; they have introduced high technology plant, increased productivity quite significantly-above the general industry average-provided employment, particularly for females, and maintained an industry base in many country and regional areas. It is very important because it is decentralised and it has an ability to meet the challenge of increased exposure to import competition, provided that a degree of predictability is accorded by current quota arrangements. To discard such a balanced approach in favour of an IAC preferred option will have a devastating effect on these industries. While it is important that the TCF industries become more efficient and more exposed to international competition, it is also extremely important that the Government recognise the social and regional significance of these industries and the implications for employment. Employment in the industries is approximately 120,000, or 10 per cent of the total work force. About 70,000 women are employed. Is it right that the prosperity of whole communities, whole towns, should now be threatened by the potential demise of these very important industries? When the present arrangements cease in 1988 we must have developed a set of assistance programs which accommodates three features: It must be predictable and gradual, but there must be meaningful adjustment; positive measures must be taken to encourage modernisation and plant consolidation and efficiency; and measures must be designed to ease the hardships of those people who are made redundant by technological change and rationalisation. Unfortunately, my time has expired. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Richardson, I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee A. Consideration resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Powell: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.22) —In light of the considerable political interest in this matter, I seek to have the debate adjourned so that the matter can be preserved on the Notice Paper for the time being. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.23) —For the same reason as that given for the Industries Assistance Commission's interim report on citrus fruit, I seek to have the debate adjourned. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Kilgariff: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.24) —In speaking to this paper I want to say that aviation certainly plays a very important part in Australia, and indeed throughout the world. Because of the vast distances that we have to cover in this country, people have to use aeroplanes to save time. As politicians, of course, we all use them regularly and we are certainly given very good service by the airlines in this country. I think their safety record is something that we should commend and something for which we should all be very grateful indeed. While speaking to this report, I do want to make some comments about the Brisbane Airport, which is of great importance to the aviation industry in my State. I must say that the Government is building an excellent domestic airlines terminal in Brisbane at a cost of $350m, and I know that that will be of very great use to Queensland. I emphasise, though, that there is a great need for a general aviation terminal. On the matter of the international terminal in Brisbane, I asked a question of Senator Gietzelt on 15 October and, although the Minister was going to seek a reply from the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), I have not had one. I asked that day whether it was correct that the Government had decided not the proceed with the building of a new terminal as part of a hotel complex at Brisbane. I asked whether the Minister could give the reasons why this decision was made and whether it was a fact that the Government claims that it does not have the money to build a new international terminal in Brisbane, despite the growth of tourism in the State and despite the fact that Expo 88 is to be held there. I asked the question: If that was the case, should not the Government be encouraging the private sector to build the international air terminal for it at no cost at all to the taxpayers so that it will be ready for Expo 88? I believe-and I am sure the people of Queensland also believe-that it is really a shame that private enterprise is not being allowed to construct a first class terminal in conjunction with the building of a hotel. I think perhaps the Government might be scared that that might be privatising airports. I say that Brisbane needs a first class air terminal of the same standard as its new domestic terminal. The current terminal in Brisbane really is just a temporary facility, and I am sure that those honourable senators who have been there will realise this. On 9 November the Minister for Aviation, the Hon. Peter Morris, announced that the Federal Government would spend $1 1/2m to improve Brisbane's international terminal. I wonder whether that might be just throwing good money after bad. With Expo 88 coming up and with Queensland having 45 per cent of all new tourist projects and continuing growth and development because of the good, strong Government in Queensland, I believe it is vital that Queensland get a good international airport. Also a few other problems arise from retaining the present international terminal and not building a new one. Actually, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots say that there will be long delays on the ground before jets can take off, as aircraft wheel assemblies would overheat while they are taxiing out. It also maintains that the distance from the current international terminal to the runway is too long. Also the air traffic controllers said that it was full of World War II style technology and appeared designed not to handle traffic. These are problems that I think we ought to be worried about and, as the air traffic controllers very correctly refuse to compromise passenger safety, there will no doubt be further delays for aircraft landing and taking off. We know that there will be, indeed, congestion at the airport when the Expo comes around. At present it allows for only 1,700 passengers to be processed every hour but we know that there will be many more passengers than that. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.29) —On 11 November I was given leave to continue my remarks later. I was discussing the excessive costs imposed by the cost recovery scheme on aircraft, particularly in the outback. To continue, the bureaucrats in Canberra who thought up the cost recovery scheme failed to realise that for many private aircraft owners in the outback their aircraft are a means of communication. For those in the pastoral industry who use aircraft for aerial mustering, those in the mining industry and many others, the aircraft is much like a car is for Australians in the cities and towns. It is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Small aircraft are part of a vital communications link in the outback and many of the services they provide are to remote Aboriginal settlements and communities, bringing goods and supplies and providing contact between these communities. Of course, with the considerable number of light aircraft that are used in the outback there has to be a means by which people learn to fly. We have flying schools, particularly in Darwin, Batchelor and Alice Springs, but the number is beginning to diminish as costs are becoming too high to train people to fly. This is a pity because, as I have said, aircraft in the outback are a necessity. The overall impact of this cost recovery scheme is bound to impose greater financial burdens on aircraft owners and operators. The larger operators may be able to absorb the costs by passing them on, and the smaller operators could try to do the same thing. In both cases it means increases in air fares for travellers, and when people in Darwin are already paying close to $1,000 for a return fare to an eastern State destination further increases would be the final straw. It means that commercial charter viability is cut back by a downturn in demand with less use of aircraft overall. On the small private operators who rely on aircraft as a link with regional towns or other stations or properties, or a necessary piece of machinery for the operation of their business, the cost will fall on the operator. In view of the facilities available, particularly in the outback, it is plain that the levy is heavy and is, to quite a degree, unwarranted. Whilst the aircraft industry, charter and private, is under seige, at least there is one bright spot on the horizon in the north and the outback and remote areas. I refer to the staff of the meteorological services and the flight service staff, whose assistance and courtesy are a byword to the people of the outback. It gives me some pleasure at least to recognise them in this brief speech. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Sheil: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Michael Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.34) —This paper on Australia's population trends and prospects has been prepared by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It is a very interesting publication and it is well worth reading, as it contains some enlightening facts and figures on what is happening in Australian society today. I should like to single out just some of the trends which are shown up by the paper. The first of these trends is that Australia's population growth rate has been declining for most of the post-war period. I think that that is a fact of which most of us are aware. It is a result of a lower natural increase and low migration rates. It is interesting to see that the reasons for the low natural growth are put down to a number of factors, including the tendency towards smaller families, from an average of six children in the middle of the nineteenth century to 2.5 children in recent years. The period between marriage and the birth of the first child is also increasing, with, as the report states, couples waiting to develop a better economic base before having children. There is also the increase in the tendency towards voluntary childlessness to take into account. We must ask ourselves why people are having fewer children. We may find that in many cases the answer is that having more children costs too much. Many couples have to think very hard about having children. Can they afford children? This reflects very poorly on the way in which the family has been treated. Its needs have been ignored in very many ways, and the time has come for Governments to pay attention to the needs of the basic unit of our society. I turn now to another aspect of the reduction in our growth rate-the low immigration rate. Immigration is a very important element in Australia's population growth strategy, and the report states that in the absence of immigration, natural increase is projected to reach zero growth rate by about 2010. Australia has become a truly multicultural nation, with one in five Australians being born outside Australia. In the last decade, with the problems which have developed in Indo-China we have, as a nation, accepted responsibility for providing homes to some of those fleeing the conflicts in that area. However, I am concerned by the recent indications coming from the office of the Minister that there is a change of attitude to the plight of these people in the Federal Government's approach to refugees. I understand that the Government is concerned to stem the flow of what it terms economic refugees, as opposed to political refugees. By this I understand that it is the Minister's concern that those fleeing, from Kampuchea, say, are fleeing only because Australia offers the prospect of a better social and economic future. But that appraisal fails to take account of the ongoing hostilities in that part of the world, the poor conditions in the refugee camps, and the perilous situation in which many of these people live. Australia has an ongoing responsibility to these people, as have other nations, and we should meet that responsibility. What needs to be stressed is that it is not a responsibility which imposes burdens and brings no benefits-quite the contrary. Australia has benefited enormously from immigration-from the European post-war immigration to the more recent immigration of Indo-Chinese refugees and others. They have all added to the depth of Australian society with their social, cultural, educational and economic contributions to the nation. For example, in the Northern Territory, which I represent in this place, we have a multicultural society that is probably unequalled in any other State. Our population is new and young, and it presents an example that many other areas would do well to follow. In fact, over 90 nations are represented in the Northern Territory. It is a tremendous thing to see the development that is taking place. I often say that looking at the Northern Territory now, with all its multicultural people, one can see a view of what Australia will probably be by the year 2000. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.37) —I recommend to the Senate the Jupp Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services. It is a very well thought out report. It puts forward a number of proposals which I support thoroughly. The main report supports the strengthening of Commonwealth control and development of the English as a second language program. However, it seems that the Cabinet has not read this report or taken much notice of it, because at the same time as we are considering this report, the Government is cutting down that program. It is also important to note that the Jupp report recommends the keeping of an independent institute of multicultural affairs. It waxes lyrical about the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-it says that it is needed to continue its research and education functions-as well as the creation of a new Office of Ethnic Affairs within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to monitor and co-ordinate progress towards access and equity by departments, authorities and State and local governments and other agencies, and the establishment of a new Parliamentary Standing Committee on Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs. It seems that the Government was intent on pre-empting the report, although I believe that it new of its contents. This seems to be part of a general program by the Hawke Government to dismantle completely multiculturalism and its recognition within the Public Service. I am very disappointed at this trend, but I am fairly heartened at the support that apparently will be forthcoming from the Liberal and National parties to save one of the aspects of multiculturalism which I believe to be extremely important-that is, the Special Broadcasting Service-by not supporting the merger of the SBS with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. As well as totally ignoring the contents of the contents of the report, which is called `Don't settle for less', the Government is going about closing down at least three of the regional offices of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This was extremely disappointing to me. The Albury-Wodonga, Rockhampton and Launceston regional offices were closed on 30 September this year. I managed to obtain some answers in the Estimates Committee on this matter. At that stage the Government believed that it would also close down the Newcastle, Wollongong and Geelong offices. However, I believe that representations from the more multiculturally minded members of Caucus have succeeded in stopping that operation. It is a pity that the Government having commissioned such an important report, is going in the opposite direction. I commend the report to the Senate as an important milestone in moving forward towards a sensible handling of our multicultural population, and I would point out that some 45 per cent of Australians are of non-Anglo Celtic descent. I recommend that the Government read the report throughly and recognise that its electoral future depends on that 45 per cent of the community. This Government will find it difficult to get back into power if it continues to kick in the guts migrants and people it thinks will not kick back, as has happened just recently. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.45) —I wish to speak briefly on the Aussat annual report tabled in the Senate on 11 November. It is a most interesting report on Australia's communications system. People in the cities, the country towns and in the outback are entering a very exciting period. The advent of the Aussat satellite operating above Australia will bring communication in so many ways to the people-and, of course, I am particularly interested in the people in the outback. The Chairman of Directors of Aussat, in his letter introducing the report, says: Potential customers have responded to the technical and commercial opportunities created by the satellite system. The challenge now lies with the further development of telecommunications policy and regulatory issues to ensure that Australian gains the full range of potential benefits from the Aussat satellite system. It is good to see that close association is being developed between Aussat and the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Both authorities which are responsible for communications in Australia can bring immense value to Australia. It is interesting to note from the report: Separate contracts have been executed with the Queensland Government and a number of its agencies to establish a state based communications network in Queensland for Government services. Perhaps the report is referring to an interesting experiment that is now taking place at the Mount Isa School of the Air by way of satellite. The leaflet on it says: In a major breakthrough for distance education, eight students from outback north west Queensland are taking part in a high-tech trial using satellites and computers. The year 6 students, all veterans of the School of the Air, are linked to Aussat and can talk to each other and their teachers instantly-a far cry from the days of hand-held radio and horse and buggy travel. The specially chosen year 6 class of 8 children from various parts of outback Queensland have this voice and data satellite network. They also view a regular television program transmitted from the Brisbane studios of the Department of Education at Ashgrove and talk with the studio presenters via the satellite. It is pointed out that there has been a very noticeable change in the children who use this high-tech equipment. Instead of the noise and static of their familiar high frequency radio lessons, they now have a voice link of telephone quality with classmates and teachers. This is extremely good. I wonder what will happen when this experiment ends in December this year. Children of the outback-I do not put this forward as a criticism-are still not getting from Aussat what it was thought they would get when the idea was first put forward; namely, a voice frequency as well as television operation. I do not think Aussat has been able to extend itself to the role that was originally envisaged. One finds in many places a resistance to purchasing the necessary equipment because voice facilities are not included. I hope that to meet the future needs of outback children Aussat will be able to bring in the full range of facilities. That will mean that the purchase of dishes will increase. At the same time I hope that children will have the advantage of high-tech voice production which will be so essential for the School of the Air of the future. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.48) —in reply-I, too, commend the Aussat annual report. It is well presented and issues from an organisation which has been very professionally run. I was interested to read the highlights of the year for Aussat. At this stage the first two satellites have been successfully launched and the third has been built and is ready for launching; it will serve the Pacific region. The commercial services started in October 1985 and the second set of services on 1 January 1986. In fact, the organisation has now marketed the majority capacity of the first two satellites and this work is either contracted or committed. The process that is now going on relates to the planning of the second generation satellites, the lifetime of which is around seven years. We should be thinking about the new types of technology that can be carried through this type of communication media. Australia has been first in developing the remote area HACBSS system-the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service-which is making inland Australia accessible to effective media communication. I join Senator Kilgariff in commending the distance education program and hope that that will develop further. It is to be hoped that more material will be developed for that program so that joint systems using modern technology such as compact discs, cassette tapes and computers in conjunction with satellite communication, will give children from the outback a much better chance of getting the same type and quality of education that Australian students have come to expect in our cities. The second generation system's planning is well advanced, with the first launch of this generation scheduled in 1991-92. I hope that by then the various satellite launching programs in the United States will be back on line after the disasters which struck the space shuttle project. Senator Puplick —I bet you we end up using the Chinese launcher. Senator VIGOR —As Senator Puplick just suggested, we may in fact end up using the Chinese launching program. In fact, it may be worthwhile considering the type of program I heard about when I was up in northern Queensland. I believe that the Government should think about satellite launching from our soil and offering rocket launching on a sub-contract basis. We need to move into the space era because it is here to stay. Whether space technology will be used in the way in which satellites in this current generation are being used, it will still be part of our civilisation-if we still have a civilisation and have not been destroyed by nuclear bombs or various other hazards-whatever happens in the forthcoming years. This is something that Australia must recognise. We must be part of any developments in space, even if it is just in the development of ground stations, for which we have some potential. We should be encouraging Aussat a lot more to use the facilities of our Australian industry in the same way as I have urged the Government to encourage the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and Telecom Australia to do exactly that. I believe that Aussat is to be commended. This is a well-presented annual report and I recommend it as light reading for honourable senators. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Sheil: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.53) —I wish to speak briefly to the statement that was tabled by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) on the new subsidiary company to be known as Telecom Australia (International) Ltd. This is a very interesting statement because it indicates the developments of Telecom Australia and its activities, not only in Australia but now also in various countries overseas. This new development reaching into other countries will be very beneficial for Australia and will bring interaction between those countries and Australia. Already we have Radio Australia, which has been extremely beneficial to continued liaison with and development and knowledge of the countries it reaches. Indeed, when one travels through Indo-China and various parts of South East Asia, one sees just what Radio Australia has gained for this country. I believe that, in reaching out, Telecom will also be able to bring about continued closer developments and associations with those countries. It is good to see that there is an appreciation of Australian technology in those countries of South East Asia. Indeed, this technology will bring about an increase in throughput. By throughput I mean the construction of equipment in Australia. This will mean that turnover will increase and the technology will be more efficient in the years to come. I believe also that when this new company comes into being not only will it provide better communications with these countries, particularly to our north, but it will also mean that the new technology which can be developed in the next few years will have an immense effect on the people of the outback. As I indicated earlier, this is beginning to occur already with the Aussat satellite. I believe that Telecom's improved techniques in communications in the outback are extremely beneficial. About two weeks ago I was on the border of Western Australia and the Northern Territory, not far from Kununurra, and there was a ceremony there for the linking of telephones around Australia. Not only are we seeing an improvement in communications in towns and cities but we are also beginning to see, through the widespread development of Telecom in the outback, the people of the bush being brought into much closer contact with those in the towns and cities of Australia. Not so long ago one had to wait for hours on radio telephones and it was a competition to see who could get the line when so many other people wanted to make calls. One would have to sit alongside the radio telephone for hours. While this is continuing now, there is a planned development which will mean that in the next few years, practically everyone in the outback will be able to have telephone communication which brings them immediately in touch with their cousins in the cities and in other States. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the following Government papers which were tabled this week: Snowy Mountains Council-Annual Report 1985-86. Papua New Guinea Superannuation Scheme-Annual report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 21 of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973. Review of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission-Report. Accident statistics for the 1985-86 financial year-Australian National Railways Commission document. Community Law Reform for the Australian Capital Territory: Second Report-Loss of consortium and compensation for loss of capacity to do housework-Law Reform Commission Report-Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. Accounting Standards Review Board-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to sub-section 266g (2) of the Companies Act 1981. Dried Fruits Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. Australian Bureau of Statistics-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 15 May 1985, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the speech. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.58) —On 15 May 1985 Senator Graham Richardson rose in this place to make a personal explanation regarding allegations which had once again surfaced in regard to the so-called Enmore conspiracy case. On that occasion I have absolutely no doubt that Senator Richardson told the truth, but as we now know, following the publication of the Domican tapes, it may not have been the whole truth. Today is an opportunity for Senator Richardson and other members of the Australian Labor Party, particularly those from New South Wales, to address the Senate once again in regard to the Enmore scandal and this time to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. On 31 October 1986 Senator Chaney put out a Press statement in response to the publication of certain allegations regarding the affairs of the Enmore branch of the Australian Labor Party. Senator Chaney drew attention to the fact that these allegations involved the reputation of a very senior member of the ALP and a very significant member of the Senate, Senator Richardson. Senator Chaney said in his Press statement: That is particularly the case, given the fact that Senator Richardson obviously would like to join the Federal Ministry when Senator Grimes steps down. With the very real prospect that Senator Richardson may become a Minister in the Hawke Government, it is even more important there be no lingering doubt about the propriety of his actions in the Enmore case. That is the matter before the Senate for discussion at the moment. On 2 April 1985 the Enmore conspiracy case was the principal topic of discussion on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program AM. It related to a program previously screened in the United Kingdom which has been made by the British Broadcasting Corporation's Mr Tom Mangold. The ABC reporter said: All of the accused- that is, the people accused of offences arising from the various activities of the Enmore branch- were associated in one way or another with the Party's right wing machine. One of them was a self-confessed political thug, Tommy Domican. Recently the BBC's Tom Mangold was in Australia to produce a television documentary on organised crime and political corruption in this country, and in an interview yet to be shown in Australia, Tommy Domican explained why the prosecution case against him and the others collapsed. Tom Mangold: How many witnesses did the prosecution have? Tommy Domican: About 80, 85, something like that. Tom Mangold: What happened when the case was heard? Tommy Domican: The witnesses had a lapse in memory. Tom Mangold: What happened in between? Tommy Domican: We were able to get transcripts of most of their accusations they levelled at us. We were able to get a copy of them and, which helped us to win the case. Tom Mangold: How did it help you win the case? Tommy Domican: It's good if you go into court and you know what the person said against you. Tom Mangold: Were some of these witnesses visited? Tommy Domican: Yes. The transcript proceeds along that general line. At one stage Domican, in relation to how the material came into his hands and how the case was eventually resolved, said this: It can only be done really and truly by the powers to be, and the powers to be was the Labor Party in the State. We could not have got found guilty. Had we have got found guilty, very high-up officials of the Labor Party would've fell, who were also involved in the rigging of that. Tom Mangold then said: Did you let this be known? Domican replied: Oh yeah, my word. That is a very serious set of allegations. As honourable senators will see in a few moments, I want to deal with the way in which the legal side of the Enmore case was handled. But that last part of Mr Domican's comments, implying that he had let it be known that there were potential problems for members of the Australian Labor Party had he and his colleagues been found guilty, simply passed, as it were, at that stage until on 9 November 1986, almost a year and a half later, the National Times on Sunday produced what it purports to be transcripts of discussions which it is alleged involved Mr Domican and Senator Richardson. The printed transcript, which appeared in the National Times on Sunday, has a number of sections, one of which indicates that Mr Domican referred to a conversation with a person who is simply identified in the transcript published as `R'. Mr Domican said, basically: `I hope you are not going to sell me down the river'. The transcript then reads: R: I'm not selling you down the drain. Domican: Well mate, that's my go, I don't R: Look Domican . . . Domican: Well, I'm telling you straight. If he's going to f-ing sell us down the drain he might f-ing join us. R: Ah . . . Domican: I've some time for Harrison, right? R: Righto. Domican then warns the person alleged to be Richardson: Don't f- around. R: No way, Tommy. Domican: Righto. We see elsewhere in that publication an allegation that Senator Richardson had given an undertaking to intervene with the then Premier of New South Wales to obtain legal aid for Mr Domican in the pursuit of cases which were pending, and in particular the Enmore conspiracy case. This new publication by the National Times of the alleged tapes raises once again the whole question of the conduct of the Enmore case. On 15 May 1985 Senator Richardson read into Hansard the text of a letter which he had addressed to all members of the then New South Wales Government, basically saying to them that the Labor Party in New South Wales wished them to be aware of the fact that it was the Labor Party's view that the Cabinet of the day should intervene to ensure that the police did not pursue their inquiries into the Enmore conspiracy case. Senator Richardson's letter says, in part: We therefore call upon the responsible Ministers of the N.S.W. Government, the Attorney-General, Frank Walker, QC, MP, and the Minister for Police, Peter Anderson, MP, to withdraw those charges which have been laid against ALP members in respect of internal ALP affairs. That was a clear attempt to put pressure on Ministers of the Crown, including the first law officer of the State of New South Wales, to intervene in the judicial processes in New South Wales to ensure that prosecutions not continue against members of the Labor Party for offences which were regarded as internal ALP matters. As we know, the case in fact did proceed to hearing, and it was heard before Magistrate Mr Bruce Brown. As I have previously indicated, the 80 of 85 witnesses previously scheduled to appear and give evidence all had, individually and collectively, a lapse of memory. They suddenly could not remember what it was that they were going to tell the court. Senator MacGibbon —All 85? Senator PUPLICK —All 85 suddenly had this collective amnesia. Some of them, as Mr Domican admits, presumably had been visited on this occasion, not to help jog their memory but in order to help suppress their memory. As a result the case was dismissed. It was dismissed by Mr Brown on the basis that no evidence was put before him because of this collective amnesia on the part of the witnesses. The magistrate, speaking from the bench, indicated that he regarded the matter as so serious that there ought to be further investigations. In May 1985 a number of articles appeared in the Press in which Mr Brown's decision was attacked as being wrong in law. It was suggested that the magistrate should not have dismissed the charges and that it should have been his decision that the matter be pursued. Various legal authorities, including the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Wentworth v. Rodgers, were subsequently analysed. There is no doubt in my mind that the magistrate was wrong in law. A letter dated 10 November 1986 over the signature of the New South Wales Police Commissioner, J. K. Avery, addressed to Mr Paciullo, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in New South Wales, further confirms this. The Police Commissioner in his letter to the Police Minister stated in reference to the Solicitor-General, Ms Mary Gaudron: Subsequently, the Solicitor-General on 23 July, 1985 and 31 July, 1985 addressed the Enmore case and a number of peripheral matters. In respect of the charges relating to the books of the Enmore Branch, she said, `In my view the Magistrate erred in dismissing the charges on the ground which he did.' I put it to the Senate that there remains the residual problem as a result of this Enmore business that the matter has never satisfactorily been dealt with. The Sydney Morning Herald in its editorial on 4 April 1985 called for a full investigation of the extraordinary features of the Enmore case. I believe that the publication of the alleged tapes in the National Times last weekend revives very clearly the legitimate concern that people have about the Enmore case and the need for some form of inquiry into the allegations of which, once again, have surfaced from a case which clearly will not go away until it has been given satisfactory explanation and satisfactory analysis. Senator Tate —Are you doubting the accuracy of the tapes? Senator PUPLICK —Senator Tate asks me a question about the accuracy of the tapes. Let me remind Senator Tate that that was the tired, tawdry line that his front bench served up in this Senate month after month about the Age tapes, was it not? It was the same tawdry line that was served up on every occasion: `Can you verify, can you justify, can you prove?' The tapes were dismissed, were they not, by Senator Gareth Evans, by Mr Lionel Bowen and by the whole of the Australian Labor Party's front bench as worthless, not worth pursuing and not worth investigating. I said on that occasion as I will say on this occasion that, once again, that is not going to be a good enough excuse to cover up what are serious allegations if people have nothing to hide. Here is the Labor Party rabbiting over the country about the Australia Card, `the only people with anything to fear are people who have something to hide'. The only people with anything to fear in the Enmore business are the people with something to hide. So let them apply their own principles on this particular matter, let them have an investigation and let the truth be discovered. Let it be discovered by proper inquiry, with proper powers conducted by proper persons. A number of other matters arise on this issue. They require us to seek some answers for instance as to the relationship between Senator Richardson and Mr Domican. On 17 February 1984 Mr Domican swore a statutory declaration. He stated: I Thomas Christopher Domican of Croydon Park, in the State of NSW do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows: on 17 February 1984 that I have known Warren Anderson for approximately three years and am currently an unfinancial member of the NSW branch of the ALP. An agreement was reached between myself and Graham Richardson, General Secretary of the NSW branch and Warren Anderson whereby Anderson paid me $20,000 a year to work for Graham Richardson in return for preferential treatment for Mr Anderson within the Labor Party. I understood this to mean that Mr Anderson would be given access and favours by Labor Party controlled local government councils in the areas in which he wished to develop. Although I was being paid by Anderson, I was actually employed by Richardson to do what he requested which involved, generally, recruiting members to join the Labor Party. At one lunch in 1982 in a Dixon Street restaurant, Anderson said to Richardson that he wanted to buy land adjoining his place to build a heliport and Richardson replied: ``I will see what I can do and get back to you.'' He added he would have to discuss the matter with the Minister for Planning and Environment, who I'm fairly sure was Mr Bedford at the time. I was paid directly by Anderson in his office by cheque from Owsten Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd or Coles New World. At that time he and Richardson frequently saw each other at lunches discussing Anderson's business. On one occasion I was waiting for Richardson in his Sussex Street offices. He had returned after 4.30 p.m. and remarked, referring to large sums of money, ``Anderson's kicked in some dough. Hang on a minute''. I asked him how much and he replied the sum was $40,000. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the ``Oaths Act of 1900-1953''. It is signed by Mr Domican. One is entitled to know whether, in fact, that is a fabrication by a man who is a rogue, a fraud and a liar or whether it constitutes a serious question which goes to the relationship between a member of this place and a person who has been described in very adverse terms by royal commissioners and by commissions of inquiry. A number of matters arise which go back to the days of the Balmain area of the Australian Labor Party, to the affairs of the East Rozelle branch of the Labor Party, to the bashing of Mr Peter Baldwin, then a member of the State upper House and now a member of the House of Representatives. They go to the question of the relationship between senior members of the Labor Party, including Senator Richardson, with people such as Danny Casey. There has never been any denial of the relationship between Senator Richardson and Danny Casey; there has never been any denial that Casey lent Senator Richardson money which was repaid; and there has never been any denial that Senator Richardson's wife was employed by a company in which Casey had a particular involvement-the Balmain Welding Company, a company well known for its activities in illegal drug trafficking and which was an employer of a notorious criminal by the name of Stan `the man' Smith. All of these matters are discussed at length in the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking in New South Wales conducted by the Hon. Mr Justice Woodward. They are matters of public record. We know from parts of Mr Justice Woodward's inquiry that people, including quite notorious criminals, were involved with meetings and with this particular company and they met in particular hotels such as the Sackville Hotel. There were a number of occasions on which people of a most unsavoury nature, many of whom had notorious criminal records, who were met at that hotel by Senator Richardson. There is no denial of that and indeed I am prepared, if Senator Richardson says so, to accept that that was a perfectly ordinary, perfectly legitimate meeting taking place with nothing more to be imputed to it. For instance, we know that on 18 February 1977 in its meeting the New South Wales administrative committee of the Labor Party named Edward Paul Delaney as the initiator of an incident in which people had been beaten up at a Labor Party meeting. Before Mr Woodward's inquiry in 1980, Casey described Delaney as a fairly close friend of his, one whom he knew had been charged with attempted murder arising out of a stabbing at the Sackville Hotel. We know that Senator Richardson said that he had met this same Delaney at a meeting of the Balmain branch of the Labor Party and on one occasion in the Sackville Hotel when Senator Richardson was there. That is in the transcript of evidence given before Mr Justice Woodward. We know that there is still a series of allegations about the conduct of members of the Australian Labor Party arising out of iterim report No. 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group conducted by His Honour Mr Justice Stewart, involving allegations about members of both houses of this Parliament in effect acting as touts for the Nugan Hand Bank with Labor-dominated councils, people who were prepared to attend luncheons, to facilitate meetings and to facilitate introductions around the place. Mark you, in evidence before Mr Justice Stewart, members of the Labor Party were only too anxious to drop each other in as far as this was concerned. I quote from paragraph 8.16 of Mr Justice Stewart's report: Senator Sibraa told the Commission that he selected Mr McLeay as the person to whom Mr Pittard should speak because at that time Mr McLeay was `the person in the Labor Party office who handled local government matters' or was an alderman of the Marrickville Council . . . Mr McLeay, however, subsequently gave evidence to the Commission that he had nothing to do with local government affairs especially in his capacity as organiser. I referred to this matter in a speech which I made in this chamber on 21 August 1980 about relationships and meetings between people trying to fix various things in local government with officers of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party at the time when Senator Richardson was the General Secretary of that Branch. It seems to me that a large number of matters require some explanation following the publication of these comments in the National Times over the weekend. Among these are the following: One, what is the exact relationship that Senator Richardson has, or had, with Mr Domican? Two, did Mr Domican work for Senator Richardson-then Mr Richardson-paid for by Warren Anderson? Three, did Anderson obtain favours from the Australian Labor Party via any officers of the Australian Labor Party in return? Four, why are there questions which remain unanswered by Senator Richardson in relation to the work done at his home by Anderson's company, Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd? Five, does Senator Richardson still defend putting pressure on the first law officer of New South Wales to drop any attempt to reopen the Enmore case? Six, given the reputation of persons involved-the Domicans, the Meissners and others, did Senator Richardson attempt to get legal aid for these people and to use his influence with the Labor Party and the Labor Government in New South Wales? Seven, why has Senator Richardson continued to frustrate any comprehensive inquiry into the Enmore allegations? Eight, why has the Labor Party in New South Wales failed to pursue the details of the Baldwin bashing? Nine, why has there been no response to the serious charges made in the report of the Stewart Royal Commission? Ten, what are the responses from the Labor Party to Mr Meissner's offer of a package of documents, tapes and photographs for sale? Eleven, why has there consistently been a cover up and why did Senator Richardson consistently defend the role of Mr Casey until it was too late, and too hot, after the Baldwin bashing? Twelve, were these tapes which were reproduced in the National Times at the weekend, in fact in the possession of left wing members of the ALP in New South Wales prior to the 1983 general election and how were they persuaded not to make them public at that stage? Thirteen, what was the role that Senator Richardson and others played in instructing and helping Mr Domican to fix up the Lowe pre- selection to deny the second round preselection to Miss Burnswood? Fourteen, is it true that senior officers of the Labor Party, at the time Senator Richardson was the General Secretary, issued people with instructions as to how to forge branch records? Fifteen, is it true that Senator Richardson, as General Secretary, was involved in transferring dead members from branch to branch, something to which he adverted, at least in passing, in his statement of May 1985? Sixteen, what is the relationship, if any, between Senator Richardson, Mr Delaney and the other crew who hang around Sackville Hotel? Seventeen, who is Barry McCann? Is he a member of the Lilyfield branch of the Australian Labor Party and what is his role in the recent events which are currently unfolding? Allegations made against public figures are very often those which are made by people motivated to destroy individuals. In terms of the Enmore events, what is of most interest is that the attempts to have this matter brought forward, discussed and shown the light of day have come from within the Australian Labor Party. These attempts have come from those people in the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales who do not believe that it is proper that members of a political party should be subject to intimidation by a gang of thugs of the likes of Tommy Domican and who are distressed that the elected officers and senior members of the ruling clique in the New South Wales Labor Party will not help them clean out their own Augean stables. They have not come from this side of the chamber; they have come exclusively from within the ranks of people in the Labor Party in New South Wales who believe that they have been subject to a conspiracy, going back now to the 1970s, of harassment, of threat, of intimidation and of thuggery which, when Senator Richardson had the responsibility, as the General Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Labor Party, he consistently failed and consistently refused to assist in having cleaned up and he was precipitated into action on one of the matters, that of Mr Casey, only after Peter Baldwin had been viciously bashed. Mr President, I put it to you that the true face of the Labor Party in New South Wales during the period of the administration of Senator Richardson as General Secretary is the face that you will see of Peter Baldwin sitting up in his hospital bed showing the way in which Labor politics is really conducted. Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(8.00) —Tonight I have been subjected to a smear by Senator Puplick. Let it be said by me at the start in the clearest and starkest terms that not only have I committed no wrong, no offence, but also, after six years of regurgitated accusations, no one has brought forward any instance of possible wrongdoing by me, including tonight. All we have is smear and innuendo-a blatant attempt to try me in the media. I am sick of it. I will now destroy the accusations and the accusers once and for all. Amid great flurry, I was asked 17 questions by Senator Puplick. There may as well have been 50 or 1,700. However many there are, they will all be answered. In the hurried way that I had to write down the accusations as they came, I am not exactly certain that I got them all. But let me say that I am stunned that, with all of the build-up and all of the drama of the last few weeks, particularly in the State Parliament, not one new fact could be produced tonight. Not only did the State Liberal Party suffer so badly in the State Parliament on Tuesday, with the Premier, Mr Unsworth, and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, George Paciullo, destroying their accusations; but also tonight Senator Puplick puts his credibility on the line. I can say for certain that, by the time this saga is over, Nick Greiner will regret it; John Dowd already regrets it, and Senator Puplick will also. Let us take the 17 questions. The first was: What is the exact relationship that Senator Richardson has or had with Mr Domican? As to `has', the answer is none. It is a pretty simple answer. All honourable senators will have watched the television, read the papers and will have seen him attack me over the last four years. As to `had', as I have stated publicly before, because of my actions Meissner was put out of the Australian Labor Party before the Baldwin bashing. The Enmore branch's charter was withdrawn before the Baldwin bashing. As far as Domican was concerned, I, and I alone, withdrew him from a preselection ballot by telling him that there was no way that we would endorse him to stand. Through my actions, he finished up being kicked out of the Party. If we are to look at the relationship with Tom Domican, let us go back six years. It is all wonderful in hindsight, but let us look at what happened then. He was not the multi-media personality of today. There had been no well-publicised court appearances. There had not been any court appearances. He was not under any form of investigation. He was a garbo, an ordinary Party member. He never held any office in the ALP either at Federal electorate council, State electorate council or local level. No one knew of his criminal record until the time of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking in 1984; that is, the criminal record that existed many years earlier in England. He was a friend of John Harrison, who was the Mayor of Marrickville, who was a friend of mine. I was the Secretary of the Party of which they were both members. The second question was: Did Mr Domican work for Senator Richardson, then Mr Richardson, and was he paid by Warren Anderson? Senator Puplick did not reach back just a few years. He reached back 10 years in going back to find every allegation that has ever been made against me. But apparently he forgot that in the Senate on 28 February 1984 I denied those accusations. Domican was employed by Anderson for a period of a year as a security guard. That had nothing to do with me. That accusation alone cost Rosemary Foot a lot of money, her job and her career. If Senator Puplick persists, it will cost him the same. The third question was: Did Anderson obtain favours from the ALP via any officers of the ALP in return? I presume that means from myself or from anybody else. The answer quite clearly is no. If one looks at Warren Anderson's record in New South Wales, one can see time and again where State Government action frustrated his developments. The fourth question was: Why are there questions that remain unanswered by Senator Richardson in relation to work done at his home by Anderson's company, Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd? I previously ignored this. I was asked questions on it by Brian Toohey of the National Times on Sunday. Quite frankly, I would not tell Brian Toohey the time, let alone answer questions about my house. But, on a more serious note, I do not consider my family and my home to be the business of the Senate. However, since I have to destroy these accusations and those who seek to raise them, let me say this: Warren Anderson paid nothing for my home. I did not pay $45,000, as reported. I paid over $100,000. I borrowed money to do it. I am still in debt because of it. Furthermore, just for the record, Multiplex is not Warren Anderson's company. Senator Puplick got that wrong too. The fifth question was: Does Senator Richardson still defend putting pressure on the first law officer of New South Wales to drop any attempt to reopen the Enmore case? I must ask: Why did not Senator Puplick or anybody else in the Liberal Party raise this at the time? It appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. It was not kept secret. I did it openly. Not only did I do it openly; at a State conference we had a unanimous decision calling on the police to stay out of internal affairs. The decision, which I conveyed to every Minister-not just Mr Walker; Senator Puplick should remember that; I told every Minister-was a unanimous decision of the administrative committee also. At the time everybody in the Party, from the right, the left and the centre, agreed with what we were doing. I was the Secretary of the Party. I conveyed the decisions of the 1981 State conference and of the administrative committee. That was my job. Furthermore, in the 90 years of the Labor Party's existence, falsification of records in the Labor Party never attracted the attention of the police, and they have not since Enmore, even though there have been a number of well-publicised instances. They should never have attracted attention then. I said in the letter that the Solomon affair in the Liberal Party, the joke of the North Sydney preselection, should not be the subject of a police investigation and neither should the stacking of a branch's fascists into the Liberal Party. The sixth question was: Given the reputation of persons involved, the Domicans, the Meissners and others, did Senator Richardson attempt to get legal aid for these people and use his influence? Presumably, that means influence to get legal aid. I would certainly have made inquiries about legal aid; let me say that. But let us also face the fact that when we are talking of Domican and Meissner in the Enmore case the word `others' is pretty important. Also charged was Allan Johnson, a friend of mine since I was 10 years old, an executive officer of my father's union, a great Australian, a mail sorter at the Sydney Mail Exchange who carried shrapnel around in his body from World War II and who was having to go to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital during that hearing to get treatment just to keep himself alive. Of course I wanted to help him and I am proud of that. No influence was exercised. I made inquiries. They did not get legal aid. They were not entitled to it because legal aid did not apply to committal proceedings. The seventh question was: Why has Senator Richardson continued to frustrate any comprehensive inquiry into the Enmore allegations? Obviously, Senator Puplick and honourable senators opposite did not know what happened in the State Parliament on Tuesday. If I get the time later, I will make sure that they do. The Police Commissioner gave an answer to the Police Minister. In it he said that the principal investigators involved in the Enmore case-Detective Inspector, now Senior Detective Inspector, Kelly and Detective Chief Superintendent Newall, now retired-had been interviewed. They had advised that there were no instances of Labor Party officials having refused to co-operate at any time. He also went back to the previous Commissioner, Mr Abbott, and the previous Assistant Commissioner, Mr Whitelaw. They all said that there was complete co-operation from the Labor Party at all times. The eighth question was: Why has the Labor Party in New South Wales failed to pursue the details-I think that was the word used-of the Baldwin bashing? When one looks at the details one sees that there were two assailants; they attacked in the dark; they were masked; apparently they did not speak; and Peter Baldwin could not help in identifying them. It is not all that surprising that the police found it a bit difficult to identify them. Nevertheless, their inquiries continue. That is a file that will never be closed; nor should it be. The ninth question was: Why has there been no response to the serious charges made in the report of the Stewart Royal Commission? We had a royal commission and Mr Justice Stewart reported. When he reported he said that Domican was a witness who was prepared to, and did, lie upon oath to suit his own purposes. He said that Domican prevaricated and lied repeatedly. He also said that I was a truthful witness. I came out of that inquiry with my head held high. I still hold it in the same direction. The tenth question was: What are the responses from the Labor Party to Mr Meissner's offer of a package of documents, tapes and photographs for sale? I will have more to say about that a little later, but at this stage all I can say is that I wish someone would buy it. If someone is foolish enough to pay the $550,000 that John Dowd was asking News Ltd to pay or the $400,000 for which everybody else tells me it has been offered, I wish he would. I would love to have it examined. At least Nick Greiner did us one favour. By producing a list of documents that are supposed to be in it he showed me just how silly it all is. Neither I nor anybody else in the Labor Party has anything to fear from that package. The eleventh question was: Why has there been consistently a cover-up, and why had Senator Richardson consistently defended the role of Mr Casey until it was too late and too hot? I knew Casey; that is no secret. I gave evidence about it before the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking. Contrary to Senator Puplick's claim that Balmain Welding Company was involved in drug trafficking, after seven years of investigating Casey's personal and company life Mr Justice Woodward could make no adverse finding against him. Casey's branch's charter was withdrawn, and he resigned from the Party. The twelfth question was: Were the tapes reproduced in the National Times at the weekend in fact in the possession of left wing members of the Australian Labor Party prior to the 1983 general election? I think the other part of the question was: How were they persuaded not to make them public at that stage? I would say to Senator Childs that he knows the record pretty well. If there were tapes in the possession of the Left that could do me damage prior to the 1983 election, the 1980 election, the 1977 election, or any event as far back as the Reichstag fire, honourable senators would have heard all about them; they would have heard plenty about them. The Left has never been backward in criticising me. That is its right. I suspect that at least one left wing member of the Party had the tapes, namely, David Halpin. I do not know whether he gave them to anyone else, but why would it matter? The Left did not need to produce those tapes. John Dowd produced them for it in the State Parliament way back in February 1983. John Dowd had been meeting Tom Domican; he had them. He made the allegations about legal aid; they led nowhere; they were nothing. The thirteenth question was: What was the role that Senator Richardson and others played in instructing and helping Mr Domican to fix the Lowe preselection to deny the second round of preselection to Miss Burnswood? I am stunned by that. It beggars the imagination. I do not know how to reply to it, except to say that I doubt very much whether Tom Domican had the capacity to influence one voter in the Lowe preselection. If he knew anyone, it was in the Marrickville end of Grayndler, miles away from Lowe. I cannot remember the figures-it is too long ago-but Michael Maher won very comfortably because he had an easy majority of support amongst the rank and file. He bolted in. He did not get help from Domican; he did not need it. The fourteenth question was: Is it true that senior officers of the Labor Party at the time Senator Richardson was the General Secretary issued people with instructions as to how to forge branch records? The answer to that is no. Again, I only wish someone would produce the documents. The difficulty with this is that it is very easy to smear. A person just repeats the allegations. The Press is gullible enough; it will give him a front page every time. I hope we are now getting to the stage where those in the Press Gallery realise that this is very old material. Senator Puplick went back 10 years in dredging up allegations against me. I have appeared before two royal commissions. I have given my responses to questions. I have been questioned for hours. I came out of both of them with absolutely nothing to worry about; I do not worry now. The fifteenth question was: Is it true that Senator Richardson, as General Secretary, was involved in transferring dead members from branch to branch, something to which he adverted, at least in passing, in his statement of May 1985? I do not know to what I adverted in May 1985, but I answered the question in the AM program last Friday week. I said then that the procedure involved for clearances in the Labor Party at the time-I think it is still the same-was that branch secretaries sent in clearances; they gave details of members' tickets. If the members' tickets checked out in relation to the files, I signed a clearance. Wow! There are 21,000 members of the Labor Party in New South Wales. I do not know them all. I wish I did, but I do not. If one member had died and a secretary sent me in a form suggesting that the member was alive, I would not have known; I may have signed the clearance. I doubt very much, however, whether there are as many dead-uns as has been suggested. It is the same old package. It is talked about, but we never see it. The sixteenth question was: What is the relationship, if any, between Senator Richardson, Mr Delaney and the other crew who hang around the Sackville Hotel? I have not been in the hotel for seven or eight years; I do not really know them. I have to say, though, that the time I have spent with Delaney is so short that I doubt that I would recognise him if he walked in the door. The seventeenth question was: Who is Barry McCann? Is he a member of the Lilyfield branch of the Australian Labor Party and what is his role in recent events which are currently unfolding? I would not know who the hell he is. The name Barry McCann means absolutely nothing to me. He is not someone I can recall ever meeting or knowing. I do not know whether he is a member of the Lilyfield branch. I do not think it is worthwhile my finding out. Given that I have never heard of him and I do not know him, whatever he has done is of no concern and no interest to me. On 14 May last year I spoke in relation to this matter. I did not need to speak; I chose to speak. My speech was effective enough to put paid to the Enmore story and to see the story lie dormant for 18 months. I put to rest some of the myths, but not all; I did not have time. There are even more now, and there will be more at a later time. At the end of my speech Senator Chaney moved that the Senate take note and sought leave to continue his remarks. We have all had to wait breathlessly for 18 months to hear another word about it in this place. These are not the first Liberals with problems of waiting. Nick Greiner and John Dowd had problems, too. They have been sitting on information on the Enmore case, albeit useless and irrelevant, for almost four years. In February 1983, after the meeting with Domican, of which we have photographs, Dowd produced the tape about legal aid. Because some members of the media are so forgetful, they printed it as a brand new story two weeks ago. It was not; it was old news. I did not bother to comment at the time on the allegation. It went by, and was never again raised. It has been ignored for that period. It meant nothing, and it led nowhere. It did not and could not amount to an illegality on my part. Even Greiner, on national television, said he did not allege any illegality on my part. Three years after he came into possession of that tape-in February 1986-John Dowd was again acting in collusion with those people whom he, Greiner, and those opposite now smear me for having known. This time he rang senior executives of News Ltd and offered them the package for $550,000. At the same time he apparently received copies of a few more tapes. Again, Dowd and Greiner waited. It happens a lot in the Liberal Party. They did not rush into the Parliament with the material. They did not rush to the Police Commissioner with the material. They shoved it in a cupboard. They kept it in a bottom drawer. By the time this saga has ended they will wish to God they had left it there. Senator Puplick declared that these matters are so important that they must be debated in the national Parliament. Yet his State colleagues sat on the information-some of it for four years and some of it for nine months. This stuff is so old it has whiskers on it. Let us have a look at what Greiner did with the material he had and, more importantly, with the material he gave the impression he had, but failed to produce to the Commissioner of Police-and which he was forced to admit later on television that he did not have anyway. He listed the documents supposed to be in the package. But he conveniently omitted the first item of the package. Senator Puplick totally omitted the incident that that first item referred to-the Love Boat. All honourable senators will remember the Love Boat. I remember it. The first item of this package at the time was supposed to be photos of six Labor members of parliament and one prospective Liberal leader cavorting naked on the boat. Why did Greiner fail to mention that that was the first item? Why did Senator Puplick fail to mention the Love Boat in this half-hour bucket on me, this half-hour collection of allegations made over the last decade? They omitted it because they know, as the whole world knows, that no photograph of that kind ever existed. The package, and what was in it, was shonky, like the rest of the package which Dowd tried to sell. Anyone who heard my interview, by the way, on AM last Friday week, 31 October, knows that I gave that interview on the basis that Greiner had the package. I assumed he must have been mug enough to buy it from his friend Dowd. I was prepared to assume that because the Australian newspaper, among others, had been told so by Greiner that he did have the package. But, as has always happened on the Enmore affair, when someone blackening my name has had the opportunity to put up or shut up, that person has shut up again. For two long weeks in that State Parliament since then not a word came from these people-not a word from Greiner, except for an audible groan from him when Premier Unsworth revealed that John Dowd was involved in trying to sell the fake package. I want to take the opportunity to answer some of Greiner's claims, because that is where all this new run of old material springs from. He said I `did not co-operate with the police'. The day after the Baldwin bashing I sought an interview with the Police Commissioner. I went to see him and the senior officer he had assigned the task of investigating the bashing, Barney Ross, who is now, I think, Deputy Commissioner, or in some very senior position. I offered full co-operation. I went with John Johnson, the President of the Legislative Council. All documents asked for by the police investigators were produced. I never refused any request; I never delayed any response. Just to bear that out, in a letter dated 10 November 1986 the current Police Commissioner said: The principal investigators involved in the Enmore case were Detective Inspector D. W. Kelly and Detective Chief Inspector D. Newell. These officers have been interviewed and have advised that there have been no instances of Labor Party officials having at any time refused to co-operate with police in the investigation of the Enmore conspiracy. Similar statements were obtained from former Commissioner Abbott and former Senior Assistant Commissioner Whitelaw. It was just a stupid allegation, totally wrong like all of them. Greiner also claimed: First among the reasons why the Government is deserving of censure on this matter is its failure after four and a half years to take up the police recommendation of an ex-officio indictment. He repeated this claim the following day on the John Laws program-wrong again. This is the response of the Police Commissioner, Mr Avery, to that allegation: There has never been an application by this Department for an ex-officio indictment. But despite the lies and the deceit inherent in the attacks on myself, Greiner was almost Goebbels-like in his next act. In a masterstroke of propaganda, folders full of documents were produced for the cameras. This was the material to be handed over to the police-so we were told. But what happened by the time these folders reached the Police Commissioner's office? They had shrunk. All that was produced was a few tapes and a transcript. A Greiner staffer, in handing over the material, informed the police that the tapes were practically inaudible. Yet there was no claim on the Liberals' part that the transcript necessarily matched the tapes. Senator Puplick referred to the tired, tawdry line of Australian Labor Party senators and members of the House of Representatives disputing the accuracy of the Age tapes. Whatever the Age tapes were in terms of illegal productions, they were produced by police on, we will say, sophisticated equipment. These tapes were not. Whoever produced these did a pretty awful job. The National Times on Sunday has now kindly printed the transcripts. In view of the headline to the accompanying article, its lawyers had better be at the top of their form, because those tapes are crook and the National Times on Sunday will pay dearly and so will Nick Greiner. His career will be in tatters. But I will say this for Greiner: Given the phenomenal run that that effort got-the one full page and one front page in the newspapers-I will give him six out of ten for politics, nought out of ten for morals and minus ten for integrity. Barrie Unsworth said in State Parliament on Tuesday: The Police Minister has asked the Commissioner to investigate all the tapes and documents. If there is any suggestion of illegality or an ounce of sustainable evidence, then there will be a full investigation. I will pursue any question of wrongdoing relentlessly. Anyone who knows Barrie Unsworth and knows the sort of fellow he is knows that he will be true to his word. But we had all better wait, before we get carried away in this chamber or anywhere else, until the police get a chance to report on those tapes. I would like to get the opportunity myself to hear and listen to what these tapes say. I want to know how good they are. More importantly, though, let us examine why the matter was raised in State Parliament two weeks ago and why we are hearing about it tonight. The matters were raised because Tom Domican has made several well publicised court appearances. This gave the Opposition in New South Wales the chance to spread its slander and be guaranteed good coverage. Domican has spent several years attacking me. I do not want to do any more tonight in terms of responding to him, because the fact is that when one is before the court one has to come up for trial, and I want to make sure that he gets a fair trial, as every citizen is entitled to. But I repeat tonight that, as far as I am concerned, at the time of these allegations he was a garbo, an ordinary member of the Party. Sure he flexed his muscles at Party meetings. Sure he made a pest of himself with a lot of people. But there was no suggestion at that time of criminal activity on his part. What standard of behaviour is set for me? I do not ask everyone I meet about his record. I am not expected to. If someone has no record, has never been charged and is under no investigation, what am I supposed to do? The Labor Party is not equipped to investigate criminal accusations. The weakness of the Labor Party in that 12-month period was that when assaults occurred it was pretty hard for Party committees to get involved. We had disputes committees asking us for legal opinions as to how they could be sued if they were prepared to hear evidence. We had a lot of problems in grappling with it. I do not claim that every response I made and every action I took was perfect. No one can ever claim that. But I will say this: At the end of the day-too late according to some; in my view it could not have been done earlier-all the troublesome elements went. They went because all of us were prepared to take action-and in the end I did. I got rid of those people who have been talked about tonight. Delaney was got rid of 10 years ago. That was nothing new. But it was done, because when we had proof we always acted. On the Baldwin bashing, the Labor Party could not have been expected to solve the question. The police, hopefully, one day may. I, and every member of the Labor Party, will give them co-operation in doing so. But I have to say this: I am tired of Enmore. I have had to answer this time and again. All that happens is that the same allegations are raised and I have to repeat the same responses. It is old and it is tired. It does not have much life left in it now, and by the time investigations into the tapes and the transcripts are completed, no one will raise the question of Enmore in this chamber or anywhere else again. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.30) —An American musical on the life of Fiorello La Guardia included in it a song relating to Tammany Hall, in which La Guardia, in his success over the Democrat machine in his campaign, asked an election rally, `What does T.A.M.M.A.N.Y. spell?' The response was, `Tyranny'. His reply was, ` ``Tammany'' spells ``Tyranny'' like R.A.T. spells ``rat'' '. In this case, we should change it to, ` ``Tammany'' spells ``Tyranny'' like ``A.L.P.'' spells ``Pal'', in a slightly muddled way', because this relates to the old pals act. Senator Georges —You have got yourself all mixed up. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Yes, it is a very mixed up `pal' in the Australian Labor Party, and it is the old pals act that really should be concerning us tonight. It is what happens when people seek to protect their own rather than allow the reality of the judicial system to do the right thing. I commend Senator Richardson for the sections of his speech where he has quite directly taken on reality, both tonight and on 15 May 1985, in particular in the section in his May 1985 speech where he said: The reason that some unscrupulous people in the Labor Party have tried to manipulate and falsify branch records over the years is to ensure extra votes in preselections. Really, I would think that that is the crux of the matter. I commend Senator Richardson on his taking the view that if information is fully revealed, he will be pleased. I notice that on 10 November the Sydney Morning Herald reports him as having said that he welcomed the production of any evidence. That means that we are all on the same track; we are all going down the same path. But before I proceed down that path, let me just note a couple of observations that concern me about Senator Richardson's speech tonight. In the first place, he said, as I understood it, that he had got Domican out of the Party by the time of the Baldwin bashing, and certainly had got him out of the Enmore branch. I must say that that confuses me. I should like to know-and I think that everyone has a right to know-what date Domican was got rid of, because Ms Burnswood gives the clear impression that he was still in the Labor Party and still representing the head office when in a television program she gave an inference that he was there at meetings to terrorise her supporters to ensure that she did not get pre-selection for the seat of Lowe. In support of that suggestion, I quote from the transcript of the Panorama report in which Ms Burnswood-the Senate will recall that she was the candidate who stood against Sir William McMahon in Lowe and came fairly close to beating him in 1980, and then stood once again for pre-selection in January 1982 against Mr Michael Maher, who eventually became the candidate-is recorded as quite proudly stating that she is a member of the left wing. In the transcript she is reported as follows: The machine- that means the head office machine of the Labor Party- was worried that I was going to win- that is, win pre-selection- and when I was not supposed to win, and therefore it was necessary to remove that candidate- herself- and bring in someone who could be seen as a far more acceptable candidate. This is not Tom Domican talking. This is not some crook or someone that Senator Richardson has got out of the ALP. This is a left wing candidate who got rolled for pre-selection because, she says, `I wasn't supposed to win by head office'. Senator Sheil —She had stood for them before. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —She had stood before, as the honourable senator says, and had performed very well before. The commentator on the Pannorama program then interposed this: In order to help some of her constituents make up their minds, a familiar figure suddenly turned up-Domican. There are a few left wingers giving them a bit of trouble. Then Ms Burnswood went on: I don't remember him making any sign-just this frightening, very still, very fixed sort of presence in the room. Then she went on: He had two habits. One was to sit on the side of the hall and stare fixedly for a long time, with what I can only describe as a glittering eye, and I found that quite frightening. The left wing Labor candidate for Lowe, who then failed to get re-endorsed after having performed so well, because head office did not want her, found him frightening. That is what he was there for-to frighten her and to frighten her supporters. She continued: He had another habit of sitting either alongside someone or behind someone and cracking his knuckles just behind their neck. That is the suave and sophisticated way in which, apparently, the right wing machine operates to ensure that the wrong candidate, who happens to be a left winger, does not get pre-selection in a seat which its members consider they are going to win. It seems to me vital that if Senator Richardson wishes to convey to us a genuine impression that there were no relations between him or the head office of the ALP and Mr Domican by the time that this happened, or by the time of the Baldwin bashing, or shortly after Enmore or the Rozelle East branch arrangements, we must know the dates. What are the dates? It is all very well responding to Senator Puplick's questions by just dismissing them. The reality is that if there is to be a convincing response to Senator Puplick's questions, simple things like the dates of such matters must be provided as those happen to be absolutely vital. Until we can see when there was no further relationship of any kind between the Labor Party and Mr Domican, I am afraid that it is very difficult to accept that there was no continuing relationship. It is very difficult to accept that Ms Burnswood is not a credible witness. It is very difficult to accept that Mr Domican was not continuing his activities for head office-at least as recognised not only by Ms Burnswood but by other members of the left wing. I will go into what they have been saying later because it is well documented. That is important: It has been well documented. Another point of difficulty that I have with what Senator Richardson had to say tonight was when he said `I knew Casey'. Senator Puplick dealt at some length with the Rozelle East branch and Mr Casey. Senator Richardson then said: `Woodward made no adverse finding against him'. Let me quote from another newspaper report which gives a totally different suggestion altogether from the impression conveyed by Senator Richardson tonight. The Sydney Morning Herald reports: Justice Woodward, in his NSW drugs royal commission, refused to make a positive finding that Mr Casey . . . was not involved in drugs, partly because- and here I quote Mr Justice Woodward: I regard Casey's explanations of relevant matters as unreliable or unacceptable. Yet Senator Richardson says here tonight: `Woodward made no adverse finding against him'. What on earth is Senator Richardson trying to do here tonight when it is so simple to check evident facts such as that? How can the Senate take on board and accept at face value statements he has made about information which is not readily available to us-for example, the proposition that Domican had nothing more to do with the ALP at the time these evident things were being spoken of and were currency? We certainly are aware of the relationship of Senator Richardson before he was a senator-and none of the matters I seek to raise tonight have anything to do with Senator Richardson's role as a senator, and I have no intention of pursuing anything of that kind, as my concern is with the management of the State Branch of the Labor Party-but I acknowledge Senator Richardson's comment that he did know Casey well, if only because the senator's wife was employed by Balmain Welding Company in May 1977 at approximately $130 a week but she did not have to attend the office. The typing was reportedly sent home so that she could do it at home. I raise the question of Mr Casey because it is alleged by left wing members of the Labor Party in NSW that the Rozelle East situation was far more disgraceful than that at the Enmore branch. Once again I quote from a report in the Sydney Morning Herald about Mr Baldwin, who at the time of the bashing was the key left wing investigator into rigging of inner city ALP branches and the infiltration of criminal elements, lodging a report to the ALP alleging almost total fabrication of records at the Rozelle East branch. He and another left winger regarded the alleged fraud in Rozelle East as bigger than at the Enmore ALP Branch. The report continues: Police began investigating Rozelle East and Enmore branches after the bashing on July 19 1980-and Mr Baldwin told them that a possible motive for the bashing lay in his inquiries into both branches. But while police mounted a conspiracy case against six former members of Enmore ALP Branch-they were all later acquitted under the most curious circumstances, as outlined by Senator Puplick-the police investigations into Rozelle East stopped without explanation. I suppose it is reasonable for the Senate to wonder why. In the new forthcoming answering of questions approach that Senator Richardson is adopting perhaps he could add that to the list and tell us. No action has been taken against any former official of Rozelle East, by either the police or the ALP. I wonder what the left wing members of the ALP in NSW think about that. Mr Baldwin's complaints about Rozelle East dated back to December 1976, when he and another left winger, Mr Rodney Cavalier, wrote to the State ALP alleging that the attendance book was a fraud and calling for the branch's charter to be withdrawn. That was in 1976. Is it not remarkable that that branch lasted until July 1980, about four years later, before magically, three days after the Baldwin bashing, it lost its charter? One wonders how these things magically happen. There is no doubt about the reports that left wingers were angry, not only at this course of events but also at the fact the former officers of both Enmore and Rozelle escaped any party discipline whatsoever, and that charges laid against them up to four years previously by other ALP members have not been allowed by party chiefs to proceed. We all know that the Rozelle East branch was the power base of former Deputy Mayor of Leichhardt Alderman Daniel Patrick Casey, the person we have discussed as Senator Richardson's friend-`I knew Casey', as he told us tonight. Senator Grimes —Did you know Askin? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Neither I nor any member of my family received any emoluments of any kind from the late Mr Askin. The most intriguing issue that seems to me to emerge from this is that what Senator Richardson seemed to be doing was making a sort of de facto admission that the tapes do exist and are real, even if a little hard to hear. I am also concerned about another point that he made, and that is an allegation that the State Opposition in New South Wales made no remarks, did not raise this issue, for four years. That is absolute nonsense. The Enmore conspiracy case was raised in the State House on 29 October last year; it was raised again on 19 March this year. In each case the Opposition was asking: `What has happened to police inquiries?'. That other point made by Senator Richardson was simply untrue. There has been action. It is untrue to say that there has been no word on this from the Opposition. On the question of the Baldwin bashing, I think that there have been 14 questions in the Upper House in New South Wales over this matter since it took place, and since nothing has proceeded. As I understand the matter, the Government has failed after four and a half years to take up the police recommendation of an ex officio indictment in the Enmore matter. The police, I understand, have been seeking an ex officio indictment on the Enmore case since 1982, shortly after the charges were dismissed by magistrate Bruce Brown on a basis, as Senator Puplick said tonight, that did not seem appropriate at the time and was bad in law. Two more reports in April and May last year were made on this question, supported by a legal assessment by the police prosecutions branch, to the effect that the magistrate's findings were wrong in law. As I said, the Opposition raised these matters. In March of this year the Minister for Police and Emergency Services told the State Opposition that `further police inquiries were almost complete'. Well, nothing has happened. We have all heard the quotes from Mr Domican on the Panorama program relating to this matter where, as Senator Puplick said, Domican told the people of Britain: We could not have got found guilty. Had we have got found guilty, very high-up officials of the Labor Party would have fell, who were also involved in the rigging and that. One wonders, is that the reason for this magical failure to proceed, despite continuous requests from the State Opposition in New South Wales. We have heard about the package of documents concerning the Enmore case that was on offer to the media and the Labor Party has been trying to make some capital out of allegations that it was for sale and as to the persons involved. It was as if somehow that will diminish the reality of what that package was all about. Can they explain away from that package what is alleged to be a handwritten note by Mr Leo McLeay on how to forge records in the Enmore Branch and an alleged directive by Mr Graham Richardson to transfer seven members from other branches to Enmore, at a time when those members were deceased. As Senator Richardson quite properly said, as General Secretary he would not have known whether those members were alive or dead. There is no doubt that he has a sound point to make. There is in this package original records from the Enmore branch, statements by crown witnesses in the Enmore case-about 60 of them-which, as Senator Puplick said, helped the defence considerably. There is an alleged note in Steven Loosley's handwriting signed `Steve' on the selection of legal representatives in the Enmore case; instructions allegedly in Loosley's handwriting regarding the Labor party meeting legal expenses for the case and paying for a holiday for Joe Meissner, who was heavily involved in this, as well as receipts relating to that holiday; and handwritten instructions from head office on how to remove Owen Wright from the Enmore Branch, as well as originals of a large number of taped conversations. All this is true, and the point was made in the State Parliament. All this might have had an air of fantasy if it were not for two of these tapes, which Tom Domican released and which it is understood, as Senator Puplick mentioned, Senator Childs, for example, may have had access to before the 1983 election. We know that the left wing has been very cross indeed about the whole question of what went on. One of the tapes is a record of a discussion between Joe Meissner and Keith Challenger, an organiser for the Electrical Trades Union of Australia and then a mainstay of the machine. In it Meissner warns Challenger: You don't probably know this . . . I don't think I ever told you that Leo McLeay wrote out a document telling me and John and the other people how to rig the books. That is not direct evidence, it is only third hand, but nonetheless all these tapes and this information surely are material which reflects very badly indeed on the conduct of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. Challenger's reaction to these tapes was not to reject that suggestion as highly improbable and a fraud but to nervously ask: Where is the document?' All this seems to support very throughly the allegations that the left wing of the Labor Party in New South Wales has been maintaining for many years about the Enmore conspiracy case. I quote these allegations, which include: The New South Wales Right's recent protestations of concern about the type of people joining the party is nothing more than an obscene joke . . . That Harrison and Domican were welcome visitors in the office of Graham Richardson and Steven Loosely . . . In the words of Peter Baldwin, when interviewed by the New South Wales police: One of my main objections to Richardson is that he has a strong association with these what I regard as nasty machines in the area. I think it's a bad thing when a senior party official allows himself to become enmeshed with the sort of people he's become enmeshed in. If Senator Richardson really feels that he has the capacity to reject these things for all time-and I must say that it would give me no pleasure if he did not do so-then for heaven's sake he should do so in a more effective manner than he has done tonight. It seems to me that what has happened cannot be brushed away by a statement like the one that Senator Richardson made tonight when it is clear that what is needed is a proper inquiry. A proper inquiry has not taken place during the six years since this whole range of activities occurred. I am not referring simply to Enmore. I am referring also to the rigging, to the threats, to the evidence of fraud, which, I must say, goes on at some lengths in the New South Wales machine. It seems to me that the whole question, apart from the question of allegations by Domican that he visited witnesses who had sudden lapses of memory, is far more serious than that. Why has there not been a proper judicial inquiry or something held into the assault on Peter Baldwin? Why has nothing happened? I presume that it is because of the iron law of the Labor Party which prevents its members from allowing these things to go outside the Party, not because of what is right and wrong or because of issues of morality, but simply because the ALP likes to keep things within its structure. In fact, the motion put forward by Senator Richardson, to which he adverted tonight, was a resolution preventing members of the Party from publicly airing internal party grievances. `Internal party grievances' meant fraud, forgery, the theft of branch records, assault and alleged assault and the takeover of several inner city branches by organised crime. This resolution was effectively telling the Left to abide by the code of silence, no matter how significant that might be in terms of its impact on society as a whole. We must recognise that these days political machines and political parties are being funded publicly. Where there is fraud and corruption within the structure of a party, it is no longer an internal party matter and can no longer be excused on the basis of the lengthy justification that Senator Richardson gave in the Senate in his last long statement here when he outlined the letter he had written pleading with the New South Wales Government not to allow the police inquiry into the Enmore branch because it should be an internal matter. The reality is of course that the ALP in New South Wales has a long history of refusing to co-operate with police investigations in that State. In 1972 there was bribery and forgery in the Shortland preselection. The fraud squad reported then that, because of the refusal of the ALP to make available key documentation, it was unable to carry its inquiries to completion. The following year the fraud squad was investigating allegations of bribes demanded by ALP alderman in Marrickville and again the State Secretary of the Party refused to co-operate and again police investigations were terminated as a result. The same law of silence prevailed in the Botany Council case in 1974-75 and that case involved the present Minister for Public Works and the former Chief Magistrate of New South Wales who subsequently resided for some time at Her Majesty's pleasure. When the former Premier of New South Wales, who was then the Leader of Opposition, was asked about this matter and whether he would speak to investigating police, he said: `I feel that I should not be subjected to a lengthy interrogation'. That was that. That seems to be the pattern of this matter. The Government's inaction on the Enmore case and the Baldwin bashing is now a matter of international notoriety and it is a scandal even in New South Wales. It is incredible that the State Government of New South Wales has taken more than six years to tell us that the police investigations into the brutal bashing of a member of the State Parliament, as he was at the time, perhaps even the attempted murder of that member, have elicited no additional evidence and that absolutely nothing has happened. I remind the Senate that absolutely nothing has happened in New South Wales to pursue the murderer of Donald Mackay. It was only the Victorian police force which managed to arrange a prosecution on the basis of conspiracy because the conspiracy to murder took place in Victoria, and that is where the criminal charge was laid. The murder itself took place in New South Wales but we have had no prosecution there. I do not want to try to draw any long bow between the drugs matter in that case and activities at Balmain Welding, but it is unfortunate that drugs seem to be dominant in these matters. Unless the Party machine in New South Wales acts more effectively than Senator Richardson has acted tonight to clear its name from these very serious charges and this very serious proposition that has been put up that it has influenced preselections-and Senator Richardson effectively says that that is the whole point of this matter-it will remain under a cloud. I was intrigued to note that Senator Richardson said tonight that Domican would not have had any influence in the area of Ms Burnswood because his influence was down the other end in Grayndler. I wonder whether he was telling us that we should perhaps have a look at Mr McLeay's preselection and the role that Mr Domican played in that because Senator Richardson admitted that that was an area in which Mr Domican really has some significant influence. On 15 May Senator Richardson ended up saying that he was more than confident that the police could get to the bottom of the matters that have been raised. They have not done so yet. We remember the curious links that existed between some members of the New South Wales police force and some senior Labor politicians. We know that the disgraced Mr Bill Allen was a close friend of one senior Labor politician. In the Waterhouse program the other night it was alleged that Mr Allen was on the receiving end of bribes from a casino which went via him to an unnamed senior Labor politician. What has happened in New South Wales? All we want is a proper answer. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(9.00) —In approaching this matter we have to understand that tonight the two most skilled honourable senators on the other side have put forward a case. I am not sure who the case is against-whether it is against Senator Richardson or the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales or elsewhere. They really have not defined their mark, which makes their case very difficult to answer. Nonetheless, the fact is that two of the most skilled honourable senators opposite have put forward such a case. Mr Hodgman, an eminent Queen's Counsel from Tasmania is in the gallery. He would have to say, if it were put to him, that no case has been made out. Perhaps the only person who could have put a better case, Senator Withers, did not move in his seat because he knows there is really nothing beyond allegations. Senator Michael Baume asked why did we not answer the allegations put. One does not answer allegations for the simple reason-this seems to have been forgotten in this chamber over the last few years-that allegations are simply statements unsupported by evidence. Allegations, it has been forgotten, have never comprised evidence. If one is to make accusations against anybody, one must produce the evidence. If that evidence is to be produced, it must be produced in the right circles. The right circles as far as criminal allegations are concerned are not in this chamber. The proper place is in the criminal courts or before the police. That should be remembered. I see Senator Georges in the chamber. He would agree that through this chamber and its committees over the last few years quite striking injustices have been done to all sorts of people, for what ends I will not now speculate. Let us begin by looking at what is said in the eighth edition of Gatley on Libel and Slander: The law recognises in every man a right to have the estimation in which he stands in the opinion of others unaffected by false statements to his discredit. This right is protected in English law by the existence of the torts of libel and slander and the criminal offence of libel. That right is protected except in chambers such as this. When people seek to circumvent the law, to use privilege to get round the law, which stands to protect every citizen of this country, one might ask why. If these allegations are so serious, why are they made in here and not outside? Will they continue to be made for ever and ever? Will there ever be a time when people are satisfied? On tonight's performance obviously not. Senator Richardson spoke tonight, although he need not have, and answered in detail the various accusations made against him by Senator Puplick. He was then pilloried again by Senator Baume, even though he conceded that Senator Richardson did the right thing in standing up and pronouncing his innocence. He should not have had to do that for a start; this is not the place for him to pronounce his innocence. Even though he has done that there is still the snide innuendo made that, nevertheless, he has further questions to answer. This sort of business, not only in reference to Senator Richardson but in reference to anybody in this chamber, anybody who is a member of parliament, indeed anybody who is a member of our society, has to stop. If we are to go ahead and simply pillory people on the basis of allegations made year after year and time after time, it is time we looked at ourselves as a chamber. Whether these allegations come from this side of the chamber or the other side, this whole process has to stop. People have to go back to the traditional way of doing things, which is simply this: If there is evidence of criminal activity, that evidence should be put before the police. The police force is the proper institution in this society to lay charges, and the proper place to hear them is before the courts of this land. If we go back to the days when the Parliament was making use of impeachment and of Bills of attainder, we will have reached a very sorry state indeed. I suppose these allegations are made easily enough in chambers such as this, and in a certain sense they are made as part of the general political play, the political give and take of the place. I suppose that to a certain extent Senator Richardson has to cop that as a member of this chamber. But certainly his wife does not have to cop it. When people through their statements make an innuendo against somebody who is not a member of this chamber-the only relationship with the chamber in this case is that this woman is married to a member of it-and that person is pilloried without an opportunity to defend herself, again we as a chamber must ask ourselves whether we want to continue down that line. There has been strong innuendo made that while she worked for the Balmain Welding Co. she did so in a surreptitious, if not dishonest, manner. Getting at her husband by taking that sort of stance is a reprehensible approach indeed. This forum has been chosen to put Senator Richardson on trial, as it were. The allegation against him is that while he was the Secretary of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales the Government hindered the police investigations into the Enmore conspiracy case, that the Government of New South Wales stopped the police from proceeding on an ex officio indictment, whatever that means. Certainly as I remember it, it was a structure which operated in England in respect of quite serious crime and was abolished in that country in the 1930s. I accept that it still exists in New South Wales. Be that as it may, one good thing that has come out of the activities that have taken place in recent days is that evidence has been obtained which, in my view, exculpates Senator Richardson and anybody associated with his administration of the New South Wales Branch from the accusations that have been made here tonight. That evidence is contained in a letter from the New South Wales Commissioner of Police dated 10 November 1986. It makes reference to the three allegations that have been made. It is worth while at this point stating those allegations, which are listed in question form. They are: 1. Has the Government at any time hindered Police investigations into the Enmore conspiracy case? 2. Have Police at any time sought of the Government the preferment of ex officio indictments in respect of the Enmore conspiracy case? 3. Have any Labor Party officials at any time refused to co-operate with Police in relation to the Enmore conspiracy case? If so, who were they and what was the nature of their refusal? I now turn to the answers to those questions. First, as to whether the New South Wales Government had at any time hindered police investigations into the Enmore conspiracy case, the answer is as follows: At no time during the currency of the Enmore investigations has there been any evidence- I emphasise `any evidence', although the Opposition does not rely on evidence; all it relies on is allegations- of Government hindrance to police investigations. The answer to the second question involving the Government seeking to frustrate the preferment of ex officio indictments states: The May letter contains no recommendation for an ex officio indictment. In its subject the question of `Consideration to the question of a possible application for an ex officio indictment' is posed. Just to make it clear that I am not quoting out of context, the letter says: In the April document Kelly- that is the policeman on whom those opposite have relied- recommended that all depositions, exhibits and the prosecution brief be examined by the State Crown Solicitor or a senior Queen's Counsel for an opinion as to whether this case should be reopened. That was in answer to the question asked, and I stress that passage. The letter then refers to the May letter, which contained no recommendation for an ex officio indictment although the question of a possible application for an ex officio indictment is posed. The letter continues: It will be seen from the foregoing that unwarranted emphasis is being given to an informal advice obtained by the investigator, from a Police Prosecutor acting with the assistance of the judgement of Mr Brown, S.M. and without the assistance of the full transcript of evidence. Subsequent to the submission of Inspector Kelly in May, 1985, and in a submission dated 17 June, 1985 I recommended- that is the Chief Commissioner of Police, as I understand it- that it may `now be appropriate for the Crown to examine the transcript of evidence in the light of the issues raised' `and to provide a legal interpretation.' Subsequently, the Solicitor General on 23 July, 1985 and 31 July 1985 addressed the Enmore case and a number of peripheral matters. In respect of the charges relating to the books of the Enmore Branch, she said `In my view, the Magistrate erred in dismissing the charges on the ground which he did'. That is the part that was read by Senator Puplick. That is quite clear. The Solicitor-General said: `Look, you were wrong in dismissing charges on that ground'. That supports the case put by Senator Puplick. He quoted that in this chamber. If it stood at that I would have thought it provided substantial evidence to prove his case. The letter continues: However, later she said- this was not quoted; one might well ask why- `notwithstanding that view, the evidence would not support the charges laid' and `the evidence does not support either the substantive charges or the charge of conspiracy to commit forgery'. He used the wrong law, in dismissing the case. She concedes that. Notwithstanding the view that the wrong law was applied, the evidence would not support the charges laid and the evidence does not support either the substantive charges or the charge of conspiracy to commit forgery. The letter continues: Because of the evidentiary deficiencies- as distinct from the wrong law that was applied by the stipendiary magistrate- it would be wrong to seek to have these matters further litigated. Members of the Opposition must support the Solicitor-General's statement because they quoted part of it to support their case. They quoted part of her opinion with approval, and, even if they left out the rest, they must, having approved of the first part, approve of what she then goes on to say. She goes on to say that it would be wrong to seek to have these matters further litigated. If that is correct why do honourable members opposite come into this chamber and say, in spite of the Solicitor-General's opinion, which they accept, that the matter should be pursued? Senator Michael Baume —Evidentiary provisions-because Domican had shut them up. Senator COONEY —Senator Michael Baume says that it is all a problem of evidence. Honourable senators opposite do not produce evidence. They continue to make accusations. They keep repeating this misdemeanor. I say that with kindness but perhaps I should call it a felony. If a society is run on allegations, on a totalitarian system, whispers in the night, knocks on the door, spying on itself, of course we should act on accusations unsupported by evidence. That is the sort of society which honourable senators opposite are creating. It is certainly not the sort of society I want to live in. I am a traditionalist. I am a person who believes in the law and in the institution of this society. One of the fundamental propositions in our society is that if a person makes an allegation against somebody he should come up with the evidence to support it. Those opposite have made allegations tonight about a mysterious package. Why was that not tabled in the Senate? Why did they not get up and say: `This shoots Senator Richardson out of the water. There is the evidence. Look, it is on the table'. What happened? Senator Richardson got up and made what I thought was a fairly restrained answer to the charges, given their nature, and that still does not satisfy those opposite. What evidence has been produced to contradict the denials that are made by Senator Richardson tonight? What is there to balance against his statements as a senator of this nation, a person who is obliged to tell the truth in this public forum, in this chamber? What evidence have those opposite got to put against his statements that he is not guilty or has not in any way offended in the way they have said? He was accused in relation to what Anderson did about his home. If somebody asked me who built my home and what I was charged, he would have to ask my wife. I would naturally say: `Why is that the business of anybody?' What it comes down to-no doubt I will get a reaction from the other side-is this: What those opposite are really asking for is that we declare our interests. Is the Opposition prepared to do that? Do we all now sit down solemnly and faithfully cite who built what, what we own and what terrible sins we may have committed in our past for everybody else to see? If those opposite are not willing to do that, why do they want Senator Richardson to do it. Senator McIntosh —He did do it. Senator COONEY —Senator McIntosh is absolutely correct. He has done it not only tonight but also on several other occasions. Yet the accusations still come. Credence for the case is sought from the statement in the National Times on the alleged tapped phone conversations. Presuming just for a minute that what is put out is correct, what is wrong with giving somebody legal aid? That is another thing I am concerned about. There seems to be a suggestion abroad that a person should not get legal aid if he is a criminal, is charged with a serious offence and has prior convictions. In the situation that has been spoken about here, Domican did not have any of those things attached to his name but let us say he did. Is the proposition being put from the other side that such a person should never get legal aid, a person who is threatened with years in gaol? It is my belief, and I think it is absolutely correct, that if the only people that society is going to help are the beautiful, the people for whom we feel sympathy, the people for whom we feel a love and with whom we can easily sympathise and if we reject the ugly, those who are downtrodden, and those for whom we feel no sympathy, we are not much of a society. This society can be judged by what it does for the lowest member in it. If Senator Richardson is to be condemned for trying to get legal aid for someone, where do we get to? We are getting into a very sad state of affairs. The other matter I want to talk about is the bashing of Peter Baldwin. A horrible, horrific and disgusting exhibition of brutality was committed on that man. That ought to be punished. Sometimes, the less choice prosecutors in the land try to invite a jury to convict whoever might be around when a horrific crime has been committed. If that is the way honourable senators opposite are trying to get at people tonight, again, that borders on the reprehensible. The seriousness of a crime alone should never be used to point the finger at anybody. That is the very reason why in murder trials often times the judge will not allow photos of the victim to be shown to members of the jury. There is a danger that their judgment will be overborne by the horror depicted there and do an injustice to the person charged. That is the very thing that those opposite are doing now. They are saying that this horrific horrible, terrible crime has been committed; let us get someone who is nearby and, with the factional distribution of power in New South Wales, we might stir up a bit of hatred against him. Senator Richardson is accused in terms of a Ms Burnswood, who apparently proposed to stand for the seat of Lowe in the State of New South Wales but was beaten for preselection by Mr Michael Maher. I heard these accusations being made. I have been provided with some details on that matter. As I understand it, Ms Burnswood did in fact stand on two occasions for the seat of Lowe and lost. I do not know Ms Burnswood. I suspect that she is a decent, honourable member of this great Party which people on this side of the House belong to. Apparently she missed out on preselection, and did not stand for the seat. It was won by Mr Michael Maher. I hope that no accusation is made against his integrity or his decency because he is a man who has decency, honour and ability written all over him. Is this a prelude to lining him up next for some sort of campaign where he will be denigrated before the country and before his family, where perhaps his wife will be introduced into public life to be denigrated and put in a position where she cannot defend herself? Is that the situation that we will face? If accusations are going to be made in the manner in which they have been tonight, where will they stop? Senator Puplick quite properly referred to one of his speeches in August 1980. When I looked at that I saw he was in as good form then as he is now. He was talking about the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, about what the Melbourne Age said and what the Sunday Telegraph said and he was trying, as he does now, to draw some sort of inference from editorials and reports in the papers in respect of certain people-although not Senator Richardson, as I understand it from a quick look at his speech at that time. Are we going to have people convicted on the basis of editorials and on the basis of suggestions in the papers on the basis that the papers and radio broadcasters state: `We think so and so ought to be looked at'? Are we then going to set up royal commissions? Let me quote what Senator Puplick said in those days: Here is a royal commissioner, who asks for greater powers- that would not be unusual, just as the police ask for greater powers- from the Government that established his position, in order to pursue his investigations into drug offences. The Government says that it is not able to give him that power. Clearly we need a national body that does have the power to undertake that sort of investigation. Senator Puplick is asking for more powers. When the debate on the Australia Card comes along I will be interested to see whether he will be saying: `Give greater powers to certain institutions to investigate'. Where does all this stop? We have cards and we have an extension of powers to the police. Why do we not go right to the 1984 situation, with television screens everywhere, even in the bedroom, so that everybody knows what everybody else is doing? Then we will not have to rely on allegations because it will all be before us. Senator Puplick will go along with that because one of the great statements he made-I will quote this to him again and again over the years because I have it all highlighted in yellow-is: `Only people who have anything to worry about have anything to hide'. What he is really saying is that if people do not have anything to hide they should not worry about their civil liberties. That is real O'Brien stuff. That is what Winston Smith found out when he trusted O'Brien. I see that the time allotted to this debate is about to expire. As Senator Puplick is not denying me the right to continue speaking I will not call him O'Brien any more; I will call him the son of O'Brien, which reforms him a bit. The other thing I wish to refer to is the Age tapes. I have been wanting to talk about the Age tapes for a long while. I have only five minutes left. The Age tapes represent the real problem. Having been brought up as a Christian boy, I believe that what Opposition senators really want society to do is deny any room for a redemption. They want everybody to be absolutely perfect: Anybody who does anything wrong or nods his head adversely should be rooted out and investigated. Tapes and investigative machinery should be put into operation so that, in the end, we become fearful of our neighbours, even the children in our house, those with whom we are acquainted, our friends, because we do not know whether they are wired with listening devices or whether they are paid informers who are willing to swear life and liberty away. The old traditional values that we had-the right to silence, the right to make an unsworn statement, the right not to give one's name and address to the police, the right as citizens to enjoy as best we can the sorts of rights that our forefathers used to have are under challenge. I am speaking of the sorts of things that people fought and died for over the years to provide protection against the intrusive and, at times, malignant state-I am not saying that that is what this Government is. Institutions like the committee of public safety during the French Revolution have to be avoided; one just had to be named to have one's head lopped. If I may be somewhat critical of honourable senators on my own side of the chamber, we have reneged, I think, too often on our obligation to protect people from the sorts of things that have been attempted here tonight. We have reneged too often on standing up and saying: `Yes, there are traditional values. There are the sorts of values that protect individuals and families'. I think that, as a result of having failed to stand up, we have suffered very drastically. The reality is that not only honourable senators on this side of the chamber but also, deep down, Opposition senators, including Senator Puplick and Senator Michael Baume, really believe in the values that I have talked about. I think their speeches tonight were aimed at a political victory, at political pointscoring. I suppose that that is the sort of thing we have to put up with in this Senate. But when honourable senators opposite think about the ramifications of the sorts of things they do, the consequences that it might lead to and the destruction of the sort of culture that this society has developed, they will put an end to this. There are plenty of things to go on with. They have the Australia Card to talk about, they have their beloved fringe benefits tax and they have all sorts of other things. Senator Tate —They can be redeemed. Senator COONEY —I think they can be redeemed. I am always hopeful. I am sure that everybody on the other side, properly counselled by Senator Withers, can be redeemed. But they have to start fairly smartly and they have to get on to real issues. They are not to pursue matters in this revolutionary and radical fashion, leaving aside those traditional values we have fought so hard to build up. They cannot cast them aside. Now is the time to stop. They have picked on poor old Senator Richardson. I think they have thrown enough darts at him. Let us leave him alone and get down to the real issues that confront this society. Let us preserve that magnificent culture and tradition which we have built up but which, unfortunately, are under very strong attack at the moment. Unfortunately, the debate tonight has contributed to the destruction of those values and that culture. It may be overtaken unless we are very careful. Debate resumed. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.29) —When my speech was interrupted by the suspension of the sitting earlier I had made the point that the world needed, as a matter of urgency, a new major industry for the Third World that would permit it to earn income of a massive kind needed to permit development. I am talking not of the affairs of one person or a few people but of a matter of life and death for millions of people. Without that attention by the developed world, we have a bad time ahead of us, and soon. I was very touched and taken recently to read in the Sydney Morning Herald an excellent article by Robin Williams of the Science Show dealing with Professor Peter Mason of Macquarie University and the view that he had taken and put forward, which I think can be substantiated, that, apart from a bit of computer science and things of that kind, science has not done much for the world since 1950, that is, for nearly 30 years. Of course, that is a fact. We are now a rapidly declining society in world terms, a society in which malaria is once again becoming a major killer disease of millions of people, in which child mortality is increasing and in which, in almost every possible respect, for the majority of human beings life is becoming worse to the stage of desperation-short, nasty and brutal, as it was in previous centuries, for everybody. Australia and Western countries must bear the direct responsibility for allowing that to continue because we are the only people who have the potential and power to do anything about it. I further made the point that, although the Third World had vast areas of desert land with high and very hot sunshine records and so is ideally suited for solar energy development, in the past that had not seemed a viable option because energy is needed in the industrialised cooler areas of the earth and solar energy cannot be stored or transported. I will resume with the assertion that technology is now under rapid development which ensures that solar energy can be stored and transported. I was referring especially to the research being carried out in many parts of the world, particularly in the Weizmann Institute in Israel, into the dissociation of substances which include water, methane or ammonia into their constituent gases which can then be used by recombination to create energy at some remote point or which can be used directly, one of the key points being that in most of these areas of dissociation one of the constituent gases, the almost universal one, is hydrogen. Hydrogen is a word which in the future will mean a great deal to the world. It is of interest that, as some honourable senators will recall, for many years patents have been held by the Australian National University in Canberra for the research headed by Professor Stephen Kaneff into the dissociation of ammonia into nitrogen and hydrogen. That research seems to me to be research that could be proceeded with. It is good enough for the United States of America's energy department to put $5m into this kind of research. It would seem good enough for us to put $1m to enable this process, which was very highly lauded at its beginning, to be continued. If it can work-it is worth while trying to find out whether it can-Australia naturally has the potential for a huge energy industry that could provide for our energy needs indefinitely into the future. With our resources of natural liquid fuel running down rapidly and not much evidence of another major oilfield off-shore, and with the certain prospect of huge oil prices, even by today's standards, by the time our fuel supplies run down, it might be worth our while looking at any reasonable option that might provide this country with energy in the future, even if the costs seem now to be prohibitive. A time may well come when we will look back on petrol and fuel prices now as very cheap by the standards of the future. It is interesting that the base product in these processes is hydrogen. In support of Professor Kaneff I will add that the scientists at the Weizmann Institute, who I understand are of world standard and with whom I discussed this matter-they after all are spending $10m on a solar furnace to work mainly on dissociation of materials into their constituent gases-said that this was a very viable option for the future. They regard it as such in their country. They regard the prospect of their exporting pipeline hydrogen to the metropolitan powers of Europe in the future as very likely. That is why they are going ahead with it. They have no doubt whatsoever that that technology can be perfected. It is not for nothing that hydrogen has been described as the fuel of the future. It is that because of another technological breakthrough, which I must yet again concede could be lower in cost but in which promising cost reduction areas are being achieved; that is, the development of the fuel cell. A fuel cell works by stripping hydrogen, methane or methanol of electrons at one electrode and giving them back at another. The fuel is oxidised just as if it had been burned but the energy output is dramatically higher than when crude burning is carried out. While fuel cells are at present expensive, they have such a promising future that many countries are working on major fuel cell programs. The fuel cells are quiet; they are non-pollutant and compact and, as I have said, they can use hydrogen as a fuel with maximum efficiency. When one considers this kind of alternative, one runs at once into the fact that most methods of turning fuel into electricity give a conversion efficiency of about 35 per cent; that is, some 35 per cent of the energy in the fuel actually emerges as electric power. However, the fuel cell has an efficiency conversion rate hopefully as high as 85 per cent. Japan has built one such generator of four-and-a-half megawatts as a model, but it has plans for 35,000 megawatts from this technology by the year 2005. It has been fashionable in this country to regard all these things as sort of way-up, off-beat stuff of the future. But as one moves around the world it is intriguing to find that we are the only group of scientists who look at it in that way. When we go to Israel, to the Common Market countries or to Japan we find that they do not see it in that way at all. They are quite prepared to stake millions and millions of dollars into research of that kind. They are hard-headed companies; private enterprise is involved in every case. Senator Withers —They have nuclear power too. What about their nuclear plants? Senator MASON —There are not many tougher organisations than those of Japanese private enterprise; Senator Withers might agree with that. Some of the biggest electrical companies in the world are putting literally millions of dollars into photovoltaics. Does Senator Withers know better than they do? With all respect to Senator Withers, I would doubt it. I would think that the scientific expertise in the big companies in Japan is considerably more than that which Senator Withers could convince us with. As I said earlier, on this basis it is reassuring-as the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) is here I will repeat what I said, because it is to his credit-to see that at least this year the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council are doing some work into these alternative energy sources. A start has been made, at least on some solar pond research. That technology ought to work well here. While I was in Israel I went down towards the Dead Sea to look at the little station operating there. It works extremely well. It is completely renewable energy. It does not have any staff. It works perfectly economically. It just sits there and produces power without any necessity for any fuel or any staff. Senator Archer —We have nitro. Senator MASON —Senator Archer is now in business. He now knows more than the experts in the Weizmann Institute in Israel and those in Japan, Holland or the United States. I think he is now saying that, like Senator Withers, he knows best. It is a great pity that these things happen because they have been a positive deterrent to possible research into scientific developments in this country. Wind energy is becoming of increasing significance in suitable areas. It will interest honour- able senators on my left who are again interjecting to know that such people as the Director of Energy in Israel, one of the world's leading scientists in this field to whom I could give Senator Withers an introduction if he wished, takes this technology extremely seriously. Israel is to put a great deal of time and money into it. He regards it as one of the most promising future developments that hard money can be put into, and that is being done. In California now there are more than 9,000 wind turbines generating more than 500 megawatts. This is increasing rapidly, with a target of 21,000 megawatts envisaged in that one State of California by the late 1990s. It is ridiculous for us just to hide in Rip Van Winkle land and ignore the fact that in California there is a target of 21,000 megawatts from wind energy alone, and most of it is being built by private enterprise. A good deal of it is working now and competing favourably in economic terms with fossil and nuclear power houses, and competing much more competitively than nuclear power houses if one takes into account the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power house. If that cost is thrown into the equation, the cost of nuclear power becomes roughly 50 per cent higher than the cost of wind energy, as is now being demonstrated and used in the United States of America. But Senator Withers knows better than all of those people in California! The 21,000 megawatts of power there mean nothing to him. This is cloud cuckooland. Even though these things are actually working, he has not seen them with his own eyes and, therefore, to him they do not exist. I note also with some interest a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 September that the Austrian Government has ordered the dismantling of the nation's only nuclear power plant. The movement from nuclear power to renewable resources has gained significant impetus, and this will be increasingly so in the next two or three decades. As my colleague Senator Macklin noted in a notice of motion on 11 November, renewable power sources, such as biomass, hydro, solar, wind and geothermal, already provide twice as much energy as nuclear power and in the last five years orders for 60,000 megawatts of nuclear power have been cancelled in the United States of America while, in the same period, 18,600 megawatts of cogeneration and renewable energy capacity has been ordered. According to the Guardian of 10 July, the British Energy Secretary, Peter Walker, told the House of Commons that the Government would be putting big money into studies relating to two huge tidal power projects in Britain. He described this as `one of our most promising renewable energy resources'. The Severn Tidal Power Group, again a private enterprise group, expects the project, the Severn barrier, to start construction in 1992 at a cost of $5 1/2 billion. The Government will also put money into investigating a similar project on the Mersey River. One welcome spin-off from the Severn pro- ject-I think this is of considerable interest to us in Australia-is that it will create 44,000 jobs. Surely it is evident to us and to the Government that in such a situation as we are in now, with so many unemployed people, that sort of construction, labour intensive as it is, will not cost what it appears to cost on paper if, indeed, it can provide work for significant numbers of people. I think that is one of the answers to our problem. It is better for us to spend that money on projects of this kind. Any project which has reasonable prospects or any research which has any sort of reasonable hope or promise for the future is better than to allow our young people to sit in a world in which they believe there is no initiative, no future and nothing ever happens. Nothing really big or significant has happened in this country in the developmental sense since we built the Snowy scheme, has it? Let us be honest with ourselves. We have sat and rotted since then. We have not even got the Burdekin scheme in Queensland going, which Townsville needs so badly. We sit here and claim that we are making progress. We do not make any kind of progress, but it is time we did. In conclusion, it is necessary to note that many of these new technologies are now hampered because of their costs. That is a point which has to be conceded. It is true that, even though, for instance, solar systems are now operating more and more efficiently with every new development that is built, and wind systems are narrowing the gap and are now comparable certainly with nuclear costs, when the costs of decommissioning nuclear reactors are taken into account, the basic imperative is not an economic one; the basic imperative is strategic. From a defence point of view these are dangers to the world, in the event of war, of having nuclear power stations and of having any kind of nuclear fuel cycle. There are the dangers of horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons based on U235. If we allow technologies such as the laser enrichment to go ahead, those are the imperatives. The other imperative is our view of the future, our responsibilities to future generations. They will look back on us and make their judgment of this generation on what we do now and whether we showed ourselves to be a generation of human beings who had the vision to look forward and try to get things sorted out for the future so that some hydrocarbons were left for future generations. To burn them up is, I think, one of the most decisive and important decisions any government can make now. On that basis, I commend to this Government that it courageously go forward and develop and research, where it seems prudent and wise, even if it does not seem economic, and wherever it might be viable. Senator JONES(Queensland)(9.44) —In speaking to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 I will take the opportunity to draw some comparisons between the economic performance of Queensland and that of the national economy. Earlier this evening Senator Michael Baume tried very hard to talk down the economy and to validate his claims by mentioning an American financier, who claimed that investment in Australia in the future would not return the amount that it should. It is only reasonable that we should compare in some way the performance of the conservative Government in Queensland with that of the national economy to show how that Government is performing under the present economic circumstances. I think it will show clearly the type of performance that one could expect from a Howard-led government in the national economy. It is quite obvious that Queensland is a supporter of the New Right or, should I say, the old Right, or could we say it is one and the same. The recent economic performance of the National Party Government in Queensland leaves a lot to be desired. Its very bad performance in a number of areas is continuing to pull down the national economy. For many months Queensland has had the worst economic record of all States. A close analysis of 18 economic indicators to the beginning of this month, compiled by senior economist Jason Reynolds from figures supplied by such reliable sources as the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Federal Government departments shows that it is still the case that the performance of the Queensland Government is the worst of all State governments. Of the 18 areas surveyed, Queensland had the worst result in five, the second worst result in eight, and below the national average in 14. The areas in which Queensland had the poorest results to 1 November included the following: The lowest average weekly earnings for May-$396, which is 6 per cent below the Australian average; again Queensland had the greatest fall in the number of new dwelling units approved for the September quarter 1986, with approval down 34.2 per cent compared with the same period last year; for the three months ended September 1986 Queensland had the greatest fall in the number of new telephone connections, which are tied very closely to the investment that is made in that State by business. Compared with the same period a year earlier they were down some 14.5 per cent. This is a highly significant and most underestimated indicator, as it proves that new business is not moving into Queensland to any great extent, contrary to the assertions of the Government of that State. In the June quarter 1986 Queensland had the greatest fall in the number of new residential buildings completed. It declined by 20.8 per cent compared with the same period in 1985. Queensland also has the second worst result in the following: The unemployment rate for Queensland for October 1986 was 9.1 per cent; the national average over the same period was 7.8 per cent. Senator Sheil —Why don't you read the telephone book? Senator JONES —I suppose in Brisbane one could read the telephone directory. Because a number of allocations of new phone numbers has not been included, it is a very thin book and it would be very easy for the honourable senator to read it. For the past two years Queensland has had either the highest or the second highest unemployment rate and the second lowest average weekly earnings for women-$252.80 at May this year. That is 10 per cent below the national average. It had the second worst figure in the number of overtime hours worked, at 6.5 per worker in August this year. The household income per capita in Queensland for 1984-85 was $10,410, which was 9.8 per cent below the national average. The number of new residential buildings completed in the June quarter declined, as I said before, by 20.8 per cent compared with the same period in 1985. Queensland has the second highest increase in the number of bankruptcies for the year ended 1985-86. No doubt my colleague Senator Sheil will be able to take down some of the figures and probably he will try to make some comparisons at a later stage. I am sure that the honourable senator will find that these figures are very true. They come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and from the various departments. So it is very difficult for the National Party in Queensland to deny the sorts of problems that exist within the economy of Queensland. Senator Sheil —Don't you represent Queensland? Senator JONES —Yes, I do represent Queensland, and it is very difficult to do so with the decline in the economy that is being caused by the National Party Government that has just been re-elected under a very large gerrymander in that State-61 per cent of the people in Queensland voted against having a National Party government, and the National Party is able to govern on 37 per cent of the vote. Queensland-let me repeat this for Senator Sheil's benefit-had the second highest increase in the number of bankruptcies for the 1985-86 financial year. It was up 23.7 per cent over the previous financial year. That was an increase of 23 per cent in 12 months. Queensland had the second largest decrease in new motor vehicle registrations. For the September quarter of 1986 there was a drop of something like 26.5 per cent over the same period in 1985. We could go a little bit further. Queensland had the second highest proportion of industrial disputes for the year ending July 1986, with 295 days lost per thousand employees-the second highest number of days lost per thousand employees of any State in Australia. It was 13.5 per cent higher than the national average. Further, Queensland had the second lowest growth for new fixed private capital expenditure for the March quarter this year. Again, looking back at the number of phone connections one sees a relationship between the fixed private capital expenditure or investment in the State and the number of connections made in the State of Queensland. Queensland was also below the national growth rate for the number of new residential buildings under construction at the end of June 1986-down 8.2 per cent on the same quarter a year earlier. Figures produced this week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the building industry in Queensland is at a point of collapse, or even beyond it. I think that what has happened in Queensland in relation to the building industry provides a very clear example of this. There has been a downturn in the supply of building materials to that industry. In the three months to August 1986 the production in Queensland of concrete blocks was down 23.1 per cent on the figure for the same period in 1985. Roofing tiles, terra cotta and concrete were down by 20.8 per cent. Ready-mixed concrete-that is the supply of ready-mixed concrete to new building sites and sites where renovations were being carried out-was down by 13.1 per cent. Structural clay bricks were down by 4.7 per cent. This gives an indication of what is happening in the building industry in Queensland. Sales of paint, which is used in the construction of dwellings in the finishing off process, are down in the State of Queensland by 4.1 per cent. This is entirely due to the decline in the domestic building industry outlined earlier. I believe that one of the problems we face in Queensland is the fact that the Government is cutting back on expenditure and also is not encouraging investment in the State of Queensland, which would allow for the development and construction of office blocks, home units and other buildings on building sites throughout the State of Queensland. One of the things we must look at when comparing what happens at the national level with what happens at the State level is what the Federal Government and the trade union movement have done in relation to prices and in relation to the accord. First of all, let us look at prices. The Federal Government does not have the constitutional power to govern prices in the State of Queensland. While such a power is available to the State Government in Queensland, we find continual increases in the prices being paid for consumer goods by the families and people who live within Queensland. The State Government continues to allow the increases in prices and takes no steps to try to contain prices so that there is a reasonable standard of living and so that the low wages being received by the workers in the State of Queensland can at least purchase consumer goods at a reasonable price. But, as I said, the Federal Government does not have the constitutional power to control prices. However, in March 1984, the Federal Government did establish the Prices Surveillance Authority. In recent times this Authority has held inquiries into principal charges of Australia Post-one of the Federal Government's own facilities-fruit juice prices, cigarette prices, the table chicken industry and retail food and grocery prices. Following consultation with the Australian Council of Trade Unions last year the Treasurer, Mr Keating, in line with the Government's policy, instructed the Prices Surveillance Authority not to support price increases in excess of movements in unit costs. In August 1985 the Prices Surveillance Authority issued a set of voluntary guidelines and it now publishes a bulletin each quarter called Price News, which provides information on movements. This is in line with the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the nation in June when he stated: There will be an extension of the list of products under review and increased communication with the public. This statement was made in relation to inflation and increases in prices which provide excessive profits to those companies selling at retail prices to the consumer. One of the things that the Federal Government has done during its period of office has been to introduce a centralised wage fixing system. By September 1983 there had been five national wage decisions involving applications from the trade union movement for wage and salary increases based on consumer price index movements. I suppose, looking at the result of those increases, one would have to say that the trade union movement has been very positive in the way in which it has approached these applications for wage increases. A lot of credit is due to the trade union movement for sticking to increases that are based on CPI movements. The results were: A 4.3 per cent rise in October 1983; 4.1 per cent in April 1984; 2.6 per cent in April 1985; 3.8 per cent in November 1985; and 2.3 per cent in July 1986. The trade union movement and the ACTU have shown a very responsible attitude in accepting discounting and in accepting the fact that only a 2.3 per cent increase was received in July 1986. One would have to say that this reflects great credit on the trade union movement, because it has done something to try to assist the economy in Australia. It has provided a reasonable increase for its members but it continues to keep these increases to a level which covers the CPI movements. More recently, the ACTU, employer groups and the Government have given consideration to changes in the system. I believe that the Government sees merit in certain changes providing wage restraint continues and the current Budget forecasts for aggregate wage growth are not exceeded. I believe that all members of the Government appreciate the way the trade union movement has acted with great restraint in recent difficult economic times. I think the Government also appreciates the co-operation of the vast majority of employers in relation to the economic difficulties that we have been facing. I suppose that, comparing what is happening at the Federal level with what is happening at the State level, one can see that the State Government can only build confrontation and fight with the trade union movement to try to encourage the trade union movement towards a more militant point of view. It tries to force it into unrewarding strikes at which point the State Government moves in and sacks the striking workers. One has only to look at the South East Queensland Electricity Board strike in which power workers employed by SEQEB were sacked by the State Government and have not been reinstated now that that particular issue has been resolved. It is obvious that the way to economic recovery and progress in Australia is through the spirit of mutual co-operation and understanding created by the incomes accord, which has given a benefit to all, and I believe that it is something that will be maintained by a reasonable and constructive trade union movement in Australia. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.00) —Following the speakers list on the Appropriation Bills is something of a challenge, Madam Acting Deputy President. I notice that it has been suddenly rearranged. In speaking this evening on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1986-87 and cognate Bills, I want to pick up on some more specific areas of interest and concern of mine under the appropriations rather than talk in more general and wider terms of the broad economic thrust of the Budget. Those areas have been very well covered, for example, by Senator Cook in his contribution this afternoon. The Appropriation Bills give me an opportunity to speak of a couple of areas that I find of very great importance and which I think are well worthy of the Senate's attention under this legislation, being, as they are, part of the Budget program. In particular, I drawn the Senate's attention to the document that is produced at the same time as the Budget documents, the Women's Budget Program. It is an extraordinarily useful document, describing, as it does, how all the ministries affect women in terms of the staff and behaviour of people within the departments and the implementation of policies and legislation covered by the portfolios. In particular, I want to look at a sub-set of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations headed `National Occupational Health and Safety Commission'-now known as Worksafe Australia. That Commission, Worksafe Australia, has been in existence for over a year now and is well on the way to being solidly estab- lished. The initial period of establishment is past, and we are now beginning to see the benefits of that Commission and its more comprehensive work. Worksafe Australia, the shorthand name for the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, is responsible for policies and strategies to improve occupational health and safety. Its activities include the development of national standards and codes of practice, the review of laws and awards relating to occupational health and safety, the collection and dissemination of information relating to occupational health and safety matters, providing and encouraging training and skills relevant to occupational health and safety, and conducting educational and promotional programs. Worksafe Australia enshrines, I suppose, the principle, and is in the process of putting into practice, the expectation and the general principle of equity that everyone has the right to a healthy and safe working environment. This is of particular relevance and pertinence, in the document from which I am reading, to women. In the Women's Budget Program the relevance is spelt out under the heading of Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The Commission has been asked by the Government to conduct research into occupational health and safety problems in the working environment particularly relevant and pertinent to women. In particular, it is recommending suitable legislation and regulations to cover working environments where women predominate and which are not covered by existing legislative provisions. It has also been asked to review regulations that are designed to protect women workers but which may in practice be discriminatory, and to identify and control factors that would affect reproduction for both men and women. Also, the Commission, in its specific regard for women, will look at legislation and awards that seem to provide protection but in fact not only discriminate against women but also prohibit them from having an opportunity to work. I am thinking in particular of the requirements as to what is a safe amount to be lifted. Those standards, for example, are currently under review because they are tied to old standards setting procedures and are not necessarily pertinent or relevant in the current situation. Worksafe has also specifically asked its Manufacturing Industry Committee to examine the extent of the occupational health and safety effects of piece-work and out-work practices employed in manufacturing industry, particularly as they affect workers of non-English speaking backgrounds and women, and to make appropriate recommendations. That is a particularly important area. I am sure that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, would be concerned about that, too, particularly in the current very comprehensive examination of the textiles, clothing and footware industry, where many of the questions to be asked have to address not only the number of workers but also where those workers are and what are the conditions affecting their health and safety. I think it can be said that this Government has a very well established history of being comprehensive in the way that it examines such questions, and I think the health and safety dimension of those workers is a very important facet. I am very pleased that Worksafe Australia is seriously addressing them. Of course, it is not only confined to textiles, clothing and footwear. Any sub-set of the manufacturing sector that uses out-workers or piece-workers will be included in that examination. It is important to know that many of those piece-workers and out-workers are women. Very often they are not English-speaking women or they are struggling to learn English as a second language, so they are a group of workers particularly at risk. They are at risk of being underpaid and exploited; but they are also at risk of suffering less than sufficient health and safety standards in the way that they are being asked to work, and perhaps, too, from pressure or encouragement to increase their rate of work. The other area that is very important in the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission is the comprehensive examination of the condition-I suppose it is a grab bag of conditions-known as RSI, the repetitive strain injury group of conditions. We have had a long debate in the community about whether RSI exists at all and to what extent it should be taken seriously. Fortunately, I think that that piece of history is behind us, and that RSI is known to be a real condition. If it is treated seriously-that is, if it is judged to be a serious and real condition-appropriately different behaviour follows. I am pleased to see that the Government has, through the RSI national strategy recently released by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Ralph Willis, acknowledged the seriousness with which it regards this condition and the degree to which it is pleased to have a strategy to address the difficulties of RSI. Some very outrageous and false claims have been made about this group of conditions: First, as I said earlier, that it does not exist as a real condition; secondly, that it is mainly in the mind and not in the aching arms, elbows, shoulders, necks, and so on, of the people complaining of it; and, thirdly, that it is a condition that affects only white-collar middle-class workers. Anyone who has examined the documented medical history of the RSI condition will know that that is nonsense. Even in 1985, the latest figures would suggest that about 75 per cent of claims come from other than white-collar work places. This is well acknowledged in the national strategy. The strategy has six components, and under one of those components, called `Standards', the strategy proposes to develop an industry-specific code of practice for the manufacturing industry and keyboard occupations, acknowledging in those words the understanding that it is not only a keyboard condition. It has been long understood that RSI conditions occur in the manufacturing industry, particularly in repetitive work done on assembly lines of all sorts. It is also a condition that is known among shearers and musicians, particularly stringed instrument players but also piano players-although I suppose strictly that is a stringed instrument, but getting at the strings is less direct. Repetition strain injury is not a new condition. It is often claimed that it exists only in Australia. Any examination of medical literature from America or England will give conclusive evidence that it has been around for a long time. It has been called any number of things, but it is not a condition that is new; it is not a condition that is confined to white collar workers on keyboards in the public sector in Australia. I am pleased that that section of the debate has passed. I am pleased that we now have a national strategy acknowledging the seriousness of the condition, and also its realness, and are taking significant steps to reduce the incidence and, if possible, to prevent it. It has been discovered that, among other things, RSI is an eminently preventable condition. If acknowledged early and properly managed, it is a short term discomfort for people rather than, as is sometimes the case, a permanent disability that is not reversible if it is left untreated. So the strategy to address the difficulties of RSI is to be greatly welcomed. Since the RSI proposals have been taken seriously and steps have been taken to address the difficulty, and particularly to introduce preventive measures, the incidence of RSI appears to be declining. The Public Service Board announced a drop of 4.3 per cent in RSI affected staff in the Australian Public Service in the March quarter of this year as compared to the December quarter of 1985. Some States have also reported early encouraging signs of a fall and numerous organisations with RSI prevention programs have significantly reduced incident rates. Those of us who attended an Estimates Committee hearing earlier this Budget session have the hard data, in answer to questions put to various departments, that the incidence of RSI is falling in most departments in the Public Service. I do not believe that is inadvertent or accidental. I think that it is in response to an acknowledgment of the seriousness of the condition to take steps to provide early treatment, and in particular to put into place preventive measures. I am very pleased to acknowledge the step that has been taken within Worksafe Australia and under the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Anyone who is interested will find more reference to that in the `Women's Budget Program' document, which documents this very well along with any number of other government policies that have particular relevance for women. The RSI condition is also very important in terms of an economic consideration. A number of people have failed to understand exactly what are the cost implications of a condition such as RSI, or for that matter any condition that permanently disables a worker. Apart from the considerable cost of human suffering, difficulties and misery that can be created in the family of any worker who is disabled out of the work force, there is the inordinate economic or hard dollar costs. Figures for accident and death caused in the work place in 1982 were assessed by the then Minister, Mr Ian Macphee, to cost this community some $4.5 billion a year. Any efforts we can make to reduce the costs of illness and injury in the work place have to be welcomed, not only for human consideration but because of the hard economic calculation. I am pleased to see that already, because of those steps taken by Worksafe Australia, there has been a decline in the incidence of RSI. That is of some relevance because in recent times the incidence of RSI has been claimed as a very large contributing factor to the dramatic increase in compensation premium costs happening around the country. I am staggered to discover how compensation premiums have increased in the last four or five years. Although I have asked questions about it and am still seeking information, I do not believe that we yet have a full understanding of why compensation premiums went through the roof in the last few years. I can appreciate why the compensation payouts may have increased, because there may have been larger settlements and more people claiming, but to understand why that caused such a massive cost in premiums is still problematical. I remember drawing to Minister Button's attention the dramatic increase that G. J. Coles and Co. Ltd had to pay for compensation premiums-something like $4m. Senator Button —I have never forgotten your mentioning it. Senator CROWLEY —I am delighted the Minister has not forgotten it. I hope one of these days he will be able to give me a full and comprehensive answer as to why those premiums increased. A figure that rose from some $4m near enough to $20m in four years is a matter of considerable importance. Certainly Coles took the matter seriously, and rightly so. In fact, when I inquired further, I discovered that the number of people claiming for accident or injury over that period fell slightly. Although we can say that some of the premium costs have to be attributed to increased payments on settlement, it is still difficult to understand why there would have been such a dramatic increase in premium costs over that time. I also understand that the figures at the universities in my State of South Australia reflect exactly the same increase. I believe that Flinders University in 1979-80 had a payment for compensation premium of about $45,000 and in 1985-86 its premium costs had risen to $400,000. I am not very good at percentage increases, but I think that is approaching a 1,000 per cent increase in seven years. It is fairly dramatic, especially when I discovered from that university that the number of accidents and injuries claimed for have fallen slightly. I appreciate that it depends on the nature of the claim and the payment on settlement. But even so, with the falling number of complaints one would think that there may have been a fall, or at least only a small increase, to do with the consumer price index and so on, over that time in compensation premiums. That is not the case, and I understand that kind of picture is reflected in any number of areas around the country. Around the years 1983-84 there was a dramatic increase in compensation premiums. I hope that any steps the Government can take to reduce those inordinate costs will be put in place as soon as possible. If they are not already in place, I acknowledge the value of Worksafe Australia, and in particular its strategy for RSI, but as more of the occupational health and safety programs are implemented, I hope that we will see a fall in the number of accidents and injuries at work. I also hope that we shall see reflected a corresponding reduction in the massive costs through both compensation premiums and pay-outs. Finally, I would mention one other area under this very useful document, `Women's Budget Program', and I refer to the Department of Sport. Those honourable senators who have been in this place for a year or so will know that not too long ago, in May 1985, I reported to the Senate on an inquiry into women in sport that I had been asked to chair for the Government. We tabled the report in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, which was entitled `Women, Sport and the Media'. That inquiry found that women in sport throughout the country were very much disadvantaged compared to men in sport-in media coverage, opportunities for sponsorship, financial assistance, facilities, access to training and so on. In just about every area of sport affecting women as players of sport, there was insufficient assistance and inequitable distribution of finances towards women in sport. Our principal recommendation from that inquiry was that there should be established a permanent unit, which we preferred would be called the women's sports promotion unit, established within the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism to become a focus for all the improvements that we had hoped to see for women and sport in this country. I am very pleased to announce again-it was first announced on 2 November-that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, have jointly announced the establishment of a task force on women in sport under the Australian Sports Commission. That is the first step to the establishment-I hope-of a permanent unit to be a focus for all those things that women in sport need in this country. The establishment of that task force is very much in accord with the initiatives taken by Minister Brown in the area of sport. His encouragement for broad participation by people of both sexes and all ages is to be thoroughly endorsed, and I certainly do that. The recently released Aussie Sports with the modified rules to encourage more and more youngsters to take part in sport in primary school and to maintain that participation in secondary school by girls is to be very much encouraged and acknowledged. The establishment of the task force on women in sport fits very well with the other steps taken by the Minister to promote the participation by women in sporting activities of all sorts and at all sorts of levels-from the level of recreation through to the level of excellence. Women in sport in this country have some extraordinary achievements. Many of these achievements are forgotten, not sufficiently acknowledged or unsung. The achievements of women in sport in this country are quite remarkable. Our Olympic gold medal list shows that women feature in higher numbers than men in winning individual gold medals. I will not spell out the achievements of great women in the history of sport in this country but I recommend that interested honourable senators look at the `Women, Sport and the Media' report and see some of the achievements documented there. I am delighted that we have a task force for women in sport within the Sports Commission. That task force will be headed by Margaret Pewtress who is a member of the Sports Commission and who has had very long experience as a world-class netball player. She has also had long experience in administration in that sport. She will be assisted by Vicki Cardwell, Australian and world-class squash champion, and Wendy Ey, who was both an athletic performer and an Olympic athletic administrator. For encouragement for women in sport and for developing and implementing the recommendations from our `Women, Sport and the Media' report, the task force is something that I am delighted to see established, and I congratulate the Government on doing so. This has been done at a time of considerable budgetary constraints, as other speakers have no doubt spelt out in this debate on the Appropriation Bills. These two areas of women and sport are of particular interest to me-that is not to say that I do not have interests in other areas-and I wish to focus on them. Even though we have enormously difficult budgetary constraints, which have been spelt out by any number of Government senators, the Government has still done an enormous amount in this Budget. I commend the Government for the Budget and for its priorities for the most needy-a focus which it has always had and which it is implementing in this Budget. I also commend the `Women's Budget Program' as an excellent document for discovering in more detail how the various items in the Budget particularly affect women. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.26) —This year's Budget is a statement of despair from a dull and unimaginative administration for whom the long term is probably anything after the next session of the money market. It can probably be called the `Budget of a thousand cuts' and, as Senator Richardson has so honestly pointed out, some of the deepest cuts have been at the Government's own throat. Besides the financial cuts there has been a general tendency to cut down on the information available to the Parliament and to the public. That has been achieved by putting freedom of information beyond the reach of many Australians and by turning the program budgeting reporting to the Senate into a charade. It has also been achieved by closing avenues of independent analysis, in areas such as multiculturalism, by closing down the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, and in areas of consultation with local government by closing down the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations. Senator Button —Don't talk bunkum. What do you think that did for anybody? Senator VIGOR —There has been a failure to recognise what these bodies do and that has just been echoed by Senator Button who has obviously swallowed totally the line put forward by his colleagues in the Treasury and in the Department of Finance. I believe that the Government has also swallowed the line put forward by the large foreign corporate organisations which have forced it into condoning such corporate rorts as inter-company negative gearing, transfer pricing and all those types of activities. Instead of raising funds from those groups of people, who can afford to pay, the Government is raising revenue from ordinary Australians and the poor who cannot afford to pay. Indeed, the Government has been afraid to upset the apple cart of the currency speculators. It has also shown a remarkable leniency towards the tobacco interests despite their unparalleled contribution to illness in Australia. The dominant minority faction in the Australian Labor Party seems to be devoid of ideas and totally in the thrall of the Treasury. Thus we are missing a large number of opportunities for national recovery. We really cannot continue with the failed policies of the Stone clones in the Treasury with their fundamentalist American monetarist views and their particularly poor approach to the economy. We must learn to stand up for a strong, independent Australia and not just stand up for foreign economic interests, as the Government has been doing, which interests basically the cuts in this Budget have been organised to placate. It is a tragedy for Australia that the Opposition threatens to augment the role of the Treasury when it gets back into government. I believe that that would be absolutely disastrous. Instead, we should get some common sense back into the Treasury and make certain that some people with business experience in the Australian community and an understanding of the needs of Australians are actually let into those areas. For example, in our current trendy deregulation mode, the Treasury and the Department of Finance want to examine the corporate plans of statutory authorities and to set a variety of performance targets. Clearly these two departments have too many staff and I being this to the notice of the Minister. These staff are not specialists in the specific functions of the authorities and the only explanation for this interference can be that they regard the Minister responsible for each authority as somehow derelict in his duties. No other rational explanation could be given for this particular type of measure. I would like to illustrate this and I will do so when I continue my remarks tomorrow. At that time I will refer to Telecom Australia and the fact that the Government has ripped $98m from Telecom which it could have used for the development of proper technology within the Australian community. I really believe that a Minister such as Senator Button would see the advantages of leaving that money in there to be spent on development of an effective telecommunications industry within Australia. It is this type of strangling of industry and of opportunities which has resulted in the problems that I will outline in the rest of my speech tomorrow. Right now Australia is in the world forefront of fibre optics research. There are billion dollar markets available if we only want to chase them, yet the problem is that Telecom is not being allowed to develop them with our local industry. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.30) —During the lead-up to any election it is common to see politicians bandying around outrageous accusations under privilege in an attempt to blacken the name of their opponents. One Australian Labor Party politician from Queensland distinguished himself in that regard during the last sittings of Parliament. I refer to the honourable member for Capricornia, Mr Keith Wright, who is in the melancholy position of being a failed Queensland Labor Party leader, rejected first by the sensible voters of Queensland and then by the members of his own Party. Among the more minor of his unsubstantiated and false allegations was a disgraceful smear of a very worthwhile community organisation-the Leisha Harvey Community Link. The members of this organisation, not having the facilities of the honourable member for Capricornia, have asked me to respond on their behalf. First, the Link was not created by Mrs Leisha Harvey, the successful National Party of Australia member for Greenslopes in the State Parliament; it was initiated and formed by a committee of five ladies who sought Mrs Harvey's co-operation and permission to use her name. The basic aim of the Link is to provide a social grouping and joining of people and groups of similar interests in the Greenslopes community and through this to give support to local charities. There is nothing political about the group's activities. Some members, not all, freely admit they are members of the National Party. Due to the fine work the Link has done in the community, its membership has grown to 16 women. The committee totally refutes Mr Wright's accusation that it in any way funded any political advertisements or donated any money raised by social functions to any politician. The advertisement the honourable member for Capricornia referred to was in fact paid for by the member for Greenslopes personally and is a reflection of her good relationship with her constituents-a relationship proved by her easy win on 1 November. Mr Wright referred to a Melbourne Cup party last year. Revenue raised amounted to $1,800, but after paying for the hire of the hall, the kitchen and other sundry expenses, profits came to $492, which was donated in full to the local Red Cross. The committee chairman, Mrs Maureen Hunter, is quite prepared to offer to anyone who is interested full access to the financial dealings of the Link. She has taken professional advice to ensure that all is in order. What the Link does is get people together, particularly aged people, and create a more caring society. While the money it raises might be a modest amount, it has always gone and will continue to go to the needy, worthwhile charities in the area. All the ladies of the Leisha Harvey Community Link are unpaid volunteer workers and are to be admired for their fine community spirit and genuine contribution towards building a better society. They certainly do not deserve to be denigrated by some desperate failed politician under parliamentary privilege for the most base political motives. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.34 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1288) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, 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 Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The following reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in my Department have been effected on the dates indicated. Date Office reclassified from Office reclassified to 7 June 1984... Assistant Director-General, Level 2 (No. 3637) $48,262 First Assistant Director-General, Level 3 $52,551 26 Aug 1984... Assistant Director-General, Level 1 (No. 248) $43,974 Assistant Director-General, Level 2 $48,262 11 Sept 1984... Assistant Director-General, Level 2 (No. 475) $48,262 First Assistant Director-General, Level 3 $52,551 19 Dec 1984... Director, Senior Executive Level 5 (No. 4763) $61,129 Director, Senior Executive Level 4 $56,840 24 June 1985 ... Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 1 (No. 513) $45,117 Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 2 $49,517 24 June 1985 ... Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 2 (No. 2101) $49,517 Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 1 $45,117 3 Sept 1985... Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 1 (No. 2922) $46,019 Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 2 $50,507 (Question No. 1329) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, on notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Would the Minister for Primary Industry provide an up to date list of A and B class zoos licensed to operate in Australia. (2) Would the Minister also provide a definitive statement of the numbers and species of animals, including birds, kept in A and B class zoos as at July 1986. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Following is a list of zoos and circuses currently holding A and B class licences. A & B CLASS ZOOS & CIRCUSES Classi- fication Australian Capital Territory Canberra Wildlife Gardens... B New South Wales Zoos African Lion Safari Pty Ltd NSW... B Australian Reptile Park NSW... B Bullens Animal World... B Fernleigh Private Zoo... B Hollywood Pleasure Grounds... B King Neptune's Park... B Natureland Zoological Gardens... B Notre Dame... B Pet Porpoise Pool... B Taronga Zoo... A Wentworth Falls Deer Park... B Western Plains Zoo... B New South Wales Circuses Ben Cells... B JP Gill Jnr Travelling Circus... B Circus Lotah... B Robinson's Family Circus... B Film Action P/L... B Mr C. Lennon... B Sole Bros Circus... B Royale American 3-Ring Circus... B Swiss Circus Royale... B Victorian Zoos Animal World, Halls Gap... B Ballarat Wildlife and Reptile Park... B Golden River Fauna Gardens... B Kryal Castle... B Monbulk Animal Kingdom... B McArdles, Ocean Grove (Finnigan Irish Donkey Stud and Zoo)... B Ponderosa Zoo... B Rosebud Zoo... B Royal Melbourne Zoological Gardens... A Sir Colin Mackenzie Zoological Park... B Werribee Zoological Park... B Victorian Circuses Ashton's Circus... B RG Bill's Circus... B Travelling Monkey Circus... B Queensland Zoos Alma Park Zoo... B Belyando Shire Council... B Buderim Zoo and Koala Park... B Bullens African Lion Safari (Qld) Pty Ltd... B Bundaberg City Council... B Currumbin Birdlife Sanctuary Qld... B Marineland Melanesia... B Qld National Parks and Wildlife Service... B Queensland Reptile and Fauna Park... B Rockhampton Zoo... B Seaworld Pty Ltd... B Queensland Circuses Bullen's Circus P/L... B Lester's Dog and Monkey Circus... B Perry's Circus... B South Australian Zoos Adelaide Zoological Gardens... A Gorge Wildlife Park... B Marapana Wildlife Park... B Monarto Zoological Park... B Town of Renmark Corporation... B South Australian Circuses Alberto's Circuses... B Franzisco's Circus... B Silver's Circus... B Western Australian Zoos Adventure World Circus and Recreation Park... B Bullens African Lion Safari (WA) Pty Ltd... B Caversham Wildlife Park... B Glen Karlea Deer Park... B Pearl Coast Wildlife Park... B South Perth Zoo... A Yanchep Sun City... B Western Australian Circuses Circus Westoz... B Premier Circus... B Tasmania Rutherglen Village... B Launceston City Council... B (2) Apart from B class circuses, records are not held by my Department of the numbers and species of animals and birds held in A and B class premises. My Department does not control the introduction, keeping and transfer of native Australian animals. Licensing under the Quarantine Act is only required when exotic animals are held in these premises. I understand that a number of zoos encourage large numbers of free-ranging native birds. The number and species of such a fluctuating population would be virtually impossible to determine at any given time. I would suggest that you contact the zoos individually to obtain the information you request.