Friday, 28 November 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m, and read prayers. The Clerk —A petition has 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 respectfully showeth that: Upon evidence from within Australia and overseas, the introduction of Plant Variety Rights legislation would not be in Australia's best interests because: 1. Plant genetic resources should remain a public resource; 2. Australia's public plant breeding programmes could be undermined; 3. Such legislation may lead to a reduction in the genetic diversity of commercial varieties; 4. There is reason to fear that choices of seed and other plant propagation materials may be restricted due to the controls placed on their use; 5. Plant Varietal Rights legislation could lead to higher costs for the grower, the consumer, the plant-breeder and the tax-payer; 6. Plant Variety Rights will lead to a further increase in foreign control of Australia's plant genetic resources; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament ensure that it recognises the widespread public opposition to PVR and promote alternative means of royalty collection for plant breeders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 17 citizens). Petitions received. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, in view of the significant factual errors contained in information which the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) supplied to the Senate on 26 November 1986, relating to the University College of the Northern Territory and the Darwin Institute of Technology, notes with concern the Minister's total lack of knowledge of the tertiary education needs of Northern Territory students. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —Pursuant to notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 2 for this day and No. 1 for four sitting days hence, standing in my name relating to the disallowance of ordinances. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) -On behalf of Senator Cooney, I withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1 for this day, pursuant to notice of intention to withdraw given 27 November 1986. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That, in accordance with sub-section 49 (2) of the Audit Act 1901, the Senate approves the variation to the form of the Statement of Financial Transactions of the Commonwealth presented to the Senate on 26 November 1986. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.04) —In leading for the Opposition I indicate that the Opposition will support the Bounty (Books) Bill 1986, although in the Committee stage of the consideration of the Bill we propose to advance two amendments. It is probably true to say that books have always received some sort of government subsidy or protection, some form of positive encouragement by way of financial incentive. The first book printed in English by Caxton in 1477 was printed only with assistance in the form of patronage of Margaret of Burgundy. The provision of financial assistance for books has been continued ever since. Support of book production by way of bounty was first notified to the Parliament in May 1969 when the then Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr McEwen, made a ministerial statement indicating that the Government was intending to introduce a system of paying bounty to Australian book manufacturers, pending what was the first inquiry into book production by the then Tariff Board. On that occasion Mr McEwen said: This decision was taken because increasing numbers of books are being printed for Australian publishers in overseas countries. The loss of business to Australian printers has caused serious damage to the domestic book printing and binding industry. Employment has fallen significantly and the Government is convinced on the evidence that this trend will continue unless immediate action is taken. In September 1969 the then Minister for the Interior, Mr Nixon, introduced the first Book Bounty Bill. The amount of bounty paid on books is fairly significant. The table that appears in the latest annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission shows that book bounty is one of the four or five largest bounties paid under all the bounty and subsidy payments made in Australia. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table A1, 1 Bounty and subsidy payments, Australia: 1984-85 to 1986-87 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 $m $m $m Bounties ADP equipment 0.4 0.2 0.1 Agricultural tractors 2.5 1.0 . . Agricultural tractors and equipment - 3.0 1.8 Bed sheeting 0.3 0.4 0.5 Berry fruits 0.2 0.2 0.2 Books 17.4 18.8 15.9 Commercial motor vehicles 5.4 4.4 3.0 Computers 1.5 13.2 17.7 Electric motors 0.4 0.2 . . High alloy steel products 1.7 3.1 2.9 Injection moulding equipment 0.6 0.5 0.3 Metal-working machine tools 13.2 12.4 3.1 Metal-working machine tools and robots - 1.6 8.7 Paper 1.6 1.5 1.2 Penicillin 0.8 1.0 0.1 Printed fabrics 1.2 1.9 1.7 Ship building . . . . - Ships 28.5 38.7 42.0 Steel mill products 51.9 18.0 27.2 Textile yarns 82.7 84.2 66.5 Tractor cabs 0.1 . . . . Two-stroke engines 1.4 0.8 . . Subsidies Cultivation machinery and equipment - - 16.8 Grain harvesters - 3.2 3.6 Nitrogenous fertilisers 6.5 7.4 6.0 Phosphatic fertilisers 45.5 44.0 49.0 Total 263.8 259.7 268.3 Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. A number of the individual payments under the book bounty legislation are significant. For instance, the firm of McPherson's, which is located largely in the electorate of my colleague in the other place, Mr Julian Beale, receives an annual bounty payment in excess of $3m. Griffin Press in South Australia receives a bounty payment in excess of $1.5m. The major publishers of law books and journals receive quite substantial amounts. The figures tabled last week in the annual returns under the book bounty legislation show for instance that Butterworths Pty Ltd received some $160,000, CCH Australia Ltd some $551,000, and the Methuen law book company some $154,000. So substantial payments are made by way of subsidy to publishers of law books and law journals and no doubt make a significant contribution to keeping costs within reason. The subject of book bounty and book production in Australia was referred to the Industries Assistance Commission some time ago. On 20 December 1985 the IAC issued its report No. 377. The Commission said in describing the way in which the bounty operates: In general, all categories of books are bountiable, except periodicals, advertising, Australian directories guides and timetables, books of less than 49 printed pages (with the exception of casebound books, and of text books and children's picture books of 16 pages or more), and books of which less than 1,000 copies are printed. Bounty, where payable, is currently at the rate of 25 per cent of the price (net of bounty) paid or payable to the book manufacturer by the publisher. The IAC after conducting this quite exhaustive inquiry into the industry made the following recommendations: The Commission considers that the bounty rate should be reduced to 20 per cent from 1 January 1987. The corresponding rate for paper supplied free of charge by publishers to printers would be sixteen and two-thirds per cent. Bounty eligibility should be extended to Australian directories, guides, street directories, road guides and the like under reference, excluding telephone directories and classified buyers guides. Customs duties on those books to which bounty eligibility is extended should be set at minimum levels. Customs duties on other books currently dutiable at protective rates should be set at 20 per cent. I shall come back subsequently to that recommendation about the Customs duty on imported books. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in a Press statement issued on 20 August 1986 indicated the preliminary acceptance of the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendations. Senator Button said that the new scheme would operate from 1 January 1987 until 30 June 1989. The Press statement stated: While accepting most of the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendations on book production, the Government had decided to reduce the Industries Assistance Commission recommended bounty rate in line with its budget decision to reduce bounties generally and thus reduce expenditure outlays. The new rates should be sufficient to ensure continued local book production following some improvements in local competitiveness as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. Under the new scheme, eligible books would be paid a bounty of 16 per cent of the printer's net selling price (the selling price less the bounty) from 1 January 1987. Where publishers supplied paper free to printers for production of bountiable books the bounty rate under the new scheme would be 13.8 per cent of the publisher's material cost. In other words, the Government decided to go even further than the Industries Assistance Commission had recommended in terms of the reduction of the bounty from 25 per cent, beyond the 20 per cent recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission to 16 per cent, and make a similar reduction where publishers were operating on paper which had been supplied free to them. The Budget decision announcing a 20 per cent across the board cut in bounty protection then placed the printing industry in the position of facing a potential double whammy, as it has been described, or in other words a reduction of bounty in line with Industries Assistance Commission recommendations plus a reduction of bounty in line with the Government's across the board decision to reduce the general rate of bounty assistance being provided. It was perfectly true that the industry looked at the prospect of having a very large reduction, a sudden reduction, to take effect from January 1987, and was certainly very concerned that its economic position would be substantially jeopardised by that two-stage reduction. It made representations to the Government and to the Opposition and made its position known publicly. On 20 November 1986, in response to its complaints, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce put out a further Press release which indicated: The Government had decided to defer a reduction in the rate of book bounty . . . The reduction was announced on 20 August 1986 following the Government's consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission Report on Book Production. The deferral has been on the basis that a further cut in the book bounty, on top of the 20 per cent cut in bounties generally, which was announced in the Budget, would cause adjustment problems for the industry . . . In reaching its decision the Government noted the industry view that a deferral of the cut would bring significant benefits in the form of more printing of books in Australia and additional exports. The cost of deferring the reduction would be about $1.6m in 1986-87. That is a decision which the Opposition very much welcomes. It is a correct decision and it is now reflected in the legislation. We believe, on that basis, that the legislation is worthy of our support. However, there are now a number of matters dealing with the administration of the bounty and a number of other issues which arise from the second reading speech of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) on which I seek some further information from the Minister when he is in a position to reply when concluding the debate. The Minister's second reading speech draws attention to the fact that the Australian Government is not a signatory to the Florence agreement which precludes the imposition of tariffs on books containing educational, scientific or cultural material. The Florence agreement-more properly known as the Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials-which was open for signature at Lake Success, New York, on 22 November 1950 and which was subsequently amended by the Nairobi Protocol which was attached to the convention provides generally that there ought to be the freest flow of books and publications of educational, scientific and cultural material. Article 1 of the convention provides: The contracting States undertake not to apply customs duties or other charges on, or in connection with, the importation of: (a) books, publications and documents, listed in Annex A to this Agreement . . . It then goes on to deal specifically with internal taxes that may be levied, such as sales tax, value added taxes and so on, but generally it attempts to establish a regime where there is a minimum amount of financial penalty on imported books. A question was asked of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in the House of Representatives on 14 May 1985 by Mr Peacock. Mr Jones said: I said that I thought it was unthinkable that a tax on books would be imposed in isolation. Nevertheless I am concerned about whether the Australian Government has given consideration to becoming a contracting party to the Florence agreement. If it has, what stage have any discussions or considerations reached? If it has not, is there any particular reason why it has decided not to become a signatory to the Florence agreement? The second point that arises is that I do not believe that the Government has really clearly addressed the question of whether the Industries Assistance Commission was entirely correct in deciding to recommend the extension of the bounty to the production of various guides and directories. Certainly, this has been a vexatious problem by way of definition of what constitutes a guide or directory. There was a very significant case involving a publication by the National Trust in which the application of the bounty or the eligibility for bounty turned upon the question of whether the publication should be classified as a guide, a directory or a book within the traditional meaning of the term `book' which was laid down by a High Court decision in Ambascol Press v. the Director of Posts and Telegraphs (NSW). Therefore, I am anxious to ask the Minister whether the extension to guides and directories is being undertaken in the Act simply because it is too difficult to determine on every occasion what constitutes a guide or directory; or whether this is part of a larger government decision to extend the eligibility across a far greater range of publications. Thirdly, can the Minister explain why the Government has decided that it will deny the bounty to books published by the Australian Government Publishing Service and books required to be published or printed by State or Territory government printers after 1 January 1987? Although the reason given is that Government publications are usually printed in Australia, and therefore not subject to competition from overseas printers, will this, in fact, lead to a substantial increase in the cost to the public of government publications? In its amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, the Government has already indicated that it is quite unconcerned about making information more costly to members of the public. It increased the charges under the Freedom of Information Act and I have seen a report today showing that the number of inquiries under the Act has fallen substantially in the last year because of the Government's active discouragement of people making use of FOI. I am very concerned about whether the exclusion of government directories and publications from the book bounty legislation will lead to a substantial increase in the cost of these publications and the cost of information to the public, and whether the Government is deliberately setting out on that course. I am also anxious to ask why the Government has not accepted the IAC report to reduce duties on imported books. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said: The Government has also decided that import duties on books currently dutiable at a general rate of 25 per cent will remain unchanged. The Industries Assistance Commission recommended that the rate come down from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. I am anxious to know why the Government has not picked up that IAC recommendation. It is a matter of very considerable importance because one of the negative effects of the devaluation of the Australian dollar has been to increase substantially the cost of books imported into Australia. This has had a devastating effect upon the Australian library system. As a member of the Parliamentary Library Committee I know that we have had evidence presented to us by the Parliamentary Librarian of the enormous impact that will be made on the Library's capacity to purchase books and journals from the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe. As a member of Estimates Committee D, I heard at length from the Librarian of the National Library of Australia about the enormous impact this is having on that library and others in terms of the cost to them of having to face the consequences of the devaluation. There is a very negative impact upon the process of technology transfer into Australia. Most technology transfer into Australia occurs by way of the purchase of books and journal material. The enormous increase which is taking place in the cost of imported books and journals, which will have a long term negative impact upon our capacity to make the best of technology transfer arrangements, could, in part, have been offset if the Government had decided to accept the IAC recommendation and reduce the duty on imported books from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. I want to know why it is that that was not undertaken. The next point is that I express a degree of dissatisfaction with the way in which the book bounty is administered by the Department. On 24 March 1986 I obtained from the Australian Customs Service a review of the appeals against decisions to withhold the book bounty. If one looks through those details one sees that in the Butterworths case the Administrative Appeals Tribunal overruled the Customs Service decision and indicated that a work comprising more than one volume may be eligible for bounty. In the Australian National University case a substantial question arose because there had been different printing forms and different binding arrangements. On a run of 1,000 books where 507 copies were hard bound and 493 were bound in soft cover, the Department tried to deny the bounty because the 1,000 books were not bound the same way. The AAT set aside that decision. It also set aside a significant decision involving Pap Printers and Publishers Pty Ltd which went through to the Federal Court. A case involving the National Trust of Australia (New South Wales) went through to the Federal Court where the AAT's decision against the Department was upheld. In a recent case involving an applicant by the name of Hawkins which came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Tribunal said: . . . the fact that bounty was paid in respect of the books tendered in evidence- when in fact they may not have been eligible books- reveals an inconsistency in the administration of the Act which causes us considerable concern. Elsewhere, the AAT said: . . . the Department-Mr Holloway, who represented the respondent-acknowledged that the Act had been administered inconsistently . . . I am concerned that there is a considerable amount of evidence about the quite inconsistent administration of this Act by the Department. I believe that this needs substantial attention. The last point I raise in terms of seeking information is that the book bounty legislation provides that a bounty will not be paid upon certain types of books which might be classified as pornographic. In October 1979 I raised this matter at some length in the Senate, indicating the extent to which the bounty was then being paid upon pornographic publications. Amendments to the Act were introduced following pressure by the honourable member for Berowra, Dr Harry Edwards, and me on the then coalition Government. Changes were made so that a book could be classified in such a way that, if it had been sought to be imported, it would have fallen foul of the then regulation 4a of the Customs Prohibited Import Regulations and the Attorney-General's Department could have been asked by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce whether in its opinion a book was classified as prohibited. If that had been the case, the bounty would not have been paid on the book. I asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce on 25 February 1985 the number of books that had been denied bounty under the then section 8 of the old Act in terms of the classification of books. The Minister provided me with some information. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of the question and the answer provided by the Minister on that occasion. Leave granted. The document read as follows- (Question No. 34) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) In each of the last five years, how many applications for payment under the Bounty (Books) Act have been refused on the grounds set out under each of the following sections of that Act: (a) sub-section 8 (1); (b) sub-section 8 (3); (c) paragraph 8 (4) (a); and (d) paragraph 8 (4) (b). (2) How many individual items were involved in each of the refused applications referred to in (1) above. (3) On how many occasions did the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce make use of the provisions of sub-section 8 (5) of the Act to seek external advice on the determination of applications referred to in (1) above; and to which bodies did the Minister refer such matters for advice. (4) How many applications for a review of the Minister's decisions not to grant payment on the grounds set out in Section 8 (other than sub-section 8 (2)) were made in each of the last five years, and how many of such appeals (if any) were upheld. (5) Is bounty under the Act payable on items which may offend certain provisions of State legislation but which do not in any way offend any provisions of Commonwealth or Territory legislation. (6) For the purposes of sub-section 8 (1) of the Act does ``a law of a Territory'' apply to all the laws of the Northern Territory. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) 3 (1981); 2 (1984) (b) 10 (1982); 4 (1983) (c) Nil (d) Nil (2) 53. (3) 1 (one). Advice was sought from the Attorney-General's Department Canberra. Advice was ``not to grant payment of bounty''. (4) 1 (one) application made in 1981. Application for review was upheld. (5) It may be possible. However, without some further detail regarding the ``certain provisions'' of the State legislation referred to it is not possible for me to provide a more definitive answer. (6) Yes. Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. This reveals that we are talking only about 19 applications which have been knocked back on the ground that the book was prohibited. The regime which is now transferred into paragraph 5 (1) (s) of the new legislation continues this process but I am anxious to know from the Department how many books in the last year or so have been denied the bounty on the ground that they were prohibited within the meaning of the Act. I note that 53 items were referred to during the previous period to which I have just referred. However, only one had been put to the Attorney-General's Department for external advice. I am anxious to know whether bounty continues to be paid on books which one sees in the shops which appear to me generally to fall into the category of pornographic publications. I do not seek to make any pronouncement on pornography or to deny that in certain cases there may be therapeutic benefits from such material; my only concern is whether public revenues are being used to support publication of these books through the operation of the book bounty. I have raised six specific questions: The Florence agreement; the extension to guides and directories; the exclusion of government publications; the failure to reduce import duties; the administrative difficulties and inconsistencies within the Department; and the regime in place in relation to prohibited books. Support for this legislation is forthcoming from the Opposition. I indicated at the outset that, to my knowledge, books have always been subject to a degree of government support. Senator Grimes, who shares with me an interest in the activities of that great and lamented Plantagenet king, Richard III, will undoubtedly be aware that even in his time there was considerable support for the book and publishing industry. When Richard's parliament enacted a tariff against all imports he amended the legislation in his own hand to provide that there would be no custom duties on those `bringing into this realm or selling by retail or otherwise any manner of books, written or imprinted' and that there was to be no interference with `the inhabiting within the realm of writers or illustrators, binders or printers of such books'. Continuing that fine tradition established by that very fine monarch, the Opposition is happy to support the book bounty legislation. We will move a couple of minor amendments at the Committee stage. Otherwise, I commend the legislation to the Senate. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(9.30) —Mr Acting Deputy President, as you will be aware from the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on the Bounty (Books) Bill 1986, the Government has decided to retain the bounty assistance to Australian book production for the next three years until 30 June 1989. Although the bounty has been reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent of the net selling price, the Government has decided to defer the reduction in bounty rates until the report of the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries is delivered in February next year. I congratulate the Government on this move. It allows for better planning than the alternative of having at least four assistance scenarios in less than 12 months, and it is in line with the other well developed industry plans that the Government has already announced for other sectors of manufacturing industry. The other plans include, of course, the steel industry plan, the car industry plan and the heavy engineering package. The Australian book publishing industry is made up of 30 large producers and 80 small producers. Currently they produce only about 40 per cent of locally published works, and account for only $90m out of a possible $225m worth of books published in Australia. The book sector accounts for about 10 per cent of the manufacturing work force in this sector of the manufacturing industry, but the value added component of the industry is a relatively high 12 per cent. Australians have one of the highest literacy rates in the world and this country is one of the highest per capita buyers of books in the world. The room for expansion is enormous. The effects of the devaluation were expected to lift the locally produced figure to $125m in 1987. In 1987 the book industry is looking for increased production in the order of $50m to $60m which, of course, would create another 400 jobs in the book production industry. Let there be no doubt that this decision by the Government is a progressive decision. The delay in implementing the cuts in the rate of the bounty will allow those involved in the industry-both the unions and the employers-to investigate the possibility of developing a book industry plan. The Government needs to be congratulated for this, as do the unions and employers, for their willingness to sit down and properly plan this most important industry. Already the participants in the industry have agreed in principle to an outline for such an industry plan. The manufacturers have agreed in principle to reinvest one-third of the moneys received in bounties to improve and modernise plant and equipment. The figures which Senator Puplick cited show the amounts of money that could be reinvested in new plant and machinery in the book publishing and printing field. In return, the unions have agreed to the introduction of new technologies and are prepared to examine working arrangements. I am confident that, with reasonable and responsible negotiation on both sides, a book industry plan will be developed that will also incorporate agreements on matters such as industrial democracy and occupational health and safety. As I mentioned previously, the room for expansion within the industry is enormous and with a viable book publishing industry plan we can look forward to expansion of our markets, especially into some markets that have not been developed. Our book printing and binding industry should consider entering the Pacific island states and other countries in this part of the world. I believe the Government has made a correct decision. We will await with interest the further IAC report on the whole industry. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.34) —The Australian Democrats, like the Opposition, support the Bounty (Books) Bill 1986. As the Senate is aware, the Australian Democrats opposed the overall 20 per cent cut in bounty rates earlier in the week under the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill. Therefore, support for this legislation is important in terms of the book industry, which would have suffered what has already been termed a double whammy under that legislation-legislation which, at the time, we said was shortsighted and was a deterrent to industry's ability to be able to plan ahead for investment, and to stability in industry generally. We were unsuccessful in our opposition to that general cut with the Opposition paying lip service to our position but not supporting it with its vote. We recognise, as does everybody, I think, in this Parliament, the importance of the book industry to Australia, not just in an industrial sense or in an employment sense, but also in a cultural sense. As a relatively small nation, it is very important that we have a viable printing, publishing and binding industry so that our cultural heritage, our own individuality as a nation, is expressed through the print medium. Were it not for a range of support systems and the support of Government for planning and development in the book industry, that viability would certainly be at risk given the possibility of an influx of material from much larger countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom, countries which have well and truly been permeated with other aspects of our culture, particularly through the electronic media-television in particular. It is very important that we sustain this industry in Australia. That view has general support. There are other aspects of this Bill which are encouraging. Certain aspects tidy up the existing legislation. An example of that is the inclusion of Australian guides and directories. This brings me to the point I was making about support for the industry being seen in the light of our own national identity. It is important, too, that there is no double eligibility for imports for both tariff and bounty. At the Committee stage we will be moving an amendment which reflects the concern, which we expressed in the previous bounty legislation this week in this place, for the provision to appeal decisions. I do not wish to say any more other than that because we see this legislation redressing what might have been an enormous difficulty to the book industry, given the decision on general cuts in bounties, we support the legislation and will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.38) —In the few minutes available to me, I want to make a few comments about the Bounty (Books) Bill 1986. This Bill continues the bounty assistance for Australian book production for the next three years to 30 June 1989. In doing so, it replaces the current bounty legislation which terminates on 31 December 1986. It follows the Government's consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission report of December 1985 on book production, the main recommendation of which was that the bounty on eligible books be reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) said in his second reading speech that the Government has accepted the basic thrust of the recommendations of the IAC, but that it has decided to defer the reduction in bounty rates until it has had time to consider the results of the current IAC inquiry on the pulp, paper and paper products and printing industries. However, the Government has gone ahead with the Budget decision to reduce all bounties by 20 per cent, a decision that was announced in the Budget. I support the remarks that Senator Puplick made on behalf of the Opposition in this debate. I want to add to those remarks-and this is my main reason for speaking-my concern about the way in which the Government has gone about this legislation and about the example it provides of inconsistency and indecisiveness in government policy making, particularly in the area of industry policy at a time when the thing that we most need in Australia is consistency. We need stability and predictability in decision making if we expect Australia to become a more productive, investment conscious, and employing economy, particularly in the manufacturing sector. When the Government announced on 20 August its decision to implement the Industries Assistance Commission reports, it had on the preceding day in the Budget announced the 20 per cent cut in bounties. Back on 20 August, when the Minister made his announcement, from which he is now backing away, he knew that there was no logic in making a decision at that time to have an inquiry into the book bounty in isolation from pulp, paper and printing generally. That was all known at the time. The Minister knew on 20 August that the decision announced then-again from which he is backing away in this legislation-doubled the size of the bounty cut in the space of 4 1/2 months. He knew all those things. He knew that it would cause considerable concern in the industry. Yet the Government went ahead on 20 August and announced that decision in relation to the book printing industry. It is an indictment that the Minister took that decision. I accept the validity of his changing that decision. My point is that the decision should never have been made in the first place on 20 August, for all the reasons that he has now given. I make those remarks because the inconsistency and stupidity of much of the approach of the Government to industry policy are of great concern to this side of the Senate. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.42) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their support, even for those few nasty remarks just made by Senator Short. I have a few matters to reply to from Senator Puplick's contribution. Senator Puplick asked: `Why did the Government deny the bounty on books published by the Australian Government Publishing Service? Will this increase the cost of government publications?'. As has been said, books published by the AGPS are almost always printed by Australian printers and bounty assistance of course is not required to ensure that they are printed in this country. Whilst under this system there will be some additional cost to the customer department, there will be a corresponding reduction in expenditure on bounty payments by the Government. It is expected that this will balance out. As all honourable senators know, the Florence convention requires signatories to remove duties on books, works of art and audio-visual equipment. The Australian Government respects the spirit of the convention with respect to books, but governments of both political persuasions have considered it undesirable to remove protection on audio-visual equipment. Accordingly, governments have felt unable to sign the convention, although, as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has made clear in his second reading speech, the Government certainly supports the spirit of the convention with regard to books. Senator Puplick suggested that the Australian Customs Service has a poor track record in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal relating to the Bounty (Books) Act. As the honourable senator is aware, that Act is administratively an exceedingly complicated piece of legislation. The list of ineligible books under the Act is extensive and the number of administrative decisions required under the Act is very extensive indeed. In view of the number of decisions, the record of the Australian Customs Service before the AAT is pretty good. The few examples noted by the honourable senator, compared with the total number of decisions potentially reviewable, I think are proof of this fact. He also queried why the Government did not reduce duties on imported books in line with the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendation. Book production is only a small part of the printing industry. The assistance to the whole paper and printing industry is currently being reviewed by the IAC. As paper represents a significant input to the book printing industry, the Government considers it appropriate to defer any duty reduction on books until it can consider the industry as a whole. I hope that answers most of the points raised by Senator Puplick. Again I thank honourable senators for their support for the legislation and the speedy passage provided for the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.46) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 5, clause 4, line 17, insert ``except in the case of a price referred to in the definition of `publisher's paper costs' in sub-section (1),'' before ``an amount''. (2) Page 11, clause 10, line 41, leave out ``was commenced and''. (3) Page 27, clause 33, after paragraph (1) (g) insert the following paragraph: ``(ga) a decision of the Comptroller for the purposes of sub-section 19 (4);''. The principal amendment proposes to correct an anomaly in the legislation by including in the Bill a transitional provision to enable payment of bounty on eligible books being produced under the old bounty but not completed until after 31 December 1986. It is the Government's intention that those books continue to be bountiable, under the new arrangements. Accordingly, amendment (2) proposes to insert into the Bill a provision to enable bounty to be paid on books commencing prior to 1 January-that is, the date of the commencement of the new bounty arrangements-but completed after that date. In amendment (1) the opportunity has been taken to remove an apparent unintentional effect of clause 4 (5) of the Bill. The amendment proposes to make it clear that the provision of that sub-clause will not have the effect of reducing publishers' paper costs by 16.7 per cent to take account of profit, thereby doubling the reduction in the amount of the bounty. Amendment (3) proposes the insertion into the Bill of clause 33 (1) (gd). It provides that a decision of the Comptroller on the date on which a person is to be registered under the Bill is to be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The absence of such a provision was brought to the attention of the Government by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its most recent Alert Digest. The Government concurs with the view of the Committee and proposes the amendment to correct the position. Amendments agreed to. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.47) —I move: (1) Page 19, leave out sub-clause 19 (11). Clause 19 (11) provides that Ministers shall have the power to deny the registration of a person, thereby denying such a person eligibility under the Act, if the Minister has informed the Comptroller that the registration of that person will not permit the orderly development in Australia of the industry comprising the production of bountiable books. I do not intend to take much time to go through this matter. This is a standard amendment which has been moved by the Opposition. I proposed to quote what Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition, said in discussing the same amendment moved to the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 on 25 November. He said: We believe that whilst the Government is acting with the best of intentions of trying to avoid fragmentation of Australian industry, it is in fact simply putting in place more bureaucratic interference with industry of a type which, in the past, has, in the end, simply added to costs and to the inflexibility of Australian industry. Similarly, in talking to the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 on 20 November 1986, Senator Chaney said: We think the proper course is for the Government to limit entry by ensuring that the competitive pressures are so great that only those people who will be developing an efficient industry will wish to enter. On 25 November 1986, in moving the same amendment to the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Bill 1986, Senator Chaney said: In fact we believe that the best way to achieve the orderly development of the industry is to ensure that the levels of assistance provided are not such as to encourage people to enter this industry unless they believe that they can be competitive. In other words, the Opposition has consistently maintained that this attempt by the Government to regulate what it calls the orderly development of a particular industry in Australia is not the correct way to bring about rationality in the development of Australian industry and industry policy. We have therefore moved this amendment. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.50) —As in the previous bounty legislation, I repeat that the Government is unable to accept this amendment. We remain committed to the continued inclusion of the orderly development provisions in their current form as a necessary facility to ensure that bounty assistance is only available to applicants who have a clear long term commitment to the particular industry concerned. Given the monetary limits that are now universally placed on this type of industries assistance, the Government is of the view that unrestricted access to bounty to those who might have only a marginal commitment to the industry is entirely inappropriate. The discretion does not, as has been suggested in this case and in other cases, exclude new entrants to an industry from receiving bounty, nor does it unfairly entrench existing bounty recipients. Provided new entrants are prepared to undertake the necessary commitment to the industry and meet the registration requirements, they will not be denied registration. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.51) —I just comment that the Australian Democrats do not support the amendment moved by the Opposition. Amendment negatived. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.52) —I move: (2) Page 22, sub-clause 25 (1), leave out `at the time and place', insert `at a reasonable time and place'. This amendment can be dealt with very expeditiously as I understand that the Government is prepared to adopt it. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in its tenth report of 1986 dated 11 June 1986, drew attention to the fact that there ought to be some reasonableness in this matter. At page 163 of the report the Committee said: While the Committee recognises that the specification of an unreasonable time or place may give rise to a `reasonable excuse' for failure to attend before an officer it would prefer to see the requirement that the time and place be reasonably specified in the standard form of such provisions. The Government adopted this recommendation in the Subsidy (Cultivation Machinery and Equipment) Bill 1986 where, in clause 28 (1), the words `at a reasonable time and place' specified in the notice were included in that amendment. For the sake of consistency, we move this amendment so that there will be no doubt that the directions which are to be given by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce which require a person to answer questions and produce documents under clause 25 (1), where at the moment any time and place could theoretically be notified to the person concerned, the time and place should be defined in the legislation as reasonable. The Government has adopted this amendment in a number of other bounty and subsidy Bills that have come before us recently and I am sure that it will have no difficulty in accepting it as far as this legislation is concerned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.54) —As Senator Puplick said, we accept the amendment. It is the Government's view that it is implicit that the time and place that a collector might require a person to attend before him should be reason- able. However, we will accept the amendment to make it absolutely clear that that is so. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.54) —The stance of the Government is shared by the Australian Democrats in this case. Amendment agreed to. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.54) —I move: Page 27, paragraph 33 (1) (g), leave out ``(other than such a decision made under sub-section 19 (11))''. This amendment is moved in much the same spirit as the last amendment moved by the Opposition, to be consistent with our attitude in the other legislation relating to bounties and subsidies which has recently been through the Senate in which we expressed the view that ministerial rulings should be subject to an appropriate appeal procedure under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.55) —The Opposition will not be supporting the amendment of the Australian Democrats on this occasion. Senator Mason —Surprise, surprise. Senator PUPLICK —While Senator Mason continues perhaps briefly to be a member of the Australian Democrats I am interested to hear what he has to say. The decision referred to in clause 33 (1) (g) relates to a decision made under clause 19 (11). The Democrats insistence that the reference to clause 19 (11) be deleted, that is to say, the Minister's power to direct the development of the market in what is regarded as an `orderly' fashion, is obviously a very significant policy decision. It touches quite clearly on the Government's announced intention to regulate the market in a particular fashion. It is not an administrative decision in the sense in which administrative decisions are understood and are properly subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunals. Being a decision entirely of a policy nature and not an administrative nature, the Opposition does not believe that it ought to be subject to judicial review; indeed although we might disagree with government policy, we do not believe that the AAT or any other judicial authority should have the power to second guess any government, on what is clearly a policy matter. Under those circumstances we will not support the Democrats' amendment. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.57) —The discretion in this case implements an important element of Government policy. It is the Government's view and, as everyone here knows it is certainly my view, that it is inappropriate to have decisions of this type reviewable in this way. To make discretion reviewable will indeed have the potential effect of frustrating Government policy. As such, the Government relies on the acknowledged exception by the Administrative Review Council to the reviewability of administrative decisions which this category of decision-making represents. For this reason we cannot accept this restriction on the discretion which the amendment proposed by the Democrats would provide. Amendment negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 26 November. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION BILL 1985 The Bill. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. Senator Macklin has moved his amendment No. 2 to insert words into paragraph 11 (1) (k). The Committee decided, when it rose, that the question on this amendment should be put. The question is: That the words proposed to be inserted by Senator Macklin's amendment be inserted. Amendment agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That the Bill, as amended, be agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.59) —Just before the gag was so disgracefully moved on a human rights Bill, of all things, by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) who was at the table, supported even more disgracefully by the Australian Democrats, who make such a great song and dance about human rights issues and so on-- Senator Walters —The hypocrisy of it all. Senator DURACK —Total hypocrisy of the worst kind. It was certainly the end of a black day for the Democrats. They had lost their Deputy Leader earlier in the day and then they obviously jettisoned the attitude of their former Leader and founder, Don Chipp, who said that they were here to keep people honest. The first thing that rabble of representatives who are interested only in single issues did was gag debate on a human rights Bill. Before that disgraceful episode the other night I was about to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from Mr Thomson of the Human Rights Commission to the President of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia in which the Commission gives an opinion in relation to the question of what `universal and equal suffrage' means. We were discussing the phrase `universal and equal suffrage' at the time the gag was imposed on the Democrats' amendment. Senator Evans in his reply seemed to be under the impression-for some reason he thought this was irrelevant to the matter in issue-that the letter from the Human Rights Commission was some sort of working paper prepared by an officer of the Commission. What I want to make perfectly clear for the record is that this was no such thing. This was a view expressed by the Commission itself as is clear in a letter to Senator McIntosh in his capacity as Chairman of a Senate Estimates committee from Mr Thomson. In that letter Mr Thomson says: At its Meeting . . . held on 26-27 August 1982, the Commission considered and approved a draft reply to correspondence from the Proportional Representation Society of Australia which had written to the Commission expressing the view that the Australian method of electing Members to the House of Representatives is inconsistent with Article 25 of the ICCPR. The draft was prepared by legal staff of the Commission and may, therefore, be said to contain a legal opinion on that question. It is perfectly clear that although the letter may have been prepared by legal staff of the Commission it was in fact considered and approved by the Commission itself. So this was a decision by the existing Human Rights Commission given at the end of August 1982 and conveyed to Mr Wright, the President of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia, by letter dated 1 September 1982 and signed by Mr Thomson on behalf of the Commission. I have already quoted from that letter and I do not want to waste the time of the Committee today by quoting from it again. I therefore seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Dear Mr Wright, I refer to your letters of 29 March and 9 May concerning your Society's view that the Australian method of electing members to the House of Representatives is inconsistent with Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Broadly, you seem to be taking issue with the voting process itself, and you then specify three ways in which you believe the electoral system fails to satisfy Article 25. We have examined the working papers of the international committee that worked on this Covenant to try to find the exact intent of specific words and phrases. These working papers are recorded in the travaux of the 1096th and 1097th meetings of the Third Committee of the Sixteenth Session of the United Nations General Assembly, and in some annexes and agenda to these meetings. I have enclosed photocopies for your information. The Article 23 referred to is the present Article 25 of the Covenant. From these records, it seems clear that the intention of the United Nations General Assembly was that the final form of the Article should make allowance for different electoral systems in various parts of the world. The provisions of Article 23 (then) should have universal significance and be valid for all countries, regardless of their electoral systems. The choice of electoral systems should be left to individual Governments (see paragraphs 11, 18 and 50, and the Annexes: summary of issues discussed). The first way in which you say the electoral system fails to meet the requirements of Article 25 is that while sub-paragraph (a) of Article 25 refers to the right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, some voters, namely those who do not vote for the winning candidate, do not have freely chosen representatives. Discussion about the sub-paragraph concerned the significance of the word ``directly'' which was taken to mean ``unhindered in their right to stand for election or nominate others''. There was concern that there be plurality of political parties, as this was one way of guaranteeing that representation be ``direct''; but no concern was expressed that every voter should have a freely chosen representative. The question would appear to turn upon the meaning of the phrase ``freely chosen''. Clearly having regard to the nature of an election, this cannot mean that every voter shall be represented by the person of his or her choice. In the Commission's view, that phrase means that the process of choosing a representative shall be unfettered. This is, of course, to a significant extent, secured by the concept of secret ballot as well as by the general electoral process obtaining in Australia. This approach is consistent with the discussion mentioned above concerning the significance of the word ``directly''. Your second concern was that the words ``universal and equal suffrage'' in sub-paragraph 25 (b) should be taken to mean that each vote should have equal value, and that under the present system of elections, this is not so. The delegate from Great Britain raised the question of this interpretation (Agenda Item 28, Part 1, Annexes, Tenth Session, Document A/2910, Addendum 1 to 6, Observations by Governments). Great Britain's note stated that ``the reference to `equal suffrage' might be taken to mean conditions which ensure that every vote has equal weight; the fulfilment of such a requirement might involve the institution of some form of proportional representation, as well as, in many countries, some rationalisation of the size of constituencies''. Great Britain therefore suggested as an amendment the deletion of the words ``shall be by universal and equal suffrage''. However, at the 1096th Meeting of the Third Committee, at which suggested amendments were discussed, the British delegation said they would no longer maintain their amendment, if it were made clear that the word ``equal'' did not imply that ``each vote should be guaranteed identical weight by means of some kind of proportional representation in the electoral system. . . . Each vote carried equal weight in the sense that there was only one vote per person and it was cast for a member . . . who had exactly the same rights and duties as any other member'' (para. 9). The point was emphasised again by the delegates of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (para. 44) and France (para. 50). Subsequent voting indicates that the Committee accepted and agreed with that interpretation of the word ``equal''. The Commission, in the light of that discussion, takes a similar view on the meaning of that word. Your third concern was that the words ``guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors'' should be taken to mean that the will of the people should not merely be recorded but also put into effect, and that while the votes of many people are ineffective, this cannot be so. There was considerable discussion of the issues involved in sub-paragraph 25 (b), and it was held that ``genuine periodic elections'', ``universal and equal suffrage'' and ``secret ballot'' were the elements of genuine elections which in turn guaranteed the free expression of the will of the electors. Discussion was lengthy, without ever raising the inference that ``free expression'' necessarily involved the ``putting into effect'' of the will of the people. (Paragraphs 4, 26, 31, 49, 55, 59, 73 and 70 refer.) This would not appear to be an inappropriate construction to be placed on sub-paragraph 25 (b). In view of the above, there would not appear to be any inconsistency in terms of your letter between the existing process of voting under electoral legislation in Australia and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Should you wish, however, to take further with the Commission any of the matters discussed above, we should be glad to hear from you. Yours sincerely, J. F. THOMSON Secretary Mr J. F. H. Wright, President, Proportional Representation Society of Australia, G.P.O. Box 3058 SYDNEY. N.S.W. 2001. Senator DURACK —The position, of course, becomes quite clear when one reads the letter that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wrote to the Australian Democrats on 12 March 1986. This letter, which has also been referred to in the debate, states: Specifically I confirm that the Government will ask the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission- that is the new commission- to inquire into existing State electoral laws. Should the Commission find that Queensland's electoral distribution contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and should the Queensland Government not agree to reform that distribution, the Commonwealth will legislate pursuant to its external affairs power. When that undertaking was given by the Prime Minister which followed undertakings given by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), and by Senator Evans on behalf of the Attorney-General, they must have known or should have known that the existing Human Rights Commission itself had adopted a quite different interpretation of the meaning of `equal suffrage'. This reveals how absolutely hollow was the undertaking that the Government gave on 12 March. I think the Democrats realise now how hollow it was, and this may be one reason why they wanted to cut short the debate the other night. Not only has the Human Rights Commission formed this view but also, as I said, this view was expressed by leading international lawyers in the authoritative work on the International Covenant, titled The International Bill of Rights, which contains a series of articles on the Covenant and which discusses various aspects of it. I do not propose to take time quoting from this work, but I refer honourable senators, if they are interested, to pages 241 to 245, which I have already referred to, and particularly to page 242. That view is expressed there and it has also been expressed recently by a leading Australian constitutional lawyer, Professor Winterton. I have absolutely no doubt that on 12 March of this year the Government would have had either advice or opinion from its own constitutional lawyers on the likelihood that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, unless it was stacked by the Government to get that opinion, would accord with the opinion given by the Human Rights Commission and would accord with the current opinion of international lawyers as to what this provision in the covenant means. This has been a totally hollow exercise by the Government. It is clear from what Senator Evans said in the chamber the other night that the Government is backing away from that position as fast as it can. In any event, whatever is decided in this matter, it will clearly be decided by the High Court of Australia. There is a whole series of reasons why the Government is not going to succeed in this endeavour that it has embarked upon, including the reasons which Professor Winterton expressed in the interview on the AM program, which I have referred to, when he said that there are other good reasons why the High Court is most unlikely to find against the State and this would probably be held to be discriminatory legislation directed against the State. Clearly the price that the Government is paying for these undertakings, which were given purely to buy the Democrats' support for the Bill of Rights Bill, is becoming more and more devalued over time. I leave it at that for the moment. I want to raise another matter, but perhaps somebody else wishes to speak on this point. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.09) —When the Australian Democrats moved the gag, after consultation with the Australian Labor Party, several nights ago I sought to refresh myself upon their printed statements of principles of action so that they could keep us all honest. I looked, of course, to a main principle, which was: `We will never support a gag'. I wondered then at the convolution or perversion of morality of a party which, of course, quite naturally is now disintegrating because, as Senator Siddons said, the party is a party of a collection of single issues, most of them conflicting, and indeed living off the peckings of the day. I cannot think of anything more hypocritical than the gag move. But, reflecting on it, it became abundantly clear because, if there was one thing that was absolutely necessary, it was to try to gag the substance of the material that Senator Durack has just revealed. Here was not just sublime hypocrisy by the Democrats-we are used to that every day of our lives-but a complete exposure of hypocrisy by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government. It is now patently clear from the words of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is in the chamber, that, when the Prime Minister wrote that letter to the Democrats making a bargain with the Democrats so that the Democrats would vote for the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, the Prime Minister knew that what he was saying was substantially untrue. He new that he could not deliver it. He knew that the very body, the Human Rights Commission, had put in writing that it did not believe that it had the power to carry out the very investigation that he was making a bargain to deliver. There cannot be anything more hypocritical than that. It is just one more exposure, along with the exposure today of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), of the abject hypocrisy of people who preach one thing and practise an entirely different code of morality. We also saw it last night when we examined the Estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State and I exposed the fact that there had been no change at all in the instructions to the Department about the enforcement of the interpretation of `principal place of residence'. It was just a different attitude of mind that had come forward. Here we have a situation in which the Government knew, and its advisers knew, that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contained no head of power to enforce one vote one value. They knew from the working agreements, the travaux, which are all documented behind that Covenant, that country after country said that it would not sign the Covenant if the concept of one vote one value were included. In fact, it was therefore worded so that it was one vote one person and not one vote one value. All that was known. It was known that that head of power could not be used to pursue that. But it was worse than that. The Government wanted to take a cheap trick against the Queensland Government, simply because that Government is not of its faith. It almost failed to notice that a Labor Government in the west was also vulnerable in terms of electoral laws. But the main concentration had to be on Queensland because there was an election around. Indeed, a standing committee of this Parliament took evidence in Queensland on this matter. I recall that in public evidence taken in Queensland a question was asked of the General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party about the results of the election before last. The question was: `If there had been the fairest boundaries on earth, one vote one value and no gerrymander, who would have won the last election?'. The General Secretary of the Labor Party replied: `The National Party would have done so'. That rather spoilt the track record of that trail. When one looks at that situation-- Senator Macklin —Didn't he say `coalition'? Senator Robert Ray —He said `the coalition', not `the National Party'. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Thank you very much. They are just confirming it. It would have won, of course, because it was a preferential system of voting. Therefore, as in the last election, in respect of which an attempt is being made to suggest that on a 40 per cent vote the National Party won on a minority vote, the truth is that the very thing that Senator Macklin and Senator Robert Ray have just said happened; that is, under a preferential system, by the distribution of preferences, a government was formed on a majority preferred vote. It was not revealed that the zones in Queensland which Labor is criticising were invented by the Labor Party. The boundaries in Western Australia which Labor is criticising were also invented by the Labor Party. The Labor Party deliberately sets up simplistic issues and chases them. This issue surely involves the major hypocrisy of all time-an attempt to get the Australian Bill of Rights Bill through at any cost. The Bill would have delimited or destroyed freedoms, not enlarged them. A bargain was made. The Government promised the Democrats that it would set up an inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. That bargain was to deliver the Democrat vote. It is interesting that the Minister keeps suggesting that the Opposition stopped the progress of the Bill of Rights Bill through the Parliament. That is palpably untrue. It would have been quite possible for the Government to have gone ahead with the Bill of Rights Bill in the form it was in and, with the Democrat vote, to have forced it through. What stopped the progress of the Bill through the Parliament was the public. The outrage of every section of the public stopped the Bill. Let us not have the Minister talking this nonsense. If he believes that it is the Opposition which has stopped the progress of the Bill of Rights Bill, let him bring it back before the Parliament. He knows that the Demo-crats have promised to support it. He knows that the Government has the numbers. The fact is that the Government is withdrawing the Bill because of the public outrage and the petitions that were constantly put before the Parliament. Virtually every section of the population has said that it is outraged by such a Bill. The fact is that there has been an attempt to hide the situation by the use of the gag. Great hypocrisy has been shown by the Government and the Democrats. Hypocrisy has been shown by the Prime Minister in writing a letter which he and his Government knew was based on absolute falsity. It was a quick trick to get a lousy little vote-although it is getting a lousy littler vote as time goes on and the lemmings flee. `Even fleas have little fleas upon their backs which bite them; those small fleas have smaller fleas and so on, ad infinitum.' We all know the little rhyme. The lousy littler votes move across the chamber. This wonderful little conspiracy, like all the little conspiracies of the Democrats, failed. The Democrats are, and always have been in this chamber, the limpet fish of the Labor Party. They swim alongside the big fish, feeding off them and making little arrangements for a modus vivendi with the Labor Party. The limpet fish are now springing to the help of their mentor, of their food box, by supporting a gag. I cannot think of more disgraceful behaviour on the part of both the Democrats and the Government. The fact that we had to force the Minister to make an admission that evidence given to the Senate by the Human Rights Commission during an Estimates committee hearing was true is an outrage. The Minister, a lawyer, is here to tell us the facts. The facts ought to have been before the Parliament when the Bill of Rights Bill was originally before it. We ought to have been told that the next clause we were to deal with in debate would not have been enforceable in the way the Government was projecting it because learned lawyers, learned textbooks and the Human Rights Commission had put it in writing. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. Senator Gareth Evans —You have got it quite wrong. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —We are always quite wrong, according to the Minister; the only person who has ever been right is the Minister. His record of being right is measured by the number of Bills he has introduced and withdrawn. The retreat of the Minister in legislative action can be measured only by Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It has been a sad winter of politics for the Minister in regard to virtually every piece of legislation he has introduced. Senator Robert Ray —And you are the Talleyrand of the Senate. There is no doubt about that. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I would hate to miss any of the precious little moments of interjection by Senator Ray. There was a conspiracy. It has fallen on its face. I remind the Democrats that if they are to have a shred of credibility they must put aside their part in this conspiracy to bring down a gag and stop making arrangements behind the Chair. The Prime Minister is expert at that in regard to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and others. He is very good at deserting his Treasurer. I hope to goodness that he deserts the Treasurer today because if anyone deserves to be deserted the Treasurer does. I rose to make two points. Everybody now knows why the gag was moved. The Democrats have been exposed as abject humbugs. Everybody now knows that when the Prime Minister wrote that letter he did not believe in what he was doing. He was making a simplistic arrangement to get a vote to force the Bill of Rights Bill through. Everybody now knows that it was not the Opposition, even with the solid logic of its arguments, that defeated the Bill of Rights Bill. It is true that the Opposition, by giving leadership in the community, defeated the Bill; but the Bill could have been carried here. However, it is being dragged back from the Senate by the Minister, as he has had to do with other legislation in the past, because he knows that the quality of the Bill was rejected totally by the public. I believe that this is one of the most disgraceful performances I have seen in the Senate. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.23) —We have seen Senator Sir John Carrick kick the Australian Democrats to pieces today because they are not going through a particularly good period. I assure the Democrats that the next time the Liberal Party of Australia has an amendment it wants the Democrats to support, it will come crawling to them; it will plead with them. Then the Democrats will see the hypocrisy of the other side. I want to comment on these points. I will not delay the Committee for too long. We have heard Senator Sir John Carrick go on at great length about the gag and how evil it is. I do not think he was referring to our side, because we have never hesitated to use the gag if we can get it through. He also criticises the Democrats. But, if a gag is so bad, is Senator Sir John Carrick telling me that in his distinguished career of 15 years in the Senate he has never once voted for the gag- Senator Sir John Carrick —I told you the other day that I moved it once and regretted it. Remember that. Senator ROBERT RAY —He moved it once. I am talking about whether he has ever voted for the gag. I am talking about the honourable senator not as a leader but as an honourable senator. When has he voted for the gag? Did he vote for the gag more than once, twice or three times when Senator Withers was leader of this place? Sitting on this side of the chamber, he voted for it hundreds of times Senator Sir John Carrick referred to our inquiry in Queensland. Some of the points and analysis he made in regard to Queensland were quite accurate. I am also sick of people referring just to primary votes in Queensland, instead of to preferred votes. It distorts the whole debate. If the Government is so concerned to hide the external powers issues, I would hardly have been likely to have supported Senator Sir John Carrick and others who want a full ranging inquiry into the external powers head. Senator Sir John Carrick has to concede that. Senator Sir John Carrick —You did that eagerly. Senator ROBERT RAY —I did so eagerly because I believed that it is an area that in the past has not been discussed or analysed in full or to the extent it should be. It is a bit harsh to say that members of the Australian Labor Party would like to hide that discussion. It should be highlighted. Two factors are involved. The first is the body that does the inquiry into the Queensland, Western Australian, or whatever, case. The second is the head of power. It may be quite competent for the Human Rights Commission to inquire into the matter, but whether ultimately it is the correct head of power for us as a government, or for whatever government is in power, to use is a matter of doubt. Had we got the referendum proposal on advisory opinions up and running, without honourable senators opposite opposing it, we could have gone to the High Court of Australia and stopped all this argument by getting an advisory opinion on the matter. But the honourable senator cannot expect us to anticipate a ruling of the High Court. The honourable senator may well be right in arguing from the Covenant that there is no power. Until I examine that question in detail I tend to come down on his side and believe that there may not be. But I think that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is entitled to go to the High Court to find out whether the legislation is valid and leave it to the High Court to decide. I point out that if the High Court had had powers of advisory opinion we could have found out these things a lot more profitably in terms of the time spent here and the argument in the community. I wanted to make those points. We should not try to suppress debate on this issue but there are many opportunities in this chamber other than this debate. There are many opportunities other than this debate to debate whether the external affairs power will in fact apply in this case. The only thing for which I commend Senator Sir John Carrick is for having raised this matter and gained the very generous support of the Australian Democrats, the Australian Labor Party and everyone else to have an open inquiry with witnesses from all around Australia to examine this matter. The Senate will, I hope, be given the benefit of our opinion by May or June of next year. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(10.26) —I rise to support this side of politics in this argument because I see the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, particularly this part of it, as part of the pattern of attack that socialist governments have been making on the great constitutional institutions in Australia for many years. For example, a socialist government originally wanted to get rid of the Senate. It realised that it was too big a nut to crack. Various referenda were held over the years to undermine and to sack the Senate. I know, for example, that socialist governments want to get rid of the State governments and have regional divisions with the strings all tied to Canberra. Now the Government has set up the Constitutional Commission. Socialist governments can never settle down and play by the rules as they exist. The Constitutional Commission is trying to undermine the constitutional basis for government in Australia. Similarly, the Government is using the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to try to subvert the governments in Western Australia and Queensland. Senator Giles —In Western Australia? Senator SHEIL —The honourable senator should inquire about Western Australia. It is a Labor held State. The way that the Government is using the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to attack the State governments is to subvert the intention of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. I point out that the so-called gerrymander in Queensland is a socialist myth that has been put around and repeated until socialists really believe that it is true. Queensland had a Labor Government for nearly 40 years. As is the wont of Labor governments, that Government abolished the upper House in Queensland. Queensland is a huge State with huge areas of sparsely populated development. The system of electoral weightage is accepted all around the world. Countries such as Canada and Britain have electoral weightage but no one is screaming out that there is a gerrymander. We simply introduced a zonal system in order to-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! We are discussing whether we agree with the Bill as amended. A detailed discussion of Queensland's political history is not relevant. Senator SHEIL —The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) is smiling. He does not want to hear any justification for that system. This Bill forms part of a pattern of attack on State governments in Australia by the socialist Federal Government. Socialist government have been doing this over many years. I was pointing to the fact that electoral weightage-it is the zonal system which the Government complains about-merely reflects the same principles applied in the Australian Constitution. The Senate itself exists so that people in the lesser populated States will not be disadvantaged by the more populous States. Tasmania is the complete reversal of what is recommended in the Constitution. It has 12 senators and only five Federal seats. Do the Australian Democrats scream that that is a miscarriage of justice and a rape of human rights? We do not hear them. In fact the Democrats in the Senate-the political tumbleweeds who blow around with every bit of breeze that they hope will be to their advantage-are exploiting an electoral loophole in the Constitution. They are not screaming about a rape of democracy over that. They represent less than 8 per cent of the people, yet they have the balance of power in the Senate. They do not have one seat in the House of Representatives, yet they are given political party status. A party is supposed to have 10 seats in the House of Representatives before it can be declared a political party. The Democrats have none. Successive governments, trying to buy their votes, do not call that a rape of democracy. I draw attention to the fact that this Government is already subverting the use of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is not designed for this purpose but the Government is using it for such purpose. That is why this legislation is an enormous danger to the people of Australia. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.31) —Obviously, I have no wish to prolong this aspect of the debate but I think it is necessary to set the record straight in respect of the letter from the Human Rights Commission to the Proportional Representation Society of Australia which has been called in aid by Senator Durack and Senator Sir John Carrick, especially this morning. I repeat that it is not the case that the Human Rights Commission has formulated any concluded view on the particular matter that we have been talking about, that is, the proper meaning of the expression `universal and equal suffrage' in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and whether that means that State voting systems have to be equally weighted. The reply to the Proportional Representation Society was in answer to a complaint that the International Covenant required the use of a proportional representation voting system in the Federal Parliament. The extracts from the travaux preparatoires referred to by Mr Thomson reflected a decision or position of the Commission. That is true. The extracts from those preparatory materials dealt with the question of voting systems, not the question, which is logically distinct, about the weight of votes and the way in which boundaries are drawn. I give one illustration of what I mean. Mr Thomson's letter did not address or refer to the very important annotation in the Secretary-General's notes to Article 25 which suggests that the Article requires, in its proper interpretation, some equality of weight in votes. I refer to the quote from 20 February when we were debating the Bill of Rights. It states: The provision, it was thought, would leave States parties to the Covenant free to regulate their own electoral systems, provided each vote carried equal weight. That is something that obviously has to be taken into account in any future exercise in exploring what this vexed and difficult provision means. Again, I have to say for the record that it is the case that statements by one or a few nations in the preparatory materials are certainly helpful in interpreting Article 25 but they are equally clearly not decisive. The United Kingdom's comments have been referred to but, as I understand it, they were made in the context of that country's desire to maintain a first past the post, rather than a preferential, voting system and as such they were directed to the requirements of the voting system rather than the particular question of voting equality. Senator Sheil —They do not have compulsory voting. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is another relevant consideration that the United Kingdom may have wanted to preserve. I simply make the point that one needs a thorough examination of these sorts of materials to determine not only what nations happened to say at the time but also what their own systems were at the time of making those comments and when and if they were changed after the drafting of the Covenant. This clearly requires much more research than that which the Commission did in responding to the Proportional Representation Society's complaint on a different issue. It requires much more research than could have been done in response to that complaint. I am saying no more than that the argument has not been foreclosed in anything the Commission, through its Secretary, may have communicated. To that extent it is not really fair to say that the Prime Minister was in any way misleading when he responded as he did to the Australian Democrats. None of that is to deny that there are many difficulties in interpreting these provisions. There are many uncertainties as to whether equality of voting systems is required. I do not want yet again to get into that argument today. I suggest that the Government is displaying a great deal of patience, given the desperate timetabling problems. Senator Sir John Carrick —It is your own timetable. Senator GARETH EVANS —Sure. We all know the situation. I understand some honour- able senators want to raise questions about the procedures of the Commission under the legislation. I am perfectly happy for them to do so as it is appropriate that those issues be debated in response to this Bill. Perhaps some of those issues could now be appropriately debated. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.36) —It is all very well for Senator Gareth Evans to try to lead us off this question. I have little comment following the apt description by Senator Durack and Senator Sir John Carrick of the gagging by the Australian Democrats supporting the Australian Labor Party, of a Bill on human rights. I do not think there is any need for me to say anything further about the hypocrisy which that action entailed following their publicly announced decision-part of their policy-that they would never apply the gag. As I say, two honourable senators have already dealt with that situation far better than I can. Senator Gareth Evans says that the letter of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Australian Democrats promising a deal-if they voted for the legislation he would make sure that the Human Rights Commission takes on the electoral laws in Queensland-was not misleading the Parliament. Is the Minister saying that the Commission had not had any legal opinion at all advising it that it did not have any power at all to follow that course through Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Is the Minister suggesting for one minute that the Government had not sought any legal opinion? Is the Minister suggesting that the Human Rights Commission knew that it had no power under Article 25? He keeps telling us that it has never reached a view on that. Is the Minister saying for one minute that he did not know that the Commission was quite well aware that it had no power because legal opinion had been given to it? If that is what the Minister is saying, I would be most surprised. I believe that the Commission was well aware it knew that it had absolutely no power under Article 25 to enter into any inspection of the electoral laws in Queensland. I believe that the Prime Minister, before he wrote his letter, was also well aware that no legal power was available to him. I would like the Minister to answer those questions. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.38) —I answer simply by saying that Senator Walters is entitled to her belief. Clearly, nothing I say will budge her from it. For all the reasons I previously spelt out I do not share that belief. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.39) —When I was speaking earlier I mentioned a textbook entitled `The International Bill of Rights' and referred to a discussion on page 242. In fact the relevant part is contained on page 240 and the discussion goes from page 238 to page 241. Some useful footnotes should also be referred to. I point out to Senator Evans that I sought in no way to mislead the Committee. I told the Committee that I was referring to a view expressed by the Human Rights Commission in relation to a complaint from the Proportional Representation Society. Of course, it was not dealing with a specific opinion of whether the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires a system of one vote one value as against one person one vote. The meaning of the phrase `equal suffrage' applies equally by analogical argument familiar to lawyers to the argument on the issue of one vote one value. It is equally strong against that interpretation. It is a normal piece of legal reasoning to quote the reasoning on one issue where it is clearly logical and reasonable that it should be applied to another issue. I turn to the textbook and the notes and to the careful material prepared in that letter from the Secretary to the Human Rights Commission. One can see the high relevance of that reasoning to the solution to the question of whether the Covenant requires one vote one value. All reasoning we have indicates that it does not. That is the basis of the argument that the Opposition has been advancing. I wanted to make that point quite clear to Senator Gareth Evans. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.42) —Will the Minister tell us why the Human Rights Commission is being moved to Sydney? I have not heard one argument advanced which is in any way convincing. It seems to me that the very purpose of the national capital is for organisations such as the Commission to be based here. I really cannot think of any sensible explanation as to why it should be shifted. The argument for having a national capital and for having the organisations of the Federal Government based here primarily makes great sense. It has been advanced frequently. The head offices of all sorts of departments and other organisations have been moved to the national capital. Now we are suddenly faced with this quite unconvincing move of the Human Rights Commission to Sydney. What will be located in Canberra in place of the Commission? Will there be an office in Canberra? If so, to what extent will it be staffed? I point out that in the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 the Canberra office handled 1,233 complaints. By comparison, during the same period the Brisbane office and the New South Wales delegates reported respective case loads of 520 and 1,135. Of the complaints handled in Canberra, 10 per cent were from the Northern Territory and Tasmania and 33 per cent were from Australian Capital Territory residents. The remaining 57 per cent and many of the other complaints related directly to national policy. It seems to me important that the Commission should be retained in Canberra because the overwhelming majority of the respondents and the departments involved are in fact based here. I think we are entitled to be told exactly what the cost of this absurd move will really be to taxpayers. I cannot imagine that the Commission can function without an office in Canberra. At the same time it will have to build an additional structure in Sydney. Things will be moved up and down from Canberra. I think it will cost, if the move is done properly, twice as much as at present. I do not think there is any simple way that the move can be explained especially when it is considered that it is a national organisation that should be based here. But what about the Australian Capital Territory employees. I know they have been told they can move to Sydney and they will get other jobs. But the employees of the office here seem to have had scant regard paid to the fact that they are human beings. They thought that they had prospects for a career structure here. They are virtually being told that they are being thrown out of the place. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.45) —The cost of the move to Sydney is assessed at $1.3m on a one-off basis. No significant additional ongoing expenditure is anticipated. It is proposed to maintain an office of the Human Rights Commission in Canberra. It remains to be seen whether it will be in precisely the same location. Clearly, it will have a staff which is appropriate to the size of the Canberra exercise, rather than the national one. I am not privy to all of the Attorney-General's thinking as to reasons or motivations. All I can do is to repeat what he said, that is, it is desired to move the Commission to a major population centre-where there is more human rights action, if one likes, than is the case in the collectivist paradise in the Australian Capital Territory-and a location where it will be more accessible and visible, perhaps, to the community at large. Beyond that, I have no further information. But it is certainly not anticipated to ride rough-shod over the rights or career prospects of any current employees. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.47) —The figures I have given indicate quite clearly that the Attorney-General is wrong in suggesting that Sydney is where the action is. It is clear also that the respondents are mainly the departments in Canberra. That is clearly the case. It is absurd to say that the cost of indulging in the luxury of moving the Commission to Sydney is only $1.3m. That is undoubtedly the removal cost. No one would suggest it is likely to be done for a more reasonable figure than that. I am talking about the ongoing cost of constantly shifting information between Canberra and Sydney. There will be information in Canberra that is needed in Sydney. It is a recurrent cost which will occur for as long as the office remains in Sydney. What other organisations is this Government planning to take away from the national capital? Which other public servants will be moved out? Has it given any thought to the implications for this city of a decrease in the population? If it continues to take public servants out, and move the national organisations away from Canberra, it will reduce the population and the impact on the private sector and everybody else will be quite severe. We are faced with the rundown in the construction of the new Parliament House over the next couple of years. It is likely that many of the people who are now working there will not be able to obtain employment in the national capital when that job is completed, even if every other project that one could think of went ahead. If as few as 400 of those families move away, the impact will be very severe. One cannot suddenly have on the market in Canberra 400 houses either for sale or rent. At the same time the Government is talking about moving the Human Rights Commission. It may involve only a few people. But I would like to know what else the Government is planning to move, because this city cannot stand this sort of up and down activity. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —Before I call the Minister, I inform Senator Reid that she has strayed somewhat from the matter we are discussing. I do not think the location is mentioned in the matter that is before the Committee. I suggest that she should remember that if she seeks the call again. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.49) —I am happy to help Senator Reid to the extent that I can. But I am really not in a position to give precise answers to the questions she has raised. I am not aware of any other organisations or institutions that it is currently proposed to move. She has mounted a strong argument for retaining the organisation in Canberra. I will ensure that her remarks and representations on this issue are drawn to the attention of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). I do not want to make the vulgar political debating point, of course, that if her Party has its way, there will be no Human Rights Commission in Canberra or anywhere else. But that is probably something she will have to take up in the party room. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.50) —I ask the Minister two questions. My first question is: Did the Attorney-General's Department give any opinion to the Human Rights Commission at any time as to whether the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights gave any head of power? If it did, what was the nature of that opinion? Will the Minister produce the opinion, since he has invited us to look at all the evidence? Secondly, my understanding has always been that when the High Court of Australia looks at the meaning of the Constitution, it looks to the whole of the convention debates prior to the formation of the Constitution, and relies very heavily upon the expressions of the delegates in obtaining an understanding of what the plain meaning of a word is. I therefore ask: Will the Minister also-since he invited us to look at the travaux preparatoires, the working discussions and papers of the Covenant-have his officers seek out the relevant papers and the discussions, that is, the discussions relating to voting systems and voting methods, and give the chamber a document which will give us the basic information? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.51) —I also ask the Minister, on the same subject, whether he was saying that no legal opinion was given to the Commission? Did the Commission seek any legal opinion? The answer he gave me was that he did not agree with me. That was not the question I put to him. I ask the question again: Was any legal opinion given? I am not referring only to the Attorney-General's Department. Did the Commission seek any legal opinion from either within or outside the Commission? What was the nature of the advice given to the Commission? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.52) —The Commission has its own internal legal staff. No doubt some attention has been paid to this issue in the formulation of the Commission's response on the particular issue which, I remind the Committee, concerned proportional representation voting systems rather than equality of electorate boundaries. So far as we are aware-my advisers here have been intimately concerned with this issue for some time and will probably know, if anyone does, but we can check it further-no opinion was sought from the Attorney-General's Department and no opinion has been provided by the Attorney-General's Department to the Commission. I will obviously check that and take it-- Senator Sir John Carrick —Or from anyone else? Senator GARETH EVANS —We think not. Senator Walters —My question did not refer only to the Attorney-General's Department. My question was: Had the Commission sought any outside opinion or any opinion from within the Commission? What was the result of that opinion? Senator GARETH EVANS —A full scale exercise has not yet been undertaken by the Commissioner. It has been awaiting a reference to the Commission, as foreshadowed earlier. Obviously, some preliminary work has gone into related issues, as was communicated in the Proportional Representation Society letter. No doubt some people have formed some views on the basis of the preliminary work that they have done. But it is not as if a whole collection of material is being secretly held there, reflecting the views of lawyers within or outside the Commission. It has not evolved to that stage, as I understand it. I tried previously to describe the complexity of the issues involved. It does not concern only the particular documentation at the time; it concerns what the practice subsequently has been, in light of the existence of the Covenant. They are quite subtle and difficult issues. They require a more substantial investigation. Senator Sir John Carrick, in referring to the papers themselves, the travaux at the time, asked whether it would be possible to extract a compilation of such material and make it available to honourable senators. I will have to take that question on notice. I am told off the cuff that it is a rather more substantial job than it sounds. But, presumably, the material is finite even if bulky. It may be that something can be done. I am interested in freedom of information and free debate on these issues. I have acknowledged that there is no certainty about the-- Senator Walters —You only gagged it. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Walters is tempting me again. We are trying to have a calm debate, to get through the issues and have a proper debate. I am trying to answer frankly and fully. I have done the best I can. I shall take Senator Sir John Carrick's question on notice. I shall ask further of the Commission. I am not able to answer the question any better now on the advice available at present, which is from the Commission and the Department. But if there is anything more to be said-I do not want to mislead anybody-I shall make sure honourable senators are told about it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.56) —To help the Minister on this, I asked about the papers because the Minister will have gathered from Senator Robert Ray, the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Reform, that before that Committee is a Bill of Senator Macklin's seeking a referendum. Prior to that Committee reporting to the Parliament, at my instance the Committee will examine whether there are heads of power for Commonwealth intervention. So the work would be done not only for the Senate but also for the Joint Standing Committee which is taking the wider course. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.57) —I should like to raise some matters about appointments to the Commission. If I may, I shall raise them in relation to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill as well. Under the amendments that have been passed to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill the Commission will comprise a part-time Pre-sident; a Human Rights Commissioner, who is required to be legally qualified; a Race Discri-mination Commissioner; and a Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I take it that, as the Human Rights Commissioner now has to be legally qualified, the President does not have to be legally qualified. I would like confirmation that that is the situation. In those circumstances, I am interested to know what type of person the Government has in mind to appoint as President. Does the Government have some predisposition towards a judge or a retired judge or does it have somebody else in mind from outside the legal sphere altogether? I noted an article in the Australian newspaper on 3 November which stated that the Government intends to appoint a prominent Sydney barrister, Mr Marcus Einfeld, QC, as President of the Human Rights Commission. I should like to know whether that is the case, whether the Government has already approached Mr Einfeld and he has accepted and will be recommended for appointment. If that is not the case, perhaps Senator Gareth Evans, in the absence of a decision having been made, will tell us the type of person the Government is looking for. I am somewhat mystified by the decision of the Government that the Human Rights Commissioner has to be legally qualified. That is defined to mean a person who is or has been a judge of a court of a State or the Commonwealth or who is a barrister or solicitor. I do not imagine the Government will appoint a judge or even a retired judge as a Human Rights Commissioner sitting under a President. In that case, I wonder, firstly, why the Human Rights Commissioner has to be a lawyer. Secondly, has the Government decided to appoint a particular person to that position? Again I refer to the article in the Australian of 3 November which indicated that Mr Brian Burdekin, now Principal Private Secretary to the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, is to be appointed as Human Rights Commissioner. That would certainly be a nice promotion for Mr Burdekin, particularly with the salary involved. I am mystified as to what qualifications Mr Burdekin could have for such a prestigious job as Human Rights Commissioner. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.00) — Senator Durack's understanding of the formal situation as to required qualifications is correct. There is no requirement that the Chairman be a lawyer or of legal background, whereas by contrast there is such a requirement for the full time Human Rights Commissioner position so described. Essentially, the reason for the Human Rights Commissioner position having that set of qualifications attached to it is two-fold, as I understand it: Primarily, because as a full time functioning Commissioner that person will be exercising the determining power from time to time as well as the investigative conciliatory power and it is felt that because of the quasi-judicial character, if you like, of that particular jurisdiction it is appropriate-- Senator Durack —What is an example of that? Senator GARETH EVANS —When a complaint is made under one or other of these categories-race discrimination, sex discrimination or pursuant to the Covenant. I am sorry, it is only under the sex Act at the moment but it will be under the race Act when we get to the next Bill and the provisions are brought into parallel. There is that determining power. We are discussing the difference between the power to make determinations, which are subsequently enforceable through the Federal courts, as compared with the power merely to report. We were talking previously about the jurisdiction of the employment discrimination committee. There is this more formalised power that it has been thought desirable should be exercised by someone with legal qualifications training. I suppose the other side to it is that the Human Rights Commissioner is being given a particular identified functional responsibility with respect to the various covenants, as distinct from the sex and race Acts, including such things, I guess, as the one we have been debating all morning. Since questions of legal interpretation will arise in the application of those covenants to particular situations it was thought again desirable that such a person have a legal background. The Chairman, by contrast, is the sort of figurehead and capstone of the organisation. We need him to have promotional and administrative oversight skills, I suppose, rather than necessarily legal ones, although it is probable that in practice the most likely candidates for this job would be people with a legal background-a current or former judge or someone with such qualifications. But that is not required for the reasons I have indicated. Despite Senator Durack's invitation to comment on particular persons, I am not able to assist him further in this respect. All I can say is that no decision has been made by Cabinet; no recommendation, to my knowledge, has been put to Cabinet as to the identity of persons concerned. Anything Senator Durack might have read or might continue to read in the newspaper must be regarded as pure speculation until a decision is made. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.04) —I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sorry that I failed to ask another question which arises really out of the transitional provisions but I think it is relevant to ask it now. The Race Discrimination Commissioner is a new position or it will have a new name. Will the job of the present Commissioner for Community Relations be abolished or will this involve simply a change of name of an existing office? What I am interested to know is whether the Government will have the power to appoint a new Race Discrimination Commissioner. I take it the pesent Sex Discrimination Commissioner will carry on under her appointment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.05) —It is formally the case that a new job of Race Discrimination Commissioner is created and that the old job is abolished. No decision has been taken as to whether the encumbent of the old job should take on the new job with a different title; but, as always with a formal change in description of a statutory office, the opportunity is there for that to occur if the Government so decides. I repeat that no decision has been taken. By contrast, the statutory position of Sex Discrimination Commissioner remains unchanged and as a result it is reasonable to assume that, unless for personal reasons that Commissioner should want to resign, there will be continuity in that particular office because it is a position created under the Sex Discrimination Act which is not being changed in any relevant respect by this legislation today. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.06) —The Minister for Resources and Energy will know that I have been concerned about the functions of the Human Rights Commission in the area of research and education referred to in clause 11 (1) (h). I have already mentioned to him that, through bribery and indoctrination, the Commission is able to get into the schools and kindergartens. I stated earlier that the book authored by Ralph Pettman points out that the Human Rights Commission will pay teachers up to $1,000 so long as they `contract to take part' and report in detail on the ideas, activities and resources which prove most creative in practice. According to Senator Evans, Ralph Pettman must be a good author because he has been awarded an honourable mention by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and given a prize for the teaching of human rights. I have already pointed out that in this wonderful book Ralph Pettman said that our little five-year-old girls and boys go to school with rather set stereotypes and that in the first four weeks there is a lot of work to be done on them. According to the Human Rights Commission, it is of paramount importance that in the first four weeks we do a lot of work to get rid of those stereotypes that have been created in Australian families. How does one get rid of those stereotypes? There are good ways to do it and there are suggestions to the teachers on how to go about setting up their classrooms. The suggestion made to teachers is that no one should be allowed to play with cars in the play corner unless there are equal numbers of boys and girls and that no one should be allowed to play with paper dolls unless the little girls can persuade one of the boys to play with them, because if the little girls wanted to play with dolls that would only encourage the sex stereotypes that are so disastrous. This is the sort of rubbish which is being put out by the Human Rights Commission and which it is paying the teachers-directly into the teachers' pockets and not to the schools-to teach our little children. In the first four weeks of their school lives there is a lot of work to be done to get rid of their fantasies that the homes they come from-where Mum has probably stayed home to look after them-are ideal situations. A lot of work has to be done to get that out of their little minds, and that indoctrination has to take place in those first four weeks. We are told by the Minister that the work of the Commission is highly regarded internationally and that that particular author is very good. I ask the Minister a question. I got this book quite some time ago and I have not been able to get another copy since. It was in a kit of two books and a video. I have asked repeatedly for another copy of that book and I have been refused that copy. I have been told that it is not available. The Parliamentary Library does not even have a kit and, every time I ask for copies, one is brought from the National Library. I want to know why it is unavailable to senators, why the Minister supports this rubbish, and whether he will please amend this legislation so that we can throw out this indoctrination and the bribery that accompanies it and get back to a situation where the Australian people will have a say as to how their children are brought up. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.11) — On the question of the alleged bribery which Senator Walters raised a number of times, she was referring of course to the grants that have been given by the Human Rights Commission to encourage people to develop-- Senator Walters —Not to the schools; to the teachers. Senator GARETH EVANS —To the teachers, that is right. I said `people'. Grants have been given to people to develop teaching programs in human rights. The money is to cover the expenses of trialling the program. It is not regarded as remuneration. The program has been accepted by schools authorities including, I might draw to Senator Walters's attention, Catholic education offices. If it is the case that teachers have a little left over after they have incurred the expenses that are associated with this, might I just suggest in a spirit of Christian charity that it is small recompense for the additional work and report writing as to the effectiveness of the program which the people on the receiving end of these grants are required to do. As to the question of the experimental kit which Senator Walters has apparently had some difficulty in getting hold of another copy, I am told that the kit has been revised. A new edition is in the course of preparation and will be available in a couple of weeks time. Whether the revision is enough to satisfy Senator Walters's concerns about the original experimental version of it remains to be seen; but she will have an opportunity to see for herself in two or three weeks time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.13) —Has the old one been withdrawn? Have the teachers been told that it is no longer acceptable and that a new one is coming up, and has the Commission withdrawn it from the schools? I also ask the Minister whether he can please let me know what dreadful costs there are in the trialling of this within classrooms. I gather, because it is kindergarten and first grade, that it is done within school hours. I gather that it is, therefore, done within the school curriculum. I ask the Minister: What $1,000 or $500 costs to individual teachers could possibly be associated with the trialling of this sort of thing within the classrooms of our little five- and six-year-olds? If there is any cost, would teachers be able to get it off their tax; would it be a tax deduction? The Minister says that, if there is a little left over, it is small recompense to the teachers who are carrying out, within school hours, this indoctrination of the children. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.14) —As to the former part of the question on withdrawal, I do not believe that there has been any formal withdrawal; but only a very limited number of these things were produced on an experimental trial basis. I think that speaks for itself in terms of the fate of them. As always, I will draw Senator Walters's remarks to the attention of the Commission. It may seek to take some further action in response to her remarks. Then again, it may not. But I will make sure that it is aware of what she has said. I will have to take on notice the question of what particular costs are incurred. We are not talking about little kids of five and six years of age. Senator Walters —Yes, we are. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am just told that we are not. I will treat it as a question on notice and give her an answer. It is something which obviously could have been more appropriately raised in the Appropriations debate than in the hopefully dying stages of this one. I just do not have the officers beside me who have the detailed information to hand. It is difficult to do it in the course of this sort of debate. We will do our best to find out. I will address myself specifically to answering the question about the target age groups and so on so that we will have dealt with all aspects of Senator Walters's question. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.16) — I do not need that answer. I know. I will read it to the Minister because it is in the book. If his officers are unaware of the facts, he should ask them to bone up on this. I did bring it up earlier and they should be aware. On the subject of giving advice to teachers, the book says: Children come to school with some fairly set ideas. A lot of these are sex-role stereo-types. A lot of work has to be done with non-sexist education with the class to begin the Human Rights Integrated Approach. This should be done in the first four weeks of the school year. The particular grade in mind for the units of work in this approach is first grade but most of the ideas could be used with kindergarten . . . So let us not quibble about the assertion that it is not for the young. It is for the five- and six-year-olds in kindergarten. The Minister should not try to tell me that this rubbish is not being used on the little girls and boys in their first four weeks of school life. The bureaucrats giving him advice should not tell him that it is not for the young. The book says very specifically that this approach should be directed at children in kindergarten and first year and should apply to the first four weeks of their school life. So let us not quibble or try to get away with the idiotic situation that the Minister will make some inquiries and let me know. He does not have to let me know. It is all there in black and white in the book that I have just been reading to him-the book put out by the Human Rights Commission which teachers are being paid to use. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.18) —I just want to follow up in slightly broader terms a couple of points that were made by Senator Walters. I would like to ask the Minister what steps are being taken by the Government to ensure that the biases that we have seen over the last few years in the operation of the Human Rights Commission, particularly in the area of education but going wider than that, will not continue under the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I take the area of edu-cation as an example. The existing Commission has in many of its publications intimated its intention to use the education system to indoctrinate Australian children with its values and ideologies. It has made no pretence at hiding this intention; it has been quite explicit. For ex-ample, at page 73 of Occasional Paper No. 9 en-titled `Teaching, Enacting and Sticking Up for Human Rights', the Commission states: Joining in the Commission's political project through its reconstructionist educational work, will be appealing to many teachers; they will welcome the opportunity to engage in conscientisation with their students in the interests of social justice. Others will find such work as far too `political' for their liking; they will regard the curriculum too `radical' and far removed from what they regard as `education' to feel comfortable with. That same document states quite proudly: . . . its `program makes no pretence at all at being value free'. It has `explicit ideological commitments'. Just what those commitments are, what the Commission is directing teachers to do with their students is `to reflect upon the social, political, and economic contradictions in the culture and to take systematic political action against oppressive power blocs'. The sorts of values that are expressed there were reiterated in the 1985 publication entitled `Teaching of Human Rights' which, admittedly, now has been pulled out for review. This publication is directed at school children and contains such gems as: There has been mass assassination, too, by more covert and direct means. The reference there, of course, is to Western democracies. In human rightspeak the publication basically is talking about the capitalist world economy. The publication goes on: The construction of a capitalist world economy, predicated upon dishonesty and greed, has slaughtered uncounted millions the world over through exploitation and the mis-development of global resources. The US and the other while `free market' democracies have much to answer for in this regard. As I think Senator Walters said, teachers were being bribed to use the text with enticements of payment of up to $500 or, in some instances, $1,000. I think it is undeniable the attitudes that are reflected in the documents that I have quoted which come from the Commission are quite contrary and alien to many of the values that would be held by the overwhelming majority of the Australian people. They are essentially Marxist-Leninist views. They are not views that are subscribed to by the Australian people. Over recent years the Human Rights Commission has engaged in action which has led the Australian public to have very grave concern about the direction in which the Commission has been going during its existence. There seems to be no guarantee at all-indeed, perhaps the contrary will be the case-that this will not continue as a result of the new legislation. I would like to give a few examples of some of the other things that have happened over recent times which I think show that the Commission has promoted values and ideologies that are out of kilter with those of most Australians. We had the suppression in 1984 of a major report on affirmative action which the Commission itself commissioned. The Gabriel Moens report was suppressed because it came out with views that were contrary to those of the Commission. We had the banning last year of the then shadow Attorney-General, Neil Brown, from all the offices of the Commission without any cause being shown for such an intolerant and arbitrary action. We had the support by the Commission of the right of the feminist group Women Against Rape to disrupt solemn Anzac Day observances by protest marchers. Again, that action was sanctioned by the Human Rights Commission. The Pettman publications-and I was very interested to hear Senator Evans so adulatory of Mr Pettman-indicate that the Commission regards homosexual relations as an alternative lifestyle worthy of the same recognition and protection as traditional marriage and supports the right of homosexuals to bring foreign homosexual lovers into Australia as immigrants. Again, these are values which I do not believe are shared by most Australians. I would like to hear from the Minister just which direction he thinks the new Commission will take in the years ahead. What action is the Government going to take, if any, to influence the values and attitudes of the new Commission? If it is not proposing to take any action in that sense, how is it going to ensure that the Commission does take account of the values of most Australians? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.25) —All I can say really is that bias is in the eye of the beholder, by and large. The Commission's basic stance has been one of non-value neutrality, as it has said quite starkly in some of those publications to which Senator Short refers. The Commission is not value neutral about human dignity, it is not value neutral about human equality and it is not value neutral about all those rights which have won the respect of civilised countries through the international covenants and the machinery which the Commission is endeavouring to enforce. It is perhaps the case that in some aspects of some of the Commission's publications points have been made, often for illustrative purposes or comparative purposes or debate stimulation purposes, that perhaps have been expressed in a way that in retrospect was not the wisest or most careful way, and I think that would be acknowledged within the Commission and maybe even by our fabled author himself, in retrospect. Senator Reid —Who is that? Senator GARETH EVANS —Our honourably mentioned Mr Pettman. We could no doubt have this argument for a long time. We have had it in the past but really time is making it a bit difficult to stretch it out again today. All I can say for the future is that the Commission is obviously conscious of some of the reaction that some of its publications have drawn. By and large it has been only a few pages of a few publications which have generated this concern, and so far as I am aware the great bulk of the Commission's publications, of which there have been many, have been very well received throughout the educational system and elsewhere. I think it is quite impossible to ascribe any kind of systematic bias to the Commission, other than the one I have described, of the commitment to those values and their promulgation which, of course, may be offensive to some sections of the community, but so be it, because that is what it is established to do. So far as the future is concerned, it will depend obviously very much on the calibre, credibility and integrity of the people who are appointed to the key positions and of those who staff the research, writing and information generating positions. I am sure that decisions will be made in that respect that will create a body that deserves the commendation and enthusiastic support not only of this side of politics but of members of the Liberal Party as well, because I keep being told that they support the values that are enshrined, but they just do not like the machinery or the way that some of it is working out. If they do support those values, I suggest it would be helpful if they got behind, not in a carping and destructive way but in a positive way, the work of the Commission and gave it encouragement where they thought encouragement was due. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.28) —I do not think that the criticisms that have been put forward by this side of politics about the Commission are in any way carping criticisms. They are criticisms or comments that go to the heart of where this country is going in terms of its value systems and the whole mechanism of promoting the ensuring of human rights. We have a system in this country, and we have had it for generations, basically through the common law, but also through the traditions that have been built up over two centuries, which have given us probably the most value free and secure human rights of virtually any country. We now have a situation which, with the existence in particular of the Human Rights Commission, has developed over recent years, and which is causing serious concerns, I think, to quite a few sections of the Australian community. We now have an institution which is going to be given more powers than the Commission to date has had. It will be able to continue to perpetuate its role in value setting in Australian society. Far from being a carping comment, I think it is a quite fundamental comment to make that there surely has to be some assurance that the bias that has come into the operation of the Human Rights Commission over recent years is not going to be perpetuated. If we want good will to be generated towards the new Commission, the last thing that the Government should do is to set up a Commission when the Government can give no assurance to those who are very concerned that the Commission is not going to lead us down a path that is contrary to the views of most Australians. I totally reject the comment of the Minister that it is a carping criticism. I think it is a fundamental comment that goes to the heart of institutions and values in this country, and it is a criticism to which the Government has as yet given no sound reply. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.31) —There is no question at all that either I or any other senator on this side of the chamber would say for one moment that there is not a need for equal human rights and equal opportunity to be taught in the schools. The teachers normally do that. They normally teach equality of race, colour, religion, creed and gender. What we are talking about is the way the Human Rights Commission has entered this teaching area and has paid teachers to do a job that they normally do, but it is paying them to do it in a far more radical manner. It is paying the teachers to get stuck into and to brainwash the little children as soon as they reach school age, in the first four weeks of their going to kindergarten. That is what we are objecting to. The normal teachers out there in the community, who handle this subject very well, would not have a bar of what the Commission is asking them to do. Because of that, not so long ago the Human Rights Commission had to advertise in the newspapers saying that if teachers took that up, it would pay them. I would be interested to know how many applications the Commission has received. I would like the Minister to get that information for me. How many teachers responded and took up the suggestion? How much has been paid to the teachers? I think it would be most appropriate if we had that information before this debate closes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.33) —I will certainly undertake to get an answer to that question. I do not know whether I can do it before the debate closes. Senator Walters —It is just being delivered now. How many applicants? Senator GARETH EVANS —The figure that is in the officers' minds is $26,000. The number of applicants is something that I will have to supply later, on notice, and I undertake to do that. Bill, as amended, agreed to. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.34) — by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, clause 12, line 31, leave out ``and''. (2) Page 4, clause 12, lines 32 and 33, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: ``(b) by omitting from sub-section (1) the definition of `Human Rights Commission' and substituting the following definition: ` ``Federal Court'' means the Federal Court of Australia;'; and (c) by inserting after the definition of `member' in sub-section (1) the following definition: ` ``registered organisation'' means an organisation registered pursuant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904;'.''. (3) Pages 5 and 6, clauses 14 to 20, line 1 (page 5) to line 4 (page 6), leave out the clauses, insert the following clauses: Land, housing and other accommodation ``14. Section 12 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end the following sub-section: `(3) Nothing in this section renders unlawful an act in relation to accommodation in a dwelling-house or flat, being accommodation shared or to be shared, in whole or in part, with the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or with a relative of either of those persons.'. Employment ``15. Section 15 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end the following sub-section: `(5) Nothing in this section renders unlawful an act in relation to employment, or an application for employment, in a dwelling-house or flat occupied by the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or by a relative of either of those persons.'. Advertisements ``16. Section 16 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end `or an act that would, but for sub-section 12 (3) or 15 (5), be unlawful by reason of section 12 or 15, as the case may be'. ``17. Part III of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Part is substituted: `PART III-INQUIRIES AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS `Division 1-Preliminary Race Discrimination Commissioner `19. For the purposes of this Act there shall be a Race Discrimination Commissioner. Functions of Commission `20. (1) The following functions are hereby conferred on the Commission: (a) to inquire into alleged infringements of Part II, and endeavour by conciliation to effect settlements of the matters alleged to constitute those infringements; (b) to promote an understanding and acceptance of, and compliance with, this Act; (c) to develop, conduct and foster research and educational programs and other programs for the purpose of- (i) combating racial discrimination and prejudices that lead to racial discrimination; (ii) promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial and ethnic groups; and (iii) propagating the purposes and principles of the Convention; (d) to prepare, and to publish in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate, guidelines for the avoidance of infringements of Part II; (e) where the Commission considers it appropriate to do so, with the leave of the court hearing the proceedings and subject to any conditions imposed by the court, to intervene in proceedings that involve racial discrimination issues; (f) to inquire into, and make determinations on, matters referred to it by the Minister or the Commissioner. (2) The Commissioner shall not participate in any inquiry held by the Commission under Division 3 or attend any meeting of the Commission, be present during any deliberation of the Commission, or take part in any decision of the Commission, in connection with such an inquiry. Function of Commissioner `21. The function of the Commission under paragraph 20 (1) (a) shall be performed by the Commissioner on behalf of the Commission. Complaints `22. (1) A complaint in writing alleging that a person has done an act that is unlawful by virtue of a provision of Part II may be lodged with the Commission by- (a) a person aggrieved by the act, on that person's own behalf or on behalf of that person and another person or other persons aggrieved by the act; (b) 2 or more persons aggrieved by the act, on their own behalf or on behalf of themselves and another person or other persons aggrieved by the act; (c) a person or persons included in a class of persons aggrieved by the act, on behalf of the persons included in that class of persons; or (d) a trade union of which a person or persons, or persons included in a class of persons, aggrieved by the act is a member or are members, on behalf of that person, those persons or persons included in that class of persons, as the case may be. `(2) In this section, ``trade union'' means- (a) an organisation of employees that is a registered organisation; (b) a trade union within the meaning of any State Act or law of a Territory; or (c) any other similar body. Commissioner deemed to be a complainant `23. Where- (a) the Commissioner has referred to the Commission a matter that came before the Commissioner otherwise than as the result of the making of a complaint to the Commission; or (b) the Minister has referred a matter to the Commission under section 25, then, for the purposes of any inquiry into the matter by the Commission, this Act has effect as if- (c) the matter had been the subject of a complaint; (d) the reference to the complainant in section 25F were a reference to the Commissioner; and (e) a reference to the respondent were a reference to the person who is, or each of the persons who are, alleged to have done the act to which the matter relates. `Division 2-Inquiries by Commissioner Inquiries by Commissioner `24. (1) Where- (a) a complaint relating to an alleged unlawful act is made to the Commission under section 22; or (b) it appears to the Commission that a person has done an act that is unlawful by virtue of a provision of Part II, the Commission shall notify the Commissioner accordingly and the Commissioner shall, subject to sub-section (2), inquire into the act and endeavour, by conciliation, to effect a settlement of the matter to which the act relates. `(2) The Commissioner may decide not to inquire into an act, or, if the Commissioner has commenced to inquire into an act, decide not to continue to inquire into the act, if- (a) the Commissioner is satisfied that the act is not unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II; (b) the Commissioner is of the opinion that the person aggrieved by the act does not desire, or none of the persons aggrieved by the act desires, that the inquiry be made or continued; (c) in a case where a complaint has been made to the Commission in relation to the act, a period of more than 12 months has elapsed since the act was done; or (d) in a case where a complaint has been made to the Commission in relation to the act, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance. `(3) Where the Commissioner decides not to inquire into, or not to continue to inquire into, an act in respect of which a complaint was made to the Commission, the Commissioner shall give notice in writing to the complainant or each of the complainants of that decision, of the reasons for that decision and of the rights of the complainant or each of the complainants under sub-section (4). `(4) Where the Commissioner has given a complainant a notice under sub-section (3), the complainant may, within 21 days after receipt of the notice, by notice in writing served on the Commissioner, require the Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Commission. `(5) On receipt of a notice under sub-section (4), the Commissioner shall refer the complaint to the Commission together with a report relating to any inquiries made by the Commissioner into the complaint. `(6) The Commissioner may, for the purposes of this Act, obtain information from such persons, and make such inquiries, as the Commissioner thinks fit. Application for interim determination under section 25Y `24a. (1) The Commissioner, at any time after a complaint is lodged and before the Commissioner declines to entertain the complaint, resolves the complaint by conciliation or refers the matter to which the complaint relates to the Commission under sub-section 24E (1), may apply to the Commission for the making of an interim determination under section 25Y or for the variation or revocation of any such determination. `(2) In relation to a matter arising under paragraph 24 (1) (b), the Commissioner may apply to the Commission for the making of an interim determination under section 25Y, or for the variation or revocation of any such determination, at any time. Power to obtain information and documents `24B. (1) Where the Commissioner has reason to believe that a person is capable of furnishing information (in this sub-section referred to as ``relevant information'') or producing documents (in this sub-section referred to as ``relevant documents'') relevant to an inquiry under this Division, the Commissioner may, by notice in writing served on the person, require the person, at such place, and within such period or on such date and at such time, as are specified in the notice- (a) to furnish to the Commissioner, by writing signed by the person or, in the case of a body corporate, by an officer of the body corporate, such relevant information (if any) as is specified in the notice; and (b) to produce to the Commissioner such relevant documents (if any) as are specified in the notice. `(2) Where documents are produced to the Commissioner in accordance with a requirement under sub-section (1), the Commissioner- (a) may take possession of, and may make copies of, or take extracts from, the documents; (b) may retain possession of the documents for such period as is necessary for the purposes of the inquiry to which the documents relate; and (c) during that period shall permit a person who would be entitled to inspect any one or more of the documents if they were not in the possession of the Commissioner to inspect at all reasonable times such of the documents as that person would be so entitled to inspect. Directions to persons to attend compulsory conference `24C. (1) For the purpose of inquiring into an act, and endeavouring to settle the matter to which the act relates, in accordance with section 24, the Commissioner may, by notice in writing, direct the persons referred to in sub-section (2) of this section to attend, at a time and place specified in the notice, a conference presided over by the Commissioner or a person appointed by the Commissioner. `(2) Directions under sub-section (1) to attend a conference in relation to an act shall be given to- (a) where a complaint was made to the Commission in relation to that act-the complainant, or all the complainants, as the case requires; (b) the person who is alleged to have done the act; and (c) any other person who, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is likely to be able to provide information relevant to the inquiry or whose presence at the conference is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, likely to be conducive to the settlement of the matter to which the act relates. `(3) A person who has been given a direction under sub-section (1) to attend a conference is entitled to be paid by the Commonwealth a reasonable sum for the person's attendance at the conference. `(4) The Commissioner may, in a notice given to a person under sub-section (1), require the person to produce such documents at the conference as are specified in the notice. Compulsory conference `24D. (1) The person presiding at a conference held under this Division may require a person attending the conference to produce a document. `(2) A conference under this Division shall be held in private and, subject to this Act, shall be conducted in such manner as the person presiding at the conference thinks fit. `(3) Subject to sub-section (4), a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, that is directed under section 24c to attend a conference shall be deemed to attend if an officer or employee of that body attends on behalf of that body. `(4) Except with the consent of the person presiding at a conference under this Division- (a) a natural person is not entitled to be represented at the conference by another person; and (b) a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, is not entitled to be represented at the conference by a person other than an officer or employee of that body. Reference of matters to the Commission `24E. (1) Where the Commissioner- (a) is of the opinion that a matter cannot be settled by conciliation; (b) has endeavoured to settle a matter by conciliation but has not been successful; or (c) is of the opinion that the nature of a matter is such that it should be referred to the Commission, the Commissioner shall refer the matter to the Commission together with a report relating to any inquiries made by the Commissioner into the matter. `(2) A report for the purposes of sub-section (1) shall not set out or describe anything said or done in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Division (including anything said or done at a conference held under this Division). `(3) Evidence of anything said or done in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Division (including anything said or done at a conference held under this Division) is not admissible in subsequent proceedings under this Part relating to the matter. `Division 3-Inquiries by Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Minister may appoint persons to participate in inquiries `24F. (1) The Minister may appoint a person to participate, in accordance with this section, in the performance of the functions of the Commission. `(2) The Minister may, under sub-section (1), appoint such number of persons as the Minister considers necessary for the purposes of this section. `(3) A person who holds an appointment under sub-section (1) may, at the request of the President, participate in the holding of an inquiry under this Division as if the person were a member of the Commission and, for the purposes of the application of this Act in relation to the inquiry, the person shall be deemed to be a member of the Commission. `(4) A person appointed under sub-section (1)- (a) holds the appointment for such period, not exceeding 5 years, as is specified in the instrument of the person's appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment; and (b) may resign the appointment by writing signed by the person and delivered to the Minister. `(5) The Minister may- (a) determine the terms and conditions of appointment, including remuneration, of a person appointed under sub-section (1); and (b) at any time terminate such an appointment. `(6) The Minister may, for the purpose of appointing under sub-section (1) a person who is the holder of a judicial office of a State, enter into such arrangement with the appropriate Minister of the State as is necessary to secure that person's services. `(7) An arrangement under sub-section (6) may provide for the Commonwealth to reimburse a State with respect to the services of the person to whom the arrangement relates. `(8) The appointment under sub-section (1) of the holder of a judicial office, or service by the holder of a judicial office pursuant to such an appointment, does not affect the person's tenure of that judicial office or the person's rank, title, status, precedence, salary, annual or other allowances or other rights or privileges as the holder of that judicial office and, for all purposes, the person's service pursuant to such an appointment shall be taken to be service as the holder of that judicial office. `(9) Unless the contrary intention appears, in this section- ``judicial office'' means- (a) an office of Judge of a court created by the Parliament; or (b) an office the holder of which has, by virtue of holding that office, the same status as a Judge of a court created by the Parliament; ``State'' includes the Northern Territory. Reference of matter to the Commission by the Minister `25. The Minister may refer any matter to the Commission for inquiry as a complaint under this Part. Inquiries into complaints `25a. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), the Commission shall hold an inquiry into each complaint or matter referred to it under sub-section 24 (5) or 24e (1) or section 25. `(2) The Commission shall not hold, or shall discontinue, an inquiry into a complaint or matter referred to it- (a) in the case of a complaint or matter referred to it under sub-section 24 (5) or 24e (1)-if the complainant notifies the Commission that the complainant does not wish the inquiry to be held or to continue; or (b) in the case of a matter referred to it under section 25-if the Minister notifies the Commission that the Minister does not wish the inquiry to be held or to continue. Exercise of inquiry powers by Commission `25b. (1) Subject to sub-section 20 (2), the powers of the Commission to hold inquiries under this Act may, if the President so directs, be exercised by a single member of the Commission who is a legally qualified person, or by 2 or more members of the Commission, at least one of whom is a legally qualified person. `(2) Where the power of the Commission to hold an inquiry is being exercised by 2 or more members of the Commission- (a) if only one of those members is a legally qualified person-that member shall preside; or (b) if 2 or more of those members are legally qualified persons- (i) if one of those persons is the President-the President shall preside; or (ii) in any other case-those members shall elect one of those persons to preside. `(3) In this section, ``legally qualified person'' means a person who- (a) is or has been a Judge of a court created by the Parliament or of a court of a State or a person who has the same designation and status as a Judge of a court created by the Parliament; or (b) is enrolled as a barrister or solicitor, as a barrister and solicitor, or as a legal practitioner, of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. Single inquiry in relation to several complaints `25c. Where the Commission is of the opinion that 2 or more complaints arise out of the same or substantially the same circumstances or subject-matter, it may hold a single inquiry in relation to those complaints. Joinder of parties by the Commission `25d. Where, before the holding of an inquiry, or at any stage during the holding of an inquiry, the Commission is of the opinion that a person ought to be joined as a party to the inquiry, it may, by notice in writing given to that person, join that person as a party to the inquiry. Notice of inquiry and rights of parties at inquiry `25e. (1) The Commission- (a) shall give a party to an inquiry, other than a person to whom the Commission grants leave to appear as a party to the inquiry, such notice in such manner as the Commission determines of the time and place at which it intends to hold the inquiry; and (b) shall give each party to an inquiry reasonable opportunity to call or give evidence, examine or cross-examine witnesses and make submissions to the Commission. `(2) If a party to an inquiry to whom notice has been given under paragraph (1) (a) fails to attend at the time and place specified for the inquiry, the Commission may hold the inquiry in the absence of that party. Parties to an inquiry `25f. The parties to an inquiry shall be the complainant, the respondent, any person joined by the Commission as a party to the inquiry and any person to whom the Commission grants leave to appear as a party to the inquiry. Right of appearance and to representation `25g. (1) A party to an inquiry- (a) shall appear personally or, where the party is a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, by an officer, employee or agent of the body; and (b) may- (i) if the Commission has made arrangements under sub-section 25k (1) for counsel to appear at the inquiry to assist the Commission; or (ii) in any other case-with the leave of the Commission, be represented by a solicitor or counsel or an agent. `(2) A person, other than a solicitor or counsel, is not entitled to demand or receive any fee or reward for representing a party to an inquiry. Inquiries may be held in private `25h. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), an inquiry shall be held in public. `(2) The Commission may, of its own motion or on the application of a party to the inquiry, if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, direct that an inquiry, or a part of an inquiry, be held in private. Commission may prohibit publication of evidence, &c. `25j. (1) The Commission may direct that- (a) any evidence given before it; (b) the contents of any document produced to the Commission; or (c) any information that might enable a person who has appeared before the Commission to be identified, shall not be published, or shall not be published except in such manner, and to such persons, as the Commission specifies. `(2) Nothing in this section shall be taken to derogate from the Commission's powers under section 25h. Counsel assisting the Commission `25k. (1) The Commission may make arrangements for counsel to appear at an inquiry to assist the Commission. `(2) Counsel assisting the Commission at an inquiry pursuant to arrangements made under sub-section (1) shall, in relation to that inquiry, be subject to the control and direction of the Commission. Determination of representative complaints `25l. At an inquiry held in respect of a complaint that appears to the Commission to be a representative complaint, the Commission shall determine, as a preliminary matter, whether that complaint should be dealt with as a representative complaint. Matters to be considered in determination of representative complaints `25m. (1) The Commission shall not deal with a complaint as a representative complaint unless it is satisfied that the complaint was made on behalf of persons other than the complainant in good faith. `(2) In considering whether a complaint was made on behalf of persons other than the complainant in good faith, the Commission shall satisfy itself- (a) that- (i) the complainant is a member of a class of persons, the members of which class have been affected, or may reasonably be likely to be affected, by the conduct of the respondent; (ii) the complainant has in fact been affected by the conduct of the respondent; (iii) the class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable; (iv) there are questions of law or fact common to all members of the class; (v) the claims of the complainant are typical of the claims of the class; (vi) multiple complaints would be likely to produce varying determinations that could have incompatible or inconsistent results for the individual members of the class; and (vii) the respondent has acted on grounds apparently applying to the class as a whole, thereby making relief appropriate for the class as a whole; or (b) that, notwithstanding that the requirements of paragraph (a) have not been satisfied, the justice of the case demands that the matter be dealt with and a remedy provided by means of a representative complaint. Amendment of representative complaints `25n. (1) Where the Commission is satisfied that a complaint could be dealt with as a representative complaint if the class of persons on whose behalf that complaint is lodged is increased, reduced or otherwise altered, the Commission may amend the complaint so that the complaint can be dealt with as a representative complaint. `(2) Where the Commission is satisfied that a complaint has been wrongly made as a representative complaint, the Commission may amend the complaint by removing the names of the persons or the description of the class of persons on whose behalf the complaint was lodged so that the complaint can be dealt with as a complaint other than a representative complaint. Ordinary complaints not precluded by representative complaints `25p. Nothing in this Part prevents a person from lodging a complaint, other than a representative complaint, under section 22, notwithstanding that the conduct in respect of which the complaint is lodged is also the conduct in respect of which a representative complaint has been lodged. Resolution of complaint by conciliation `25q. The Commission- (a) may endeavour, by all such means as to it seem reasonable, to resolve a complaint the subject of an inquiry by conciliation; and (b) shall take all such steps as to it seem reasonable to effect an amicable settlement of a complaint the subject of an inquiry and for this purpose may adjourn an inquiry at any stage to enable the parties to negotiate with a view to settlement of the complaint by amicable arrangements. Evidence and findings in other proceedings `25r. In the course of an inquiry, the Commission may, in its discretion- (a) receive in evidence the transcript of evidence in any proceedings before a court or tribunal and draw any conclusions of fact from that transcript that it considers proper; (b) adopt any findings, decision or judgment of a court or tribunal that may be relevant to the inquiry; and (c) receive in evidence any report of the Commissioner if a copy of that report has been made available to every other party to the inquiry. Powers of Commission to take evidence `25s. (1) The Commission may take evidence on oath or affirmation and for that purpose a member of the Commission may administer an oath or affirmation. `(2) A member of the Commission may summon a person to appear before the Commission to give evidence and to produce such documents (if any) as are referred to in the summons. `(3) A person to whom an inquiry under this Part relates or who is a party to proceedings before the Commission may call witnesses. `(4) A person appearing as a witness before the Commission may be examined, cross-examined and re-examined. Fees for witnesses `25t. (1) A person summoned to appear before the Commission is entitled to be paid, in respect of the person's attendance, fees, and allowances for expenses, fixed by or in accordance with the regulations. `(2) Subject to sub-section (3), the fees and allowances shall be paid- (a) in a case where the person was summoned at the request of a person other than the Commonwealth-by the person who made the request; or (b) in any other case-by the Commonwealth. `(3) The Commission may, in its discretion, order that the fees and allowances payable to a person summoned as mentioned in paragraph (2) (a) shall be paid, in whole or in part, by the Commonwealth. Retention and copying of documents `25u. The Commission may retain for a reasonable period and may make copies of, or of part of, any documents produced to the Commission in the course of an inquiry or proceedings. Application of rules of evidence, &c. `25v. (1) For the purposes of an inquiry, the Commission- (a) is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit; (b) shall conduct the inquiry with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition, as the requirements of this Act and a proper consideration of the matters before the Commission permit; and (c) may give directions relating to procedure that, in its opinion, will enable costs or delay to be reduced and will help to achieve a prompt hearing of the matters at issue between the parties. `(2) The member conducting, or presiding at, an inquiry shall determine any question relating to the admissibility of evidence and any other question of law or procedure. Consideration of exceptions and exemptions `25w. In determining whether an act is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II, the Commission is not required to have regard to any exception or exemption provided for in that Part unless there is evidence before the Commission that the exception or exemption is or may be applicable in relation to that act. Commission may dismiss frivolous, &c., complaints `25x. Where, at any stage of an inquiry, the Commission is satisfied that a complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance or relates to an act that is not unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II, it may dismiss the complaint. Making of interim determination `25y. (1) The Commission, or, where the President is of the opinion that it is expedient that the President alone should perform the functions of the Commission under this section, the President, may, on the application of the Commissioner under section 24a or on the application of a party to an inquiry at any time after the lodgement of the complaint into which that inquiry is held, make an interim determination of such a nature as would, if it were binding and conclusive upon the parties, preserve- (a) the status quo between the parties to the complaint; or (b) the rights of the parties to the complaint, pending completion of the matter the subject of the complaint. `(2) An interim determination under sub-section (1) is not binding or conclusive between any of the parties to the determination. Determination or other decision of the Commission `25z. (1) After holding an inquiry, the Commission may- (a) dismiss the complaint the subject of the inquiry; or (b) find the complaint substantiated and make a determination, which may include any one or more of the following: (i) a declaration that the respondent has engaged in conduct rendered unlawful by this Act and should not repeat or continue such unlawful conduct; (ii) a declaration that the respondent should perform any reasonable act or course of conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant; (iii) a declaration that the respondent should employ or re-employ the complainant; (iv) except where the complaint was dealt with as a representative complaint-a declaration that the respondent should pay to the complainant damages by way of compensation for any loss or damage suffered by reason of the conduct of the respondent; (v) a declaration that the respondent should promote the complainant; (vi) a declaration that the termination of a contract or agreement should be varied to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant; (vii) a declaration that it would be inappropriate for any further action to be taken in the matter. `(2) A determination of the Commission under sub-section (1) is not binding or conclusive between any of the parties to the determination. `(3) The Commission may, in the making of a determination under sub-section (1), state any findings of fact upon which the determination is based. `(4) The damage referred to in paragraph (1) (b) includes injury to the complainant's feelings or humiliation suffered by the complainant. Proceedings in Federal Court `25za. (1) The Commission or complainant may institute a proceeding in the Federal Court for an order to enforce a determination made pursuant to sub-section 25y (1) or 25z (1). `(2) Where the Federal Court is satisfied that the respondent has engaged in conduct or committed an act that is unlawful under this Act, the Federal Court may make such orders (including a declaration of right) as the Federal Court thinks fit. `(3) Orders made by the Federal Court under sub-section (2) may give effect to a determination of the Commission. Assistance in proceedings before Commission `25zb. (1) Where- (a) a person has made a complaint in respect of which the Commission has held an inquiry under section 25a and the Commission has found the complaint to be substantiated; or (b) a person has done or is alleged to have done an act in respect of which an inquiry has been held by the Commission under section 25a and the Commission dismisses the complaint the subject of the inquiry, the Commission may, in its discretion, recommend to the Attorney-General that assistance be given to the person in respect of expenses incurred by the person in connection with the inquiry. `(2) Where a recommendation is made by the Commission under sub-section (1) in relation to a person, the Attorney-General may authorise the provision by the Commonwealth to that person, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Attorney-General determines, of such financial assistance in respect of expenses incurred by the person in connection with the inquiry as the Attorney-General determines. Assistance in proceedings before Federal Court `25zc. (1) A person who- (a) has instituted or proposes to institute a proceeding before the Federal Court under section 25za; or (b) has done or is alleged to have done an act in respect of which a proceeding has been instituted in the Federal Court under section 25za, may apply to the Attorney-General for the provision of assistance under this section in respect of the proceeding. `(2) Where an application is made by a person under sub-section (1) and the Attorney-General is satisfied that it would involve hardship to that person to refuse the application and that, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable that the application be granted, the Attorney-General may authorise the provision by the Commonwealth to that person, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Attorney-General determines, of such legal or financial assistance in respect of the proceedings as the Attorney-General determines.'.''. (4) (a) Page 6, clause 21, lines 7 to 10, leave out paragraph (a), insert the following paragraphs: ``(a) by omitting from sub-section (1) `insult,' and `sections 21 and 22 of'; (aa) by inserting after sub-section (1) the following penalty: `Penalty for an offence against sub-section (1): (a) in the case of a natural person-$1,000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$5,000.'; (ab) by omitting from paragraph (2) (g) `section 22' and substituting `section 24c'; and''. (5) Page 6, after clause 21, insert the following new clause: ``21a. After section 27 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted in Part IV: Failure to attend conference `27a. A person who has been given a direction under sub-section 24c (1) to attend a conference shall not, without reasonable excuse- (a) fail to attend as required by the direction; or (b) fail to attend and report from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by the person presiding at the conference. Penalty: (a) in the case of a natural person-$1,000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$5,000. Failure to furnish information, &c. `27b. A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail- (a) to furnish information; or (b) to produce a document, when so required pursuant to section 24b, 24c or 24d. Penalty: (a) in the case of a natural person-$1,000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$5,000. Offences in relation to Commission `27c. (1) A person served, as prescribed, with a summons to appear before the Commission as a witness shall not, without reasonable excuse- (a) fail to attend as required by the summons; or (b) fail to appear and report from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by the Commission. `(2) A person appearing before the Commission as a witness at an inquiry shall not, without reasonable excuse- (a) refuse or fail to be sworn or make an affirmation; (b) refuse or fail to answer a question that is required by the member presiding at the inquiry to be answered; or (c) refuse or fail to produce a document that was required to be produced by a summons under this Act served on that person as prescribed. `(3) A person shall not- (a) interrupt an inquiry or proceedings of the Commission; (b) use insulting language towards a member of the Commission when the member is exercising any powers or performing any functions as a member; (c) make a publication in contravention of any direction given under section 25j; (d) create a disturbance or take part in creating or continuing a disturbance in or near a place where the Commission is meeting or holding an inquiry; or (e) do any other act or thing that would, if the Commission were a court of record, constitute a contempt of that court. Penalty: (a) in the case of a natural person-$1,000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$5,000. Self-incrimination `27d. (1) It is not a reasonable excuse for the purposes of section 27b for a person to refuse or fail to furnish information or produce a document that the furnishing of the information or the production of the document might incriminate the person, but evidence of the furnishing of the information or the production of the document is not admissible in evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceeding before a court, other than a proceeding for an offence under section 27e. `(2) Without limiting the generality of the expression ``reasonable excuse'' in section 27c, it is hereby declared for the removal of doubt that it is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of that section for a person to refuse or fail to answer a question put to the person at an inquiry, or to refuse to produce a document, that the answer to the question or the production of the document might incriminate the person. False or misleading information `27E. A person shall not furnish information or make a statement to the Commission, to the Commissioner or to any other person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act, knowing that the information or statement is false or misleading in a material particular. Penalty: (a) in the case of a natural person-$2,500 or imprisonment for 3 months, or both; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$10,000. Non-disclosure of private information `27F. (1) A person who is, or has at any time been, the Commissioner, a member of the Commission or a member of the staff assisting the Commission or is, or has at any time been, authorised to perform or exercise any function or power of the Commission or the Commissioner or any function or power on behalf of the Commission or the Commissioner, being a function or power conferred on the Commission or on the Commissioner under this Act, shall not, either directly or indirectly, except in the performance of a duty under or in connection with this Act or in the performance or exercise of such a function or power- (a) make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information relating to the affairs of another person acquired by the first-mentioned person by reason of that person's office or employment under or for the purpose of this Act or by reason of that person being or having been so authorised; (b) make use of any such information as is mentioned in paragraph (a); or (c) produce to any person a document relating to the affairs of another person furnished for the purposes of this Act. Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both. `(2) A person who is, or has at any time been, the Commissioner, a member of the Commission or a member of the staff assisting the Commission or is, or has at any time been, authorised to perform or exercise any function or power of the Commission or the Commissioner or any function or power on behalf of the Commission or the Commissioner, being a function or power conferred on the Commission or on the Commissioner under this Act, shall not be required- (a) to divulge or communicate to a court any information relating to the affairs of another person acquired by the first-mentioned person by reason of that person's office or employment under or for the purposes of this Act or by reason of that person being or having been so authorised; or (b) to produce in a court a document relating to the affairs of another person of which the first-mentioned person has custody, or to which that person has access, by reason of that person's office or employment under or for the purposes of this Act or by reason of that person being or having been so authorised, except where it is necessary to do so for the purposes of this Act. `(3) Nothing in this section prohibits a person from- (a) making a record of information that is, or is included in a class of information that is, required or permitted by an Act to be recorded, if the record is made for the purposes of or pursuant to that Act; (b) divulging or communicating information, or producing a document, to any person in accordance with an arrangement in force under section 16 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; or (c) divulging or communicating information, or producing a document, that is, or is included in a class of information that is or class of documents that are, required or permitted by an Act to be divulged, communicated or produced, as the case may be, if the information is divulged or communicated, or the document is produced, for the purposes of or pursuant to that Act. `(4) Nothing in sub-section (2) prevents a person from being required, for the purposes of or pursuant to an Act, to divulge or communicate information, or to produce a document, that is, or is included in a class of information that is or class of documents that are, required or permitted by that Act to be divulged, communicated or produced. `(5) In this section- ``court'' includes any tribunal, authority or person having power to require the production of documents or the answering of questions; ``produce'' includes permit access to.'.''. (6)-Page 6, clause 24, line 31, leave out ``5 years'', insert ``7 years''. (7)-Page 7, after clause 29, insert the following new clause: Repeal of section 45 ``29A. Section 45 of the Principal Act is repealed.''. (8)-Page 11, clause 42, lines 23 to 39, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Exercise of inquiry powers by Commission ``42. Section 60 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (1) and (2) and substituting the following sub-sections: `(1) Subject to sub-section 48 (3), the powers of the Commission to hold inquiries under this Act may, if the President so directs, be exercised by a single member of the Commission who is a legally qualified person, or by 2 or more members of the Commission at least one of whom is a legally qualified person. `(2) Where the power of the Commission to hold an inquiry is being exercised by 2 or more members of the Commission- (a) if only one of those members is a legally qualified person-that member shall preside; or (b) if 2 or more of those members are legally qualified persons- (i) if one of those persons is the President-the President shall preside; or (ii) in any other case-those members shall elect one of those persons to preside.'.''. (9)-Page 12, after clause 44, insert the following new clause: Terms and conditions of appointment ``44a. (1) Section 97 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1) `5 years' and substituting `7 years'. ``(2) The amendment made by sub-section (1) does not affect the appointment, or the term of office, of the person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, held office as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.''. (10)-Page 15, Schedule, leave out the amendments of paragraph 22 (4) (b), sub-section 24 (1) and sub-paragraph 25 (b) (i), leave out the proposed amendments. (11)-Page 16, Schedule, leave out the amendment of sub-section 45 (2), leave out the proposed amendment. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, as I did with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, a more detailed explanation in non-technical language of what each of those amendments is about. Leave granted. The document read as follows- AMENDMENTS (1) AND (2) These amendments insert into the Racial Discrimination Act definitions of the terms `Federal Court' and `registered organisation'. These terms are used in the new procedural provisions which are proposed to be inserted into the Racial Discrimination Act. AMENDMENT (3) This amendment inserts four new clauses into the Bill. NEW CLAUSES 14 TO 16 The first three of these new clauses are designed to preserve, as far as practicable, the effect of sub-section 24 (2) of the Racial Discrimination Act. As mentioned, the major thrust of the amendments to be moved today to this Bill is to replace the procedural provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act with provisions modelled on the procedural provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act. It is not intended to make any alteration to the substantive prohibitions on discrimination which appear in the Racial Discrimination Act. Sub-section 24 (2) of the Racial Discrimination Act creates exceptions to two of the substantive prohibitions in the Act. Because sub-section 24 (2) appears within the text of the procedural provisions and since those procedural provisions are to be deleted and replaced, it is necessary to relocate the exceptions. The first of the exceptions, presently embodied in paragraph 24 (2) (a), provides that a civil proceeding under the Act may not be instituted in respect of an act in relation to accommodation in a dwelling where that accommodation is shared with the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or with a relative of either of those persons. That exception is to be preserved through the insertion of a new sub-section (3) at the end of section 12 in the Racial Discrimination Act. The second exception, presently embodied in paragraph 24 (2) (b) of the Act, creates a similar exception in relation to employment. That exception is to be preserved through the new sub-section 15 (5). It is to be noted that sub-section 24 (2), while excepting the doing of certain acts in relation to private dwellings, does not permit a person to advertise an intention to do such an act. This result is to be preserved through the proposed amendment of section 16 of the Act. The rationale for this distinction between actions and advertisements is that, while one would not wish to regulate actions that take place in the context of private dwellings, one certainly wants to prevent public advertisements of racist approaches to employment and accommodation. It is one thing to say that what you do in relation to your private dwelling is your own business, but it is quite another thing to allow advertisements which provide that, for example, `No Aboriginals need apply.' Such advertisements are unlawful now, and they should continue to be unlawful. The new clause 17 in the Bill inserts a new Part III into the Racial Discrimination Act. The purpose of this change is to replace the present complaint handling procedures in the Racial Discrimination Act with provisions modelled on the complaint handling procedures in the Sex Discrimination Act. The provisions have been debated at length, and passed by the Senate in 1983 during the consideration of the then Sex Discrimination Bill, so I do not propose to go into them in any detail. Briefly, they are as follows. New sections 21 to 23 provide for the receipt of complaints and their transmission to the Commissioner. New sections 24 to 24e provide for the Commissioner to inquire into complaints. Where necessary, the Commission may seek an interim determination to preserve the status quo between the parties during the inquiry process. This may be necessary where, for example, a complainant in an employment discrimination case is threatened with dismissal. The Commissioner has the power to obtain relevant information and documents and to convene a conference of the parties. If the Commissioner is unable to resolve the matter by conciliation, there is provision for the matter to be referred to the Commission. Sections 24f and 25z deal with the powers of the Commission to inquire into matters and, if necessary, make determinations in relation to them. A determination, which cannot for constitutional reasons be binding and conclusive upon the parties, may include the finding that the respondent should compensate the complainant in various ways. If necessary, the Commission or the complainant may institute a proceeding in the Federal Court to enforce a determination (section 25za). The replacement of the procedural provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act is necessary because the present provisions have not proved effective. Presently, the Act provides for the Commissioner for Community Relations to inquire into complaints and to attempt to settle them. If complaints cannot be settled, a certificate may be issued which entitles the complainant to institute proceedings in a court. In practice, the institution of legal proceedings in a court, without any prior statement as to their rights under the Racial Discrimination Act, has proved to be beyond the financial and emotional resources of most complainants. In fact, the 11 years of the Act's operation have seen the issue of only 33 certificates, and the commencement of only one court action. The Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Jeremy Long, appointed by the Coalition Government in 1981, has recently observed that no complainant under the Racial Discrimination Act has ever succeeded in obtaining a remedy before the courts. Another compelling reason for the changes to the procedural provisions which are proposed is the administrative efficiencies which can be gained through the procedures being identical in the two major Acts for which the Commission has responsibility. AMENDMENT (4) This amendment removes the offence of insulting an officer. It also alters a number of cross-references in the section in line with the new procedural provisions. The removal of the offence of insulting an officer is consistent with the amendments made by the Opposition, and supported by the Democrats, to the substantive offence provisions of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. AMENDMENT (5) The essential purpose of the Racial Discrimination Act is to provide an effective remedy for those who are discriminated against on the grounds of their race. The new procedural provisions are designed to provide the basis for that effective remedy. This amendment inserts offence provisions which are designed to complement the new procedural provisions. Taken together, they ensure that those who seek to obstruct or disrupt the work of the Commissioner or the Commission can be effectively prevented from doing so. Each of the provisions is closely modelled on an equivalent provision in the Sex Discrimination Act. AMENDMENT (6) The effect of this amendment is that the maximum term for which the Race Discrimination Commissioner can be appointed is to be extended from 5 years to 7. The longer maximum period of appointment provides a greater opportunity for the Government to obtain the services of a first class Commissioner who might reasonably expect a reasonable term. Such additional flexibility in the appointment of Commissioners does not, of course, deprive the Government of the opportunity to appoint a Commissioner for a shorter term. AMENDMENT (7) This amendment removes the current legal aid provision from the Racial Discrimination Act. That provision is to be replaced by two provisions which are embodied in the new procedural provisions. These provisions are clauses 25zb and 25zc. AMENDMENT (8) This amendment recasts clause 42 of the Bill to permit the Commission to be constituted by a single member for the purpose of making a determination under the Sex Discrimination Act. The practice of the Human Rights Commission under the Act indicates that three-member panels are often not necessary for less complex matters. The amended provision will enable the President to constitute a determination panel with a single legally qualified member, while at the same time permitting the President to appoint two or more members to a panel in cases that raise major issues or are particularly complex. AMENDMENT (9) This amendment will mean that future appointments to the Office of Sex Discrimination Commissioner may be for a maximum period of 7 years. It is being made for the same reasons of increased flexibility that were behind the increase in the maximum term of appointment for the Race Discrimination Commissioner. AMENDMENTS (10) AND (11) Clause 31 of the Bill makes the amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act which are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. The amendments are designed to remove instances of sexist language from the Racial Discrimination Act. The replacement of the procedural provisions in the Act has made some of those changes unnecessary and amendments (10) and (11) remove the relevant entries from the Schedule. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bills reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.35) —We have had a lengthy debate on these two Bills, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential (Amendments) Bill, on two occasions. They were first introduced into this chamber towards the end of last year, nearly 12 months ago, and were debated as part of a Bill of Rights package earlier this year. The Opposition strongly resists the allegations that have been made about filibusters. The Government has well and truly been caught out about the allegations it made about a record time, which has now been proven to be quite false and not supported by any of the statistics of the Senate. Nevertheless, there was a very substantial debate then and we have had another very substantial debate this week on the two Bills. The Opposition has been most concerned to ensure the fullest debate on this matter. We opposed the second reading of these two Bills when they were put to the Senate earlier this year. We remain implacably opposed to them and, of course, we are opposed to the third reading. We will divide and vote on the third reading. We will do so because we want to emphasise, in the clearest and firmest way available to us as Opposition senators, that we believe that the Government is embarking upon a completely wrong course for the future in re-establishing and souping up, so to speak, the existing Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission was set up by the Fraser Government as an experiment in this field and with the view to giving effect to the obligations we incurred when we ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We put a sunset clause into the legislation, which indicates that we looked at the Commission as an experiment. We believe that it is an experiment that has failed and failed dismally. Of course, we are not obliged under the International Covenant to have a body such as the Human Rights Commission. Under the terms of the Covenant, Australia, or any other signatory or party to that Covenant, is obliged to take effective action to give meaning to its obligations. As we have always known, and as we knew when we ratified the Covenant, overwhelmingly the laws of Australia, both Federal and State, do observe the rules and obligations of the Covenant. Indeed, the rating of Australia in the world for its observance of human rights is right up in the 90-plus percentage. That is really at the top of world ratings. I suppose we are part of the vast minority of countries in the world which observe those basic standards of human rights. Under our legal and political systems, which we inherited from the United Kingdom, they have evolved. We enjoy them under our present legal and political system, and have done in the past, and we will continue to enjoy them if we observe the time-honoured methods of enforcing those standards in our community. They will be enforced only if we have a free society-one in which there is a free and active democratic system, as we undoubtedly have in this country, and an independent and fearless judiciary. Those are the ways in which we can continue to maintain our system and the ways in which we can continue to observe the obligations that we have assumed under this Covenant. As we have said, there is clearly a role for conciliation as a method of enforcing a number of these human rights values, such as rules of anti-sex discrimination or anti-racial discrimination. We have legislation on those matters and there are obligations against discrimination in a number of areas. We believe that this legislation has gone far too far by giving the Minister the power to declare categories of discrimination in the future, albeit that, as a result of amendments to this legislation, that will be subject to disallowance by the Parliament. But, as Senator Harradine pointed out so clearly in the debate earlier this week, that is not as effective a method of controlling the Minister as if he had to come to Parliament with amendments to the legislation. I reiterate only that, despite amendments that may have been made, other amendments that have been made to this legislation in the Committee stage make it even worse from our point of view. We remain extremely suspicious of the Government's intentions as to the composition of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the appointment of staff. As has been pointed out by Senator Reid, the Commission will be moved from Canberra to Sydney. That will cause a large number of resignations from the existing staff and opportunities for this Government to influence the appointment of new staff. It certainly gives the Government the opportunity to appoint virtually its own Commission. A new President and a new Human Rights Commissioner are to be appointed, and a new Race Discrimination Commissioner will be appointed because the Bill abolishes the present Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner has already been appointed by this Government, and that office is the only continuing one. The only office to be continued is the one appointed by the Government. We can rest assured that this Government will appoint people of its own political sympathies to these new positions. Rumours are rife that jobs for the boys are clearly in contemplation. We believe that the passage of this legislation is a totally wrong course for Australia to take. We will continue to oppose it. I reiterate that our policy pledges to repeal this legislation and abolish this Commission, if the Senate passes the legislation, as unfortunately it seems hell-bent on doing because of the support of the Australian Democrats. I reiterate our opposition to it and our clear undertaking that on return to government this will be one of the first of a large number of statutory bodies that will be abolished. Question put: That the Bills be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich. T. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Powell, J. F. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Sanders, N. K. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Siddons, J. R. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. 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. Bolkus, N. Hill, R. Tate, M. C. Alston, R. K. R. Ryan, S. M. Withers, R. G. Morris, J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Discharge from Notice Paper Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Order of the Day for the consideration in Committee of the Whole of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill 1985 be discharged from the Notice Paper. Debate resumed from 15 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.50) —The Opposition does not oppose the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill 1986 but it is highly critical of the economic path we are on. Today I am particularly critical of the architect and operator of the Government's finances. Accordingly, I move: At the end of the motion, add: `, but the Senate condemns the Government for pursuing incompetent economic and tax policies which- (a) have resulted in a continuing high level of interest rates; and (b) by the imposition of the iniquitous capital gains tax and the removal of negative gearing provisions, have reduced the incentive for private investors to put funds into the private rental market'. I draw attention to the need of the States and the people of Australia for this funding at the moment. The demand for public housing is at an all time high. Between 31 December 1982 and 31 December 1985 the numbers on the waiting lists around Australia for public housing rose by 41.8 per cent, from 109,800 to 155,753. In Victoria the number increased from 15,323 to 29,306, an increase of 91.25 per cent under this Government. In New South Wales the number rose from 47,989 to 66,667, a rise of 38.92 per cent. In Victoria the delay in getting a house is now 24 months. In New South Wales it is 53 months. It is all very well waiting for a house, but one might have to wait a long time. The most recent building commencement figures indicate that between the March quarter and the June quarter of 1986 the value of residential building commencements fell by 12 per cent and that the value of non-residential commencements fell by 10 per cent. From June 1985 to June 1986 the value of residential commencements declined by 21 per cent and the value of total building commencements declined by 15 per cent. The figures show the fall-off there has been in people's ability to obtain housing. Figures on the affordability factor produced by the Real Estate Institute of Australia indicate that in the 1985 June quarter it took 22.3 per cent of the average Australian worker's income to meet his mortgage instalment. By June 1986 this was up to 26.5 per cent. It is an alarming increase in the proportion of the expendable income of the average family. Even worse, of course, is the fact that in Tasmania between June 1985 and June 1986 the monthly loan repayments on the average house went up by 36 per cent while wages went up by 5.8 per cent. Interest rates are between 16.5 and 17.5 per cent for ordinary home owners in Australia. That rate is about 10 per cent higher than that in most other reputable countries. This is what the Government has done to the families of Australia. We can add to this the disincentives to private rental ownership through the negative gearing provisions, capital gains tax and so on. The Government has much to answer for, but the Opposition does not delay the passage of the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.56) —The Opposition's amendment is terrible, shocking and horrible and we cannot possibly support it in any circumstances, for reasons that will be entirely familiar to the Senate. Apart from that, I thank the honourable senator for his support of the Bill. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 18 September 1985, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(11.57) —We are debating the Cheques Bill and the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill concurrently. The Opposition supports the purposes of both these Bills. The primary purpose of the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill is to remove from the Bills of Exchange Act the operation it has on cheques, which will now be dealt with in the new Cheques Act. The Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill is, therefore, consequential upon the passage of the Cheques Bill. The Cheques Bill had a very long gestation period. It originated more than 20 years ago when the Manning Committee reviewed the Bills of Exchange Act and recommended that a new Act be passed dealing comprehensively with cheques. These two Bills were introduced into the House of Representatives on 22 May last year and reached the Senate in August of the same year. Now, at last, they are coming on for debate. For those interested in the Bills, it will be appropriate to refer to the second reading speech made then by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans. As I said, the Opposition agrees with the purposes of these two Bills and will support them. We also agree with the amendments to the Cheques Bill foreshadowed by the Government, which primarily provide protection for the non-bank financial institutions in the handling of cheques and payment orders. The introduction of these amendments justifies the stand taken by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats when the Cheques Bill was introduced last year. Then, the Government urged us to pass the Bill with the promise that it would subsequently look into the problems of the non-bank financial institutions. We obeyed the old rule: When you have them by the ears, their hearts and minds will follow. We refused to pass the Cheques Bill until it was appropriately amended, and the results are before us. I am sure that, if we had done what the Government had wanted and passed the Bill, we would never have seen these amendments. The amendments fully meet the concerns that the Opposition had with the Cheques Bill in its original form. They are necessary because there has been a tremendous change in financial institutions in the 22 years since the Manning Committee reported. There has been a great expansion not only in the number of banks but also, more importantly, in the growth of the non-bank financial institutions, some of which provide many bank-type services. At this point I should declare an interest to the Senate. I am a director of a building society, but I hasten to say that I will gain no financial benefit from the passage of this Bill or any of its amendments. My involvement with building societies has made me aware of the limitations on desirable building society activities caused by the lack of proper legislation for non-bank financial institutions. My position is, perhaps, comparable to that of a lawyer who presses for improvements in the operation of the legal system, perhaps in the area of legal aid as I know Senator Evans has done. In this place we should use the expertise of our members to the advantage of the community. I want to talk about the problems of the present lack of proper legislation for payment services for customers of non-bank financial institutions. They affect credit unions as well as building societies. Building societies are operating in a highly competitive financial market. A building society requires a margin of about 3 per cent between the average cost of its funds and the average return it gets from its loans which are, predominantly, home mortgages. The lending rates on mortgages are set by the various State governments and it is obviously desirable that these be kept as low as practicable while, of course, permitting the building societies to remain financially viable. Their tight financial position comes from the fact that these mortgage rates are lower than the rates which investors can get on their funds from deposits with other banks and other financial institutions. The days when little old ladies left their savings in savings banks at derisory rates of interest are well and truly over. Senator Puplick —Little old people. Senator HAMER —I am corrected by Senator Puplick. If building societies are to attract a substantial proportion of their funds at below the ordinary market rate in today's sophisticated financial climate, they must provide appropriate services to their depositors. Otherwise, there is no way they will attract low interest funds. If they do not, home mortgage rates will go through the roof. In recent years building societies have attempted to attract low interest deposits by providing telephone bill paying services, by the introduction of an industry plastic card called `Cashcard' and the use of an Australia-wide automatic teller machine network. At present there are over one million Cashcards on issue and 450 ATMs installed. Building societies are developing the use of Cashcard to pay bills in large retail businesses such as supermarkets. The trouble is that the costs of these services are all high. The operating cost per transaction is more than $2. Any improved payment mechanism that reduces costs to a building society will reduce overall costs and will directly lead to lower interest rates. The use of cheques is the obvious solution. One option is for a building society or credit union to act as agent for a bank, but this has a number of very unsatisfactory features. The name of the bank must be prominently displayed on the cheque and, as the bank is, in practice, a competitor of the building society or credit union, those institutions are being forced to display publicly the name of a competitor. The bank can then gain details of customers who draw large cheques. It is very expensive and difficult for building societies or credit unions to change banks. In fact, the building society or credit union is locked in to a particular bank and the bank can impose its own credit conditions and indemnities. Finally, the building society or credit union may have significant legal problems. If the building society is issuing cheques as an agent for a bank, the cheques are drawn on the building society's account with the bank. The person drawing the cheque has an account with the building society. The bank, of course, refers to the building society before meeting the payment; but, if the cheque is stopped because of insufficient funds held by the drawer with the building society, the building society may have significant legal problems. It is almost essential, for obvious market reasons, for the building society to put its own name as well as that of the bank on the cheque. The holder of the cheque could sue the building society for the funds, both because of the appearance of the building society's name on the cheque and also because the building society's account with the bank, which has stopped payment of the cheque, would be in funds. This is a very dangerous exposure for a building society or credit union. Practically speaking, banks are happy for building societies or credit unions to issue cheques as long as it is done in as difficult, expensive and dangerous a way as possible. That is what happens when a building society or credit union issues cheques as an agent for a bank. I do not criticise this attitude of banks. It is very understandable. They, too, are in a highly competitive environment and, if they are given opportunities to hobble competitors, it would be unreasonable to expect them to resist. Our job as legislators is to see that there is a fair go for all the competitors. What should be done, and what is being done by the amendments foreshadowed by Senator Evans, is that non-bank financial institutions should be able to issue payment orders in their own name and on their own responsibility, and similar protection should be given for all parties to these transactions as applies to cheques. Of course, for these payment orders to be useful there would have to be access to the cheque clearing system, which is a private arrangement among the banks and is not covered in this Bill. Banks admit newcomers to the cheque clearing system and very properly impose a joining fee of perhaps $1m. There is no way they would admit a building society or credit union to the cheque clearing system but the problem could be easily overcome-there would be no difficulty about this-by arranging for a bank to act as an agent to clear a building society's or credit union's payment orders through the cheque clearing system. It will not be a major problem to change the bank which was clearing the cheques, therefore the building society or credit union would not be locked into a particular bank in the same way as it is now when issuing cheques as an agent for a bank. However, not all building societies or credit unions will wish to, or be suitable to, issue cheques in their own right and for them a continuation of the agency arrangements will be necessary. It will be necessary to protect them from being, as I mentioned before, sued on the instrument. I am delighted the Government has recognised these problems and has now proposed the appropriate amendments to the Bill, for the problems are here and now for building societies and credit unions. They are issuing cheques here and now as agents for banks-they have to if they want to remain competitive-and they are very vulnerable to being sued, so vulnerable it is difficult to get insurance against it. The competition for low interest deposits is here and now and the need for building societies to issue payment orders is urgent if housing loan interest rates are to be contained. These amendments which Senator Evans has foreshadowed have been endorsed by the Australian Payments System Council which comprises building societies, credit unions, all the major banks, the Treasury and the Reserve Bank. I have one final matter. This is extremely technical, specialist and complex legislation and it appears to be very indifferently drafted. The text of the amendments was apparently received by the members of the Australian Payments System Council only a few days before the meeting, which did not, in the opinion of some members of the Council, permit adequate consideration of the details of the drafting. I understand some submissions will be made to the Attorney-General on the details of the drafting and if these are proposed they should be incorporated, provided, of course, that they are merely technical modifications and do not affect the basic thrust of the amendments. This legislation has been hanging around for a long time. I think we should get it through now and if any technical defects emerge perhaps they could be adjusted in the next Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The Opposition supports the Bill and will support the Committee stage amendments. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.10) —The Australian Democrats support the Cheques Bill 1985 as it will be amended by the Government's amendments which have been circulated. When this legislation came before the Senate this year the Democrats and the Opposition made it clear, as Senator Hamer said, that we wished for some substantial amendments to ensure that major non-banking financial institutions in this country, particularly building societies and credit unions which make up the bulk of that area, would have access to the existing cheque clearance system used by the banks or an acceptable alternative clearance system which would protect and safeguard the rights of customers of those institutions. The Government amendments will give some recognition of the non-banking financial institutions part in the cheque payments system and will provide for a new negotiable instrument called a payment order which will basically be identical to a cheque except it will be drawn on a non-banking financial institution rather than on a bank. I notice that Senator Hamer has declared some interest in this issue. I also have an interest as a longstanding member of, and supporter of the founding of, credit unions in Australia. Senator Hamer's comments, by and large, were directed at the building societies. I will add a few similar words with regard to credit unions which have been a major financial institution for many Australians. Many Australians have found that the types of services provided by their local credit unions have been what they require. The credit union to which I belong was the first credit union in Queensland to provide automatic tellers, long before building societies or banks got anywhere near doing so. Credit unions have been at the breaking edge of most of the innovations in offering new financial services to members. In that way they have been able to attract and increase the number of people who wish to do the majority of their financial arrangements with credit unions, outside of those which are almost exclusively within the province of the banks and building societies-the purchase of a home. These people have chosen to do most of their normal financial transactions through their local credit union. I believe the diversity of these institutions has added competition in the Australian system where there was no effective competition previously. The Government, in terms of its deregulation of the banks, which the Australian Democrats did not support, opened up the system. Before the Bill was introduced, we argued that before proceeding to that deregulation there should have been some reference to our other financial institutions to provide them with a variety of means of competing even more effectively than they have to date with the banks. By these amendments the Government has provided at least some of these opportunities. Credit unions and building societies will no longer be at the mercy of the banks if in fact they wish to provide a comparable facility to cheques to their customers. Most credit unions currently provide bank cheques and act as agents, as Senator Hamer has already pointed out. Under the legislation they will be able to operate on their own. I expect some rigorous competition in this area. For example, credit unions, by and large, offer free cheques and a much more comprehensive reporting mechanism than the banks have been willing to provide to date. I believe, with this innovation, the credit unions and the building societies will inject even further strenuous competition for the ordinary citizen's dollar, and that is what we are talking about. These amendments are not directed at the major companies in this country or the various people who deal in the broader spectrum of finance; they are directed specifically at the ordinary citizens who deposit money in an account to be able to write cheques and to try to balance their books and to get smaller loans for things which suit them. We welcome the Government's flexibility in being able to propose these amendments. We believe that this minor but significant movement to break the monopoly of banks will be only to the good of the people of this country. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.15) —in reply-I am indebted to the Senate for its support for this measure, not least since, as has been stated, it has been 23 years in the making. The Parliament did make one desultory little gesture in the direction of the implementation of the Manning Report of the Committee Appointed by the Commonwealth Government to Review the Bills of Exchange Act 1909-58 by an amendment to the Act in 1971. It has taken us another 15 years to move to the extent that we have. I think the enormity of this achievement ought not, accordingly, go unremarked. I thank the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.16) —I table the explanatory memorandum which takes account of amendments to be moved on behalf of the Government to the Cheques Bill 1985. I seek leave to move the amendments together. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: (1) Page 1, clause 1, line 5, insert ``and Payment Orders'', after ``Cheques''. (2) Page 1, clause 2, lines 6 and 7, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Commencement ``2. This Act shall come into operation on such day as is, or on such respective days as are, fixed by Proclamation.''. (3) Page 2, clause 3, after definition of ``bearer'', in sub-clause (1) insert the following definitions: `` `building society' has the same meaning as in the Financial Corporations Act 1974; `credit union' has the same meaning as in the Financial Corporations Act 1974;''. (4) Page 2, clause 3, after definition of ``drawee bank'' in sub-clause (1) insert the following definition: `` `financial institution' means a bank or a non-bank financial institution;''. (5) Page 2, clause 3, after the definition of ``issue'' in sub-clause (1) insert the following definition: `` `non-bank financial institution' means- (a) a building society or credit union that is a registered corporation within the meaning of the Financial Corporations Act 1974; and (b) any other registered corporation within the meaning of that Act, being a registered corporation prescribed, or included in a class of registered corporations prescribed, for the purposes of this definition;''. (6) Page 3, clause 6, line 24, insert ``, 96A, 96B, 96d'' after ``90 to 95 (inclusive)''. (7) Page 4, clause 13, line 33, leave out ``drawee bank'', insert ``bank on which the instrument containing the order is drawn''. (8) Page 4, clause 13, line 34, leave out ``containing the order''. (9) Page 5, clause 15, lines 29 to 31, leave out sub-clause (4), insert the following sub-clause: ``(4) Where an instrument contains- (a) an order to pay a specified sum; and (b) an order to pay not more than a specified sum, the instrument shall be taken to require payment of the lesser of the sums so specified.''. (10) Page 18, clause 62, line 28, leave out ``bank'', insert ``financial institution''. (11) Page 20, clause 65, line 29, insert ``in relation to cheques'' after ``place'' (last occurring). (12) Page 20, clause 65, lines 31 to 35, leave out paragraph (2) (a), insert the following paragraph: ``(a) one or more of the following, namely: (i) the cheques in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 62 (1); (ii) the cheques in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 62 (6); (iii) the cheques in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 62 (9);''. (13) Page 23, clause 68, line 27, leave out ``bank'' (last occurring), insert ``financial institution''. (14) Page 23, clause 68, line 38, leave out ``bank'' (first occurring), insert ``financial institution''. (15) Page 23, clause 68, line 39, leave out ``bank'' (last occurring), insert ``financial institution''. (16) Page 23, clause 68, line 40, leave out ``bank'', insert ``financial institution''. (17) Page 24, clause 68, line 4, leave out ``bank'', insert ``financial institution''. (18) Page 24, clause 68, line 5, leave out ``bank'' (wherever occurring), insert ``financial institution''. (19) Page 29, clause 87, at end of clause, add the following sub-clause: ``(2) The reference in sub-section (1) to the drawer of a cheque does not include a reference to a drawer of a cheque who is also the drawee bank.''. (20) Page 32, after clause 96 insert the following new Parts: ``PART VIA-SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO NON-BANK FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ``Division 1-Presentment and collection of cheques by non-bank financial institutions Non-bank financial institution to ensure cheques presented promptly ``96A. (1) Subject to section 59, where the holder of a cheque lodges the cheque with a non-bank financial institution for collection for the holder, the non-bank financial institution shall ensure that the cheque is duly presented for payment on its behalf as soon as is reasonably practicable and, if the non-bank financial institution fails to do so, it is liable to the holder for any loss that the holder thereby suffers. ``(2) Where the drawee bank makes a request under sub-section 62 (5) in relation to the cheque, the cheque shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed not to have been duly presented for payment unless, and until, the request is complied with. ``(3) In determining, for the purposes of sub-section (1), whether the non-bank financial institution failed to ensure that the cheque was duly presented for payment on its behalf as soon as was reasonably practicable, regard shall be had to- (a) the fact that the instrument is a cheque and that it is reasonable to expect a cheque to be presented for payment promptly; (b) the means that were available to it for having the cheque duly presented on its behalf; (c) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (d) the usage of financial institutions in relation to the presentment of cheques; (e) in a case where a request under sub-section 62 (5) was made in relation to the cheque-the following matters, namely: (i) the making of the request; (ii) the nature of the request; (iii) whether or not the bank to which the request was made had actual possession of the cheque; (iv) whether or not the request was complied with; (v) if the request was complied with-the time within which the request was complied with and the means by which the request was complied with; (vi) the means that were available for complying with the request; (vii) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (viii) the usage of financial institutions in relation to requests under sub-section 62 (5); and (f) any other facts of the particular case, including- (i) the nature of the cheque and, in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the date of the cheque (if any) and the sum ordered to be paid by the cheque; and (ii) whether any delay in presenting the cheque was- (A) caused by circumstances beyond the control of the non-bank financial institution; and (B) not imputable to default, misconduct or negligence on the part of the non-bank financial institution. Protection of non-bank financial institution collecting cheque for customer ``96B. (1) Where- (a) a non-bank financial institution, in good faith and without negligence- (i) receives payment of a cheque for a customer; or (ii) receives payment of a cheque and, before or after receiving payment, credits a customer's account with the sum ordered to be paid by the cheque; and (b) the customer has no title, or has a defective title, to the cheque, the non-bank financial institution does not incur any liability to the true owner by reason only of having received payment of the cheque. ``(2) Where- (a) a non-bank financial institution- (i) receives payment of a cheque for a customer; or (ii) receives payment of a cheque and, before or after receiving payment, credits a customer's account with the sum ordered to be paid by the cheque; (b) the cheque is a cheque drawn payable to order that has not been transferred by negotiation; and (c) the name specified in the cheque as the name of the payee- (i) is the same as the name of the customer; (ii) is the same as a business name or trade name of the customer; or (iii) is so similar to the name of the customer, or a business name or trade name of the customer, that it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the non-bank financial institution to have assumed that the customer was the person intended by the drawer to be the payee, the non-bank financial institution shall not be treated, for the purposes of sub-section (1), as having been negligent by reason only of its failure to concern itself with the absence of, or irregularity in, an indorsement of the cheque by the customer. Rights of non-bank financial institution collecting order cheque not indorsed by payee ``96C. Where- (a) the payee of a cheque payable to order, without indorsing the cheque, lodges the cheque with a non-bank financial institution for collection for the payee; and (b) the non-bank financial institution gives value for, or has a lien on, the cheque, the non-bank financial institution has such rights (if any) as it would have had if, before the lodgment of the cheque with it, the payee had indorsed the cheque in blank. ``Division 2-Agency cheques Agency cheques ``96d. (1) Where- (a) the drawer of a cheque is a non-bank financial institution; and (b) the cheque was, at a time when it was wanting in a material particular necessary for it to be, on its face, a complete cheque, delivered by the non-bank financial institution to a customer pursuant to an agreement under which the customer was authorised to fill up the cheque, then, unless the cheque is signed by the customer- (c) the customer is not liable on the cheque; and (d) the customer's account with the non-bank financial institution may not be debited with the sum ordered to be paid by the cheque. ``(2) If the cheque is signed by the customer, then- (a) as regards the holder or an indorser, the following provisions apply, namely: (i) the non-bank financial institution shall be taken- (a) not to have drawn the cheque; and (b) not to have signed the cheque; (ii) the customer shall be taken- (a) to have drawn the cheque; and (b) to have signed the cheque as drawer; and (b) as regards the customer, the non-bank financial institution shall be taken to have the same duties and liabilities, and the same rights, in relation to the cheque as it would have had if- (i) the customer had drawn the cheque; (ii) the cheque were addressed by the customer to the non-bank financial institution; (iii) the cheque were drawn against the customer's account with the non-bank financial institution; (iv) the non-bank financial institution were a bank; (v) in a case where the drawee bank pays the cheque to a person-the non-bank financial institution had paid the cheque to the person; and (vi) in a case where the drawee bank dis- honours the cheque-the non-bank financial institution had dishonoured the cheque. ``PART VIb-PAYMENT ORDERS ``Division 1-General Payment order defined ``96e. (1) A payment order is an unconditional order in writing that- (a) is addressed by a person to another person (being a non-bank financial institution); (b) is signed by the person giving it; (c) requires the non-bank financial institution to pay on demand a sum certain in money; and (d) clearly bears the words `payment order' on the front of the instrument. ``(2) An instrument that does not comply with sub-section (1), or that orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not a payment order. Form of payment orders ``96f. In determining whether an instrument is a payment order, sections 11 to 15 (inclusive) and sub-section 16 (3) apply as if- (a) references in those provisions to a bank were references to a non-bank financial institution; and (b) the reference in sub-section 16 (3) to a cheque were a reference to a payment order. Application of the rules of the common law ``96g. (1) The rules of the common law (including the law merchant) that apply in relation to cheques apply, mutatis mutandis, in relation to payment orders. ``(2) For the purposes of the application of the rules of the common law in relation to payment orders, a member of a building society or credit union shall be taken to be a customer of the building society or credit union, as the case may be. Application of Act to payment orders ``96h. (1) This Act (other than sections 10 to 15 (inclusive), sub-section 16 (3) and sections 61 to 68 (inclusive), 96a to 96d (inclusive), 101 and 102) applies, subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule, in relation to payment orders as if- (a) references (other than in this Part and the Schedule) to a cheque were references to a payment order; and (b) references (other than in the definitions of `bank' and `financial institution' in sub-section 3 (1), this Part and the Schedule) to a bank were references to a non-bank financial institution. ``(2) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), sub-section 7 (4) and section 18 apply in relation to an instrument that is signed, but otherwise wanting in a material particular necessary for the instrument to be, on its face, a complete payment order, as if references in those provisions to a cheque were references to a payment order. ``(3) For the purposes of the application of this Act in relation to payment orders in accordance with sub-section (1), a member of a building society or credit union shall be taken to be a customer of the building society or credit union, as the case may be. ``Division 2-Presentment of payment orders Due presentment of payment order defined ``96i. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), a payment order is duly presented for payment if a demand for payment of the payment order is made, in accordance with section 96j or 96k, on the drawee non-bank financial institution by or on behalf of the holder. ``(2) Where a demand for payment of a payment order is made before the date of the payment order arrives, the payment order shall not, by reason of the demand, be taken to have been duly presented for payment. Presentment of payment order by financial institution ``96j. (1) A financial institution (in this section referred to as the `collecting financial institution') may, on behalf of a customer, another financial institution or otherwise, present a payment order for payment by making a demand for payment of the payment order on the drawee non-bank financial institution at- (a) the proper place in relation to the payment order; or (b) a place that is a designated place in relation to the payment order for the purposes of this sub-section, at a reasonable hour on a day on which the drawee non-bank financial institution is open for business at the place at which the demand is made. ``(2) The demand may be made by exhibiting the payment order to the drawee non-bank financial institution or by any other means. ``(3) Where the payment order is not exhibited to the drawee non-bank financial institution, the demand shall- (a) identify the payment order with reasonable certainty; and (b) be in a form that is intelligible to, or readily decipherable by, the drawee non-bank financial institution. ``(4) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (3), the demand shall, for the purposes of that sub-section, be taken to identify the payment order with reasonable certainty if- (a) the sum ordered to be paid by the payment order; (b) the payment order number; (c) the account against which the payment order is drawn; and (d) the proper place in relation to the payment order, are specified in the demand or are readily ascertainable by the drawee non-bank financial institution from the demand. ``(5) Where the payment order is not exhibited to the drawee non-bank financial institution, the drawee non-bank financial institution- (a) may request the collecting financial institution to furnish specified further particulars in relation to the payment order to it; or (b) may, whether or not a request has been made by virtue of paragraph (a), request the collecting financial institution to exhibit the payment order, or a copy of the payment order of a specified kind, to it. ``(6) The request may be made to the collecting financial institution at a place that is a designated place in relation to the payment order for the purposes of this sub-section, by any means, at a reasonable hour on a day on which the collecting financial institution is open for business at the place at which the request is made. ``(7) The request shall- (a) identify the payment order with reasonable certainty; and (b) be in a form that is intelligible to, or readily decipherable by, the collecting financial institution. ``(8) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (7), the request shall, for the purposes of that sub-section, be taken to identify the payment order with reasonable certainty if- (a) the sum ordered to be paid by the payment order; (b) the payment order number; (c) the account against which the payment order is drawn; and (d) the proper place in relation to the payment order, are specified in the request or are readily ascertainable by the collecting financial institution from the request. ``(9) Where the drawee non-bank financial institution makes a request in relation to the payment order, the collecting financial institution may- (a) furnish the further particulars; or (b) exhibit the payment order or a copy of the payment order of the specified kind, as the case requires, to the drawee non-bank financial institution at- (c) the proper place in relation to the payment order; or (d) a place that is a designated place in relation to the payment order for the purposes of this sub-section, at a reasonable hour on a day on which the drawee non-bank financial institution is open for business at the place at which the particulars are furnished, or the payment order or copy exhibited, as the case may be. ``(10) Where the drawee non-bank financial institution makes a request by virtue of paragraph (5) (a) in relation to the payment order, the further particulars may be furnished to the drawee non-bank financial institution by any means. ``(11) In furnishing the further particulars, the collecting financial institution shall- (a) identify the request with reasonable certainty; and (b) provide the further particulars, in a form that is intelligible to, or readily decipherable by, the drawee non-bank financial institution. ``(12) Where a payment order is presented for payment otherwise than by exhibiting it to the drawee non-bank financial institution, nothing in this section shall be taken to relieve the drawee non-bank financial institution from any liability to which the drawee non-bank financial institution would have been subject in relation to the payment order if it had been presented by being exhibited to the drawee non-bank financial institution. Presentation by person other than financial institution ``96k. A person other than a financial institution may present a payment order for payment by exhibiting the payment order, in person, to the drawee non-bank financial institution at the proper place in relation to the payment order at a reasonable hour on a day on which the drawee non-bank financial institution is open for business at the place at which the payment order is exhibited. Proper place ``96l. The proper place in relation to a payment order is- (a) in a case where there is specified in the payment order a place of business of the drawee non-bank financial institution-that place; or (b) in any other case-the place of business of the branch of the drawee non-bank financial institution at which the account on which the payment order is drawn is maintained. Designated places ``96m. (1) A financial institution may, by notice in the prescribed form published in the Gazette, specify a place as a designated place in relation to payment orders for the purposes of this Act. ``(2) The notice shall specify- (a) one or more of the following, namely: (i) the payment orders in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 96j (1); (ii) the payment orders in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 96j (6); (iii) the payment orders in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 96j (9); (b) the days on which, and the hours during which, the financial institution will be open for business at the place; and (c) the means by which communications may be made to the financial institution at the place. ``(3) The notice has effect on and from the day on which the notice is published in the Gazette or such later day as is specified in the notice. Deposit financial institution to present payment orders promptly ``96n. (1) Subject to section 59, where the holder of a payment order lodges the payment order with a financial institution (in this section referred to as the `deposit financial institution') for collection for the holder, the deposit financial institution shall duly present the payment order for payment itself, or ensure that the payment order is duly presented for payment on its behalf, as soon as is reasonably practicable and, if the deposit financial institution fails to do so, it is liable to the holder for any loss that the holder thereby suffers. ``(2) Where the drawee non-bank financial institution makes a request under sub-section 96j (5) in relation to the payment order, the payment order shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed not to have been duly presented for payment unless, and until, the request is complied with. ``(3) In determining, for the purposes of sub-section (1), whether the deposit financial institution failed to duly present the payment order for payment itself, or to ensure that the payment order was duly presented for payment on its behalf, as soon as was reasonably practicable, regard shall be had to- (a) the fact that the instrument is a payment order and that it is reasonable to expect a payment order to be presented for payment promptly; (b) the means that were available to it for duly presenting the payment order itself and the means that were available to it for having the payment order duly presented on its behalf; (c) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (d) the usage of financial institutions in relation to the presentment of payment orders; (e) in a case where a request under sub-section 96j (5) was made in relation to the payment order-the following matters, namely: (i) the making of the request; (ii) the nature of the request; (iii) whether the request was made to the deposit financial institution or to another financial institution acting on its behalf in relation to the presentment of the payment order; (iv) if the request was made to another financial institution acting on its behalf in relation to the presentment of the payment order-whether or not the other financial institution had actual possession of the payment order; (v) whether or not the request was complied with; (vi) if the request was complied with-the time within which the request was complied with and the means by which the request was complied with; (vii) the means that were available for complying with the request; (viii) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (ix) the usage of financial institutions in relation to requests under sub-section 96j (5); and (f) any other facts of the particular case, including- (i) the nature of the payment order and, in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the date of the payment order (if any) and the sum ordered to be paid by the payment order; and (ii) whether any delay in presenting the payment order was- (a) caused by circumstances beyond the control of the deposit financial institution; and (b) not imputable to default, misconduct or negligence on the part of the deposit financial institution. Drawee non-bank financial institution to pay or dishonour payment orders promptly ``96p. (1) Where a payment order is duly presented for payment, the drawee non-bank financial institution shall either pay or dishonour the payment order as soon as is reasonably practicable and, if the drawee non-bank financial institution fails to do so, then, unless it has become aware of a defect in the holder's title or that the holder has no title to the payment order, the drawee non-bank financial institution- (a) may not dishonour the payment order; and (b) is liable to pay the payment order to the holder. ``(2) In determining, for the purposes of sub-section (1), whether the drawee non-bank financial institution failed to pay or dishonour the payment order as soon as was reasonably practicable, regard shall be had to- (a) the fact that the instrument is a payment order and that it is reasonable to expect a payment order that has been duly presented for payment to be either paid or dishonoured promptly; (b) the means by which, and the place at which, the payment order was presented; (c) the means that were available to it for paying or dishonouring the payment order; (d) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (e) the usage of non-bank financial institutions in relation to the payment and dishonour of payment orders; (f) in a case where a request under sub-section 96j (5) was made by it in relation to the payment order-the following matters, namely: (i) the making of the request; (ii) the nature of the request; (iii) the time within which the request was made; (iv) the means by which the request was made; (v) the means that were available to it for making the request; (vi) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (vii) whether or not the request was complied with; (viii) if the request was complied with-the time within which the request was complied with; (ix) if the request was a request to furnish further particulars and the request was complied with-the nature of the particulars furnished to it; (x) the usage of non-bank financial institutions in relation to the making of requests under sub-section 96j (5); and (g) any other facts of the particular case, including- (i) the nature of the payment order; and (ii) whether any delay in paying or dishonouring the payment order was- (a) caused by circumstances beyond the control of the drawee non-bank financial institution; and (b) not imputable to default, misconduct or negligence on the part of the drawee non-bank financial institution. How paid payment orders to be dealt with ``96q. (1) Where- (a) a payment order is duly presented for payment by exhibiting the payment order to the drawee non-bank financial institution; and (b) the drawee non-bank financial institution pays the payment order, the drawee non-bank financial institution has, as against the person who presented the payment order, the right to possession of the payment order. ``(2) Where- (a) a payment order is duly presented for payment by a financial institution (in this sub-section referred to as the `collecting financial institution') otherwise than by exhibiting the payment order to the drawee non-bank financial institution; (b) the payment order is exhibited to the drawee non-bank financial institution pursuant to a request under sub-section 96j (5); and (c) the drawee non-bank financial institution pays the payment order, the drawee non-bank financial institution has, as against the collecting financial institution and any financial institution on whose behalf the collecting financial institution duly presented the payment order, the right to possession of the payment order. ``(3) Where- (a) a payment order is duly presented for payment by a financial institution (in this sub-section and sub-section (4) referred to as the `collecting financial institution') otherwise than by exhibiting the payment order to the drawee non-bank financial institution; (b) the payment order is not exhibited to the drawee non-bank financial institution pursuant to a request under sub-section 96j (5); (c) the drawee non-bank financial institution pays the payment order; and (d) the payment order is in the actual possession of the collecting financial institution or another financial institution on whose behalf the collecting financial institution duly presented the payment order, the collecting financial institution or other financial institution, as the case requires (in sub-section (4) referred to as the `relevant financial institution'), shall- (e) subject to sub-section (4), retain the payment order, on behalf of the drawee non-bank financial institution, for such period as is prescribed; and (f) at the expiration of that period, deal with the payment order in accordance with the regulations. ``(4) The drawee non-bank financial institution may, at any time while the payment order is being retained by the relevant financial institution in accordance with sub-section (3), request the relevant financial institution to deliver up the payment order to it, and the relevant financial institution shall forthwith comply with the request. ``(5) Nothing in sub-section (3) shall be taken to affect a right that a person has, as against the drawee non-bank financial institution, to possession of the payment order. ``(6) Where a payment order is paid otherwise than by the drawee non-bank financial institution, the person paying the payment order has, as against the person paid, the right to possession of the payment order.''. (21)-Page 36, after clause 103, add the following new Schedule: SCHEDULE Sub-section 96h (1) MODIFICATIONS OF ACT IN RELATION TO PAYMENT ORDERS Sub-section 5 (1)- (a) Omit ``sections 10 to 15 (inclusive)'', substitute ``sections 11 to 15 (inclusive)''. (b) Omit ``sub-sections 60 (1) and 62 (12)'', substitute ``sub-section 60 (1)''. (c) Omit ``and sections 88 to 91 (inclusive)'', substitute ``, sections 88 to 91 (inclusive) and 96d to 96f (inclusive) and sub-section 96j (12)''. (d) Omit ``a bank cheque or bank draft'', substitute ``a payment order drawn by a non-bank financial institution on itself or on another branch of the non-bank financial institution''. Sub-section 5 (2)- Omit ``a bank cheque or bank draft drawn by it'', substitute ``a payment order drawn by the non-bank financial institution on itself or on another branch of the non-bank financial institution''. Sub-section 6 (2)- (a) Omit ``7 to 16 (inclusive)'', substitute ``7 to 9 (inclusive), 11 to 16 (inclusive)''. (b) Omit ``61, 62, 64 to 67 (inclusive)''. (c) Insert ``96e to 96g (inclusive), 96i, 96j, 96l to 96p (inclusive),'' after ``96d,''. Section 54- Omit ``bank'' (last occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Paragraph 60 (3) (b)- Omit ``banks'', substitute ``financial institutions''. Section 92- Omit ``bank'' (second occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Sub-section 93 (1)- Omit ``bank'' (second and last occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Paragraphs 93 (2) (c) and (d)- Omit ``a bank'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``a financial institution''. Paragraph 94 (1) (a)- Omit ``bank'' (last occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Paragraph 94 (2) (a)- Omit ``bank'' (last occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Heading to Division 2 of Part VI- Omit ``bank'', substitute ``financial institution''. Section 95- Omit ``bank'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Section 96- Omit ``bank'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. The amendments were the subject of a good deal of discussion at the second reading stage. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a plain English explanatory account of what these amendments are all about. Essentially, they enable customers of non-bank financial institutions to issue a new instrument to be called a payment order which will be similar to a cheque, except that it will be drawn on a customer's account, not with a bank, but with a non-bank. That is what they are essentially about. There are many other lesser provisions, but primarily they are directed to that objective. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Government is moving amendments to the Cheques Bill 1985 to: (i) enable customers of non-bank financial institutions (non-banks) to issue a new instrument to be called a `payment order' which will be similar to a cheque, except that it will be drawn on a customer's account with a non-bank; (ii) transfer liability on so called `agency' cheques from non-banks to their customers and to protect non-bank customers who use these `agency' cheques; (iii) extend protections afforded banks collecting cheques to non-banks performing that function and to impose a duty on non-banks to ensure prompt presentment of cheques lodged with them for collection on behalf of their customers; and (iv) clarify some provisions presently contained in the Cheques Bill. For the most part, these amendments implement recommendations of the Australian Payments System Council which was established by the Government to examine the most desirable means by which non-banks could gain access to the payment system. (1) Payment orders (cls 96e to Q) These amendments provide for a new negotiable instrument to be called a payment order which would be identical, in all significant respects, to a cheque except that it would be drawn on a non-bank rather than a bank and would bear the words `payment order' across it. Non-banks have for some time been anxious, for obvious marketing reasons, to be able to issue their own paper on the same basis that banks issue cheques. Proposed clauses 96e to Q, together with the Schedule to be inserted, provide for payment orders and regulate their use in the same manner as cheques are currently regulated in the Bill. This would mean that non-bank customers drawing these payment orders would enjoy similar rights and protections as apply to cheques. Likewise, non-banks would be under the same duties and have the same protections as banks using cheques. It should be noted, however, that the amendments do not confer on non-banks issuing payment orders direct access to the cheque clearing system. As with `agency' cheques at present, non-banks would need to negotiate commercial arrangements with banks to clear their orders unless they establish their own clearing house for such orders. A definition of `non-bank financial institution' is being inserted in the Bill for the purposes of the `agency' cheque and payment order provisions. `Non-bank financial institution' will be defined to mean a building society or credit union that is a registered corporation within the meaning of the Financial Corporations Act 1974, or any other registered corporation that is prescribed or included in a class of registered corporations, that is prescribed. The definition of non-bank financial institution has been drafted to ensure that building societies and credit unions are subject to the proposed new provisions of the Bill. It has been those two groups of institutions which, to date, have been pressing, through the Australian Payments System Council, for legislative protections to enhance their access to the domestic payments system. In addition, the definition allows for other institutions, or groups of institutions, wishing at some later stage to gain the benefits of the protections included in the new provisions to be prescribed. Since responsibility for maintaining stability and public confidence in the domestic payments system lies with the Treasurer, it is envisaged that he would play a role in the determination of which institutions should be prescribed and thus which institutions should participate in the payments system. (2) Agency cheques (cl 96d) The amendment dealing with `agency' cheques (ie cheques drawn by a non-bank on its own bank and signed by the non-bank customer) is designed to overcome difficulties which currently exist with the use of `agency' cheques: From the point of view of non-banks, `agency' cheques suffer from the defect that, as the drawer of such cheques, non-banks may be liable to a payee/holder in the event of dishonour or countermand. From the point of view of customers, `agency' cheques are unsatisfactory in that there is effectively no banker/customer relationship established between the bank and the customer or possibly even the NBFI and the customer. Hence some of the protections available to bank customers are not presently applicable in respect of `agency' cheques. Proposed clause 96d is therefore designed to overcome these defects by ensuring that non-bank customers using `agency' cheques have similar rights as drawers of cheques in relation to their non-bank. As well the liability on `agency' cheques of non-banks as drawers will be transferred to their customers as regards holders or indorsers of those cheques. (3) Non-banks collecting cheques (duties and protections) (cls 96a to c) Proposed clauses 96a, 96b and 96c deal with the processing of cheques lodged with non-banks by their customers. The clauses will: (a) impose on non-banks substantially similar obligations to those which banks have under clause 66 of the Bill to holders of cheques who lodge cheques with banks for collection (96a), and (b) provide protection to non-banks when cheques are lodged with them by their customers along the lines of that conferred on banks under clause 95 (96b and c) These new provisions reflect the Government's view that it is appropriate for non-banks to enjoy the same protections, and be under the same obligations, as banks when they are performing the same function. Summary The overall effect of this comprehensive package of amendments would be to place non-banks and their customers, whether using `agency' cheques or payment orders, in a similar position to banks and their customers who use `ordinary' cheques. It is expected that the legislation will come into operation by 1 July next year. Amendments to the Commonwealth Bank Accounts Debits Tax Administration Act 1982 will be required to be in place by then to ensure that payment orders are treated in the same manner as cheques for taxation purposes. This legislation is expected to be introduced early next year. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(12.17) —For the reasons I gave during the second reading debate, the Opposition supports and welcomes these amendments. Amendments agreed to. Cheques Bill, as amended, and Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill agreed to. Cheques Bill reported with amendments and Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.19) —In speaking to the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986, I will try to make a 30-minute speech in about five minutes. So if it should become a little disjointed, it will be because I am trying to put pieces together. Briefly, the legislation represents the Government's response to the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council inquiry entitled `Future Directions for CSIRO', which was delivered to the Government about 12 months ago. It was noticeable that the second reading speech of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), which consists of about 13 pages, did not really touch on the legislation until after about 9 1/2 pages. Again, I suppose there is nothing unusual about that. The Minister stated that the legislation was based on the ASTEC report. I find that fairly hard to agree with, because when I checked on the Government's response to the recommendations and what it had done, I found that, of the 31 recommendations or sub-recommendations, the Government accepted only these three: That the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation be retained as a single statutory authority; that the existing CSIRO Advisory Council and State and Territory committees be discontinued; and that the CSIRO introduce an early separation incentive scheme. It did accept seven recommendations, with qualifications. It rejected seven recommendations outright and there were 14 on which no action was taken. It is tampering with the truth a little to say that the legislation is based on the ASTEC report. It is an important piece of legislation. It shows that the Government has been considering the matter. It shows that it recognises that there are changes necessary in the operation of the CSIRO. I believe it is important that we pass it as speedily as possible so that it can get on with the job. Science and Industry Research Amendment Bill I am not terribly pleased with the extent of the legislation. I suggest that it will need to be watched and a certain amount of further amendments will be needed once we see what is working and what is not working. It fails to come to grips with two or three of the most important recommendations. There is the question of the accessibility of the CSIRO and its relationship with the Public Service Board. I believe it is terribly important that we should sever this connection as fast as possible. Nearly everybody seems to agree, or seems to have agreed, on this. At this stage ASTEC certainly favours it. I know that the CSIRO and the Opposition favour it. I know that the scientific community in general favours it, and I know that until very recently even the Australian Labor Party favoured it. It was part of its policy from 1982 to 1986. But in 1986 it suddenly changed its policy. I suggest that it should have another look at it, if it wants the CSIRO to become a more vigorous and free operation. The legislation fails to do anything about the portability of superannuation of staff. This is a major question. I believe that until we allow people to mix working with the Organisation with working in industry, universities and other academic places, we will not improve the overall status of the academic staff. I urge the Government to proceed to do something about that as quickly as it possibly can. On the question of multi-occupations, I firmly believe that more people in the CSIRO and in universities should have an industry background. I urge that we make all the necessary provisions so that people in industry are able to go to and from the CSIRO, and people in the CSIRO should be able to go to and from industry. I also believe that they should be able to share in the rewards of the discoveries and research in which they engage, wherever that is possible. As far as the committees are concerned, I am advised that it is the intention of the Minister to reorganise committees on a State basis and to have committees for other consultation. Naturally, I would like to see how this works, because I find it difficult at the moment to read in the legislation how this will be done. But I hope that it can be achieved, and we will await the outcome. The reindustrialisation of Australia starts with the CSIRO. We will have to look to it to do more with industry. The organisation is world renowned. There is not another institution in Australia that is as favourably known around the world as the CSIRO. The places in the Organisation that I have visited over the last 12 to 14 months have shown that there are many great and interesting people, as there have been in the past. I wish to acknowledge the work that they have done and the calibre of their work. I pay particular tribute to Dr Boardman, who over the last 12 months has been through a very difficult period while there have been all the uncertainties and who has been able to maintain staff morale at a very high level. While paying tribute, I should also mention Sir Peter Derham and the CSIRO Advisory Council, which as of today, tomorrow or the next few days will not exist any more. We need to remember that the Council, whether it is regarded as having been successful or not, has done what it was required to do. I think it could have done more had it been allowed. Senator Vigor has made various arrangements with the Minister for Science and we have agreed to accept various undertakings which have been given by the Minister rather than move amendments in the Senate at this stage. I regret that more adequate debate was not possible. In normal circumstances there would have been several speakers on the Bill but we do not wish to impede the progress of the Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.26) —The Science and Industry Research Legislation Bill 1986 is an important Bill as it concerns the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia's foremost applied research organisation. The Bill implements some of the recommendations of the Australian Science and Technology Council report and as such we support the provisions of the Bill. However, we have raised with the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) several areas in which the Bill fails to implement the ASTEC recommendations. The major one in our view is the failure to cope with the area of intellectual property. ASTEC recommended that the rights to an income from inventions be divided between the inventors and CSIRO and that CSIRO be allowed to retain its earnings from such inventions. Most honourable senators would realise that this recommendation is becoming increasingly important in relation to not only the CSIRO but also our other research institutions, mainly within universities. As the CSIRO moves away more and more from pure research, fairly obviously in the area of applied research and the development of inventions, increasingly a number of commercial possibilities will open up. Because of the failure to implement this recommendation this avenue is likely to be denied or at the very least delayed. Scientists will be denied the reward and incentives that go with their innovative effort. More and more overseas, scientists and engineers are being given intellectual property rights through patent ownership or some other mechanism. This provides an incentive for extra effort which may be needed to bring inventions up to scratch for development. It also gives a strong competitive market for people with talent. It is important that Australia's premier research organisation should be able to attract and retain the most inventive people who are available to it. Intellectual property rights obviously must be part of the package. The Australian Democrats intended to move an amendment to the Bill but agreed not to do so because of the urgent need to get the proposed council in place. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the amendment which the Australian Democrats proposed to move to the Bill. Leave granted. The amendment read as follows- Page 14, paragraph 25 (a), line 36, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) by omitting sub-section (1) and substituting the following sub-sections: `(1) The property in a discovery, invention or improvement of or in any process, apparatus or machine made, after the commencement of section 25 of the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Act 1986, by an officer or officers of the Organisation in the course of the official duties of that officer or those officers shall be held in common by the Organisation and that officer or those officers in such shares as, in accordance with the regulations, reflect the relative contributions of the Organisation and the officer or officers concerned. `(1a) Where the Organisation and a partner of the Organisation or a company in the formation of which the Organisation has joined hold, whether jointly or in unequal shares, the property in a discovery, invention or improvement of or in any process, apparatus or machine made, after the commencement of section 25 of the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Act 1986, by an officer or officers of the Organisation in the course of the official duties of that officer or those officers, whether or not in conjunction with an officer or employee of the partner or the company, the property of the Organisation in that discovery, invention or improvement of or in any process, apparatus or machine shall be held in common by the Organisation and that officer or those officers of the Organisation in such shares as, in accordance with the regulations, reflect the relative contributions of the Organisation and the officer or officers concerned.';''. Senator MACKLIN —I thank the Senate. The Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, gave Senator Vigor, the Australian Democrats spokesperson in this area, an undertaking that he would ensure that the spirit of the ASTEC recommendations would be implemented by the new Board of the CSIRO after suitable investigations of alternatives. That was part of the discussion in the House of Representatives. Therefore, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a paragraph from the Minister's speech at the third reading stage in which he actually gives the undertaking. I think this would save the time of the Senate. Leave granted. The paragraph read as follows- The second is recommendation 23-the ownership of intellectual property rights. This again is a very complex issue and something that is a matter of profound concern not just to CSIRO but to universities and research based companies, both locally and internationally. It is particularly complex in international companies such as International Business Machines and AT and T, which have an enormous concentration on research capability. We need to get it right because, remember, whatever happens at CSIRO will undoubtedly be adopted as a model throughout the Australian community. Australian Democrats senators have suggested proposing an amendment to try to provide for what they thought ought to be changes here and now and put it in the legislation. I think that is slightly premature and I ask them, in the interests of giving the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill a speedy passage so that the new Board can be appointed-I would hope that it will be operating perhaps even before the end of this month, because it is very important that we get things moving before the long hiatus of the Christmas break-to hold back such an amendment on my giving an undertaking to ensure that the spirit of recommendation 23 will be implemented by the Board, again preferably after seeking expert advice in this tricky area, and I now give that undertaking. Senator MACKLIN —I thank the Senate. One major reform advocated by ASTEC is the removal of the nexus between CSIRO and the Public Service Board which constrains the conditions of employment to fit in with the patterns of the rest of the Public Service. The needs and reward sought by research scientists and engineers are not the same as those sought by the Public Service in general, nor can a research program be mapped out and controlled in the same way as can general Public Service duties. Flexibility in employment and mobility of research people are essential ingredients in a dynamic and innovative research and development team. Close ties with industry are absolutely desirable, as they are with teaching institutions such as universities, colleges of advanced education and private institutions, which more and more are moving into the area of research. For these reasons we see it as absolutely mandatory that this come about to enable CSIRO to reach its optimum potential. We have considerable reservations about the proposal to introduce forward planning of research programs with funding tied to these. The nature of research is such that the outcomes are not readily predictable. The most valuable spin-offs from research are often just that-valuable spin-offs which were not even contemplated at the beginning of the research program. If a group is tied in any rigid way to the completion of a program in a fixed time, an investigation of these valuable spin-offs may be inhibited. That does not seem to us to be a useful way of dealing with the whole research thrust. However, we have accepted the Minister's assurances that the strategic plans and annual operating plans will not be coercive but will allow openness and accountability. We retain our misgivings but will monitor this. The Minister has given that undertaking. In a similar vein, there were discussions with the Minister regarding wastage which may occur through annual budgeting since most research and development programs are of a longer duration. The early termination of a program can effectively throw away all the money that has been invested up to that point. For this reason the Australian Democrats would like to see a move towards triennial or even quintennial rolling budgets for the Organisation. We believe that would guarantee a safer return on the money which is to be invested by the Commonwealth but it would still allow for annual reviews. We feel that that might be the most appropriate way to deal with that issue. As on other legislation, we deplore the trend to remove more and more of Parliament's power to intervene, by the use of ministerial powers rather than the regulation which is subject to scrutiny. In our view this does not allow for full accountability. The Parliament is presented time and again merely with a fait accompli. The final point I should like to make concerns the change in name which is inherent in the change from `z' to `s' in the spelling of `Organisation'. There is a long tradition attached to the name. I suppose that some people will be concerned. The Minister has assured us that the current stationery will be used. I am sure that when the new stationery is printed nobody will even notice the change. Whilst the spelling change is mandatory, it is nice that at least the old stationery will be used. Other concerns were raised with the Minister. They are contained in a 1 1/2-page letter from the Minister to Senator Vigor. In view of the time constraints, I seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Minister for Science Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 20 Nov. 1986 Senator David Vigor Democrat Spokesman for Science Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T 2600 Dear Senator Vigor During our discussions on Sunday, 8 November and yesterday about the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill, you provided me with a copy of your six proposed amendments. The greatest priority now is to secure the speediest possible passage of the legislation so that the new Board can be appointed and begin operating before the Christmas-New Year hiatus. Following our original discussions I dealt with your two major difficulties (Nos. 1 and 3 on your list)-intellectual property rights and CSIRO's relationship with the Public Service Board-in the resumed debate on the Bill (House of Representatives, 13 November 1986, p. 2995) which I commend to you. The Minister representing me in the Senate, Senator Button, will no doubt repeat what I told the House and you-that both matters will be examined speedily, and preferably by an arms length inquiry, by the incoming Board and resolved, as necessary, in a statute law revision Bill. Ministerial powers of direction (No. 2) have only been exercised twice in the 60 year history of CSIR/CSIRO, and then only once on a major matter, and there is full accountability and reporting to the Parliament. I see no practical need to provide a set of regulations to cover so remote a contingency. Requirements for strategic plans (No. 4) reflect the need for greater openness and accountability in the Organisation and should help Divisions and Institutes to plan their operations more effectively. They are not intended to be coercive, but in any case the Organisation cannot retreat to the closet. Proposals for strategic plans actually originated in CSIRO. Arguments for triennial or quinquennial funding (No. 5) have obvious attractions-and to a large extent CSIRO already uses `rolling funding' internally. Most Ministers would like to find a three or five year pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I doubt if a Senate amendment would bring it about. No. 6 in your list-and I am uncertain if this suggests a higher or low priority-concerns changing the spelling of Organization to Organisation. I will ensure that existing stationery is subject to natural attrition and that this change will not be ruinously expensive to CSIRO or prejudicial to research. Broadly, it would be self defeating to create a Board structure and fail to give it the opportunity to make a contribution on significant policy issues. I would appreciate your forbearance in not proposing formal amendments and accepting my assurances in the spirit they are given. Yours sincerely BARRY O. JONES Senator MACKLIN —I thank the Senate. The Australian Democrats commend the passage of this Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.34) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —by leave-I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a ministerial statement about Australia's contribution to the International Year of Peace. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- As 1986 draws to a close, and as the Parliament prepares to conclude its deliberations for the year, I take this opportunity to review for the Senate the efforts made by the Government and the Australian community to advance the objectives of the International Year of Peace. It has been a year in which the Australian community has given vigorous and articulate expression to its desire to help build a more peaceful world. At the same time, 1986 has been a year in which Australians have been given greater grounds for hope than for many years that the threat of nuclear war will be significantly diminished. East-West Relations Before dealing with our national contribution to the IYP, let me say something about the international background to Australia's efforts. In a speech at the University of New England in September the Prime Minister said that historic opportunities existed for the restoration of stability and realistic understanding between the super-powers. There was the prospect of less suspicion and tension than had been the case for a decade. Subsequently, the renewed intensity of negotiations on nuclear and space arms found dramatic expression at the meeting in Reykjavik between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev. Naturally, there was disappointment in Australia and around the world at the failure in Reykjavik to reach final agreement on the truly breathtaking set of proposals which was discussed there. We should recognise, however, that during 1986 a fundamental transformation has occurred in the nature of the super-power dialogue on security issues. The United States and the Soviet Union have begun to cut through to the very essence of the profound differences that separate them in these negotiations. Significant in this regard was the successful outcome in Stockholm at the Conference on Confidence and Security Building measures and Disarmament in Europe. This, the first East-West accord in security matters in seven years, indicated a new determination to restore momentum to the process of arms control and disarmament after years of stalemate. Significantly, the Stockholm agreement also saw the acceptance for the first time by the Soviet Union and its allies of a system of mandatory on-site inspections to verify compliance with the information-exchange provisions. Greater openness in such matters is essential if real progress is to be made in disarmament and arms control. The road ahead will not be easy. But there is no doubt that we are on the right road and I believe there are grounds to be optimistic that the super-powers are determined to stay on it. Australia has received regular and detailed briefings from the United States on progress in these matters and the Government has taken full advantage of numerous opportunities to inject our views at the highest levels on both sides on how progress might be further achieved. We will continue to urge progress with all the force we have. As the Prime Minister has frequently said, one cannot exaggerate Australia's role and influence in these matters. But it is our firm conviction that we have the right and responsibility to be heard on issues of peace, arms control and disarmament. And we have been. Notwithstanding our differences with the United States on some issues of principle such as the Strategic Defence Initiative, the very healthy state of our relationship has enabled us to maintain a close and productive dialogue with Washington. And, while not seeking to ignore the gulf in strategic orientation and ideological perception which separates us from the Soviet Union, we have restored sensible contact with Moscow, without which any Australian arms control and disarmament policy would be meaningless. The Prime Minister has written on several occasions to President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev this year, making clear the importance that the Australian Government attaches to continued compliance with the SALT II Treaty. He conveyed our view that the Soviet Union has a case to answer on specific compliance issues, but that Australia was no less concerned at the US announcement in May that future decisions on the structure of its strategic forces would no longer be bound by SALT II limitations. We will continue to make our voice heard. In a variety of other ways, the Government has been very active in the pursuit of peace and disarmament in 1986. South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty This year marks a historic moment for disarmament in the South Pacific. When the Senate passes the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill and related legislation currently before it, Australia will be in a position to ratify the Treaty of Rarotonga. Our ratification will be the eighth, and will bring the Treaty into force. Not only does the Treaty represent a major disarmament achievement, it also makes a positive contribution to regional security. The countries of the South Pacific Forum have built upon existing international treaties to make a new treaty that will help preserve the South Pacific as it is today: free from nuclear weapons stationed in the countries and territories of the region; free from nuclear waste dumping; and with the tragic (and we hope temporary) exception of French Polynesia, free from nuclear testing. All the countries of the region want to preserve these freedoms and that is the central purpose of the Treaty. In this context, the Government is very pleased that countries of the South Pacific, along with the United States and France, agreed in principle on 25 November to adopt the text of a Convention for the Protection and Development of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region (the SPREP Convention). The Convention complements the Treaty of Rarotonga's prohibition on radioactive waste dumping at sea in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. The Treaty does not seek to undermine the favourable security environment which the South Pacific enjoys. It does not in any way conflict with Australia's defence arrangements, notably ANZUS. On the contrary, the Treaty of Rarotonga seeks to build on the factors that have created and sustained the security of the region to help ensure that the South Pacific, unlike other parts of the world, does not in the future become a theatre for nuclear confrontation. The Protocols to the Treaty adopted in final form by the South Pacific Forum in August this year will be open for signature on 1 December. These provide for the United States, the United Kingdom and France to apply provisions of the Treaty to their South Pacific Territories and for the nuclear-weapon states (the United States, the USSR, the United Kingdom, France and China) to undertake not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against parties to the Treaty nor to conduct nuclear testing in the South Pacific. It is the Government's strong hope that all the eligible states, which have major responsibility for international peace and security, will adhere to the Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga. The significance of the Bill before the Senate goes further than clearing the way for the entry into force of the Treaty of Rarotonga, important though that is. For, in passing the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, Australia will become one of the first independent, sovereign countries in the world to make a commitment by national legislation against the nuclear weapons option. The Bill commits this and future Governments to prohibit the manufacture, acquisition and possession of nuclear explosive devices and the stationing and testing of such devices within Australia's territory. We take great pride in this stand. It is deeply regrettable that the Opposition in the House of Representatives saw fit to oppose this historic declaration of principle. I urge them to review their position when the legislation comes before the Senate next week. Comprehensive Test Ban During 1986, the Australian Government has continued to attach the highest priority in our multilateral disarmament diplomacy to the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban (CTB). Such a treaty would ban all kinds of nuclear tests in all environments by all countries for all time. It is a feasible and negotiable proposal whose implementation would be an important step towards preventing horizontal and vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons. Earlier this month, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted on several resolutions dealing with nuclear testing. Two of these resolutions were sponsored by Australia and both received overwhelming support. The first was the Australia-New Zealand resolution on a comprehensive test ban which reaffirms the fundamental importance of such a treaty and sets out a program of action to achieve it. Five CTB resolutions were considered by the Committee this year. Australia's resolution, which has the best chances of contributing to a nuclear-free world, received 117 positive votes, the highest number of any of the five. The Australia-New Zealand resolution was co-sponsored by 26 countries including Sweden, Canada and Japan. The United States and Britain, who had opposed our resolution in 1985, abstained this year. Only France voted against. This excellent result reflected the international community's acknowledgment of Australia's realistic approach and deep commitment to the early conclusion of a CTB Treaty. The second Australian resolution considered this year calls on the nuclear testing states to make public each test and to provide certain data including the size of the test and the geology of the test site. This was a new initiative and the resolution received 107 positive votes. Only one country-France-opposed the resolution. Chemical Weapons The abolition of chemical weapons has long been a high priority objective of the Australian Government's arms control and disarmament policies. We have made special efforts during 1986 to facilitate progress on effective international measures against such abhorrent weapons. Australia is at the forefront of international action to this end. The Australian Government is committed to the early conclusion of a comprehensive Chemical Weapons Convention which would ban the production, stockpiling and use of all chemical weapons and provide for the destruction of all existing stocks of chemical weapons and their production facilities. We have been prominent at both the diplomatic and technical levels in the negotiations on chemical weapons at the Conference on Disarmament. During 1986 Australia chaired one of the Conference's three working groups on chemical weapons which made considerable progress. We have also actively supported and participated in investigations by the UN Secretary-General into reports of the use of chemical weapons. We have instituted controls on the export of particular chemicals which could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons. In addition, Australia convened consultations during 1986 with eighteen Western countries (known as the `Australia Group') which have adopted similar controls with a view to co-ordinating such measures internationally. These outstanding results in the cause of peace and disarmament were only made possible by the strong and sustained commitment of the Government to achieving real progress on arms control, a field in which little can be done without detailed expertise in the issues, international acceptance of the contribution we can make and the skills of sensitive diplomacy and negotiation. The Government, from the moment it came to office, set about establishing for the first time in Australia's history, the necessary credentials for successful work in the field of disarmament. The highest credit for our success belongs to my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bill Hayden, whose skill, initiative and energy have won his worldwide respect and regard. I should also acknowledge the efforts of our officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and those of our Ambassador for Disarmament. Ideals of the International Year of Peace So far, I have talked about the international background to the International Year of Peace and the Government's own disarmament activities. In resolving to give its strong support to the United Nations' designation of 1986 as the International Year of Peace (IYP), the Government reaffirmed the high priority it has consistently placed on arms control and disarmament but, at the same time, agreed with the view of the United Nations that IYP activities should not be sponsored only at the level of national governments. Accordingly, the Government sought to encourage the wide range of individuals and community organisations in Australia who had set high value on the opportunities this year offered them to express their views and make their own contribution to the debate. The search for international peace habitually attracts close attention from both cynics and utopians. Cynics say that military confrontation is inevitable and that no generation in history has been totally free from the threat of war. For their part, utopians are so eager for peace that they trust the panaceas of unilateral disarmament and isolationism, ignoring the unfortunate history of such policies. The view of this Government, however, is that to work for real peace is neither to ignore reality nor to neglect security. During the IYP, we have witnessed again and again the yearning for peace among people in Australia, especially our young people. We hear their conviction that there are better alternatives to the threats under which we live and that there are better uses for human and material resources than the accumulation of weapons. We believe that the IYP has provided a timely opportunity for people throughout the world to find ways of achieving progress towards the peace we all seek. IYP Program The planning of the IYP program fell within the portfolio of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bill Hayden, and again, he deserves full credit for his determination that the noble idea behind the IYP was fully and appropriately celebrated in Australia. To assist him in planning and implementing the program Mr Hayden appointed Mrs Stella Cornelius, the prominent community activist, as IYP Director. He also established IYP Committees both at the National level and in each of the States and Territories with members drawn from a broad range of community organisations. The Government should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to Mrs Cornelius' tireless and dedicated work for the objectives of the IYP and to the members of the various committees who gave so freely of their time and energy to make the program a success. I should also like to acknowledge the generous support given to the IYP by State Governments. The Government approved a budget of $3.15 million for the IYP Program in Australia. These funds were divided on a roughly equal basis between three main components of the program: Information and advertising; A series of Government projects; and In recognition of the vital role of the community, $1,050,000 to support non-government projects. You will have seen the IYP advertisements on radio and television. Those advertisements were designed to relate to peace in all its meanings, and to counter despair and apathy with the message that, while peace is not easy to achieve, it is not impossible and every attempt at progress is a ``Step in the Right Direction''. The media campaign was complemented by the production and wide distribution of 20,000 Peace Kits containing detailed information on Australia's role and achievements in disarmament and arms control and suggestions as to ways in which local communities might participate in the program. In order to encourage better public understanding of the complexities of international arms control, the Government sponsored a number of projects, which included a series of public arms control and disarmament seminars in State capital cities and an international symposium on Seismic Verification, a vital technical precondition for a possible Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Government's IYP program was officially launched by the ``Overture of Peace'', a concert by over 2000 NSW school students which was televised nationally in February. As an optimistic, joyful celebration of peace it was a fitting beginning to the year. That event also symbolised the strong connection the Government saw between the International Year of Peace and the immediately preceding International Year of Youth. The enthusiasm and commitment of our young people for the goal of peace obvious at that occasion asserted itself again at His Holiness the Pope's peace rally in Sydney on Tuesday night. Just over a month ago the Prime Minister presented Australian Peace Awards to Australians who had made outstanding contributions to peace in many areas of activity. In establishing these Awards during the IYP, the Government sought to give fitting recognition to both the quality and diversity of community achievements in work for a peaceful future. These same elements were also reflected to an overwhelming degree in the non-government IYP projects organised and carried out by individuals and community organisations in every part of the country. Many of these received financial support from the Federal Government. We are also aware of many more community projects which have been mounted quite independently of any Government assistance. Non-government projects for the IYP have involved the Churches, peace groups, academics, the Aboriginal community, artists, teachers, school students, welfare organisations, ethnic groups, women's organisations, the RSL, service clubs, trade unions and many others. The projects have included conferences and seminars, theatrical performances and concerts, publications, videos, educational and research programs. They have taken place in every part of Australia, from the largest cities to the smallest rural towns. So impressive was this response to the IYP that the UN Secretary-General sent a personal message commending Australian community groups for their enthusiasm and commitment. Three UN Secretariat officials who visited Australia to familiarise themselves with our IYP program were particularly impressed with its unique combination of Government and non-government activities. It is clear from this great community response that the IYP has been a great success in Australia. Not only have Australians become more aware of why they should care about international events around them but they have also demonstrated their strong concern to leave the world at peace for the benefit of future generations. What has been achieved this year is a firmer basis for continuing work for peace in the future both by the Government and the Australian community as a whole. The heightened awareness of the issues and sense of responsibility for a world of peace which the IYP has generated will not end on 31 December 1986. I would like to address some concluding words to young Australians, who more than any of us, have made their concerns about peace felt this year and whose responsibility it will be in the future to shoulder the burden of securing peace. I have already mentioned that the Prime Minister spoke earlier this year to an audience at the University of New England in Armidale. Let me conclude now with his concluding message. Do not succumb to the paralysis of despair. It would be a tragedy if our young people, in particular, were to be so weighed down at the remote prospect of nuclear war as not to care adequately about their own self development or to contribute to our society in a positive and energetic way. Seek to decode the often confusing language of arms control, its acronyms and its technical jargon. Do not allow the so-called experts to monopolise the debate. Inform yourselves fully about the difficult international issues involved. Effective arms control will only come about through incremental, careful and patiently negotiated steps. Do not become overwhelmed by pessimism at the sometimes glacial speed of progress in disarmament negotiations. Above all, do not fail to let the political leadership of this country, and of the international community, know of your desire for tangible progress towards a saner, safer world. Senator GRIMES —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.36) —Any speech by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the subject of peace is a most important event because there is no question whatever that the subject of peace is the great issue of our time throughout the world. I place on record the Opposition's strong support for the cause of peace and for the work we believe we have done in a bipartisan cause during this International Year of Peace. The reason for the Prime Minister's statement is that it is the last opportunity in this International Year of Peace, 1986, to wrap up the debate that has been going on at a heightened level as a result of that occasion. We in the Opposition have played our part in the International Year of Peace. We established at the Federal level a peace through security campaign which we have been running throughout Australia through all the State divisions and branches of the Liberal Party of Australia. We stand second to none in our belief that there is no greater moral or political issue than the securing of a just peace. We are most anxious to be able to promote that cause and also to promote our view as to how peace can be achieved. We agree with the lesson of history that peace will never be achieved if free nations unilaterally lay down their arms in the hope that totalitarian dictatorships will do the same. We are concerned that that argument, which is challenged in so many quarters in Australia, will be resisted, will not flourish and, indeed, will be reversed. It is pleasing to see in this statement that the Government is committed to the same view as to how peace can be achieved. The Prime Minister dismisses those Utopians who are so eager for peace, those who trust the panaceas of international disarmament and isolationism, ignoring the unfortunate history of such policies. Certainly the Government and the Opposition, on this particular matter, have a bipartisan policy even though we may differ in other aspects of the peace issues. We do differ from the Government in the optimistic view it has of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. This is not the time or place to debate that Treaty. In fact, we will be debating it on Monday next. We agree with the Government's broad policy, particularly the need to maintain ANZUS, to maintain the Western alliance and, in other words, as we see it in the Opposition, to maintain policies to achieve security as the means of achieving peace. In our view, that has been the effective road to peace over the past 40 years. The need for disarmament is also paramount in our thinking but we believe that this can only be achieved by painstaking negotiations between, particularly, the nuclear powers but assisted and encouraged by other nations in the world such as Australia. Australia is playing a part in encouraging all those developments. We see this as the means, and the only means, of achieving effective peace. Of course, those agreements must lead to verifiable and mutual reductions in armaments. We will continue to give our support to those attempts but we believe that we also must maintain an effective deterrence as a pre-condition of maintaining peace in the world. We are having a very attenuated debate this morning. I presume that Senator Macklin also wishes to say a few words. This is a subject that should be debated very fully in this chamber. I hope that the Government may be able to find time next week in the last week of our sittings to have a better debate than is possible in the short time we now have at our disposal. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-The Australian Democrats welcome the statement from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the International Year of Peace-Australia's Contribution. I was privileged three or four weeks ago to be in Assisi where there was an international day of prayer for peace at which all the major world religions and ecclesiastic communities gathered to pray that the world be at peace, that the wars that are currently raging around the world-of course, wars are always in continuous progress around the world-may cease and that the major nations around the world which are currently threatening one another with ultimate destruction may come to see that as the insanity that it is. The Prime Minister's statement rehearses a number of matters, some of which will be the subject of other legislation, as Senator Durack has already said. I do not propose at this time to canvass those. However, I draw attention to some other subjects. On page 5 of the statement the Government raised the matter of chemical weapons. This is a subject which, in fits and starts, appears on the debating table. It is an extremely important subject, probably overshadowed in many ways by the nuclear debate, but I believe that the Prime Minister quite rightly has drawn attention to the problem of chemical weapons in the world and the heinous type of weapons which are currently being prepared. We believe that the decision by the United States of America to recommence the production of chemical weapons for any possible chemical warfare was a massive retrograde step in moving to the eventual abolition of these weapons. It seems to us that all efforts must be made in this area, that it must not be pushed aside, because of the concentration in terms of nuclear weapons, and that close attention must be paid to this matter. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has had a personal interest in this matter and has been quite successful in a number of the operations he has been engaged in internationally in getting the attention of various nations around the world to concentrate on this. Australia should support the efforts of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this regard and I am glad that the Prime Minister has drawn attention to those efforts. The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: Disability Services Bill 1986. Disability Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill 1986. Navigation Amendment Bill 1986. Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Bill 1986. Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1986. Bounty (Books) Bill 1986. Messages received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the following Bills: Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1986. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986. Criminology Research Amendment Bill 1986. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, will be absent from the chamber during Question Time today. Any questions which would normally be directed to her should be directed to the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes. Senator CHANEY —I preface my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by reminding him that, like everyone else in this place, he has sat through Question Time-indeed, many Question Times-during which the Minister for Finance has berated and abused people who, he alleges, have either evaded or avoided their taxation obligations. Senator Walsh —Like your mate Horgan. Senator CHANEY —There he is at it again. He is very good at having shots at people-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask his question. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I do not like being called into line when I am asking a question about tax evasion and a Minister throws in the names of people who have been guilty of no more than tax avoidance. There is a very substantial difference which the Minister knows about. Government senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. I ask him to start again. Senator CHANEY —Certainly, Mr President. I preface my question by reminding the Minister that, like everyone else in this place, he has sat through Question Time after Question Time during which the Minister for Finance has berated and abused people, including people who have done no more than act on legal advice on what are called tax avoidance procedures but who, he alleges, have either evaded or avoided their taxation obligations. Does the Minister agree that the Treasurer, the man responsible to Parliament for the Australian taxation system, should set an example to the public by ensuring that his own personal taxation affairs are entirely beyond reproach? Does he further agree that the Treasurer's failure to lodge his 1984-85 income tax return until just recently and his failure to lodge this year's return is in breach of the standards the public is entitled to expect and, in fact, constitutes tax evasion? Will the Prime Minister be asking the Treasurer to resign because of this totally unacceptable behaviour and, if not, why not? Senator Walsh —Mr President, I take a point of order. A completely false allegation has just been made by the Leader of the Opposition. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh is taking a point of order and he will be heard in silence. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer stated in the Parliament yesterday that he expected to receive a taxation refund. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney's question attempts to link a number of things which are incapable of being linked, either in logic or in honesty. Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I warn honour- able senators that if these interjections continue I will have to take appropriate action. Senator BUTTON —I might just explain what I perceive to be the point of Senator Chaney's question, which is to refer to tax evasion and avoidance, of which nobody in this Government approves, and to try to connect that with the Treasurer's delay in lodging a tax return by the due date. I simply say that the fact that the Treasurer failed to lodge his tax return by the due date is regrettable, as it is with any other taxpayer who fails to do that. But there is no question of personal gain or loss. Senator Chaney —How do you know? Prove it. Senator BUTTON —I am asserting it. It is not my task to prove it in answer to interjections in the Senate. Senator Durack —It is. Senator BUTTON —I thought the honourable senator would have been very quiet-having sat for six years on that file in the bottom drawer of his desk-instead of coming in here and making all that noise. The fact of the matter is, as I say, that what the Treasurer has done is regrettable, as it would be in the case of any ordinary taxpayer, and in respect of that the Treasurer will be treated in exactly the same way as any ordinary taxpayer. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister indicates that the Treasurer is going to be treated the same as any other taxpayer and I hope that means that he is going to be subject to penalty. But I ask the Minister to address the question I put to him: Will the Prime Minister be asking the Treasurer to resign because of this totally unacceptable behaviour and, if not, why not? Senator BUTTON —The answer to that question is no. The reason for the answer to that question being no is that this Government accepts the need for high standards in respect of ministerial behaviour. An example of that is the introduction of declarations of pecuniary interests by members of parliament-something which the Opposition never did and is totally opposed to. We expect that. There is no question of impropriety in respect of what the Treasurer has done. There is a neglect to file a tax return by the due date and that, as I said in my answer to the first part of the question, is regrettable, as it is with any taxpayer who does that. Senator ELSTOB —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister aware of any plans to hold Aboriginal festivals either before or during the bicentennial program? Does the Minister agree that festivals with Aboriginal art, music, fashion, entertainment and cultural displays would help greatly to demystify the long-standing community ignorance of Aboriginal history and culture? Senator GRIMES —I certainly agree with Senator Elstob that that sort of display would be of use in increasing the knowledge of the non-Aboriginal community of this country of the history, traditions and culture of the Aboriginal community. But I have no knowledge of, or any brief on, any such intentions by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I will refer Senator Elstob's suggestion to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for comment. Senator CHANEY —My question, which I address to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows his answer to my supplementary question in which he said that there was no question of impropriety. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that it is an offence under the taxation legislation to fail to lodge a return within the required time and that that failure can carry a penalty of up to 200 per cent of the amount of tax which is payable on the income which has not been declared? Senator BUTTON —The answer is: I believe so. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate asserting that for the Treasurer of the country to be in breach of the taxation law and open to prosecution and conviction is not a matter of impropriety? I remind the Minister of the endless discussions we had in this place about proven misbehaviour and the assertions from the then Attorney-General that conviction of a criminal offence was the one certain guide that we had. The Leader of the Government used the word `impropriety'. I ask him again: Is he suggesting that for a Treasurer to be in breach of the taxation legislation does not give rise to any question of propriety? Senator BUTTON —Failing to lodge a taxation return by the due date is a matter which the Commissioner of Taxation deals with in respect of all citizens in this community, and the Treasurer will be in exactly the same position as other citizens in this community in respect of that matter. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate about Australia's attitude towards the proposed ceasefire agreement between the Philippines armed forces and the New People's Army? Senator GARETH EVANS —I inform the Senate that an agreement on a ceasefire was signed yesterday between the Government of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front, representing the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People's Army. The ceasefire will take effect for 60 days from 10 December. The ceasefire agreement provides for formal discussions on substantial aspects of the peace talks to begin within 30 days. The period of the ceasefire encompasses the scheduled date of the constitutional plebiscite, that is to say, 2 February. There have been expressions of support from many sections of the Philippines, including by spokesmen for the armed forces, which of course is particularly significant. The Australian Government welcomes the announcement of a cease- fire and expresses the sincere hope that it will be effective. The agreement on a ceasefire will allow negotiations towards a peaceful resolution of the insurgency problem to continue. Genuine resolution of that problem in the Philippines is still however a long term prospect. The insurgency has complex political, social and economic roots and there are a great many difficult issues to be faced by the negotiators. The view that we take is simply that any steps that contribute to stability in the Philippines are important. It is only on such a basis that genuine progress can be made in addressing the massive problems left over from the Marcos Administration. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that today is the day on which the first of the fringe benefits tax returns are due to be lodged with the Commissioner of Taxation? What are the penalties for failure to lodge returns today? What action will be taken against anyone who, as the Treasurer with his 1985 and 1986 returns, through oversight, fails to lodge them on time? Senator WALSH —I believe that FBT returns are due to be lodged today unless an extension has been sought and agreed to. I am not sure what the provisions in the FBT legislation are for failure to lodge a return, but the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act are that, if people have lodged late tax returns and they have an additional tax liability, they can be fined up to double the amount of that additional tax liability. If, as in the case of the Treasurer, people have no additional tax liability, no penalty is imposed. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the Minister for Finance seen a letter to readers of the journal Quadrant from its editor, Peter Coleman, appealing for donations from its subscribers? Can the Minister advise whether the artifice devised by the Quadrant magazine to provide tax deductibility comes within the gift provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act? Senator WALSH —I understand that the answer to the last part of the question is yes, that in a strictly legal sense what is being done is legal. I suggest that the members of the Opposition pay attention to this, since they purport to have some interest in tax evasion and people who facilitate tax evasion, such as one of the Opposition's own members, Mr Coleman, who, in the most recent issue of Quadrant, appealed for money and then in the bottom line of that appeal stated: or, if you wish your donation to be tax-deductible, fill out the form on the next page. The form on the next page is addressed to the Secretary of the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, and it is ostensibly a donation to the Trust. It states: This donation is given unconditionally. However, it would be appreciated if, when considering your appropriations to the performing companies, preference in the allocation of this donation could be given to- Quadrant Magazine I can only assume from that that there is an expectation that the Elizabethan Theatre Trust will then pass on the money to Quadrant. I am not going to go into the propriety of the Trust doing that, but it is certainly a matter of propriety as to whether a Liberal Party member of the House of Representatives should be facilitating the breaking of the spirit, if not the letter, of the taxation Act, in the way in which Mr Coleman is by setting up this contrived arrangement, under which money can be donated to the Quadrant magazine and simultaneously be tax deductible. Of course it was never intended that donations to Quadrant should be tax deductible-- Senator Chaney —Again you do not understand the Act, you silly ass. Senator WALSH —I do not understand tax schemes? Well, I probably do not understand them as well as the honourable senator does, no, much less his bosom friend, Denis Horgan, who ripped about $7m off the taxpayers. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore the interjections and to respond to Senator Robertson. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. The only other thing I want to say is that it is fortuitous that this information comes out today about Mr Coleman facilitating tax evasion or, for the squeamish, tax avoidance-- Senator Messner —How is it evasion? Senator WALSH —I have taken account of the honourable senator. I have said `for the squeamish'. It is fortuitous that the tax avoidance should come out today, when the Opposition is posturing and delivering sanctimonious sermons about a technical breach of the Act by the Treasurer. Of course at no stage did the Treasurer have any intention of depriving the Commonwealth of revenue due to it; indeed he is depriving himself of a refund due to him. The clear intention of Mr Coleman is to deprive the Commonwealth of revenue due to it. Senator Chaney —On a point of order: Mr President, I ask that the Minister table the document that he has quoted from. Senator WALSH —I will. Senator CHANEY —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. The Minister has a lot to say about tax avoidance and evasion. Is he aware of any objection by the Commissioner of Taxation to the proposition that where a tax deductible fund has general objectives and donations are made to that fund, with a request that they be on-forwarded to a body which is within the objectives for which the tax deductibility has been granted-- Senator Grimes —You are talking about Quadrant, a right wing magazine. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Minister whether he has any knowledge of any objection by the Tax Commissioner to that procedure. I further ask him whether he has any knowledge, and has he made any inquiry, about whether in fact tax commissioners or deputy tax commissioners have specifically approved that course of action. To make it quite clear to the Minister, who seems to understand only dirt questions from his own side, let me explain it a little further. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Senator CHANEY —To make a reasonable attempt to help this Minister understand the question, let me put it in concrete terms. Does the Minister believe there is any objection to making a donation of a certain amount to, let us say, the Catholic charities fund, which is a tax deductible payment, and requesting that fund to make a payment to a particular person or organisation in distress, which is not entitled to grant tax deductibility for a donation; in other words, using that mechanism-- Senator Grimes —You are talking about Quadrant. Senator CHANEY —Since Senator Grimes is determined to help, perhaps I should add a supplementary question. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition's question is getting quite long. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry, I was tempted by the interjection. Senator WALSH —When answering the earlier question I said that according to the preliminary advice I have received the tax avoidance racket which Mr Coleman is setting up is technically legal, just as tax avoidance rackets are usually technically legal. I was asked effectively whether the Tax Commissioner had explicitly approved the Elizabethan Theatre Trust passing on money to Quadrant. The answer is that as far as I am aware the Tax Commissioner has approved no such transfer, and indeed I would be amazed if he did. Senator Chaney, in his further attempt to muddy the water, threw in the example of the Catholic charities fund and asked whether it received approval from the Tax Commissioner or whether the Commissioner would be distressed if a taxpayer, in making a donation to that organisation, requested that it be passed on to some distressed person, for instance a request that it be specifically passed on to the St Vincent de Paul Society or something like that. I do not know whether the Tax Commissioner has specifically endorsed that proposition, but I would be surprised if he had. The bottom line is that Senator Chaney would have the Senate believe that a right wing propaganda sheet like Quadrant is, so far as the intention of the taxation law is concerned, identical to a distressed person or a charitable organisation. That is such palpable nonsense that I do not think I need to say any more. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer and I ask him: Does he know whether it is within the objectives of the Elizabethan Theatre Trust to provide assistance to artistic endeavours and to magazines of any sort? Senator WALSH —I am not sure what the charter, the enabling legislation or whatever it is, of the Elizabethan Theatre Trust does set out. But to the best of my knowledge it certainly is not set up, and it was never intended that it should act, as a conduit to get around the taxation laws so that donations to a right wing propaganda sheet like Quadrant should become tax deductible; much less that a tax avoidance racket of that type should be organised by a Liberal member of the House of Representatives. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer a question about this week's national accounts figures which indicate an increase in Australian imports, in real, seasonally adjusted terms, between the June quarter and the September quarter. Can the Minister indicate whether this is a matter of concern? Senator WALSH —The national accounts, which I think were released on Wednesday, showed that total imports of goods and services in seasonally adjusted real terms had increased by 0.7 per cent between the June and September quarters. However, that increase was the result of a surge in what the Commonwealth Statistician defines as exogenous imports, which in this case principally were civilian aircraft-a point which a close reading of the bulletin concerned made quite clear. According to the September quarter balance of payments figures, total exogenous imports in seasonally adjusted real terms increased by a massive 48.2 per cent between June and September. When those exogenous imports are adjusted out of the figures for the two quarters, we find that in fact imports in the September quarter fell by 3 1/2 per cent, in seasonally adjusted real terms, on the previous quarter. Civil aircraft imports are expected to be at an even higher level in the December quarter but there will be a reduction in aircraft imports in the second half of this financial year, falling away to almost nothing, on present expectations, in the next financial year. The figures for aircraft imports were spelt out in a supplement to the September `Treasury Round-up of Economic Statistics'. Finally, when assessing the response of imports and exports to the increased competitiveness of Australian industry, brought about by the present Government, it is necessary to adjust the raw figures for the effects of one off, or as the Statistician defines them `exogenous', items to which I have referred. Senator POWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In light of recent comments by the Director of the Institute of Family Studies, Dr Don Edgar, that employers have a responsibility to consider the needs of the families of their employees, can the Minister inform the Senate whether the original plans for the new Parliament House, which did not provide for child minding facilities, have been changed to make such provision? Senator BUTTON —I do not know. I will obtain an answer as soon as possible to that question. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Earlier this week the Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission, Mr Henry Bosch, expressed grave concerns about insider trading activity associated with takeovers on Australian share markets. Mr Bosch said that a survey done for the NCSC showed that share sale volumes in target companies increased markedly just prior to the announcement of takeovers. In view of the damage done to the image of American stock markets by the Boesky scandal, the harm done to small shareholders by this type of activity and the NCSC's stated inability to act in the face of insider trading, what action will the Government take to ensure that such sharp practices are banished from Australian share markets? Senator WALSH —I am not sure that a question about the National Companies and Securities Commission should be addressed to me. I think it falls within the Attorney-General's portfolio. But, in view of its having some taxation implications in the way that the question has been put by Senator Siddons, I will answer it. Changes to the securities and exchange law are matters for the Attorney-General and I will see whether the Attorney-General has anything to say about that. On the taxation aspects of the question, I do not know whether the Treasurer has any action pending. I will ask about that. But I do agree that the outcomes to which Senator Siddons referred are highly undesirable. I make the point that, at least to a significant extent, the fact that capital gains will now be subject to taxation will impede, if not eliminate, some of that undesirable stock market practice. I also acknowledge that Senator Siddons, who I believe has a genuine commitment to stamping out tax evasion, supported that legislation, as he has to the best of my recollection supported all legislation aimed at stamping out tax evasion and avoidance-unlike, of course, some of his former colleagues in the Australian Democrats and all the members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to the Treasurer's statement last night when he said that in his failure to lodge his tax returns for 1985 and 1986 he had been `treated no differently from any other taxpayer'. This comment was reinforced by Senator Button in reply to an earlier question from Senator Chaney. I ask the Minister: Is it normal for all Australians to have personal discussions with the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation concerning their tax returns? Is it normal for all Australians to receive personal letters from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation drawing their attention to the fact that their taxation return is 15 months overdue? Senator WALSH —Senator Parer is domiciled in Queensland and so it probably would not apply to him, but, assuming that he was resident in the Australian Capital Territory, if he wanted to ring up the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation-- Senator Archer —Did you say `resident'? Senator WALSH —I said that assuming he was resident in the Australian Capital Territory, if he wanted to ring up the Deputy Commissioner in the Australian Capital Territory and have a discussion about his taxation return, I think he would be able to do that. Senator Durack —Come on; answer a question for once. Senator WALSH —Senator Durack should file himself away for five years instead of the tax evading activities of his mates in the Western Australian Liberal Party. The PRESIDENT —Order! There are far too many interjections. Senator WALSH —Of course, I understand that this is a measure of the Opposition's desperation. It is trying to beat up a technical offence by the Treasurer in failing to lodge a taxation return on time-a return that would have entitled him to a refund had it been lodged on time. With the most extraordinary logical gymnastics, Opposition senators try to draw all sorts of conclusions from that. For example, if Mick Young were fined for speeding in the Australian Capital Territory, booked by the Australian Federal Police and convicted of a speeding offence, I suppose the Opposition would suggest that he should resign because he is the Minister responsible for the Federal Police and has been booked by the Federal Police for speeding. There would be as much merit in that as there is in the other proposition that the Opposition has put up. The real test of propriety is intent. I guess that one of the reasons why the Treasurer was too busy to fill in his tax return on time to get the refund to which he was entitled is that he was working so hard trying to make the tax evader friends of the members of the Opposition pay the tax they ought to pay. What really matters is whether people pay the tax they ought to pay, not when they lodge returns. The Treasurer, this Government, Senator Siddons and one or two other Australian Democrats are committed to the principle of making everybody pay the tax he ought to pay, a principle which is rejected by honourable senators opposite. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to the results of the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey on health insurance showing that just under 50 per cent of Australians have private health insurance? Is this result in line with Government projections? Senator GRIMES —I have seen the ABS survey which shows that the number of people who now have private health insurance is about 49.6 per cent, I think-just below 50 per cent-compared with about 66 per cent of people who had private health insurance in 1983, before the introduction of Medicare. The decline in private health insurance was not unexpected because one of the primary objectives of Medicare was to ensure that everyone was covered for basic hospital and medical care through the income-related levy and, therefore, may not need private cover. The latest survey of insurance status by income levels shows that only 19 per cent of those with incomes below $150 a week have private health cover. About 75 per cent of those earning over $500 a week have private health cover. The results are not surprising. They sound a warning to those who would try, as the Fraser Government tried, to introduce an opting out system. The Fraser Government introduced an opting out system which failed. Opting out systems fail because those who are wealthy-- Senator Walters —Like Keating. Senator GRIMES —Dear, oh dear! Let me not hear from Senator Walters about wealth in this place. If she wants a declaration about wealth in this place we will see who would win out between her and Keating. Heavens above! I have never heard anything so outrageous in my life. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Grimes to ignore the interjections and respond to Senator Crowley. Senator Walters —Mr President, would you tell him I will take him on at any time. The PRESIDENT —Order! I warn Senator Walters. Senator GRIMES —The difficulty with an opting out system is that those who opt out are the wealthy. Those who opt out are those who are fit and believe that they will not need health care. When they opt out it leaves in the system only the poor and those who are likely to have chronic ill health and a chronic need for the system. Therefore, the burden ends up on them. Once upon a time in this place there was a general acceptance of the community rating principle in health insurance. Even those who opt out under those circumstances never know when they will be in a motor vehicle accident or will have a catastrophic illness and therefore need considerable, very lengthy and very expensive medical care. For that reason a system whereby everyone contributes on the basis of his capacity to contribute with the option of taking out health insurance for extra private medical care is the best system. It is the system that has worked. Those who try to fiddle with the system, as the previous Government did on seven different occasions, and introduce such programs as opting out are condemned, as the previous Government was, to introducing health insurance amendment legislation each year implementing more and more systems each of which fails. The simple principle of a basic community rating plus the capacity to insure for those who wish and can afford to insure for private medical care is and will remain a very satisfactory method of funding health care in Australia. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask the question particularly considering his reply to Senator Parer and his comments on intent and entitlement to refund. I refer to the case of a taxpayer who on 21 April 1986 received a summons from the Australian Taxation Office for lodgment of his 1984-85 income tax return, for which he had gained an extension until 28 February 1986. The next day the taxpayer sent a copy of his return to the Tax Office but received no acknowledgment. However, the Tax Office could find no record of lodgment and, despite repeated offers by the taxpayer to provide other copies of his return, on 15 May 1986 the magistrates court fined him $200 plus costs and gave him seven days to make payment, otherwise 24 days in gaol. Was not the taxpayer in this actual case, who was entitled to a refund, less at fault than the Treasurer? Does not this case illustrate that there is one standard for ordinary taxpayers in this country and another for the Treasurer? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last part of the question is no. I do not know what a penalty imposed by the court has to do with the administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act or the Commissioner of Taxation. I think the honourable senator was referring to a court penalty and equating it with a penalty being imposed by the Commissioner. It is quite different. Senator Durack —Why don't you just sit down. Senator WALSH —Why does the honourable senator not file himself away in the bottom drawer where he hid the tax returns of his tax evasion mates and the recommendation to prosecute? The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask for dignity to be restored to the chamber. I ask the Minister to ignore the interjections. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Even in the normal humbug of politics I find it a bit much that Senator Durack, who sat on the recommendation to prosecute one of his Liberal Party tax evading mates for five years to protect his own pre-selection-- Senator Durack —I take a point of order, Mr President. I am sick and tired of hearing this patent lie being constantly peddled by Senator Walsh. He knows that it is perfectly untrue. I had nothing whatever to do in a personal capacity with the matter. I ask for the comment to be withdrawn and not to be repeated. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Durack claims that there has been a breach of standing order 418 in that an imputation has been made against him by the Minister. I ask the Minister to withdraw it. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr President. I withdraw it, if he finds it offensive. Senator Durack —Mr President, I want a complete withdrawal, not a qualified withdrawal. Senator Grimes —You are a humbug. You provoked it. If you provoke these things, cop them when you get it back. You are a humbug. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark. Senator Grimes —I suppose I will have to withdraw, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator Grimes —I withdraw. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walsh to respond to the question asked by Senator Collard. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. The question, for those who cannot remember it, concerned an alleged lodgment or posting of a return to the Taxation Office. As I understand it, when people claim to have posted a tax return, a cheque on assessment or whatever, it is normal practice for the onus of proof to rest with the taxpayer. Although there is a bit of rough justice about that, it is pretty obvious I would have thought, even to Senator Walters, that if the Commissioner were to do otherwise it would make taxpaying virtually voluntary. Anybody who was caught for not paying tax could say: `I sent the cheque last year'. It is necessary for the effective enforcement of the Act that that presumption is made by the Commissioner. Senator Messner —Why was it not exercised in respect of the Treasurer? Senator WALSH —I repeat that the Commissioner requires the taxpayer to prove that he has lodged a return and that the uncorroborated word of the taxpayer that he has posted off a return is not taken to be good enough. Finally, I can see that Opposition members, in their desperation, want to get something out of a technical breach of the Income Tax Assessment Act by somebody who had no intention whatsoever of depriving the Commonwealth of revenue, whereas Senator Durack when he was Attorney-General, or his department, had a recommendation to prosecute his old Liberal Party mate Syd Corser. Senator Walters —Mr President, I take a point of order. Senator Durack had no personal gain, whereas the Treasurer did; he received a phone call from the Commissioner of Taxation telling him to pay his tax and he did not do it. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Under standing order 100, I ask Senator Walsh to get out of the realm of debate-he is clearly debating the matter now-and to respond succinctly and in a straight manner to the question by Senator Collard. Senator WALSH —I have answered the question. Senator GILES —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 November which reported the angry response of chemists to plans by supermarkets and department stores to take over small chemist shops. It has been reported that older members of the community such as veterans and war widows are very vulnerable to exploitation by the aggressive merchandising style of the larger stores. Would the Minister care to respond? Senator GIETZELT —I saw the article in the Sydney Morning Herald referred to by Senator Giles. It caused me more concern, having regard to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the 700,000 beneficiaries that my Department caters for are old and in the vulnerable group in respect of any exploitation that may take place in the way in which drugs are made available to them based upon their eligibility. I think it would be conceded by most honourable senators that a relationship develops between patients and chemists under the prescription system. It would be a great pity if that were to be changed in such a way as to be detrimental to it. As I understand it, the overwhelming majority of pharmacists are in the small business category. Personal relationships do exist, particularly with those who are beneficiaries of my Department and who have a regular need for prescriptions to provide a certain range of drugs. Therefore, I have some serious reservations that that process and that relationship might be impeded by the suggestions from the Australian Retailers Association that the retail shops should have untrammelled entry into the pharmaceutical area. I believe that the retailing of drugs is completely different from the retailing of goods. My impression is that the operation or ownership of chemist shops implies a degree of responsibility which is very freely accepted by the pharmacist as well as the patient. If pharmacists were forced out of the area and most of the prescribing and retailing of drugs came within the jurisdiction of the major retailing outlets this relationship would break down and lead to impersonal relationships. I think there would be a drop in the quality of patient care, particularly for the vulnerable sections of our community. We have to concern ourselves with the temptation for large retailers to encourage the overutilisation of drugs. That would be inappropriate in times of economic restraint as well as in the interests of the health care of the patients. Certainly, it could be said that the sale of certain drugs, especially addictive drugs, should be supervised by a qualified pharmacist and not by sales assistants. Drugs such as narcotic based pain-killers, for example, codeine, and others, ought to be constantly supervised by a properly qualified pharmacist. If this area is to be transferred from the small business sector-I personally have a philosophical commitment to that grouping-I think it would be detrimental not only to patients in my area but also to patients generally who have regular recourse to pharmacies. Over time there has been a capacity to build up a patient drug treatment profile. Having been the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for 3 1/2 years, I do not recall ever receiving any complaints from veterans about their relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. I would have some grave reservations should the suggestion be taken up and implemented by the appropriate authorities to change that relationship so that the retail industry would become the prescriber and supervisor of drugs, not the pharmacists. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Predictably, it concerns the textile, clothing and footwear industries. In the light of the Minister's announcement this morning on post-1988 assistance arrangements for the textile, clothing and footwear industries, will the Minister assure the Senate that the production contraction safeguards of 15 per cent for the industries overall and 10 per cent, 20 per cent and 20 per cent respectively for the textile, clothing and footwear sectors are central elements of the plan? Furthermore, recognising the extremely high proportion of textile, clothing and footwear imports coming from developing country sources, does the Minister acknowledge that the 60 per cent tariff end point for clothing will be 55 per cent and the comparable developing country end point for footwear will be 45 per cent? In view of this can the Minister give an assurance that the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority will closely monitor developments and anticipate any need for policy revisions designed to ensure that the maximum production contraction provisions of the plan are not exceeded? Will the Minister confirm that the Authority is to report annually on the operation of the plan? Finally, will the Minister ensure that the Authority is provided with adequate resources to meet its vitally important role and will be composed of appropriately qualified and experienced persons? Senator BUTTON —Five questions were addressed to me by Senator Watson. The answer to each of the questions is yes. Senator CHILDS —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the fact that 8 January 1987 is the seventy-fifth anniversary of the African National Congress. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the standing of the ANC within the international community? How many governments maintain official consultation with the ANC as the legitimate representative of the South African people? Of those governments, which have granted the ANC humanitarian assistance? Finally, will the Government allow visits to Australia in 1987 of ANC representatives so that they will be able to put their own case to the people of Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware that the African National Congress will celebrate its seventy-fifth anniversary next year and that that anniversary comes at a time of greatly increased opposition to apartheid, both in South Africa and internationally. The standing of the organisation internationally is clearly high. The ANC is accorded observer status at the United Nations as a recognised liberation movement of the South African people. It maintains information offices in many countries in Europe. The Commonwealth has called for its involvement as a principal in negotiations to bring an end to apartheid. Also, leading South African white business leaders-people such as Gavin Relly, of the Anglo-American company, whom many honourable senators opposite will have met, notwithstanding the interjections of Senator Jessop, whose leanings in these matters are well known-- Senator Jessop —They are good communist supporters and friends of the Labor Party. Senator GARETH EVANS —A communist supporter? That is a fascinating suggestion. I am sure that Mr Relly and the Oppenheimers would be pleased to hear that. As I say, leading South African white business leaders have sought contact with the ANC in order to promote a resolution of that country's problems. As to the parts of the question about the number of countries maintaining consultative arrangements of one kind or another, I am not able to give answers in the time available to me. I will seek them and provide them to Senator Childs. There are a number of countries, of course, that consult with it from time to time at an official or ministerial level. I am reminded, for example, of the recent meeting between the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, and the ANC President, Oliver Tambo. As to the final part of the question about visits to Australia, the Government has consistently taken the view that Australia has a strong moral obligation to play its full part in international efforts to bring about peaceful change in South Africa. It is the Government's belief that concern over developments in South Africa and abhorrence of apartheid are widely felt by the Australian community. In this context, it will be remembered that the Government established in 1983 a program under which prominent opponents of apartheid could visit Australia. There have been several such visits in recent years. I am pleased to be able to say, on behalf of the Foreign Minister, that an invitation has been extended to the President of the ANC to visit Australia in the first half of 1987 and that Mr Tambo has accepted that invitation. Arrangements are in hand to finalise the timing of and program for the visit. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is it not true that, by revealing only part of the story in relation to the eastern staircase incident at the Australian War Memorial, the Minister misled both the Senate and the people of Australia by implying that $1m was wasted? Is it not true that the then Chairman of the Australian War Memorial Council wrote on two occasions in reply to Mr Powell of the National Capital Development Commission on this matter? In those letters, did the Chairman make it perfectly clear that the changes to the eastern stairway were at the direction of the Council of the Australian War Memorial, not of the Director? Did the Chairman say that the changes proposed to the NCDC were expected to lead to savings-not to an increase in costs-of $30,000? Will the Minister table the two letters from the Chairman of the Australian War Memorial in reply to Mr Powell of the NCDC? Senator GIETZELT —I am not sure, of course, to which Chairman Senator MacGibbon is referring. Senator MacGibbon —Sir Anthony Synnot. Senator GIETZELT —The discussions I have had with the former Chairman, Admiral Synnot, make it clear to me-as do the discussions I have had with some of the leading persons associated with the National Capital Development Commission-that difficulties that developed in respect of the eastern staircase involved, as a result of certain decisions taken, a gross misuse of public funds. I am not aware of any of the correspondence that may have been made available from time to time by the current Chairman. To my recollection, I have had no correspondence from her on this matter. She has been Chairperson of the Australian War Memorial from about the middle part of last year. Until that time, of course, the Chairman was Admiral Synnot. It is only in the last several weeks-perhaps no more than two months-that I have been given copies of the minutes, despite my repeated requests to the Director for regular information to be made available to me so that I am in a position to respond to any questions that may be asked of me by senators on all sides in respect of any matters regarding the administration of the Australian War Memorial. I am not aware of any differences that may be interpreted by Senator MacGibbon about the eastern staircase, except that that letter was made available to me and a great deal of criticism was conveyed to me by both the former Chairman and the NCDC in respect of the construction of the eastern staircase. As the letter which I tabled yesterday indicates, there was a complete breakdown in the relationship between the NCDC and the Director of the Australian War Memorial. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Since the Minister has admitted in his answer that he has seen only part of the file and, as a consequence, has damned a person, will he make available the two letters from Admiral Sir Anthony Synnot in reply to Mr Powell that I have asked to be tabled? Senator GIETZELT —Obviously, Senator MacGibbon does not know the way in which the relationship between the Australian War Memorial Council and the Minister operates. I do not have access to the records of the Australian War Memorial. These matters came to light only as a result of the inquiry that was begun by Mr Greg O'Connor, an officer within the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and, subsequently, matters that were raised following the inquiry requested and agreed to by the Council of the Australian War Memorial. I do not have access to the files of the Australian War Memorial. Consequently, I am not able to respond to the request made by Senator MacGibbon. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports that a United States B52 bomber carrying air launched cruise missiles has resumed operations? Does this action exceed the SALT II Treaty? Further, can the Minister inform the Senate of the Australian Government's attitude to this action? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware and I am aware of media reports that the United States will exceed one of the numerical sub-limits in the unratified SALT II Treaty today, 28 November, when the 131st B52 bomber converted, as Senator Sibraa said, to carry air launched cruise missiles resumes operational status. The Government would deeply regret such a development, if it were to have taken place today. Our position remains as was described by the Prime Minister on 8 June when he indicated that he had written to President Reagan to express Australia's concern at the announced intention of the United States Administration no longer to be bound by the SALT II Treaty when determining the composition of United States strategic nuclear forces. Australia attaches great importance to compliance with the terms of the SALT II Treaty by both the United States and the Soviet Union. The Treaty's numerical limits provide an important measure of predictability as to the strategic nuclear balance. Despite its imperfections, the existing arms control regime is the only available basis from which to proceed to negotiate new agreements for significant reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the super-powers. I add that Australia understands United States concerns about Soviet compliance with arms control agreements. Indeed, the Prime Minister had earlier written to General Secretary Gorbachev, informing him of Australia's view that the Soviet Union has a case to answer on specific issues of compliance, and urging the Soviet Union in the strongest terms to demonstrate full compliance with existing agreements and, if necessary, to go out of its way to do so. Notwithstanding these concerns, the Government remains of the view, for the reasons I have already indicated, that decisions regarding the nature and structure of United States and Soviet strategic nuclear forces should be made within the SALT constraints. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. The Minister will be aware of the study by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of the proposed Army acquisitions of land in New South Wales and the fact that the Committee was far from persuaded, to put it mildly, that the acquisitions were justified. I ask: What is the status of the proposed government land grab in the Cobar region? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am very pleased to be able to advise Senator Hamer that the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, has just announced that the Government will not proceed with the proposal to establish an Army manoeuvre training area in the Cobar region in the central west of New South Wales. The Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General Peter Gration, has recommended that the proposal should not proceed and the Government will accept this recommendation. Mr Beazley's statement, which has just been released, goes on as follows: Lieutenant-General Gration's recommendation was based on a review by Army of its training area requirements. This review has concluded that training priorities have changed since the Cobar proposal was first initiated. The recent review of Australia's defence capabilities by Mr Paul Dibb has resulted in emphasis on training in northern Australia, particularly on training for low level contingencies. This reduces the Army's emphasis on mechanised training, particularly at brigade level. Consideration is currently being given in the short term to the relocation of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment from Sydney to northern Australia and a brigade from Sydney relocated to northern Australia in the medium term. These considerations have reduced the potential training value of the proposed Cobar manoeuvre area, and I have directed Army to examine the requirement for training areas in Northern Australia. The New South Wales Government has been advised of the decision not to proceed at Cobar and letters will be sent immediately to the affected land owners. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The double standards of the Hawke Government as demonstrated most recently by the Treasurer's 15 month delay in lodging his 1984-85 income tax return. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.02) —Mr President, it is embarrassing to have to admit that although this proposal for a discussion of a matter of public importance was submitted at only 12.30 this afternoon it is already out of date because the double standards of this Government have been demonstrated most recently at Question Time. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) was the latest example with his admission last night that, after all his pontificating on taxes, he had failed to lodge a tax return for something like 15 months. But today in Question Time we had the usual performance from Senator Walsh, and indeed even from Senator Button. They went from being great critics of anyone who in any way got into difficulties with the taxation system to being great defenders of the Treasurer, the leading light among those in the Government who have abused other people for their standards. Today is a particularly appropriate time to propose this matter because hundreds of thousands of Australians have been told by this Government, the Treasurer, Senator Walsh, Senator Button and the rest of the rag-bag lot of them that they must lodge their first fringe benefits tax returns and they must lodge with those returns the cheque for the tax which has been incurred. Anybody who has dared to suggest that there should be some delay or some failure to pay has been traduced in this Senate and accused of everything from treason on. Today is the day when very many Australians are focusing on the tax policies of this Government, and many will be focusing on the miserable performance of the present Treasurer. Thousands are being subjected to new burdens and new paperwork. Senator Button described that paperwork as horrific but it is still being applied to the people of Australia. In this debate we will actually have a defence of the Treasurer by Senator Richardson. I think that says a lot about this Government's attitude to Mr Keating and to this issue of double standards. Look at the situation. Senator Button has busily cultivated a reputation for honesty. There is no way that he could come in here and debate the Government's double standards without dobbing his Government in as he has so often done from his chair opposite. What about Senator Walsh, that particular exponent of double standards? There is no way he could enter this debate without eating every word he has said at Question Time for the last year. What about Senator Gareth Evans? He is a great defence counsel; I think Senator Evans, QC, appeared in court once or twice! Senator Durack —And lost. Senator CHANEY —Yes, he lost. Perhaps if he came into the debate he could quote the brilliant speeches he made about ministerial responsibility when he said: `If you do not live up to the highest possible standards you should resign'. There is no way Senator Gareth Evans could participate in this debate. There is no way he could sit alongside Mr Keating if he applied the principles that he described when he was trying to bring down Liberal Ministers. I suppose Senator Susan Ryan could have spoken in the debate but, fortunately for her, she had better things to do. Senator Gietzelt's specialty is trying public servants in the Senate. He is exhausted at the end of a week of traducing Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and not leaving the matter for the processes of the law which are available to both him and Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Honourable senators opposite are a disgraceful rag-tag lot. The fact that they have the leader of the right wing faction of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party defending Mr Keating speaks for itself. It is a great pity. Perhaps Senator Richardson will tell us about his history in the New South Wales Labor Party. We could have a debate on the Enmore matter and the other sordid incidents with which he is associated. All I can say is that if the best the Labor Party can do is to produce Senator Richardson to defend the government and Mr Keating, that really is pathetic. He would certainly have wanted to receive absolution from the Pope, who is now visiting Australia, before indulging in this debate. Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Senate will come to order. I cannot hear Senator Chaney. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, all I can say is that you have really been missing something. Why are we concerned about the failure of Mr Keating to lodge a tax return for 15 months? We are concerned because Mr Keating has gone around Australia reading lessons to the people of Australia. Senator Lewis —Cheating. Senator CHANEY —One of my colleagues inserts the word `cheating'. Exactly; that is what the Treasurer is doing; he is cheating on the words he has been thrusting down the throats of the Australian people. This is what Mr Keating said: The Hawke Government is committed to stamping out tax evasion . . . I ask honourable senators to note those words. They do not refer to avoidance; they refer to illegal behaviour-evasion. He went on to say: Among the most common tax offences are failure to furnish information to the Tax Commissioner and failure to file a return. And what has Mr Keating done? Failed for 15 months to lodge a return. We have been hearing today about equal treatment. We heard the pathetic response of Senator Walsh to the story of an Australian citizen who obtained an extension of time for the lodging of his tax return, lodged it a bit after the extended date and was prosecuted and fined $200. We await with interest the prosecution of the Treasurer and his fining. When we see that we will believe there is a bit of equality of treatment in this country rather than the sort of cronyism and toadyism that we have seen as part of this Government. What this Minister, Mr Keating, has imposed on the-- Senator Elstob —We don't defend tax cheats. Senator CHANEY —`We don't defend tax cheats'? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Elstob. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I will not be distracted by Senator Elstob. Senator Elstob would not wake up to the fact that his backside was on fire, let alone if there were a tax cheat in the Cabinet. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark. Senator CHANEY —I withdraw it. He would know it. He would be aware if that happened, Mr President. Mr Keating has imposed on the people of Australia a doubling of the penalties which will be paid by taxpayers. We in the Senate supported the Treasurer when he doubled those burdens on taxpayers and now we find that the Treasurer himself is in breach of the principles he has trumpeted on so much. It was Mr Keating who identified this failure to lodge tax returns as the most common tax offence when he expressed his determination and the determination of the Government to stamp it out. Mr President, you can imagine that we just did not believe it when the copy of the letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation was handed to us. We thought this could not be true; no Minister could be so stupid. That is why Mr Carlton sent the letter to the Treasurer asking him to tell us whether it was true. Senator Button —That is the charge, isn't it; stupid, careless? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Button, the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard. Senator CHANEY —We could not believe our eyes when we saw this letter. We asked the Treasurer. We said: `It surely cannot be right'. The shadow Treasurer wrote to him in these terms: `Dear Paul, I enclose a copy of what purports to be a letter addressed to you from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation'. Senator Knowles —Which address, Sydney or Canberra? Senator CHANEY —It was not sent to his `permanent place of residence' in Sydney, as a result of which he collects all that travelling allowance; no, it was sent to him in Parliament House, Canberra. We did not believe that the Treasurer could be guilty of this. But, of course, last night the Treasurer made it clear that he is guilty of this. He made it clear that he is responsible for his own tax returns and that he failed to get them in. I hope that all taxpayers in Australia are receiving the sort of courtesy that has been handed out to the Treasurer by the Commissioner of Taxation. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation wrote to Mr Keating on 3 November 1986, 15 months or so after his failure to file a return, and said: As recently discussed your 1985 return is also well overdue. I challenge the Government to produce a letter from any Deputy Commissioner of Taxation or the Commissioner of Taxation which treats the ordinary taxpayers of Australia with those kid gloves. I can only say that there is an appalling ignorance of the procedures of the Australian Taxation Office and of the sorts of curt, sharp messages that are ejected by the Taxation Office computer, the summonses which are delivered and the prosecutions which are imposed. Mr Keating instead was rung up by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and then sent this softly, softly letter. I seek leave to incorporate this letter in Hansard as a record of the treatment afforded the Treasurer in comparison with the treatment afforded the people of Australia. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE 7 Hunter Street, Sydney (GPO Box 4197, Sydney 2001) 3 November 1986 The Hon. P. J. Keating MP 14 Fishburn Street Red Hill, A.C.T. 2603 Dear Mr Keating, The purpose of this letter is to draw your attention to the need for you to file your 1986 income tax return which is now outstanding. As recently discussed your 1985 return is also well overdue. I appreciate how busy you have been but I ask that you now give urgent attention to the filing of your returns especially that for the 1985 year. Should you wish your return can be posted marked for attention: Ms YVONNE ELLIS, Liaison Officer, Priority Control Section, GPO Box 3523, Sydney, NSW 2000. If you wish to deliver your return you could contact Ms Ellis on 236-7341 or 236-7610 or myself. Your co-operation and early response would be appreciated. Yours faithfully, D. J. Cortese Deputy Commissioner of Taxation Senator CHANEY —This debate is significant because this man has accused the rest of Australia of rorting and cheating. He has committed what he himself describes as the most common tax offence. It is not the Treasurer's only peccadillo. This Treasurer is the man who has been defended by honourable senators opposite for his collection of more than $17,000 worth of travel allowance because he claims his principal place of residence is in Sydney. Senator Richardson —Tell us about Ralph Hunt. Senator CHANEY —Let me make it quite clear that I think that all of these records can be examined but the simple tests that apply are: Where one lives, where is one's wife, where are one's children and where one goes when one is not working. That simple test could be so easily applied. This is the second time that this man, who goes around preaching about cheating and rorting, has been caught. He has been caught on this occasion with his fingers in the till to the tune of $17,000, and it is a disgrace. Senator Elstob —I object to that. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark. Senator CHANEY —I withdraw the remark. He has been caught indulging in a practice which has netted him $17,000 in a situation in which clearly the letter of the law has been flouted. Senator Button —I take a point of order. It is not sufficient to withdraw and then restate the same proposition in slightly different language. I ask that the comment be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Under standing order 418 I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw any imputation against the Treasurer that he made in his remarks. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry, Mr President, I want to know what words I am being asked to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Order! I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the imputation contained in his remarks about the Treasurer. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I do not want to waste any more time-- The PRESIDENT —That the Treasurer was engaging in a practice of taking $17,000, I think, was the phrase. Senator CHANEY —I withdraw whatever I have to withdraw-- The PRESIDENT —It is clear in my mind that there was an imputation against a member of another House-- Senator CHANEY —It was not an imputation, it was a clear statement. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I withdraw whatever imputation you force me to withdraw. I will not spend more time on that because time is too limited. I simply turn to what I think is one of the most objectionable features of this two-faced Government, and that is the way it attacks anybody who can be identified in any way with the Liberal Party of Australia, the support of the Liberal Party or indeed opposition to the Government. I need do no more than remind the Senate of Question Time on 12 November in which Ministers, not only Senator Walsh but also others, attacked Mr Clarke, Mr Ellicott, Mr Andrew Hay, Mr John Hay, the late Sir Phillip Lynch, Lady Lynch and Mr Moran. I simply say to this Government that its total hypocrisy in these matters, its capacity to single out anybody who is seen to be in opposition to it and to use this chamber to blackguard them is one of the most unpleasant developments in politics over a very long time. I remind the Senate of the frequent attacks on Mr John Elliott for saying no more than what was said by Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon. It was Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon, a trade unionist who no doubt has the respect of the people opposite, who said that there was no way that he would put his money into Australian companies. He said: `I would put whatever money I owned in fixed term investments'. We have not heard any traducing of Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon, but Mr Elliott is fair game because he dares to identify himself with the Liberal Party. We saw the traducing of the late Sir Phillip Lynch and Lady Lynch; yet what have we heard from the Government about the land dealings of Dawkins? Nothing. There is a total double standard in that matter. We heard from the Government that I was involved in tax cheating because of my membership of a law firm two weeks before the Government appointed my partner of those years, Mr Ian Temby, as Director of Public Prosecutions. That is what I mean by double standards. I, because I am a Liberal politician, am held up as a friend of tax cheats at the same time as this Government is appointing my partner of those years to be the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has the responsibility for bringing tax cheats to book. I remind the Senate of the treatment of Mr Temby. He was defended by the Government when it appointed him, when some people criticised his appointment because of the politics of it, and what happened? As soon as he prosecuted some Labor functionary, the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party which is best represented here by Senator Richardson, who will speak in this debate, called for his dismissal and removal. They are the standards of this Government. The standards of this Government do not exist. It traduces those who stand in its way. Senator Button —Nobody here called for his dismissal. Senator CHANEY —Senator Button makes a distinction. Let us hear the distinction drawn by Senator Richardson-no-one here called for Mr Temby's dismissal. I am pleased to hear that. But let Senator Richardson explain the attitude of his cohorts in the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. It was a disgusting example of the politicisation of things that should not be political in this country. Let me again draw attention to the contrast between the attitude of the Government in this place when a retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia was traduced over and over again, by Senator Walsh in particular, and the attempts to get a proper investigation of serious allegations relating to another High Court judge blocked, blocked, blocked until this Government was forced to appoint a commission. This Government appointed that Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry only because in the end inquiries showed that a commission was absolutely necessary. That is another example of the sort of double standards that are disgusting about this Government. Over and over again we get a traducing of a man who is now sick and old and unable to defend himself and that should be contrasted with the treatment of someone whom this Government regarded as part of its own. They are the sorts of illogicalities and hypocrisies that are sickening. Look at the difference between the treatment of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Burke. Day after day we hear the Queensland Government being traduced in this place, but when I raised the question about the involvement of the Western Australian Labor Government in the re-evaluation of shares in the Fremantle Gas and Coke Co. there was a total lack of interest. Note the difference-a total lack of interest on the part of the Government after weeks, months and indeed years of traducing Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen, her husband and the Queensland Government. It is a disgrace. It not only occurs in this Senate. Look at the efforts of Mr Hayden who, in the House of Representatives last year, made an attack on Mr David Barnett. What was the basis of his attack-that David Barnett had written about the political affiliations of public servants. Mr Hayden said how disgusting it was that a journalist should criticise public servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs because of their political affiliations. He then went on to attack Mr David Barnett for his political affiliations. In this place we had another example of the Walsh syndrome-the misquoting of figures to blacken the name of a man who had once worked for the Liberal Party and who is now working as a journalist. That is what this matter of public importance is about. This Treasurer is just the latest example of double standards. We in the Opposition, who have to put up with the worst examples of that through the tongue of Senator Walsh day by day, wish to express our disgust at the lack of any standards on the part of this Government. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Richardson. Senator Chaney —Send in the organ grinder. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(3.20) —We have already had the monkey. He just spoke. I have just listened to a member of the Liberal Party of Australia lecturing the Hawke Government on double standards. I listened to Senator Chaney complaining about the chamber being used to traduce people's reputations. Yet he not only condoned but also promoted some members of his back bench doing it to me only two weeks ago. The fact that they were slaughtered in the attempt shows up just how poor they are. But when it comes to double standards, we had years of looking to Liberal governments to tell us just what they were about. It is only a few weeks since the last attack on the Treasurer (Mr Keating) failed. The last attack on the Treasurer was over the matter of his travelling allowance, which Senator Chaney mentioned. But what happened when the Opposition raised this matter? All of a sudden, one by one, the old Ministers, the ones who learnt the system while they were in government, came out. First we had Ralph Hunt saying: `By the way, I do the same thing'. Then we had Sinclair saying: `I think I have done the same thing too'. If honourable senators want to check the records they should look at Tony Street. What did Senator Chaney do in all those years to stop any of this? He did absolutely nothing. Senator Chaney, the Prime Minister whom he served under and the Treasurer whom he served under all did nothing, yet the Opposition comes into this chamber and lectures us about double standards. Senator Chaney, at the end of a parliamentary session, with the Liberal Party of Australia collapsing all around him, jumps up to grab an issue and once again plays the man. Members of the Opposition will not come in here and argue about economic policy; there is no chance of that. We had three weeks of Question Time in the Senate when all they did was question Senator Gietzelt about the Australian War Memorial. Important though that may be, I have to inform the Liberal Party that it is not the biggest national issue. It never could be. Opposition senators will not get up and debate the economy because Keating has always had the answers and they have been slapped down too easily. We now have a matter of public importance which has been born out of the miserable fear and desperation of a party going down the drain and a leader going down the drain with it. As members of the Opposition cannot match the Treasurer on the argument of principle, they have a go at his propriety. That is the standard that they have set. We on this side of the Senate do not have that sort of standard. I want to go through some of the arguments that Senator Chaney raised. I might say that singularly lacking in any of them were specific criticisms of the Treasurer. He went through a litany of alleged sins of all sorts of people. Let me quote from a couple of taxation rulings which are publicly available, not secret documents. Ruling 2372 states: Additional tax for late lodgment generally is not calculated where the assessment results in a credit or refund. What will happen in Paul Keating's case? He will receive a refund. I think it is worth while, even for Senator Chaney, to listen to ruling 2246, which states: Where it seems clear that a person has no residual tax liability or is due for a refund, it is desirable . . . that other efforts to obtain lodgment of returns are made (such as telephone contact with the person) before . . . action is instituted. I reckon that the Liberal Party ought to look at those rulings, because they are the rulings of the Commissioner of Taxation, they are the rulings that are available to the Australian public and they are the rulings by which every citizen, from the lowest to the highest in the land, must abide. Those rulings do not indicate that Paul Keating has committed any major crime. They indicate nothing of the sort. Paul Keating regrets what he did; he said that publicly last night. He went into the House of Representatives and told the world what happened. He told it honestly and truthfully, as he always does. Let us look further at the pathetic performance of Senator Chaney on the question of double standards. Today we are talking about tax. The double standard of honourable senators opposite was set on tax avoidance. Do we not all remember what Frank Costigan had to say? Do we not remember him saying that, under the previous Government, tax avoidance was the only growth industry to match the heady days of the Victorian gold rush? The problem with the Liberal Government was that that was the only industry it could get to grow. It protected tax avoiders year after year. The too-hard basket in John Howard's office just piled up. The previous Government was not game to take on tax avoidance. The Opposition, having been exposed in all those matters, not only is not game to do anything about tax avoidance but also is not game to tell us anything that it is prepared to do. Its tax policy remains hidden-the light under the bushel. Where is the Opposition's tax policy? We have waited breathlessly for two years and we have got nothing from the Opposition. There are two reasons for that. There are no intellects in the Opposition to think one up but, in any event, there are too many divisions. The Opposition cannot sort it out. It has tried time and again to come up with any sort of tax policy and it has totally failed. Let us look at the specifics of Paul Keating's situation which the Opposition has failed to go into. The Treasurer was to receive a letter dated 3 November which advised him that his income tax return was overdue and that he should lodge it. He never received that letter from the Deputy Commissioner because it was stolen from the mail and miraculously found its way to Jim Carlton. The first time the Treasurer knew that it existed was Tuesday morning when he was contacted by the Commissioner of Taxation. The Treasurer advised the Commissioner that he had prepared the return and that it would be lodged. It was lodged that day. The Treasurer is a pay as you earn taxpayer and he expects to receive a refund on that 1985 return. The Commonwealth was not being disadvantaged; Paul Keating was being disadvantaged by not having had the time to put it in. The cost of the delay in lodging the return will, therefore, be borne by the Treasurer. There is no question of the Treasurer trying to evade or avoid paying tax. That is not to say that he should not have lodged the return earlier. Of course he should have. As he has expressed it, it is a matter of regret that he did not. However, in view of those rules, it is hard to get all that excited about this matter. The facts are that thousands of ordinary taxpayers get their tax returns in late. I would love to do a survey of the Opposition, the Government and the gallery to see how many people have ever been guilty of not filing a return by the right day. I think we would find that an awful lot of people would have to make that terrible admission. But how terrible is that admission? The reality is that it is a very small matter-hardly, one might say, a hanging offence. What would have happened under the standards set during the years of the Fraser Government? Honourable senators should remember what happened to Minister Nixon. The previous Government set up a royal commission to inquire into him. When he was found guilty what did the previous Government do? Did it abide by the terms of the royal commission? No. Yet it lectures us on double standards. The former Prime Minister got up and bucketed the royal commissioner. That was the previous Government's only response. It was a case of protecting Nixon at any cost and that is what it did. This Government, on the other hand, has set a new standard for ministerial behaviour. We have a register of interests. Ministers and members of the back bench in the House of Representatives and, I dare say, in the Senate shortly will have to make their affairs available for public scrutiny. Government members have not objected to doing so. Our Ministers have come forward cleanly, in the light of day. But nothing that happens in the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia is ever seen in the light of day, particularly their tax policies. Nothing that Paul Keating has done reflects one iota on his integrity or his honesty. All it reflects is the fact that Paul Keating has spent hours and hours every day of the year for four years making this country a better place to live in. The fact that he got a tax return in late is just not the end of the world. The Opposition wants to lecture us about double standards but what do we see when we go through all the names? Look at what happened to Garland. Look at what happened to Lynch. Look at what happened to Sinclair. I could go on and on. But for honourable senators opposite it did not matter what was the sin of these people; it was a matter of how much influence they had as to whether they were removed. If they were in the National Party of Australia-the old tail wagging the dog-the sky was the limit. It did not matter what one did, one was safe. There was no way Malcolm would take them on-they were right. Senator Chaney —What about Glen Sheil? Senator RICHARDSON —Someone has just reminded me of Glen Sheil. I must say, Mr President, that I would not have raised the matter, but as it has been raised-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will refer to his senatorial colleague as Senator Sheil. Senator RICHARDSON —I apologise. I was merely repeating the words used by Senator Chaney. Senator Sheil had a time as a Minister. I could be forgiven for forgetting that because it was not very long. Senator Colston —Twenty-three hours. Senator RICHARDSON —I was not sure how long it was but I am informed that it was 23 hours. I knew that if I blinked I would miss it. But I remember why he was removed. We all know that Malcolm Fraser had a commitment on South Africa which we share. I think it was reasonable to suppose that in all of the years he was in politics he would get something right and he did. He had my full support in removing Senator Sheil from office. However, one should look at what our Government has done in respect of standards of ministerial propriety. We have put those matters out for scrutiny. Our Ministers have passed the test every time and Paul Keating has passed it again on this occasion. Mick Young faced two inquiries and passed both. That is why Mick Young is still a Minister and why he is still a thorn in the side of the Opposition in the other place. Paul Keating, in receiving the letter from the Tax Office, has not been treated any differently from any taxpayer in this country. What we have also done is made sure that no matter which rung a person is on in this country, from the bottom to the top, people get treated fairly and equally. So Paul Keating got a letter; big deal. He got the same letter that is sent to thousands of taxpayers every year. When he got up and admitted it and regretted it that should have been the end of the matter. But it was not for the lot opposite. When they are going down the drain they will grab on to anything. If this is the best they can grab on to I have to say: `God help you; no one else will'. The Opposition demands the Treasurer's resignation. Presumably, if the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) got a parking ticket he would have to resign; that would be pretty terrible. If the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) paid his rates late, he would have to resign; that would be pretty terrible. But that is the size of this issue. It is a trivial issue; it is nothing. There is no question of financial gain for the Treasurer. There is no question of ministerial impropriety. There has been no attempt to withhold information from the Parliament. There has been no attempt to cover up. The Opposition is trying to smear the Treasurer. It has tried before and failed. It will fail in any attempt to traduce the Treasurer or anybody else. Any party that tolerates on its front bench someone like the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who is a member of the other place, has to be joking when it lectures anyone on this side about double standards. We have seen the bucket jobs he comes up with. I ask Senator Chaney to tell us how proud he is of those. Let Senator Chaney get up and defend the honourable member for O'Connor; let him tell me what a great man he is and how he is an addition to this Parliament. When it comes to double standards, they belong to the John Howards and the Senator Chaneys who put people like the honourable member for O'Connor up at the front, who encourage him, promote him and let him drop the buckets. But what happened to the honourable member for O'Connor? Like all the buckets that members of the Opposition drop-he could not hit the broadside of a barn from five paces anyway-they all missed. The Treasurer goes from strength to strength. I have to say this: When it comes to the new year and we resume in February I am certain of one thing-I am certain that the Treasurer will still be the Treasurer and will still be running our economy. But I am not at all certain that John Howard or Fred Chaney will still hold the offices they hold today. The PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators, I table the report from the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to the developed design of the new Parliament House, together with an area schedule and minutes of proceedings. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.35) —I support the motion that the debate be adjourned to the next day of sitting. I urge that it be discussed then because the Senate needs to apply itself to examining reports of the Joint Standing Committee which was set up to look at matters concerning the new Parliament House. In particular, some matters which are of importance to the Senate are set out in paragraphs 5 to 10 of the report. Paragraph 10 points out that the Joint Standing Committee regards this situation with extreme concern and suggests that it be resolved. I support the motion that the debate be adjourned, but I would say that this matter must be debated because the issues which the Committee has raised in this report are ones which must be resolved by the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators I table a report from the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to certain aspects of the new Parliament House project. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act, I present the annual report of the Joint House Department for 1985-86. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the eighteenth report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the report of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in London in September and October 1986. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COATES —It was an honour to lead the delegation, the other members of which were Senators Cooney and Lewis and members of the House of Representatives Ian Cameron, Peter Cleeland and David Hawker. Kieran Schneemann was the Secretary to the delegation and I thank him for all his hard work and help to make our arrangements smooth. He was always cheerful, even when having to deal with some of the reasonable and less than reasonable demands of members of the delegation. We were certainly well looked after by the host United Kingdom branch. I think we were too well looked after. I have to admit to being uncomfortable at our being accommodated at such extremely stylish and expensive hotels. I regret that such extravagance is judged as being necessary when members of parliament attend such conferences. However, the delegation was grateful to the United Kingdom branch for its kindness and hospitality and for providing the opportunities for one such as me, who had never visited the United Kingdom before, to experience some of what London, as one of the great cities of the world, has to offer. I had not been to a CPA conference before and I found the experience stimulating. It was wonderful to meet such impressive speakers as Speaker Mutasa from Zimbabwe, Charles Kileo, a Minister from Tanzania, and Hugh Francis, a Minister from Trinidad and Tobago. They and others, including myself on behalf of Australia, were unmerciful in attacking the United Kingdom Government for its attitude to apartheid and sanctions against South Africa. Apartheid was, naturally, the central issue of concern at the conference. There was a session specifically on the issue, but it was also interwoven into most of the other debates, such as the topic `The Commonwealth-Who Cares?'. Australia's position was clearly put by me and several others of our speakers, including some representing State parliaments. A contrary view on apartheid was expressed, perhaps predictably, by the National Party of Australia member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), who in some ways somewhat embarrassed some of us, and that resulted in quite a reaction from the rest of the delegates. Other debates and panel sessions are listed in the report. The Australian delegates maintained a high profile in all of these sessions. I am not a great defender of the Commonwealth as an institution, but I acknowledge that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference was an important forum, especially for representatives of the smaller and relatively newly independent Commonwealth countries, such as those in Africa and the Pacific. I appreciate the opportunity to have participated. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I present the 263rd report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —by leave-This report represents the findings of the inquiry of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts into two aspects of defence equipment support. The first is the supply of spares and ammunition, and the second is the provision of technical documentation for equipment operators and maintenance personnel. The report has been presented in two volumes, the first of which is on spares and ammunition, and the second of which is on technical documentation. Because of the extended time taken to obtain certain evidence relating to technical documentation, the tabling of volume 2 has been deferred until early in the 1987 autumn sitting. The inquiry uncovered some serious examples of overcharging for spare parts. In one instance the total price paid to a defence contractor was a staggering 13 times the price for apparently identical spare parts at retail shops. There have been cases where private defence contractors have marked up spare parts by as much as 600 per cent just for the certification that parts will meet specifications. Mark-ups of over 300 per cent are commonplace. The Committee considered that the size of these mark-ups warrants serious investigation. The report also reveals that of the 1 1/2 million items in the Defence Force warehouse inventory, half a million were domestic items, such as mops, brooms, frying pans and tea urns. The Committee recommended the rationalisation of Defence Force inventories by purchasing domestic items from local hardware shops as required. I seek leave to have the balance of my remarks incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The remainder of the speech read as follows- The inquiry was begun in April 1986 as a follow-on investigation to the Committee's earlier Review of Defence Project Management. The Report on Defence Project Management, tabled in February 1986, noted shortcomings in the provision of initial spares and technical documentation and in equipment handover procedures in a number of major Defence projects. These findings suggested significant deficiencies in the ability of the Services to support equipment after it had been introduced into service. The Committee sought to ascertain: (1) Whether current stockholdings of spares and ammunition were sufficient to support present approved levels of operations and training; (2) The scope for improving the supply of spares and ammunition; and (3) The opportunities for achieving greater economy or efficiency in supply by: (a) reducing inventory holding costs; and (b) reducing the costs of purchasing spares and ammunition. The Committee was disappointed to find that existing Defence statistics did not allow an adequate measurement of the overall impact of spares shortages on military operations and training. It was not possible also to assess the adequacy of existing spares and ammunition stocks to support the increased activity levels required to deal with the credible short-term contingencies envisaged by Defence planners. Within these constraints the Committee found that stockholdings of spares were generally sufficient to support current authorised operations and training levels. However, operations and training had been restricted on occasions by spares shortages. The Committee doubted whether current stocks would be sufficient to support increased activity levels for some equipment items. Stocks of ammunition on the other hand were not sufficient to meet current practices and training allowances. Although all Services had experienced shortages of spares and ammunition, Navy suffered substantially greater shortages than the other services. Army had experienced the least shortages. The evidence of spares and ammunition shortages indicated considerable scope for improving the effectiveness of supply support. The Committee believed that an essential first step was to develop better supply performance monitoring. It was pleased to note that the Department of Defence had recently commenced two major studies, a supply performance measurement study and a study to assess the ability of the Defence Force to meet current contingencies. However, the Committee believed these measures needed to be supplemented by specific exercises in the field to test the effectiveness of the Service's supply systems. The causes of spares and ammunition shortages also had to be addressed. The Committee found that shortages of spares and ammunition were generally the result of inadequate assessments of initial requirements, problems in forecasting demand, funding restraints, the failure to apply appropriate provisioning policies and procedures and procurement and delivery delays. Despite the difficulties inherent in forecasting the demand for spares, the Committee found there was considerable scope for improving the accuracy of demand forecasting by better initial spares assessment procedures and better maintenance planning. Shortages of funds for spares support reflect cost pressures on capital equipment budgets and Defence priorities. The Committee discussed capital cost overruns in its Report on Defence Project Management. Although the Committee did not see its role extending to questioning budget priorities, it was concerned to note that budgetary decisions on spares support had been taken on the basis of inadequate information. The Committee believed that false economies had been made in some cases as a result of the imposition of tight financial constraints. Service spares provisioning policies attempt to set stockholdings at levels sufficient to cover expected consumption in the re-supply period. Shortages of stock can arise when forecasts of demand and re-supply times prove inaccurate. Random variations in demand and lead times should be covered by a supply margin. Unfortunately, the Services have not been able always to apply fully these provisioning policies because of funding constraints and the limitations of their computerised supply management systems. The Committee's assessment of the situation was complicated by the significant differences in provisioning policies and procedures among the Services. The Committee was concerned at the very lengthy administrative lead times associated with provisioning spares and ammunition within the Defence organisation. These lead times also added to the cost of spares and ammunition to which I shall turn shortly. Delivery delays by and large reflected procurement problems over which the Services had little short-term control. However, the Committee was concerned to note that the delivery performance of the Government munitions factories, which supply the Services with most of their high use ammunition, was not good. The Committee considered that the Department of Defence should take major steps to improve the quality of factory management and factory management systems generally. Also, the co-operation of the Services was required to improve the planning of factory work loads and to overcome inefficient quality assurance procedures. The Committee believed that the effectiveness of supply support could be improved considerably by better spares assessment procedures and maintenance planning, the introduction of improved inventory management systems and the provision of additional computer support. Notwithstanding significant supply shortages, the committee found substantial opportunities for reducing the size and cost of the Services' stores inventories. The Services' inventories contained high levels of inactive stocks which should be more closely monitored for possible disposal action. They also contained high levels of domestic items which would be better purchased by units themselves. The Committee also found that inventory holding costs could be significantly reduced. Staffing levels at stores depots could be decreased and labour productivity increased by the introduction of modern warehousing technologies. Productivity could be improved also by better computer support, particularly at Navy depots. There were substantial opportunities to reduce labour costs by substituting civilian for service personnel thereby freeing more service personnel for military tasks. There appeared to be considerable savings to be achieved by introducing single-Service managed warehousing in major urban centres. The costs of procurement could be reduced also, particularly by pursuing more competitive sources of supply and by reducing administrative lead times and other costs associated with Defence purchasing. The Committee found that some Defence suppliers were charging excessive prices. Unfortunately, the Services were not adequately monitoring spare parts prices, especially the prices they were paying for the assurance of conformance with specifications. Also the Services had not, until recently, given sufficient attention to identifying lower-cost commercial substitutes. Navy relied too much on prime contractors for spares support rather than purchasing directly from the actual manufacturer. There was room for all Services to extend the application of economic order quantity principles. Navy's failure to apply economic order quantity principles at all was a serious shortcoming. Lengthy purchasing lead times add greatly to the costs of supply support. There was considerable scope for reducing contracting lead times associated with the public tendering process. The overall costs of purchasing could be reduced by extending the use of local purchasing and improving payment arrangements for minor purchasing. The Department of Defence generally acknowledged the scope which existed for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of supply support and advised the Committee of a number of major measures it had taken in recent years to improve the performance of the three Service supply systems. Although the Committee believed many of these measures would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of supply support, it had serious doubts about the underlying strategy of the Department's major initiative, the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project. The Supply systems Redevelopment project aims to redevelop each of the Service supply systems on an integrated basis to improve supply management at all levels. However, the project is very ambitious and its promised benefits lie well into the future. The Committee was particularly concerned with the unsatisfactory performance of the Navy supply system and considered urgent remedial action was required. The inquiry revealed the need for greater commonality in policies and procedures for supply support and for significant improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of the single-Service supply systems. Responsibility for overseeing these changes rests with the Defence Logistics Organisation of the Department of Defence. Because of what it considered to be the limited achievements of the Defence Logistics Organisation so far, the Committee had doubts about the ability of the Organisation to achieve the necessary changes. The Committee believed there was a need to review the effectiveness of the present organisational arrangements for supply support. It believed that the effectiveness of the Defence Logistics Organisation could be improved by a closer relationship between the Organisation and the Services. In all the Committee made twenty-nine recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of supply support. A large number of people contributed to this Report. I would like to thank my colleagues on the Sectional Committee, the Committee's specialist advisers and the members of the Secretariat for their unstinting support. The Committee is particularly grateful to the Department of Defence for the extensive co-operation and assistance given to us during the inquiry. We look forward to the response to our Report. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present a report on a visit to Papua New Guinea. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SIBRAA —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The report which I have just tabled deals with the visit by a number of the members of the Committee to Papua New Guinea earlier this year. The visit was undertaken at the suggestion of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. Both referred to the need to promote contact between political leaders in Papua New Guinea and Australia. The report suggests that the governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea give consideration to the establishment of regular and reciprocal exchanges between our two countries. The developments of parliamentary exchanges with Papua New Guinea have continued. Recently members of the Committee were able to meet with the Papua New Guinea Minister for Defence here in Canberra. Time does not permit me to go into great detail about the report, but I would first commend the seven members of the Committee led by Mr David Charles who at their own expense, made the visit. I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence for their assistance, in particular the Australian High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea, Mr Michael Wilson and the group's escort officer, Mr Robert Webster. I also thank the staff of the Papua New Guinea High Commission here in Canberra for their assistance. The visit is a significant development in the activities of the Committee, a development which I hope will continue. As Senators would be well aware, that there is no better way to get an appreciation of the issues than by being able to discuss them on the spot with those people who are directly involved. Senator SIBRAA — I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the 262nd report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY —by leave-The 262nd report provides comments and recommendations by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports. The Public Service Act 1922 sub-section 25 (6) requires a department to provide its Minister with an annual report on the Department's operation for the year ended 30 June. As a result of an amendment to section 25 earlier this year, departmental annual reports are required to be in accordance with guidelines presented to the Parliament from time to time by the Prime Minister after approval by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. On 1 September 1986 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) forwarded a set of guidelines for consideration by the Committee. The proposed guidelines will replace the 1982 guidelines and reflect the Government's recent Public Service reform measures. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The remainder of the speech read as follows- The Guidelines will require Departments to provide details of, amongst other things, implementation of the Financial Management Improvement Program, Staff Budgeting and Program Budgeting. Information should also be provided on matters such as activities in the field of occupational health and safety, the operation of a department's industrial democracy plan and its equal employment opportunity plan. The Committee recommends the inclusion in the guidelines of several clauses which it believes will increase the accountability of departments and place emphasis on the performance aspects of departmental activities. The Committee believes that in addition to giving an account of a department's administration and management, an annual report should provide an accounting to the Parliament and the public of the Department's performance. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the guidelines provide that the orientation of annual reports should be towards the performance aspects of departmental activities as well as the administrative and managerial aspects. Since annual reports are a record of a department's operations, the Committee believes that users of reports should be provided with information about the reasons for any significant changes in a department's operations or procedures. For instance, an annual report should provide details about major judicial decisions and reviews of the objectives or structure of a department and also significant consumer complaints or suggestions, which have resulted in a change to the department's operations or procedures. To ensure greater accountability of departments the Committee also believes that annual reports should include details about any breaches of forward obligation limits and any other breaches of the Audit Act 1901 and the Finance Regulations and Directions. In the same vein, the Committee believes that Parliament is entitled to know of the reasons for any significant delays to, or amendment, deferment or cancellation of, a department's programs. In view of the recent government administrative reforms aimed at providing departments with more responsibility and flexibility in managing resources, the Committee believes that a departmental secretary should provide and certify a financial statement which will reflect his/her financial management responsibility. The Committee agrees with the Department of Finance's view that financial statements provided in annual reports should do more than merely elaborate on data already provided in the financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance under section 50 of the Audit Act 1901. The Committee recommends that the guidelines require financial statements in annual reports to provide, at least, the details specified at pages 10-11 of the report until such time as section 50 of the Audit Act is amended and the Minister for Finance determines the form of the financial statements. The Committee understands that amendments to section 50 are expected to come into operation on 1 July 1988. Mr President, with the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate these pages in Hansard. The pages read as follows- In the line with the devolution of greater management responsibility to departments, the Committee agrees with the Department's proposal that- The Minister for Finance's responsibility for furnishing section 50 statements be reduced to include only aggregate information from each department; and Responsibility for reporting detailed financial information be transferred to each departmental secretary who should provide audited certified financial statements in a form determined by the Minister for Finance, as part of the department's annual report. The Committee recommends that paragraphs B.1 and B.2 be omitted and the following paragraphs be inserted: 1. An annual report should include an audited statement prepared by the department and certified by the departmental secretary. The certification should state that all departmental expenditure for the financial year has been made with due consideration to economy and in accordance with the Audit Act 1901 and the Finance Regulations and Directions. 2. Financial statements should be in accordance with the form determined by the Minister for Finance pursuant to section 50 of the Audit Act 1901. Where section 50 does not provide for such a determination or no such form has been determined, the financial statements should include, as a minimum, the following information: (a) details of receipts and payments of annual appropriations on a program basis and explanations of variance from budget figures; (b) details of free services provided by other agencies with an estimate of the amount; (c) details of individual Trust Account operations under sections 60 and 62a of the Audit Act 1901; (d) a schedule of cash and investment balances; (e) a statement of amounts of debtors and creditors by program; (f) a schedule of amounts of prepayments; (g) a schedule of capital commitments and outstanding loan balances; and (h) a schedule of major capital assets operated (by class); their value and the date and method of valuation. 3. Financial statements should be accompanied by an explanation of significant changes from one year to the next and must be consistent with other published financial data (any material differences should be explained). Data should include current year actuals and budget estimates and actuals for at least the previous year. 4. Where a department undertakes operations of a commercial or quasi-commercial nature in respect of which the Minister for Finance has determined, pursuant to section 41d of the Audit Act 1901, the form in which it shall prepare financial statements for those operations, the departmental annual report should: (a) incorporate financial statements in the form determined; (b) provide information as to the operational performance of the undertaking (eg the operating surplus as a proportion of working capital provided, trends in turnover, etc.) including, where practicable, non-financial performance measures. Committee Comment and Recommendation 14 The Committee recommends the insertion of a sentence providing that the financial statements referred to in paragraph B.4 must comply with the Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertakings, issued by the Department of Finance. C. STAFFING INFORMATION 1. Departmental annual reports should provide an overview of the staffing levels and characteristics of the department, with statistics in a sufficiently standardised form to permit comparisons with Service-wide statistical information published by the Public Service Board. Figures included in reports should be consistent with figures provided in returns of staff reported to the Public Service Board. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-I table a page missing from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts 261st report relating to a review of the Australian Capital Territory Internal Omnibus Network efficiency audit, which was tabled in the Senate on 27 November 1986. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.45) —At 11 o'clock this morning the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) put out a Press release outlining in very brief form the future program of the textile, clothing and footwear industries. The Press release has the unfortunate title of `Revitalising Australia's Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industries'. While it might be true that a number of firms will be revitalised, this plan will be the death knell for a significant number of them. For many industries this is a sad document. The new plan will come into operation on 1 March 1989. Although there are some incentives and carrots in it, there are some significant problems. The principal feature that enabled Senator Button to sell this plan to the industry, to the unions, to his back benchers and to others, I suppose was the creation of what is known as the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority. This Development Authority has the responsibility of directing the industry's development strategy and for monitoring the overall operation of the plan. A number of my questions asked during Question Time today, to which the Minister responded positively and affirmatively, concerned the adequacy of the resources that were given to that plan, and the fact that it should anticipate movements within the industry sectors. This is the linchpin and it is integral to the whole operation of the plan. Production can fall. I think it is generally recognised that the plan can work provided that this Development Authority works within the declared structure and according to the affirmations which the Minister gave today. Of course what the plan suggests will not be nearly as good as quotas, but at least it does provide a minimum floor. Senator Button —What is good about quotas? Tell us what is good about quotas. Senator WATSON —There are problems. In answer to the interjection I tell the Minister that the elimination of quotas must spell the demise of a number of firms. I would also like to suggest to Senator Button that, if this Authority is to work, the end point will never be achieved. I also think that the Government has to be sensitive to some of the movements, actions and consequences that could happen in what we call the sub-clauses category. For example, the shirt making industry may be devastated but the rest of the clothing industry might go along quite nicely. That is provided for within this Government plan. I believe that, should some of the serious consequences that this Authority could perceive happen, they must be acted upon quickly before there is blood on the floor and before there is a tremendous loss of employment. I hope that the Minister will respond today and tell us about some of the types of regional assistance that are going to be needed. I come from a State in which much of the textile industry is decentralised, and I think we need to know what sort of assistance there will be, what sort of retraining will be needed and in which parts of the industry money will be injected. Will it be put into allied industries or other activities, such as cleaning up rivers and so on? One of the problems that the industry is facing at the moment is that there is a need for it to see the printed word. So many undertakings have been given. There is a need for the Minister to flesh out, to put some flesh on the bare bones of what he has put forward today. We have already seen evidence that the Government is sensitive in a number of areas. I will cite just one example. Woven made fabric stays under quota for seven years without any expansion. I congratulate the Minister for his concession on that. That alone will provide relief to some mills which could otherwise suffer distress. There will be certain problems, for example, with the lifting of the lightweight fabric from 1.20 grams per square metre to 1.250 grams. The whole program has been sold on the basis of this Development Authority. Unfortunately some areas in some States could be devastated as a result of this plan. Undoubtedly, some firms will use this as an excuse for putting into train other longer term plans. But, at the other end, if companies cannot see any future as a result, for example, of the elimination of the quotas and these end points, they will not hang around for four or five years until perhaps those end points are reached. They will cut off their proposed investment decisions fairly quickly. They will try to save as much as they can. Other people who have looked at this a bit more charitably feel that this is perhaps as good a plan as anybody could get from the Australian Labor Party. But I would like to reiterate that the end point that the industry said that it could not live with was basically 75 per cent. People must wonder why the industry has accepted a plan involving not 75 per cent but 60 per cent. But, in effect, it is not 60 per cent because at least 95 per cent of imports come from developing countries. So in the clothing area the cut-off point will be 55 per cent and in the case of furnishing 45 per cent. I believe it will cause a lot of heartache not only in capital cities but more importantly in the decentralised areas. I call upon the Government to put forward its plans in those regional areas, to tell us what these packages are, to tell us what the areas of job creation will be and provide some examples of the circumstances in which money can be paid. I believe there is a problem in providing funds to those companies which will probably do very well. While I applaud the provision of regional adjustment, I also applaud the Government's decision to assist the further onprocessing of natural fibres such as wool and cotton. We understand that similar studies will be initiated for the tanning industry. Of course, that should help firms in my State such as Blundstone Pty Ltd. A number of firms will be assisted by this industry efficiency program but, again, we need to know the type of assistance that will be offered. All the Press release states is that industries' efficiency will be stimulated by intensive assistance to a limited number of firms with demonstrated high potential to lift their competitiveness to a world class level. Many of the companies are already at that level. Of course, if they are to be given further assistance, that will hardly help those that are struggling. On the other hand, it will help those companies which have a shortage of working capital to establish markets overseas. But the whole thrust of this is dependent on the value and stability of the Australian dollar. If the dollar is not stable, there is not much incentive to export. Again, that is one of the limitations of the scheme. We will just have to wait and see the reaction of individual firms to this report but I know that in a number of areas the result will cause some heartbreak and sorrow. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.55) —I thank Senator Watson for his contribution to the debate on textiles, clothing and footwear, which is an endless saga. I hope that we can have the debate again-this is said in all fairness-when Opposition senators have the opportunity to be better informed about the details of the Government's proposals. I do not blame Senator Watson for that. I am just saying that those details will be provided in due course and we will then be able to have a more serious debate on the issue. However, I do not think there is any point in recycling anxieties. These industries have to be restructured. They have to be made more internationally competitive. It is not true to say that industries that require an enormous level of protection and subsidy of one kind and another are economically efficient industries. That is an element which is important in the Government's planning. I look forward to providing further details about the plan in due course and then it can be debated at greater length, Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 3.56 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 805) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 33 (2) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Administrative Review Council Australian Government Solicitor Australian Institute of Criminology Australian Institute of Family Studies Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Barristers and Solicitors Admission Board of the A.C.T. (Film) Censorship Board Cinematograph Films Board of Review Common Investment Fund Investment Board Companies Auditors and Liquidation Disciplinary Board (A.C.T.) Copyright Tribunal Corporate Affairs Commission (A.C.T.) Criminology Research Council Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal Director of Public Prosecutions Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society of the A.C.T. Family Law Council Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal Human Rights Commission Law Reform Commission Law Society of the A.C.T. Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T.) Legal Aid Committees Legal Aid Review Committees National Companies and Securities Commission Office of Parliamentary Counsel Official Trustee in Bankruptcy Parole Board of the A.C.T. Security Appeals Tribunal Solicitor-General Trade Practices Commission Trade Practices Tribunal (3) A wide range of appeal mechanisms exists for this purpose, including- (a) a complaint to the Attorney-General, a member of Parliament or the authority itself; (b) an appeal against an administrative decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, where that Act applies; (c) an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where the legislation under which the authority operates confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal; (d) an appeal to specific tribunals established by the legislation under which an authority operates-e.g. Security Appeals Tribunal, Trade Practices Tribunal, Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal; (e) a complaint to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976; (f) a prerogative writ in the High Court or Federal Court. The appropriate avenue for redress will depend upon the relevant legislation and the nature of the complaint. (4) Unless an authority is statutorily protected, it is liable for the torts of its servants committed in the course of the their duty. Where employees, acting in the course of their duty are incompetent and, as a consequence, loss is suffered by a member of the public, it will commonly be found that the act or omission which was seen as incompetent was also tortious. For example, incompetent driving would probably be tortious. In the absence of a denial of liability the negligent giving of erroneous advice is tortious where the advice is given by a person having a duty of care to one who suffers foreseeable damage as a result of reasonably relying on that advice. Many other forms of incompetence would also be tortious, but each case would need to be considered on its own facts. With the exceptions listed below, the authorities listed in the answer to part (2) of this question are not statutorily protected against general liability in tort. The following authorities are statutorily protected against suits relating to acts done in good faith in the performance of their statutory functions: National Companies and Securities Commission Companies Auditors and Liquidation Disciplinary Board (ACT) Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society of the ACT Sex Discrimination Commissioner (Human Rights Commission) The nature of the functions performed by the latter agencies is such that a degree of protection is appropriate in the interests of effective operation. (5) The Administrative Appeals Tribunal currently has 2 cases before it involving statutory authorities within the Portfolio. The respondents are the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Director of Public Prosecutions and each concerns an application under the Freedom of Information Act. The delay between listing and hearing varies according to the nature of the case and it is not possible to give a specific answer on this aspect. (6) See answer to (4). (Question No. 1392) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) Is information available to the Federal Government on amounts of money offered to the Queensland Government in the form of Commonwealth grants and subsequently diverted into that Government's Consolidated Revenue Account; (2) Which Federal Government Departments were involved, and what projects have been denied to the Queensland Government because the Bjelke-Petersen Government has either failed to take up the Commonwealth offer or has diverted it for general purposes in that State; and (3) What explanations have been forthcoming from the Queensland Government relating to-(a) allegations of failure to take up money, and (b) the diversion of Commonwealth money into the Queensland Government's Consolidated Revenue Account Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government is aware of four instances in which funds were either directed to Queensland as a specific purpose payment and subsequently diverted into Queensland's Consolidated Reveune Account, or were not taken up by the Queensland Government. Of the following instances, only the first relates to the former category while the other three relate to the latter category. (a) Accumulation of Surplus Funds under the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1976 (1) and (2) The Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS) under the above Act was administered by the States and Northern Territory Rural Adjustment Authorities on behalf of the Commonwealth. Under the provisions of the Act, the Commonwealth provided funds to the States through the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry for on-lending to farmers at concessional rates of interest. The States were required to repay to the Commonwealth 85 per cent of these funds over 20 years at an interest rate of 8 per cent. A three year principal repayment holiday also applied. Terms and conditions of loans to farmers were a matter for State Rural Adjustment Authorities. As loans to farmers were generally for shorter periods and at higher rates of interest than the Commonwealth applied when originally making these funds available to the States, surpluses of funds were built up in advance of their due date for repayment to the Commonwealth. It was envisaged that these funds would be available to the States to be recycled for further RAS lending. However, the 1983-84 Annual Report of the Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board revealed that, of surpluses of $40m generated in this manner under RAS and its predecessor, the Rural Reconstruction Scheme (RRS), the Queensland Government had chosen to divert $10m of these funds to its Consolidated Revenue Account. The Queensland Government has indicated that it intends to divert all surplus RAS funds to the Consolidated Revenue. Following a request from me, the Minister for Primary Industry wrote to his State counterparts on 11 March 1986 seeking information on the uses to which surplus RAS/RRS funds had been put. Queensland has not responded to this letter and, accordingly, up-to-date information on the use of these funds is not available. (3) Apparently Queensland considers that the funds provided by the Commonwealth have been used in accordance with the relevant agreements and that the surpluses which have been generated under the Scheme are legitimately State funds until they are due for repayment to the Commonwealth. Although from a legal point of view this may well be the case, the clear intent of the schemes was that the assistance provided by the Commonwealth was for the benefit of rural industries, not for general States' purposes. To the extent that surpluses have not been recycled for RAS purposes, the rural sector has been denied funds for adjustment purposes. Under the new Rural Adjustment Scheme, introduced on 1 July 1985, there is little opportunity for the States to benefit from accumulated funds in the abovementioned manner. (b) Sugar Industry Assistance (1) and (2) In late 1983, following the termination of an International Monetary Fund (IMF) sugar stock financing facility, the Queensland Premier sought from the Commonwealth an alternative stock financing arrangement on concessional terms similar to those which had been offered by the IMF. In response to this request the Commonwealth, through the then Minister for Trade who had responsibility for this matter, on 25 November 1983 put the following offer to Queensland: Queensland be offered a short-term loan until 30 June 1984 of up to $700,000 to meet the difference between the lowest available commercial interest rate and the concessional IMF interest rate; and On the basis of the outcome of further discussions between the Commonwealth and the sugar industry about the financing of additional stocks, Cabinet would consider additional assistance to the sugar industry. The Queensland Government did not accept this offer and it lapsed on 30 June 1984. (3) The Queensland Government, in refusing the offer, sought a commitment from the Commonwealth to provide further assistance from the Budget, over and above the loan of up to $700,000 which had been offered, to cover not only the interest differential on sugar stocks originally funded by the IMF facility, but also any other stocks which had to be accumulated, until such time as the stocks were sold. (c) Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme (1) and (2) The Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme, administered by the Department of Housing and Construction, was introduced by the Commonwealth Government in March 1982. All States except Queensland agreed to join the scheme at that time. The Queensland Government refused to accept from the Federal Government $3.1m in Federal funds offered for Mortgage and Rent Relief for the financial year 1982-83. (3) It is understood that the Queensland Government had concerns regarding the objectives of the Scheme. Negotiations between Queensland and the Commonwealth were undertaken in 1982-83. Queensland decided to join the Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme in September 1983 and has taken up all Federal funds made available to it since that date. (d) The Transfer of Nurse Education from Hospitals to Colleges of Advanced Education (CAEs) (1) and (2) The program, for which the Department of Health has responsibility, involves a Commonwealth subsidy to States and Territories to assist them in meeting the cost of transferring Nurse Education from hospitals to CAEs. The transfer is being phased in by quota over the period 1985 to 1993. The subsidy includes $1500 (estimated December 1983 prices) per annum for each transferred student place within the quota, a contribution towards course development costs and payment of TEAS living allowances to all eligible students. In addition, States and Territories undertaking the transfer are eligible for funds for the retraining of qualified nurses to meet current shortages. The transfer is either well under way or planned for commencement by 1988 in all States and Territories except Queensland. Queensland has been offered a quota of 450 places for 1987. At this time it has not forfeited entitlement to Commonwealth funding in 1986-87 but should the Queensland Government decide not to proceed with the transfer in 1987, it is expected that these places will be reallocated to other States. (3) The Queensland Government is refusing to accept the terms of the Commonwealth's offer of assistance, claiming that the Commonwealth should meet the full cost of the transfer. (Question No. 1427) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: Does the Minister for Territories consider a police presence to be necessary on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, given the population of the Islands and the numerous ships and charter aircraft which regularly visit the Islands; if so, what action is being taken to establish a police presence on the Islands. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Cocos (Keeling) Islands had a population of 616 persons at 30 June 1986. They are a very law abiding community. The Special Magistrate, who is also an employee of the Administration, has not had to hear a case since his appointment on 26 March 1984. In the circumstances, the presence of a member of a regular police force is not considered necessary. An officer of the Administration holds the position of constable. My Department is making arrangements for the appointment of Special Constables in the Territory, should they be required.