Thursday, 4 December 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (i) the welfare of many employees and their families depends upon a healthy, expanding gold mining industry; (ii) the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations; (iii) the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represents a threat to the profitability of these industries and will therefore cause widespread unemployment and depression throughout the whole gold mining industry. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Government to reject any proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining or prospecting thereby ensuring that the spectacular growth of the industry over recent years is continued. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australia is one of the few industrial nations which has unlimited access to unemployment benefits without requiring some return to the community; 2. the present method of paying unemployment benefits as ``money for nothing'' is individually destructive, demoralising and socially unjust; 3. schemes requiring community work to be performed in return for unemployment benefits, such as the Workfare system in the United States, are explicitly endorsed by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 44 on Unemployment; 4. `Work for the dole' schemes are supported by the overwhelming majority of the community, especially young people, and has recently been supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Legislate to introduce a system which provides community work which must be undertaken in return for unemployment benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: There should be no introduction of payment for pensioners pharmaceuticals. All pharmaceuticals for pensioners and the general public should be through Medicare. There should be no substituting of cheaper drugs for those prescribed by the Doctor. There should be full testing of all pharmaceuticals by the Australian Authorities before they are released on the market. And that Australia should develop its own manufacturing industry in Pharmaceuticals and stop relying on all overseas multinational drug companies. by Senator Childs (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protect the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition your to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should: 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes, and 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing Policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned requests that: The Parliament express its concern at the disastrous effect abnormally high interest rates are having on farmers, small business people and families. Your petitioners pray that your house strive to eliminate this unjustified burden that is sending many hard working Australians to the wall. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 20 citizens). To the Hon. President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap terminates on 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties would contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap not be extended beyond October 1986. (2) Public discussion and inquiry into the future use of the facilities at Pine Gap be instituted. (3) A new agreement be negotiated with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (4) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 61 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth their objection to any proposed legislation removing the power of existing Commonwealth law to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography, (e.g. x-rated videos), and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. They furthermore petition that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. by Senator Boswell (from 151 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the proposed Australia Card legislation on the following grounds: 1. We believe that it represents potentially undesirable interference in the lives of honest Australians and is a grave interference in the civil liberties of Australian citizens; (2) That it will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud; (3) That it will create unnecessary expansion of the bureaucracy; and calls on the Senate to reject the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Pain, suffering and death are occurring as a result of the action of sections of the medical profession and private health insurance companies. People are being forced into private health funds and denied treatment until they do so. We call on the Government to take action against these doctors and private health insurance companies who are engaging in this practice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 41 citizens). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders, from 14 citizens: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the 1986 Census deprived housewives of the right to record their occupation and instead forced them to give the negative response: ``No, did not have a job''. That the 1986 Census could have been used, at no extra cost to taxpayers, to give a genuine ``Fair Go'' to all women to record their views on the government's National Agenda for Women. That coinciding with the 1986 Census, the Office of the Status of Women is conducting a costly, selective survey titled: ``a fair go for women''. This survey requires no identification of respondents, making the results of the survey highly suspect since it is known that various groups of individuals have obtained bulk supplies of the brochure, while the majority of women are not aware that their views are being sought by the Government. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will restore to the Census a category for Housewives, and that the ``fair go for women'' survey will be recognised as a costly exercise of dubious value in determining the real views of Australian women, as this should be done through the Census, or a Referendum held in conjunction with the next Federal Election to minimise costs, and to give all women a genuine ``Fair Go''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate authorises the broadcasting and rebroadcasting by Australian radio and television stations of sound recordings of excerpts of its proceedings during 1987, subject to the conditions determined for the purpose by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That a select committee be set up to consider the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986 and that the Committee be known as the Select Committee on Television Equalisation. Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the remainder of the notice of motions which sets out the particulars and powers of the Committee. Leave granted. The remainder of the notice of motion read as follows- (2) That the Committee consist of 8 Senators, as follows: (a) four to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) three to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (c) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (3) That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government. (5) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (6) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (7) That the quorum of the Committee be 4 members. (8) That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (9) That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the Senators appointed to the sub-committee. (10) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the President. (11) That the Committee may appoint counsel to assist it, on terms and conditions approved by the President. (12) That the Committee may authorise the examination of witnesses before it by counsel subject to rules determined by the Committee. (13) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (14) That the Committee report to the Senate by 28 February 1986. (15) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may provide the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event- (a) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the report is authorized by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (16) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish an authority to undertake reinsurance business, and for purposes connected therewith. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move a motion similar to the motion proposed in the House of Representatives by Mr Ruddock relating to the Ukrainian situation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, because of its length, paragraph (a). Leave granted. The paragraph read as follows- That this House- (a) notes that- (i) on 1 August 1975 the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was signed at Helsinki, Finland, by 33 European States, together with Canada and the United States; (ii) the signatories committed themselves under Principle VII to ``respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion''; (iii) the signing of the Final Act raised the expectations of the peoples of the Soviet Union for greater observance by the Soviet Union of human rights, gave rise to the formation of the Moscow, Lithuanian, Georgian, Armenian and Ukrainian citizens' monitoring groups to inform the peoples of the Soviet Union and the world about the Soviet Government's compliance with the Final Act; (iv) 9 November 1986 marked the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the largest such citizens' group, the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords; (v) 3 members of the Ukrainian Group, Oleksiy Tykhy, Yuriy Lytvyn and Vasyl Stus died after years of inhuman treatment in Soviet labour camps while a fourth, Mykhaylo Melnyk, committed suicide as a result of continuous KGB persecution, and (vi) 9 members of the Ukrainian Group are still imprisoned, 6 are in internal exile in remote parts of the Soviet Union, while 14 have been released from prison and are living in the Ukraine and 7 have been forced to emigrate to the West after serving prison terms; The notice of motion continues: (b) acknowledges the concern felt by members of the Australian community over the continued harassment of the Ukrainian Public Group to promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords; (c) seeks assurances from the Government of the Soviet Union that members of the Ukrainian and other public Helsinki Monitoring Groups be released from their incarceration and allowed to emigrate to the countries of their choice; (d) seeks to convey to the Government of the Soviet Union its belief that such humanitarian acts and the demonstration that its citizens have freedom of expression will serve to reduce tensions between East and West in the International Year of Peace and help to erase doubts about Soviet commitments to their international obligations; (e) calls upon the Soviet Union to allow Ukrainian Helsinki Monitors, Yuriy Shukhevych and Oksana Meshko, together with their families, to emigrate to Australia, where they have family members willing to sponsor them, as an immediate demonstration of its goodwill, and (f) requests the President of the Senate to bring this resolution to the attention of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I had intended to give notice of a motion in identical terms to that just given by Senator Harradine. With leave of the Senate and with Senator Harradine's concurrence, I should like to join with this motion. The PRESIDENT —That is in order. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the admissibility of confessions made by Aborigines and Islanders and to related matters. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, five sitting days after today, I shall move: That Public Service Board Determination No. 81 of 1986, made on 23 October 1986 under Section 82d of the Public Service Act 1922, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —This determination concerns payments of certain moneys made retrospective to 18 months ago. Traditionally, the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances puts any retrospective legislation under close scrutiny even when, as appears in this case, it is beneficial. We are corresponding with the Public Service Board requesting an explanation for this retrospectivity, but today is the last day to give a protective notice of motion. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated. I seek leave for the list to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Soil Conservation Advisory Committee-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 19 of the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Act 1985. 2. Canberra Development Board-Annual Report 1985-86. 3. Australian Police Ministers' Council-Annual Report on the Activities of National Common Police Services 1984-85. 4. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-Commonwealth Employment Service-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922 and Section 22 of the Commonwealth Employment Service Act 1978. 5. Australian Trade Union Training Authority-Annual Report 1985-86-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to section 58 of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. 6. Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 32 of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949. 7. Australian Airlines-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 40 (3) of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945. 8. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982. 9. Australia-China Council-Annual Report 1985-86. 10. Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. 11. Australian Customs Service-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 17 (2) of the Customs Administration Act 1985. Motion (by Senator Powell) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980. Bill presented by Senator Powell, and read a first time. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.07) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is a significant step in bringing a measure of sanity back to petrol pricing in Australia. I do not believe that Australia's irrational petrol pricing structure will simply be resolved by this legislation. More action, including legislative action will be needed. However, I am proposing a simple solution to a problem that currently causes massive variations in petrol prices, within cities, between States, and between rural and metropolitan Australia. The problem is that the petrol companies use their retail sites to start price wars. These price wars rarely benefit rural petrol consumers, who do after all travel greater distances and use more petrol. During the price wars it is not uncommon for petrol to be retailed below the maximum wholesale price set by the Prices Surveillance Authority. It seems strange that petrol companies which from time to time make representations to the Prices Surveillance Authority can afford to retail petrol below the wholesale price the PSA sets, having due regard to the submissions, views and profitability of the petrol companies themselves. The major determinant of petrol prices in Australia is the Federal Government. This follows the decision by the Fraser Government to introduce import parity pricing. This meant that despite the fact that Australia is about 90 per cent self-sufficient in petrol production, and about 80 per cent of this Australian petrol comes from Bass Strait, which has been producing since the late 1960s, the Fraser government decided to equate the price of Australian crude oil with the price of Arab oil. As a result the Federal government was able to get billions of dollars of extra revenue because about half the price of a litre of petrol goes to the Commonwealth government in the form of excises and royalties. In Opposition the Labor spokesperson for minerals and energy, Mr Keating, attacked import parity pricing as a `tax by stealth-with a branch of the Tax Office at every petrol pump'. As Treasurer he discovered that it is too hard to give up billions of dollars in revenue. When the price of petrol fell this year Mr Keating responded by passing on `some' price reductions to the consumer but he increased the excise so that Commonwealth revenues were not diminished by the fall in world petrol prices. As a result: Increasing petrol prices feed into the CPI and lift our inflation rate; Australia does not get a significant competitive advantage in production costs despite the fact that we are relatively self-sufficient in petroleum production; and rural dwellers, who have greater distances to travel, are hit the hardest by high petrol prices. This Bill does not attack the problem of import parity pricing. It is true however that a high proportion of the price of petrol goes to the government and that this artificially inflates Australia's petrol prices. My aim with this Bill is to do something about a situation where price variations above the government `take' are so massive that in mid-October the most common price for petrol in Australia was 55c but actual prices for that month ranged from 44c to 66c. I believe that some of that variation is due to the fact that petrol companies are allowed to own and operate petroleum retail outlets and that they use these outlets to maintain market share at any cost. In their attempts to maintain market share, price wars erupt in areas selected by the petrol companies. Consumers in those areas benefit and the petrol companies argue that this is healthy competition in the market-place. I am not against competition or price discounting, but I do not believe that the petrol companies should choose the time and place for discounting. This decision ought to flow from market forces. The petrol companies are part of a powerful oligopoly. The myriad of small business, petrol retailers are the people who ought to be left to inject the competition into the market-place. This legislation calls for divorcement, which means that petrol companies will not be allowed to own and operate retail sites. The call for divorcement is based on my desire to create true price competition in the petroleum industry with the oil companies competing at the wholesale end of the market and the retailers being responsible for competition in their own retail section. The petrol retailers should not have to worry about how far below the wholesale price the service station down the road, owned by one of the `big oil brothers', is willing to retail petrol to its customers. The Liberal and National parties in government appeared to favour divorcement when a firm undertaking, a promise, was given on 30 October 1978 when the so-called Fife package was announced-that oil companies would be prohibited from retailing petroleum through direct sales sites. But towards the end of 1980 the Fraser government introduced its petroleum retail marketing legislation which reneged on this undertaking. Instead each integrated oil group was allocated a quota of sites. The initial number of sites allowed in 1980 was further reduced in 1983. Currently while petrol companies own only 5 per cent to 7 per cent of the total number of retailing sites in Australia, these account for 11 per cent to 18 per cent of the volume of petrol sold in Australia. In November the Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce held a conference in Perth where the major issue was petrol pricing. The Chamber believes that proper franchising arrangements with the petrol companies are needed to reduce the current marketing chaos. The inequity of this marketing chaos became obvious to me when I visited a number of rural centres in Victoria in November. In that week when I left Melbourne I could fill up my tank for less than 50c a litre, although I could have paid up to 57.9c in the same city. The price of petrol in Ballarat, Mildura, Horsham, Echuca, Swan Hill, and Wangaratta varied between the mid-fifties and the low-sixties. Commonwealth government and State government taxes, the cost of freighting petrol to rural areas, and the Commonwealth freight subsidy do not explain the wide variations that I witnessed in the same State in the same week. They certainly cannot explain why some petrol retailers can afford to retail petrol below the official wholesale price. It is time to reduce the market power of petrol companies who are ultimately interested in maximising their profits, rather than selling petrol at the lowest possible price. When this Bill is passed by this Parliament, we will in effect take away a considerable power that the petrol companies have to distort petrol prices for their own long term advantage. This legislation will also give the small business petrol retailing entrepreneur the ability to run his own show without direct competition from those who supply him with the product he sells. Petrol companies, unlike small business people, can afford to make significant short term losses to further their long term strategic interests. Most importantly this legislation will go some way to stabilising petrol prices and giving all Australian consumers, whether they live in the country or the city, access to petrol at the best prices that can be provided by retailers subject to healthy competition from each other. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I table a revised explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- A number of important reforms to the Act are put before the Parliament in this Bill. Undoubtedly the most substantial and difficult issue that is addressed in the Bill relates to the provision of secure title to land for Aboriginals living in pastoral areas in the Northern Territory. Such people are among the most deprived of Australians, and many live in conditions that can only be described as a disgrace to this country. As a matter of national pride, and as a simple matter of respect for human dignity, we must give the highest priority to resolving the problems of these people. We have made it clear, in our discussions with the Northern Territory Government and with representatives of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, that our prime target is to provide, for Aboriginals living in the pastoral zone, secure land bases with good living conditions. We want fast, lasting results. We have also stressed that we would much prefer that solutions are found by negotiation between the parties, rather than be imposed from outside. We have been assured by the Northern Territory Government and the Cattlemen's Association that they share these objectives. Our negotiations with the Northern Territory Government and the pastoralists, and with the Land Councils as the representatives of Aboriginal interests, have been proceeding for some time. These have reached a point where I can now put before the Parliament the package of proposals-not all involving legislative action-that we are implementing. Under the present Act it is possible for Aboriginals to claim title to stock routes and reserves, and a number of the claims that have yet to be heard and reported on by Aboriginal Land Commissioners are in respect of such stock routes and reserves. Some practical problems have emerged. On the one hand, a claim to such lands may offer, to some Aboriginal groups living in the pastoral areas of the Northern Territory, the best or in some cases the only prospect of obtaining title to some of their traditional lands. On the other hand, to proceed to grant title to some of these areas-assuming that a Land Commissioner had so recommended-would result in the splitting of existing pastoral leases into 2 or more segments, with consequent disruption and costs for the pastoralist concerned. Against this background, it has been the Government's position that it would be preferable, as a general rule, that claims to stock routes and reserves not proceed and that a program be developed, with the co-operation of the Northern Territory Government and pastoralists, whereby excisions from pastoral leases to provide living areas for Aboriginal groups would be negotiated. Useful progress has been made in these negotiations. These negotiations are now well advanced in 40 cases, and actual title has been granted in 13 cases. There are some 61 applications at varying stages in the pipeline. There are, however, some Aboriginal groups living in pastoral areas for whom the excisions program offers limited prospects and who may therefore, in the view of the Land Councils, be seriously disadvantaged if they were forced to forgo the prospect of obtaining living areas on stock reserves. We have also been discussing these special cases with the Northern Territory Government. We have now informed the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Land Councils and the Cattlemen's Association that the Commonwealth will proceed, in this Bill, with an amendment which will prevent a Land Commissioner from hearing claims to stock routes and reserves, unless a hearing has already commenced or unless the stock route or reserve is wholly encompassed in the overall area of land under claim. This is a significant concession. In order to provide protection, however, against a possible situation where negotiations fail to produce a satisfactory outcome, the Bill also provides a power to prescribe a stock reserve or reserves in respect of which land claims would be allowed to proceed. Let me make our intentions totally clear on this issue. We want negotiated, not imposed, solutions. If all parties concerned-the Land Councils and the Aboriginal people, the Northern Territory Government, and the pastoralists-approach the negotiations in a truly co-operative spirit, outstanding issues should be able to be resolved. But the Commonwealth must also ensure that, if the negotiations do break down for any reason, it retains sufficient power to take other action to achieve our objectives. We are not in the business of making concessions, then later finding that results have not been forthcoming and there is nothing we can do about it. Above all else, we have an obligation to safeguard the interests of those Aboriginal people who are presently deprived of any reasonable basis on which to plan and build their lives in their own country. The Government has also under consideration requesting a Land Commissioner to inquire, in accordance with paragraph 50 (1) (b) of the Act, into the likely extent of traditional land claims to alienated Crown land. I turn now to the other main provisions of the Bill. One of the most innovative parts of the Act is the scheme for people to claim certain categories of land on the basis that they are the traditional Aboriginal owners of that land. Since 1977 26 traditional land claims have been heard and reported on by Aboriginal Land Commissioners, and inalienable freehold title to many of these areas has been granted to Aboriginal Land Trusts. The Act presently leaves open a number of questions about what can be done with land which has been claimed, but in respect of which a claim has not been determined. Some matters have been clarified by the High Court, but others remain. As a result of these amendments it will not be possible to alienate land under claim, or to reserve, dedicate or set aside such land. The amendment will effectively freeze the status of land at the date on which a claim was or is lodged with a Commissioner. So, for example, were the Northern Territory to purport to grant an estate or interest in land which is the subject of a traditional land claim, such a purported alienation would be deemed to be of no effect. The Act will be amended to clarify the position in respect of repeat land claims. Where a claim has not resulted in a recommendation for grant from a Commissioner it will be possible, in certain circumstances, for a Commissioner to hear a later claim to the same land. These criteria to be applied by a Commissioner are aimed at ensuring that claimants are not disadvantaged, while ensuring that the status of land which has been unsuccessfully claimed is not frozen indefinitely by claims which have little or no chance of success. An anomaly will be rectified whereby pastoral leases held by Aboriginals can be claimed by Aboriginal people other than the landholders, without their consent. In future, such consent will be required before a hearing can proceed. As already noted, as a general rule, claims to stock routes and stock reserves will cease to be heard. Claims which are already part heard by a Commission will be allowed to be completed. Claims to parts of stock routes and reserves which are bounded on both of the longer sides by land which is available for claim will also continue, ensuring that land claim land will not be divided into segments by stock routes. The Act will also be amended to provide that no land claims lodged more than 10 years after the commencement of these amendments will be dealt with by a Commissioner. These amendments will help give much needed certainty to the land claim process. Other aspects of the land claim process will be improved and clarified. Lawyers appearing before an Aboriginal Land Commissioner will be given the sort of protection already accorded to a Commissioner and a witness. A Commissioner will be empowered to give directions prohibiting or limiting the publication of, or access to, information or material produced to the Commissioner under this Act. A Commissioner will also be able to require specific persons, or persons within a specified class of persons, not to be in the vicinity of the place where information is to be given or material produced. Penalties will be provided where a person knowingly contravenes or fails to comply with such a direction. A Commissioner will be able to refer a question of law arising in connection with a traditional land claim to the Federal Court of Australia, where it will be dealt with by a Full Court. Where a Commissioner has been unable to complete the performance of his functions before his term of office has expired, the Commissioner will be deemed to continue to hold office for the purpose of completing the performance of the functions. So, for example, where a Commissioner has heard evidence and addresses in respect of a traditional land claim, but has not reported his findings and made any recommendations before his term expires, he could write such a report after that date. Finally, in order to provide a wider base from which to select Land Commissioners, it is proposed that a Commissioner may be chosen from the bench of the Federal Court. At present the only source is the Northern Territory Supreme Court. The views of the Northern Territory Government will of course be sought before any appointment is made. Other Amendments There will be a scheme for the amalgamation of Land Trust areas if the traditional Aboriginal owners wish to have such amalgamations. Provision is made for compensation to be granted to persons who hold grazing licences over unalienated Crown land which is granted to a Land Trust. The scheme for the grant of estates or interests in Aboriginal land will be revised, for example, to remove the need for Ministerial consent to certain types of short and medium term grants. The powers and responsibilities of Land Councils will be amended in a number of respects, consonant with the requirements of effective administration practice. The Consultative Processes The various proposals put forward in this Bill are the result of discussion and consultation over the past three years concerning what changes should be made to the Act. The Act was an innovative piece of legislation. It established a set of rights in respect of traditional land which the common law had failed to recognise, and gave the traditional Aboriginal owners of that land real control over what happened on it. It was inevitable that legislation of this kind would create some practical problems. In 1974 Mr Justice Woodward, on whose recommendations much of the Act was based, anticipated that the scheme would need to be reviewed. He noted that he had ``experienced great doubt on a number of issues-particularly those relating to mineral rights and additional claims in pastoral lease areas''. He suggested that there be deliberate and planned examinations of the system to ensure that anomalies were brought to light and the system did not become rigid and unresponsive to changing needs. One of Clyde Holding's first actions as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was to ask Mr Justice Toohey to make a general review and report on the provisions and operation of the Act. The Minister asked Mr Justice Toohey to recommend amendments to the Act having regard to the general principles which Government sees as fundamental in relation to Aboriginal land rights. Mr Justice Toohey, the first Aboriginal Land Commissioner and a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, received oral and written submissions from a number of interested persons and bodies. In December 1983 he reported to the Minister, recommending a wide range of amendments and supporting other ways in which land justice could be achieved for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. The report, entitled `Seven Years On', was printed in book form, tabled in the Parliament, and distributed widely. Then in 1984 Dr Jon Altman conducted a review of the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account. Release of these reports was followed by a most extensive process of consultation and debate. That led, earlier this year, to the development by the Government of a set of proposals for amending the Act; these proposals, in turn, have been discussed at considerable length with the Aboriginal Land Councils, the Northern Territory Government, and mining and pastoral interests. This is as it should be; difficult questions of policy are involved, in which the reconciliation of conflicting interests must be given the greatest attention if the best possible results are to be achieved. The Government is satisfied that it has done everything that it reasonably could to provide scope for reconciliation and accommodation. Indeed, I would doubt whether there are any instances of legislation that have been so exhaustively canvassed and discussed before introduction. Although good progress has been made on a number of fronts, there remain some contentious aspects on which there are some sharp divergences of views. We have decided to allow more time for these problems to be analysed and discussed, and will look at them again early in the New Year. We did not believe, however, that we can afford to delay other much needed improvements until these outstanding issues can be resolved. The main elements being deferred are those dealing with exploration and mining on Aboriginal land; the granting of an estate or interest in Aboriginal land to the Northern Territory Government for essential services; protection of sacred sites; methods for calculating payments of royalty equivalents to the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account; and the removal from claim of pastoral properties owned by Aboriginals, and of public purpose land. In relation to the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account, we have also decided to defer consideration of a number of possible legislative changes in order that the changes that have been introduced by administrative means, following on Dr Altman's recommendations, have time to take effect and can be evaluated. Financial Impact There will be little additional cost to the Commonwealth arising directly from these amendments. Provisions will be made to compensate persons who have lost the use of a grazing licence or other licence upon land becoming Aboriginal land. I do not expect that such situations will occur often or that substantial payments will be involved. Conclusion In 1976 the Aboriginal Land Rights Act was seen to be a bold innovation at law. In social terms it was, and remains, an attempt at what Mr Justice Woodward described as ``the doing of simple justice to a people who have been deprived of their land without their consent and without compensation'' and ``the promotion of social harmony and stability within the wider community by removing as far as possible, the legitimate causes of complaint of an important minority group within that community.'' The Act has done much to achieve those and other aims. Yet in its operation the need for some amendment has been apparent. As Mr Justice Toohey wrote in his review of the Act: The number of amendments recommended to the Land Rights Act may be thought to suggest substantial defects in the legislation. It would be a mistake to draw that conclusion. Given the legislative novelty of the subject matter of the Act and the need to marry complex notions of traditional Aboriginal law and culture with European institutions and administrative procedures, the Act has worked surprisingly well. But it is inevitable that after 7 years cracks in the edifice have started to show. The amendments before the Senate will, I believe, do much to strengthen the Act for the present and well into the future. I commend the Bill to the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the order of the Senate of 14 November 1986, the resumption of the debate shall be an order of the day for the first day of sitting in 1987. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That Government Business, Notices of Motion Nos 1 to 3, standing in the name of Senator Button and relating to the registration and declaration of senators' interests, and Order of the day No. 5, Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 1986, be postponed till the next day of sitting. Consideration resumed from 3 December. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 November, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.13) —by leave-I move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Page 2, sub-clause 2 (10), after ``Section 14'', insert ``(except paragraphs (a) (ab), (ac) and (ad))''. (2) Page 2, after sub-clause 2 (10), insert the following sub-clauses: ``(10a) Subject to sub-section (10b), paragraphs 14 (a), (ab), (ac) and (ad) shall come into operation on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. ``(10b) In respect of the period between the hour of 8 o'clock in the evening by standard time in the Australian Capital Territory on 19 August 1986 and that hour on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, paragraph 14 (a) shall have effect as if the figure ``$37.26'' were substituted for the figure ``$50''. (3) Page 6, paragraph 14 (a), leave out ``$37.26'', insert: ``$50''. (4) Page 6, after paragraph 14 (a), insert the following paragraphs: ``(ab) by omitting from item 7 `$37.26' and substituting `$50'; (ac) by omitting from item 8 `$37.26' and substituting `$50'; (ad) by omitting from item 9 `$1.10' and substituting `$50';''. These requests relate to increasing the rate of excise on tobacco products. We want the House of Representatives to agree to an increase in the excise tariff on tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and snuff, which are not used in scientific or medical research, to $50 per kilogram. In the case of tobacco, cigars and cigarettes this would be an increase of just over one-third-in fact, nearly 34.2 per cent-on the proposal before us. I shall come to the need for that as a preventive health measure in a moment. In the case of snuff, however, the excise will be put in line with that for the other types of products. For some reason, which seems very strange to me-it may be because very little snuff is imported-the excise rate is at the ludicrously low level of $1.10 a kilogram. It is well established that snuff taking, whether nasal or oral, is dangerous because carcinogens are absorbed into the bloodstream through the nose. There is certainly no ground for favoured treatment for snuff. In fact, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has requested that the importation of snuff and other smokeless products, such as chewing tobacco, be prohibited. The National Health and Medical Research Council recommended on 6 November that all State and Territory health authorities restrict the availability and advertising of smokeless tobacco products. We expect the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to act on this dangerous substance in the near future and to prohibit its importation. However, in case there is some hold-up, the uniform excise level would discourage the consumption of this product in the meantime. This, of course, is what the proposed request is all about. In fact, if we turn to the health section of the Australian Labor Party's platform, which was endorsed in Hobart earlier this year, we find the following statement: Labor will, in co-operation with State, Territory and local governments, restrict the promotion, whether by direct or indirect means, of tobacco products and sponsorships. One means of doing this, and a means which is particularly effective with the young, is to use the excise tool as a way of pricing this type of pernicious product out of their reach. This also fits in with the use of `tobacco tax policy to fund anti-smoking programs' and action to `initiate and promote campaigns which target the use of illegal drugs and abuse of legal drugs and other toxic substances'. These are quotations from the Labor Party platform. Senator Boswell —When did they ever worry about their own platform? Senator VIGOR —This is a problem. Senator Boswell asks: When did they ever worry about their own platform? I am beginning to wonder, having regard to the sale of uranium to France and all the other types of proposals that occur. But I am simply bringing it to the notice of Government senators that they have a responsibility to the people who set up that policy program to support these measures which, indeed, are in line with what their Party is requesting. The National Health and Medical Research Council provided an excellent description of the toxicity of burning cigarettes in its June 1986 report entitled, `Effects of Passive Smoking on Health'. Paragraph 7.1 of that report states: Tobacco smoke contains approximately 60 known or suspected carcinogenic chemicals, of which at least 50 occur in the phase that contains particulate matter. There is no safe level of exposure to this type of pernicious product. There is no safe level for smokers and no safe level for those caught in sidestream smoke. This Government has treated tobacco manufacturers with remarkable leniency during its period of office. The only bright spot has been the way in which it has lifted the excise on manufactured tobacco from $15.10 a kilogram when it came into office to its proposed $37.26 a kilogram as from Budget night. Cigarette excise has been increased by a consumer price index factor every six months since the 1983-84 Budget. This certainly does not make up for the neglect of the Fraser period, when just two adjustments were made in more than seven years. The United Kingdom shows us up in this regard. There were five years of inactivity on the excise front in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In March 1974 the excise was increased by 30 per cent and the following year it went up by 36 per cent. Chancellors of the exchequer in both Conservative and Labour governments have continued to include a preventive health component in increases, which have always been on top of consumer price index movements. I believe we should be moving in the same direction. For instance, in this year's Budget, the effect of the Chancellor's work was to increase excise on a packet of 20 cigarettes by 11p. Of this, 5p or nearly half, was to discourage smoking for reasons of disease prevention and health promotion. What has been the effect of this active excise policy? Government revenue has been maintained in real terms, although I believe that to be irrelevant in such an important matter of life and death. Cigarette interests have retained their profitability, so the howls of protest that we are hearing now from the Australian industry are accompanied by a fair number of crocodile tears. Significantly though, cigarette consumption in the United Kingdom has dropped from 137 billion in 1973 to 99 billion in 1984. That is a reduction of nearly 30 per cent, and a key figure in assessing why we should support these amendments. When we look at the comparable figures for Australia, we find, certainly to my chagrin, that 21 billion cigarettes were produced in 1965-66, 30 billion in 1973-74, a peak of 35 billion in 1981-82 , and 32 billion in 1984-85. I believe we could get these numbers down significantly and hence reduce the incidence of disease within the community. I believe we have to take a more robust approach to the levels of excise on tobacco and cigarettes. A further point needs to be made about excise collections. This involves the use by the tobacco industry of techniques to expand tobacco leaves. I think honourable senators should be aware of how that is done, after the initial exposure of the tobacco leaf to humidifiers. I quote from an article in the publication World Tobacco of September 1986: The system for expansion . . . is the DIET-Dry Ice Expanded Tobacco-process, which uses carbon dioxide as the expansion agent . . . The DIET process impregnates the tobacco with CO2 under 30 atmospheres of pressure, then dries it off completely when the depressurised, frozen carbon dioxide passes from the solid to gaseous phase instantaneously in the system's `sublimator', doubling the volume of the tobacco There are also variations upon this basic process. This lighter tobacco which results from the process can then be blended with other materials. For instance, the process allows 10 per cent of expanded tobacco to decrease by 6 to 7 per cent the weight of a cigarette. This in turn means lower excise payments if we use a per kilogram basis. The cigarette companies rake off extra profits because they do not pass on this gain to their victims, and the Government is ripped off. In the debate on the Appropriation Bills I raised this rort with Senator Button, and I wonder whether the matter has been investigated and whether there is any consideration of levying excise on a per cigarette basis in these cases so that we discourage this particular method of tax evasion. The suggestion is not particularly novel. In fact, the matter was raised with the then Treasurer, Mr Crean, by the then Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, back in April 1973. There was to be a report before the August Budget. It is not clear exactly what happened after that. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard, to save time, an article of 30 April 1973 from the Brisbane Courier-Mail which deals with this matter. Leave granted. The article read as follows- Tax on tar to curb smoking CANBERRA-Cigarettes with a high tar and nicotine content could cost more under a report being prepared by the Federal Treasurer (Mr. Crean). The Health Minister (Dr Everingham) said yesterday he had asked Mr. Crean to look at a differential excise system for cigarettes. Under the system cigarettes with higher nicotine and tar contents would be taxed more heavily. Dr Everingham said the report should be available before the August Budget. Dr Everingham said the system, if introduced, could have a good effect on limiting cigarette smoking, but he said it would not stop the Government's bringing in tar and nicotine warnings on cigarette packets. Dr Everingham said the Government also would consider publishing a full list of tar and nicotine contents of leading cigarette brands. However he said if the differential excise system were introduced this could have a more significant effect in the Government's anti-smoking campaign. Dr Everingham will discuss the question of publishing the tar and nicotine content with State Health Ministers next year. An object of this would be to give addicts the opportunity to reduce the hazard. The tar and nicotine contents already are published by the Anti-smoking Council of Australia. But when the British Government published the first of its tar and nicotine content tables last month reports said it led to a rush on the cigarette with the lowest tar content. Dr Everingham, the Media Minister (Senator McClelland) and departmental Ministers will meet tomorrow to consider the direction of the anti-smoking campaign. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Committee. At the moment cigarette companies are saying that the expanded tobacco lowers tar and nicotine content. That is true, but the method is the only one which leaves the smoker and the Commonwealth out of pocket, while the tobacco companies can laugh all the way to the bank. If the industry is serious about reducing tar and nicotine levels, and not just in getting extra profits, it will respond positively to an excise system centred on a per cigarette calculation based on tar and nicotine levels. That, I believe, would be useful. This would, indeed, reduce the damage done by smoking. Investment should be redirected from the essentially cheating technology to the development of other types of leaf and to the use of better filtering techniques in order to make the product safer, if people really do have to indulge in this drug taking. I hope that the Government will stop applying kid glove treatment to the tobacco industry and that the industry will, in fact, enter into the `restraint with equity' that we have currently ended up with. Because the Democrats find it abhorrent to have any type of retrospective legislation which has not been properly announced, the requests are in two parts. One part deals with the period from the Budget up to the time of proclamation of this Bill, and adopts the rate which the Government is proposing for these particular products, of $37.26 per kilogram. The second part is to apply from the time of proclamation of this Bill. The figure that would be substituted would be $50 per kilogram. All of these requests have been moved together. They bring into line, at $50 per kilogram, the excise for snuff, for cigarettes and for manufacturing tobacco. I commend the requests to the Committee. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.25) —I cannot accept the requests moved by Senator Vigor. I share his views on the activities of the tobacco companies and the ill effects of tobacco products but I do not believe that it is sensible to amend Budget legislation in this ad hoc way. Senator Macklin —You believe it too, do you? Senator GRIMES —It is too early in the morning to have to put up with Senator Macklin's nonsense. I shall pass Senator Vigor's views on to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister involved but I do not think it is sensible to accept requests such as this which come off the top of Senator Vigor's head. As to expanded tobacco leaf, I understand that Senator Button is investigating that matter as Senator Vigor requested him to do and Senator Vigor will get a reply as soon as possible. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.26) —The stance of the Opposition is that because the economic situation is very difficult and the Government's expenditure and the deficit are too high it will not agree to changes to Bills that increase expenditure or reduce the Government's revenue raising and thereby increase the deficit. We now face a different sort of situation. Senator Vigor is asking that we should increase taxes instead. That is not a proposition which the Opposition finds attractive in 1986. It is the consistent view of the Opposition that taxes in this country are too high-the highest proportion of gross domestic product ever is being taken in taxes-and it would be inconsistent with our general stance on the need for tax reduction for us to support an ad hoc increase in excise being put forward in this way. I do not wish to take the time of the Committee to discuss the issues or the way in which excise should be used with respect to such things as tobacco and alcohol to discourage consumption for reasons of health. Those matters have been discussed at some length in a parliamentary report which I think would be well-known to Senator Vigor. I think it is called `Drug problems in Australia, an intoxicated society?'. Recommendations were put forward about the grading of excises which were meant to modify people's behaviour on the consumption of substances which could be deleterious to their health. I do not believe that we can agree to their sort of ad hoc requests which have been put forward by the Australian Democrats and therefore the Opposition will not support them. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.28) —I concur with what has just been said. A number of interesting facts have been brought forward by Senator Vigor which I think need to be further considered and I believe that the undertaking given by the Minister to have this question referred to the Minister in charge should be supported. As Senator Chaney said, this is a major question and it has of course been under consideration for quite a considerable time. I think most of us agree that the problems-- Senator Elstob —Not me. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Elstob will go for a smoko directly, no doubt. Senator Elstob —Senator Harradine is no healthier than I am. Senator HARRADINE —That is true. Most of us I think are concerned about the activities of the tobacco companies and the pushing of smoking, particularly as it is directed to the young. One of the problems which I do not think have been properly or fully considered is the effect that a substantial increase in excise would have on those who find it difficult, almost impossible, to give up the habit. That includes a large number of elderly people who have very small means. I am wondering whether that, too, can be taken into account and whether some financial incentive should be considered for the purpose of assisting persons in giving up smoking. Maybe that would have the opposite effect. People might go on smoking to get the financial incentive; I do not know. These are the sorts of things that need the deep consideration that cannot be given to them at this stage of the session. Requests negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without requests; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 November, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.31) —During the second reading debate on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 I raised the matter of lawn-mower imports from New Zealand, and I acknowledge that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), in his response, touched on the matters that I raised. I may not have heard everything that he said and I have not had a chance to check Hansard, therefore, I would like to clarify the point that I raised in the second reading debate. From representations that I have received it appears that the Department's legal position has been correctly outlined by the Minister-namely, that a lawn-mower chassis and internal combustion engine of New Zealand origin enters Australia with a 5 per cent duty rate. If a lawn-mower chassis of New Zealand origin is shipped with an internal combustion engine of United States of America origin, the chassis comes in duty free but the engine carries a duty of 25 per cent. I understand that, provided that applies, there is no problem. The difficulty that has been raised with me and on which I seek clarification-I accept that the Minister may need to give me advice at a later time-is that many hundreds of mowers have been entering Australia from New Zealand and it is suggested that they are mowers to which United States manufactured engines have simply been attached. Indeed, it may well be that the engines are not actually attached until the mowers arrive in Australia. They simply come packaged and may even be assembled in Australia with the American engine being attached to the New Zealand chassis. The fundamental point on which I seek clarification is whether the Minister is in a position to give an assurance that the duty which is supposedly payable on an engine of United States origin is being imposed and that lawn-mowers that are entering Australia duty free or with a 5 per cent tariff are not lawn-mowers that simply have a United States manufactured engine attached. I am not quite sure whether the Minister can actually give me that assurance. If there is any doubt at all, I ask the Minister to give me an undertaking that he will seek from the Australian Customs Service a careful examination of this matter and report back to me on the means which are used by Customs to ensure that United States engines are not able to enter Australia duty free in this way. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.35) —I will certainly get a full and careful report for Senator Chaney. But I can assist him a little further, I think. If a lawn-mower engine and a lawn-mower chassis are imported together but not assembled, by application of the interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act they are, in fact, treated as a complete lawn-mower. If the lawn-mower satisfies the rules of origin for New Zealand goods; that is if it has 50 per cent New Zealand content, even though the mower is not of New Zealand origin, it will be accorded duty free entry. I am not sure how one calculates 50 per cent in those circumstances. I will have to check that. If, however, an engine is imported into New Zealand and then exported to Australia without it being associated with the lawn-mower chassis, what is being imported is not a lawn-mower but simply an engine not of New Zealand origin and it would then be dutiable at the rate applicable to engines. If it is claimed that engines on their own are being imported duty free, this will be investigated. That matter was raised by Senator Chaney last night. Obviously the honourable senator needs a more detailed answer. I will ensure that he gets it. We cannot have this getting around the Customs legislation which it seems may be happening. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.37) —I will not delay the Senate unduly. I thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for his answer. I ask the Minister whether he can assist me by way of an explanation on the 50 per cent content point. I ask the Minister to give me an explanation also of how the 50 per cent content rule works, how it is assessed on a lawn-mower, how the engine is treated and so on. It would be of help. I do not request that information now. I think that sort of detail is probably a waste of the Senate's time. I think the Australian manufacturer is entitled to be concerned and to be assured that the protection which has been given by this Parliament is in fact achieved whatever view one has on the correctness or otherwise of the particular tariff item. I would, therefore, appreciate advice on that second point. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without requests; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.39) —The Opposition does not oppose the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), but it will be seeking to amend the second reading motion by adding the following words: At the end of the motion, add: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government has failed to apply adequately the provisions of the Superannuation Act relating to the payment of invalidity pensions, thus causing a significant loss of revenue to the Commonwealth''. This legislation is aimed at containing the rate of invalidity retirements and associated costs under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. The simple fact is that it goes nowhere near reaching anything like a reasonable level of containment. In fact, it is a largely phoney gesture which is aimed at seeking political benefit but does very little to stop the incredible rip-offs in the area of Commonwealth Public Service invalidity that have been revealed by the Waste Watch Committee that I chair. Let us deal, first of all, with what the Government says it is doing. It says it is containing the rate of invalidity retirement and associated costs. It says: As part of that initiative, this Bill contains provisions which will require invalidity pensioners under the scheme to report any employment. Invalidity pensions will be adjusted where annual earnings exceed a specified limit. It then goes on to reveal: Of the 74,000 Commonwealth scheme pensioners, 28,000, or almost 38 per cent- that is, more than one in three. It goes on: receive invalidity pensions . . . Invalidity pensions offer higher benefits than those otherwise obtainable on early age retirement. It is interesting that, if 28,000 receive invalidity pensions-the average pension, I believe, is around $15,000-about $420m a year is being paid in invalidity pensions under the Commonwealth Public Service scheme. The second reading speech of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) says: A survey of Commonwealth scheme invalidity pensioners conducted earlier this year by the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office and the Australian Bureau of Statistics has indicated that 12.4 per cent- that is, one in every eight- of invalidity pensioners under 65 years of age were employed sometime during 1985. One in every eight people who had been invalided out of the Commonwealth Public Service had nonetheless been able to get jobs somewhere. The average earnings of those employed was $4,540 and the average pension paid to them was $15,200. In some cases earnings from employment plus pension exceeded the salary that the pensioners would have received had they continued in their previous Commonwealth employment; so in some cases-I think it was only 1.3 per cent-people were better off. The Minister continued: Invalidity pensions payable under the Commonwealth Scheme are based on the premise that the recipient is unfit to perform duties. The Government therefore considers it imperative that the invalidity provisions of the scheme should not provide a taxpayer financed supplement to those who engage in employment. That is exactly what the Opposition has been saying for some time. It has been the burden of the Opposition's very strong attacks on the method of administration of the existing scheme and the reason that we have been providing so much detail of how many people are being invalided out of the Commonwealth Public Service compared with those who retire due to having reached retirement age. Under this legislation, the Government will require those people who have been invalided out but who have not attained 65 years of age to provide information to the Commissioner for Superannuation regarding any employment in which they are, or intend to be, engaged during the year. Invalidity pensions payable to such persons will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis where the aggregate amount of the pension and income from personal exertion exceeds a specified limit. Provision is also made in this legislation for invalidity pensions payable to persons who have not attained the age of 65 to be cancelled where the pension has been suspended for 12 months because the person failed to provide information on employment or failed to comply with a request to attend a medical examination which would establish whether he or she had been restored to health. When I heard the second reading speech I was initially prepared to be a little self-congratulatory, saying: `Is it not good that the Government has done something to correct what the Waste Watch Committee had pointed out was a monumental rip-off?'. It is a monumental rip-off that is not new; it has been going on for some years. It particularly seems to go on when there is some restraint on Public Service levels and when many people who are surplus to requirement, perhaps, and who are not doing as good a job as the management in the bureaucracy would like, are forced out. There is no doubt that the invalidity retirement, which is much more rewarding than being retired in any other way at an early age, has been a convenient method of getting rid of unwanted public servants. The only problem is that it has been at massive expense to the taxpayer. There is a far greater benefit to the public servants involved. Naturally, it seems that in past years-there is no doubt that the figures were high under the previous Government as well-it has been more convenient for some sort of conspiracy to exist in the bureaucracy, and for some members of the medical profession to provide certificates, based on ailments that are very difficult to diagnose, saying that someone is no longer fit for work. Neurosis has been the prime avenue for getting people out of the Public Service. They can retire on invalidity grounds with a high pension, but it is very hard to establish how genuine the neurosis is. Bad backs also rate high on the list. So there is no doubt that there has been a monumental rip-off of enormous dimension. I pointed this out at some length in a series of Waste Watch Committee releases. I will point out the extent of this rip-off, particularly in Victoria. We are aware that the number of people retiring through invalidity throughout the Commonwealth Public Service is greater than the number who retire because of reaching retirement age, but it is far worse in Victoria. There, twice as many Commonwealth public servants retire through invalidity as through reaching retirement age, which by the way is exactly the opposite to the situation in New South Wales where twice as many retire through reaching retirement age as through invalidity. I do not think it is simply because of the climate, differences in the codes of football, or whatever other differences exist between New South Wales and Victoria. It is clearly a matter of major concern that there is some kind of rip-off involved. The Waste Watch Committee pointed out that 309 public servants in Victoria retired last year from neurosis compared with only 95 in New South Wales, yet there are something like 10,000 more Commonwealth public servants in New South Wales than there are in Victoria. This needs an explanation. In other words, more than three times as many Victorian Commonwealth public servants became neurotic and unable to work as in New South Wales. These incredible Victorian statistics reveal an invalidity retirement rate per 100 contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund of 1.41 per cent compared to less than half that at 0.62 per cent in New South Wales. It is 0.71 in Canberra. So 1.41 per cent in Victoria is about double the Canberra experience and more than double the New South Wales experience. That is according to the latest annual report of the Commissioner of Superannuation. The report also reveals some extraordinary differences between the invalidity experience in different government departments, with the Department of the Special Minister of State having an incredible ratio of five invalidities to every one age retirement. Apparently working in that Department with the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, has a serious effect on public servants' health. Many other departments have similar problems and where there is clear evidence that this kind of problem is persisting we outlined them in the current Estimates Committee hearings. Nothing effective has been done to stop it. We thought that this legislation looked as though it was going to be a serious attempt to stop the rip-off that we have been calling for. In fact, we find that taken together the new provisions concerning invalidity pensions under this Bill are expected to result in net savings in excess of $4m per annum. As I have already pointed out, the total cost of invalidity pensions amounts to about $420m. In other words, this will save less than 1 per cent. This is the Government's great leap forward; it is one per cent of the task. To that extent I think it is reason- able for the Opposition to complain that the Government has not shown sufficient will, sufficient determination, to bring a proper end to this extraordinary rip-off. For example, I noted in the Senate Estimates committee hearing that these figures were unacceptable. I pointed out that in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs almost three times as many people were retiring through invalidity as through reaching the retirement age. The report of Estimates Committee B to the Parliament stated: The Committee was also informed that under current arrangements there is a significant incentive for officers to be retired on invalidity grounds prior to their planned retirement age. The Committee wishes to express its concern about this matter and informs the Senate that it will continue to monitor the situation at future Estimates Committee hearings. That bipartisan concern surely underlines the need for very effective action to take place, but it simply has not happened. We have an attempt to save one per cent of the money; a large proportion of which is clearly being ripped off. There has been no effective response to requests that this matter be looked into. I note that the Minister for Community Services said to me during the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 that he was concerned about some of these figures, particularly the figure I now raise with him. That figure confirms, if you like, the Government's lack of will. Already many methods are available to the Government to do something about the matter. I noted earlier that the Department of Finance responded to questions in Senate Estimates committee hearings by revealing that already the Commissioner is empowered by section 74 of the Superannuation Act to require invalidity pensioners, who have not attained the age of 65 years, to provide information about employment and undergo medical examinations. There is a clear opportunity; there are clear rules under which the Government can, if it has the will, take a very strong supervisory role about the extent to which these systems are being ripped off, being misused. As I have said, in many areas apparently this is being done in a collusive way between the employee, the employer-in this case the management of the appropriate department-and the doctor involved who writes what can be described only as a pretty phoney certificate. It is interesting to note that one of the great dynamic leaps forward in this legislation relates to requiring people to have medical examinations and failure to do so means the loss of the pension. Under section 74 we already have a requirement which has not been properly applied by this Government for people to undergo medical examinations and to provide information about employment. The Department of Finance continued in its response to the Senate Estimates Committee by stating: If the Commissioner concludes . . . as a result of these examinations-that they are sufficiently restored to health to resume duty, he notifies the relevant employing authority and any subsequent re-employment action becomes an employer responsibility. If re-employment takes place in circumstances in which the pensioner again becomes an ``eligible'' employee for Superannuation Act purposes, the AGRBO is so informed by the employer and the pension is cancelled. Pension is also cancelled if a pensioner unreasonably refuses to accept an offer of re-employment. Here the Government has clear power to do something about this rip-off; it has existed and nothing effective has been done. In fact the effort has diminished, as some figures which I will reveal in a minute clearly demonstrate. The Department of Finance also stated: An invalidity pension is also cancelled if an invalidity retiree becomes employed in a permanent capacity by the Commonwealth Public Service or a statutory authority as a result of a direct approach to the employer. In other words, the employee does not have to go through the `restored to health' procedure. A table is provided by the Department containing statistics regarding the experience of AGRBO over the past four years with the review of invalidity pensioners. This is the review that is supposed to take place under existing legislation, which by the way has been only very moderately and modestly changed-a one per cent change as we have been seen from the figures, aimed at saving $4m out of a total expenditure of $420m. Let us look at what has happened. In 1982-83, the last financial year of the previous Government, 936 medical examinations were carried out as required under the existing legislation that I read out. One of the Hawke Government's great achievements has been to reduce every year the number of medical examinations of such people. The number went from 936 in its first year in office to 565 in its second year in office and 356 in its third year in office. It has been cut by almost two-thirds. The number of people found fit for re-employment in the last year of the Fraser Government was 126 and the figure is now down to 27-from 126 to 27. Senator Townley —It is a rip-off. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Townley says, it is a clear rip-off. There has been no will, no determination and no enthusiasm by this Government to save money when it is confronted with a clear and continuing rip-off which the taxpayers of Australia have to pay. On that simple question of the number of people found fit for re-employment, $1.5m is involved in that list. With the average annual superannuation invalidity payment being $15,000, if the number of people found fit for re-employment is reduced from 126 to only 27, about $1.5m a year is knocked off taxpayers' money. This table clearly indicates the lack of determination by this Government to do anything about the position. On 18 November I asked for an explanation of why the existing procedures, which clearly save the Government considerable amounts of money in terms of people found fit for re-employment, people whose pensions are cancelled and so on, have not continued. I would like to know the answer to that question. I asked it of the Minister for Community Services, who is in the chamber at present. I got the impression from him that he also was concerned about it and would seek a response. As I said then, it does not give one much faith that the new arrangements being introduced to fix this problem will be effective if there is also no will behind their implementation. That is the essential point. We can legislate until the laws are coming out of our ears. For example, we legislated last night to give the Commissioner of Taxation additional powers because he had not used effectively the powers he already had and thus had to be protected by some extra law. Here we have clear evidence that existing legislation would have gone a long way towards clearing up this situation but it has not been used effectively. The rip-off has continued and clearly there has been a total failure to conduct medical examinations under the existing arrangements. This would probably not be so serious if it were not for the fact that the experience within the Commonwealth Public Service is so outlandish compared to that in the rest of the community. The 1982-83 census of superannuation funds-which is out of date but later information confirms and increases the strength of the point I am making-reveals an enormous difference between the superannuation experience of the public sector, the government sector, and of the private sector in Australia. The percentage of public sector retirements due to disability ends up at something like 28.28 per cent when all the States are taken into account but in the private sector the figure is 8.14 per cent. In other words, the number of retirements and early retirements due to disability from public sector superannuation funds is something like 3 1/2 times worse than the number of such retirements from superannuation funds in the private sector. This enormous difference means that, in the first place, the Government should be alert to the problem. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the table I referred to showing the lack of will of the Government to undertake medical examinations. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Year Medical exami- nation Found fit for Re- employment Re- employment by APS or Approved Authority (Note 2) Pension Cancelled (Note 3) 1982-83 936 126 29 35 1983-84 601 90 36 49 1984-85 565 49 33 36 1985-86 356 27 15 17 Notes: 1. In any one year, the figures relating to `examinations', `found fit', `re-employed' and `cancelled' do not necessarily relate to the same individual pensioners. 2. The `Re-employed' column includes both pensioners who are re-employed following direct approach to an employer and those found fit through AGRBO invalidity review process and then offered employment. 3. The `Pensions Cancelled' column includes both pensions cancelled following re-employment and pensions cancelled for unreasonably refusing an offer of re-employment. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Senate. I wish to conclude my remarks by making a very strong point about the Government's lack of will. Earlier this year a leaked internal discussion paper produced by the Department of Finance and the Public Service Board confirmed the allegations of the Waste Watch Committee, which I chair, about compensation rip-offs by calling for a complete overhaul of the bottomless pit of compensation claims. This Bill is supposed to be a complete overhaul yet it is going to save only one per cent of the $420m going into invalidity retirement pensions, a large proportion of which clearly relates to phoney retirement. I am not in any way criticising those people who have genuinely retired because of ill health, and there are many of them within the Commonwealth Public Service. My comments are aimed specifically at those people, particularly in Victoria, who have been involved in what is clearly a racket. If this is a complete overhaul of a bottomless pit and we are saving only one per cent. I just wonder what the Government is about. This legislation appears to be nothing more than window dressing-a superficial response to a scandalous situation on which the Waste Watch Committee has reported. I am not opposing the legislation as it is at least a tiny step in the right direction, which is better than no step. We should be aware that it is only a tiny and gratuitous step aimed at politics rather than reality and rather than saving any considerable amount of money. I move: At the end of the motion, add: `, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government has failed to apply adequately the provisions of the Superannuation Act relating to the payment of invalidity pensions, thus causing a significant loss of revenue to the Commonwealth. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.04) —The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 is primarily concerned with the conditions under which Commonwealth public servants who contribute to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme may receive an invalidity pension. There has been a lot of comment from a variety of people about problems inherent in that scheme and whether or not this piece of legislation deals adequately with it. It is worth remembering that almost 38 per cent of the present 74,000 Commonwealth superannuation pensioners receive invalidity pensions. By any indicator this is an extraordinary level of receipt of that particular form of pension. It certainly raises serious questions about whether, for example, working conditions in the Commonwealth Public Service are at fault or whether the problem is, as has been suggested by some, that invalidity pensions, or access to them, have been abused. I think it is worth remembering that being a public servant these days, whether in the Commonwealth Public Service or in one of the State public services, is not a particularly easy task. There are in the minds of the general public as well as governments and oppositions increased expectations of public servants. Increased demands for innovative approaches to all sorts of problems have been flung up because, perhaps, of changing conditions or the behaviour of previous administrations. This has been combined frequently with increased demands that costs be cut-not always necessarily in line with efficiency-and that accountability be sheeted home regularly. This must make the job a far more stressful one than I suggest it ever was, say, 20 years ago or even 10 years ago because it is not particularly easy to balance those conflicting requirements from governments, oppositions and members of the public. Abuse of the system occurs principally in three ways. Firstly, it can be abused by early retirees-that is, people between 55 and 65 years of age who use the invalidity pension as an alternative and, I might say, a more lucrative form of early retirement since the invalidity pension is higher than an early retirement pension. The second way in which the system can be abused is by departments using it as a means to shed unwanted personnel. This is a device that departments occasionally have to resort to, given the rather tortuous process of officially getting rid of redundant or inefficient staff that currently applies in the Commonwealth Public Service. Of course, the third way in which abuse can occur is by outright malingering. I would suggest that quite clearly a minority of people are in that third category. Public servants, of course, are no less human than anyone else, although there seems to be some dispute about that in the minds of some people in the general public. But surely only a percentage of those employees are deliberate malingerers. There is certainly no hard evidence, despite figures that are flung around this place by both sides with gay abandon, to support suspicions that malingering is the major cause of the increasing number of people on invalidity pensions. While I am not heavily into conspiracy theories, as some people around this place seem to be, I am certainly aware of the fact that there will always be a small percentage of people-I hope it remains a small percentage-who will use a system to their advantage. That, of course, comes perilously close to being abuse of a system and to that extent it has to be stopped. A recent government survey revealed that slightly under 12 1/2 per cent of invalid pensioners were employed some time during 1985, that their average earnings were around $4,500, and that they were on an average pension of slightly more than $15,000. In 1.3 per cent of cases earnings plus pension exceeded the salary the pensioner would have received had he continued his employment. It is not at all clear that the position identified by the survey is one of widespread abuse. Certainly, a little over 12 per cent is a low rate of employment for that particular group of people and 1.3 per cent is a relatively low rate of abuse if one assumes that earning an income plus getting a Commonwealth pension in excess of previous salary is an abuse. Of course, this might say more about the level of Public Service salaries, at least those lower down the scale, than it does about the behaviour of people on Commonwealth pensions. In any event, few people would want to insist-and I certainly hope that large numbers of Opposition members would not want to insist-that a person on a disability pension is not entitled to work at all. There are some very good reasons why that should not be prohibited. In the majority of cases the disability pension is a very low amount on which to live. It is somewhat higher than the age pension, but it is a pension which has been contributed to by the recipients. Nevertheless, the disability pension is a low amount on which to live and support a family. It has to be taken into account that a number of people who are on invalidity pensions are of an age when they are still likely to have dependants. Essentially we are talking of pensions of around $12,000 to $15,000 per year-considerably less than average weekly earnings. So, apart from the problems recipients have in living on that amount and supporting their families, which makes supplementing the pension income highly desirable, we have the additional factor that employment in the work force, on a part time basis at least, can be of considerable therapeutic and rehabilitative value, depending on their reason for being invalided out of the Commonwealth Public Service. Most people recognise that when people have some form of disability and are in receipt of an invalid pension from the Commonwealth Public Service or from the welfare sector, if they can do something productive it helps them psychologically as well as in a rehabilitative manner. Any compassionate, thinking person would want to encourage, rather than discourage, people on disability pensions to engage in paid work to the limits of their ability. I assume that is the policy of this Government. However, we take issue with the Government about the limit to be placed on earnings which is set in the legislation before us. If we assume that an invalid pension is subject to the $19,200 permissible income limit, as set out in the legislation, and that an individual has a pension entitlement of around $13,000, the Bill will limit to a little over $6,000 the pensioner's earned income before he loses on a dollar for dollar basis his pension. In other words, this legislation sets out to ensure that an indexed income of $19,200 is the income limit of that person for life, regardless of whether he or she is supporting a family and irrespective of whether, despite the disability, the person is able to earn in excess of $6,000 in part time income. We would have preferred to see the limit on total income to be equivalent to salary at the time the person suffered the disability. That would have been a fairer treatment of people who are genuinely invalided out and who are able to supplement what is, in most cases, a fairly low pension to which, as I said earlier, they have contributed quite significantly through the compulsory Commonwealth superannuation scheme. However, we will not be pursuing that by way of an amendment, partly because the Senate is pressed for time and partly because in any event it is futile to pursue an amendment that is not likely to meet with any success. However, there needs to be some clarification, at least as far as I am concerned, about exactly what earned income is and what employment means for the purposes of this legislation. Obviously, if a person is invalided out of the Commonwealth Public Service and he or she goes and works for another individual in the private sector or-I am not sure whether he or she would be able to-in the State Public Service either on a full time or a part time basis, it is quite clear that he or she would be earning money and would be employed by somebody. But I wonder what would happen in regard to people who are invalided out receiving income or making money by a variety of other methods such as, for example, working for themselves by writing software for sale, writing a novel, churning out a book that exposes the sorts of problems that are inherent in the Commonwealth Public Service or sitting at their dining room tables hour after hour with the telephone next to them poring over their share portfolios and contacting their sharebrokers at regular intervals. Are those things to be classified as earning an income through employment, in the same way as quite clearly will be classified-- Senator Walsh —All but the last would be. Definition of earned income is a bit difficult at the margin to put in. The last one Senator Haines mentioned we could not catch up with anyway; there is no way to determine it. Senator HAINES —It is a bit of a problem when there are some ways of earning income that have been a little more hidden than others. I thank the Minister for that response. As far as the alleged ripping off of the system is concerned, the Democrats do not believe that it has achieved the epidemic proportions suggested by the Opposition. This is not to suggest that public servants are immune from the sort of basically human characteristics that would encourage them to use a loophole or a system, if one existed. We acknowledge that the Government should do all it can to ensure that employees in the Commonwealth Public Service cannot abuse a system, which is meant essentially to protect and assist a legitimately deserving group of employees to the ultimate detriment of that latter group. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.17) —I have not heard all the debate, but I understand that Senator Michael Baume repeated some of the points he made in the Senate on 18 November about the number of medical reviews which had been conducted. I have a response, which I have shown to the Opposition and which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. It is an explanation of the points made by Senator Baume and gives the reasons why the number of reviews has been reduced. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The reason for the decline has nothing to do with any lack of will or any concern about union feelings, as Senator Baume suggested. Simply put, in a climate of constraints on staff resources in AGRBO (as elsewhere in the A.P.S.), the process of conducting medical reviews of invalidity pensioners must vie for priority amongst the many statutory responsibilities imposed on the Commissioner, including mandatory functions. The fact is that, although the invalidity pensioner review process is important and can be expected to produce some revenue savings, it is a discretionary function which has a relatively low cost/benefit ratio. For this reason, over the past four years it has become impossible to maintain the former level of resources employed on invalidity pensioner reviews without detriment to the Office's other high priority workloads. The invalidity pensioner ``health'' review process is a heavy consumer of staff resources (both AGRBO's and Department of Health's and, to a lesser extent, the relevant employing Departments') and involves large medical costs as a result of the need to obtain specialist medical evidence. Most of the pensioners concerned resist strongly and many exercise their rights of internal and external review of administrative decisions, and the final results obtained from the whole process are disproportionately low compared with the resources employed. The figures to which Senator Baume referred reveal that, over the 4 year period, 2458 medical examinations produced only 137 cancellations of pension (i.e. 5.6% success rate). It should also be mentioned that the 2458 pensioners medically examined were a highly targeted group in that they were extensively culled from the total invalidity pensioner population as those most likely to be restored to health having regard to such parameters as age, retirement disability, length of receipt of pension, results of previous reviews etc. Increasing the numbers of medical examinations, assuming resources could be found to do so, is unlikely to produce proportionate increases in pensions savings. Senator WALSH —In regard to some of the other criticisms, it should be noted that this amendment to the Commonwealth Superannuation Act is not the only action being taken by the Government which is relevant to, and will have effect on, the rate of invalidity retirement. The streamlining measures which were announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in late September will reinforce the pension adjustment measures contained in this Bill. In regard to the rate of retirement, I want to make two points. It is high-the Government believes unduly high-and that is one of the reasons for introducing this legislation. It should, however, be noted that it has been at some times in the past considerably higher than it now is. For example, in 1977-78 there were 4,700-I use round figures-invalidity retirees as against 3,000 in the two most recent years, 3,900 in 1978-79 and so on. In other words, the peak was around that period in the late 1970s. I do not attribute that to any particular administration. There were probably demographic reasons for that happening, in particular that at that stage a large number of former World War II servicemen were reaching their late 50s; although there is also a suspicion-I would rate it no higher-that a soft approach was taken to invalidity retirement because of a desire to shed staff numbers. That would seem to be an easy way out. The Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office report has not yet been completed and therefore not tabled, but some of the preliminary information I have from that shows significant changes in a slight overall decline in the number of invalidity retirees, but a significant change on a State by State basis in the composition of that number, including a decline in Victoria. The working party paid considerable attention to Victoria. That report should be available within the next couple of months anyway. However, there continues to be a very large variation on a State by State basis of the invalidity retirement rate for which no obvious explanation is available. I wish to make a couple of brief comments on Senator Haines's remarks. I acknowledge that there is a judgmental element in the decision to set a ceiling on total earned income before its affects the pension payable. The figure that the Government chose of 85 per cent of average weekly earnings or updated retirement salary, whichever is the greater, cannot be a powerful argument against a figure of say 80 per cent, 90 per cent, 100 per cent or whatever. However, it should be noted-and I do not know that this has been brought out in this debate-that the definition of `average weekly earnings' on which the $19,200 is based is not average weekly ordinary time earning but average weekly total earnings. There is a difference of something like 10 per cent between those two figures. As everybody knows, the legislation does not, for technical reasons, refer to average weekly earnings because over time the Statistician might change that definition. The figure in the legislation is derived from 85 per cent of total average weekly earnings in May 1986. Having said that, the Government made a judgment that in all circumstances 85 per cent was a reasonable figure. It did so for these reasons: First, 70 per cent of all wage earners earn less than 85 per cent of average weekly earnings. Secondly, on the basis of this figure, and in conjunction with the updated retirement salary, whichever is the greater, all retirees can earn at least $1,000 additional income without having their pensions affected and that $1,000 is a figure that could be expected to grow over time. Thus, people are not entirely discouraged from entering the work force to some extent. To have imposed no income limit, however, would have allowed a continuation of the present system under which some people are actually earning more than they earned in the Public Service and are receiving an invalidity retirement pension as well. The Government saw that as something which should not be tolerated and that it was a prima facie abuse of the invalidity retirement provisions. It has been argued by some that the way to deal with that was through the medical review and medical checks. Theoretically that sounds all right, but experience has shown that there are too many doctors around who will sign anything that is put in front of them. When there is a dispute on medical grounds which goes to a tribunal on appeal, there is a very high propensity for the appeal body to find in favour of the appellant. I think that covers all the points. I thank the Senate for its support of this legislation. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Michael Baume's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Honourable Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sanders, N. K. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Siddons, J. R. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E. Knowles, S. C. Vigor, D. B. Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S. MacGibbon, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Macklin, M. J. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R. Reynolds, M. Withers, R. G. Zakharov, A. O. Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N. Brownhill, D. G. C. McKiernan, J. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.31) —I raise some points concerning clause 33 of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 and ask some questions thereon. During the Estimates committee process an answer was given to me from a very different angle from that which was covered by Senator Michael Baume during the second reading debate. The second part of the information provided to Estimates Committee C dealt with the number of invalidity pensioners found fit for employment. The number dropped from 126 in 1982-83 to 90, then to 49 and finally to 27 in 1985-86. Altogether, 292 people were found fit to resume work in those four years. However, jobs were found for only 113 of these people in the Australian Public Service or in some other approved authority. Altogether, 137 pensions were cancelled either because people were re-employed or because they unreasonably refused an offer of re-employment. That left over 150 people who were found fit to resume work but were not found a job. This is particularly disturbing as some of these people are currently in receipt of invalidity pensions or various other things, or are being disadvantaged, depending on what is happening to them. I would like to know whether further efforts have been made to find Public Service positions for the people involved. We are dealing with 400 possible work years, the Commonwealth continued to make invalidity payments to people found fit to resume work. This must represent a waste of several million dollars over that period. I ask the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is present today, what steps are being taken to place more of these fit people within the Public Service. Who has been responsible for the failure to take positive placement action in the past? It seems to me that this is a very important issue, as much public money is being spend in this area. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.34) —That matter is being addressed by the streamlining measures which will place more pressure on departments and, to a lesser extent probably, on the Public Service Board to re-employ such people. Also, of course, and probably most importantly, it is the large statutory authorities rather than the Public Service proper where that happens. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.35) —Four Bills are being taken together in this debate. I would like to address my remarks to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986 and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. I observe firstly that the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) incorporates quite a number of amendments, some of which were to be introduced as new measures in the Budget. The Opposition has no particular quarrel with most of them. Indeed, numerous other matters of a drafting correction type are also incorporated in the Bill. Accordingly, we have no particular trouble with those, either. There are one or two matters that do require comment. I suppose the first observation that ought to be made about one of the more substantive changes incorporated in the Bill is the very interesting move by the Government to correct some of the more obvious problems with the handling of unit trust investments under the new capital gains tax. To set the scene, I observe that on 10 October 1986 in the House of Representatives the then Acting Treasurer, the Hon. Chris Hurford-known as Scoop to his friends-observed that it was not his intention to introduce substantial changes to the capital gains tax. That was stated on a Friday afternoon. The Acting Treasurer, in answer to a question addressed to him by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), stated: But the Government does not resile one iota from the capital gains tax. I have been across a lot of the problems in imposing it and I am very pleased to say that there are very few. If indeed later it is found that some changes need to be made, they will be made, but not in these early days. That statement was made by the Acting Treasurer in the House of Representatives on 10 October 1986. That was a clear indication that the Government was quite happy with the way in which the capital gains tax was operating and that there were few problems that would have to be addressed. Approximately six days later the Government introduced this piece of legislation in the House of Representatives, which substantially changed the capital gains tax in respect of the operation of it in regard to unit trust investments. The first observation that must be made is that, as was made quite clear during the debate on the legislation in this chamber in the very early stages-some six or eight months ago-the Government had absolutely no idea what it was doing when it introduced the legislation. Quite clearly, it was full of errors, mistakes and unintended consequences-which was the euphemism defined by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Quite clearly, the Government had not examined the legislation in detail. That point was made by the Opposition during debate in the Senate at the time. It follows the usual pattern of this Government being so negligent in handling these matters. Of course, it follows the typical example of the disastrous fringe benefits tax, where the same kind of pattern developed. These points had to be addressed by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer when he introduced this Bill in the House of Representatives. But the point that must be made, of course, is that whereas, on the one hand, on a Friday afternoon he said that the capital gains tax was beaut and there were no problems, suddenly, on the other, six days later, after we had been told there would not be any early changes, very substantial changes to the law were introduced. The Opposition welcomes the changes because we had been bringing these matters to the attention of the Senate and of the electorate generally through Press releases and also through a substantive notice of motion here in the Senate. Quite clearly the Government was getting advice from some sections of the financial community drawing attention to the problems as well. We welcome the changes, notwithstanding the fact that quite clearly the Minister Assisting the Treasurer at the time had no idea of what he was actually doing in trying to fix up the problem. One of the other matters of some import in the Bill is the very substantial change to give effect to a Budget decision to raise the filing fee for an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from $2, as it has been in the past, to $200. That is a very substantial change which, of course, has very serious effects on taxpayers generally. I would just like to focus on those effects for a moment. Previously, taxpayers requesting an appeal against a tax assessment or other decision of the Commissioner of Taxation, as I have just observed, paid only a filing fee of $2 when they sent their matters to the boards of review. The effect of this measure will be to raise that amount to the very substantial level of $200. This measure also comes along at a time when the Government is raising to $500-a further $300 on top of that $200 fee-the charge which it imposes for references to a court other than the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. People with very small problems and disputes with the Australian Taxation Office will now be forced to lodge a fee of some $200 if they want to have their matter fixed up before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. If that fails, and they still want to continue their dispute, it will cost an extra $300 when they go to another court. The amount in dispute may be very small. For instance, a person may have a disputed claim for $50 or $100 in respect of his work clothing that the Commissioner of Taxation has disallowed. Yet he will now be required under this legislation to lodge $200 if he wants to have his appeal heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This really is outrageous an denied justice to the ordinary citizen of Australia. The larger taxpayers with substantial incomes who may have very complex and legalistic disputes with the Taxation Commission, of course, will not have to worry about this measure. The $200 or $500 fee-whatever it is-is of no import for a person who has many hundreds of thousands of dollars hanging on the decision of a court, but a small taxpayer with relatively low levels of income and small disputes will find himself or herself put to substantial disadvantage. This decision obviously has been taken without any regard to the rights of the ordinary Australian citizen. In fact, I cannot understand the rationale of the Government in instituting such a measure which is clearly designed to restrict the number of people who are able to bring their cases in dispute before the appropriate authorities. Clearly that is a denial of justice and it must be very concerning to the back bench members of the Australian Labor Party that their Treasurer (Mr Keating) has seen fit to introduce such a measure. It simply means that in these cases there will be a pruning of the lists of outstanding appeals and consequently ordinary taxpayers will have justice denied. The Government will win; ordinary taxpayers will clearly lose. This is, of course, fairly typical now of the way this Government is developing its handling of the taxation legislation. We are seeing more and more the situation develop where draconian penalties and laws are being imposed on ordinary taxpayers in such a way as to ensure that the Tax Commissioner gains firmly the upper ground in dealing with the taxpayer to the eventual effect of denying the taxpayer his proper rights. This is just another example of what I think is happening in the area of tax legislation generally. Another matter to which I want to refer is the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2). This piece of legislation is very interesting when we get into the detailed study of it. I refer to the explanatory memorandum tabled by the Acting Treasurer, Mr Hurford, when he gave his second reading speech to the House of Representatives. The Bill will amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act to make it clear that a specific taxing item prevails over a general exemption item in the law. Specifically, clause 3 of the Bill will amend the principal Act by inserting a new sub-section in section 5 of the Act to clarify beyond doubt that, where goods are described in clear terms in an item or a sub-item contained in a taxing schedule of the Act and might be argued as being also covered by a general description of goods in an item or sub-item contained in the exemption schedule of the same Act, the goods are not covered by the item or sub-item, as the case may be, in the exemption schedule. In other words, the taxing schedule overrides the exemption schedule. I think we have to conclude that the Minister, in setting out his argument on this matter in the Parliament, really did mislead the Parliament as to the effect, because he said in that second reading speech that the Bill and this particular amendment were merely to clarify a long-standing principle of statutory interpretation with regard to the administration of the sales tax law. This has been substantially challenged by a number of practitioners in this area-and, indeed, it has been challenged by individual members of the Senate-as to its being a true statement of the position. In fact, it is quite clear now that the Acting Treasurer was, indeed, misleading the Parliament in making those erroneous statements. I refer to an example of the problem that occurs in this respect. The first sales tax Bill that was put through the Parliament some weeks ago repealed item 90d of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act for bathroom fittings from the 10 per cent exemption schedule and included it in item 14 in the third 10 per cent taxing schedule. However, other exemption provisions of the Act covered bathroom fittings and, arising from this arrangement, was the apparently ambiguous treatment of bathroom fittings for sales tax purposes. The situation now arises that, because of the doubt that arose from those amendments, we are uncertain as to the proper treatment of some kinds of bathroom fittings. Hence, this is an example of the sort of thing that the Government is seeking to fix up by this amendment. The point I would make is that it is not right to say that this is merely a clarification of the existing law. I say that because the Taxation Office in the various tax rulings it has issued, at least until 1985, has given us the impression that sales tax exemptions necessarily overrode, or did override, the provisions regarding taxing items. While it is a departure from the long-established principle of statutory interpretation that a specific legislative provision overrides a general one, this has not been the approach taken with regard to the administration of the sales tax law by virtue of the peculiar nature of the drafting of this particular legislation. On the question of the sales tax law, the traditional and long-established principle of the Tax Office, I believe, has, in fact, been to acknowledge that, because of the specific nature of the exemption clause, an item or sub-item contained in the exemption schedule will necessarily override even a specific provision relating to an item or sub-item contained in the taxing schedule. This amendment is not just some mere clarification of existing or past procedures or anything else; rather it constitutes a major change to the way in which items have been treated in the past. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia will support the Australian Democrats' amendment to have the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) Bill referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to have these questions examined. There is sufficient doubt about and lack of clarity in the interpretation of the present situation and the law for this examination to be appropriately undertaken by a Senate committee. We believe matters of principle have not been made clear and indeed there is evidence that we were misled by the then Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) as to the real import of these changes. For that reason we believe that the Committee can best undertake an examination of the issues and bring down a report for the Senate to consider the matter at some later time. The legislation, excluding the part that I have just referred to, is unexceptionable. We support the provision with regard to the Governor-General having to pay sales tax on any private items he imports. We do not expect that it will cause any trouble either to the revenue or to the Governor-General if this Bill is not raced through in the dying days of the sitting. We have no doubt that His Excellency, the present incumbent, would not take advantage of the situation if the legislation were not passed. As I said, we certainly believe that examination by a Senate committee is warranted and we will support the reference to the Committee. There are no revenue effects from the delaying of this legislation as the Government, of course, has already said that it is only a clarification measure anyway. We will not support the Committee stage amendments that have been proposed by Senator Siddons and the Democrats to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986 for reasons I shall give at the Committee stage of the debate. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.53) —As Senator Messner has said, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986, the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 1986, the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) Bill 1986 and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 are a batch of Bills which contain a medley of amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act, the Australian Capital Territory Taxation Administration Act, the Bankruptcy Act and the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act. Most of these amendments are consequential amendments relating to other Bills passed in the course of this session. However, certain provisions introduce new aspects into the taxation laws of Australia. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), when debating this package of Bills in the House of Representatives, stated: It would not be necessary to introduce fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax, foreign tax credit systems, resource rental taxes, non-deduction of entertainment expenses and all the various additions to the taxation system if it were not for the insatiable demands of this Government for additional and unnecessary public expenditure. That is a rather extraordinary statement, given that resource rental tax is a more generous tax regime than the one which it replaces, and that the remaining tax measures referred to close off various avoidance mechanisms by which a relatively small number of privileged individuals avoid carrying their fair share of the tax burden. This package of Bills closes off some further tax avoidance mechanisms which even the Opposition seems unwilling to defend, despite the fact that some of its friends appear to have benefited greatly from them. The Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfer of Marketable Securities) Bill closes off the mechanism by which companies incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory avoided Australian Capital Territory stamp duty on the transfer of marketable securities by the process known as the Darwin shuffle. Under the Darwin shuffle a company incorporated in one jurisdiction would transfer marketable securities on the register of another jurisdiction, such as that of the Northern Territory, where stamp duty was up to 90 per cent lower. By taking advantage of the varying stamp duty regimes companies were able to avoid substantial sums of stamp duty. A recently reported system of doing this involved the Bond Corporation. The New South Wales Finance Minister, Mr Debus, recently drew attention to an Elders IXL share transfer worth $460m on which $360,000 of stamp duty was avoided. According to Mr Debus, Bond Corporation, by the use of the Darwin shuffle, trusts and the Claytons contract-a verbal agreement, which is not subject to stamp duty-apparently the Bond Corporation managed to avoid $10m of stamp duty on the purchase of a hotel chain from Tooheys Ltd. This Bill will close off the Darwin shuffle in the Australian Capital Territory by subjecting all transfers by Australian Capital Territory incorporated companies to stamp duty irrespective of where the transfers occur. We totally support these provisions and believe that they are overdue. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) addresses a number of matters including further tax avoidance and tax minimisation measures. The Australian Democrats support the levying of tax being adjusted to the balancing date of the company; the levying of provisional tax on the real beneficiary in the case of artificial partnerships and closely held trusts; and the full taxation of natural resource income and royalties paid to non-residents. We also support the beneficial changes to the taxation of life assurance bonuses and of options to acquire shares or debentures in a company. However, we do not support the levying of a $200 fee on any person who wishes to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision by the Commissioner of Taxation. We will move an amendment during the Committee stage to change this provision in the Bill. I was disappointed to hear from Senator Messner that the Liberal Party would not support this amendment, especially after what he said on this point. I agree totally with the sentiments that he expressed in his speech and I am very disappointed that he is not translating them into action by voting for our amendment which would lower the fee collected from people appealing to the Tribunal from $200, which I believe is extortionate in the case of ordinary taxpayers, to $10, which I think would reasonably cover administration costs that may be incurred in the appeal process. I now come to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2). It is apparently an innocuous little Bill. Clause 3 is said simply to put beyond doubt that a rule of statutory interpretation-namely, that a specific provision overrides a general provision-applies to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. This is really a case of Yes Minister. Anybody who has been a regular viewer of Yes Minister or who has had detailed dealings with government bureaucracies will immediately wonder why such an innocuous little Bill is put forward. If the rule of statutory interpretation is firmly established, why has it been thought necessary to put this statement into legislation? It seems an amazing situation. As one might have expected, the answer appears to lie in an attempt by the bureaucracy to conceal an error in the drafting of an earlier amendment to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, which made bathroom fittings subject to sales tax without amending certain other exemption provisions of the first Schedule which apply to some bathroom fittings. Senator Messner has mentioned this as well. A letter from Firmstone and Partners, chartered accountants of Phillip Street, Sydney, supported by a telex from a Melbourne sales tax discussion group, comprising a number of leading accountancy firms, contends that the effect of clause 3 will go well beyond correcting the anomaly relating to the taxing of bathroom fittings. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard to save some of the time of the Senate. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- FIRMSTONE & PARTNERS 130 Phillip St., Sydney GPO Box 4644, Sydney 2001 Telephone (02) 231 2933 Telex AA72058 12 November 1986 Senator D. Vigor, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 My Dear Senator, SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 1986 The abovementioned Bill, which will shortly come before the Senate, seeks to amend the sales tax law to ensure that specific taxing provisions override generally expressed exemptions. This Firm considers that Parliament has been deliberately misled (on the reason for the Bill) and its potential impact on charities, schools, and the like. The amendment should not be allowed and we hope that you and your colleagues will oppose its enactment. Misleading Statements by the Minister In introducing the Bill in the House of Representatives, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, The Hon. Chris Hurford M.P. stated that the amendment sought only to put beyond doubt the approach that had always been adopted in the administration of the sales tax legislation. I have attached a copy of the Minister's speech and the Explanatory Memorandum (which supposedly illustrates the type of problem the Bill will rectify). In this Firm's view, both documents contain grossly misleading statements. Moreover, it appears that there has been a deliberate attempt to conceal from Parliament the real reasons for the Bill and its potential impact. Real Reason for the Amendment The examples given in the Explanatory Memorandum to illustrate the need for the amendment relate to the possible exemption of precious stones (taxation at 30%) under exemption items applicable to stone and to non-processed primary products derived from operations in fisheries. Without wishing to dwell on technicalities, these examples are nonsense. The provisions covering precious stones, stone and fishery products have been roughly in their current form for over 30 years. During that time, the Commissioner of Taxation has never needed an amendment to the law to support his view that precious stones are taxable at 30% and quite clearly he does not need one now. In this regard, it would be trite, to say the least, to consider precious stones as being derived from operations in fisheries. Similarly, the context in which the exemption for stone is given makes it clear that it only applies to building materials. The real reason for the amendment is that an error was made in drafting a sales tax amendment contained in the 1986 Budget. In moving bathroom fittings from the exempt to 10% schedule, the draftsman neglected the fact that other exemption provisions also cover some bathroom fittings. Because of this error, a conflict has arisen between those exemption items and the new 10% item. Lest there be any doubt as to the real reason for the Bill, I have attached a letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Taxation to the various State Branches of the Australian Taxation Office in regard to the matter. Your attention is particularly drawn to paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 on page 2 of the letter. These paragraphs highlight the conflict and state that action will be taken at the first opportunity to amend the law. That the real reason for the Bill has been deliberately concealed from Parliament is bad enough. However, the Bill's potential impact and its effect on past administrative practice have also been demonstrably misstated. Potential Impact The Bill's stated purpose is to confirm what has always been the administrative practice of the Commissioner of Taxation. This is quite simply untrue. A number of sales tax provisions categorically state that where goods are covered by an exemption item, they are not subject to tax irrespective of any other provision of the legislation. For over 45 years, the Commissioner of Taxation has accepted that goods which are specifically described under taxable items (e.g. motor vehicles) will qualify for sales tax exemption when also covered by a general exemption provision (e.g. goods for use by public benevolent institutions such as the Red Cross). That the Bill reflects a new administrative practice is confirmed by paragraph 5 of the Assistant Commissioner's letter which indicates that the practice has been adopted on the basis of recent advice from Parliamentary Counsel regarding the bathroom fittings problem. It is stressed that the Bill has the potential to deny sales tax exemption currently granted to public hospitals, charities, religious institutions, schools, public authorities and State and Local Governments on a wide variety of goods which they purchase. This is due to the fact that the sales tax exemption items covering these organisations are couched in general terms which, if the Bill becomes law, could well be overriden by specific taxing items. The same would apply to goods used in industries such as agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. To illustrate, I have attached a list of some goods which are specifically described by taxing items. Quite clearly, hospitals, religious organisations, charities, and the like may no longer qualify for exemption when purchasing these goods, if the Bill is passed. In the short term, the potential impact of the Bill would be confined if the Commissioner of Taxation was to determine that the exemption provided to public hospitals, etc. is not affected by the Bill. However, it is hardly appropriate for bodies such as public hospitals and the Red Cross to rely upon a beneficent Commissioner for the continuation of their sales tax exemption entitlements. Furthermore, it is clearly inappropriate for the Commissioner to be allowed to apply the law to some sections of the community and not to others. That in effect would be a usurping of Parliament's power. Such an approach would also be highly undesirable for taxpayers. Sales tax is a self-assessing tax and bearing in mind the heavy penalties that apply for incorrect assessment, it is simply not good enough for taxpayers to be left in a position of uncertainty and confusion pending the Commissioner's determination as to whether a taxing item is more specific than an exemption. Conclusion The Government and its advisors have over-reacted to the problem experienced with the bathroom fitting amendment. Their hasty attempts to correct their error are akin to driving a nail home with a sledge hammer without considering the damage that may be caused to the fabric of the wall. The Government should be honest enough to admit that there was a mistake made in drafting the bathroom fitting item. Its resolution should be confined to amending the relevant exemption items. Sloppy drafting is no excuse for the type of sleight of hand that is currently being attempted nor is it a compelling reason to hand to the Commissioner of Taxation the power to determine who will qualify for exemption and who will not. For the reasons outlined above, we strongly urge your opposition to the amendment as a matter of principle. If I can be of any assistance in clarifying the matters raised herein, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, GERRY TAYLOR, BEc ACA, DIRECTOR, FIRMSTONE & PARTNERS. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The Bill has the potential to deny sales tax exemptions currently granted to public hospitals, charities, religious institutions, schools, public authorities and State and local governments on a very wide variety of goods which they purchase. I wish to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading so that we may refer this Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I commend the Opposition for supporting the amendment. I move: At end of the motion, add: ``with the exception of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, and that that Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for report by the fourth day of sitting in 1987''. I turn now to the changes which have been proposed to the Income Tax Assessment Act to counter arrangements to avoid provisional tax through the use of trusts or partnerships. There have been considerable changes in this area in respect of the current law. While recognising that this may affect a considerable number of taxpayers and possibly cause some hardship to these taxpayers in coping with the new and changed requirements, the Australian Democrats support the principle that people ought not to abuse family trust arrangements for the purpose of avoiding provisional tax. However, I would like to elaborate on the point I have just mentioned. The difficulties for ordinary citizens nowadays in preparing their taxation returns are enormous. It seems that even our Treasurer (Mr Keating) has found it a task so onerous that he could not find the time to complete his return by the due date. The average taxpayer is in a much less fortunate situation than the Treasurer. I have had numerous calls from taxpayers over the last week. It appears that ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers are given only six weeks of grace after the due date for returns and then they receive a computer-generated final notice. It appears that the Treasurer may have received favoured treatment in this case if he did not receive this notice, or he may have just simply ignored it. I contend that the current taxation system is very much like a mass of spaghetti in tomato sauce-or more like tagliatelli bolognese-with the meat of the legislation smothered by a tangled mass of red tape. For the ordinary taxpayer, with maybe a savings or investment account or two, and possibly a few shares, it has become a formidable task to keep in mind the myriad of changes which are made to taxation laws each year. The task becomes horrendous and almost impossible for the small businessman or farmer, for the self-employed person paying provisional tax. Of course, this has been quite good for the accounting profession-it is a bonanza for it. As the complications of the tax returns increase, so do the charges made by accountants and tax agents. For all these categories of taxpayers, many of whom will pay no tax beyond what has already been deducted, the cost and hardship in preparing tax returns is a quite unwarranted burden. While the Australian Democrats can see the need to continue to close off tax rorts and tax avoidance rorts of big business in particular, we believe that the small ordinary taxpayer is bearing a bigger administrative burden due to the red tape which is being tied around this area of government operation. It is no wonder that small businessmen are giving up the unequal struggle with proliferating government regulations, tax amendments and administrative loads and are getting out of business, retiring on their savings or going overseas to find a better way of living. This is not good for the generation and development of new exports for Australian industry and for sensible proposals for getting Australia out of its current problem. We are not just overtaxed, we are overburdened with tax red tape. My only concern is whether this Government is capable of producing any legislation that is simple enough to operate, non-bureaucratic and equitable. It is time that the Government woke up to the realities of the market-place in Australia and that public servants in the Department of the Treasury woke up to this measure. We need to shift the burden of taxation from taxes on labour to taxes on consumption. We need to encourage employment and to get rid of the cash economy. The fault is not with the citizens of Australia but with the taxation system itself. No amount of extra amendment and fiddling with the existing tax system can solve the fundamental problem. Australian taxpayers cannot bear any further amendments of this nature. They cannot bear any extra or new taxes to plug things, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, which were introduced earlier this year. It is simply a proliferation of complexity which will advantage only taxation consultants. It apparently also increases the power of the Treasury over government operations. For that reason the Australian Democrats oppose the imposition of high fees for appeals against rulings on people's taxation liability by the Taxation Department. I believe that a $10 fee is all that most self-employed people and small businessmen can afford in the current situation. A $10 fee is already too high for pensioners who have a provisional tax levy because of income from savings. A $10 fee is already steep for a farmer operating under a family company if that farmer has made a loss and has to borrow every cent he pays out, whether for food for his family, or for such increasingly burdensome government charges. The Australian Democrats are always mindful of the gaping hole in the Treasury purse as unemployment and consequent health and welfare problems swallow more and more of the revenue of those who work. For this reason we propose an amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act which would raise immediate revenue for the Treasury of around $80m and, in the longer term, would save annually around $450m. This amendment is to disallow income tax deductions for expenses incurred in the marketing and promotion of tobacco products. It fits in with the amendments to the excise legislation and will again attack this particularly insidious industry which is operating within Australia. The final amendment which the Australian Democrats propose is an amendment to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. I believe that this legislation, which looks innocuous, is an outrageous sledgehammer being used to crack a nut. I believe that the Committee to which we wish to refer this legislation will be able to extricate from it the bureaucratic mess which will otherwise result from the implementation of this legislation. The Acting Treasurer, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), in his second reading speech, implied to the Parliament that the Government's amendments in no way changed existing practice. He said: Another amendment of the sales tax law being made by the Bill will make it clear that a general exemption item does not override a specific taxing provision. As a matter of statutory interpretation, that has always been the approach adopted in the administration of the sales tax law. The amendment will, however, put the issue beyond doubt. The amendments contained in this Bill are not expected to have any significant effect on revenue. Because these amendments will have no effect on the revenue, obviously that will not be a major problem. But I believe that this legislation needs to be examined further to make certain that we are not being given more tagliatelli bolognese and are not at risk of being drowned in it. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.10) —I wish to speak only very briefly on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4). It is an important piece of legislation. The Senate's time is very pressing at the moment and I do not want to delay the passage of this Bill unduly. One aspect concerns me; namely, the increase in the filing fee from $2 to $200 for those wishing to contest an assessment before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Under the Government plan, as proposed in this legislation, if the appeal was successful the $200 would be repealed. But $200 is an enormous amount of money for the ordinary Australian taxpayer. It will, undoubtedly, inhibit ordinary Australians from challenging the Commissioner of Taxation even if they do feel they have a very worthwhile case. Indeed, if the Bill goes through, many small people will be deterred from challenging assessments altogether and the Australian Taxation Office will be even more powerful than it is at present. The Taxation Office will be able to ride roughshod over the interests of pay as you earn taxpayers. I propose, therefore, to move an amendment which will ensure that there are three different levels of filing fees for three different categories of taxpayers. I propose a $10 fee for PAYE taxpayers, a $100 fee for provisional taxpayers and a $200 fee for all other taxpayers. This will ensure that high income earners and companies will be deterred from making vexing appeals merely to delay the finalisation of their tax, but the majority of ordinary Australians who could have a legitimate query or complaint will not be inhibited from making appeals to the Administration Appeals Tribunal. I will be moving an amendment along those lines in the Committee stage. I briefly want to touch on one other aspect. For a long time there has been an anomaly in the tax law which has cost the Government hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Simply, the anomaly related to the fact that some companies had their balancing date on 30 June and other companies had balancing dates during the year. Without going into the technicalities, which are unimportant, the interesting thing to me was that officers of the Tax Office have, for many years, been trying to get action on this anomaly, pointing out the many millions of dollars that were being lost to revenue and were unable to get through the bureaucracy. I understand that the current Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, heard of this anomaly and in double quick time got the matter attended to. I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Boucher, the Commissioner, and those officers in the Tax Office who finally got a very serious anomaly costing many hundreds of millions of dollars rectified and that takes place in this legislation. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.13) —I just want to speak briefly on one aspect of the legislation before the House; namely, the change being made in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) to increase the filing fee on applications for appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from $2 to $200. Senator Siddons has already spoken on it and, more importantly, Senator Messner led the debate for the Opposition. I support Senator Messner and Senator Siddons in expressing concern about this proposal which was introduced earlier in the Budget with no warning at all. It was not mentioned in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The proposal was buried away on page 292 of one of the Budget statements. No reasons were given either in the Budget Papers or in the second reading debate on the legislation now before the Senate. Quite clearly, it would appear that the proposal is entirely a revenue raising item. In imposing such an impost the Government has obviously paid no regard to the other implications for ordinary taxpayers. The increase in the fee is yet another charge by the Government on the ordinary taxpayers and wage earners in Australia. That charge has been compounded progressively from the day this Government came into office with ever increasing burdens on the ordinary people of Australia, not just the wealthy but, more particularly, it is the people that this Government claims it supports; namely, the average income earner and average taxpayer. The whole effect of what the Government has done with this filing fee increase-an increase from $2 to $200-is to inhibit the smaller taxpayers from exercising their legitimate and fundamental legal rights. The whole object of tribunals of review set up to look at administrative decisions of the bureaucracy is to provide inexpensive and informal machinery whereby ordinary people can be satisfied and assured that they are being dealt with on a fair and unbiased basis in their relationships with government. Therefore, any changes that we make in these areas in terms of the machinery that applies to tribunals of the nature of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and other review tribunals should be facilitating and not hindering the access to this fundamental right. The $200 filing fee reduces the machinery and takes it outside the reach of many ordinary people. Why would a person spend or risk $200? Assuming that a person has $200, why would he or she risk losing that money-because it is refundable only in the event of a successful appeal-to seek Administrative Appeals Tribunal review of a taxation decision where the amount of money involved in the refund may be $200 or less? It may be that an unsuccessful appeal-one can never be certain on those matters-will lead to an automatic loss to the taxpayer. Even if he wins his appeal he still may be behind in dollar terms. It is quite certain that the impact of this measure will detract from the rights of the small and the ordinary taxpayers in this country. This is at a time when public confidence in the taxation system and the administration of the taxation laws in this country have been put under very serious and possibly haemorrhaged risk by the disclosures last week of the quite unconscionable apparent favourable treatment that the Treasurer of this country has received on taxation matters, vis-a-vis every other person in Australia. We should be building up public confidence in our systems of government and of justice. To take steps-the filing fee proposal is one-which will have the effect of undermining public confidence and undermining the whole basis on which appeal tribunals in this country are based is, I think, a very serious matter indeed. It also comes at a time when the Taxation Commissioner is being given increasing discretion for his actions and measures. Therefore, that is even more reason for having a cheap, accessible, fair and unbiased review and appeal system. If we keep going down the route the Government is taking us with these types of measures, the Government is not just doing damage to the taxation system and more particularly to the rights of small, ordinary individual taxpayers and wage earners in Australia, but it is also doing a great deal of damage to the undermining of public confidence in the whole system of justice and the whole system of government in this country. I regret in many ways that, as the Opposition, we are not formally voting against this proposal. We are not doing so because we took the very principled decision at the outset that the Government is entitled to its Budget. That is the only reason we are not opposing this legislation; it is the only reason we are not supporting the Australian Democrats' amendments. It is no less an expression of the concern that we feel about this matter because it goes to the roots of many of the basic rights of individuals in this country. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.20) —I strongly support what Senator Short just said. I want to go further on a question of general principle which is being assaulted by this group of amendments to the tax laws in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986. This Government has consistently followed a basically bad principle of making Press release statements about what changes it wants in the tax law and then taking months or, in some cases, years to present the legislation. People have to operate as if the legislation existed when all they have to refer to is the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the appropriate Minister without having the benefit of the details of that legislation. When we were in government we followed that course when there was the need to stop haemorrhaging of revenue as people used devices to get around specific tax laws. This is not the situation in the matters addressed by these amendments. One of these amendments relates simply and uncomplicatedly to incompetence within the Australian Taxation Office and bad drafting in any event. I point particularly to clause 25 which has been dealt with by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills of which I am a member. Clause 25 would insert a new section 6ca in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 dealing with the source of certain natural resource income derived by a non-resident. Proposed new section 6ca (1) defines `natural resource income' as income calculated, in whole or in part, by reference to the value or quantity of natural resources produced, recovered or produced and recovered in Australia after 7 April 1986. Proposed new section 6ca deems such income to have been an Australian source and so to be subject to Australian tax. We have legislation going through the Senate in December to establish what the law really was after 7 April this year-a thoroughly bad principle. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee observed: Once again . . . a change to the taxation law is being made retrospective to the date of an announcement, not to the Parliament but presumably by way of a press release or press conference. The report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which is a bipartisan committee, continues: As it commented in its Ninth Report of 1986 in relation to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 this practice carries with it the assumption that citizens should arrange their affairs in accordance with announcements made by the Executive rather than in accordance with the laws made by Parliament. Such retrospectivity might be considered justifiable if it were feared that otherwise the revenue would suffer a significant haemorrhage but no such justification is advanced here. Reliance on a series of `announcements' to support restrospective legislation can only add to the very considerable problems already attendant upon the interpretation of the taxation laws because of their complexity and the many amendments which have recently been made to them as part of the Government's programme of reform. The Committee therefore draws new section 6ca to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) in that by reason of its retrospective effect it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. This is only a small individual matter, but it has a specific relevance to the capital gains situation in relation to which there is to be in this set of legislation an improvement, a correction, of some bad drafting. We all know how arrogant the Treasurer was when challenged on any matters about capital gains. He refused to allow tax officers to give the Opposition briefings until there was an almighty stink about it in the other place. It was the first time, to my knowledge, that a Treasurer has been so arrogant as to refuse to give briefings on legislation of such major importance. Whenever he was asked a question about it, his general response was: `Well, it is all clear in my statement of 19 September'. Let us remember that the capital gains tax announcement was made on 19 September last year, but we did not get the legislation until May or so this year, and now we find that legislation is to be amended by the legislation that is before us today because it was inadequate and inappropriate. Senator Messner —Only some of the inadequacies have been exposed. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —And, as Senator Messner said, because these inadequacies have been exposed. If ever we have had a situation in which it has been intolerable that legislation, firstly, has taken so long after an announcement and then has been shown to be totally in error and needing major revision, this is the classic example. Today, in December, we are amending legislation which was announced on 19 September last year and which has been in action all that time. People have been obliged to arrange their affairs under that sort of system. This is a method of governing which is totally unacceptable, which the Opposition rejects totally and which, quite frankly, is causing and has caused immense uncertainty and unhappiness about the administration of tax in Australia and certainly about the style of government that is conducted by this Government. Evidence of the bad nature of this law is clear from the story written by Bryan Frith in the Australian of 16 July. The Government did not find its error; it was pointed out to the Government. Bryan Frith's story said: Australia's leading companies face an unexpected tax bill of almost $100m because of a bungle in the drafting of the capital gains tax on option issues. Capital raisings were intended to be exempt from the tax. But the drafting of the legislation stated only that the issue of shares by companies would be exempt. Mr Frith became aware of this because of the good sense and determination of a very good friend of mine, Mr Robert Strauss of Bridge Oil Ltd, who, when he was poring over the Act, noted the reference to shares only and inquired of his company's solicitors whether that could mean that options would not be exempt and therefore liable for capital gains tax. Bridge had recently raised $23.26m through an issue of 155.1 million options at 15c each. The advice he received was that the option right to take up shares at a specified price would be regarded under the legislation as a `deemed asset' and the issue of the options would trigger a sale of that asset. After eight months of preparation of this legislation, as my colleague Mr Carlton pointed out in the House of Representatives, it was found by Mr Strauss, a businessman, that there was a total bungle in this matter and that an unintended consequence had been written into the Act, which meant that it would have raised almost $100m in one year instead of the $5m in the first year and the $25m after five years which the Government said it would. This is massive incompetence. The Bill with which we are dealing now seeks to correct this anomaly, or could we call it an unintended consequence? Mr Frith was the first person to use that term in relation to so much of the Government's legislation-a term behind which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has since been hiding. The essential point is: This is yet another example, and probably the worst example, of the consequences of governments leaving people in the dark about the meaning and effectiveness of their intentions when they come out with a statement which is not followed by legislation until eight months later, and then the legislation is found to be defective. The Government has to do better than this. It claims to be a government of massive and major reforms. The Income Tax Assessment Act comprised 1,100 pages before the latest round of amending legislation began. The Government has added about 900 pages to it since September last year. If the intention of the Government was, as the Prime Minister stated, to simplify the taxation system, what the Government has done is make the system more incomprehensible; it has made the system more difficult to understand, and it has certainly opened people to more and greater risks because they have to arrange their tax affairs when they do not know what the legislation really states, and when the legislation itself ends up flawed. The Government has to do a lot better than this. This is absurd. It has to revise completely the whole tax Act. It is now totally unmanageable. Fifty years ago it was 81 pages. Now, as I said, it is close to 2,000 pages. It is full of this kind of nonsense. We are obliged to support these tax amendment Bills, but it does not mean that we cannot express, in the strongest possible terms, our total opposition to the manner in which the Government has gone about its business by harassing taxpayers in this way and providing unsatisfactory tax laws and by leaving this enormous gap between the time it makes announcements and the time it eventually brings out the law. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(12.32) —I wish to speak briefly on the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 1986 and the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) Bill 1986. These Bills provide for increases in duty in the Australian Capital Territory for conveyances on real property; impose a duty on grants of leases of land by the Commonwealth; and include in the value for stamp duty purposes of conveyances for residential property the value of chattels conveyed with the property. We are not opposed to the duty which is being imposed, but every time there is a new duty imposed in the Australian Capital Territory it is usually because somebody somewhere else in Australia has decided that it would be a good idea. We are not some kind of social laboratory that ought to pay tax of every kind that exists in every other State. I now refer to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) that has just been dealt with in some detail by Senator Michael Baume and drawn attention to by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. There is a retrospective nature to that legislation which I think is unfortunate. The Government may care to answer that criticism which has been raised by the Committee. In referring to the Australian Capital Territory, this legislation will raise a considerable amount of additional revenue. There are now very few areas where it could possibly be suggested that we are, in any way, differently taxed from the States, and it is an argument that is relevant, of course, in the self-government debate which, as we are pressed for time, I shall not develop today. The Budget this year extracted from the Australian Capital Territory an additional $11m, in addition to the other expenses of increased petrol prices, increased Medicare levy and all the other things that have affected families and are being felt so keenly by citizens in the Australian Capital Territory. It was suggested at the time by the Government that these were all duties of a commercial nature and did not really affect the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I cannot see how duties of this kind can be imposed without their flowing on. I cannot imagine what business in Canberra pays duty on anything without it being reflected in its expenses and the prices it charges. This is an absolute nonsense. An additional $11m is being paid by the people of Canberra. Eventually it is extracted by this Budget, in addition to the other expenses the people of Canberra incurred as a result of the Budget. I will not deliver the full speech I intended to make on the Budget today. I am sure that all of us would have liked an opportunity to do so, but time has not been made available. These Bills give me an opportunity to refer to a brief part of the speech I intended to give on the Budget. The other matter to which I refer in relation to this package of Bills is the $200 fee to appeal against a taxation decision. We do not support that, but we will not be voting against it, as has been pointed out by Senator Messner, because of our attitude to the Government's Budget strategy and its fund-raising efforts within the Budget. To suggest, as have the Australian Democrats, that a fee of $10 be imposed, is an absolute nonsense. We either have a fee which goes some way towards covering costs or we do not. It would cost $10 just to service the $10 fee. To suggest that such a small sum be substituted is quite ridiculous and we will not be supporting that. If we were going to reduce it to $10 we should cut it out altogether. That would probably be the cheapest option because there really is no way that we could process a $10 cheque and have it properly entered, receipted, and noted without spending more than that on it. I shall not develop the debate further because I do not think this is the appropriate time as we are being pressed to complete these debates as soon as possible. (Quorum formed) Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.38) —The Government opposes this amendment to refer the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. As was stated in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill, the proposed amendment of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act will not alter the practical administration of the sales tax law. The amendment proposed by clause 3 of the Bill will formally incorporate into the sales tax law an accepted rule of statutory interpretation. It has been applied by the Commissioner of Taxation in his administration of that law for many years. Broadly stated that rule provides that the specific provisions of the law override general provisions. In other words, an item in the sales tax schedule that imposes tax and is expressed in specific terms prevails, and indeed has always prevailed, over an item that provides an exemption from tax but is expressed in quite general terms. This amendment will have no effect on the existing exemptions for goods for use by public benevolent institutions such as the Red Cross. The items under which such institutions obtain a sales tax exemption are often referred to as conditional exemption items; for example, any goods howsoever described for use and not for sale by the Red Cross are exempt from sales tax. What could be more specific than that? It is incorrect to suggest that because the draftsman did not enumerate all possible goods that might be purchased by such an organisation, the goods referred to in the item are therefore covered in general terms only. I can assure honourable senators that any institution currently exempt from sales tax by reason of a conditional exemption item will continue to enjoy exemption once clause 3 becomes law. I reiterate that clause 3 will not alter the practical administration of the sales tax law. Against that background there appears to be no justification whatsoever for the reference of this matter to a committee. As I have said, the Government opposes the amendment accordingly. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is that these Bills be now read a second time, to which Senator Vigor has moved an amendment to add the words `with the exception of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, and that that Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for report by the fourth day of sitting in 1987'. The question now is: That the words proposed to be added by Senator Vigor's amendment be added. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986, Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 1986 and Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) Bill 1986 read a second time. The Bills. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.41) —by leave-On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I move the following amendments to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986: (1) Page 11, after clause 27, insert the following clause: ``Losses and outgoings ``27a. Section 51 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end the following sub-section: `(5) A deduction is not allowable under sub-section (1) in respect of expenditure for the purpose of the advertising or promotion of- (a) tobacco, substances containing tobacco, synthetic tobacco or any substance intended or designed for smoking; (b) cigarettes, cigars or other items intended or designed to be used for smoking; or (c) smoking pipes or any other accessories, items or devices intended or designed to be used principally for or in association with smoking.'.''. (2) Page 47, clause 55, proposed new section 14zab, definition of ``required fee'', leave out ``$200'', insert ``$10''. The first amendment would remove the taxation deduction that is currently available for expenditure on advertising and other forms of promotion of cigarettes. It would give the Government a chance to raise about $80m in one year and $450m in future years. If tobacco companies spend such large amounts in their attempts to seduce teenagers and the young in our community, thereby creating large bills for health prevention and social welfare measures, I believe that it is quite reasonable for the Government to levy taxes on such money. There is absolutely no reason why the taxpayer should support the advertising of tobacco. We should be doing everything that is possibly open to us to decrease the amount of smoking within the community. The taxpayer is being used to subsidise the advertising of this habit, particularly to the young. I am very disappointed that both the Government and the Opposition apparently will refuse the imposition of this levy. I commend the amendment to the Committee and recommend that honourable senators vote in favour of it. The first amendment deals with tobacco; the second amendment was very fully canvassed by Senator Messner, Senator Short and Senator Michael Baume in the second reading debate. They all said that to impose a $200 fee for appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would be a pernicious measure. We are trying, by way of our second amendment, to get this fee decreased to $10, which I believe would be a reasonable fee. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.44) —The Government opposes these amendments, not least because they are moved by Senator Vigor but also intrinsically for the substantive nonsense that they represent. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(12.45) —The Opposition also opposes the amendments, simply on the grounds that they prejudice the Opposition's tax policy and, of course, they are inconsistent with the Budget which has been brought down by the Government. We have already given our reasons for not opposing the Government's Budget. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.45) —On the basis of Senator Gareth Evans's reply, I believe that I have to justify my argument. I did not justify it earlier, in the interests of getting things through, but when it is suggested that what I am putting forward is substantially nonsense I believe I have a responsibility to the community and to the people that I represent to put these arguments properly. The amendment removes the taxation deduction. Senator Gareth Evans —Time, gentlemen, please. We must finish. We will never finish. It will go on and on. Sit down; we have to stop. Senator VIGOR —I do not believe that the Minister has the right to do this, under any standing order. Senator Gareth Evans —None whatsoever, but I have the Committee unanimously behind me. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —The Minister wants to bring on some other legislation, so would you hurry up and finish what you were going to say. Senator VIGOR —Madam Chair, I am disturbed by this. The time has reached 12.45 p.m., so I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.48) —Unlike Senator Vigor I am under no illusion that the whole of Australia has been waiting for every pearl that drops from my lips. Senator Puplick —Just because it is a swine Bill there is no need to go on like that. Senator COLLARD —We are not into making silk purses this afternoon, Senator Puplick; we just want to get some much needed legislation through. These pig industry Bills are in line with a lot of other primary industry legislation that has been handled in this chamber through the year. There are three Bills in this package and they are in line with all the other primary industry Bills introduced to restructure certain sectors of our primary industry. This particular package of Bills sets up the Australian Pork Producers Corporation to replace the Pork Promotion Committee. The Corporation will be run by an independent chairman, one Government appointee and five people with expertise in the industry. The five will be selected by an industry dominated four-member selection committee. The Corporation will have to submit a five-year strategic plan and will have to report yearly to the industry and to Parliament. The Pig Industry (Transitional Provisions) Bill repeals the old legislation and the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill provides for a levy to fund the Corporation. The levy, to rise to a maximum of $1.50 per head, initially will be $1.30 per head with $1 going to promotion and 30c to research. As I understand it all the Bills are revenue neutral. Already the pig industry in Queensland has raised a couple of concerns and I ask the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to take note of them. Can he provide at some stage the budgeted figure for the cost of establishing each of the three organisations and their budgeted annual operating costs? One other concern relates to adequate representation by the pig processing industry. This concern refers particularly to membership of the Pork Corporation Selection Committee. Senator Puplick —Ha, ha! Senator COLLARD —Senator Puplick might live in Sydney, but there is concern. There are to be four members-one presiding member, two members nominated by the Australian Pork Producers Federation and one member nominated by the National Meat Processors Association. The National Meat Processors Association encompasses a far wider group than just pork producers and pork processors. There is some concern in the industry that the Minister should indicate to the NMPA that when it nominates its representative on the selection committee it should be somebody who has expertise in pork processing, not somebody who is, for instance, interested only in beef or mutton. The NMPA does have representatives in all sections of the meat processing industry but the pork producers would like their representatives at least to have some interest and some knowledge or expertise in the pork processing industry. Of concern also is imports from Canada. The problem is not so much their coming in, but disease control. Our pork producers, in line with all our other primary producers, are some of the most efficient in the world. They have, of course, to put up with costs past the farm gate which are beyond their control. One of the things going for our producers, as well as their efficiency, is the fact that we, as a nation, have pretty well disease-free status. There is great concern that with imports from Canada, where there is a transmissible gastroenteritis disease, that disease could get into Australia. My understanding is that certain trials have to be carried out. It has been established that those trials cannot be done in Canada and would have to be done at the Geelong high security laboratory. There is also great concern that a decision might be taken on these imports before all the trials have been done and before adequate information is assessed. If the Minister cannot reply in this debate, could he make information available sometime in the near future on representation on the committee and on disease problems with imports from Canada? As I have indicated, we will not be opposing these Bills. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.53) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting this legislation. These Bills will restructure the statutory pig industry organisations by replacing the existing Pork Promotion Committee with an Australian Pork Corporation. The new Corporation will take over the existing functions of the Pork Promotion Committee. These functions will be expanded by this legislation to include improving the production and sale of pork and pigs in Australia and encouraging, assisting and promoting the export of pork products from Australia. The Bill also establishes an Australian Pig Industry Policy Council to advise the Minister for Primary Industry on issues affecting the industry. The Australian pig and pig meat industry has increased the gross value of its product by over 250 per cent since 1974-75 and over the same period domestic pork consumption has risen from 12.9 kilograms per capita to over 17 kilograms per capita. Currently the market for Australian pork is predominantly domestic, with only 2 per cent of production exported. It seems likely that the Australian Pork Corporation to be set up by this legislation will be able to help Australian pig producers achieve greater efficiency in methods of production and provide overseas marketing and promotion assistance to them so that more Australian pork is exported. This would certainly assist our balance of trade problems. We are aware that there are some concerns in some areas of this legislation, but we note that the decision on the industry structure is a result of discussion with the industry on a range of options. We commend the industry and the Government for arriving at a suitable resolution, as represented by this legislation and the establishment of the new Australian Pork Corporation. We commend and support the Bills. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.55) —The Senate is debating the Pig Industry Bill 1986, the Pig Industry Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 and the Pig Industry (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1986. These Bills establish the Australian Pork Corporation, to replace the Pork Promotion Committee. The levy Bill also provides for the imposition of a levy of $1.50 per head payable on the slaughter of pigs. This is a rise of 50c per head on the levy which has previously been payable to the Pork Promotion Committee. The functions of the Corporation are to improve the production of pork and pigs in Australia, to encourage the consumption of these products in Australia and overseas and to encourage exports. There is no doubt that these are important functions and if the Corporation is successful in realising its objectives it will help to continue the expansion which has occurred in the pig industry. The industry has recognised the importance of these aims and in a spirit of self-help and self-promotion it will fund the operation itself. Clause 23 of the Pig Industry Bill clearly indicates that it will be the producers who will be responsible for funding the Corporation through the money raised by the Pig Slaughter Levy Act. The Australian pig industry has been far more successful than perhaps some other areas of primary produce. In 1974-75 the number of pigs slaughtered was 3.4 million and it is now estimated in 1985-86 to be 4.5 million. This is an increase in production of about one-third. The gross value of production has also increased in this period, from $197m to $450m. So undoubtedly the industry has been more successful than some other areas of primary produce. If one may make predictions, I believe that the success of the industry will continue. It is particularly pleasing to read of developments in genetic research at Adelaide University which have resulted in a 19 to 20 per cent improvement in food conversion efficiency by pigs. Reports earlier this year indicated genetic research had resulted in 19-week-old pigs weighing 90 kilograms, 20 kilograms more than ordinary pigs. At this weight they could be marketed some six weeks earlier than would normally be expected. With this kind of improvement taking place in the industry it should have a bright future. However, there is no room for complacency. Prices received by the industry have not improved markedly over the last three or four years. The price for baconers is currently at about $1.80 per kilogram and for porkers it is about $2 a kilogram. As I have said, these prices are not significantly higher than the price four years ago but, of course, there have been significant price increases in fuel, labour and interest rates in the meantime. What has helped the industry in recent times is the fall in the price of feed. While the falls in the price of wheat, barley and sorghum have been devastating for most farmers, they have helped to maintain the viability of pig farmers. At the moment it would be foolish to predict the recovery of the grain markets but the point should be made that they have provided a significant cushioning effect for other increases in Australian costs which inhibit our ability to compete on overseas markets and against pork and ham imports. Perhaps foremost amongst the cost increases which have plagued the industry has been the rise in Australian interest rates. I have stated in this place before, of course, that interest rates for farm equipment can reach as high as 24 per cent, for secondhand goods, if the money is borrowed from a finance company. While this is perhaps the top end of the market, it is almost impossible to obtain finance at a great deal less than 19 per cent. This has a particularly adverse impact on pig producers because this is an intensive industry with a higher reliance on capital than many other rural industries. As one example of this, it has been recently announced in Queensland that the company Specified Pork Abattoir Pty Ltd will construct an intensive breeding and abattoir complex costing $36m. This complex will turn out more than 200,000 carcases a year. The operation will have about 7,000 to 8,000 sows. If the Australian industry is to compete against fierce competition from the Canadian, Irish and Danish industries, to name but a few, it will be necessary for it to have the most modern and efficient methods at its disposal. The ability to develop these methods is vastly inhibited by high interest rates at any time. If ever Australia faces higher interest rates than its competitors, the industry will face a relative competitive decline. The fact is that under this Government the industry has had to contend with just that problem. Australian interest rates can be up to double some of the interest rates prevailing in countries in Europe. The ability to modernise some of our more antiquated abattoirs, perhaps in some cases to build newer and better abattoirs closer to areas where pigs are raised, thereby reducing freight costs and increasing the quality of the product, is thus lowered. There is also the question of higher Australian labour rates. Again, as a result of the intensive nature of many of Australia's pig farms, there is a higher labour requirement than that which might exist, for example, in the cattle industry. I have heard people in the industry speak of a ratio of one man to 100 sows. Quite obviously, if Australia's labour costs are increasing at a rate greater than that of its competitors, the industry is again at a significant disadvantage. This is, of course, exactly what is happening. Only two days ago the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Bernie Fraser, indicated that the forecast outcome for wages in the Budget of 6.25 per cent was not in line with the wages growth of our trading partners, whose wages were increasing at the rate of 4.5 per cent. Australia's labour rates will therefore increase by 1.75 per cent more than those of our competitors. Australia has also been denied the full effect of falls in the price of fuel, which has been available to our competitors. I am well aware, of course, that a rebate has been provided for excise increases on diesel used by primary producers, but this is not the only fuel used by primary producers. There is also no rebate for fuel used in road haulage-again, another competitive disadvantage. Finally, where accommodation is provided for workers there is a fringe benefits tax. Piggeries, by their very nature, are not the type of ventures people like next door to them. They are therefore built at some distance from population centres and do occasionally have to provide accommodation for staff. This Government then proceeds to declare that a house on a piggery is a perk-some perk, I might suggest. Nevertheless it results in another farm cost increase. The aims of the Pig Industry Bill are laudable. Everyone wants to see the industry expand and prosper. What the Government must realise, however, is that this cannot occur if the industry faces hard costs and competitors. A significant reduction in some of the fundamental costs in the industry would be better than all of the promotional expenditure in the world. The Government will never see Australia penetrate markets such as Singapore, where the local industry is being phased out and where there is also significant European Economic Community competition, if we cannot sell our products at a profitable but competitive price. We will also not be able to make the necessary improvements to the quality of our product to break into the 240,000 tonnes of pork currently imported into Japan each year from Denmark and Taiwan. Finally, I would like to raise the matter of imports of pork from Canada. While I am not suggesting that imports should be shut out without very good reason, I have received a significant amount of correspondence from people in the industry expressing fears about possible dumping and disease infiltration. While the Canadians are normally regarded as fair producers of agricultural products, I am also aware that certain subsidies are given to Canadian growers of grain and that Canadian agriculture benefits from certain transport subsidies. I stress to this Government the importance of Australian producers being able to compete against imports on a fair basis. I am aware that the Australian Customs Service has received and acted upon dumping complaints against imported canned hams from the Republic of Ireland, Denmark, Romania and Yugoslavia. I hope the Government will give a guarantee that it will keep a similar close watch on the dumping of imported pork, also. To conclude on the subject of disease, I am aware that earlier this year the Government acted to prevent the importation of uncooked pork from Canada for fear of the spread of transmissible gastroenteritis in Australian stock. Two other diseases have been raised by the industry, Aujeszky's disease and trichinosis. I understand that trichinosis, which is a parasite, can be killed by freezing the meat for a period and the Canadians will, of course, do this. Aujeszky's disease, though not present in Canada, is present in the United States. One might ask what guarantees the Government can give the industry that there will not be possible contamination from the disease as a result of Canada importing United States meat. I do, of course, realise that the Canadians do not want the disease either. However, I would like to be certain that the Government has convinced itself that there can be no contamination. I recognise that the quarantine service does not work on the basis of being absolutely certain the disease will not be imported, but on the basis of acceptable risk. I understand that this is reasonable because Australia asks that countries which import our meat work on the basis of acceptable risk also, not absolute proof. If we imposed a higher requirement on imports we would soon face the same problems with our exports. In the calculations, however, I would nevertheless like at least to know whether account has been taken of the particular susceptibility Australian stock might face because it has been isolated from these diseases for so long. The essential point is whether an allowance has been made for possibly greater than normal devastation of the Australian herd compared with overseas herds. I commend the Bills. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(1.07) —I did not hear all of the debate but I understand that Senator Collard asked a couple of specific questions to which I have answers. Firstly, on the levy costs for the three organisations set up by the legislation, I am told it will be the responsibility of the new Australian Pork Corporation to develop its own budget and expenditure patterns. All up, the Government does not expect an increase in the slaughter levy of more than 10c per pig to result from this industry restructuring. This would include the costs of both the Pig Industry Policy Council and the selection committee. In regard to the processor representative on the selection committee, the National Meat Processors Association will nominate one member. The Government does not wish to restrict the Association's right to select the person who the Association considers best qualified for the position. I also understand there was a reference to the import of pig meat from Canada. I am advised that two years ago a formal request was received from the Canadian Government seeking access to the Australian market for uncanned pig meat. It was followed by a detailed examination by the relevant authorities, who reported that Canada is free from the major diseases of pigs, such as Aujeszky's disease. It also showed that Canada has world standard veterinary authorities and meat inspection services which are equivalent to those in Australia. Discussions with industry bodies made it apparent that their main concern was the possibility of introducing transmissible gastroenteritis in uncooked pig meat. In respect of that disease, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) arranged for the Canadians to be requested to undertake certain tests to demonstrate conclusively that the risk of transmitting TGE in pig meat was not significant. The Canadian Minister for Agriculture responded that there was no recorded evidence of the disease being transmitted in this manner and Canada regarded the proposed trials as being costly and time consuming and unlikely to contribute more knowledge on the subject. In light of that advice, and keeping in mind the genuine concern of the Australian industry, the Minister has agreed to tests being conducted by the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong to establish the degree of risk, if any, that would result from the importation of uncanned Canadian pig meat. When the results of those tests are known, the Minister will decide on the Canadian request on the basis of the scientific information available. If the present prohibition on imports is not justified, it will be removed. The Government will not use quarantine restrictions to give economic protection to industry. Indeed, given the degree to which Australia justifiably complains about other countries doing just that, it would be hypocritical to do so. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or requests, or debate. Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.12) —Mr Deputy President, the Opposition supports the Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill. It complements an initiative originally taken by Senator Chaney when he was Minister, and the Opposition has supported previous reciprocity agreements as it supports this one. Although there are a couple of minor points of concern that were expressed in another place, I think they were adequately answered and I just indicate that the Opposition wishes this legislation well and supports its passage. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(1.13) —Mr Deputy President, the Australian Democrats too will be supporting the Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill which, as Senator Peter Baume has pointed out, is perhaps the result of Senator Chaney's initiative when he was Minister for Social Security. We congratulate Senator Chaney on initiating the negotiations which have produced a reciprocal agreement between Australia and Italy on social security payments so that each country will provide a share of an individual's pension entitlement. This legislation, when the agreement is ratified by the Italian Government, will be of benefit to people who are currently resident in Italy but are not entitled to an Australian pension, despite the fact that they have resided in Australia for a considerable time in the past; people who stopped contributing to the Italian social security system when they migrated to Australia but are not eligible to claim an Italian pension entitlement; and Italians who are now Australian residents but not eligible for an Australian pension because they have not resided here long enough. Between 1945 and 1982, almost 450,000 Italians came to Australia as permanent settlers and their contributions have enlivened and enhanced the Australian economy, society and culture. In my own State of Victoria, and in Melbourne in particular, there is ample evidence of the breadth and depth of the rich Italian experience translated into the Australian setting. It is important, of course, that people who come to this country to make such a contribution, to live here, do not suffer any loss of entitlement of income support at the hands of either their country of origin or their newly chosen country of residence. We should note that the agreement with Italy bridged a gap which had existed between the Australian social security system and one of the very different systems which operate in other countries. This legislation will benefit the Italian community. The Australian Democrats support the Government in entering into similar reciprocal arrangements as we have with other countries whose former citizens are now an integral part of Australian society. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(1.07) —I do not propose to delay the passage of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(1.09) —The Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill 1986 is a machinery Bill which seeks to amend the Public Service Act 1922. I understand that it also seeks to amend five other Acts-the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, the Superannuation Act 1976, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and the Commonwealth Employment Service Act 1978. It also seeks to repeal the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. We agree with the general thrust of the legislation, particularly as it picks up some of the provisions that were in the Act when we went out of government in 1983 and were subsequently repealed by the present Government. The Government is now putting them back in the legislation, so we have no quarrels with that. However, the Hawke Labor Government is not putting back into the Act one particular provision that it repealed when it came into power. Because of that, I intend to move an amendment that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to incorporate the principle of `no work as directed no pay'. We are looking at reducing the cost of the Public Service, which is one of the first things that one wants to do, as well as streamlining and increasing its efficiency. In this respect, I suppose the first thing we must do is decrease the functions of the Public Service. One thing that exercised the minds of honourable senators in debates this morning was the fact that if we are to have big government, if the Government is going to do things that could be better done by other people or other sections of the community, we are going to need a big Public Service. All the streamlining in the world will not solve that problem. It is interesting to note that, in spite of the public announcements in the Budget that there is going to be a reduction this year of 2,000 in the size of the Public Service, I understand that it has already grown by about 15,000 since the Hawke Labor Government came to power in 1983. In other words, we are looking at a net increase over that period of 13,000. This is hardly the way to improve the efficiency or reduce Government expenditure and, through taxes, costs to the community. During the years of the Fraser-Anthony Government the size of the Public Service actually declined by an average of 0.12 per cent per year. On top of that, the Government has increased the number of statutory authorities by approximately 60. I also understand that about 4,000 extra public servants will be needed to administer the Australia Card legislation, the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. So, whereas the legislation to streamline the Public Service is, as I indicated, most welcome, it has to be acknowledged that, in spite of the 2,000 reduction that has been announced, there has been a net increase since this Government came to power. In any case, there is likely to be an increase greater than that 2,000 over the next two or three years. So, we are looking down the barrel in terms of increased government expenditure on the Public Service. The Bill only fiddles at the edges of Public Service reform. There is no essential services provision. There is no attempt to address the massive duplication of Federal and State responsibilities. There is no attempt to carry out deregulation and rationalise the functions of the Public Service. There is no real plan of management to force or allow the middle and upper echelons of the Public Service responsibly to manage the Public Service units under their control. There is no provision to prevent the rip-off that is occurring in the Public Service workers compensation area where it is estimated that there are 10 times the number of successful claims in comparable parts of the private sector. That observation, of course, was the subject of debate on legislation that was dealt with earlier in the day. While welcoming the legislation, we are greatly concerned that it does not go nearly far enough and that the Government has not bitten the bullet and tried, first of all, to downgrade not only the size of the Public Service but also government influence on the lives of the people of Australia. While sitting here waiting for this debate to come on I was handed some amendments which the Australian Democrats will move at the Committee stage. This is the first time that I have seen them. The other House is not sitting. The shadow Minister responsible for Public Service matters is not in Canberra. Because of that and because of the time limit in getting the legislation passed, we will not be supporting those amendments. I formally move: Leave out all words after ``that'', insert: ``the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to incorporate the principle of `no work as directed no pay' for those Commonwealth employees who engage in- (a) the performance of work in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice in relation to work, the result of which is a restriction or limitation on, or a delay in, the performance of the work; (b) a ban, limitation or restriction on the performance of work or on acceptance or offering for work; and (c) an unauthorised failure or refusal by persons to attend for work or an unauthorised failure or refusal to perform any work at all by persons who attend for work''. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(1.22) —The Australian Democrats will not be supporting the Opposition's amendment. This is the first occasion on which we have seen the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion. I was not handling the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill 1986 when it went through the House of Representatives. However, I have acquired responsibility for it following the reorganisation of the Australian Democrats due to the retirement of Senator Siddons. The Australian Democrats indeed support what is a significant and long overdue reform of the Public Service staffing arrangements. Until now, staffing arrangements under both Liberal and Labor governments have been very strange. It was, for instance, possible to appeal against a decision to promote another person, even if one was not an applicant for that position. Where appeals were involved, it took an average of nine months to fill a vacancy. Anyone who has ever applied for a Public Service position, particularly an applicant from outside the Service, will know what it is like waiting month after month for news of whether or not one's application has been successful or, in fact, whether that application might have disappeared into a void. The criteria on which promotion decisions are based are to be widened to include potential for future career advancement and ability to perform a variety of jobs at the same level. This is eminently sensible. One can only regret the fact that it has taken so long to implement staff selection criteria aimed at increasing the flexibility of the Public Service and the promotion of employees with suitable management and leadership potential. One of the most controversial areas in Public Service staffing has always been the treatment of redundant and inefficient staff. Under the present award system, it can, for instance, take up to two years to deal with surplus staff. The demotion, transfer or sacking of inefficient staff has to pass through so many appeal and transfer procedures that managers are really in rather a desperate situation. Important extreme alternatives have been brought into play and we have seen evidence of them as a result of questioning at Estimates committee hearings. In fact, staff have been retired not on inefficiency grounds but on the grounds of disability. I believe that the new provisions for dealing with inefficient, redundant and unqualified staff are fair and they apparently have the support of the relevant unions. We look forward to the consequent improvement in Public Service efficiency and morale. The Bill contains a number of other administrative amendments which we support, subject to the reservations that are expressed in the amendments which have been circulated in this House and which particularly concern retirement provisions and equity. At present there appears to be no equity in the administration of the invalidity provisions of the Public Service Act. There seems to be no attempt to ensure fairness in the application of the provisions between the lower levels and the senior levels. Somehow in the drafting of the legislation, the senior executive and First Division levels have not been included in the early retirement provisions. I would be very pleased if the Minister could give me some indication of why this has happened. This may mean that senior officers are considered to be above the normal human frailties which afflict their subordinates. It would be very useful to get some idea of why there is this difference in dealing with this part of the Public Service. We have already heard about the abuse of the system in relation to early retirement. The imputation was that the abuse was occurring at the lower levels. I am not certain that that is necessarily so. I think the Minister for Finance will have to put up a pretty good case to convince us that this is not happening in other parts of the Service. I would like to know whether the Minister has given consideration to the possibility that the invalidity provisions have potential for greater abuse at the senior executive level by rewarding people for services rendered as an effective means of retiring them. As Senator Walsh has pointed out on a number of occasions in this place, these people can undertake other jobs and earn more money. It has come to my attention that there is a predominance of cases in the upper levels of the Public Service in which these provisions have been exercised in a favourable sense allowing officers to achieve higher pensionable levels by promotion just prior to retirement on the grounds of invalidity. The scheme is thereby abused by giving rewards beyond those achievable by merit. Some of these senior ex-public servants are even finding further lucrative rewards in consultancy, sometimes with the same department that has retired them on invalidity grounds. Perhaps it would be beneficial for the Senate if a survey were made of invalidity retirements at the senior executive level to establish how many ex-public servants are involved in consultancy work for the Public Service and are thereby supplementing their income to levels beyond that which they may have earned when they were being employed. I certainly have reported cases of this. It is all very well to talk of the waste of taxpayers' money in not recalling lower level retirees for re-examination by medical practitioners. But probably more money could be saved by re-examining retirees from the senior executive levels. It is the senior level public servants who determine the fate of the lower level Public Service staff who retire early. To ensure that equity prevails, the system must be seen to be just and to apply equally over the whole Service. Provision must, therefore, be made in the Bill to ensure that this happens. Another area that needs to be looked at very carefully is the abuse of these provisions by those who administer them. It is a standing joke in the Public Service that those who disagree with their senior management are frequently retired early. This stigma is seen as a means of retribution. We must also ensure that loyal and hard working public servants who have unwittingly caused political embarrassment are not subject to such actions. We must have some provisions to ensure that public servants, such as whistle blowers, who report problems within their own areas, are not discriminated against in the Public Service. This legislation is not the place to do it, but I believe that the Government should look at this problem. We must ensure that such people are not further exploited by being required to be re-examined with the possibility of being redeployed at even a lower level than before. The use of these provisions for dealing with difficult management problems has, in fact, also been used in the past by departmental secretaries. It has even been used to have deputies retired for disagreeing with the views of the person in charge. On the basis of reports I have received, I have reasonable grounds for believing that this has happened. I wish to spend just a very short time on section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Section 13 requires that a written statement be given of reasons for an employment decision. Some bias on the part of the selection committee will often go undetected unless that bias is recorded on paper. I have had examples drawn to my attention of cases where selection panels have completely misunderstood something about a particular applicant or what was involved in various educational attainments, particularly where these educational attainments have unusual wording because of the institution from which they were obtained. It seems to me that it is very important that there should be some type of review process and that the understanding of a particular committee should be able to be queried or challenged. Frankly, in their rush to install an insider to a particular job, it appears that some people may make untenable claims, such as dismissing relevant qualifications as being inappropriate. For instance, one person who had qualifications in government and political science was considered to be quite unsuitable because the panel said that a scientist was not wanted. What they wanted was somebody with a social worker background. That seems incredible, but apparently it does happen. This case actually went through the appeals process and was successful. The absurdity of the written reason gives people who have been discriminated against an opportunity to confront the discrimination and do something about it. Without a written statement of the reason, it is much less likely that the instances of prejudice, bias and insider operation will, in fact, be detected, recognised and corrected. I commend the Bill to the Senate. I will be addressing only very briefly the contents of my amendments during the course of the Committee stage. I repeat: The Australian Democrats are not supporting the Opposition's amendment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(1.34) —The second reading amendment is, of course, not accepted by the Government on either policy or functional grounds. The `no work as directed no pay' provision was inserted in the Public Service Act by the Fraser Government in 1980. Having then put it in the Act, it did not really do much with it and the plain fact is that the provision was not effective in achieving its stated objective. Like so many other measures taken by the Fraser Government, it was typical of the Fraser Government-there was a lot of tough talk and very little action. There was almost no effective action. Senator Collard also referred to the number of public servants. I want to make two observations in this respect. There has been a significant increase since this Government has been in office. A good deal of that is attributable to demand driven increases; that is, as the number of pensioners, unemployment benefit recipients, service pensioners and so on, increased over what it had been before there has been an inescapable requirement for some growth in the Public Service. The second point I want to make is that many Government measures aimed at reducing or removing Public Service functions, like closing off abuse of the Freedom of Information Act and the general abuse of appeal provisions and also the merger of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service-although, strictly speaking, that does not relate to the Public Service, it is indicative of the attitude adopted by the Opposition of sending off to Senate committees puerile references, of the type that was sent off this morning, on matters of monumental unimportance-also consume Public Service resources. The point is that the Opposition, although purporting to be critical of the size of the Public Service, adopts mostly an obstructionist and blocking approach to Government attempts to reduce the functions. Senator Collard also stated that more than 60 statutory authorities have been created by this Government. That statement is false. In fact there have been 21 statutory authorities created by this Government, most of which are replacements for other authorities or committees which previously existed. We dealt with an example of this this morning in terms of the Australian Pork Corporation which replaces the Pork Promotion Committee. Twenty-one is the correct figure and most of those bodies replaced other bodies which had previously existed. The figure of 60 was supplied, of course, by the Opposition spokesman on Public Service matters, Mr Connolly, who then conned one journalist into publishing it as a fact. I suggest that the Press should be more sceptical in accepting figures supplied by Mr Connolly in particular, and the Opposition in general, than it has been in the past. I do not at this stage intend to deal in any detail with the amendments of which Senator Vigor has given notice, except to correct one misconception which he obviously has-that is, his misconception that invalidity retirements are somewhat higher or disproportionately high among the senior executive service. That is not true. Indeed, the general rule is that the rate of invalidity retirement is highest among blue collar workers. The other comments he made about that matter were really more relevant to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, which was dealt with this morning, than they are to this legislation. But I draw his attention to the fact that those amendments which have now been passed to the superannuation Act close off the particular abuse to which he referred-that is, people getting out of the Public Service, earning very substantial incomes, sometimes higher than they earned in the Public Service, and receiving an invalidity pension as well. That is no longer possible because of the Bill which has already been passed. I do not believe from my quick look at them that his amendments have merit and the Government will not be accepting them. Even if they did have substantial merit, I do not think the Government could reasonably be expected at this time to accept them, particularly when the House of Representatives has already risen and the Government wants this Bill enacted. Therefore-and this, of course, applies to the Opposition's second reading amendment as well-we want this Bill enacted. We do not want to have to wait until three or four months into next year for this to happen. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(1.39) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 23, clause 41, after proposed new section 50DB, insert the following new section: ``Rotation of Departmental nominees `` `50DBA. In nominating a person for the purposes of paragraph 50DA (5) (b) or 50DB (4) (b) or (10) (a), a Secretary shall ensure so far as possible that a person is not nominated as a member of successive Committees or successive Committees constituted for the purpose of filling the same vacancy or a vacancy in the same office.''. (2) Page 24, clause 41, after proposed new sub- section 50DC (2), insert the following new sub-section: `` `(2A) Subject to sub-section (2), a Joint Selection Committee shall conduct its proceedings in accordance with such guidelines, not inconsistent with this Act, as are prescribed.''. (3) Page 32, after clause 68, insert the following new clause: ``Retirement of Secretaries of Departments on grounds of inefficiency or incapacity ``68A Section 76D of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section: `(1A) Where, on application by the Secretary or otherwise, an authorised medical practitioner has recommended that a Secretary should, because of physical or mental incapacity, be retired from the Service, the Board may, with the consent of the Secretary, report to the Governor-General under sub-section (1) that the Secretary is, because of physical or mental incapacity, incapable of performing his or her duties.'.''. (4) Page 34, clause 75, lines 1 to 4, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ``Retirement with consent of officer on grounds of invalidity ``75. Section 76N of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1) and substituting the following sub-section: `(1) Where, on application by the Senior Executive Service officer or otherwise, an authorised medical practitioner has recommended that a Senior Executive Service officer should, because of physical or mental incapacity, be retired from the Service, the Board may, with the consent of the officer, retire the officer from the Service on a day to be specified by the Board.'.''. (5) Page 38, clause 78, after proposed new section 76W, insert the following new section: ``Retirement with consent of officer on grounds of invalidity `` ` 76WA. (1) Where, on application by the officer or otherwise, an authorised medical practitioner has recommended that an officer should, because of physical or mental incapacity, be retired from the Service, the relevant Secretary may, with the consent of the officer, retire the officer from the Service on a day to be specified by the Secretary. `(2) Where an officer is retired under sub-section (1), the day as from which the officer is retired may, with the consent of the officer, be a day that is earlier than the day on which the action to retire the officer was taken.''. (6) Pages 53 and 54, Part VII, leave out the Part. I am disappointed that both the Government and the Opposition have indicated that they are not going to support these amendments. The aim of the first amendment is to produce a more equitable situation in selection procedures. In particular, there is a need for the members of selection committees to be rotated to avoid the possibility of individuals becoming entrenched as the departmental member. The second amendment seeks to give some guidelines to the joint selection committee for the rotation process that I have just mentioned. The third amendment concerns the retirement of senior people on grounds of inefficiency or incapacity, which I mentioned in some detail during the second reading debate. The fourth amendment deals with retirement with the consent of an officer on grounds of invalidity. It basically allows this process to take place by agreement between the persons concerned without all the paraphernalia which would otherwise be involved if the officer were not given the option of opting out on these grounds. This is also the case in respect of amendment 5. I have moved these amendments on behalf of the Australian Democrats because I believe they improve the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill 1986 and increase its equity. However, in the interests of getting this legislation passed without any undue delay and bearing in mind that we also would like to get the legislation accepted, we will not be forcing a division. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(1.42) —We will not be supporting these amendments which we have only just seen. Even though it is a case of too little, too late, we believe that it is important that what there is of the legislation should be put through forthwith. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.43) —The first Australian Democrat amendment deals with the selection process in the Public Service. I think this is an appropriate time to raise a question which I have raised over the last four years-that is, the recruitment of youth to the Public Service. I note that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is at the table, is interested in this matter. Indeed, last year he gave me some responses to my questions. I do not have the actual quotes of what the Minister said, but in response to the point that I raised last year that youth as a percentage of the total Public Service staff had fallen to a then all time low of 6.3 per cent, the Minister indicated that there were a number of reasons for that, one of which was the question of obtaining trained staff. He indicated at that time that traineeships were going to be made available in the Public Service and that, by the next year-namely by this year-this would be shown to have some effect. According to the Public Service Board's most recent report, which was tabled in the Parliament last week, the Public Service permanent staff increased in the last year by 3,204 persons to a total of 145,433. But at the same time, the number of youth in permanent Public Service jobs dropped by 913. I do not know whether the Senate understands the import of that. The increase in the total Public Service staff was 3,204 and, at the same time, the number of youth in permanent Public Service jobs dropped by 913. That is rather ironic, given the commitment of the Government to give priority to youth. In fact the result of that-and if I can give you the actual numbers of youth, under 21 years of age-- Senator Walsh —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Could Senator Harradine identify to which clause of the Bill he is addressing his remarks? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, clause 41. The CHAIRMAN —I must consent to Senator Harradine's remarks because they have been in order. This Bill does cover recruitment and other matters, so Senator Harradine's remarks are in order. Senator HARRADINE —I am raising this, Minister, in a genuine way, and I am quite aware that a number of Ministers are concerned about the fact that the Public Service Board is not giving youth a fair go. I am raising it in the hope that there will be a response which will tell the Public Service Board not to discriminate, as it is doing, by making deliberate policy decisions and instituting a structured bias in Public Service appointment procedures. There is a structured bias in Public Service Board appointment procedures which discriminates against youth employment. The fact is that young people under 21 years of age constituted 22.2 per cent of Public Service permanent staff in 1966. That dropped to 6.3 per cent in the year before last and to an all time low of 5.6 per cent in the last year for which the Public Service Board's report is available. I consider that that tragic state of affairs has been brought about by a deliberate policy of the Public Service Board and the structured bias in the Public Service appointment procedures. That is what we are talking about: The question of appointment procedures. Those appointment procedures actually discriminate against youth. The Public Service Board's dropping of 913 youth from its permanent employment has meant a cut of 11 per cent in the number of youth on the permanent Public Service payroll. I know that the Public Service Board's report said that 602 trainees were appointed in that particular year. I presume that further trainees have been appointed since. But these traineeships are temporary, short term traineeships, of about a year's duration and there is no guarantee that at the end of that time the youth will obtain a job. I make the point that traineeship schemes have an important role in the Public Service, as elsewhere, but they must not be introduced at the expense of permanent jobs. These schemes, including the schemes in the Public Service, must give a real prospect of permanent jobs if youth are not to be disillusioned with them. The Government really ought to have a good look at what the Public Service Board is doing with its appointment procedures and undertake some explicit policy intervention to rectify the situation that now exists. There is an all time low of youth in the Public Service. It is not enough to say that the traineeship schemes will rectify the problem. Youth will be very disillusioned with the traineeship proposals if there is not explicit intervention by the Government concerning appointments to permanent Public Service staff jobs. Some unions have categorised the traineeship proposals as ultimately being designed to turn permanent staff positions into temporary traineeship positions filled by a succession of youth trainees. It is clear that though 602 temporary part time trainees have been appointed, the Public Service Board has dropped 913 permanent young staff. That requires an answer from the Government and I believe it is not appropriate for the Government to just retain the handouts given by the Public Service Board, because it is a stark reality, a stark fact, that permanent jobs for youth in the Public Service have dropped by 11 per cent while at the same time there has been an overall increase in Public Service staff of 3,204. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(1.52) —I will go through the first couple of amendments very briefly. I have already said that even if the Government believed they had considerable merit on policy grounds, which we do not, we still would not accept them because we want to get the legislation enacted and accepting these amendments when the House of Representatives has already adjourned would prevent that from happening. The first couple relate to selection committees. I want to make two points. First, the Public Service Board can always issue guidelines about that matter anyway; it does not have to be written into statute. Secondly, the complaints about the composition of selection committees can be taken up with the Merit Protection and Review Agency. Amendments Nos (3) and (4) have been dealt with, and I think I have already covered the invalidity to retirement question. The final amendment, No. (6), relates to the present statutory entitlement to a section 13 statement of reasons for selection decisions, which the Government proposes to delete as part of the streamlining exercise. It will both speed up the process and minimise the cost. Guidelines, however, will still emphasise the importance of proper counselling on selection decisions, freedom of information entitlements will still apply, grievance and appeals mechanisms will still apply and so on. I have replied briefly to Senator Harradine's comments. It is true, as he has said, that the proportion of youth in the Public Service is now lower than it has ever been. The same is true, I think, for the work force as a whole. Maybe with the exception of the early 1950s, because of a demographic blip, there is a common reason for that, and that is that young people are staying at school longer and therefore there are not as many of them in the work force, demographic fluctuations aside. Senator Harradine made the subjective allegation that the Public Service Board discriminates against youth. I think that is a reasonable interpretation; it is an honest one anyway. He apparently believes that the Public Service Board should discriminate for youth, when in fact the Public Service Act forbids the Board discriminating on grounds of age. Whether it does or does not discriminate is, as I said, a subjective argument which cannot really be proven. The idea that there ought to be discrimination in favour of youth, however, is of course incompatible with the merit principle of selection. Certainly even with a stated merit principle there is an element of subjectivity in appointment and promotion decisions. If the Government has opted for a merit principle, it would be quite inconsistent to then amend the legislation so that the Board was required to give preference-to discriminate, in other words; to move away from the merit principle. On the question of the entry into the Public Service of youth, there is, for fairly obvious reasons if one thinks about it, a positive relationship between the growth rate of the Public Service and the rate of youth recruitment into it. If the Service is not increasing-and that is the position right now, as it has been for close to the last 18 months-there are obviously fewer opportunities for entrants and, therefore, fewer opportunities for youth. On the question of the traineeships, it is expected that some 80 per cent of the 600-odd office trainees who were taken on last year will receive permanent appointments. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.57) —I thank the Minister for his last comment. It is a commitment I am very happy to hear. However, the three points of the excuse given for the dramatic decline-- Senator Walsh —It is not an excuse; it is a reason. Senator HARRADINE —Could I say that they are all wrong, and prove it. Senator Walsh —Are you saying that the Public Service Act does allow the Board to discriminate on age grounds? Senator HARRADINE —No, I am saying it never has. It has always been on merit. Is the Minister saying that only in recent years have appointments been on merit? That is nonsense. Appointments have been on merit for ever and a day, or for the last 20 years-- Senator Walsh —If I have understood you correctly, you do not want it on merit, you want it on age grounds. Senator HARRADINE —No, what I am saying is that appointments to the Public Service over the last 20 years have been on merit. Yet we find under the Public Service Board's policy at present that there has been a decline in the percentage of youth appointed to the Public Service, from 22.2 per cent in 1966 to an all time low of 5.6 per cent now. So obviously that is not the reason. Secondly, it has been said by the Minister that there are fewer young people in the work force now than there were at that time. That also is wrong. The fact is that there are more young people in the work force now-and the work force, mind you, includes not only those who are employed but also those who are unemployed-than, for example, there were in 1963, and yet the actual number of youth in the Public Service now is lower than in 1963. So that is the second point that is incorrect. The third point that the Minister made was that when there is no positive growth in the Public Service, obviously there will be a decline in appointments to the Public Service. As I said at the outset, there has been an increase in the number of public servants of 3,204 and there has been a decline in the number of young public servants of 903. The Minister will have to do better than provide those sorts of excuses. The three of them are wrong and the Public Service Board and its Chairman ought to be challenged on all of those points as to why they are discriminating against youth. Progress reported. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the Minister to yesterday's announcement of the News Ltd takeover bid for the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd and the recommendation by the board of the latter company in favour of the Murdoch offer. I ask: Has the Government any concern about the increased concentration of media ownership which will result if, as seems likely, the bid is successful? Does the Minister agree that, unless News Ltd disposes of some newspapers-that is reportedly not presently planned by the company-in addition to its major holdings in Melbourne and Sydney, the Murdoch organisation would control all the local daily newspapers in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and Hobart, as well as the main weekend papers in those cities? Can the Minister advise what, if any, action is proposed by the Trade Practices Commission, given that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act prohibits share dealings which lead to a position of market dominance, either nationally or in a State? Senator BUTTON —I suspect that this is a question more appropriately addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. I can comment only in a very inexpert way. All I can say is that it is early days yet in terms of speculating about what might happen to newspaper ownership if the News Ltd take- over of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd is consumated. It is also a fact that, as a result of newly announced Government policy, News Ltd would be required to divest itself of television interests. I make the point that, as I understand it, the takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times, or certainly its newspaper interests, could have happened at any time without any questions being asked prior to the recent Government announcement on cross-ownership of television and newspaper interests. I am unable to advise what the view of the Trade Practices Commission would be on this matter. I have no information about that. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the Minister for his answer and agree with him that I could perhaps have selected another Minister to answer the question. But the first question that I put to him-this is why I addressed my question to the Leader of the Government rather than to any other Minister-was: Does the Government have any concern about the increased concentration of media ownership that will result if, as seems likely, the bid is successful? Bearing in mind that Mr Murdoch has indicated that he has spoken with the Prime Minister, I wondered whether the Leader of the Government could give us some indication of whether it is a matter about which the Government has any concern. Senator BUTTON —I cannot speak for the Government on this matter. Concentration of media ownership is a matter about which I have always been concerned; we have always had that situation in Australia. I am totally unaware of whether Mr Murdoch had discussions with the Prime Minister, and cannot help with that aspect. Senator ELSTOB —My question is to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. On Tuesday I asked him a question about offsets programs and computer purchases. I now ask the Minister whether he is in a position to provide the further details that he promised then. Senator BUTTON —I am in a position to provide further details but I am not quite sure where they are. I find myself in much the same position as was Senator Walsh yesterday. However let me say that, since the revised offsets program was announced by the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, and me in January of this year, there has been a great deal of activity by government and companies interested in offsets work and this has led to quite successful and worthwhile results. Since February this year, there has been some $500m worth of offsets work which will flow to Australian companies as a result of the revised program. A further $300m worth of offsets work is under discussion between aircraft manufacturing companies and overseas companies at present. That excludes negotiations taking place between aircraft manufacturing companies and the Boeing corporation and Airbus Industrie relating to the new generation of aircraft to be produced by those companies. However, the important point is that the new offsets program is being used much more successfully in respect of technology transfer and higher technology work for Australian companies. The number of companies that have benefited from offsets under the revised offsets arrangements has increased significantly. After eight months we are able to point to a result which far exceeds the results under the previous offsets program, which were subject to some abuse and some defaulting by a number of companies which had entered into agreements under that program. We very much welcome the revised scheme and the results that have been obtained to date. We encourage new companies to come into the scheme as far as possible. As at today six companies have been awarded the status of pre-qualified offsets suppliers, and that list will grow in the next few months. The Government is encouraged by the progress that has been made under the scheme and we hope that it continues in that way and that even more companies will be involved. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, both in that capacity and particularly in his capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General. My question has regard to the Minister's long-standing advocacy of open government and of the need for strong and meaningful freedom of information legislation. I refer to a matter that I mentioned in a debate at which the Minister was present the other day which relates to a request by Mr Neil Brown, under the Freedom of Information Act, for access to documents relating to the Government's decision to remove its ban on the export of uranium to France. Is the Minister aware that the Department of Trade identified 14 documents relevant to that request but denied access to all but two of them which were then doctored in the most ridiculous fashion so as to remove virtually anything that could not have been learned from a ministerial Press release? Is the Minister aware that one of the grounds for denying access to ten documents was that `disclosure could lead to uncertainty as to the intentions of the Commonwealth'? Can the Minister explain what this extraordinary phrase means? Would it be fair to assume that the potential for further embarrassment, particularly within Australian Labor Party ranks, is the main reason for this ludicrous decision which makes a mockery of the whole freedom of information process? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no knowledge of the sequence of events involved in the claim for freedom of information access to Department of Trade documents. The operation of the Freedom of Information Act is such that Mr Brown has legal remedies available to him if he thinks that an exemption was wrongfully or improperly claimed. I leave it to him to take that course of action. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In view of the non-answer from the Minister, and indeed the non-interest that he seems to be displaying in the subject now, will the Minister refer to the Attorney-General the answer that Mr Brown has received, as an example of the way in which that Act for which he is responsible is working? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, Mr President. Senator Durack can do that himself. He is perfectly grown up and capable of doing so. Senator DEVLIN —My question is to the Minister for Community Services. We keep hearing about big increases in services, yet people claim that there was no real growth in welfare expenditure in the last Budget. Is this true for the Minister's portfolio? What are the community service achievements of the Government? Senator GRIMES —I thank Senator Devlin for the opportunity he has given me. It is not often that I get this opportunity without prompting. We hear of increases in services and cuts-- Senator Chaney —Is this a swan song or a curtain call? Senator GRIMES —It is everything. I am changing my name to Melba. We hear that welfare expenditure has been cut and that services to people needing assistance in this area have been reduced. That is not true. It is worthwhile to remind people that there have been considerable achievements in this area in the last few years. In the area of child care we are providing 20,000 new places. By the end of next year the number of Commonwealth-funded child care places will have increased by 152 per cent. That is well on track for the 20,000 new places we promised we would develop. This Government will have provided more child care places than all previous governments. In the area of aged care services we are putting more emphasis on less dependent accommodation. So there will be increases in the number of hostels and in home and community care services and a slower rate of increase-but still an increase-in the number of nursing homes. In regard to assistance for homeless people, expenditure on the supported accommodation program has increased six-fold. We have a greater capacity now to provide services which are suited to local communities and which correspond to the desires of those communities and the different conditions which operate within them. Recently we passed new disability legislation which will continue the work we started in providing demonstration projects. So, for the first time government funding will match the needs and desires of local communities, rather than their having to match their desires and needs to rigid government programs. In the area of emergency relief, again we have expanded expenditure in line with cost of living increases. We are developing new family support services. All in all, the Government's concern in this area is reflected in the fact that in the last Budget there was a four per cent real increase in expenditure in this area, despite the efforts of my ministerial colleague next to me, Senator Walsh. We will continue to increase expenditure in this area because it is a high priority. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Government aware of an article in the October issue of Nature stating that smoking is estimated to cause 30 per cent of all cancers, that in Norway a national anti-smoking campaign involving banning cigarette advertisements resulted in fewer people taking up smoking, and that a general approach to the treatment of cancer ought to be preventive in view of the increasing indictment of smoking as a major cancer hazard? When will the Government ban all advertising of tobacco, prohibit smoking in aircraft and other public places, and ensure that tobacco products are taxed at levels which compensate for the enormous sums in health care costs they cause to the community? Senator GRIMES —I was given some warning of Senator Mason's question and read the article in Nature. Slap bang in the middle of the article is the statement that smoking is estimated to cause 30 per cent of cancers. That may or may not be true, but there is nothing in the article to back the statement. Whatever the truth of the matter-- Senator Mason —There are references. Senator GRIMES —There are references, but not to back that statement. The honourable senator should not worry. I am not attacking the article. Certainly the easiest and simplest public health measure we could achieve in this country to improve everyone's health would be for everyone to give up smoking. I accept that. It is a matter of how one goes about it. Senator Haines —You leave the cigarettes in the packet. That is how you go about it. Senator GRIMES —Maybe you do not even produce the packets, Senator. The Government has control over the electronic media. As Senator Mason knows, cigarette advertising on the electronic media has been banned. We need to get co-operation from the States to ban other forms of advertising, which are primarily a matter of consideration by the States and Territories. It is certainly possible to carry out such a ban. Bans on smoking in aircraft have been mooted for a long time. The Minister for Aviation has written to the airlines suggesting that smoking be banned on flights of less than 90 minutes duration. The airlines responded stating that they believe that legislation should be introduced for such a ban. The Minister for Aviation is considering such a ban. The Commonwealth Public Service Board has issued new guidelines on smoking. It is aiming for a smoke-free Commonwealth Public Service by 1 March 1988. Smoking was banned in the offices of the Commonwealth Department of Health on 1 December 1986. On the question of taxation, this morning we debated Senator Vigor's amendments which attempted to increase greatly the excise on tobacco and ban taxation deductions for cigarette advertising. Senator Crichton-Browne, who is attempting to interject, is correct. Some people would ban alcohol, burn books and shoot politicians. Maybe we would be better if those things happened, but in this country we tenuously hang on to our democracy and we will for some time yet. Therefore, we should go about these things in a more sane and sensible way than the sorts of proposals that are put forward by Senator Mason and his colleague. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. It would also probably upset my good friend Senator Elstob. The Minister may be aware of advertisements appearing on television-I have certainly seen them in Hobart-in which three male singers extol the virtues of smoking a brand of cigars-I think a variety of mini-cigar. Will the Government ensure that all necessary steps, whether legislative or administrative, are taken to prevent this type of advertising, which clearly contravenes the intention of the Parliament to prohibit the television advertising of tobacco products so destructive of health? Senator WALSH —I have not seen the advertisement but I have heard about it. If it is correctly described, it seems to me that there is no question but that it contravenes the intention of the legislation. Whether it contravenes the letter of the legislation may be a different matter. I will attempt to get a view from the Minister for Communications, or his Department, the Attorney-General's Department, or somebody, on whether it contravenes the letter as well as the intention of the law. I am also informed that the Minister for Health is concerned about the advertisement and has written to Mr Duffy asking him to consider extending the legislation to cover tobacco products generally. I will advise Senator Tate of the result of that matter when it becomes available. I also draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that any member of the public can lodge a complaint with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in relation to program and/or advertising standards. The Tribunal can then, at its discretion, raise the matter with the licensee. Senator TATE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As I understood the last part of the answer it was to the effect that the onus was on private individuals or voluntary organisations and at the discretion of the Tribunal to try to remedy this situation. Will the Government itself take steps to ensure that all tobacco product advertising on television is outlawed, if it turns out that there is a defect in the coverage of the present regulations? Senator WALSH —I do not think I can give a definitive answer on behalf of the Government as to whether action will be taken. The last part of the original answer I gave was not intended to suggest that the Government has no responsibility in this matter, but simply that individuals may do something as individuals if they wish. On the other question as to whether this is breaching the letter of the Act, I shall seek an opinion from Mr Duffy in the first instance. If the answer or belief about that is no, it does not breach the letter of the Act, there is action already under way pursuant to Dr Blewett having written to Mr Duffy asking him to consider extending the legislation. Senator PETER BAUME —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Against the background that the current Commonwealth electoral roll for the Division of Blaxland in New South Wales shows that Paul John Keating resides at 14 Fishburn Street, Red Hill in the Australian Capital Territory, and further that he is not enrolled as a State elector anywhere in New South Wales, I ask: Does the Commonwealth Electoral Act in section 93 require that a person be enrolled at his `real place of living'? If Mr Keating has identified for the purposes of the Commonwealth Electoral Act that an Australian Capital Territory address is his real place of living, how can he, and how could he, claim travelling allowance for nights he sleeps at this real place of living? Do these facts not reveal that Mr Keating has either breached the Commonwealth Electoral Act, or else breached the rules laid down by the Remuneration Tribunal, which provide for the payment of travelling allowance only in respect of time spent away from `the principal place of residence? Senator BUTTON —I take it that what Senator Peter Baume is seeking to establish is that Mr Keating is in exactly the same sort of position as Mr Sinclair, Mr Hunt, Senator Lewis and a number of other members of the Opposition. The question is defective in one respect only as far as the facts may be concerned, and that is that Senator Baume has not taken the trouble to search out whether or not Mr Keating is on the electoral roll in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Baume should do that and ask again. This matter has been the subject of numerous questions and explanations, and I have nothing to add on the basis of new information. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance representing the Treasurer and relates to the Taxation Debt Recovery Bill. What revenue would have been lost this year-and in total-if the Queensland Supreme Court decision on the statute of limitations stood and the Taxation Debt Recovery Bill had not been passed? What are the revenue loss estimates based on, and who would have gained and who would have lost if the Bill had not been passed? Senator Messner —He answered this last night. Senator WALSH —A very good answer it was too and that is why it needs to be repeated. Had the Queensland Supreme Court decision been allowed to stand and had the legislation not been passed, $200m in revenue would have been lost this year and $900m in total. The basis for those estimates is a survey taken from the Sydney and Melbourne offices of the Australian Taxation Office of the number of taxpayers who would have had their liability to pay their tax cancelled if the Opposition had had its way. From that survey an extrapolation was made for the rest of Australia. In other words it is an estimate with a very high level of reliability. I was asked who would be the major gainers if the Opposition had had its way and managed to defeat the Bill. The gainers would have been people who had devised and used shonky paper tax avoidance schemes in the late 1970s in particular, which were subsequently disallowed by the Australian Taxation Office; who were then subsequently assessed by the Tax Office to have a liability to pay tax; who following that assessment abused and misused all avenues of appeal, in some cases right up to the High Court, but who finally lost through all those avenues of appeal and had legally established that they had a liability to pay the tax, but against whom, for a variety of reasons-one of which was that there was at that time no belief that there was any reason to do so-the Australian Taxation Office, though having issued an assessment, had not actually commenced action to recover the debt. Those people who devised shonky paper tax avoidance schemes in the late 1970s, who were then ruled by the courts to have a taxation liability, would have had their obligation to pay the debts, which had been established through the courts, gratuitously cancelled if the Opposition had had its way and defeated the legislation. They would have been the gainers. The losers would have been those millions of honest taxpayers, and particularly PAYE taxpayers, who have played the game and paid their tax when they should have paid it. I believe that the action taken by the Opposition last night was the most disgusting action to come out of the Liberal Party in the last decade. It establishes beyond all doubt that the Liberal Party is still the party of the tax avoider and the tax evader. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to seek an assurance from all the members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and Parliamentary National Party that they would not have been personal beneficiaries of knocking out that legislation had the Opposition succeeded in doing so. Senator PUPLICK —I address my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the Government's attention been drawn to the comments by a former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, that Australia's national interests would not be compromised by the publication of Mr Peter Wright's book and that the public interest would be served by its publication? Do these comments support others to the same effect made from the bench by Mr Justice Powell? In the light of these comments and of the fact that the Secretary to the British Cabinet has been forced to confess to having misled the court by giving it false information, something revealed only after the threat made by the United Kingdom Attorney-General to resign if these lies were not withdrawn, does the Australian Government still adhere to the view that Wright's book should be suppressed in the public interest and, if so, why? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government will make up its own mind about these matters without assistance, however well intentioned, from Mr Whitlam. Our involvement in the case is directed towards protection not of any British public interest, but of Australian public interest which might be affected by publication of the book. The particular point at issue as far as Australian public interest is concerned is that identified in Mr Codd's evidence, as Secretary to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, on behalf of the Australian Government. The essence of that position is that the unauthorised publication of memoirs or other material by a present, former or for that matter future security employee such as to constitute a breach of confidence may be such as to amount to a breach of the national interest. I emphasise the word `unauthorised' as so much of this debate has taken a rather misleading form because of the absolutist character of the British defence. It may well be that as in the United States it would be appropriate from time to time to authorise publication of such material. But, where it is not authorised, clearly there are very significant security interests at stake. The Australian Government's concern in this case, irrespective of the particular merits of the Wright argument, in which we are not especially involved, is simply to ensure that that principle is understood and that the breach of confidentiality rules as applied by the courts recognise the legitimacy of that sort of claim. Senator PUPLICK —I ask a supplementary question. Am I to understand from the Minister's answer that the basis of the Australian Government's concern in this matter is the question of the protection of the principle of breach of confidence, as distinct from the material which is alleged to be in the actual text of the book itself? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that is perfectly clear from the affidavit of Mr Codd which defines the parameters of the Australian Government's interest in the conduct of this particular case. I am concerned to ensure that that principle is understood and accepted. Senator COATES —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the United States Administration's exceeding of the ceiling of the SALT II Treaty, which occurred a few days ago when the 131st B52 was deployed with nuclear cruise missiles. Has the Minister noted the recently reported concern expressed by Democratic Party Congress members, one of whom described the deployment as `a mistake in judgment, every bit as serious in the long term as shipping missiles to Khomeini'? Another said: It is unbelievable that at a time when the Administration's foreign policy is in a shambles, they want to complicate the situation by raising another major issue. While noting the Minister's answer to Senator Sibraa last Friday, I ask the Minister whether the Australian Government has sent a message to the United States Government since the breach, expressing our abhorrence of this violation of the Treaty which can do nothing to improve the chances for peace in the world? If not, will the Government do so? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has of course seen reports of the criticism and the ongoing debate in the United States on the deployment which breached the SALT II limits. We have noted that; I have no wish to comment on that debate in the United States. As to communicating the Australian Government's position, I, speaking on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated a Government reaction to this on the day that it occurred-28 November. The following day Mr Hayden put out a substantial Press release, the last paragraph of which was in the following terms: Mr Hayden said that the Government was not persuaded that the United States action was an appropriate way to address these concerns and remained of the view that decisions regarding the nature and structure of United States and Soviet strategic nuclear forces should be made within the SALT constraints. I have no doubt whatsoever that the terms of that statement made by Mr Hayden would have been communicated to the United States authorities in Washington. I do not know what further communication there may have been on this subject but I believe the Australian position has been sufficiently identified and sufficiently robustly made clear by that statement of the Foreign Minister. Senator WALTERS —The Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment should be aware of a report in today's Hobart Mercury confirming Mr Jonathan West's appointment as consultant to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, and that Mr West is also director of the Wilderness Society which yesterday confirmed that it is technically bankrupt. As the Minister referred to Mr West as `my Tonto', will Senator Ryan inform the House whether Mr West draws any salary or expenses as a member of the Government's advisory committee on logging in Tasmania and the terms of the consultancy in relation to salary, arrangements for reimbursement of costs incurred, the requirement on Mr West's time, the conditions of his appointment and the terms of that appointment? Will the Minister table the agreement drawn up by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment with Mr West setting out the terms and conditions of his consultancy? Senator RYAN —I do not have the answers to any of those questions that Senator Walters asked, including the way in which the Minister addresses his consultant. As Senator Walters posed a set of detailed questions, I suggest that she put them on notice. Senator AULICH —Yesterday Senator Parer asked the Minister for Finance a series of questions in relation to the taxation of travel allowances under the Fringe Benefits Tax Act. Will the Minister now surprise the Senate with additional information in relation to this matter? Senator WALSH —I recall the question yesterday and I said at the time that I did not believe that fringe benefits tax would be applicable to a travel allowance paid in cash. I have now received some additional information from the Treasurer's office-additional to that which I supplied at Question Time yesterday. Senator Parer asked me whether it was a fact that from 1 July any tax liability arising from the receipt of travel allowances would be assessed under the Fringe Benefits Tax Act and the answer to that, as I suggested yesterday, is an unequivocal no. Travel allowances are not taxed under the Fringe Benefits Tax Act. Then Senator Parer asked me whether this meant that an excess of travel allowances remaining after reasonable travel expenses had been deducted would be taxed in the hands of the employer and not the employee. Implicit in that is that Senator Parer and, indeed, a number of Opposition front bench members who could have written that question for him are confused about the distinction between fringe benefits tax and substantiation under the Income Tax Assessment Act. If one can make any sense at all of Senator Parer's question, it would have to be interpreted as a question which asked whether, if an employer paid an employee a travel allowance which exceeded reasonable expenses as defined in the relevant ruling, the excess would be subject to taxation under the Fringe Benefits Tax Act. As I have already said, the answer to that is no. Unreasonable travel allowances are subject to taxation in the hands of the employee as income if the employee cannot satisfy the Commissioner of Taxation with an acceptable degree of substantiation. Senator Parer then asked whether it would be true that an employer-specifically the Commonwealth-paying an excessive travelling allowance to an employee would then be liable to pay tax under the FBT legislation. The obvious answer to that is no. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the reported statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Fraser, that the Budget forecast of a 6.25 per cent increase in wages in 1986-87 is not in line with the average wages growth of our trading partners of 4.5 per cent? Is this statement in direct contrast to statements in the Budget Papers? Further, did Mr Fraser question whether the 6.25 per cent increase as forecast would be met under the proposed two-tier wages system? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government still supports this two-tier wages system and, if so, whether that support is contrary to the advice of the Treasury? Senator BUTTON —A few days ago I saw the purported statement by Mr Fraser, as reported in the Press, and his comments about wage increases not being in line with those of some of our major trading partners. I understand that and, while I have not examined those comparisons myself, I know that that is Mr Fraser's view as reported. Whether that is in direct conflict with the Budget projections I very much doubt. Any forecast increase in wages as has been articulated by the Commonwealth Government in the national wage case is in line with the Budget projections. On the part of the question dealing with the proposed two-tier wages system, as I understand it the Commonwealth made a submission in which it supported in principle the introduction of the two-tier wages system, subject to the fact that it was dependent upon capacity to pay and a `cap'-that is the expression that is used-or a ceiling, as it were, on any possible claims under the two-tier wage system. In respect of the two parts of the question which have been directed to me, the answer is that the Government, in its wages submission, has put the two points of view that I identified. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his response. I wonder whether he could address the last part of my question which was, in effect: In view of the statements of Mr Fraser as recently reported, is the Government's support for the two-tiered wage system contrary to advice received from the Treasury? Senator BUTTON —I am not able to answer that question, but I believe not. The position to be put by the Commonwealth in wage cases is, as I understand it, subject to discussion between representatives of a number of departments. As far as I am aware, there was no dissenting view from the Treasury. But that is not a matter about which I am absolutely certain. Perhaps that part of the question ought to be directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister for Community Services received the report of the Australian Early Childhood Association on the standards of child care in Australia? If so, can the Minister say what, if any, of the recommendations in that report the Government will be responding to? Does the report lay to rest the criticism made earlier this year of the Government regarding child care centres? Could the Minister elaborate on where we are with regard to the target for child care places? Senator GRIMES —I did receive the report of the AECA-the Australian Early Childhood Association-which looked, at our request, at the standards of child care in the various States. It is a very interesting and comprehensive report which I think will be very useful throughout Australia, particularly for some of the State governments which have the licensing role in this area and which therefore apply many of the standards. The interesting part of the report was that, in asking an open-ended question of all child care centres, surprisingly, only a very few centres made reference to difficulties with funding. In light of the kerfuffle that went on earlier this year and at the end of last year about changes to funding, this indicates, of course, that the whole system has settled down. There are about 13 recommendations and most are to do with assisting organisations with better financial management and assisting them to cope better with the managerial decisions they have to make. We will look at these recommendations very closely and, I am sure, respond to them very positively. Other recommendations concern the number of qualified staff. We will have to discuss those with the States. There are a couple of recommendations which directly concern staffing which are not new recommendations. They are recommendations I have seen previously. I think the kindest thing to say about them is that they have a touch of the ambit about them. For instance, one is that there should be a co-ordinator, who does not take part in direct child care, in any child care centre which has more than 30 children. I would have thought that if the system were such that an organisation needed a co-ordinator to do more than an hour's administrative work per child, the problem is with the system. I would certainly look at the system rather than at spending another $12.5m to provide co-ordinators in that area and perhaps having to raise the fees by $3. Another claim, which is one that we frequently hear, is that child care workers should have two hours relief time every week so that they can either read or think. I would not mind a couple of hours off every week in which to think. That claim is always justified by the fact that teachers have preparation time. I am the first to concede that teachers need preparation time. But I also have strong views on the quantity of so-called preparation time that teachers have. I will not go into that now because I will start getting letters from members of the lunatic fringe of the New South Wales Teachers Federation. I do not like that, because they are unkind to me. Senator Georges —They will not only be from the lunatic fringe. Senator GRIMES —I do not like it, Senator, because they say unkind things about me and because my staff is appalled by the lack of literacy exhibited in the letters. I suppose, having said that, I will get the letters anyhow, so I had better say that they can write the letters because it will make them feel good, but I will not answer them, and that will make me feel good. We will consider those two claims. But our greatest concern is to provide children's services places, provide access to people who need it, and provide the high standard that we have already provided. We will certainly look at claims of that type, but I cannot hold out any hope that we will satisfy them. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. When will the Government respond to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts entitled `Towards A National Language Policy', which was completed three years ago and which Ministers have already broadly commended? Why did the Minister fail to respond by May and then by November, as she had promised both in her then urgent interim statement last February and in her statements in August relating to Mr Lo Bianco's appointment as the Government's special consultant to help complete the Government's response? Has Mr Lo Bianco's term of appointment been extended? Finally, does not this failure concerning national language policy further compound the Government's decisions to cut out teaching resources for English as a second language, abolish the multicultural education grants of the Schools Commission, amalgamate the Special Broadcasting Service with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, abolish the Institute of Multicultural Affairs and restrict government support for ethnic schools? Senator RYAN —None of those things. Senator Teague is obviously getting himself in shape to do a bit of grandstanding at the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia conference. But the answer to most of those questions is no. The reason why the national language policy has been a long time coming is that we have carried out our commitment to have very extensive consultation. Senator Teague probably knows, as he has taken an interest in this matter, that Mr Lo Bianco has travelled widely around Australia, consulting education authorities, ethnic groups, teachers, teacher training institutions and the like, to ensure that the policy, when it emerges, will be as comprehensive as possible. I have received from Mr Lo Bianco this week the first draft of the document. I must say it is a very impressive effort, in my view. Once I have given some consideration to the first draft it will then be made available to ethnic groups, education groups and so on, for their responses before the Government takes any final decisions. I remind Senator Teague that a sum was set aside in the Budget for the first stage of implementation of a national language policy. So, although the document is a little later than I would have hoped earlier in the year, my impression at this stage is that it is a very thorough exercise and will meet the needs of the many people who have attached their aspirations to it. Senator CHILDS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, relates to a resolution co-sponsored by the Australian Government to reinscribe New Caledonia to the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which was supported by 89 votes in the UN. Why did not the Australian Government accept the arguments of the French Government that New Caledonia is part of metropolitan France? Are these the same arguments that the French Government uses to defend its continuing presence in French Polynesia? If so, does the Australian Government also reject these arguments? Senator GARETH EVANS —Regardless of the arguments that France has put forward in the past, the General Assembly of the United Nations has now decided that New Caledonia is a non-self-governing territory. While France may use the same arguments in relation to French Polynesia, Australia's attitude in this case is influenced by the fact that there is clearly not the same evident desire for independence as exists in New Caledonia. For many years the countries of the South Pacific Forum showed patient understanding of France's position in New Caledonia and gave support to the previous French Government's policy to assist the territory in its evolution to independence. The policies of the present French Government do not adequately recognise the aspirations of the Kanak people. It was for this reason that the South Pacific Forum decided last August in Suva to seek to reinscribe New Caledonia on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories. The intention of the South Pacific Forum when it decided on this course of action was to have the UN contribute to a solution to what has always been recognised as a very complex problem. Australia's own experience shows that the UN has considerable experience and expertise to offer in the decolonisation process. On 2 December the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 41/41A reinscribing New Caledonia on, as I said, the UN list of non-self-governing territories. That Forum resolution was co-sponsored by many other countries, including five Association of South East Asian Nations states. The resolution was adopted by a majority of 89 in favour, 24 against, with 34 abstentions. France has an important role to play in the South Pacific. Australia wishes to maintain its friendship with that country. Although France voted against the resolution, Australia and all the Forum countries hope that France will adopt a constructive attitude and work with the United Nations for the benefit of the people of New Caledonia. Senator SANDERS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of discussions held in Hobart between the United States Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, and the Tasmanian Premier, Robin Gray, regarding the removal of the United States Antarctic base from Christchurch, New Zealand, to Tasmania? Secondly, has the Federal Government given approval for the establishment of a United States Antarctic air base in Tasmania? What decisions have been made? Thirdly, has the United States Government approached the Australian Government regarding the removal of the New Zealand base to Australia? Fourthly, what proportion of United States military flights using Christchurch Airport are related to Antarctic research? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware that the United States Secretary of the Navy, Mr John Lehman, visited Australia from 18 to 20 November and, during that time, held informal discussions with the Tasmanian Premier in Hobart. We are not aware of the nature of those discussions. However, it would appear from a Press interview which Mr Lehman gave in Hobart that Operation Deep Freeze, the United States Antarctic facility in Christchurch, as Senator Sanders has said, was discussed. The Government has not been approached by the United States Government regarding relocation of Operation Deep Freeze from Christchurch to Hobart. The position of the United States Administration on this matter was enunciated by Secretary of State Shultz following the ANZUS talks in San Francisco last August when he stated that he did not foresee a shift of Operation Deep Freeze away from Christchurch. As to the last part of the question, the Government is not aware what proportion of United States military flights using Christchurch Airport are related to its Antarctic research program. It is understood, however, that some United States military aircraft transit Christchurch en route to Australia in addition to flights destined for the Antarctic. Senator SANDERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it common for representatives of a foreign country, that is, the United States of America, to have conferences with the Premiers of States without the Department of Foreign Affairs becoming knowledge- able about what the conference results were? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no idea why anyone would want to talk to Premier Gray, on an informal or any other basis, but Mr Lehman chose to do so and the Government regards it as no business of ours to inquire into the substance of those conversations unless and until the United States Government, or for that matter Mr Gray, chooses to advise us. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. What action is the Government taking to ensure that secondary students from needy families are encouraged and enabled to stay at school? Senator RYAN —The Government has taken a wide range of actions to assist children from poorer families to stay at school. In particular, of course, we have rationalised and increased the secondary education allowances, now named Austudy. The results of those efforts have been very satisfactory. Since coming to power we have had a 100 per cent increase in the number of students receiving secondary allowances. For example, in 1983 52,789 students were on allowances under the secondary allowance scheme; we estimate that this will increase to 110,300 students in 1986-87. We certainly hope that all eligible students will become aware of Austudy and we have taken a number of steps to ensure that that is the case. We have consistently advertised the secondary allowance scheme and, in fact, I have been pleased to launch the national Austudy campaign, consisting of leaflets, posters, radio advertising, advertisements in youth magazines, including Countdown magazine, Smash Hits and the like; a campaign specifically targeted to rural Australia, which is very important; and the distribution of Austudy application forms through social security, education and community networks. In addition to this, I have recently written to business leaders asking for their support in urging young people to stay at school until year 12, and I am pleased to report to the Senate that to date I have had a favourable response from these people, including just yesterday a phone call from the ANZ Banking Group Ltd informing me that it is only too willing to get behind the campaign to increase our retention rates. So I think there is a very satisfactory level of support in the community from employers and education agencies for the Government's increased participation rates measures, and I hope that all honourable senators, too, when visiting schools and education institutions will make sure that young people who are eligible have the information and know how to go about getting the allowances. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I understand that the Minister's Department has looked at the feasibility of gemstone processing in Australia. As Australia produces 90 per cent of the world's sapphires and will soon be the world's largest raw diamond producer, is the Government prepared to give tangible support to setting up a gemstone industry in this country, in view of the great value-added factor in turning raw stones into cut stones? Quite apart from that point, is the Government prepared to use its good offices to divert or to retain some of the product from the Argyle diamond mine in Australia for Australian processing, rather than see it all go out of the country to the South African De Beers group, as I understand it does under contract at the moment, particularly as it is the Government's policy to apply economic sanctions against South Africa? Senator BUTTON —Of course, the Argyle Diamond Mines Pty Ltd arrangements were made some years ago, before the present level of international concern about apartheid and the Government's proposals about and support for sanctions against South Africa. They are contractual arrangements, but I am not able to comment on the viability of those contractual arrangements in terms of whether or not that is the best way to do it from the company's point of view, quite apart from the South African issue. I have from time to time seen notes from my Department about the gemstone industry, but I really am not in a position to answer the honourable senator's question in detail at the moment. I will obtain an answer and provide it to him as soon as possible. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take the Minister's point about the apartheid question, but I think that another relevant factor is that the Argyle mine is more successful now, with both the quality and the quantity of diamonds that it is producing, than it was when the contract was first entered into. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator MacGIBBON —Would that factor influence the Minister's judgment in any way at all? Senator BUTTON —I try to maintain a state such that any relevant and important fact influences my judgment. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister for Community Services explain the delay that has occurred in the construction of the Scalabrini Village nursing home in Griffith, and are there similar delays in other ethno-specific nursing homes in New South Wales? Senator GRIMES —Last year the Government approved a series of ethnic nursing homes in various States-a total of five, I think, in New South Wales-because of the lack of opportunity for elderly people of ethnic origin to get accommodation with their own people, with people who understood their languages and their cultural problems, et cetera. We approved a number of such nursing homes, including the proposed Scalabrini nursing home in Griffith, where there is a large number of elderly people of Italian origin. A company called Davnar Pty Ltd, which is a private nursing home company, requested me and the Department to make a reconsideration of all these projects. As a result of that, the capacity to fund the organisation was delayed. I considered the applications, my Department painstakingly went over the applications and I eventually, after going through it all, affirmed the delegate's decision to grant approval in principle to the four or five successful applicants, including Scalabrini. Davnar Pty Ltd has now lodged a further appeal with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In fact, it has announced that if it is not successful there it will go to the courts. The application has now been considered on its merits by the Department and all the submissions have been carefully reconsidered by the Department and me. But there will still be a delay while the appeal goes ahead. In recent legislation we eliminated the AAT review in this area, as the AAT believed it should have been eliminated. But because the appeal was lodged before that legislation was passed this application will still be heard by the AAT. This is not the only area in which this occurs. In other areas it is fairly common, particularly for large commercial organisations, to appeal against applications in the hope-in one case with the clear intention-of doing a deal with the Government to get nursing home beds for themselves. In exchange for the Government giving them nursing home beds they would withdraw their appeals. I am not willing to do deals of that type; neither is the Government; neither can the Department. It is unfortunate for the people of Griffith who have been working hard to build this nursing home but I am afraid that we will have to await the result of the appeal unless the appellant withdraws the case. It is a pity but I think it is one of the problems in taking decisions which I believe are rightly decisions of government out of the hands of government and putting them in the hands of bodies such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 4 December, from Senator Peter Baume: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The unfitness of Mr Neville Wran for appointment to high federal office because of his protection of corruption and because of tainted appointments made while he was Minister for Police, Premier of New South Wales, and Federal President of the Australian Labor Party.' Yours sincerely (PETER BAUME) Senator for the State of New South Wales Is the motion supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.03) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The unfitness of Mr Neville Wran for appointment to high federal office because of his protection of corruption and because of tainted appointments made while he was Minister for Police, Premier of New South Wales, and Federal President of the Australian Labor Party. One of the important functions of executive government is to advise the Governor-General on the making of appointments-many appointments to various statutory positions and to positions of patronage. These appointees, often highly paid, often lavishly supported, are not elected people. They are not subject to public recall as are elected officials and in the same way they are not publicly answerable as are elected officials. It is known now that Neville Wran, former Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, former Labor Premier of New South Wales and former Labor Minister for Police in New South Wales, has been appointed as Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. This motion of urgency asserts quite clearly that Neville Wran is unfit for high appointment, and for such an appointment. We could have argued, had we wished, that this appointment was just another example of Labor cronyism, just another example of jobs for the boys like the appointments of almost every retired or failed Labor politician-Whitlam, Beazley, Dunstan, Ferguson, Patterson, Steedman, Mulvihill, Riordan and Jenkins and people such as Carmichael, Halfpenny and Mrs Blewett. There are 68 other trade union officials and many other friends and acquaintances of the Party who have been appointed. Of course, Al Grassby is an appointee of both the Hawke Government and Neville Wran in New South Wales, about whom I shall say more later. Let us ignore cronyism today. This motion of urgency does not even address, as it could have done, the question of the suitability or competence of Mr Neville Wran for this appointment. Neither do we make any comment today on whether Neville Wran will be found guilty or not guilty on a matter now waiting judgment before the highest court in New South Wales. This motion is addressed rather to his total unfitness for this or any appointment to public office because he, more than anyone else, gave a mantle of protection to corruption in New South Wales over many years-sometimes by what he did, sometimes by what he failed to do and often by the appointments he made. I remind the Senate that executive appointments to high public office are legitimate matters for judgment and public examination and that such appointments have in the past been raised in this Parliament. The Australian Labor Party, for instance, challenged the appointment of an eminent Australian, Mr John Reid, to a Commonwealth position in 1982 alleging that he was guilty of improper tax practices. The then Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hayden, moved in the Parliament a motion deploring Mr Reid's appointment and accusing him of tax cheating. John Reid answered every charge. He allowed the Commissioner of Taxation to make public a letter which established beyond doubt his total innocence of the allegations made within the Parliament. We wish Mr Keating would do the same thing, by the way. We now challenge Neville Wran's fitness for any Federal appointment on the basis of a detailed, depressing and consistent public record. While Premier of New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran-- Senator Georges —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to consider whether this matter affects proceedings against Neville Wran in the courts, because it goes to the heart of the credibility of Mr Neville Wran. I raise this point of order because we had a similar position on the Public Accounts Committee, which reported just recently on medifraud and overservicing. We sought and received advice that if we tabled any material at all on Dr Edelsten we would be in the area of sub judice which would be prejudicial to the person concerned. I am suggesting to you, Mr President, that this debate today will have an effect on the proceedings against Mr Wran because it is a savage and unworthy attack on the credibility of Mr Wran. I think you ought to rule therefore- Senator Michael Baume —It is not a legal matter. Senator Georges —Nevertheless, let us not consider the legality of it, let us consider the morality of it and the ethical position. This attack Senator Peter Baume is levelling at present goes very much to the heart of the credibility of Neville Wran and it will in some way prejudice him. The Committee accepted the advice it received along these lines. I suggest, Mr President, that there is an element that could affect the proceedings before the courts and I ask you to rule accordingly. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I do not want to waste further Senator Peter Baume's time by speaking to the point of order except to say that clearly the fact that a person is involved in narrow proceedings cannot preclude discussion on a much wider range of subjects. I also give notice that if there are any further interruptions of that sort I shall move that an extension of time be granted to make up for the time which has been wasted. The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not uphold the point of order. I suggest that it would have to be a specific matter in relation to any court proceeding-of which I am personally unaware-that might bring into play the sub judice rule. But in any event, I think it is too remote to allow the sub judice rule to apply in this instance. I do not uphold the point of order. Senator PETER BAUME —While the Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, allowed appointments to the judiciary which are now known to have been tainted, and he protected those people once they were appointed, he allowed or made other appointments which are now known to have been tainted. He failed to investigate matters crying out for attention until he was forced to do so-matters such as the murder of Donald Mackay, or the collapse of the Balanced Property Trust involving, as it did, a Labor member of parliament and one of Neville Wran's own Caucus, the husband of a Labor member of parliament and Labor hangers on. He has attacked every move from the Press or the Opposition either to bring corruption in New South Wales to light or to deal properly with matters once they had been made public. Neville Wran has publicly and vigorously defended people with whom he has associated-the Kevin Humphreys, the Murray Farquhars and the Rex Jacksons-on matters on which they have either since been convicted or on which they are still awaiting trial. He has made strange appointments-of policemen, who were mysteriously advanced in seniority against advice-appointments which have been shown to have been disastrous and which he should have known were inappropriate because the people were corrupt and already under suspicion. My colleague Senator Puplick will remind us of some of those matters when he speaks in this debate. He will remind us of some of the people on Wran's roll call, such as Bill Allen, Murray Farquhar, Kevin Humphreys, Rex Jackson, Merv Wood and Judge John Foord. He will remind us, perhaps, of Clarrie Briese and what he had to put up with. He will remind us of the Botany Council and how investigations into that Council were stopped. He will talk especially about some of the appointments-many of which Neville Wran was involved in-and help to establish that they were all part of a pattern of corruption over which the Premier of New South Wales presided. Let us just consider some of the matters which caused this motion to be brought forward. Let us start with the murder of my friend Donald Mackay in 1976 in Griffith. He was a respected citizen. He had provided information which led to the conviction of marihuana growers. He had been a Liberal Party candidate for Parliament and he was murdered. Senator Georges —Mr President, I take a point of order. Surely the Standing Orders do not permit this sort of attack. This matter is being brought forward not as a substantive motion but as a matter of urgency. Surely the Standing Orders do not permit such an attack to take place in the way it is taking place at present. This is a most scurrilous, unsubstantiated, direct attack against not just one person but a number of people. Surely it is to the discredit of the Senate that this attack should be launched under cover of the Standing Orders. I say that the Standing Orders do not provide for such an attack. This is not a substantive motion, in the terms required by the Standing Orders. It is merely a wide brush attempt to discredit a whole variety of people. The honourable senator is entering into an extremely serious attack which is not substantiated. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Georges to come back to his point of order. Senator Georges —My point of order is that the Standing Orders do not provide for such an attack. Mr President, there must be protection, which I am certain you are able to give us, against such an attack by the Opposition. The PRESIDENT —Order! I know of no such standing order that would enable me to uphold Senator Georges's point of order. Senator PETER BAUME —Donald Mackay was murdered by criminal elements. We would have expected an honest and honourable State government to have done all it could immediately, will all the force it could muster, to find and convict those responsible. But under Neville Wran there was no coronial inquiry for a decade and there was deliberate foot-dragging by the police for whom Neville Wran was the Minister responsible at the time. Neville Wran himself abused Donald Mackay's family and its legal representative and, incidentally, he abused a CSIRO officer who now has to work under him. When Neville Wran finally, under intense pressure, appointed Mr John Nagle, QC, to investigate the police handling of the Mackay murder he did not announce it as any attempt to solve a murder and investigate corruption; he announced it in the following ungracious terms, directed at citizens pursuing redress for crime: It's about time people in this country stopped yap, yap, yap and went along and put up. That applies to the people from Griffith, the Age newspaper . . . He went on to name a number of other people. Why should Donald Mackay's daughter, Ruth, have had to say publicly in the Press, as she did, that the New South Wales Government `had almost tried to hinder' police inquiries into her father's death? The Nagle Commission of Inquiry into the Police Investigation of the Death of Donald Bruce Mackay, which was appointed to investigate the police handling of this matter, has now reported. It has found that some New South Wales policemen, sadly, in a force in which corruption is entrenched, had gone slow and had not pursued inquiries with proper determination and vigour. It also found that Mr Al Grassby, another Wran appointee to executive office in New South Wales and a Hawke appointee to executive office at Federal level, another old Labor politician, had not told the truth to the Commission, was not a credible witness and had been associated, deliberately and knowingly, with the distribution of a scurrilous and untruthful document in which he had colluded with a Mr Sergi. This led Mr Nagle to report in the following terms: This leaves the puzzling question of Grassby's motive. The Commission inclines to the view that the probabilities are that Grassby was impelled by a misguided sense of duty to prevent defamation of a racial group-the Calabrians. The Commission makes only one comment-that no decent man could have regarded the general attacks on the Calabrians as justifying him in propagating the scurrilous lies contained in the anonymous document. At every stage in the Mackay matter-until finally forced by overwhelming public outrage-the performance in particular of the Minister for Police, Neville Wran, and the Government of New South Wales, of which Neville Wran was Premier, was to go slow, to investigate inadequately, to prevent proper inquiries, to abuse citizens expressing outrage and concern, and to stop any effective inquiry. What about Mr Wran's association with the Waterhouse family-the family who were bookmakers until they were warned off and disbarred? These people had been associated with the Fine Cotton affair, and they went to enormous lengths to prevent the screening of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program which revealed some of their activities. Not only was Mr Wran the legal representative of Bill Waterhouse at the trial of embezzler Peter Huxley-there is no crime in that-but also Neville Wran had been a penciller for Bill Waterhouse in years past. The ABC program has alleged widespread, continuing and cynical criminal activity by this family. The program ended with an account of money being paid by the Waterhouses via Bill Allen-another Wran appointee-part of which was to go to an unnamed, senior Labor politician to protect an illegal casino. We will hear more of that, perhaps, from Senator Puplick. We have not only that association. In the 1976 campaign for the State seat of Monaro, bookmakers' interests supported the Labor cause to the extent of $100,000. Neville Wran became Premier by a majority of one seat thanks to that support. It is a matter of public record that, one year later, he rewarded the bookmakers by reducing significantly the turnover tax which they are required to pay. Neville Wran was paying his debts. For that reason, if for no other, Neville Wran should not be appointed to any position of public trust. Then we have the treatment of Clarrie Briese, Chief Stipendiary Magistrate in New South Wales-a person of patent honesty and proven integrity. Mr Briese has endured continuing and bitter abuse from Neville Wran over many months because he dared to make known certain concerns which led to committees being established by this Senate and which led to three retired judges forming a view that there could have been an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Mr Wran held up the restructuring of the magistracy in New South Wales for two years. He held up the appointment of the magistrates, including the appointment of Mr Briese as Chief Magistrate. That was blatant political payback and quite improper behaviour by a Premier. There was the Cessna-Milner case in which Mr Wran tried to prevent all investigations of that scandal which is ongoing. He refused to table the legal advice he received from his Solicitor-General in which he claimed that he had good grounds for going no further. I could go on and talk about the early release scheme, but Senator Georges has prevented my doing this. In the time left to me I will have to leave that to one side. I will have to leave the question of the Age tapes to one side-the Age tapes which Neville Wran said were mouldy and which Mr Wran said were no good but which Mr Justice Stewart told us could be validated. I will leave to one side the question of the Enmore affair and the Baldwin bashing. Before I conclude, I want to read part of an Age editorial of 1 May 1986. It states: The NSW Government's record in handling organised crime has been far from impressive. When confronted with criticism or with allegations of corruption, the Premier, Mr Wran, has resorted to indignant bluster, which is at best an unconvincing tactic. He has been unwilling or unable to refute the stinging attacks from former royal commissioners Moffitt, Woodward and Costigan, men of impeccable credentials. Mr Wran had a chance to take some of the tarnish off by ordering an inquiry . . . So it went on. Mr Wran, at all stages, has refused to act. The appointment of anyone to high public office carries with it an implied public trust. We are entitled to expect those who are appointed to satisfy certain standards of honesty and to enjoy some minimum public reputation. We are entitled to examine not just isolated events, not just one event here and there, but to look at the patterns which emerge over a public career and to weigh not just one episode but many episodes. On this test, Neville Wran fails. His record is one of consistency-consistent association with people later shown to be criminals; consistent selection and promotion of people who are corrupt; consistent refusal to examine in any honest way serious allegations on matters which it was his duty to examine; consistent refusal to examine and to face such evidence as was available; consistent abuse and vilification of those who raised matters of corruption and sought to have them dealt with honestly. If this Hawke Government really cares about the CSIRO, if this Government is not just determined to put another old mate's snout in the public trough, it should determine that Neville Wran is, on any examination of his sorry record in public life, not a fit person for the CSIRO and is not a fit person for any Federal appointment now or ever. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.24) —This has been a sad day in a sad week for that once great Party of Sir Robert Menzies, the Liberal Party of Australia. The debate has been led in this place on behalf of-- Senator Chaney —Here we go. Your defending Wran is sad. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Peter Baume was heard in reasonable silence. I suggest the same courtesies be extended to Senator Button. Senator BUTTON —The debate is being led in this place by two Liberal senators from New South Wales, described as belonging to the wet faction in the Liberal Party. The failures of many years have been demonstrated in the attitudes expressed by Senator Peter Baume in his speech today. One might say that conspicuous failure has gone to his head. It is really extraordinary that in a week in which a major Australian newspaper can say of the Liberal Party: For the Liberal Party to degenerate into a name-calling, factionalised body rent by leadership struggles will bring it the verdict that when Australia needed the input of the Liberals it was not a party of big enough people to answer the call successfully. The Liberal Party must pull itself together, end the name-calling and the in-fighting and see how it can help restore authority, harmony and success to a country that deserves better from its Liberal politicians. We have not heard much of that today. There is no great improvement on the basis of the advice tendered in that editorial or in another editorial in another major daily newspaper. It states: The Liberal Party continues to be unsure both of its precise place in the political spectrum and of its general purpose and direction within society. The Party's main doubts centre on the liberty of the individual. Today we have two senators from the wet faction in New South Wales engaging, in the case of Senator Peter Baume, in a speech full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. I forbear from mentioning the earlier part of that quotation. His speech was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, because there was nothing which Senator Peter Baume said, but a recycling of old innuendos and old smears many of which have been dealt with by inquiry after inquiry with Mr Wran being exonerated in respect of those inquiries. It has been a recycling of all those events which, as I said, represent conspicuous failure by this Party. It is a culmination of a week in which the leadership and the leader of the Liberal Party have been described as totally ineffective. One wonders why these conclusions are drawn by the community at large. Question Time this week, when we are told that this country is in a serious economic situation, is devoted entirely to a technical breach of the taxation legislation by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and then the urgency motion is devoted to recycled attempts to degenerate the former Premier of New South Wales. Senator Michael Baume —Another conspicuous failure from New South Wales. Senator BUTTON —Of course, Senator Michael Baume pipes up: `Another conspicuous failure from New South Wales'. Senator Michael Baume —That is an accolade from you. Senator BUTTON —I am glad the honourable senator takes it as an accolade. I can do better. The Government could adopt the position in this debate that this is all fair in politics, that one can subscribe to the importance of these sorts of views as expressed by Senator Peter Baume. But what is the point of that? We can recycle the Fraser Government days. More Ministers of the Fraser Government were acquitted than of any other government in the history of Australia and more staff were convicted. One was appointed to preside over Australian international expositions. He was sentenced to gaol. An industrial relations adviser to the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, was sentenced to gaol. Others in much the same sorts of category in terms of later failure-- Senator Messner —Who are you talking about? Senator BUTTON —I am not going to indulge in that sort of stuff. I do not want to do that, but it is all true. The point I am simply making is: Where does that get us all as politicians? Where does this matter of urgency get us all as politicians? Senator Peter Baume —Don't put him in the CSIRO. Senator BUTTON —Senator Peter Baume at last, by interjection, comes to what ought to have been the point of his speech. Senator Peter Baume —It was in my speech. Senator BUTTON —A fag end of a speech-a dag on the backside of the honourable senator's speech. That is what the reference to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation was. The honourable senator said nothing of substance about that issue at all. His speech was a tirade of denigrating a former Premier of New South Wales who beat the Liberal Party to bits politically for 10 years. So the honourable senator walks in here today to try to get a little bit of smutty revenge for that decade of failure by Liberal senators and Liberal politicians in New South Wales. That is what he is doing. The important issue is the future of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. There will always be views about the suitability of appointments for any position made by governments. That has always been the case. It has always been a subject of political debate. I will refer to some other comments which have been made about the new board of CSIRO. Dr Boardman, the acting Chief Executive of CSIRO, said: Mr Wran would be the first to admit that he knows little about science and research. That might have been a point which Senator Peter Baume could have made-a clean point-but there was not a mention of that, as I recall. Dr Boardman continued: But I'm sure he realises the very great importance of research and development to Australia's future, and of the CSIRO's role in that. More than anything the main criticism will be that it is a political appointment. Senator Peter Baume made a passing reference to that; congratulations. Dr Boardman continued: But when you think more deeply about it and look at the man's abilities, you get a quite different picture. Similarly, Dr Paul Wild, a former, now retired, Chairman of CSIRO, said: I'd always imagined the CSIRO being headed by an eminent scientist, but this choice reflects the fact that CSIRO is becoming a considerably more political entity. Senator Michael Baume —So is everything under this Government, including the Public Service. Senator BUTTON —I will come to that. He continued: Given that fact, well, who better than Neville Wran? The President of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Professor Fred Smith, said: Mr Wran's political clout and high public profile would be assets to the organisation. But his acceptance by the scientific community would depend very much on how he performed in the job. That is a very fair comment and not the sort of comment which comes from the lips of Senator Peter Baume today. It is the sort of comment which is based on judgment and performance in a particular position. That is not the comment we heard from Senator Peter Baume-not at all. Mr President, I really do not want to devote time to this. I do not know what it is all about. As I said, it is a pretty desperate throw, but it comes from a desperate Opposition. I want to talk for a few minutes about the CSIRO because there has been a long inquiry into that organisation. It now has a Chairman who is highly articulate and highly experienced in public life in Australia. He has a high public profile and many contacts with the business and scientific communities in this country. He has with him, as members of the board, a very distinguished gathering of participants in Australian business and the scientific community, including Sir Gustav Nossal; Sir Roderick Carnegie; Dr Tony Gregson, a scientist; Mr David Hoare, a merchant banker; Dr Adrienne Clarke; Dr Kevin Foley, a former State member of the Liberal Party in Victoria-a very good appointment; Mr Graham Spurling, the Managing Director of Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd; and Dr Boardman, the acting Chief Executive. All those people on that board, presided over by an excellent Chairman, will have to take CSIRO into a new future. The new Chairman has indicated his pleasure at his new position and his support for the exceptional fusion of talents and skills of the new board. It may be argued in some subsequent matter of public importance-it has not been argued so far in this one-that a leading scientist should have been appointed to that position. The new board is a composite of scientific and business skills, fully consistent with the changed priorities of CSIRO in recent years and fully consistent with the greater emphasis being put on research into manufacturing industry. The amendments to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Act were designed to make the Organisation more responsive to the research needs of Australia, including, but not restricted to, manufacturing industry. In the last annual report of the CSIRO Dr Paul Wild, the then Chairman, speaking about the future of the Organisation, had this to say: For much of the post-war period government and the community largely left to scientists the business of deciding what research to do. That period has now finished . . . All over the world, industrialised nations look for ways of improving the science-industry connection in order to gain a competitive edge and promote economic growth. In Australia we also experienced a local change in perspective. In the 1985 CSIRO published its strategy for the following five years, a strategy which was consistent with a board comprising experts in scientific and industrial research and understandings and, of course, relationships with business and industry. As some of those people, such as Dr Paul Wild, have said, that involves political skills, political talents, raising the profile of an organisation such as CSIRO and bringing an understanding of scientific objectives and public authority objectives more into the minds of people in the community. That, I think, is reflected entirely in the new arrangements. I think CSIRO has a new board which can contribute much to the objectives which have been stated. That is something about which governments have to be concerned. We have to be concerned about bringing all Australian organisations, and particularly government organisations, into the second half of the twentieth century, providing them with charters which will lead to the growth and development of this country and which will enable them to face the future in a constructive and positive way. The new Chairman of CSIRO has much to contribute to Australian public life and will be able to do that. He is accompanied by a very distinguished board which will help him in that process. This Government is not appointing Al Grassby to the chairmanship of CSIRO. Senator Peter Baume devoted some time to that. We are not appointing Judge Foord to the chairmanship of CSIRO. We are not appointing Mr Urbanchich from the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party to the chairmanship of the CSIRO. We might have got as good a speech out of Senator Peter Baume if we had appointed him as we did by appointing Neville Wran. We are not appointing any of those people; we are appointing the former Premier of New South Wales to the position, a position which I believe he will fill with great distinction. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is sad that a political party such as the Liberals, with a not impeccable record in respect of public appointments and public behaviour by Ministers and ministerial advisers, should devote this week to the campaign of innuendo and smear against a politician, and against a former politician in the form of Mr Wran. It is a very sad that, faced with the growing horror of having nothing to think about and of permanent life on the Opposition benches, the Opposition should resort to these sorts of tactics in the last week of this Parliament. It can try again next year. It will not wash with the people of Australia, and it will not bring it any further success than it has had in a sad year for the Liberal Party. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.39) —I do not intend to take part in the debate on the motion before us today. I rise simply to say that the Australian Democrats will be opposing the motion, not because we hold any brief for Neville Wran but because we have made it a practice not to take part in debates in this place, particularly on matters of public importance and urgency motions, when the topic, the subject or the issue central to the motion, has involved an attack on, a vilification of, or the making of unsubstantiated allegations about, a private citizen. That in effect is what Neville Wran is now, whatever else he may have been in the past. As far as we are concerned this motion is an abuse of parliamentary privilege. It does no credit to any of us at all. If this sort of thing is to become a habit in this place it seems to me that we deserve everything that members of the public say about us as nothing more than muck-rakers using parliamentary privilege to say inside this chamber things that we are not prepared to say outside it. I suggest that, if the Opposition has any evidence to support the allegations it has made so far and I daresay will either repeat or will add to during the rest of this debate, it would be more proper and certainly more dignified if it put that evidence before the appropriate authorities. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.41) —The unenthusiastic defence that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, mounted of the appointment of Neville Wran as Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation was notable for one thing and one thing only: Even Senator Button could not bring himself to say the words `Neville Wran is an honest man'. Even Senator Button could not bring himself to choke up a single word about the probity, the integrity or the personal value of Neville Wran; not one single word could he bring forth on that particular subject. In terms of the extent to which he criticises a motion-- Senator Morris —Take your hands out of your pockets. Senator PUPLICK —I do not need assistance from the honourable senator. If he would like to answer Senator Michael Baume's questions about exactly who is paying him what on retainer, let him get up and do so-I challenge him; then we will know who, in fact, he is beholden to in this chamber and elsewhere. Senator Button was at some pains to try to say: `Oh, the Australian Labor Party would never be associated with attacks of this character on individuals'. Yet we hear without fail, day after day, week after week, remarks from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and his colleagues about Sir Garfield Barwick. We have heard from the Labor Party attacks on Mr John Reid and all the rest of them. At the end of the day what does Senator Button say? He says: `We have had nothing this week except attacks on the Treasurer for technical breaches of the tax Act'. They were technical breaches of the Income Tax Assessment Act and I am glad the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce acknowledges that fact. I am simply heartened by the fact that it was technical breaches of the tax Act that got Al Capone in the end and undoubtedly will get Paul Keating on the way through too. The speech Senator Button quoted from Macbeth about sound and fury is the speech that begins with the words `Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow'. Let me forewarn Senator Button that tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow he will be hearing about the appointment that his Government has just made. The motion moved by Senator Peter Baume is in these terms: The unfitness of Mr Neville Wran for appointment to high federal office because of his protection of corruption and because of tainted appointments made while he was Minister for Police, Premier of New South Wales, and Federal President of the Australian Labor Party. Let us look at the first part of that motion where it says `protection of corruption'. Every person in New South Wales who has sought to expose or to fight crime and corruption in New South Wales has had to run the gauntlet of Neville Wran, has had to run the gauntlet of frustration, abuse, intimidation and cover-up, failure to respond to the recommendations of the Lusher report on the New South Wales Police Force and attacks on it; personal abuse of Ian Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions; personal abuse of Frank Costigan, the Royal Commissioner; personal abuse on Athol Moffitt, the retired judge; personal attacks on Clarrie Briese, one of the most honest people to occupy any magisterial position in New South Wales; attacks on Bob Bottom, the crime fighter who has to live in Melbourne in order to protect his safety; attacks on every article that has ever appeared in the National Times, every one of which has been substantiated; attacks on George Masterman, QC, the New South Wales Ombudsman; attacks on all of the honest policemen who tried to expose the cover-up that was inherent in the Age tapes; and comments reported today of the New South Wales Police Board. Just look at the last two of those-the attempt to find the truth about crime and corruption in New South Wales with the Age tapes. What did we see in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of months ago? We saw the headline: `Avery: Wran to blame in cover-up'. The article states: The NSW Police Commissioner, Mr Avery, has privately blamed the former Premier, Mr Wran, for the police cover-up which followed publication of the Age tapes. In a letter to Mr Masterman, the New South Wales Ombudsman, the Police Commissioner said: Regrettably, any hope that the police might make full account of their actions without immunities being required were dashed when the former Premier N. K. Wran, made public that he wanted the police involved to be jailed. Today, the report is down from the New South Wales Police Board, headed by a former Commonwealth Solicitor-General. It makes the point that the Police Board in New South Wales has been unable to get to the issues of crime and corruption inside the New South Wales Police Force because despite its repeated attempts to get the necessary power for the Police Board when Neville Wran was the Premier of New South Wales and before that, when he was Minister for Police in New South Wales, he refused to invest the Police Board with sufficient power, sufficient authority and sufficient responsibility to get on with the task of cleaning up corruption in the New South Wales Police Force. So, within a couple of months, the New South Wales Police Commissioner is making complaints about Mr Wran's frustration of his attempts to clean up New South Wales. The Police Board yesterday and today was reported in the newspapers as making exactly the same points. As I have said, every attempt made by Lusher, by Temby, by Costigan, by Moffitt, by Briese, by Bottom, by the National Times, by Masterman, by the Police Commissioner and by the Police Board to do something about this situation finds itself frustrated on the rock of Neville Wran's obstruction. I now come to the throwaway comment of the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines. When Senator Haines was Deputy to Senator Chipp, Senator Chipp at least established in this chamber a real and genuine concern about the issues of public corruption and about political corruption. It is no wonder that, in the few weeks that Senator Haines has had the leadership of the Australian Democrats, as a party it is falling apart, its Deputy Leader is now sitting on the other side of the chamber out of frustration at the inadequate leadership of Senator Haines and another leadership ballot is under way. The branch in the Australian Capital Territory is falling apart. Senator Robert Ray —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I think Senator Puplick is now straying from the subject of the urgency debate. He is entitled to question the credibility of the previous speaker by reference to certain matters, but to go into a long and detailed analysis of the rather tragic internal difficulties of the Democrats is a bit beyond the pale. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Puplick is entitled to reply to the remarks made by Senator Haines for a reasonable time. Senator PUPLICK —I take the analysis that Senator Robert Ray has made of the Australian Democrats as entirely correct. Seeing that he has reinforced the point so eloquently I will move on to Murray Farquhar. The second part of the motion which is for debate is the issue of tainted appointments made by Mr Wran when he was the Premier of New South Wales. It is of some considerable interest that one of the most important of these appointments involved the former Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Farquhar. Let us remind ourselves of the two things that Neville Wran did particularly for Murray Farquhar. The first was that he extended his term office for sufficient length of time to allow Mr Farquhar to sit on the bench to hear the Cessna-Milner case. Senator Michael Baume —Over the Minister's dead body. Senator PUPLICK —And over all of the protestations made by the Minister and the Society of Labor Lawyers which opposed and tried to get a meeting with Mr Wran to protest about this matter and was told by Mr Wran that he did not have the time to see its members, listen to them or hear what they had to say. The second thing he did for Farquhar, of course, was to appoint him as the head of the Alcohol and Drug Foundation of Australia. At the very time when there was supposed to be a crackdown on drugs, drug abuse and drug related corruption in New South Wales, Murray Farquhar was made head of that body. The pay-off that Farquhar was getting for having dealt with the Brereton Botany scandal case in the way in which he did was a matter of some notoriety. The second appointment that is worth mentioning is that of Mr Wood, who was appointed Commissioner of Police despite the attempts of certain sections, both of the police and of Neville Wran's own Cabinet, to have an honest man appointed to that position. However, Neville Wran insisted on having Mr Wood-the very person who would not close down the illegal casinos in New South Wales because he did not want to throw people out of work-appointed Commissioner of Police. Mr Wood was defended by Premier Wran for publicly associating with criminals because the Premier said, basically, that he thought that police commissioners ought to know those sorts of people and to keep in touch with them. The third appointment that is worth drawing attention to is that of the Deputy Police Commissioner, Mr Bill Allen, who was appointed out of absolute obscurity to the significant position of Deputy Commissioner, who was later investigated by the police tribunal and was found by Mr Justice Perignon to be a person of no repute, a person who should not be holding that high office. He was dragged out of obscurity by Neville Wran and promoted to that particularly high position. As Senator Peter Baume has said, the unanswered questions about the Bill Allen connection with the Waterhouses and the central role which they play in this whole business reminds one, for instance, of Neville Wran's close personal involvement with the Waterhouse family when Peter Huxley was on trial. Huxley was convicted and sentenced to 20 years for embezzling the funds of little people in New South Wales, a sort of early version of Rick Mochalski. He was brought to trial and sentenced. What happened to that 20-year sentence? It was commuted by the Wran Cabinet in a way that got Huxley out of goal and allowed him to go to the United Kingdom. Some $1.8m is still missing and his sentence was commuted, so he served an even lesser time in goal than the judge had originally established as a non-parole period attached to the 20-year sentence. Finally, we come to Mr Grassby. As Senator Peter Baume has said, he was appointed by the Federal Australian Labor Party to high public office and he was appointed by Neville Wran to high office in the State of New South Wales. In the report of Mr Nagle, formerly Mr Justice Nagle, who headed the New South Wales Commission of Inquiry into the Police Investigation of the Death of Donald Bruce Mackay, Mr Grassby was described in the most appalling terms as a dishonest and disreputable witness. The end of the judgment stated: The Commission- that is Nagle- makes only one comment-that no decent man could have regarded the general attacks on the Calabrians as justifying him in propagating the scurrilous lies contained in the anonymous document. Mr Grassby peddled a document-he tried to get it read in the Parliament of New South Wales-which accused Don Mackay's widow and son of being responsible for Don Mackay's murder. These are the sorts of people with whom the former Premier of New South Wales wants to associate himself. This comes at a time when for the chairmanship of the CSIRO-succeeding such eminent scientists and citizens as George Julius, Albert David Rivett, Ian Clunies-Ross, Frederick White, James Price, Victor Burgmann, Paul Wild and Keith Boardman-we now get this tainted and disreputable public figure, one in whose personal defence Senator Button could not bring himself to speak. Finally, I look at the record of the whole of the Wran times. I am talking about the politicians, the Breretons, the Jacksons, the Mochalskis, the Slosses, the Degens, the Johnstones; about the Pavilion in the Park luncheons; about the Enmore conspiracy case; about the Baldwin bashing; about the judiciary-Foord and Farquhar; about the attacks on Briese; about Morgan Ryan; about judge shopping and plea bargaining. I am looking at the police and talking about Bill Allen, Merv Wood, Fred Hanson, Murray Riley and Bill Duff; I am talking about others around the place. I am talking about the Mackay cover-up; about Grassby; about Waterhouse; about the attacks on Temby, Costigan and Moffitt; about the Anderson situation; about Nugan Hand; and about Maxwell Newton's allegations. All one can say at the end of this list is that it is fortunate for the people of Australia that Neville Wran has not been appointed to any position which is connected with the administration of justice or the law at a Federal level because that would be as corrupt, as tainted and as blighted as the law and justice were in New South Wales under the premiership of Neville Wran, who is not fit to hold any public office ever again, anywhere in Australia, and who will stand as a monument to the low and declining standards that this Government has permanently established, and continues to establish, in the minds of the people of Australia. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(3.56) —I have been a member of the Senate for only three years and nine months. In that time I have witnessed some rather despicable performances by Opposition senators, and even at times by some on my own side, but I have never witnessed anything as despicable, as deplorable or as contemptible as what I have witnessed today. I suppose I should be angrier than I am but I am not so much angry as just overwhelmingly sad. I am sad because I am witnessing not only the traducing of one man's good name and character but also a further diminishing of the standing in which politicians as a class are held by the public at large. What must the average Australian think of this kind of sordid, muck-raking exercise? If anyone on the Opposition benches seriously believes that the only reputation to suffer here today will be Neville Wran's, he is sadly mistaken. We all suffer from the fallout from it. Those who throw the mud finish up wearing just as much of it as their target. More importantly, all of us, every senator, suffers because the standing of the institution of parliament is eroded and undermined. An increasingly cynical public has been forced to observe State and Federal parliaments being used for puerile name-calling, where cowards can blackguard people's names 30 feet from the door. Senators Peter Baume and Puplick do not have the guts to walk out the door and say what they have said here; they say it only in this place. The abuse of parliamentary privilege is now so common that the public's reaction is to say: `They're all the same. Haven't they got anything better to do? Is this what we're paying them for?'. Those reactions are understandable. Mostly the judgments of the Australian people are correct, as is their judgment about this matter. Australians well know that if there were anything at all to this attack on Neville Wran, Senators Baume and Puplick would have had the courage to say what they said outside the door. They would have taken their chances in court with Neville Wran. They will not do that, of course. They will not take up that challenge because this exercise is simply to rake over every allegation ever made about Neville Wran, even those allegations which have been properly dealt with by appropriate tribunals. Senator Puplick is no stranger to this genre. He revels in these sorts of sordid affairs. The more vicious he can be, the more he salivates. The more improbable the accusation that he is uttering, the higher the octave of the shrill voice of the man with the bucket. So it is to be expected from Senator Puplick. The lower he goes the more at home he feels. However, Senator Baume is a senator who one might have thought would have known better. With all of the great problems facing our nation-the decline in the value of our exports, the great tax debate, the search for justice and equity in so many fields-would not honourable senators have thought that the once great Liberal Party of Australia could have come up with an issue of substance, an issue of moment, an issue of concern to all Australians? However, like the desperates that the Liberals are, they reach back into the garbage. There are no depths to which Senators Baume and Puplick will not descend. By contrast, Neville Wran's career was that of a man defending civil liberties and the rule of law. For all of his achievements, why is it that the Liberals hate him so? It has naught to do with the tripe we have heard this afternoon; it has everything to do with the fact that what Neville Wran did to the Liberal Party during the 13 years he led the Labor Party was destroy it. He single-handedly changed the political agenda in New South Wales. The Australian Labor Party won seats on Sydney's north shore. After the 1978 election, one could drive from Sydney all the way up the Great Western Highway to Bathurst and not drive through a Liberal electorate. Liberal leaders came and went with astonishing frequency-Lewis, Willis, Coleman, Mason, McDonald and Dowd-on and on the list goes-the revolving door Liberal leadership. That is what Neville Wran created and that is why this motion is before the Senate today. He is hated and hounded by the Liberals because he was too successful and too good at what he did. He robbed them of the prize. They were no longer in the tart shop. They could no longer claim that they were born to rule. Today we have heard a lot-through McCarthyist smears and guilt by association-about tainted appointments. We have been told that Neville Wran appointed Bill Allen. We have been told how bad this was and how shocked and appalled any decent citizen would have been at that appointment. I will read to the Senate a letter sent by John Dowd, the shadow Attorney-General in New South Wales, to Bill Allen on the occasion of his promotion to Assistant Commissioner of Police. It reads: Dear Bill,-- it is not `Dear Assistant Commissioner' and not `Dear Mr Allen'; it is `Dear Bill'- I'm delighted to see of your appointment as I have been conscious of your reputation for carrying out your duties and I know you are held in very high esteem by your colleagues. I am sorry that your appointment should be affected by present controversy but I am sure your years in the police force have taught you to adjust to the antics of politicians. I wish you well in your position whatever it may hold. Kind regards, John How touching! How touching for John Dowd! It was no good for Neville Wran, but what about John Dowd? Are we to make him a saint for this? I do not say that this letter from John to Bill, congratulating him on his appointment, is indicative of any improper behaviour on the part of John Dowd. But it does demonstrate just how absurd has been the filth that those opposite have gone on with in this chamber today. It is not possible for a Premier, a shadow Attorney-General or anybody else to be responsible for the movements, the actions and the knowledge of every officer with whom they come into contact. Appointments, non-controversial though they may be at the time and made by independent committees of honourable men and women, can come up with results which prove in later years to cause embarrassment. Today we have heard about one such appointment. We have heard about Murray Farquhar and how Neville Wran is to blame for Murray Farquhar. Murray Farquhar was appointed Chief Stipendiary Magistrate by the Askin Government, on the recommendation of a committee which included the then Chief Justice of New South Wales and the then Chairman of the Public Service Board, Sir Harold Dickinson. That was done in 1972. We have also heard about Merv Wood. He was appointed by a similar committee which included Sir Harold Dickinson and General Sir Thomas Daly. We do not attach blame to them. I say this: Neville Wran is an honest man and a great Australian. I am proud to have known him and I am proud to have seen his achievements over the years. His achievements will outlive his detractors, as will those of Lionel Murphy. Question put: That the motion (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— 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. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Siddons, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. McClelland, Douglas,Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Powell, J. F. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. (Teller) Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R. Reynolds, M. Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N. Brownhill, D. G. C. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Robertson, E. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like to consider not so much section 4 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 but Part IV, which provides for the staff of senators and members. The contributions made by the staff employed by honourable senators is usually quite brilliant. Often, honourable senators simply act as presenters of what their staffs produce. I see Senator Michael Baume going out the door now. Jo Sell produces the learned material Senator Michael Baume comes up with. Senator Michael Baume will happily acknowledge that he is merely a presenter of the brilliant material Jo comes forward with. The same goes for many honourable senators. Sue Carney from Senator Brownhill's office is another example. Senator Michael Baume —Marcia from your office is as good. Senator COONEY —Marcia O'Hara and I work in co-operation. She is a member of my outstanding staff. I mention in the same context Lindsay Tanner and Kevin Watt. It is appropriate at this time of the year that honourable senators take note of the great contribution our staffs make. Senator Ryan —Mark Pierce. Senator COONEY —Mark Pierce is an outstanding example of the sort of people we, as senators, rely upon to help govern this country and to legislate on its behalf. Everybody would join me in paying tribute to the staff who stand behind us. Senator Sanders —Wish them a merry Christmas. Senator COONEY —We do wish them a merry Christmas. It is an opportune time to wish all our staff a merry Christmas and a happy new year and to note the great contribution they have made. I rely heavily upon the seemingly endless abilities of Marcia O'Hara. She typifies the sort of staff essential for the proper working of this place. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(4.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. `National Forest Strategy for Australia' is an excellent paper. It is essential that Australia have a national forest strategy because, as we all know, trees are becoming scarcer. Even now in very sensitive areas they are being woodchipped. On page 3 of the paper under the heading `Land Use' it states: Forests should be maintained or developed on land determined to be best suited for forestry having regard to: a) the long term interests of the national and local communities as recommended by relevant land use authorities after having taken into account the views of the community . . . That is an excellent goal. In the case of the Tasmanian forests, at this very moment the residents of the local community at Jackeys Marsh, who were not consulted about the best use of forestry in their area, have been forced to take the issue into their own hands and physically block the cutting down of the forests. This is because the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, has not lived up to his pledge. He made a pledge. The born again greenie, Bob Hawke, said: `We will protect Jackeys Marsh. We will protect the national heritage areas which belong to the entire country. We will protect them in Tasmania'. Nothing happened. It was too hard. I suppose he thought that Robin Gray would wilt under his statement. Robin Gray thrives on statements by Robert J. Hawke and has not taken any heed. What are Bob Hawke and his Government going to do? The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Barry Cohen, is at this very moment at Jackeys Marsh. He has wrung his hands and said: `Oh my, we are going to do something'. But in the mean time the trees are being chainsawn. The forest is being destroyed. When is the Government going to act? Not only is the Federal Government not taking an active role in stopping the cutting down of this forest but the State Australian Labor Party is actively encouraging the destruction of the forest. The Leader of the Opposition, Neil Batt, has launched what can only be termed a greenie bashing exercise. His Deputy Leader, Mr Field, spoke this week at a pro-logging rally right near Jackeys Marsh. So he certainly is not in favour of this national forest strategy for Australia, which would conserve trees for their best and highest use. He, the State ALP and Mr Batt are dedicated to furthering the aims of the woodchippers and the Liberal Government. I find it very disturbing that the Prime Minister will not take action and is forcing the local residents to put their bodies at risk to stop the bulldozers by lying down in front of the bulldozers and to stop chainsaws by getting in front of the chainsaws. The Prime Minister is putting these good citizens in jeopardy. I understand that the area has now been gazetted by the Tasmanian Government and that these people will soon be arrested. They will soon be thrown in goal and deprived of their liberty because the Prime Minister will not live up to his responsibilities. When will he act to protect the National Estate? This problem is not just a problem of the people of Jackeys Marsh or of the people of Tasmania. It is the problem of the people of Australia. It is their National Estate. It belongs to the country. The Heritage Commission has said that Jackeys Marsh is worth saving, that it has heritage values, especially the Lemonthyme. A minority decision of the Heritage Commission was that Jackeys Marsh should be saved and a majority decision was that all should be saved, including the Lemonthyme. Will the Prime Minister act in time to save the Lemonthyme? I doubt it, based on his present performance. Once again the Prime Minister is abandoning his natural constituency, the environmental vote. How much longer does he think he can stretch their credulity? Not much longer. He will not get away with it. I urge the Prime Minister, if he values their vote in the next election and if he values his honour and credibility, to take some action now to stop the destruction at Jackeys Marsh. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian Shipping Commission is the name for the Australian National Line. Australian National Line had a very successful year in 1986. It made a net profit of $19m for the second year in succession and paid $5m as a dividend to the Commonwealth, again for the second year in succession. It was able to pay income tax-for the first time since 1974-of $8m, which was a reasonable contribution to the exchequer. Several sections of the Commission did well. One big change for the better must be the improvements to the depreciation policy. During the year individual vessels were assessed and new depreciation periods established on a shorter term of 16 years. The new periods of 16 years are a truer indication of the economic life of vessels because the periods up until 1985 had been an unrealistic 20 years for depreciation. The decision which rectified this rather strange depreciation period has been responsible for ANL's serious economic problems recently. I applaud the new depreciation policy which is very realistic. However, there are still very serious problems ahead for ANL. These problems are sufficiently serious to raise some doubts as to the survival of the Line. Currently less than 3 per cent of the 90 per cent of Australian exports transported by ship are carried by Australian flag vessels; these figures come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The effect of this is reflected in the Department of Trade's figures for trade in invisibles, and cost Australia around $6 billion to $7 billion last year, of which $5 billion went to foreign ship owners. If we have to balance our trade we should be looking very much more closely at having sensible Australian shipping lines. The problems that still exist for the Line are a legacy of the accumulated losses, which still total around $101m. There is still a very high gearing ratio of 82 per cent, although that is a considerable reduction on the 91 per cent gearing ratio as at 30 June 1985. We obtained these figures as a result of Estimates Committee questions. An old and inefficient fleet of ships is being run by ANL with an average age that exceeds 10 years. The age of the fleet is a serious handicap in a world with an oversupply of shipping tonnage, with a large number of new vessels which are being brought in by foreign ship owners with very high technology and which require smaller crews and are much more fuel efficient in their designs and engines. A substantial fleet replacement program is needed in the near future and I recommend that the Government consider putting money into this as one way of solving our invisibles debt. Industrial relations were not good during the year. Of particular concern were the wharf labourers at ANL's terminal operations. This affected not only ANL but all Australian shipping. During 1985-86, ANL lost the most time ever in its terminals. The disputes resulted from attempts to improve productivity, and the longest dispute was at Webb Dock, Melbourne, and seriously affected ANL. I congratulate management on its performance and I await with great expectation the report of Mr Justice Everett from the Inter-state Commission, who is reporting on the future prospects for ANL. I believe that the Senate should be interested in that report and the Government should take some action to try to improve the support we give to our own local shipping line. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The 1986 statement on science and technology by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) bears the depressing news that Australia has sunk even further in measures of our technological capacity. The ratio of technology based exports to imports has sunk from an appalling 0.15 per cent to an even more appalling 0.12 per cent. In 1983 we were at least ahead of Greece, which was 0.14 per cent, and Turkey, which was 0.12 per cent. We now have fallen below both those nations. We have the lowest ratio of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development except Iceland. Australia is importing all its technology. The measures of our effort to correct the state of affairs is a ratio of gross expenditure on research and development to gross domestic product. This has dropped from 1.01 per cent in the previous year to 0.96 per cent this year-a trend which has continued since 1968. Over this interval, most developed countries have increased this ratio. Among OECD countries our ratio of gross expenditure on research and development to GDP is the lowest except for Ireland, Iceland, Portugal and Spain. I believe that we have a real problem to solve, but I will not take much more of the Senate's time on this matter. I seek leave to continue my remarks later on this paper. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I shall not spend much time on this matter at this stage, but I believe this is an important area of technology which needs discussion and a thorough debate during the next session. We have a patents system in tatters, no plans for handling it, no plans in progress, as we found out in the Estimates Committee, and I believe that the Government has to tackle this problem. I recommend that both the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) look into this matter, which is of vital importance to the future of Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I must say what a terrible waste of time and money this report has been. The Human Rights Commission sat for three years and produced a camel. Two officers from the Human Rights Commission were sent to Alice Springs on 16 November 1983 to investigate 39 allegations of breaches of human rights made by the ladies from the so-called peaceful protest at Pine Gap. Three years later in December 1986, the report on these complaints has finally been made public. By the end of 1983 the two officers had made their report and listed the complaints. A number of meetings or hearings have been held in the intervening period. The Human Rights Commission was not the only public body investigating these complaints. The Northern Territory Ombudsman had an investigation and he managed to file his report by August 1984. The Commonwealth Ombudsman also completed his investigation by May 1986. Government employees in the Australian Federal Police, the Northern Territory Police, the Department of the Special Minister of State and the Attorney-General's Department all enjoyed a stimulating corres- pondence on the matter. Senator Crichton-Browne —At what cost? Senator NEWMAN —Yes, Senator Crichton-Browne; at what cost? Despite the exhaustive hearings of both ombudsmen, the Human Rights Commission could not bear to tear itself away from the matter. In this report the Commission states that it has not attempted to find out whether the particular complaints that it received were in all respects substantiated, yet it used the specific incidents complained of as though proven in order to report on what human rights principles should apply. In fact, the Commission restated the complaints, made comments on them, drew attention to the relevant human rights and then made pious suggestions. No comments were made about the availability of legal redress for the complainants and little attention was given to the provocation given by the women and to the difficulties faced by the police as a result of the isolation and the lack of facilities available where the women committed the offences with which they were charged. In fact, the human rights of the two police forces concerned in this matter have received no attention at all. A number of these ladies were back here in Canberra recently proudly exhibiting photos of their so-called peaceful protest at Pine Gap. They showed me their `battle photographs' in their so-called peace tent on the lawns outside Parliament House. This time their protest was clearly seen by the people of Australia on their television sets. They saw it for the dishonest exercise it was. The three years delay in producing this report reveals the concluding sentence of chapter 1 of the report as pious humbug. Let me quote that final sentence: . . . this report on the complaints arising from the Pine Gap protest may help to ensure that, in the future, those who have broken the law in the course of protesting are treated in accordance with the standards of human rights to which Australia is bound. Before this report was issued these same women came to Canberra and protested again. They broke the law and trampled on the human rights of others, yet this Government was paralysed and they were treated with kid gloves. Senator Giles —What absolute rubbish. Senator NEWMAN —You know it to be true. Of course their human rights would be respected. All citizens have that right. We did not need a three-year investigation by a body costing $5.6m a year to tell us that. Neither should these women enjoy an immunity from arrest for breaches of the law. Is it any wonder that on attaining government, the coalition is committed to abolishing the Human Rights Commission? Australians should not be expected to pay for wasteful and bureaucratic exercises such as this. The human rights, which are the subject of this report, are already well protected by the courts. They are also well protected by efficient monitoring by the State, Territory and Commonwealth ombudsmen and the sooner this Commission is starved to death the better. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.35) —I rise to speak on this Human Rights Commission report about complaints relating to the protest at Pine Gap, November 1983. It is far from the case that a report such as this is a waste of money, as was claimed by Senator Newman. It is crucial to people in our society not only that a body such as the Human Rights Commission should exist but also that reports should be presented on occasions such as this when there are complaints relating to protests at Pine Gap. It is an established and fundamental fact that those rights which some people on the Opposition benches would have us believe are enshrined in common law do not necessarily exist. For that reason the Australian Democrats have long supported the legislation for an Australian Bill of Rights. In the event, that has not come into being and certainly we would want it on the record that that was not our wish at all. We have the Human Rights Commission and citizens have the ability to lay complaints and to have reports such as this presented which will allow them to place on the record their concerns-in this case concerns about treatment in a particular situation. It is important to look in this report at the sorts of complaints which were laid-complaints about finger printing, harassment and intimidation and various aspects of the arrests themselves, such as strip searching and so on. I believe that one needs only to talk to people who were involved. I stress that one needs to talk to people on both sides in regard to an issue such as this, which is exactly what happens when the Human Rights Commission investigates these sorts of issues. One needs only talk to people who were involved in that area. We all had the opportunity to do so, as the previous speaker pointed out, when people who had been involved were in the vicinity of Parliament House at the end of October. They were not breaking the law; they were further exercising their rights as citizens of Australia, which the Human Rights Commission is here to protect. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —The time allotted for the consideration of papers has expired. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff)-by leave-agreed to: That Government Papers tabled on 4 December and not called on at the time for consideration of Government Papers this day, be called on at the consideration of Government Papers, pursuant to sessional order, on the next day of sitting. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I present the report on the High Court of Australia annual report 1985-86, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On 10 June of this year the Committee reported on the 1984-85 annual report of the High Court of Australia. In that report the Committee commented that it was aware that there was some concern about the time taken in litigation and the cost of litigation in the High Court of Australia. A primary concern was with an insufficiency of information provided in the report about some of the administrative operations of the High Court of Australia. In the report the Committee also commented that it had written to the Law Council, various law societies and Bar associations, in order to ascertain whether there was any concern about the administrative functions of the High Court of Australia. The Committee received written replies from the majority of these professional bodies and subsequently conducted four public hearings, including one with the Clerk and the Registrar of the High Court. In the report on the High Court's 1984-85 annual report, the Committee also indicated that it would deal with these issues in a subsequent report. The Committee, therefore, takes this opportunity to report on its further investigations. The Committee reiterates the view it expressed in June of this year, that there is a clear distinction between the independence of the judiciary and its consequent immunity from the requirement that it account to Parliament for its exercise of judicial power, and the accountability of institutions which are funded by public moneys, whether they be administrative, legislative or judicial. The Committee merely wishes to ensure that Parliament is properly informed about the operations of the High Court. In a letter to the Committee dated 29 August 1986 the Clerk of the High Court recognised the distinction which the Committee had made and provided detailed information on the Court's activities. He also noted that the Court had a clear responsibility to provide information concerned with the expenditure of funds appropriated by the Parliament. In the course of the Committee's inquiry, the various professional bodies raised a wide variety of matters, which are referred to briefly in the report. The Committee has not pursued any of these matters, perceiving its brief as merely to ensure that it was possible to canvass these matters publicly. The Committee is confident that the fuller reporting evident in the High Court of Australia 1985-86 annual report marks a satisfactory conclusion to the Committee's consideration of this matter. The Committee believes that the Parliament will henceforth be better informed of the operations of the High Court of Australia. This will enable the Parliament better to discharge its responsibilities, whilst in no way impairing the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the High Court of Australia. I commend this report to the Senate, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I present the report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's special reports, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Under section 17 of the Ombudsman Act 1976, the Ombudsman is empowered to present to the Parliament special reports upon investigations into alleged misconduct by a department or a prescribed authority. He may transmit a special report after a reasonable time has elapsed since the Ombudsman furnished a section 15 report, and the Ombudsman has informed the Prime Minister that the department or authority concerned has failed to make a response which is adequate and reasonable in the circumstances. It was considered that the Parliament ought not to allow these special reports to go unnoted. Consequently, this Committee sought and obtained from the Senate a reference to enable it to consider and, if necessary, report on the Ombudsman's special reports. The Ombudsman has exercised this power only twice. In September of last year he presented special report No. 1, the Cotton case, involving the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and in May of this year he presented his second special report concerning the Industrial Sugar Mills case, involving the Department of Defence. On 22 August the Senate referred these two reports to the Committee. The Committee held a public hearing on the two special reports on 22 October 1986. The Commonwealth Ombudsman, Mr Geoffrey Kolts, QC, attended the hearing to speak to the special report No. 1, that is, on the Cotton case. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation was represented by Mr Stuart Revill, the Acting Managing Director, and Mr John Muldoon, the Head of the Ministerial and Correspondence Unit. The Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman, Air Vice-Marshal Jordan, attended the hearing to speak to the special report No. 2, on the Industrial Sugar Mills case. Mr Maurice Kennedy, Assistant Secretary of the Accounting Policy Branch, Department of Finance, attended on behalf of the Department of Finance. There were significant developments in the Cotton case in the weeks and days leading up to the public hearing. The newly appointed Ombudsman, Mr Kolts, entered into negotiations with the Chairman of the ABC, Mr Hill, with a view to, as he put it `clearing the air'. These negotiations resulted in a statement being broadcast on an ABC program in Perth five days before the public hearing. The original Ombudsman's report had recommended that such a broadcast be made. Unfortunately, the text agreed upon and broadcast differed from that originally recommended, further upsetting the complainant. In the event, the Committee recommends that the ABC take a step further so that the `spirit of compromise' recognises Mr Cotton's expectations based upon the Ombudsman's special report to the Parliament. The Committee does not regard the broadcast statement as being adequate in this regard. It is confident that, with the aid of the public hearing held on 2 October 1986, the ABC can quickly move to a definitive resolution of this matter. There was some discussion in material before the Committee that Mr Kolts was not empowered to persist with his efforts once he had delivered his special report. The Committee therefore recommends that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) examine the Ombudsman Act in light of the Committee's comments about the role of the Ombudsman. If necessary, the Act should be amended to ensure that the Ombudsman's role is not exhausted by the presentation of a special report to the Parliament. The circumstances of the Industrial Sugar Mills case were less controversial. It arose out of a contract which, as a result of a negligent misreading of a tender, was not awarded to Industrial Sugar Mills Pty Ltd by the Department of Defence Support. The Ombudsman investigated the matter and recommended that the Department pay compensation. The Department of Defence, after examining the facts of the case, agreed with the Ombudsman's recommendation. This would have involved an act of grace payment, pursuant to section 34a of the Audit Act 1901. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is taking a keen interest in my delivery of this report, whose authorisation was required for such a payment, declined to authorise the payment. After holding a public hearing and examining the documentation involved in this matter, the Committee believes that the facts of the case, wedded to the recommendations of the Ombudsman and the Department of Defence, amount to `special circumstances' within section 34a of the Audit Act 1901 and justify the making of an act of grace payment. Further, the Committee is of the view that the fears of the Department of Finance about the precedent quality of compensation to ISM as recommended by the Ombudsman do not constitute `exceptional circumstances' of the type contemplated by the Prime Minister as being sufficient to justify setting aside the Ombudsman's recommendation. The Committee therefore recommends that the Minister for Finance reconsider his decision in the Industrial Sugar Mills case in light of this further examination of the matter by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I commend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the eighty-first report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on its scrutiny of certain Australian Capital Territory ordinances. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to have my short statement incorporated in Hansard as other people may want to speak on this matter. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Over the past year the Committee has scrutinised a number of A.C.T. Ordinances which have made far-reaching reforms to the criminal law of the A.C.T. The Committee has not recommended the disallowance of any of these Criminal Law Reform Ordinances. However, we did persuade the Attorney-General to restore a right to jury trial for certain property offences, and we specifically drew to the attention of the Senate extensive reforms on the law relating to sexual offences. The Committee also obtained from the Attorney-General details of consultations held before making such significant Ordinances as well as explanations for the drafting of certain proof and evidence provisions. All of these matters are discussed in the report and the Committee's correspondence is included as an appendix. The first three of the Committee's principles are relatively easy to apply because they have a relatively settled meaning the interpretation of which gradually evolves to keep pace with developments in law and society. These principles relate to whether the delegated legislation is drafted within the letter and the spirit of the enabling Act, whether it trespasses on personal freedoms and whether it denies reasonable appeal rights. Principle (d) is harder to apply. It asks the Committee to ensure that delegated legislation does not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. That test requires a subjective judgment which the Committee endeavours to make in a conscientious and bipartisan way. We recognise a responsibility to protect the position of the Parliament, as the exclusive source of major legislation. Legislation for the A.C.T. is made by a Minister under delegation from Parliament through the Seat of Government Act. Under successive Governments, legislation for the A.C.T. has frequently been substantive in content, of the kind that might be expected to attract debate in a State Parliament. Thus, the Committee has a dilemma to solve. It must ensure that A.C.T. legislation containing matter appropriate for the Parliament is made by the Parliament. At the same time, the Parliament has little opportunity to note important laws that will apply only in the A.C.T. unless these are of an exceptional nature which the Committee has moved to disallow. Principle (d) of the Committee is designed to ensure that Parliament's supremacy in law-making is respected by the executive when acting under delegated powers. The Committee does not propose to alter principle (d) as a criterion for Scrutiny. However, as in the past, the principle will be applied by the Committee with suitable caution. Important instruments of legislation will inevitably be made for the A.C.T. and while not necessarily matters for parliamentary enactment, these may be significant or substantive pieces of legislation which could be socially innovative and as such deserving of note by the parliament as to their policy or merits. This is particularly so in the absence of a locally elected representative body. The Committee, in its bipartisan role, does not engage in any assessment of evaluation of policy matters but it does not lack the capacity to identify legislative initiatives which, while falling short of being more appropriate for parliamentary enactment, are nevertheless significant proposals. The Committee has decided therefore, that to ensure that Parliament is informed of any important exercise of its delegated authority to make laws, by Ordinance or otherwise, we will report to the Senate on delegated legislation which is substantive, socially innovative and which the Committee, in the performance of its bipartisan role considers should be the subject of special note. The frequency of using this procedure would naturally depend on the volume and nature of legislation tabled in the Senate. This approach would, of course, be in accordance with Senate Standing Orders under which delegated legislation stands referred to the Committee `for consideration and, if necessary, report thereon'. (S.O. 36a (4)) In the report, the Committee also strongly recommends that, where possible, discussion papers, advice to Government and draft Ordinances should be widely circulated to interested people whose views might be taken into account before the Ordinance becomes law. In conclusion, Mr President, the Committee's 81st Report is a short one but its thrust reflects the persistent thrust of the Committee's philosophy since its inception in 1932: when Parliament delegates law-making powers to the executive those powers should be exercised in a way which does not, in practical terms, remove Parliament's rights to make major legislation. However to complement that principle the Committee will from time to time report to the Senate about other important legislation which in the Committee's opinion falls short of infringing principle (d) but the content of which the Parliament should particularly note. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.51) —I just want to say a few words about this eighty-first report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. This report is, in fact, the sixth report which Senator Cooney has tabled in just on 12 months since he took over as Chairman of this Committee. It seemed to me that there was a possibility that some former senators might be out there today listening to this debate. I think in particular of such fellows as Ian Wood and Jim Cavanagh-and I am sure that all honourable senators would like to send their best wishes to both of them. I think also of other former senators who have served on this marvellous Senate Committee. Senator MacGibbon —Yes, but what does your Committee do? Senator LEWIS —I just want to say to them that Senator Cooney follows in all the finest and best traditions that they established in regard to this Committee, that he takes a very powerful approach towards Ministers who do not want to comply with the requests of the Senate Committee, and we have repeatedly on that Committee been successful. I am sure that those former senators who might be listening to this debate would be delighted to know of the standards continuing to be set by the present Chairman of this Committee. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(4.53) —I also wish to speak very briefly about the eighty-first report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. As Senator Lewis has pointed out, this is the sixth report tabled by Senator Cooney in the past year. I did not know personally the former senators referred to by Senator Lewis, so my congratulations to Senator Cooney with respect to the chairing of this Committee are purely on my own behalf and from my experience. But it has been my experience that his chairmanship has been both distinctive and successful. This Committee is a very satisfying one to work on, partly because of the fact that we can see what we achieve for and on behalf of Australians who may be affected by the delegated legislation which, were it not for this Committee, would be approved of in its unimproved form. The work is done quietly, so quietly that Senator MacGibbon interjected a bit earlier: `Yes, but what does your Committee do?'. We are not a song and dance Committee. We meet every Thursday in the morning, we work quietly, we work in a completely bipartisan spirit, partly due to the chairmanship of Senator Cooney, and we work well. Where delegated legislation unduly trespasses on personal rights and freedoms, we have over the last year found Ministers willing to give explanations and, more importantly, willing to make changes to the particular legislation at hand. This is not as difficult as it is sometimes made out to be by the Public Service or bureaucrats, because the Committee does not question the policy or merits of any delegated legislation; it simply looks to matters of bipartisan principle concerning rights. I am quite sure that the bureaucrats complain about having to take account of the Committee's existence. They may even suggest to the Minister that the Committee is impeding the work of the Government. The sooner the bureaucrats learn that the Committee will not give in and will continue with its work the sooner delegated legislation will be dealt with in a more appropriate manner. If Ministers are true parliamentarians, in addition to being politicians, they will know that it is the Parliament and its authority that are the sources of their power over the Public Service. Something that subordinate lawmakers ought never forget is that it is the Parliament which is the sovereign lawmaker of the Commonwealth, and all law-making power comes from it and must be answerable to it. Without a parliamentary mechanism to ensure accountability-that mechanism is the Regulations and Ordinances Committee-the Parliament, which represents the people, is stripped of its power and the bureaucracy, which can be tempted to represent only its own convenience, enhances its power. Ministers of any government who fail to recognise the totally central role of Parliament or who encourage any lack of respect for it, actually undermine the source of their own authority as Ministers. They dilute the concentration there should be on the primacy of Parliament. The Committee's eighty-first report deals quite substantially with Australian Capital Territory ordinances and it is important in that respect, but it is also important for the other delegated legislation that it refers to. Principle (d) of the Committee's terms of reference requires the Committee to make a judgment about whether or not any delegated legislation should actually be put in the form of a Bill before Parliament rather than remaining as delegated legislation. This is a difficult principle to apply, because it is a subjective judgment that needs to be made. We have been managing, we think, reasonably well, partly, again, because of the high degree of bipartisan spirit on the Committee. That spirit enables us to arrive at judgments about the significance of laws made by a Minister. `A difficult principle' is one description of it, but it is also the most important of the Committee's principles, because it is by reference to it that the Executive is prevented from bypassing the Parliament when consideration is given to how important proposals are to become law in delegated legislation. The Committee's report outlines a new procedure which the Committee will follow. It is simply this: Where there is a substantive piece of delegated legislation about which the Committee makes a decision that it ought not necessarily be a Bill before Parliament, but that it is so substantive that it ought to be drawn to the attention of Parliament, the Committee will appropriately make a report. I simply seek to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that there is a very substantive matter being dealt with in delegated legislation. The Committee, I repeat, is not concerned with matters of policy or the merits of legislation, but this particular innovation of reporting on these substantive matters without making that judgment about the merits of the legislation will alert the Senate to the existence of matters of substance appearing in delegated legislation. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator JONES(Queensland) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, I present a report on the Shelburne Bay sand mining proposal, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator JONES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Shelburne Bay is located on the eastern side of Cape York Peninsula less than 200 kilometres from the northern tip of the cape. It is at present a virtually uninhabited area of outstanding scenic and biological significance. The area is an immense wilderness of lightly vegetated sand dunes, covering hundreds of square kilometres. It is the ancestral homeland of the Wuttati Aboriginal people. From another point of view, the giant dunes of fine white sand are a valuable deposit of silicon dioxide, or silica. There is a proposal to excavate the silica sand, wash it, and export it to the Japanese and other markets at the rate of upwards of 500,000 tonnes per year. Senator Vigor, Senator Townley and I made a visit to Shelburne Bay to ascertain for ourselves the environmental impact of the proposed sand mining operation. The majority conclusions of our Committee-from which Senator Townley dissents-were: That a land use plan for the whole of Cape York Peninsula was an urgent priority; that the north-east Cape York Peninsula was an area of high conservation and wilderness value; that there were huge resources of high quality silica sand available at Cape Flattery, where there is already a large mining operation; and that the economic benefits accruing to Australia are either uncertain or insignificant. On the basis of the evidence received, the majority of the Committee members were of the view that the proposed mining venture should not be allowed to proceed. The Committee was also concerned at the lack of consultation with the Wuttati people in this case. We were strongly of the view that in the formulation of land use plans for Cape York Peninsula there be full consultation with the Cape York Aboriginal people. If, however, the project is allowed to proceed, the Committee has made certain recommendations designed to minimise its impact on the local natural environment. In particular, we recommend the establishment of an environmental monitoring committee comprising the mining company, the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Queensland Conservation Council and the Wuttati people and convened by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.01) —At the outset I must say that my dissent in Senate committee reports is very rare. In fact, I think this is the only time when I have dissented from a committee report. I agree with some of the recommendations that have just been mentioned by Senator Jones-for instance, the land use plan. Most of Australia should have a land use examination. I was a member of a committee that looked at that subject and I agree with the idea. The area in question is not pristine, it is not inhabited and it is therefore very suitable for mining. There is no one to disturb and it is not an area that should be locked up forever, as some people would have. The area is so large that sand could be exported from it for hundreds of years without materially affecting it. The area is so extensive that it took us something like 20 minutes in an aircraft doing 160 knots to go from one end of it to the other. Although it is not quite as wide as it is long, that description gives some idea of its size. With suitable rehabilitation, sand could be removed from the area with a minimum of damage and provide exports for many years. I have had the opportunity of seeing the rehabilitation of sand mined areas in New South Wales and other rehabilitation work. I can assure the Senate that in many cases the area that has been rehabilitated in some ways is a lot better than it was before the mining took place. The setting up of an overseeing committee comprising several groups was mentioned. I do not believe the Commonwealth should become involved in such a proposal. This is a State matter rather than a Commonwealth matter and I think it is up to the State to make sure that the control of the area is exercised properly. Due to the time constraints that the Senate is under I refer people to my dissenting report and say that in a modern society we have to recognise that there has to be some balance between use and conservation. With any area we have to look at multiple land use rather than locking land up for only one use. It has to be recognised by a modern society that we cannot have the benefits of Australia's present standard of living without being prepared to use some of the very great assets that this country has. Finally, I thank my colleagues who were with me on the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, Senator David Vigor and Senator Gerry Jones. As Senator Jones is from Queensland he has a very real interest in the area. I thank the staff who helped us to prepare the report. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.05) —I speak very briefly to support Senator Jones and to thank the people on the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment. We had a very informative and effective look at this project. We looked also at the Cape Flattery mining project at the same time and some lessons that we learned from this inquiry could also be applied at Cape Flattery. Our fifth recommendation was that ships from Japan should exchange their ballast water at sea and treat new water with those chemicals which are necessary to prevent the Japanese mussel from infesting the Great Barrier Reef area. I believe that the same condition should apply to the Cape Flattery mine which is already in operation. It has set up a new jetty and is bringing ships directly into that area. I believe that we should also examine the pricing policy on silica sand and look at exactly what Australia is getting out of silica sand mining because the Cape Flattery operation is fully owned and fairly well operated from Japan. The pricing seems to be geared to the local Japanese market. These are not issues directly involved with the Committee report but I believe one should not miss them in the process of such an investigation. I note with just a little worry that I received a call today from some people who were camping in the area and who said that there is considerable activity bringing material into the Shelburne Bay area, obviously associated with mining, even though the proposals for mining have not been fully accepted. I believe that this is really jumping the gun. The survey work on Rodney Island has broken through the canopy of the forest in that area and has done a considerable amount of damage from which it may take a long time to recover. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator PARER(Queensland)(5.07) —I want to speak very briefly supporting the dissenting report by Senator Townley. It never ceases to amaze me that people want to interfere in areas where they really have no right. This is purely a State matter; it is a matter for the Government of Queensland. It is a matter for the companies involved there. Untrue statements have been made suggesting that Queensland would not act responsibly in this regard. This is not proved by history. Australia has a worrying balance of payments problem. Yet people suggest that mining companies should not be operating in the area and if the Queensland Government will not stop them the Federal Government should use its powers to do so. Senator Walsh —Basically they want to close down every industry they can close down. Senator PARER —I am sorry, I did not hear Senator Walsh. I would have liked to reply to him. Senator Walsh —You would not object to what I said. Senator PARER —Then I agree. I comment only briefly to state that interference is one of Australia's problems today. I suspect that a degree of politics is involved because the proposal is in Queensland, and I find that disturbing. I know the area; I have been there. It is a massive area. Senator Vigor has the habit of wanting to stop any development in the name of whatever environmental reason he can dream up. Other Australians realise that this is a nonsense and hence would support Senator Townley. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —by leave-Under standing order 36aa (10) (b) (i), I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bills be referred to the standing committees indicated for report by the dates specified: Australian National Maritime Museum Bill 1986, Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, 15 March 1987; Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1986, Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, 17 February 1987; Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986, Standing Committee on National Resources, 17 February 1987. Consideration resumed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.11) —The Committee was dealing earlier with the question of appointment procedures. I had said that it appeared that discrimination is practised against youth by the Public Service Board in its recruitment procedures. I pointed to the statistics on the Public Service and said that there had been an 11 per cent drop in the number of youth employed by the Public Service. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in his response, made three points, which presumably were the excuses of the Public Service. I refer to them now because one of the points which I thought I had disposed of has been picked up in an Australian Associated Press report. The Minister said that it was true that the proportion of young people in the Public Service had decreased. But he said that this situation was aided by the growing trend of young people to stay at school for longer periods. What is the Minister trying to say? By making that statement, is he trying to make an excuse for the substantial drop in the number of young people employed in permanent staff positions in the Commonwealth Public Service? If he is, it is a nonsense. What does he mean by that statement? In fact, the three points that he made were: Firstly, the work force as a whole in this age group had declined-- Senator Walsh —That is right. That is correct and it is factual. Senator HARRADINE —Does the Minister want me to give him the figures? Senator Walsh —Yes, I would be very interested. Senator HARRADINE —In 1984-85, the period we are talking about, the figures-- Senator Walsh —You were talking about a 20-year period, not one year. Senator HARRADINE —I am talking-- Senator Walsh —You were asserting that the proportion of youth in the work force had not fallen since the mid-1960s. Senator HARRADINE —No, I had quoted the figures from the Public Service Board's annual report for 1984. Senator Walsh —I am not talking about the Public Service Board. I am talking about the whole work force; and you are wrong. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Harradine has the call. The Minister can reply in due course if he wants to. Senator HARRADINE —I would be grateful for the opportunity to point out what I had referred to. I had referred to the fact that, last year, Public Service permanent staff had increased by 3,204 but, at the same time, the number of youth in permanent Public Service jobs had been reduced by 913; that is, over the period of the Public Service Board's report, which is 1984-85. I gave the actual figures, and I said that this represented a cut of 11 per cent. I also said that youth under 21 years of age comprised 22.2 per cent of total Public Service permanent staff in 1966, and 6.3 per cent in 1984, and the latest figure for the Public Service Board 1985 year, which was tabled in the Parliament last week, was an all time low of 5.6 per cent. The Minister said-I cannot understand what he meant-that that was due to-- Senator Walsh —Can you understand this? They don't stay young for very long. Even you should be able to understand that. Senator HARRADINE —Let me just explain what the Minister said. He said: `This is caused by the trend of young people staying at school for longer periods'. What does he mean by that? He then went on to say that what he meant by that was that the work force as a whole in this age group had fallen. He has misled the chamber. Let me give him the figures. As far as 1984 is concerned-- Senator Walsh —Oh, you are a mongrel. Senator HARRADINE —I am talking about the quarterly series. This is an important matter. This Minister talks about youth-- Senator Walsh —You mongrel! The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Walsh. Senator HARRADINE —The Minister talks about youth. He can call me a mongrel if he likes, but he talks about youth-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Minister may not do that. Senator HARRADINE —He can do it as far as I am concerned. I could not care less. The CHAIRMAN —The Minister will withdraw that remark. Senator Walsh —Mr Chairman, I withdraw. Senator HARRADINE —This is a very important point. The Minister said that the labour force had been reduced. It has not been reduced. The labour force generally has increased since 1984-85. The figures for the persons concerned-I am talking about the 15 to 20 years age group inclusive-are as follows: 975,500 in 1984, using the latest quarterly series figures, and 983,500 in 1985. The Minister has misled this chamber by stating an excuse-presumably, one given to him by the Public Service Board. The second reason he gave was that the Public Service Board needs to make appointments on the merit principle. On that issue, what has changed between last year and this year as far as the merit principle is concerned? Has there been a change in Public Service appointment procedures between last year and this year? Of course there has not been a change. Yet there has been a drop of 913 young people employed by the Public Service. The third reason that the Minister gave was that in the absence of a positive growth in the Public Service, it is natural that there would be a decline in the number of youth employed. Honourable senators will agree with me when I say that, in all fairness, I tried to raise this matter with the Minister in a proper, quiet, logical, reasonable-- Senator Walsh —You are doing just another one of your phoney grandstanding acts. Senator HARRADINE —Let me tell the Minister this: It is not phoney when the Government is discriminating against youth in its own area of responsibility. Senator Walsh —That's your assertion; unsupported by anything. Senator HARRADINE —No. The Minister made three assertions, each of which has been proven wrong. I have dealt with two of those assertions and I will deal with the third one now. The Minister said that, in the absence of a positive growth rate, it is not unusual that there would be a decline in the number of youth in the Public Service. For the Minister's information, in the period we were talking about there was an actual increase of 3,204 people in the Public Service. I ask the Senate to examine this situation very carefully. The public of Australia and, indeed, unemployed youths and their parents are entitled to know what explicit policy intervention the Government will take to rectify this situation. The Minister has talked about traineeships, but he and the Government had the opportunity last year and years before that to do something about it. I have raised this matter year after year. We have got a situation where the Government trumpets that it is in favour of the youth of this country. The Government-and each Minister of the Government-fails to give those youths a fair go in the only area in which it has total responsibility. I have tried to mention before that I know of certain Ministers who are concerned about the fact that they do not and are not given the opportunity of getting more youths into their departments. The Minister ought to go back and properly examine this matter. He should not give misleading statements to this Senate, which he has done in response to the points that I have properly raised. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(5.23) —I am going to respond briefly. I know that Senator Harradine has displayed an incapacity to follow logic in the past, but I will make another attempt. He wanted to know what relevance an increase in the school leaving age has to the proportion of Public Service employees who are under 21 years of age. If the school leaving age were increased to 21 and if it were compulsory, there would be no youth in the Public Service at all. If anyone can follow something logically from that, the higher the school leaving age goes, other things being equal, the lower the proportion of youth in the Public Service. Senator Harradine claimed that I was wrong in saying that the proportion of youth in the work force in total had declined over a long period. I have a couple of figures. The first is entitled `Unemployment and the Labour Market' report No. 9 of the Bureau of Labour Market Research which covers 15- to 19-year-olds because that is the category it was using. If it was taken up to 20-year-olds, it would not make much difference. In 1966, 13.5 per cent of 15- to 19-year-olds were employed. That had fallen to 10.7 in 1974 and 9.2 in 1985. If one looks at the labour force as a whole-this is 15- to 19-year-olds again-the proportion of 15- to 19-year-olds in the labour force, that is employed plus unemployed, has fallen every year since 1978. It has moved around a bit in the previous decade but over the whole period of 20 years it has fallen from a high in 1966 of 13.7 to 10.3. That statement is true. It is also true that it has fallen by a greater amount in the Public Service. One base figure, and he might have had several, which Senator Harradine used was that the percentage of permanent officers-I am not sure which report this is from; one of the officials maybe able to tell me in a moment-in 1966 had peaked at 22.2 per cent from, incidentally, only 13.1 per cent in 1957 and 12.3 in 1951. It steadily fell every year from 1966. It has in fact fallen every year since 1966, with the exception of 1983 when it rose 0.1 per cent. Every year between 1966 and 1984 that proportion has fallen. There are a number of reasons for that. In 1966 there was an unduly high peak. At that time numbers in the Public Service were growing at the rate of about 5 per cent a year. In 1966 married women were allowed to remain as permanent employees, whereas previously they had not. I do not know whether Senator Harradine wants to cancel that. In 1973 the limit on the age of appointment to the junior grades, which at the time had been 28, was removed. I do not know whether Senator Harradine wants to ban people over 28 years of age from joining those lower grades of the Public Service. They are the facts. I will try to explain again why if there is a high growth rate there is likely to be a higher proportion of youth. If there is a high growth rate there is a very high recruitment rate. If there were no recruitment at all, within four years there would be zero, no youth, in the Public Service because they do get older. That positive correlation between youth rates and the proportion of youth is very well established. In 1985 total appointments to the Clerical Assistant range were about 4,700 of which 1,650 were aged under 20. Under 21 years would be something more than that. A total of 1,500 were 20 to 24 years of age. Over one third were under 20 years of age. For appointments to Clerical Assistant Grade 1, the proportions under 20 years of age were considerably lower. I am not sure whether it is compulsory to have some tertiary qualifications. It is certainly common to have tertiary qualifications so that there are not too many applicants under 20 years of age. I do not think there is much point in pursuing this. Senator Harradine asserts that the Public Service Board discriminates against youth. That is an assertion that he is entitled to make. The only evidence he has produced to support it is statistical evidence which is open to varying interpretations. The logical conclusions that one can draw from his arguments are: Firstly, he wants to kick married women out of the Public Service, thereby increasing the recruitment rate. Secondly, he wants to prevent people of 28 years and over entering the lower grades and, through both of those measures, discriminate in favour of youth recruitment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.28) —That is an absolute disgrace. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is trying to gloss over the facts. I am not going to get involved in the statements that he has made because they are a disgrace. We are talking about the question of Public Service appointment procedures in this Committee. We are talking about procedures which have been constant over some years, particularly what has happened over last year, 1984-85. The Minister talks about persons of 28 years and over entering the lower grades and married women in the Public Service. Nothing has changed at all since last year in Public Service appointment procedures and yet there has been a decline of 913 permanent Public Service jobs for young people. It is the largest decline for a number of years. Yet at the same time there has been a substantial increase in the number of Federal permanent public servants, to the extent of 3,204. I go back to the relevant facts. The Minister talked about 1966 and then-- Senator Walsh —You talked about 1966. Senator HARRADINE —I referred briefly to 1966, and then I zeroed in on the area of the Minister's responsibility and not what happened in 1966. He is the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in this field. It is the Minister's responsibility, and he has been responsible for saying to this chamber this afternoon that this decline took place because of the growing trend of young people to stay at school longer and because the number of youth in the work force as a whole has declined. That is absolutely untrue. For the 15 to 20 years inclusive age bracket-I repeat the figures-there were 975,500 in 1984 and 983,500 in 1985. Those figures show an increase, if the Minister did not know, not a decrease. In the 15 to 19 years age group-which the Minister mentioned and which is not relevant because the Public Service figures to this year have been dealing with the 15 to 20 years inclusive age group-there has been an increase in the general work force. By `work force' I am talking about those who are employed and those who are unemployed. In the 15 to 19 years age group the figures are: 763,900 in 1984 and 775,000 in 1985. I refer to what was said in the 1983-84 report of the Public Service Board. That document warned the Government-that is the document before the one that was tabled in the Parliament last week-that unless there was `explicit policy intervention' the rate of youth employment in the Public Service would decline. It is fair for me to raise this matter in the Committee while we are talking about appointment procedures. It is fair for me to ask: What has the Government done about it? Since we have not had any logical explanation for the decline in the numbers of youth in the Public Service to an all-time low, the Government ought to respond to the point made by the Public Service Board in its report before this one that, unless there is explicit policy intervention, this decline will continue. My question is: Will it continue; if so, how then does the Government square that continuance of discrimination against youth with its public policy on the issue? Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.33) —I rise at this stage since there has been a considerable amount of debate on this matter and I restricted my remarks considerably at the beginning. The Minister, in his reply on amendments (1) and (2), said that guidelines are available and will be used in setting up these committees. I ask him whether these guidelines will be available to the Senate and whether the guidelines will be available to the Senate and whether the guidelines contain the same types of provisions as we are putting forward in these amendments. As apparently the Government and the Opposition are not supporting amendment (6), I would like some statement from the Minister concerning the safeguards which are now available for people who may claim to have been mistreated or not properly handled by the single committee which is being proposed in the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill 1986. How will that be handled? It is not obvious to me. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.35) —I go to clause 21 of the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill 1986 which is an amendment to section 33 of the Public Service Act. It omits from sub-paragraph (1) (b) (ii) the words `and other attributes' and substitutes the words `personal qualities and potential for development'. Mr Chairman, are we dealing with the Bill as a whole? The CHAIRMAN —We are dealing with the Bill as a whole. We have six amendments before the Chair, but I am accepting debate on the Bill as a whole as well as the amendments. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you. I note the point made in the explanatory memorandum, but I am rather interested to know what is really meant by `personal qualities' in the change of that description. Senator Walsh —Was that a real question? If it was a real question, I will take it on notice. Senator HARRADINE —It was a question. I have in front of me a Public Service Board circular dated 10 November, signed by a Barbara R. Benson, Deputy Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau. It relates to guidelines on the elimination of discrimination against homosexual men and women in the Australian Public Service. I would like to know what was meant by the changes that are referred to in clause 21. If the question has to be taken on notice, let it be so. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(5.38) —I have just been told that the reason for that change is to make it consistent with the definition of efficiency in the new promotion procedures. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Consideration resumed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.40) —Before lunch I was explaining my two amendments. The first of these amendments removes a taxation deduction that is currently available for expenditure on advertising and other forms of promotion of cigarettes and tobacco products. The amendments will put into effect a portion of the Australian Labor Party platform which was adopted in Hobart earlier this year. It is a matter on which the Australian Democrats have very strong views. Former Senator Chipp actually wanted to go further and place a levy on tobacco advertising to fund anti-cancer campaigns and similar positive, pro-health activities. The section of the Labor Party's platform which deals with health mentions the use of the tobacco tax policy to fund anti-smoking programs. It also says, quite specifically: Labor will, in co-operation with State, Territory and local governments restrict the promotion, whether by direct or by indirect means, of tobacco products and sponsorships. Not to allow a rebate for the promotion of harmful substances is a very straightforward restriction. I am proposing the direct implementation of Labor policy. I am quite surprised that the Government is not taking it up. At the moment, tobacco interests say that they spend around $80m each year on these activities. The figure is probably somewhat more than $100m if we take into account the promotions. So we are potentially looking at withdrawing a rebate of between $40m and $50m which can be used for humanitarian or poverty programs and the various things that Labor says it would like to do if it had the money. If tobacco companies continue to spend such large amounts in their attempts to seduce teenagers more Commonwealth revenue will be spent on preventive health measures and on social welfare programs. I would certainly like to see the Hawke Government apply a bit more restraint with equity on tobacco companies than has been heaped upon the disadvantaged people of this country in this Budget. It is quite ridiculous for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to talk about difficult economic decisions when the Government has overlooked so many fair and equitable alternatives. Of course, it is possible that tobacco companies might wind back their promotional activities but this could mean a decrease in the tax. Again, this would mean that fewer youth would be inveigled into smoking. In that case, the direct revenue to the Commonwealth from this measure would fall somewhat, but that would be compensated for by the reduction in expenditure required to deal with smoke-related diseases. I believe that it is a situation from which the Whitlam Government would not have shrunk. As the fourteenth anniversary of the installation of the duumvirate has only just passed, it is worth noting just how this Government has generally failed to take steps to discourage smoking, whereas the Whitlam Government was very active in this field. The removal of open advertising on radio and television was phased out over three years from September 1973. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal last year was vindicated by the courts in its ruling that cameras lingering on cigarette hoardings at sporting fixtures represented a contravention of the then Broadcasting and Television Act. This closed a loophole that cigarette companies had exploited over almost 10 years. Their contracts with sporting bodies had clauses reducing payments received if the full advertising exposure did not happen. The former Capital Territory Minister, Kep Enderby, directed his Department in May 1973 not to allow advertising of cigarettes or tobacco in places that came under its control. In fact, the then Minister for Health, Dr Doug Everingham, drew up ordinances requiring health warnings on cigarette packets sold in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory. This was due to start on 1 January 1973. He was not prepared to wait until every State came into line. However, what do we have now? The attitude of the present Minister for Health and Minister for Territories over rotating warnings has been one of complete capitulation. This is so even though the tobacco companies have totally deceived the Ministers with special warning-free runs on Qantas Airways Ltd flights which have exposed the fact that their statements to the Ministers about what was practical were direct lies. I believe that such companies should not be taken seriously and that we should not subsidise their activities with taxpayers' money. In 1974 the then Minister for Science, Mr Morrison, announced that cigarettes would be tested for tar and nicotine levels and that the results should be made public. Recently, the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, announced that carbon monoxide levels would be added to the information that would be made available on packets. However, no steps have been taken to get the precise readings that are required in the United States of America. This has provoked an angry response from Dr Nigel Gray, Director of the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a telex from Dr Gray to the Minister for Health dealing with the way useful information about cigarettes is not getting out. Leave granted. The telex read as follows- November 18, 1986 For the Honourable Dr Neal Blewett Minister for Health It is with some regret that I feel compelled to object to the press release put out by your office in relation to the revised voluntary code for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide labelling on cigarette packets. You may recall that we objected strenuously to the creation of this voluntary code when it was first announced. We objected for the simple reason that the labelling was imprecise and did not allow customers to find where their cigarettes sit in the tar ranking. It is astonishing to me that your offices could conclude an agreement of this sort without achieving any of the following: 1. Any discussion with the Australian Cancer Society or the National Heart Foundation, or any discussion with the offices of the State Health Departments-I know this to be true for at least three States. 2. Any knowledge of the recently published research that demonstrates that the present tar labelling is incomprehensible to the average smoker. I quote the article in the medical journal of Australia by Dr. Simon Chapman (MJA, 1986: 145: 376-379) in this context. I emphasise that the results of this research were self-evident. Labelling of cigarettes seems to be a difficult problem for us. It has taken us some years to get the health warnings we were promised by the combined Ministers way back in history and now we have thrust upon us an extension of a thoroughly unsatisfactory voluntary code without any consultation with the people who know what they talking about. This is a particular disappointment because, as you know, we have considerable resources and expertise and they are always available to you and your Department for any issue which is of concern to you. If this telex sounds a bit disgruntled it is because we had hoped that your Health Department would never again do anything like this. Please let me conclude by paying them a single compliment. It is indeed a good idea to label carbon monoxide levels. Dr. NIGEL GRAY Director, Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria Chairman, Australian Cancer Society, Smoking Abatement Committee Senator VIGOR —Dr Everingham said that he was examining ordinances in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to ban all advertising on smoking. Former Senator Jack Evans introduced a private member's Bill to this effect for the Australian Capital Territory. The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in 1977 came to the abolitionist view on cigarette advertising and sought to end tax deductibility for promotional activities. Health specialists have long called for proper preventive action in this area; yet somehow this Government, whose Ministers refer to it as a government of reform, has failed to take any positive action to discourage the promotion of smoking. I hope that Government and Opposition back benchers will get together and request that this be looked at on its merits and send a message to those controlling the legislative agenda in each of their parties that they are missing simple opportunities to make such far-reaching reforms such as the one I am proposing here and the one that we proposed earlier this morning on the excise of tobacco. If the Government back benchers would only assert themselves, there would be no need for destructive decisions such as the resumption of uranium sales to France or the abandonment of the Commonwealth's responsibility for the teaching of English as a second language. I urge the Senate to put an end to the tax rebates for the advertising and promotion of tobacco products and thereby extend some restraint with equity on tobacco companies which are raking in mammoth profits at the expense of the health of this nation. The second amendment cuts down the cost to people making appeals under the taxation law, which is so complex that even the Treasurer, Mr Keating, finds it difficult to get his return in on time, from $200 to $10. If the ordinary citizen wants to appeal he or she will be put off by the $200. I believe it is the right of every citizen to be able to appeal against taxation decisions. So I commend my second amendment to the Committee. Amendments negatived. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(5.49) —I move: Page 47, clause 55, proposed new section 14zab, leave out the definition of ``required fee'', insert the following definition: `` `required fee', in relation to a request to refer an objection decision to the Tribunal or a court, means- (a) $10, in respect of a request by a person to whom paragraph (b) does not apply and from whom tax is collected by instalments under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936; (b) $100, in respect of a request by a person who is liable to pay provisional tax under that Act; or (c) $200, in respect of a request by any other person, or, if another amount is, at the time when the request is lodged with, or sent to, the Commissioner, payable, in respect of a request by a person included in a class of persons referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), under the regulations made under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 as the fee in respect of an application made to the Tribunal under sub-section 188a (3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, that other amount.''. This amendment relates, as I mentioned in my brief remarks in the second reading debate, to a realignment of a fee imposed by the Government to those taxpayers who wish to challenge the assessment of the Commissioner of Taxation. It has the effect of allowing ordinary pay as you earn tax payers to pay a fee of $10 instead of $200. The point was that $200 was far too high a fee for many taxpayers who have a legitimate complaint to take to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The amendment proposes that provisional taxpayers pay a fee of $100 and that all other taxpayers-companies and those better able to meet fees for challenging decisions-pay a fee of $200. I believe that this is a reasonable gradation of fees and would be a much fairer way of administering the Income Tax Assessment Act. To increase fees from $2 to $200 is unfair by any standards. It is an enormous increase and it will give the Australian Taxation Office the opportunity to ride roughshod over legitimate complaints that ordinary taxpayers may have. So, for these very important reasons, I commend this amendment to the Committee. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.51) —While the Opposition is certainly very sympathetic to the general thrust of what Senator Siddons has just put to the Committee, unfortunately we cannot support the amendment. I will not spend the time of the Committee going into the detail of the argument in respect of each particular part of this amendment but suffice it to say that the Opposition has taken a decision that the Government is entitled to its Budget. Consequently, this legislation being a Budget measure, we will not seek to oppose it. Therefore we will not be supporting Senator Siddons's amendment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.52) —This is a technical, legal point, but if the $200 figure which appears in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986 were changed-this is just a statement of fact-it could, with all the rest of the wording left intact, be subsequently changed by regulation to any figure at all. The other point about Senator Siddons's amendment, which I am sure he did not intend, is to do with the wording of paragraph (b), which states: . . . in respect of a request by a person who is liable to pay provisional tax under that Act . . . The key phrase is `liable to pay'. If somebody had $1,000 of non-pay as you earn income that would require him to submit a provisional tax return but had no liability to pay tax for some other reason-he had some legitimate deduction from taxable income-that person would fall into the residual category and have to pay the $200 fee. That is a problem with the wording of the amendment which I am sure was not intended. The Government would not accept the amendment in any case but that is an additional reason for not accepting it. Amendment negatived. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 November, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.54) —The Senate is now debating a group of Bills-the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986-which come up each year at this time and which provide ongoing funding for tertiary education. They provide ongoing Federal funding for schools and they provide funding, such as it is now, for the participation and equity program known as PEP. These Bills give the Opposition an opportunity to comment on the general thrust of the Government's approach to tertiary and secondary education and to talk about the Government's approach to participation and equity. I will start with higher education and turn first to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3). As my colleague Peter Shack has said in another place, now is the time to plan for the twenty-first century, to look at what Australia's tertiary system will be like in the next century. This is the time to examine how the future of our civilisation is developing and to determine that Australia will be among the highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled and highly motivated societies. Unless we are, we will fall behind in the contest for jobs and wealth in the world. I want Australia to succeed in all of those things, to be able to provide high levels of skills, good levels of education, high levels of training and high levels of motivation. To do that we will have to alter and dramatically improve our education policies. It will not happen while we continue to turn away eligible students from our technical colleges, while we turn away eligible students from our colleges of advanced education and while we turn away educated and eligible students from our universities. This happens at the present time because our system is an exclusive system, a closed system, where total numbers are determined. Unless one is a private overseas student who can buy a place and unless one wins one of the available places which are there for resident Australians, there is no way in this country that one can get a tertiary education. Of course, Australians who miss out in our closed system can travel to North America or England but that is not desirable and that is not what we want to see. While the numbers I am about to give are to some extent approximations, it is said on the basis of best estimates that the unmet demand in the technical and further education sector equals something like 75,000 places for eligible young Australians-people who want to do nothing more than to improve their skill levels. It is said that in the higher education sector-universities and colleges-the unmet need may be as high as 30,000 places. A recent report in the Melbourne Herald talked about 15,000 young Australians being turned away from technical and further education colleges in Victoria alone this year. If those figures are approximations, the total figures I have given are likely to be correct. This is a disgrace for us as a nation. We should not be exclusive; we should not be turning away people when all they want to do is improve their skills, improve their capacities and improve what they have to offer Australia. We should be raising standards. We should be helping more young Australians to become eligible for tertiary education. Instead we are turning away eligible people. What a disincentive this is to other young Australians to raise their performance. The difficulty is that to achieve the things I seek it will be necessary, fundamentally, to change the method of funding tertiary education because that is the core of the problem we face today in Australia. During the few years of growth in tertiary education, brought about by greater government subvention, we have seen the higher education sector increase its numbers to a limited extent. The Opposition welcomes this and congratulates the Government on the extra places it has provided, but while there are people who may be qualified and want to get into higher education, the situation is unsatisfactory. It is quite wrong to assume that any year 12 examination at the end of schooling is an adequate or accurate predictor of the way people will perform in tertiary education. When I went to university there was a basic matriculation standard. Anyone who passed that standard could enrol in the first year of university. At the end of the first year there was a sorting out process which involved a fairly harsh examination. However, the one thing that emerged from that system was that some people who had just scraped through school blossomed at university and some people who had been high flyers at school and who had done well in year 12 could not cope at all with university. It is not adequate to say: `We will make judgments on people at year 12 and unless they are in the school elite we will not provide places for them in our higher education system'. The capacity of our universities and our colleges to expand still further is constrained by one thing. It is constrained by the amount of government subvention available to feed those colleges and universities. This has always been difficult. It was difficult enough in a period of high growth when there was plenty of money around, whether that high growth was part of a general boom or just due to particularly propitious funding of higher education. But this situation becomes impossible at a time of economic hardship and downturn and at a time of financial constraint. Over the last few years we have discussed on a number of occasions the squeeze that is going on in which higher education institutions are required to do more with relatively less input. It is only by breaking the public monopoly on tertiary education-by saying that it is not enough to demand for award purposes that it always and totally be publicly funded-that major and rapid expansion can take place in the tertiary education sector. The funding restrictions on institutions, which deny those institutions the opportunity to maximise their resources by drawing on non-government sources of finance, really have to be removed in the interests of the nation. I am reminded of one institution in this country, the Western Australian Institute of Technology, which has shown enormous entrepreneurial spirit. Because it is not allowed to have fee paying courses, that institution, or some subsidiary of it, has established fee paying courses in Singapore. People are enrolled in Singapore for courses run in some kind of association with the Western Australian Institute of Technology. People want to take those courses. They want the advantage that an Australian education has to offer. But, while ever education is totally underwritten as a matter of government policy by the public purse, and while the public purse cannot meet the needs of all those who want to enrol, so long will the system be unsatisfactory. The breaking of this government monopoly stands alongside the reform of our antiquated industrial relations system as a major challenge for today's and tomorrow's leaders. A breakthrough in both those cases would pave the way for a much brighter future for the nation. One example of the ideological constraints within which this Government operates can be seen by the Government's reaction-reaction it is-to the proposal by certain people to establish a private university in Queensland. Despite the huge unmet demand for student places that exists, in Queensland as in other parts of Australia, and in spite of the support for the proposal by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, the proposal has been rejected out of hand by the Government. Levels of funding for higher education have risen. But so has demand, not least because of increased retention of students in schools until the end of year 12. The inadequate number of places, compared with the number of people seeking to fill them, not only is denying places to potential students but also means that equipment available for current students is totally inadequate in many cases because of the other arm of funding which goes to equipment and capital. A survey of college directors and principals of colleges of advanced education has revealed that more than half of the equipment, 54 per cent, in colleges of advanced education, is obsolete. A further 10 per cent is unserviceable. Universities fare little better. Eighteen per cent of their equipment is obsolete and 16 per cent is unserviceable. In fact, the Hon. Barry Jones, the Minister for Science, the man who had a nightmare that only he and Tom Uren would be in the outer Ministry if the Cabinet kept increasing, that same Barry Jones, has admitted that about one-fifth of all important equipment in Australian higher education research institutions is unserviceable, obsolete or inadequate and that its replacement or upgrading is beyond the capabilities of the institutions. This really is an issue which the Government must address both out of fairness to students and out of fairness to universities. I must say that I serve on a university council. This is one of the problems we face continually and one of the problems with which we cannot grapple with the resources available to us. In that respect I draw attention to the woefully small amount of $4m which has been provided to technical and further education to buy new equipment at a time when that sector is expected to cater for all new traineeships being granted under the Priority One scheme and when it is supposed to train apprentices and give people vocational and trade training when it has almost nothing available in the way of capital money. Labor's priorities are set out clearly. They are priorities of financial management. They are not educational priorities. At the moment the sector is constrained. It is a sector which has lost a lot of its hope and vigour and a sector which is depressed and demoralised. I hope that the Labor Party will do what it can to overcome those difficulties because they are not to our national advantage. I turn now to secondary education and to the funding available for schools under these Bills. The Opposition has two major concerns about secondary education to which I will refer. The first is the attack by Labor on the special programs that were funded by the Commonwealth to assist the disadvantaged and those with special needs. They include magnificent programs such as the English as a second language program and special education programs for people with visual or hearing disability. These have been slashed by the Labor Government for 1987 in a most unfair and inequitable way. The cuts in these funds have been commented on by the Commonwealth Schools Commission in harsh and direct terms. It is a significant set-back for education in this country that these things have happened. The second concern that we have with this legislation is the continuing war being waged by this Labor Government against certain non-government schools in Australia. The Government has withdrawn funding for professional development, for computer education and for multicultural education. The necessity for and merits of these programs were trumpeted to me by the now Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) when she sat here and when I was in her position. She told us then how excellent these programs were, how important they were and what they would contribute. But this year, under her stewardship, we find that they have been slashed and that the people who will suffer are some of the most needy and vulnerable people in Australian society. Why do we cut out Commonwealth contributions to computer education as Australia is trying to move into a more technologically advanced age? Why do we do that as we are trying to move into the information era? What a strange set of priorities for a Labor Government. As well as abolishing some of the multicultural education programs, the Government has cut funding for English as a second language. It is those programs that have helped to make Australia not only a multicultural but also a harmonious multicultural society. What is the educational goal or purpose or the educational merit in cutting these programs? It is no wonder that Australia's large and very welcome ethnic communities have expressed a sense of outrage at this Budget priority. How can I do better than to quote the words of Senator Graham Richardson, a Labor senator for New South Wales, on this decision. He said: If I sat down for a month and tried to work out how to offend and how best to hurt . . . the ethnic community- I would have cut back the English as a second language program. The decision was not only bad politics it was wrong in principle and implementation. I end Senator Graham Richardson's quote right there. It is damning criticism, from a Labor senator, of Senator Susan Ryan and of her priorities-priorities which no doubt she supports to the hilt; otherwise why would she bring them in here? They are criticisms which have been made not by the Opposition on this occasion, but from within the Labor Party and by Labor's senior numbers man. All students will suffer, not only by the cutting of those programs but by the decision to cut out the professional development program that gave help and a fillip to our teachers. The disadvantaged will be hurt by the cuts to the special education programs which are designed to help those with special educational disadvantage. Here are Labor's priorities laid bare in front of us. If there have to be cuts in the education budget, the cuts will be made on migrants, the disadvantaged and those in need of special education. The Government gets rid of computer training in the age of the computer and forgets about the professional development of teachers when everyone knows that that is one of the most critical things needed in Australia today. I am a member of the Northern Districts Education Centre in Cheltenham in north-western Sydney. The funding for our centre has been withdrawn completely. That is a great set of priorities! All the centre was trying to do was to develop computer programs and software which would help make education more efficient and useful. Senator Boswell —They took the one out of Wynnum, too. Senator PETER BAUME —As my colleague says, the Government withdrew funding for the centre at Wynnum, too. The Government has cut funding for six or seven of these centres. One from Victoria has gone. What a strange set of priorities, no doubt endorsed completely by the Minister, as she has done it. Labor has slashed away at some of the most important educational programs we had in place. Let me now deal with the continuing attack on non-government schools. The attack started as soon as Senator Ryan became Minister for Education. Well I remember how we in the Opposition, together with non-government school representatives, repelled her frontal attack to take away funding for the non-government school sector. Her attempts were defeated by a campaign waged by the Opposition and by a very large coalition in the community. Eventually, a very welcome guaranteed funding formula for non-government schools was put in place-recurrent funding. Then began the administrative war against non-government schools, a more subtle attack. It began before the re-shuffle in the Opposition early last year. Since then my colleague, Mr Peter Shack, has had to watch and report on what has been happening. There were three major areas of attack. First, the Connor Panel report recommended that some non-government schools, even though they met State Government eligibility criteria, not be funded. It recommended that only some new non-government schools be funded. Secondly, the funding formula for non-government schools was so structured that there was no incentive for schools to seek additional private funds. A penalty was attached; every dollar they raised they would lose. But at the same time, if their private funding effort dropped, those schools would be accused of not maintaining their effort and that funding would not be replaced. So those schools were obliged to remain absolutely static. They would be punished if they went either way. The third area of attack was the introduction of new, intrusive reporting requirements to allow the Government to know more about and to control more of the aspects of the running of non-government schools which, in many cases, which were absolutely none of a national government's business. Most of what I foreshadowed a couple of years ago, when the campaign to try to protect non-government schools was running, has come to pass. A large number of new non-government schools have not been funded and the war of attrition on existing schools has been stepped up. It is the wish of the Opposition to move an amendment to draw attention to our concern about what is happening in the non-government school sector. Therefore, I formally move the amendment which has been circulated in my name on behalf of the Opposition as an attachment to the second reading of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. Senator Macklin —No; it is not an attachment; it is a deletion. Senator PETER BAUME —Okay. The amendment is to the effect that the Bill be withdrawn. Senator Macklin is quite correct. The amendment that has been circulated is what I shall move. I move: Leave out all words after ``That'', insert: ``the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (a) the removal of constraints imposed on non-government schools, or on non-government school communities, which will in any way destroy their independence or opportunities for expansion or interfere with the special character of non-government schools; and (b) the restoration of funding for the English as a Second Language General Support Element, to ensure that students from non-English speaking backgrounds continue to enjoy access to specialist language tuition and to maintain and enhance their learning potential''. I turn to the participation and equity program, which had its funding slashed by Labor last year. Let me remind the Senate that the participation and equity program incorporated special programs, such as the educational program for unemployed youth, which the Fraser Government had run and put them together in one program. The participation and equity program was launched with a blare of trumpets as to what it was going to do for education. It had extra money put into it, and we were told that it was going to bring in a new era of participation and equity in education. It replaced and incorporated a number of measures, principally the school to work transition program which we put in place. What happened? Within a year, the Australian Labor Party decided to stop all that funding. It is the same old story. It is a set of priorities in which one puts the cuts first on the most needy, the most disadvantaged, those most in need of help. It is what Labor has been doing right across the spectrum. Those who were using the school to work transition program were some of the most educationally disadvantaged people we have. Last year it was decided to stop the program and Labor, with a bit of double talk, said that one year's funding was to be spread over two years. Then the program was to stop. When it was introduced no indication was given that it was just a one-off program. Every indication was that it was a program which would continue to help people who needed school to work transition education, and it would continue to support programs to increase participation. But it is not to be. The Labor Party has discontinued the program. We are now watching it coming to an end. It is a disgrace. The people who have used the program have been people whose educational and social need is very great. They are the kinds of people whom any old time Labor government would have supported as a first priority. In summary, we are concerned about some of the priorities of the Labor Party in its approach to education. We are concerned that the cuts which are reflected in these Bills seem to be falling upon the most vulnerable, the most needy and the least able to protect themselves. We are concerned that while the subsidies to the middle class have been kept up, the subsidies to those most in need have been cut. We are concerned that in the higher education area too little has been done to overcome the fact that thousands of Australians are still being turned away from the gates of our colleges and universities for no greater crime than that they wish to improve their educational capacity and their skills. I commend the amendment we have moved. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.17) —We are debating the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986. One of the products of the Government's pre-Budget panic in its endeavour to cut back on the deficit is the cuts which have occurred in the education sector, particularly in Commonwealth Schools Commission programs. Many people in the community-the Australian Democrats are certainly amongst them-consider that these cuts are both unfair and shortsighted. According to the Government's August guidelines for the Schools Commission, there is to be a severe reduction in Commonwealth support for the English as a second language program. In 1987 this program is to be reduced, in December 1985 prices, from $43.7m in 1986 to $24.1m for government schools, and from $18.2m to $10.1m for non-government schools. The Commission's multicultural educational program, to which $5.1m was allocated in 1986, is to be totally scrapped. The ethnic schools program is to be reduced from $7.1m to $6.8m. The computer education program is also to be scrapped, after a life of about three years. In 1986, $7m was spent on this program in government and non-government schools. Many high hopes were expressed when this program began. The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, who is at the table, said in April 1983, at the opening of a computer centre at a high school in Brisbane: The Government believes that the development of a national schools computer program is of fundamental importance to Australia's future . . . Without the attainment of necessary goals in computer education the implications for Australia in terms of employment, opportunities for the young, international competitiveness and the relevance of schooling in future adult life in all its aspects will be serious indeed. That release from the Minister seems to peter out. To wind up the computer program after only three years seems to us extraordinarily short-sighted and even a waste of the money spent on it so far. In this type of program it is usually not until the second year that momentum moves from the Commonwealth to State level, and it is usually not until the third year that there is an important impact within the school structure itself. All I am pointing to there is the normal inertia in an organisation as large as the schooling system to be able to get these types of initiatives to bite. Indeed, a study on education and technology by a task force set up by the Australian Education Council, a body made up of State and Federal Education Ministers, recommended in October last year that while considerable progress had been made in computer education, the Commission's program should be continued beyond 1986 and extended to cover primary schools. There we had the body of all education Ministers recommending an extension, and here we have the scrapping of the program. The professional development program is also to be scrapped. In 1986 $12m was spent on this program in government and non-government schools. Funding for education centres is also to be reduced from $2.5m to $1.7m. A great deal has been said about the need to provide continuing education for our teachers. Again, Senator Ryan said in early November this year in response to a Commonwealth inquiry on teacher education that a fundamental issue was: . . . whether teachers were being properly prepared to teach children today, given the major changes which have recently emerged in education. Everybody agrees with that. Teachers at the cutting edge of education are constantly bombarded by new developments, by community expectations and by well wishing or ill wishing from the media which suggests that when a problem arises schools are the very group that should be doing something about it. With all the massive changes that have taken place in our society, to neglect to provide a reasonable support for professional development programs suggests that that most expensive item in schools, that is the teacher-totalling up to 85 per cent of recurrent funds in most schooling systems-is one which does not have to have continual and continuous upgrading. The Commonwealth has now greatly reduced its direct contribution to this vital and, in the Minister's words, fundamental issue and not to keep up that funding seems to us to be, at best, penny pinching and, at worst, lacking in vision as to what is required in this type of changing society. Special education recurrent funding from the Commonwealth is also to be reduced. In the Government sector the reduction is from $19.3m to $17m and for the non-government sector from $4.9m to $4.3m. Capital funding is also to be reduced. The government sector is to be reduced from $161.7m to $150.1m and the non-government sector from $58m to $54m. A number of other programs have been held at existing levels, such as the much-vaunted participation and equity program, to which Senator Peter Baume referred a moment ago. This was once heralded by the Minister as the spearhead of the Government's campaign to improve post-compulsory education for disadvantaged groups. Balanced against all this are increases in the broad general recurrent funding by the Commonwealth to government and non-government sectors, an increase in the government sector of $19m and in the non-government sector of $18m. Such increases are to be welcomed, but they do not offset the decreases that have occurred in the special funding areas. There is not a complete offset, and by itself it does not even entirely offset the reductions in the English as a second language program. The non-government sector does better in the sense that the increases in general recurrent funding offset reductions in other areas. Overall though, taking into account individual sectors and joint sector programs, the Commonwealth allocation for schools is to be reduced from $1,603m to $1,568m, a reduction of some $34.7m. If one looks at general indicators such as the expenditure on education in Australia as a percentage of gross domestic product, or as a percentage of budgetary outlays, whether Commonwealth or Commonwealth and State, which sometimes can be a deceptive figure, one sees that the general recurrent figure does not show an increase, as would be expected to occur, given our very low rating in terms of the OECD countries' expenditure in this area, or the increase that one would be led to believe is necessary in terms of the development of human capital of Australia, facing a technological society that is moving from commodity based exports to value added exports. There is not that type of increase one would expect coming from any of the other arguments put forward by the Government in the general economic debate. One would have thought that commensurate with arguments of that type presented by the Treasurer, and by the Minister for Finance in this place, there would have been additional inputs into education. One would have expected that, provided one linked into it at least one other assumption. The other assumption has to be with regard to the belief that education is the best contributor to the growth of an economy on any dollar for dollar basis compared with any other area. It is an argument which has been presented over a long period of time-an argument which, when one looks at most of the standard literature, is generally accepted. It is an argument, however, which obviously is not accepted currently within the economic circles of this Government. When one realises that while we are talking about the education budget for 1987, we are not talking about the effects of this budget in 1987. The effects of any education budget will only be felt five or ten years hence because education expenditure, of all the expenditures of any government, is not directed at the here and now but specifically at the future. It is not directed in terms of time spent, but its effect is felt much later and the effect on the economy is felt much later. Undoubtedly, this puts education in a weaker political context than are other areas. That must be admitted. When one looks at the struggles Ministers for Education have had in recent years in the Budget debates, one well realises the difficult political task of any education Minister in confronting that issue. The return on the education expenditure does not come before the next election. In fact, it will not even come before the election after the next election. Compared with other more immediate gains, that must put any education Minister at a massive political disadvantage vis-a-vis his or her colleagues. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I know that Senator Macklin has the call, but in order to expedite the proceedings of the Senate I seek leave to amend the amendment which I moved earlier. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. The amendment which I moved was inadvertently in a form used in another place and it would have the effect of denying any money to schools in Australia. In place of that I now move: ``At the end of the motion, add: `, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should provide for' ''- (a) the removal of constraints imposed on non- government schools, or on non-government school communities, which will in any way destroy their independence or opportunities for expansion, or interfere with the special character of non- government schools; and (b) the restoration of funding for the English as a Senond Language General Support Element, to ensure that students from non-English speaking backgrounds continue to enjoy access to specialist language tuition and to maintain and enhance their learning potential''. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.01) —Before the dinner break I was referring to the various cuts that the Budget has made to the States in education generally. I believe that it could be argued that in terms of these reductions in direct Commonwealth grants and in some cases, the total scrapping of these grants, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) might claim that the Government is merely following the recommendations of the report, `Quality of Education in Australia', which was presented in April last year. This applies particularly to recommendation 4 in paragraph 13.43 on page 180, which deals with funds, and recommendation 7 on page 183, which deals with disadvantaged schools, participation and equity, basic learning in primary schools, computer education and the like. However, it seems to me that if the Government were following these recommendations, this Budget may have implemented them much more hurriedly than the inquiry anticipated. In quite a number of cases the Government has gone even further than any of the recommendations. While it may be philosophically possible and administratively desirable to shift the emphasis for carrying out various programs from the Commonwealth to the States, the question which must be addressed is whether, in the light of the current Budget, the States are in a position to be able to pick up the various shortfalls that have occurred and with their own resources fill in those holes that have been created by the Commonwealth Government's cutbacks and scrapping of programs. For instance, if the Minister's statements are accurate, it appears that the State systems and non-government schools systems will have to use the extra general recurrent funding from the Commonwealth to employ many of the English as a second language teachers, paid until now through the general ESL program of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. At best, in any of those types of equations, we are facing an exercise in robbing Peter to pay Paul. Schools and systems no doubt had plans for the increases in general recurrent fundings in 1987. These were committed by the Commonwealth as part of its long term recurrent funding program for government and non-government schools. For example, in 1984 the Government announced a per capita funding program from 1985 until 1992. At that stage there was a great deal of support in this chamber for the Government's initiative to enable schooling systems to undertake rational, long-term planning-to undertake programs which were not `stop-start', for which teachers could be adequately trained which could be sufficiently tried and introduced into the schooling system. The schooling system should know-or so it is hoped-that next year the program would not suddenly disappear. Teachers who undertake special courses should know that there will still be courses for them to teach, to compensate them for that additional effort and work. However, in this Budget a lot of that has been shown to be fanciful thinking on the part of the schooling systems. I have had a great deal of feedback from many teachers in the system, who have told me that never again will they be caught. They have suffered those stop-start programs under the Fraser Government. They believed, when this Minister set out these long term programs, that this represented both a philosophical and an administrative change. They have said that that is the last time they will engage in that type of activity or believe that governments are really fair dinkum about getting in place long term planning in education in this country. The Karmel report entitled `Quality of Education in Australia' recommended that the general recurrent grants be directed by way of negotiated agreements between certain priority areas. The Government has accepted the recommendations. Clearly, this long term program, and the notion of educational resource agreements between the various sectors and the Commonwealth, has been used to provide the justification for the reduction in specific programs of the Schools Commission. I think the worry must be the extent to which this change in approach by the Commonwealth is becoming an excuse for these cuts. The capacity of State governments to meet these shortfalls is limited. Page 17 of Budget Paper No. 7 notes the constraints placed on the States by the June 1986 Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting. It states: Decisions . . . are estimated to result in the combined total of Commonwealth net payments to and authority borrowings by the State and local government sector in 1986-87 (of) . . . a fall of just under 5 per cent in real terms. Decisions include a confirmation of the arrangements . . . for an increase of 2 per cent in real terms for the major general revenue grants; a reduction in general purpose capital payments . . . of $400m, or 23 per cent from the 1985-86 level of $1,736 million . . . This represents the largest single reduction in the program since World War II. Taking that into consideration, I think there certainly must be doubts about the capacity of the State sector to expand sufficiently to be able to pick up the leeway that is now being created. There is certainly, however, some evidence in this Budget that there has not been a full transfer of funds from Commonwealth specific programs to general recurrent funding. Government schools will get an extra amount of about $19m in general recurrent funding, but reductions in funding for specific programs, of course, exceed that amount. Even the funding for the English as a second language program manages to exceed it. A great deal of comment has already been made about changes in funding. The Government has said that other moneys will fill this vacuum. I think that that debate probably should be taken up at another time and in another place. However, when one looks at other items, such as the professional development program, the computer education program, the multicultural education program, the cutbacks in special education and education centres, the capping of the ethnic schools program and the like, one certainly sees that, not only philosophically but also financially, the States are most unlikely to be able to pick up these types of programs. The debate as to whether the resources for ESL teaching will be maintained at the present level, however, probably begs the question as to whether the maintenance of present levels is adequate anyway. It is not. In this regard I rely upon the recently released report of the Government's Committee for the Review of Immigration and Multicultural Programs and Services. The report, entitled `Don't Settle for Less' was released in November. It is a report on stage one of the review. It states that English proficiency is the most important factor in enabling people to participate equitably in Australian life. But it also found that both adults and children were not getting adequate language education. It said, for example, that English tuition is often withdrawn before students have had the opportunity to succeed in school. It cited poor logistics and the shortage of resources for adults. At the same time as this apparently inadequate provision for ESL teaching to meet the needs of existing numbers of Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds, there is talk by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) about the desirability of increasing immigration. Arguments for this are put almost solely on economic grounds. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs said in a Press release on 10 April this year: More immigrants will help create a large domestic market, stimulate trade, facilitate structural change and provide the potential for Australia to play a positive role in developing the South-East Asian and Pacific economy . . . More immigrants will also help to offset Australia's low natural birthrate, the loss of permanent residents-including young skilled people-leaving Australia, and an aging population. These are points with which the Australian Democrats totally agree. However, one can no longer continue the operation-which seems to be a mindset of Australians since World War II-that immigrants somehow or other will be cheap labour for the rest of us. When we seek immigrants to come to this country for our good we also accept an obligation to make sure that they are able to participate equitably in Australian life. I quote the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is at the table, who made this point very firmly. She said: They have to be able to do that. I quote the report, which has re-emphasised the point made by the Minister that they have to have this type of language support to be able to participate equitably. This Government, which has the political and constitutional control with regard to immigration, this Government which has the obligation to deal with this area, is now foisting on to the States an obligation which is not theirs, and it is not adequately funding them to enable them to undertake the task. We know what the problems are. They have been pointed out by the Minister herself; they have been pointed out now by a committee of inquiry. Yet we find the exact opposite of what is recommended occurring. I would like to quote from a very interesting paper given by Professor Butlin of the Australian National University at a recent conference when he talked about this Australian view of immigrants as a cheap source of fully equipped human capital. He said: The basic education of accompanying families was provided, until World War II, within the overhead provisions of an English-speaking education system . . . After World War II, only rudimentary language instruction was provided to non-English migrants, despite their numbers. This reluctance to provide special education reflects the view of immigration as a cheap source of human capital. The unwillingness to provide adequate training for growing families with the very recent cuts in special English language teaching for these children illustrates the niggardly and short-term attitude to human capital in Australia. I think that is perfectly correct, and I think what we see here in this overall budgetary context is a continuation of that attitude to immigrants as a reneging on the Government's constitutional responsibilities to make sure that it provides adequate training, adequate support and adequate language facilities, both to children and to their parents-which, of course, is often conducted through the schooling system-so that those immigrants are able to participate equitably in Australian life. If in fact that report is true in saying that the resources are being withdrawn from those children before they have a chance to succeed in school-I do not know whether the Minister disagrees with that conclusion of the report-not only should we not be cutting funds to ESL, but also we have a specific obligation, a Commonwealth obligation, to increase those funds. Otherwise, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is talking through his hat and we should not be looking at inviting more people to this country simply for them to be able to be used by those of us here as cheap labour. The only way we can ask people to come to this country from non-English speaking countries is to make sure that we offer adequate support to them when they come here-adequate support for them to be able to find themselves in this country and to make sure that their children have a chance equal to the chance of the people here to grow and prosper in this country as citizens of Australia. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(8.15) —We are discussing the funding of certain tertiary education institutions. I do not wish to go over the wider issues which were dealt with adequately by Senator Peter Baume when he opened the debate for the Opposition. I want to refer more specifically to the institutions which I represent and in particular the printing trades course at the Canberra College of Technical and Further Education. The training of young people in the printing industry has reached a critical situation. Not very long ago I spoke about the printing industry after the report on the printing industry training requirements of the Australian Capital Territory and regional New South Wales was presented and sent to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). The report deals adequately with the situation but it seems that this year the situation will be somewhat worse than was predicted at the time I spoke on the report. We need to remember that the printing industry is the single largest manufacturing industry in the Australian Capital Territory. It employs 41 per cent of those employed in local manufacturing. Young people are increasingly concerned about the possibility of getting training and apprenticeships. Apprenticeships are available but the training may not be in the Australian Capital Territory. The course that has been offered for some time by the Canberra TAFE College has been relevant to the industry here and in this region of New South Wales and it has been designed to accommodate the unique characteristics of the local industry. Many employers are very concerned about what is happening and that apparently in 1987 no students will be enrolled in stage 1 of the printing trades training courses. As we know from the report to which I have referred, stage 3 training in the near future will be transferred to Sydney. This will involve considerable costs not only for apprentices but for employers as well. Earlier this week I met with a delegation of representatives of the Australian Government Printing Office, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Printing and Kindred Industries Union, printers from Wagga, Queanbeyan and Griffith and local printers and a representative of the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board. Those people in the printing trade are vitally concerned that young people may be deprived of the opportunity of training in an area where jobs are available. At present at least 40 positions are estimated to be available in the area. We seem to be pursuing a course which will cut out the opportunity for young people to do printing in this area. The TAFE College has long suffered from a lack of access to equipment grants. Local industry has made donations to the TAFE college and provided equipment valued, I gather, at about $50,000 which means that the training is able to proceed but it still leaves a shortfall of about $80,000 which will have to be met irrespective of whether stage 3 moves to Sydney. A number of aspects of this are relevant and I seek leave to incorporate a statement which has been signed on behalf of a number of printers in the Australian Capital Territory concerning the training of apprentices in Canberra. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- TRAINING PRINTING APPRENTICES IN CANBERRA Printers in Canberra are concerned about the future of the School of Printing at the Canberra College of TAFE. Correspondence received recently indicates that facilities at the School are not adequate to maintain the current and projected training needs of the industry in the A.C.T. We also learn from this correspondence that our apprentices will have to travel to the Sydney TAFE for their Stage 3 year, and that Stages 2 and 1 could also suffer the same fate in years to come. Further to this we are told that if we want apprentices trained in Canberra the industry will have to foot the bill for new machinery to keep pace with modern technology. From our own gleanings we are of the opinion that equipment at the School is quite adequate. The apprentices seem to be of the same opinion. We would like to point out that the training of an apprentice is the responsibility of the employer in his own shop. The TAFE is a support training, mainly theory, and testing ground of the apprentices skills. (I.E.-An apprentice is with his employer for 44 weeks of the year and goes to TAFE for 8 weeks of the year. The Printing School is the focal point of learning and updating technology. It ``polishes'' the learning in the print shop.) Canberra TAFE has a proud record of training printing apprentices-Quite a few duxes and apprentices of the year. We ask why the sudden decline? Why has the equipment at the School become inefficient in the past twelve months? Why is there a shortage of teachers? Why has the Prime Minister's Priority One-training the youth of Australia fallen into a heap in Canberra, where apparently the apprentices in the printing trade are going to suffer? We can quote cases where apprentices are going to leave the trade because they have to go to Sydney to complete their courses. And, we ask how long it will be before the Canberra School of Printing will be closed down completely and all apprentices will have to travel to Sydney to do their TAFE courses? This will not enhance the attraction of apprentices to the printing trade, and add to the already chronic shortage of tradesmen already being experienced in the industry. We remember back to the opening of the School of Printing in Canberra, when we were told ``Canberra, as the Capital of Australia had to be the show place and the School of Printing would be the best in Australia to show overseas visitors that we are just as good as their countries in the training of apprentices in this industry.'' We ask why this has suddenly been put into reverse? Besides the costs involved to the employer it would be a detrimental step for Canberra employers to send apprentices to Sydney. This will adversely effect employers putting on apprentices and create less employment for young people. Why not (as was the practice in past years) bring teachers from Sydney if necessary? It would cost a lot less to bring 1 or 2 teachers from Sydney than to send 10 or 12 apprentices to that city. Printing is the largest manufacturing industry in the A.C.T. It employs in excess of 1,400 people and its turnover is $89,000,000.00 per year. We think this alone is enough to seek a review of the Printing School at Canberra TAFE and that it will fulfil its opening promise to be the best in Australia so that our apprentices will be trained with the best technology. Canberra is a printing city-not only because of Government, but all the head offices of industry and commerce are here-and more are coming. Can't we, the printing employers have our own apprentices trained in Canberra at our own College of TAFE? Signed for and on behalf of ADLER & STOYLES PTY LTD BETTER PRINTING CANBERRA RUBBER STAMPS DEREK KELLY & SONS PTY LTD GOANNA PRINT PTY LTD. IMPRESS PRINTERS & PUBLISHERS JESNER & KELLY PTY LTD KOOMARI PRINTERS LOWES PRINTER MICRO DATA PTY LTD PATRIA PRINTERS LEX FOLEY (ADLER & STOYLES PTY LTD) Senator REID —It is important that we concentrate our training for young people in areas where they will be able to get employment. Only last week the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory tabled a report relating to the hospitality industry. It referred to the need for improvements in the facilities for cooking training courses. There is a great need for an expansion in the TAFE college for that. Jobs are available in that industry as well. It is of great concern to printers in this town-as I have said, it is the largest manufacturing industry-and in this region that the printing trades course may disappear from the Canberra College of Technical and Further Education as appears likely if the current situation continues. I think it shows a lack of vision that the training courses in those areas where jobs are available are allowed to run down. Concern has certainly been expressed by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations about the future of the printing industry in the Australian Capital Territory. Of course, other matters in this legislation are significant. We have heard much about the English as a second language program and the impact of that, and I will not go over all the arguments there. But concern has been expressed to me by students and teachers at the Woden College of Technical and Further Education about the drastic cuts that are expected to take place in 1987 in the ESL and English for specific purposes programs. Arguments have been put as to why it is counter-productive not to make sure that people coming to this country have the opportunity to learn English, to take a full part in our society and to be able to participate and be productive to the greatest extent possible. I know that copies of the letter I have referred to in speaking in the debate tonight were sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to the Minister for Education and other relevant members of the Government and I hope that it will be taken into account. It might be said that, in talking about these things, I am talking about spending extra money. In a sense that is right, but I believe that there are places where the Government has got its priorities wrong. I think a lot of the money spent through the community employment program has been wasted. I think a lot of money has been wasted promoting Priority One with not a lot of results. There has certainly been a great deal of government self-promotion in other areas. I saw the most absurd tax advertisement only the other day which must have cost a great deal of money. It is a question not so much of spending more but of getting the priorities right and spending money in areas where we will be providing opportunities for young people and people who want to get into the work force and be productive. I know also that the Minister for Education received a letter not long ago commenting on the cuts in the evening classes at the Woden College of Technical and Further Education and, in particular, the typing courses. Many of the people doing these courses are not doing them just for fun; many of them are women whose marriages have broken down and who are desperately trying to re-establish their lives, get into the work force and acquire a skill which will enable them to work and not be totally dependent on the social security system. That is a matter of concern that needs to be addressed in this same debate. I have had a letter from students in the horticultural section of the Woden TAFE whose courses are being cut this year. They have been doing courses on a part time basis in the evenings and they have been told that, because of cuts during 1987, courses will be offered in the daytime. This does not suit people who have to pursue employment who are studying to acquire their qualifications in their spare time and who are doing evening courses. This is another aspect that needs to be addressed. In conclusion, I want to refer to another matter concerning the Woden TAFE-a quite absurd situation that arose with the Australian Taxation Office. Woden TAFE is running a course to provide an opportunity for unemployed people to learn to use heavy equipment-tractors, front end loaders, back hoes, or whatever-and they have been working in that old area of Canberra where the sewage-works used to be. As a consequence, many men have obtained certificates which have enabled them to gain employment in industry in the heavy equipment area. Teachers were provided voluntarily by contractors in Canberra. The Woden TAFE had a tractor offered to it by the Ford Motor Co. It was to be given this tractor for 5,000 hours and it would then be returned to Ford. This was not allowed to take place because, apparently, people within the Taxation Office objected to the transaction as sales tax would not be paid on that tractor. The fact is that, if the Woden TAFE had had enough money to buy the tractor, which it did not, no sales tax would have been payable. Eventually, some arrangement was worked out, but for a long time a tractor was available on loan which would have meant that a number of young men would have had the opportunity to learn to drive it and obtain a relevant certificate to enable them to gain employment. This tractor was prevented from being made available because of what I regard as an absolutely absurd attitude of the sales tax section of the Tax Office in not seeing that by making it available in this instance, it would be possible for young people to get jobs and be meaningfully employed in the work force. It just amazes me that there does not seem to be any ability to look at a situation beyond the confines of, in this case, the normal sales tax rules to see that the situation would benefit not only the Woden TAFE, particularly, but also the unemployed people who, having got training and a certificate to drive and use a tractor such as this, would have been able to get off the unemployment benefit and find meaningful employment. These matters are relevant to what we are discussing tonight. My particular concern is in relation to the printing industry. It is facing a critical situation and I think this matter needs to be addressed by the Government. It is not good enough to say that it is a matter for the TAFE colleges. The problem goes much deeper than that. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(8.27) —On behalf of Senator Macklin, I move: Leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) of the words proposed to be added, insert: ``the restoration of adequate and specific funding for the English as a Second Language General Support Element, to ensure that students from non- English speaking backgrounds continue to enjoy access to specialist language tuition and to maintain and enhance their learning potential''. I point out that the Australian Democrats do not support the first part of the Opposition's amendment, that is, paragraph (a). We have moved this amendment because of our strong feelings, as expressed by Senator Macklin earlier in this debate, on the need for, as our amendment says, `adequate and specific funding for English as a second language'. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.28) —Madam Acting Deputy President--(Quorum formed) The Senate has been debating cognately the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3), the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the legislation by which Commonwealth Budget funding affecting schools and higher education institutions throughout Australia is appropriated. A number of criticisms have been made of the contents of the legislation by those Opposition senators who felt free to criticise the fact that the Government was forced to make reductions in some programs while having no alternative solution to offer with regard to the economic management of this country. I point out for the benefit of Senator Reid, who made some detailed comments on Australian Capital Territory technical and further education colleges, that I will be happy to respond to her concerns but not on this occasion because in fact the funding of Australian Capital Territory TAFE colleges is not a part of the legislation before us. Strictly speaking, Senator Reid's remarks were out of order. Australian Capital Territory TAFE colleges are funded through my Department's vote and not through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Bills. Generally speaking, there was a great deal of criticism of areas where cuts had to be made and very little acknowledgment of the overall increases in education funding contained in the Bills. For example, the States grants tertiary education assistance legislation demonstrates yet again our Government's determination to have growth and improvements of standards in higher education. Every Budget brought down by the Hawke Government has contained real increases of a substantial nature for the tertiary sector and, as a result, we have been able to create many thousands of places-in excess of 38,000 new places-and fund many new initiatives dealing with equity, standards, key centres of teaching and research and so on. Although there were, regrettably, some cuts in some schools programs, the major programs-those that appropriate most funding to schools throughout Australia-were not reduced. Indeed, the main program-the four-year general recurrent program-contains real increases for all schools in Australia, government and non-government, with the exception of the very high resourced non-government schools. I do not know that Senator Macklin quite understands the four-year general recurrent program because he suggested that some instability would be introduced into the system because of our Government's desire to see some of that extra funding devoted to the English as a second language area. Senator Macklin seems not to understand that the vast amount of recurrent funding goes untied to the States and the non-government systems for them to use for their day to day purposes. We do not direct the use of those funds. The four-year legislation which gives them those funds has undoubtedly-anybody objectively discussing this will agree-given schools, non-government and government but particularly non-government because of their greater reliance on Commonwealth grants, the greatest period of stability they have ever experienced. They have acknowledged this on many occasions. The area under discussion, the area which can be directed to new programs agreed between State and Federal governments, is a very small part indeed of the general recurrent grant. Senator Macklin's suggestion that there is some disruption to the overall flow of money to the schools through the general recurrent program is quite wrong and seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how the program works. I will not take up the time of the Senate in saying again why the Government was forced to make some reductions in some areas. I will simply conclude by saying that in all the areas where there were reductions there are other possible sources of funds-Commonwealth and State-to be used to maintain those programs, if that is the desire of the States or the systems that are responsible for them. In the case of ESL it has been very well publicised that this will happen. In areas such as professional development there will be the direction of funds from other Commonwealth programs into the professional development area, and the States have the fundamental responsibility for the professional development of the teachers they employ. I indicate that the various versions of the second reading amendments which will come before the Senate are not acceptable to the Government. I commend the Bills to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —The Senate is at present dealing with three States grants Bills. With respect to the third Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, Senator Peter Baume has moved an amendment to which Senator Powell has moved a further amendment. I now put the question: That the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question in relation to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 now is: That the words proposed to be left out by Senator Powell's amendment to Senator Peter Baume's amendment be left out. Amendment (Senator Powell's to Senator Peter Baume's) agreed to. Amendment (Senator Peter Baume's), as amended, agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.37) —The Senate is debating the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986. I say to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), in a somewhat puzzled way, that Senator Macklin has just informed me that there was to be no debate on this matter, that it was to be referred straight to a committee. I had not been acquainted with that information and I am ready to make my speech. Senator Grimes —Go ahead. Senator LEWIS —Thank you. The purpose claimed for these Bills by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is the provision of three commercial channels for the five million people who live in regional Australia. The Opposition parties say that that aim-the aim of the Minister and the aim of the Government-is ad- mirable. The Government's proposed path is by way of aggregation. There is an alternative path, the multi-channel path. However, the purpose of these Bills, that is, equalisation, has now been thrown into confusion and doubt by the Government's statement of policy for commercial television ownership. I wonder whether I might explain to the Senate what the terminology is. Firstly, as to the multi-channel service, if we take as an example three of the regional services in Victoria, Ballarat, Bendigo and Albury, which for this purpose is considered to be part of Victoria-that is not my suggestion, that is the Minister's suggestion-then under the multi-channel path each of those stations would have been able to broadcast to its own region on three channels. That would have given a diversity of choice to the people in those areas. For example, Ballarat would have sent out signals on three channels. One would presume that it would have had the popular programs, if I might call them that, on one of the channels, perhaps sport on another channel and the less popular programs on a third channel. That is one of the ways in which this service could be provided to the people of regional Australia. The other path is the aggregation path whereby each of the other two channels would be able to provide the service in the third channel's area. That would expand the region very substantially, but the problem that that would create initially would be the cost to the regional television station because each of those stations would have to provide office facilities for their television advertising salesmen. In addition, they would have to provide some form of television production facilities in each of the other towns because in each of those towns there would need to be some local content and local advertisements. Also there is the problem of providing the television antennas to distribute the service around the region. That is not an easy question to solve. For example, the people of the Australian Capital Territory would be well aware of the massive dispute which took place over the erection of the Telecom tower on Black Mountain. I understand that the facilities there would not be adequate to enable two other channels to send out their signals from those facilities. So the people of the Australian Capital Territory would have to face the problem of having another television tower erected on another mountain around the Australian Capital Territory. That would be the subject of an environmental argument. Senator Robert Ray —Send it off from the flag pole. Senator LEWIS —Senator Robert Ray suggests that the antenna be put on top of the flag pole. That would not be a bad idea. I understand that a similar problem exists in Ballarat. Again, the people of Ballarat have no great desire to have another television tower erected on any of their mountains. So what appears to be a fairly simple proposition is not simple at all. This applies to some areas and the Government has defined those areas. They are described-one must learn a particular jargon, terminology, when one moves into this area-as approved markets. There is an approved market for Queensland which will comprise the Cairns-Townsville area, Mackay, Rockhampton, Maryborough and Darling Downs; an approved market for northern New South Wales comprising Lismore, Coffs Harbour, Tamworth, Taree and Newcastle; an approved market for southern New South Wales comprising Orange, Dubbo, Wollongong, Canberra, Wagga Wagga; and an approved market for Victoria comprising Albury-as I have mentioned, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) thinks that Albury is part of Victoria-the Bendigo-Traralgon area and the Ballarat-Shepparton area. Those are the approved market areas but in addition to the approved market areas we have special cases. Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory are special cases. Other special cases are an area in northern New South Wales, Griffith in southern New South Wales and Mildura in Victoria. There is another special case for Wagga Wagga in New South Wales, but no case for Geelong in Victoria. Senator Boswell —What about Mount Isa? Senator LEWIS —I am sorry; Senator Boswell asks me about Mount Isa. I am not the Minister and I do not know the answer to that question. But the area of Geelong is of particular concern. The people of Geelong have access to Melbourne television. They get a wide choice and everyone seems to think that it is a great service. But the important point for them is that they get no local content. The local council and the business community in Geelong have got together to demand some form of television service for their region. It is a region of approximately 180,000 people but there is no local content on their television channel. Geelong businesses are deprived of promoting their products in the local market through the television media. The cost of advertising on Melbourne television is considered by the people of Geelong to be prohibitive in relation to the target market. Most importantly, the Geelong public is deprived of the coverage of items of local interest. The Geelong area is a matter of great concern and should be dealt with in some way or other as a special case. But it is not being dealt with by the Government as a special case. There are also major difficulties in Tasmania where two stations are owned by the same company. That company is one of the few regional television stations which are not being given access to an additional market. It has been put into the position where it either divests itself of one of its channels or the Minister will in effect release another channel to another company. The company has agreed-indeed, it is somewhat anxious to go along with what the Minister has asked-to divest itself of one of the channels. I understand that the divestment will reap it a reward of about $30m or $40m because that will be the sale price. That is not a bad sale price to receive under a government monopoly situation. One of the main concerns of the coalition parties is that, in the Government's policy announcement, it seems to have forgotten about the viewer. After all, the purpose was to provide the viewer with choice. It is not clear whether or how the viewer will be better off under this proposed plan. What will happen to the regional content? Will the regional stations simply become repeater stations for the major networks? Is that what the regional viewer wants? This is a very important issue for regional viewers. We know that regional television stations believed previously that under the multi-channel service they would have been able to remain viable and carry on until 1996 when the proposed aggregation requirements of the Government would have come into force. But we also know that, as a result of the Government's recent statement on ownership of television stations, a number of the regional television companies are talking about rapidly moving into aggregation so as to maximise the value of their assets in case they are taken over by one of the major networks, which will come about as a result of the Government's policy announcement about ownership. We do know that, after weeks of infighting in Cabinet, Minister Duffy's fair, reasonable and balanced 43 per cent reach of the national audience proposal to replace the two-station rule was rolled. We know that Minister Duffy was rolled by a proposal from the Treasurer, Mr Keating. It is now proposed that any television proprietor will be able to buy up to 75 per cent of the national television audience. On the other hand, we are told that there will be tough cross-media restrictions. We cannot help but ask: Is this another bucket of worms resulting from Hawke and Keating getting together to override the Minister and his Department? What were the concerns of the Minister and the experts of his Department that caused him to fight to limit national audience reach to 43 per cent? Were there concerns about monopoly possibilities, commercial and advertising viability of regionals, new technological developments or regionals becoming automated repeater stations with little, if any, local programming? Or were there other concerns? If so, what concerns? The whole issue is very complex. There are many questions to be posed and resolved. The Bills fail to address many issues about the subject which they purport to address, let alone deal with the complex questions arising from the Government's latest policy pronouncement on ownership and cross-media ownership. The Opposition believes that these questions must be posed and answered before the Parliament can give its final approval to this legislation. The only solution is to refer these two Bills to a Senate select committee for consideration in the light of new broadcasting and technological developments and the Government's policy statements on ownership. I move: Leave out all words after `That', insert: `(a) these Bills be referred to a select committee, for report, by 28 February 1987, on the provisions of the Bills and their implementation in the light of new broadcasting and technological developments and the Government's policy statements on ownership; and (b) the composition and powers of the select committee be determined by a subsequent resolution'. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.52) —The Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986 represent the Government's effort to produce a new commercial services plan for regional Australia. In nearly four years we have had a very sorry record from the Department of Communications. On the positive side are the four remote commercial television services, which are designed for those in the remoter parts of Australia rather than in the regional or provincial areas which already have one commercial service. On the negative side is the totally inept handling of the supplementary licence scheme-no new television licences under the scheme, and three new radio licences, one independent and two supplementaries, determined by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Senator Robertson —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. We have been very understanding with Senator Vigor but I ask you to draw his attention to standing order 406. Senator VIGOR —I am quite happy to comply with it. There have been inordinate delays with this program. A system of aggregation of television regions has been proposed by the Government. The regions are quite artificially set up by the Government and one region includes such disparate areas as Mackay and the Darling Downs. South Australia has been missed out in the program. It is not considered to be sufficiently important to warrant inclusion under the aggregation scheme. The major inequity of the aggregation scheme is that if one licensee within the area requests that aggregation should take place, the other licensees in the area must submit to an aggregation program. The Australian Democrats believe that when one is considering regional television it is very important to consider both the ownership questions and the service questions at the same time. That is why we support the Opposition amendment, which has been worked out in concert with us and which seeks to refer the Bills to a select committee which can examine the program sensibly and put a view the Senate can consider. The major problem we have is that this legislation comes from the forward development unit of the Department of Communications. This unit was given the job of examining the very long term requirements of the Australian media industry. In fact, it seems to have concentrated its efforts mainly on very short term issues. This is one of the most disappointing aspects of this country's media policy. The forward development unit, which is known in certain quarters as the forward defence unit, seems to be mainly interested in defending a conservative attitude towards communications policy. The major problem with the aggregation program is that it will hand over on a plate the regional stations directly to the large multi- media networks. With the magic number of three stations in each region, we shall end up with programs being networked out to each of the transmitting stations within each region. That will mean that localism will be pretty well wiped out and people in regional Australia will be unable to get a local service-a local news service, a local current affairs service-with which the community can identify. The Government seems to be completely in the hands of the multi-media networks. I am disturbed at the amount of lobbying by people from those networks to try to get us to agree to pass this legislation fast. There must be something in the fact that we would be handing over those regional stations to the media networks. The Democrats have alternative solutions to this problem. They involve trying to get much more diversity into media programming. We need diversity of choice in each area. The Government's program will not give diversity to viewers; it will hand over the regional stations to the multi-media networks. The important feature of the program that we propose is that it seeks a diversity of choice in programming, optimal guaranteed levels of Australian content, a reasonable diversity in media ownership, and programming directed at all sectors of the Australian community, including groups such as women and migrants. I hope that we can develop a sensible system which would involve as one part of the system a reasonable Channel 4-type model as has happened in England, which could be supported by a levy from the city based networks. That type of system would provide a much better service to the people of Australia and give everybody a service of which we could be proud. We already have on the books a system which was supposed to give diversity out in the regions. It is called the supplementary licensing system, which was set up in December 1982. This is what is being repealed by the Broadcasting Amendment Bill which the Senate is debating. This system has not been properly supported by any resources within the Department of Communications. The Department has insufficient engineering staff and resources are not being provided by the Government. Not enough engineers were available for the Department to produce the regional network planning proposals under this scheme. As such, the supplementary scheme has failed. It has failed not because it was not politically acceptable-it did in fact pass this Parliament-but because insufficient resources were provided. There is absolutely no reason why the new scheme should have any better chance of success because the Government will not be giving the Department any more resources. It seems to me that Senator Robert Ray and Senator McKiernan, who are trying to interject, are quite intent on not listening to any of the common sense that I am speaking. I believe that we have to try to concentrate our efforts on trying to get a reasonable level of resources within the Department in order to plan for these schemes. We have to make certain that the Department can service the type of political hare-brain schemes that are put up to it. I point out to the Senate that currently there are 157 outstanding expressions of interest in commercial television stations throughout Australia; there are 497 expressions of interest in regard to commercial radio stations; and there are 280 expressions of interest in the public radio station area. This is on top of the 71 detailed radio supplementary proposals, and 31 television supplementary proposals which are being killed off by this legislation. It is really disturbing that we have this type of backlog. Although we are putting a new scheme in place, we have Buckley's chance of putting it into effect. I believe that the committee will have to look at that proposal and make certain that when it comes back and reports it has considered whether the resources will be available to implement any scheme that is proposed and that there are no inequities in the scheme as there have been in the previous proposals. Senator Mason has pointed out to me that currently there is a deep freeze on public radio and public television licences. Senator Mason —That is absolutely scandalous. Senator VIGOR —It is scandalous in a country in which those types of resources should be developed. If we are to plan properly the use of our media, we have to make certain that that media is properly available to use-- Senator Robert Ray —You are just wrecking the ABC right now. Think what you are doing to the ABC audience. They are turning off in droves. Senator VIGOR —Senator Robert Ray says that we are just about to wreck the ABC. He is obviously talking about the wrong Bill. The Bill before the Senate is concerned with regional television. Senator Robert Ray is speaking to the wrong debate. This debate is about regional television. We are trying to offer a service to the Australian people. We are trying to get communities involved in providing their own television. We are trying to guarantee localism; we are trying to guarantee a service to everybody. The Department and the Government must give consideration to providing a level of service which the people of Australia deserve. I commend to the committee my belief that its main aim should be to consider the provisions of such services to the people rather than just concentrating on the interests of the large multi-media networks and the interests of current owners of the regional stations. The Democrats will be supporting the Opposition's proposal to refer this Bill to a committee. We will be sitting on that committee and working hard to try to develop a sensible and reasonable model which can be proposed for the ownership, distribution and use of the television frequencies and television services within Australia. This is an important aspect of which people in this country must be aware. We owe it to the people of regional Australia to get it right. We must make certain that the committee develops some standards which can be recommended to the Senate and the Government and which will produce a workable-- Senator McKiernan —What about standards in the chamber? What about Standing Orders? What about reading speeches? Senator VIGOR —Senator McKiernan asks me about reading speeches. Obviously that is a speciality of his, but not of mine-as everyone will have noticed. If the honourable senator believes that I have been reading my speech, he must think that I have been reading it off the ceiling. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! There is far too much audible comment. Senator VIGOR —I am finding it quite difficult to get across a reasoned argument with the interjections that have been going on. I hope that the people who are listening to this debate will have got the picture- Government senators interjecting- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is far too much audible conversation and far too many interjections. I ask the Senate to allow Senator Vigor to continue his speech without the interjections. Senator VIGOR —I thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will support the recommendation that these two Bills should go to a committee. I recommend that the committee should consider in depth the implications of the ownership rules and the interrelation between television, radio and newspaper ownership and the type of service and the type of news which is delivered to the Australian people. I hope that the committee will be responsible enough to make certain that, as a result of its recommendations, the services which are offered will take into account local input at a local level, regional input at a regional level, and have a proper understanding of both the economics of running a station and the need for good Australian drama and other programs. I recommend to the Senate that we should pass the proposal to refer these two Bills to a committee. I thank the Senate for its attention. Senator McKiernan —I ask Senator Vigor to table the documents from which he was quoting. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I do not believe that Senator Vigor was reading from a document. Senator McKiernan —He was quoting from copious notes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If the honourable senator wishes to have certain documents tabled, he must move a substantive motion. I believe that he does not wish to do so, therefore the matter is closed. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.10) —I rise to speak briefly on the legislation that is before the Senate, and which will be discussed by a committee, I feel quite sure, because Senator Lewis has moved that it be sent to a committee and the Australian Democrats have said that they will support that motion. In speaking to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986, I do so as a senator representing the vast State of Queensland. I have a deal of sympathy with the Government's proposal to bring about a situation whereby virtually all of Australia will in effect have equality of choice with regard to television programming. I believe there will be many benefits for the people of rural Australia. Of course, I am thinking in particular of rural Queensland. Outback Australia will be helped in this way, although Senator Lewis could not explain to us a little earlier what would happen to Mount Isa. So many people who live in the outback can only pick up one television station at present. Senators who represent Queensland know just how true that is. In the major capital cities for quite some time there has been a great diversity of choice. Most of the major capital cities have had three commercial television channels, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation channel as well. Of course, as I have said, out at Richmond, one would be very lucky to pick up the ABC. Some places do not pick up any commercial channels. I believe that the people who live in the country-I do not refer only to outback Queensland, but to the Northern Territory and Western Australia-will think it is terrific if they can have the same range of choices as people who live in the cities. I did make a statement on this subject some time ago. Further inquiries from various sources have shown that 17 regional television operators out of a total of 22 throughout Australia look favourably on the Government's proposal. The Opposition has decided to refer these Bills to a committee. It believes that there are some problems to be solved. Senator Lewis outlined quite a number of them earlier. This, of course, means that there will be a delay of a few months more. I am not too sure whether the people of the outback will be very happy about that. But it is a subject that the Government has been considering for quite some time. Personally, I do not know why the Parliament does not make up its own mind. I am not too sure about that. I did read somewhere that a parliamentary committee is a pragmatic and political term for the too-hard basket. However, the Opposition's decision to refer the legislation to a committee is based on the opinion that the legislation needs a little more analysis. That is why it has decided that it should be referred to a committee, as Senator Lewis moved earlier. As a member of the coalition, I support that decision. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services (9.13) —I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986. It is obvious that these Bills will be referred to a committee. It is obvious that there is nothing much that anyone on this side can do about it. I must say, though, that the eminent good sense of Senator Bjelke-Petersen tonight contrasted considerably with the nonsense that we heard from the speaker who preceded her. If Senator Vigor believes the sort of stuff that he goes on with, if he really believes the people of this community want a whole series of mickey mouse stations, if he believes they want a television system of the type which is found in Sweden or Norway, and, if he wants to turn Australians, like the French, into the greatest number of movie goers in the world because their television is so crook, that is the way to do it. We have a country of 16 million people. Basically, under this proposal, we could end up with three or four networks. If one has such a network and a guaranteed market, one can afford to produce the local drama and high quality drama that Senator Vigor wants. But if one has a whole lot of fiddly little television stations all over the country, offering no choice for the viewers, as Senator Bjelke-Petersen said, one will severely limit the amount of local content that one can produce. In England there are 50 million people. It has four stations-BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4. That is all they have. The United States of America has a population of 260 million. It has three networks, basically. The United States does not have four networks. What on earth does Senator Vigor want to produce-a whole series of mickey mouse stations throughout the country all relying on the news on the local cattle markets and barnyard activities? If we did not want people to watch television, if our real aim was to get people away from watching television, we would follow Senator Vigor's advice. We do not believe the Bills should go to the committee. The committee, I gather, will report on 28 February. All honourable senators will be away in January, so the committee will get a few weeks to look at the legislation and I will bet Senator Lewis now that there is no way that that committee will come back with a solution to the Geelong problem-and I think the honourable senator knows that, too-unless a local television station in Geelong is to compete with the Melbourne stations, or unless we put up a barrier so that no one in Geelong can watch television from Melbourne. We will see what happens. As I said, the Bill is going off to a committee. I hope all the Committee members have an enjoyable time in January and February looking at the legislation. One can almost predict what will happen. The Committee will come back and find out, as most people who are really interested in the area have found out, that this is the sensible way to approach the issue. I thank honourable senators for their contributions. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Referral to Select Committee Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.17) —by leave-I move: (1) That the select committee to which the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986 were referred be known as the Select Committee on Television Equalisation. (2) That the Committee consist of eight Senators, as follows: (a) four to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, (b) three to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and (c) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (3) That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government. (5) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (6) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (7) That the quorum of the Committee be four members. (8) That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations it may deem fit. (9) That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee and of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the Senators appointed to the sub-committee. (10) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the President. (11) That the Committee may appoint counsel to assist it, on terms and conditions approved by the President. (12) That the Committee may authorise the examination of witnesses before it by counsel subject to rules determined by the Committee. (13) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (14) That the Committee report to the Senate by 28 February 1986. (15) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may provide the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event- (a) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate, (b) the publication of the report is authorized by this Resolution, (c) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report, and (d) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (16) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. This motion is in the form of the notice of motion which I circulated this morning and which I shall withdraw from tomorrow's business once this motion is carried. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 2 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.18) —The Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill appears to be a very small piece of legislation. It does not in fact seek to amend the Sex Discrimination Act itself, but it is a Bill to provide amendments to certain other Commonwealth statutes to bring them into line with the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act. The Government foreshadowed in 1984 when the Sex Discrimination Bill passed this Parliament and the Act came into force that it would seek to have all Commonwealth departments and authorities examine their practices and their statutes to see whether amendments were necessary to any of the Acts of Parliament. This Bill, in fact, gives effect to the results of that study and examination. It seeks to amend seven, eight or nine Commonwealth Acts to bring them into line with the Sex Discrimination Act. I remind honourable senators that the Opposition parties in 1984 supported the Sex Discrimination Bill at the second reading stage, we supported a number of amendments and then we had a free vote on the third reading. Members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia voted according to their own conscience at the third reading, some voting for it and some voting against it. The Opposition continues to support measures to end discrimination. The position it has taken on this legislation in the past remains unaltered. Our detailed comments relate to particular measures which are proposed in this legislation. We support some of the proposals and not others. Accordingly, it may be most appropriate if I offer my detailed comments at the Committee stage. I believe a number of amendments are now being circulated on behalf of the Opposition. They indicate those parts of this Bill which we do not intend to support. Some of the amendments propose to alter the stage at which certain people become aged persons and so entitled to various kinds of benefits. The Government proposes that the age be brought down to the common level of 60 years, which of course would mean that males who now qualify at age 65 would qualify at the age of 60. The proposal, we think, is inadequately argued or justified. It is not a matter of enormous ideological importance. Considering the parlous situation of the nation and recognising that these amendments have significant budgetary implications, we will vote against them. There is quite an important question of principle on the common age of entitlement. For example, there could be an argument that if we are to treat people of either gender equally, maybe the common age of entitlement should be gradually raised to 65 years or set at some figure between 60 and 65. It does not automatically follow that it should be 60 years. There is no doubt that if we agree to make it 60 years, that will have enormous precedential implications and it is likely that in all future social policy 60 will become the common age. The Government is putting quite a significant proposition. In a way it is not really appropriate to put it in this legislation. An important matter such as this should be considered by the Parliament on its merits in appropriate detail and with appropriate argument. In relation to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act, we will oppose the alteration of the definition of a de facto relationship. I will explain later why we think the existing definition is adequate. If it is not adequate, we need to have argument offered as to why it is not adequate and why it needs to be altered. The Re-establishment and Employment Act provides for re-establishment assistance to be given to returned servicemen. The Bill proposes to delete that provision. For reasons which I will set out in the Committee stage, we will oppose that deletion. So the Opposition is indicating that in certain specific areas, not because of the move towards achieving the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation-not at all-but for other reasons, we will oppose certain parts of the legislation. I understand that Senator Harradine, pursuant to contingent notice, will be moving certain amendments. I understand the effect of his contingent notice will be that he will be able to move an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act itself. I do not wish to foreshadow or state some of Senator Harradine's arguments for him. But if, as we understand it, it is his intention to pick up the effects of what is known as the Tralaggan case and seek to remedy that, the Opposition is disposed to supporting that amendment. Finally I indicate that, in the Committee stage, we hope to obtain leave for Senator Walters to move an amendment, also to the Sex Discrimination Act, seeking to overcome a problem which has been brought to her attention in relation to separate sports activities for boys and girls. My understanding is that Senator Walters, not having given a contingent notice of motion, may need the leave of the Senate to move her amendment. I suggest that it may best suit the purposes of the Senate if she is given leave to move her amendment and the Senate can then determine, as the numbers lie, whether it wishes to accept her amendment. Having made those comments and having indicated that I wish to speak further in the Committee stage, the Opposition will support the second reading of this legislation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.27) —As Senator Peter Baume has said, I have given notice of my contingent motion, which is to be found at No. 27 on page 11145 of the Notice Paper of 4 December. I refer honourable senators to that notice of motion, which is to remove from the Sex Discrimination Act an injustice. I have thought about this matter quite deeply. I am conscious of the fact that this is our last night in this Parliament, I hope, for the year. Senator Gareth Evans —Don't bank on it. Senator HARRADINE —It will be my last. I have a daughter who is getting married and I have to go to practice tomorrow night. The issue that we have before us is a vital issue indeed. I am conscious of the fact that honourable senators are absent on duty elsewhere but I feel that I should take this opportunity, for the benefit of those honourable senators here and, in particular, for the benefit of the Australian Democrats, to indicate the very real issues that are involved in my foreshadowed notice of motion. I have thought long and deeply about this question and I believe that there is an injustice which needs to be remedied. It is the injustice that was referred to by Senator Baume-that is, the injustice which was imposed under New South Wales legislation on Dr Tralaggan, who, because of a firm, conscientious belief, decided not to let his accommodation to a couple who were not married. At the request of the Opposition I have confined my amendment to that circumstance. It must be remembered that, because the sex discrimination legislation calls upon the external affairs power, it now requires anybody in any part of Australia to recognise, for the purposes of letting accommodation and indeed for other purposes, a couple cohabiting as though they were a bona fide married couple-under pain of penalty. That is the point I am coming to. It is for the purpose of removing that injustice that I am moving the amendment. The injustice is the prohibition in the legislation against citizens giving practical expression to their conscientiously formed beliefs about marriage and sexual union. The sex discrimination legislation prohibits advertisements and leasing arrangements which would give preference to legally married couples over unmarried couples except where the rooms let are in close proximity to the lessees domestic quarters. This prohibition is not an accident of drafting. I maintain, because I was on the third committee in the United Nations at the time, that members of the committee in their considerations of that matter in 1977 did not propose that discrimination on the basis of marriage should mean that a person should recognise a de facto couple or a cohabiting couple as being bona fide married. That was not in their minds at all. Therefore, the very real possibility is that the legislation lacks constitutional power. Nevertheless the clause is there and it is not an accident of drafting. The legislation has been designed to compel Australians to treat de facto or cohabiting couples as if they were legally married under pain of penalty. In the Tralaggan case the doctor was fined about $700. The situation before us tonight is: The Federal Parliament has passed legislation which makes it illegal for a property owner to refuse to let premises to unmarried persons for the purposes of cohabitation even if, in so doing, the lessee was acting contrary to the dictates of his own conscience. This attack on the primacy of the human conscience is out of character, I suggest, with the concept of the free society which the Federal Government, by this legislation, is alleging to defend and promote. To deny people the freedom to follow their consciences when formed in good faith is to attack the keystone of human liberty. If one were setting out to create a totalitarian state, it would be mandatory to begin by denying the authority of conscience. Just such a denial has been made by the Federal Government in this legislation. In defence of the anti-conscience prohibitions of the Sex Discrimination Act, Senator Gareth Evans has argued the following case. He stated: If one allows people to have conscientious personal beliefs in the way that they discriminate on the basis of marital status, where does one draw the line in relation to those bigots . . . who would claim conscientious beliefs inspiring and justifying their discrimination on the ground of race, colour, religious belief or any . . . other categories of discrimination . . . ? Before dealing with Senator Gareth Evans's justification of the provisions of the legislation denying the right of conscience, we must first ask ourselves the question: What is conscience? This is an important question because I believe Senator Evans's understanding of conscience is quite different from mine. Conscience is the means by which we decide what is just and right and what is unjust and wrong. But precisely what sort of means is it? That is the key question. First, let us be clear about what conscience is not. It is not an interior voice. It is not an interior sight, though commonly treated as such. Conscience is not an intuition peculiar to each individual, nor is it an emotion. If conscience were any of these, it would be merely the expression of disposition, mood or taste. It would have no authority. No court or law or parliament or person would be obliged to respect it if it were any of those things. If conscience were but a voice, sight, intuition or emotion, men and women by their very nature would be morally irresponsible, and all their institutions likewise. Being irresponsible, both man and his institutions must be arbitrary. Consequently, society and the state could only be either chaotic or oppressive. However, we have a bulwark against this nightmare, and that is conscience properly understood. What we mean by conscience is a rational faculty to choose between right and wrong. Conscience is the intellect making moral judgments. When we make moral judgments we make them about actions. This exercise of reason over what we do we call practical reason and we distinguish it from speculative reason, which deals with questions about the nature of things. Conscience, then, is the exercise of practical reason, by means of which we decide courses of action. Everyone in the Senate should be familiar with the faculty of conscience. That is because our reason for being here is to exercise our consciences. We are in politics to make practical judgments, in this case about achieving the common good. There ought to be no mystery about what conscience is. Well or ill, we use it all the time in this chamber and elsewhere. The most important characteristic of conscience is that it is rational. This means that conscience does not utter its judgments in a language incomprehensible to all except the owner of the conscience. The judgments reached by conscience can be tested publicly according to commonly understood rational principles. So the workings of conscience are not purely and simply subjective. Conscience is, of course, subjective in the sense that it is I who make my conscience, I who use my conscience-no one else; nor do I use the conscience of another person. But when we employ consciences we use the language of reason and, as a result, our moral judgments can be the object of the assessment of other minds. In this sense our consciences are objective. For this reason, the position taken by conscience can be tested for rationality and good faith. From all this a fundamental principle arises: Human beings must act in accordance with their consciences and must not be forced to act contrary to conscience when it is formed in good faith. That is because when human beings are asked about what they ought to do they are being asked what reason tells them to do. In other words, the question is: What is reasonable? Conscience or the action of the practical intellect tells man what is reasonable. To deny conscience therefore or to be denied the right to follow it is unreasonable in that it closes off man's only path to knowledge-in this instance, knowledge of the very fundamental notion: What is right and what is wrong. We are encountering one of the givens in moral discourse, something that is fundamental, irrefutable and underived. It does not make sense to say that human beings ought not to follow their conscience when conscience is the one and only means of settling moral questions. To deny conscience is wrong because it is irrational. More than this, to deny conscience is to be less than human. In conscience we have a marvellous faculty, something that makes the difference between merely existing as human beings and flourishing as human beings. The exercise and the following of conscience means realising one's human potential, a potential which includes knowing the difference between right and wrong. Not to use one's conscience, to deny it, or to be denied it means living at a lower level of human potential. Human beings who cannot or will not use and follow their consciences reject their human potential. What they realise is animality rather than humanity. This is why the sex discrimination legislation in this respect is unjust. By refusing people the right of freedom to follow their consciences the law offends against the first principle of morality; that is, against reason. Senator Evans has argued, however, that to allow the right conscientiously to discriminate on the grounds of marital status would be the thin end of the wedge. To grant this ground of conscientious objection, he told us, would necessarily mean granting it to those who would claim in the name of conscience the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, colour or religion. That is a completely specious argument. Senator Gareth Evans —Logic is the same. Senator HARRADINE —The Minister should listen. It displays the ability of the Minister's mind, which I acknowledge is founded on maybe the liberal tradition, as well as the gaps in his understanding. Behind this argument we find a deep misconception about the nature of conscience, a gross misunderstanding, the effect of which is to trivialise conscience, if not ultimately annihilate it. The hidden premise in the Minister's argument is that conscience is not a rational faculty but is wholly subjective. If it were other- wise Senator Evans would be able to distinguish between the irrationality and bad faith of the racist's false conscience and the rationality and good faith of a person who refuses to accept that an unmarried couple or a cohabiting couple are really the same as a married couple. Since, and perhaps unknown to himself, his premise is that conscience is a kind of intuition-that is what he is talking about; something which develops conviction by means which, in the final analysis, are uniquely personal and incommunicable-on his argument, it is impossible to distinguish between the value of judgments reached by one conscience and those reached by another. Thus all consciences, in his view, must be treated as equally true, equally false, or equally irrelevant. If one kind of conscience judgment were to be favoured over another, it must be favoured arbitrarily, since no such judgment can be tested objectively. Conscience and moral responsibility, therefore, would be emptied of meaning. It is ironic that the Minister, as a lawyer, and I recognise as an intellectual, who has been formed self-conscientiously in the liberal intellectual tradition, should espouse notions of conscience which undermine the moral responsibility and dignity of the individual. It is ironic but not unexpected. Senator Evans is only working out, in a consistent way, the subjectivist theory of knowledge which is embedded in the foundations of the liberal intellectual movement. In the argument he uses to defend denial of conscience we see an instance of how the movement, which began at the enlightment by proclaiming man's moral autonomy, has ended up by underwriting his subjection to the moral dictatorship of the modern secular state. Conscience can be tested for rationality and good faith. What is the conscience provision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for? We have been through that time and again. Because of this we know that it is not rational to discriminate against persons, for example, on the basis of their skin colour. But how do we know this? The exercise of conscience or practical reason is guided by certain methodological principles. These norms of moral reasoning are held to be fundamental, irrefutable and underived. This is not because it is self-contradictory to deny them but because their denial ensures that moral judgments are unreasonable. The guides to sound moral judgments include: First, that there should be a detachment in making moral judgments and commitments to acting in accord with them; second, that moral judgments should favour the common good of society; third, that one should not arbitrarily make preferences between the basic values, commitment to life, knowledge, friendship, reason, et cetera on which the making of moral judgments depends; and fourth, that there should be no arbitrary preference among persons. In other words, if some act is a moral imperative for one person it must be imperative for all. If we were to apply these principles to the case of the bigot who claims the right to discriminate simply on the basis of race, colour of skin or religion we could easily dismiss that claim. For a start he is making an arbitrary preference amongst persons; secondly, his proposed action would be contrary to the common good, particularly in a multi-racial or multi-religious society; thirdly, a bigot could hardly be detached about his judgments. On these grounds we can conclude that the bigot's process of moral judgment is at least unreasonable. Moreover, if it were the case that the arbitrariness and lack of detachment arose from malice or vincible ignorance his conscience would have been exercised in bad faith. Consequently, the bigot has no ground for claiming a right of conscientious objection to not discriminating on the grounds of race, colour or religion. However, one cannot say the same thing of a person who claims the right not to confuse a married couple with an unmarried couple. In the first instance it is open to such a person to argue that to blur this important distinction is contrary to the common good. Given the evidence of poverty, alienation, social disharmony and financial costs which go with the breakdown of the family, it is reasonable for people to argue that to refrain from upholding the principle of the family, an institution whose health is central to the health of the whole society, would be to set at nought the common good. Some members of the Government disagree with the conscientious objector. Apparently, they believe that the evidence to which he refers does not point to any harm in alternative sexual lifestyles. Perhaps a personal social suffering we witness in the ambit of sexual relations and family life has some other explanation. After all, the same evidence can be interpreted differently. But no one can argue that the conscientious objector's case is unreasonable; that is the point. Therefore, the conscientious objector argues well when he further claims that by condoning non-marital cohabitation, he is meeting a necessary condition for minimising the common good. Consequently, it would be unreasonable and unconscionable for the Government to oblige him to give practical support to the activity that he believes, on rational grounds, to be against the common good. One of the arguments used to rationalise rejection of this appeal to conscience is the claim that the conscientious objector is attempting to thrust a foreign set of moral values on those who want to live according to their own lights. That is a dishonest argument. The conscientious objector imposes nothing. His attitude is: `By all means you must follow your conscience and live life as you think fit; but do not expect me to supply you with the means so to live and do not expect me to have imposed upon me a provision such as is in the sex discrimination legislation which will fine me if I do not do so'. A conscientious objector must make no demands for a change of life-style. It is a breathtaking perversion of language to construe the statement `I cannot support and condone your life-style' to mean `You must abandon your ways and live as I do'. To justify the denial of the objector's right of conscience, a false and unreasonable construction has been put on his moral position. In so doing, those who would deny conscience have shown that their own moral argument has been premised on falseness and irrationality. Their argument thus falls to the ground; they are the ones who have been unjust. Finally, I want to make a few remarks on claiming religious grounds as a basis for conscientious objection. An objection to the rights of a religious conscience might be framed thus: While conscience might work reasonably and can be tested, the religious conscience rests on an authority which is untestable; consequently, this conscience is arbitrary and by that fact a false conscience which can claim no rights. But this argument rests on a misapprehension about the relation of conscience to divine authority, particularly in the Judaeo-Christian tradition-of which we have heard much in recent weeks from the Government-that the divine authority is seen to be rational and not arbitrary. Believers are not called on to do things because God decides they are good; they are called to do them because they are good. Moreover, this goodness can be comprehended by human reason, despite its limitations and fallibility. The role, then, of divine authority and moral order is not to reveal hitherto unknowable moral truths but to reaffirm and fortify the human powers of moral reasoning. Let us take the case of the biblical commandments not to kill, steal, commit adultery, et cetera. These are not laws that had to be revealed to human beings. Because of their powers of moral reasoning, human beings can know these for themselves. But, because of human fallibility and lack of commitment to moral reasoning, people need to be reminded of what their consciences tell them. Therefore, as far as what we might call the natural moral law is concerned, even the religious conscience is testable. This means that the person who claims on religious grounds to murder, steal, lie or to treat people in any way which implies that they do not have the same rights, has a false religious conscience because what he claims to do by divine authority is unreasonable. It cannot be required by God. In all cases our rule of conduct ought to be the reasonable line to follow because the only alternative to this rule is subjectivity, irrationality and arbitrariness. Moreover, because the exercise of conscience-that is, of practical reason-is the only way that human beings can make judgments about the reasonable thing to do, the judgment of conscience must always be respected. Not to respect conscience is to attack the existence of a free and democratic society. To compel people to act contrary to conscience is to force their submission to arbitrary and authority, the very thing democratic societies have been developed to prevent. I urge the Senate very strongly to recognise the moral integrity and responsibility of the individual's conscience. I urge the Senate to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure that in this area our fellow Australians can act according to the dictates of their own consciences. To deny them this freedom would be the beginning of tyranny. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.58) —The Australian Democrats support the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986, which is the result of a review of legislation to bring it into line with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. At the time we strongly supported the Sex Discrimination Act and amended it to strengthen it. We should remember what the Sex Discrimination Act does. It declares discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy to be unlawful in a number of important areas of community life. Most of the proposals in the Bill, interestingly enough, remove provisions in previous legislation which discriminate against men. One of the amendments proposed by the Opposition, which we will not be supporting, appears to refuse the removal of certain discrimination against men. I find that quite odd. Society has been moving to remove areas of discrimination, in large measure to place women who have been discriminated against in a better position. With this proposed amendment the Opposition appears not to want to even up the balance. We will not be supporting the other amendments to be moved by the Opposition to turn back from the definition of `de facto spouse' in the 1984 Sex Discrimination Act. We supported the definition at the time and continue to support it. The Opposition amendments were dropped on us out of the blue late in the proceedings. Senator Walters will move later to amend section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act. We will not support her amendment because one of the difficulties with it is that Senator Walters appears not to want to recognise that there is a balance in size, weight and physique of young people under 12 years of age which allows girls, for one of the few times in their lives, an opportunity to see themselves as equal and to be equal in what is, in our culture in particular, a very important part of community life-sport. There are few enough areas in our culture where girls get the opportunity to see themselves as equal, to be in the action in an equal sense. We believe that should be in place and we have been responsible for that in the Act itself. That particular provision in section 42 was not opposed at the time of the 1984 Act by either side of the House, so we will not be supporting its removal at this point. It is encouraging that the review has looked into some legis- lation which was exempt under the Sex Discrimination Act, and that is the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. It was not necessary for that Act to be reviewed. However, it was, and we believe that is to be commended. We support this legislation as we supported the original Sex Discrimination Bill in 1984. We shall not be supporting the amendments which will come before us later. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.02) —I should like to speak briefly on Senator Harradine's amendments, particularly that relating to conscientious belief. We have had a problem in this area, which I am sure the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Evans) will acknowledge. We have in this country complete freedom of religion, as again the Minister will acknowledge. I do not think for a moment he would say that we should inhibit any expression of religion. I refer to a doctor who, because of strong Christian beliefs, would not rent accommodation to people living in a de facto relationship. Should our legislation override his religious beliefs, then we cannot claim that we have freedom of religion in this country. It does not matter what the individual politician in this place may think or feel about that person's beliefs, there is no doubt that we must support Senator Harradine's amendment. Senator Powell spoke about the proposed amendment that I intend to bring forward. I thought I should leave that to a later time, as it is not appropriate to deal with that amendment in a second reading stage speech. I hope that the Minister will give me leave to deal with that amendment later. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.04) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their general support for the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill, particularly Senator Powell who indicated no reservations in her affection for the legislation. As for Senator Peter Baume's foreshadowed amendments and that of Senator Walters, I think they can best be dealt with in the Committee stage. I indicate that the Government will not seek to deny leave to Senator Walters to bring forward her amendment, on the understanding that we can keep the debate reasonably brisk. As for Senator Harradine's contribution, I hope that it was not simply a warm up for a further half hour speech when he comes to move his motion to suspend standing orders. I think that we can deal with this matter in a short way or a long way. The short way is to make the point that the proposed amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act of which Senator Harradine has given notice are not relevant to the subject of this Bill, which is concerned with amendments to other legislation to ensure the consistency of that other legislation with the Sex Discrimination Act. The proposed amendments would, of course, create new exemptions to the Sex Discrimination Act-the parent Act, as it were. They would have the effect, as we have already seen, of reopening debate on the Sex Discrimination Act itself. I would suggest to honourable senators that this is really not an appropriate opportunity to do that. The longer way of dealing with Senator Harradine's amendments is to tackle the arguments head on. I really would be very happy to do that at some appropriate time and place because the nature of conscientious objection and the distinguishing characteristics of a conscientious belief as distinct from a mere whim or fancy or intuition is a fascinating subject for discussion. It is a subject which has fascinated me in the past. I have actually written a pamphlet about it in the context of industrial relations, raising and trying to deal with a number of issues that Senator Harradine raised tonight. I sent out to the Parliamentary Library for a copy of that during Senator Harradine's speech to discover that it is in the index but it is missing from the shelf. I hope that that is an indication that Senator Harradine has been endeavouring to glean some nourishment from it but, from the content of his speech, I suspect that is simply not true. This is a difficult issue to debate quickly, but the point I would try to make is this: It is not enough simply to assert that a conscientious belief deserving respect and legislative acknowledgment is a deeply held conviction formed in good faith, which were the essential characteristics that Senator Harradine described. Senator Harradine —That is not so. You were not listening. Senator GARETH EVANS —Oh, dear. Senator Harradine —You read it tomorrow morning, my friend. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will do my best. They seemed to me to be the essential characteristics that Senator Harradine was describing. Senator Harradine —I thought you had some intellectual honesty. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am doing my best. Obviously the point can be made that one person's deeply held conviction, formed in good faith, may be another person's prejudice, at least in terms of the way in which that behaviour manifests itself. It is not enough simply to assert that deeply held convictions, formed in good faith, of which one approves-for example, a conviction that martial status is a crucial and legitimate discriminating characteristic-are to be distinguished from deeply held convictions of which one does not approve. It is not enough to try to assert characteristic descriptions of bigotry in terms of the arbitrariness of the preferences involved, which was one of Senator Harradine's tests. A second one of his tests, as I noted it down, was the contrariness of the conviction to the common good. Non-detachment, I think, was a third characteristic, as I noted it, that he described of an essentially bigoted belief. All those things can be true of a belief that Senator Harradine would describe as conscientious. Let me give an example of what I am talking about. Take a Dutch Reformed Church Afrikaner in South Africa who has a deeply held belief, formed in good faith, a deeply held conviction about the inequality of man and the way in which it is appropriate to behave towards people. There are many people in that sort of environment whom one could properly describe as having a conscientious belief to that effect. It is not enough simply to assert-- Senator Harradine —You are intellectually dishonest. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not enough to assert, and it is rather vulgar to be abusive about it in the context of this debate, that discrimination based upon beliefs of that kind-skin colour and so on-are irrational or arbitrary. They appear so to me and they appear so to Senator Harradine but they do not necessarily appear to the people concerned. Senator Harradine —I have given the basis for the rejection of that. Senator GARETH EVANS —I know that Senator Harradine tried to do that but in my judgment he did not succeed. It would take many more hours than we have at our disposal in order to seek to establish that and I am quite sure that, at the end of the day, however powerful my arguments, Senator Harradine would remain as utterly unpersuaded of their veracity and validity as he is at the moment. So, it is an essentially fruitless exercise to try to conduct a debate of this kind. It is difficult to attribute objectivity to conscientious beliefs. It is very difficult to distinguish rational and defensible conscientious beliefs from irrational and indefensible beliefs which are nonetheless just as genuinely and firmly held. As a result, it is extremely dangerous to go down the track of allowing a claim of conscientious belief to exculpate one from the kind of obligations that are imposed by this kind of law. There are many other obligations imposed by many other kinds of laws-military service is clearly one example where we can reasonably be a little more relaxed in terms of the conscientious convictions, the sincerity of which we recognise, and the force of which we are prepared to acknowledge and give credibility and legitimacy to. There are plenty of contexts in which this can be so. But when one is talking about public behaviour that affects other persons in terms of rights to accommodation, rights to goods and services, rights to education and all the other things that this legislation is concerned with, it is simply not possible to pick and choose between categories of claimed conscientious belief by reference to the kind of criteria that Senator Harradine would wish to place upon us. Bearing in mind the time and the fact that this is an argument which will no doubt be canvassed on other more appropriate occasions, I simply indicate to the Senate that I do not believe there is any rational basis, at least in the present context of this legislative debate, on which we should accept Senator Harradine's amendments tonight. Accordingly I urge the Senate to vote for the Bill in its present form, and reject the various amendments which we will, nonetheless, debate on their merits in a moment. Question resolved in the affirmative. (Quorum formed) Bill read a second time. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.15) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Harradine moving the following amendments to the Bill to provide for the insertion in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 of new sections: (1) Page 1, after clause 1, insert the following new clause: ``1A. The Principal Act is amended by adding after Section 43 the following section: Conscientious objection `43A. (1) Nothing in section 23 or 24 renders it unlawful for a person to decline to perform or participate in the performance of any act the performance of which would be contrary to genuinely held conscientious beliefs of that person. `(2) In sub-section (1), `conscientious beliefs' means any conscientious beliefs, whether the grounds for the beliefs are or are not of a religious character and whether the beliefs are or are not part of the doctrine of any religion. `(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the performance of an act shall be taken to be contrary to the conscientious beliefs of a person if, and only if, that person has a deeply held conviction that the performance of that act would be morally wrong, and that that person is morally obliged not to perform that act regardless of any considerations of personal advantage or disadvantage to that person or other persons.'.''. (2) Page 1, after new clause 1A, insert the following new clause: ``1B. The Principal Act is amended by inserting after Section 43A the following section: Weights to be lifted by females `43B. Nothing in Division 1 or 2 affects anything done by a person in direct compliance with a provision of a law of a State or Territory which provides that female employees may not be required to lift objects having a mass greater than a specified mass.'.''. I apologise for reading that motion, but I did so deliberately because Senator Powell of the Australian Democrats, by way of interjection, asked me what I was moving. She obviously did not know. Senator Georges —You had me tricked too, as a matter of fact. Who allowed this procedure- Senator HARRADINE —It has been on the Notice Paper for about two months. Senator Powell did not know about it, yet was able to say on behalf of the Democrats that they were opposing it. Senator Haines —She never mentioned it. Senator HARRADINE —She did. She interjected: `What is your amendment?'. So I am giving the Democrats the opportunity to consider it. That is why I have read it in full. I believe it is one of the most important amendments that have come before this chamber. Senator Haines —It is one of the silliest. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Haines has said that it is one of the silliest. It deals with a fundamental question of the rights and the individual consciences of the people of Australia. Senator Haines has said that it is one of the silliest amendments to come before this chamber. Obviously, Senator Haines has not considererd the proposition that I put forward during the second reading debate, when I stated that the upholding of the individual, properly formed conscientious beliefs of Australian citizens is fundamental to the principles of democracy. Senator Haines —Who decides that, might I ask? Senator HARRADINE —Senator Haines asked: `Who decides that?' I suggest to Senator Haines that she wait and read in the Hansard what I said. We are talking about a conscience properly formed. We are not talking about what Senator Haines thinks conscience is. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The motion before the Chair is for the suspension of Standing Orders, and the purpose of the suspension of Standing Orders is so that Senator Harradine can move his amendment at the Committee stage. At the moment, the debate should be confined to the reasons why Standing Orders should be suspended to permit Senator Harradine to do that. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am happy to respond to interjections, but I know that I will be picked up by you if I do. Senator Georges —You will be picked up by me as well. Why don't you move the amendment instead of disturbing the proceedings of the Senate? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges, I think Senator Harradine can do well enough on his own. Senator Georges will cease interjecting. (Quorum formed) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Harradine, I want to make clear again what the Senate is doing. We are debating a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to permit Senator Harradine to move an amendment at the Committee stage. The question before the Chair is the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I call Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE —My motion for the suspension of Standing Orders-for those who have just entered the chamber-relates to item number 27 on page 11145 of the Notice Paper. Senator Georges —I have been listening for a couple of hours and I am absolutely confused. Senator Gareth Evans —That's because he's on the wrong Bill. Senator HARRADINE —I thank Senator Gareth Evans. I am glad that he has wised up Senator Georges. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges will cease interjecting. Senator Georges —How can I help it? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges will cease interjecting. Senator Harradine has the call. Senator HARRADINE —I am glad that Senator Georges has been wised up. My motion is to suspend Standing Orders for the purpose of moving the propositions that are outlined on page 11145 of the Notice Paper. Senator McKiernan —The Government has moved it. Sit down. Senator Grimes —The Government agrees. Senator HARRADINE —I am proposing that the Standing Orders be suspended-- Government senators interjecting- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator HARRADINE —Am I to understand that the Government agrees? Senator Coates —No. Senator HARRADINE —Does the Government agree or does it not agree? Senator Georges —No, we are not agreeing. Senator Gareth Evans —We are not agreeing to suspend the Standing Orders-because he is on a different Bill, for God's sake! I do not want him to be under any illusions. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine has the call. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry, Mr Deputy President. I have had two advices from the Government. One is that it agrees with the suspension of Standing Orders and the other is that it does not agree with the suspension of Standing Orders. I am afraid that if it does not agree to the suspension of Standing Orders, it is refusing to discuss one of the most vital subjects to come before this particular chamber-that is, the rights of an individual in this democratic society to follow a properly formed and understood conscience. Indeed, the second part of the motion deals with the question of the lifting of weights by women. The sex discrimination legislation requires-- Senator McKiernan —Ha, ha! Senator HARRADINE —It is no joke, Senator McKiernan; it is a very important subject in the industrial arena. The sex discrimination legislation requires women to lift the same weights under the same conditions as men. The women in my union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association-of which I was just re-elected President for another four years-are concerned about this, particularly women who work in small estabhlishments. Prior to the sex discrimination legislation State industrial tribunals or State labour and industry Acts or their equivalents provided for a limit to the weight women were required to lift. Since the introduction of the sex discrimination legislation that weight limit has been lifted for women employees. Senator Georges —No, it is the weight the men have to lift that should be reduced. They should have reduced the weight a bloke could handle. Senator HARRADINE —That is what we say but that is not what the Government has done. Mr Deputy President, Government members do not even know what they did and we now have out of their own mouths-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, you must not go too far in debating the merits of your argument. If the motion to suspend Standing Orders is carried you will have the opportunity to debate the matter at the Committee stage. I know the dividing line is narrow but at the moment you must confine yourself to why Standing Orders should be suspended to allow these matters to be debated in the Committee stage. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am concerned about shop assistants, and about nurses who now, at this moment, in hospitals-- Senator Haines —There are none in the hospitals. Senator HARRADINE —Not in Victoria. They were previously protected in relation to the weights that they had to lift. Under this legislation they are now open to being required to lift any weight at all. Is that for the benefit of the women of this country? Do we recognise in this chamber the need to suspend Standing Orders in order to eliminate the danger to the health, safety and welfare of those women? Is every member of the Government going to oppose the suspension of Standing Orders to protect the health, safety and welfare of those women? Of course what is being suggested is that at the moment there are regulations which would cover-- Senator Gareth Evans —Those regulations were extended at your request, and they are perfectly effective. Senator HARRADINE —They are stop-gap regulations. Senator Gareth Evans —Yes, but they are stopping a pretty good gap at the moment. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, they are stop-gap regulations at my request, I acknowledge that. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that those regulations are given proper legislative recognition by substantive legislation. Might I say that the proposal was put forward only after a large number of petitions were taken up and after the Government was pressured by the union movement and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to do something about the matter. I appeal to Government senators to support the suspension of Standing Orders. I take the opportunity of apologising for saying that Senator Gareth Evans was intellectually dishonest. I believe that he has not understood the propositions that I have been putting forward. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.30) —I think it would be a help if we could bring this matter to finality-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator GARETH EVANS —Sorry, the honourable senator is not still-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Gareth Evans will address the Chair. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, Mr President. The Government will oppose Senator Harradine's motion-- Senator Harradine —Mr President, I called for a division. Senator GARETH EVANS —Sorry, is the honourable senator still wishing to speak? Senator Harradine —I called for a division on the motion to suspend Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —Order! The division has been-- Senator Harradine —Mr President, has the Senate negated the adjournment? The PRESIDENT —Order! The adjournment has been negated. Senator Georges —For two minutes. Senator Harradine —For two minutes? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, for 15 minutes. Senator Harradine —Mr President, I sought leave to continue my remarks later on the basis that there would be an adjournment debate. The PRESIDENT —Order! At 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, it was my responsibility to put the question that the Senate do now adjourn. I put that question and the adjournment was negatived. Senator Gareth Evans then rose to his feet and I called him. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am happy to waive my right to speak if Senator Harradine has not finished. I thought he had finished. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.33) —I point out that tonight there has been a most unusual circumstance. It was not within my knowledge that there was going to be a denial of the adjournment. Senator Gareth Evans —It was organised while you were still in full flight to enable you to finish. Senator HARRADINE —I had not been consulted at all and that is something that I was- Senator Haines —I opposed it for you, Brian. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, are you now speaking to your motion for the suspension of Standing Orders? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I am, Mr President. I am speaking to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. As I have said before, this is one of the most important matters to come before the Parliament. Senator Sanders —You are the filibusterer. You are not going to be here tomorrow night. You admitted you were not. So you are just carrying on and you are going to keep us here all night. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Sanders is out of his place and he is out of order. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Sanders is talking about not being here. I will not go into that. I put it to Senator Sanders and to the chamber that the suspension of Standing Orders for this purpose is probably one of the most important matters to come before the Senate. As I have said in the debate on this legislation, the reason that I have raised it is that it deals with the right of the conscientious beliefs of an individual and that is fundamental to the whole of our democratic society. I wanted to ensure that the Senate adjourned at the correct time tonight because I know that people in the Opposition, and certainly Senator Powell, did not know until 10 minutes ago what the proposition was. I had hoped that the adjournment of the Senate would have taken place so as to ensure that there was proper consideration of this motion to suspend Standing Orders. Senator Haines —Mr President, I raise a point of order. On several occasions during this debate Senator Harradine has claimed that Senator Powell did not know something or other about his amendment. I point out that when Senator Powell was speaking we were debating the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill, to which Senator Harradine is not moving any amendments. The amendment he is moving is to the principal Act, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. There was no reason at all why Senator Powell in the middle of a debate on the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill should know anything at all-- Senator Peter Baume —It is in the Notice Paper. Senator Haines —Senator Peter Baume says it is in the Notice Paper. Of course it is, and it is in the Notice Paper on the principal Act. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Haines, you are taking a point of order. I ask you to address yourself to the point of order and not make a deliberative statement. Senator Haines —I think Senator Harradine is unintentionally misrepresenting the position Senator Powell was in. The question she asked him was about an amendment she thought Senator Harradine may have had to the Bill we were debating earlier when in fact he was referring-although she was not aware of his reference-to the one on the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I suggest Senator Powell can explain her actions at the appropriate time in Committee. However, I ask Senator Harradine to remember that he has moved for the suspension of Standing Orders. It is that motion we are now considering. I ask him to restrict his remarks to his motion to suspend the Standing Orders. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr President. I understand what Senator Haines said. If that is the misunderstanding, I recognise that. I hope that the Australian Democrats will support the suspension of Standing Orders so that they will be able to understand what the proposition is and we can advance the proposition and properly discuss it on its merits. If we do not suspend Standing Orders, there will be no opportunity to discuss the matters I have raised on their merits. The Parliament will not be able to deal with the fundamental question which is facing every Australian and the fundamental right of every Australian to exercise a properly formed conscience. I did outline the matter of a properly formed conscientious objection in the second reading debate. I believe that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table, has misunderstood all those questions. I was hoping that time would be made available so that he and other members of his Party and other parties could consider the questions that I have raised. I just wonder whether, on this vital question relating to conscience, the Government has given a conscience vote for its party members? Senator Robertson —Why should we suspend Standing Orders? That is what we are on about. Do not worry about what we are saying. You tell us why we should suspend Standing Orders. Senator HARRADINE —I am telling the honourable senator why we should suspend Standing Orders. It is to enable the Parliament to debate one of the most fundamental questions that face a democratic society. I realise that it is most difficult for me to develop a theme on the basis of a proposition to suspend Standing Orders. Senator Robertson —That is not what you are supposed to do. You are supposed to say why we should suspend Standing Orders. Senator HARRADINE —I understand what Senator Robertson said. He must appreciate that it is almost impossible to get to the essence of the question in the proposition that is now before the Chair. This proposition is for the suspension of Standing Orders. I have tried to put to the Parliament the need for members of parliament to be able to consider the question that right throughout Australia there are people who will be required to recognise, for the purpose of leasing accommodation, a couple who are cohabiting as being a legally married couple. That is the proposition that is being put to the people of Australia. People might say: `Let them live their lives in the way they like'. That is their right, but under this legislation any individual in Australia is required to recognise a cohabiting couple as though they were a bona fide married couple, under pain of penalty. This is a matter which should give concern immediately to this chamber and is one which should at least attract the support of the whole of the chamber for the suspension of Standing Orders. The other part of the motion to suspend Standing Orders is in relation to those who are working in State jurisdictions and indeed in Federal jurisdictions who, under the sex discrimination legislation, but for the regulations, are now required to lift the same weights as anybody else. There is no limit. As Senator Gareth Evans has said, a regulation has been put in place, largely because of the actions of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, but that is a stop-gap measure. I believe that substantive amendments such as these ought to be incorporated in the sex discrimination legislation to protect those women. We have already had acknowledged by a number of honourable senators on the Government side that they did not know-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question put: That the motion (Senator Harradine's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Morris, J. Crowley, R. A. Powell, J. F. Devlin, R. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R. Reynolds, M. Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N. Brownhill, D. G. C. Walsh, P. A. Teague, B. C. Tate, M. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.50) —Mr President, on behalf of the Federal Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, I would like to take this formal opportunity to publicly thank you and Madam Speaker for allowing the use of facilities at Parliament House, in particular the dining room, for the historic national prayer breakfast held on 15 September this year. This was the first ever function of this kind held in Australia and it was an occasion which proved to be a resounding success and one which we hope will become an annual event. The program opened with a welcome gathering organised by the combined Canberra churches at the Lakeside International Hotel on Sunday evening and attended by over 700 people from congregations throughout the Australian Capital Territory. The following morning a total of 384 guests were present at the breakfast held in the parliamentary dining room, the largest number of guests ever to attend a breakfast in Parliament House. I congratulate the dining room staff on their most efficient handling of the arrangements. The function was addressed by the Hon. Kim Beazley, AO, a distinguished former member of the other place, a government Minister and a leader in the Moral Rearmament Movement. Present were guests from every State and Territory in Australia and representatives from a wide range of occupations, including Federal and State parliamentarians, the diplomatic corps, the defence forces, the judiciary and business. Numerous community organisations were represented, including the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship members from various State parliaments. I believe that the bringing together of people from all walks of life within the precincts of Parliament House when neither chamber is sitting and for a function associated with a parliamentary organisation is an important democratic opportunity to open up to the wider Australian electorate the many facets of life that exist behind the often false picture that the Press so relentlessly portrays of life in this Parliament. I would wish that when the construction of the new Parliament House is completed we shall see the facilities such as the dining rooms used for similar occasions, to bring Australians together. Three seminar groups followed the breakfast, during which discussions were led by a number of highly regarded and notable speakers, including Sister Veronica Brady, a senior lecturer in English at the University of Western Australia and a former commissioner of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Right Reverend Bruce Wilson, Assistant Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn, and Mr Mal Garvin, the National Director of Fusion and a national radio broadcaster from Melbourne. A concluding luncheon was held at the Lakeside International Hotel and here we shared with some of our Pacific neighbours, including Sir Peter Kenilorea, the former Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands. A summary of the whole proceedings was given by the Reverend Gordon Moyes of the Wesley Central Mission. Guests were asked to give their views on the future direction of Australia, and the response that featured most prominently was that politicians were expected to take a lead in community issues and to stand up for Christian values. Although the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship generally takes a low profile in the life of the Parliament, I would also like to take this opportunity of informing the Senate that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) reserved a special place for the President of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, Senator Michael Tate, to welcome Pope John Paul II on behalf of the Fellowship during his recent visit to Parliament House. Mr President, I wish, on behalf of the Fellowship, to extend our thanks to you for your support over many years as President of the Senate and as a member of the Fellowship. We pray that you and your wife will have a safe journey to your prestigious new posting. May you and your wife enjoy good health and Christ's blessing on your work. I seek leave to table the proceedings of the first national prayer breakfast. Leave granted. Senator WATSON —I table the document. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.53) —On 27 November the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) replied to a question from Senator Colston relating to the waste of public funds, particularly with reference to the report of Mr Ken Jones on the Australian War Memorial. The Minister, in the second paragraph of his reply, stated: But the most damning of the items of waste of public expenditure at the Australian War Memorial was the construction of the staircase. We hear nothing from the Opposition about that. I stress that both Mr Jones and the National Capital Development Commission lay the blame for this waste of some $1m squarely with the Director who, on a whim, had the already constructed staircase torn down and rebuilt. The interpretation of that answer is unambiguous. The interpretation is that the construction of the staircase cost $1m and that it cost that amount at the whim of the Director. That interpretation is reinforced in the rest of the paragraph, in which the Minister stated: In case there are any doubts about the culpability of the Director in this, for the information of honourable senators I table a copy of the letter from the NCDC's Commissioner, Mr Powell, to the then Chairman of the Australian War Memorial Council, Admiral Synnot, dated 22 November 1984 . . . That reinforces the claim of the Minister that the construction of the staircase cost $1m and that that was done at the whim of the Director. Indeed, that matter was reported in most of the Australian papers from around the country that I saw the next day, 28 November. Some of them even have headlines such as `$1m waste at the whim of a Director'. I had read the Jones report, on which the Minister based his argument, and it stirred my memory because what he said was not my recollection of it. I went back to the Jones report and at item 2 on page 12, under the heading `Parliamentary Question-The Eastern Staircase, Matters for Consideration', in the middle of paragraph 4.24 there is the statement: In answer to the Minister's question about assessment of the safety of the staircase, the Director said that this judgment had been made by the Council following an inspection of the area after its meeting of 12 November 1984. I repeat: The Director said the judgment had been made by the Council, not by him. If we turn to the next item in the Jones report, Item 3, `The Eastern Staircase and NCDC', on page 15 at paragraph 4.40 the same charge is repeated. In a letter to the National Capital Development Commission dated 13 November 1984 the Australian War Memorial Building Project Co-ordinator advised that the Council of the Australian War Memorial had directed that the stairs be demolished and rebuilt under Memorial control. Further on paragraph 4.40 states: Minutes of the Gallery Committee meeting of 26 February 1985 indicated that NCDC relinquished the task and that the Department of Housing and Construction had undertaken to rebuild the staircase at a cost of $36,000. Subsequent records show that the total cost paid by the AWM to the Department of Housing and Construction was $46,000. The Jones report puts an entirely different interpretation on this from the interpretation that the Minister put on it in public. The next day, 28 November, I asked a question to give the Minister an opportunity to correct his mistake. I did that in good faith. But the Minister maintained that his interpretation was correct. I had no option but to ask the Minister whether he was aware of the letters that covered the time both before and after the letter to Mr Powell, the NCDC Commissioner, from the then Chairman of the Australian War Memorial Council, Admiral Sir Anthony Synnot. He has not come forward in a week with those letters and he has not cleared up the mistake that he made. I have no option now but to read those letters. In a letter dated 1 November 1984 from the Chairman, Admiral Synnot, to Mr Powell, the Chairman stated: The issues surrounding the Eastern Stairs have been a matter of contention for over twelve months now. It is requested that action to fulfil the requirements of the Memorial, as the client, be now taken as a matter of some urgency. In terms of public safety and convenience, the stairs provided on the eastern side are inadequate. Comparisons between original and existing stair widths have previously been made together with our need for adequate communicating links between floor levels. These issues are of such importance that the stairs, in the present configuration, can not be accepted. To complete the stairs in accordance with reference B would be unwarranted and a waste of public money; indeed it would be quite contrary to Memorial requirements. Council requires that the Eastern Stairway be demolished and re built to a functional design as reflected in the preliminary drawings prepared by Bates, Smart and McCutcheon earlier this year and agreed by the Memorial. It is understood that the cost of this work would not exceed $30,000. In planning this activity I would ask that you take into account our impending Christmas visitor traffic and I seek your support to have this and the other outstanding work completed as a matter of urgency. That was the letter, not from the Director but from the Chairman, to Mr Powell, the Commissioner of the NCDC, which caused the letter of 26 November to be written by Mr Powell, from which the Minister quoted. After Mr Powell's letter came to the Council the Chairman of the Council again wrote back. He said: I note the points made in your letter of 22 November 1984 concerning Stage 1. Because I do not discuss them in detail, it does not mean that I agree with them. It should be borne in mind that the Council is responsible for matters of policy, and the Director is responsible for managing the affairs of the Memorial in accordance with the general directions of Council. At the briefings by you and your staff, matters have been addressed in the broad and not in detail. The Council (or Executive Committee of Council) has made broad decisions. The Director and his staff have been responsible for the detail involved in implementing these broad decisions. Changes to the plans which were presented to Council in 1982, became inevitable for various reasons. Initially the War Memorial, due to staff shortages, had no full-time person to study the plans in detail; there was a change in Director who some months later managed to get a full-time officer for these works. Detailed study of the plans by the new Director and his new staff officer were necessarily late. In respect of the front entrance/foyer, public opinion was clearly against the original concept. The changes required have been made to ensure that the Memorial provides substantially increased facilities for the public, not only in terms of visitor comfort and safety, but also in our approach to exhibitions and exhibition technique. We see it as our responsibility to meet the needs of the public as far as is practicable. In respect to overall costs we are not in a position to know the details. It would appear, however, that many of the changes sought by the War Memorial, causing extra work for your design staff and some frustration no doubt, should have reduced rather than increased total costs. For instance the greatly reduced work involved in the front entrance/foyer, and the dropping of the requirements for a kitchen off the temporary exhibitions area, for the lift to be re-sited, and for a sloping cinema floor must have reduced total costs. Council views on the Eastern Stairs are set out in my letter to you of 1 November 1984. I also hope that the next stages, involving the new buildings, can be handled in a more efficient manner than both our organisations have managed to achieve thus far. To this end I hope you and your staff will consult closely with the Director and his staff on all matters of detail. Those two letters and the Jones report show very clearly two things: First, the decision to modify or rebuild the eastern staircase was a decision taken by the Council of the War Memorial, not by the Director and least of all at the whim of the Director. Secondly, the cost of those modifications was not $1m, as presented by the Minister, but of the order of $36,000 originally, later blowing out to $40,000 or $46,000. I rest my case. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(11.03) —During October a large number of women from all over Australia camped, as many other groups have done in previous years, on the lawns opposite Parliament House to demonstrate their concern for world peace. During the period of the camp some very extravagant claims were made in this chamber and elsewhere about the running of the camp and the behaviour of the campers. Several Government women senators had discussions with the women campers on a number of occasions and heard the other side of the story. Tonight I want to contribute to a more accurate record of what happened during the last week of the October sittings by reading some statutory declarations made by women from the camp about the behaviour of other people towards the women and children who participated in the camp. Senator Kilgariff —What does `statutory declarations' mean? Senator ZAKHAROV —Sworn statements. Senator Kilgariff —What does that mean? Senator ZAKHAROV —I do not know what the honourable senator's question means. The first statutory declaration is from a teacher from Sydney. It reads: . . . on the evening of Tuesday 21 October on Parliament House lawns in the women's peace camp to `close Pine Gap' I was in the middle of the central open space at around 9.30 p.m. Looking northwards, away from Parliament House, I saw a man walking towards me, followed slowly by a group of a dozen women. He lashed out with his left hand and hit a woman on his left . . . who fell backwards to the ground. He had curly shoulder length hair, a brown suede jacket with tassels across the chest, a moustache and beard. He was approximately six feet in height. Although it was night time the scene was well lit by Parliament House lights. The second is from a school teacher who says: On October 22 at approximately 5.00 am on Parliament House lawns I was punched in the face, thrown to the ground (narrowly missing a burning fire) and pushed by a male of the following description: fair curly hair, worn long; wearing a blue and white check bushwalking type shirt, very drunk and disorderly in manner. The police were nowhere in sight, and had not been for some considerable time before and after, despite harassment which had continued since the day before and which continued until 4 p.m. that day (22.10.86). The third one is from a nurse from Victoria: . . . on the night of Tuesday 21st of October 1986 an all night party occurred on the upper lawns during which verbal harassment against women at the peace camp continued throughout the entire night. This included threats of rape, burning tents. Whilst on watch at about 3 a.m. the music which had been loud and continual throughout the night stopped for a brief period. Approximately two or three minutes later I heard two loud bangs of the bombs being thrown at the camp. The music then played continually to the early hours. Finally, from a school teacher: On Tuesday 21st October 1986, 3 womin were assaulted. Up to 50 drinking men were allowed by Police to congregate, some of these men wore complete army greens with short back and sides. Then one man I saw assault a womin had long brown hair, brown moustache, with brown suede tasselled jacket, blue jeans and black `Williamson' boots. I later saw him leave the scene in a large red vehicle the number plate I gave to Police whom we recorded the assault with. A red flare was dropped into the centre of camp. The Police Officer the following morning identified it as army issue. These men started Monday night and continued till Tuesday, continually drinking copious amounts of alcohol, their language was anally fixated, loud and extremely offensive to passerbys and the womins camp. These men for the 20th and 21st, verbally threatened the womin with rape and assault. Throughout the evening they walked our perimeter, breaking in and forcibly walking through, physically threatening any womin who attempted to remove them. Insofar as these allegations concern men who are possibly members of the armed forces and their possible use of army supplies, these statutory declarations have been referred to the Minister for Defence, who is having their claims investigated. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(11.08) —Following Senator Zakharov's reading of a number of signed sworn statements, I also have some statements regarding incidents which occurred earlier in the week and which, as Senator Zakharov said, also led to some rather inflammatory statements in this place and in the Press. I would like at the outset to modify some statements I made earlier about what I believe to have been some Press provocation. What I believe to have happened-this is as a result of discussing the matter with a number of people who were actually there and who were prepared to act as eye witnesses-is that the Press was not so much provocative as insensitive and that there was some difficulty also with the range of expectations held by the women. These related to the sort of behaviour they had expected from the Press, perhaps naively, perhaps a little unrealistically. To go to the declarations I have, the first is from a peace worker who lives in the Australian Capital Territory and reads as follows: I was on duty at the information tent at the entrance to the Women's Peace Camp on Monday 20th October. It was lunchtime and I was eating my lunch looking towards Parliament House. Senator Knowles, Vanstone . . . and Newman . . . accompanied by a male staff member walked very purposefully towards the camp and to the side of the tent. I walked to meet them and asked if I could help them. The reply from Susan Knowles, which was accompanied by a strident gesture was `No we are going through!' I indicated I would be happy to give them any information they required. Amanda Vanstone said `We do not want any information. We are not interested in talking with you'. I then spoke to the male staff member saying: We would prefer men did not enter the camp and suggested he might go round by the park-most men had been willing to do this when requested. He did not reply. The Senators came back to demand that he followed them. Meanwhile the TV crew were advancing having left the steps of Parliament House immediately after the senators. I walked with the party into the camp and gave the call for the other women to come and then returned to the tent. Not long afterwards the party left the camp, making several allegations to the larger group of media which had congregated. Susan Knowles complained that they had wanted to talk with us and we did not apparently wish to talk with them. This is directly contradictory to their stated intention to me on their arrival. The second statement comes from an unemployed woman from New South Wales. It reads: On Monday afternoon 20 October David MacGibbon, senator from Queensland barged into the women's peace camp with three women senators and a number of other people, despite being asked not to. Several women had formed a circle around him and were humming. This was happening beside the childcare tent with the children's equipment around it. David MacGibbon became agitated and demanded that we get out of his way. He started walking and we walked with him keeping him encircled but not touching him. He continued that we get out of his way and began trampling on the children's tricycles and plastic containers. Senator Knowles —Why don't you start telling the truth about what happened? Senator GILES —This is not my version; it is a statutory declaration. The statement continued: The childcare women picked up the children that were in the area and began to move away while asking that David MacGibbon be aware that there were children and childrens equipment around. He paid no attention, became very aggressive and took hold of the arms of the women in the circle and pushed them away. The following statement was made by a social worker from Western Australia: That in the early afternoon of Monday the 20th of October 1986 I was witnessed to the forced entry of Senator Knowles, Vanstone, Newman and MacGibbon together with a male T.V. camera crew into the Women for Survival camp site on Parliament House Lawns Canberra. I and a large number of other women living in the camp site surrounded the senators and camera crew, linked hands, commenced humming and attempted to draw the encircled group out to the camp boundaries. This was a pre-arranged action aimed at gently removing intruders from the site without laying hands on them or using physical violence. All the Senators appeared to become very afraid and angry but Senator MacGibbon carried these feelings through into physical action. I saw him on four occasions breaking through the encircling women by grabbing their arms and wrenching them apart. I observed him on one occasion hitting a woman in the face and on another occasion hitting a woman in the breast. Senator MacGibbon is a big man and he used extreme violence in breaking out of the circle. I observed some women to shout loudly and angrily and some women who put their hands up to cover the T.V. camera lens. I did not however at any time see any woman touch any of the Senators or the camera crew roughly. The final declaration that I have here is from a writer from Victoria. She solemnly and sincerely declares: that on Tuesday 21st October 1986 I was at the Women for Survival Peace Camp on the lawns of Parliament House Canberra where I observed a man approaching from Parliament House steps with an entourage of media. Believing this to be another attempt by hostile politicians to provoke confrontation, I and other women began to warn the camp of his approach. We had agreed to leave the camp en masse in such a situation. Most of the women were in a central circle, where a meeting was in progress when the man, Mr Ian Sinclair, reached the entrance to the camp. I, and a number of other women who were in tents close to the camp entrance, came out to walk with him as far as the centre where the rest of the women were. I was on his immediate right when the woman on my right stumbled and almost fell, spilling her cup of tea. I helped to catch her. At no point did I see her body come into contact with Mr Sinclair. As we reached the circle of women we all left Mr Sinclair to his own devices and went to the steps of Parliament House to sing `Close Pine Gap'. I will not detain the Senate any longer-- Senator Knowles —That is a good idea. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Knowles! Senator GILES —I wish to make the point that on the previous occasion the opportunity was given for the proper processes of this Senate to be used to give one version-- Senator Knowles —Oh dear, dear. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Knowles! Senator GILES —What Senator Zakharov and I have sought to do tonight is simply to give the other side of the story and set the record straight. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MacGIBBON —I categorically deny every one of those allegations that Senator Giles has tabled in the guise of statutory declarations. On the day in question I exercised my right to walk through a public place. I was attacked physically by between 50 and 80 women. At no time did I use anything other than the minimal amount of force to preserve my own safety because I was physically attacked, I was kicked and punched by 50 to 80 screaming, irrational women. The whole incident was witnessed by officers of the Australian Federal Police who came up to me and who were quite alarmed for my physical safety. The whole matter was recorded on television films and I am appalled that any honourable senator could come in here and unload in the Senate such patently and provably false allegations about another senator. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator KNOWLES —I too, along with my colleague, Senator MacGibbon, wish to state quite clearly that those statutory declarations which Senator Giles has presented to the Senate this evening are absolutely and unequivocally false, misleading and untruthful in the extreme. When my colleagues and I went down to the parliamentary lawns on that Monday we were confronted by I would say, with due respect to Senator MacGibbon, more than 100 screaming, yelling, punching, kicking, spitting women. That is exactly what happened to us and this is one of those things for which the public has decried these women for so long and the public has now seen, as can be seen-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Knowles is going well beyond the bounds of a personal explanation. I ask her to restrict her remarks to a personal explanation. Senator KNOWLES —I will certainly do that. I wish to conclude by simply saying that the things that Senator Giles has mentioned tonight in those statutory declarations about both me and my colleagues are completely false and should not be regarded in any way as a factual representation of what happened that day. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.19) —I have not been in the Senate for the bulk of the adjournment debate, but I came in to hear the latter part of Senator Giles's contribution when she was reading from what she describes as statutory declarations. I can only say that for someone to come into the Senate and produce such documents with the names blanked out is rather extraordinary. We have here a set of documents which, as far as I am concerned, speaking as a lawyer, are quite valueless. To bring documents in and purport to give them some value as being statutory declarations when the names have been blocked out is a most ludicrous act on the part of a senator. While oral accounts of what occurred, like oral accounts of any incident which involves people who are in an emotional state and who are involved in some form of physical confrontation, invariably differ, in this case there are ample films of what occurred. I would think that anyone who was concerned to get to the truth of this matter would not do so by bringing in documents which have the names of those who purported to have made statutory declarations blocked out. They might have sought to gain access to the film material which must be very readily available. There must be a great deal of it. All I can say is that I think it is valueless to deal with this matter in the way in which it has been approached tonight by Senator Giles. I was not present at the incidents. I saw some of the film. I do not know whether Senator Giles is suggesting that the film was doctored or very selective. That is always a possibility, because in all the footage I am sure was shot, I suppose that one-tenth or less of it would have been shown on the television screen. That is the normal thing. Senator Crichton-Browne —That has never been claimed. Senator CHANEY —All I am saying is that I would have thought that there were probably several million Australians who would have been subjected to seeing on their television screens what occurred on that occasion. If, as Senator Crichton-Browne has interjected, nobody has suggested that there was anything lopsided in those presentations, all I can say, as someone who was not present, and as someone who has had a chance very quickly to look at these documents, to hear Senator Giles reading from them, and to hear the response of Senator MacGibbon, is that Senator Giles would have to establish an extraordinary amount of malice on the part of the media to make this hold up. Senator MacGibbon —There were police officers within feet of all the senators. Senator CHANEY —Senator MacGibbon interjects helpfully that there were also police officers present. I wish to say, as one who was not present but who has read a number of accounts of the matter, and who has seen some of the television footage, that these sit very oddly with the evidence which people saw with their own eyes. Quite frankly, I think that this contributes nothing to the final resolution of what the facts are. I would have thought that in the absence of the sorts of allegations which Senator Crichton-Browne tells me have not been made-and I indicated earlier that I did not hear the debate-this is an exercise which does little credit to those who have mounted it this evening. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.23) —I rise, perhaps more in disappointment than anything else, to express my concern that this Government has chosen to refuse to grant a visa to enter Australia to the General Manager of South African Airways, the grant of which, of course, would have facilitated his entry into Australia and allowed him to fulfil the acceptance of an invitation from the Labor Premier of Western Australia. One, of course, must ask oneself whether the Government is prepared to decline to grant a visa to the manager of a major international corporation such as South African Airways, whether the yardstick or the measure is such that, for instance, it would also have refused Harry Oppenheimer or his son, now the Director of De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd, and the Anglo-American Corporation, a visa. They are both directors of major international corporations based in South Africa. If the Government were to be even modestly even-handed, it would have been equally vociferous in its opposition to the views, and perhaps the entry into Australia, of an official representative of the PAC-the Pan African Congress. The Pan African Congress, of course, is a derivation of the African National Congress. Its underlying philosophy is one of racism. In fact, it is even opposed to apartheid-apartheid, of course, being an Afrikaans word meaning separate development. The PAC stands, by its own words, for government for Africans by Africans. Whites, however, are unable to owe their loyalty to Africa. Even if they were intellectual converts, they could not be members of that organisation because, to use its expression, they derive benefit materially from the present set-up. Pan-Africans are opposed to multiculturalism, to representation and to the safeguard of any minority group. They call for the effective implementation of the fundamental principle that the domain of sovereignty over and the domination or ownership of the whole territory-referring to South Africa-rests exclusively and inalienably in the indigenous people. They go on in their manifesto to say that white supporters of the PAC in Australia, for instance, could not qualify to become members of that organisation in South Africa because of the colour of their skin. Yet we have official representatives of that organisation, on a de facto basis, living in Australia, and I suspect that in part they are funded by Australian taxpayers, but we deny entry into Australia of the General Manager of South African Airways. In my view, this Government has been shown to reek of selective morality. For instance, it refused last year visas for a number of non-white members of parliament from South Africa because it judged that they were coming to Australia for the purpose of promoting apartheid. In my view, this decision was pathetic, trivial, childish and a protestation by this Government against apartheid of no material consequence. It is interesting that the sanctions that have so far been imposed by Australia in no way damaged the Australian economy. In fact, I suspect that, more coincidentally than anything else, they have benefited the Australian economy. But if we were to have the courage that we purport to have, I would have thought, for instance, that we would ban flights by Qantas Airways Ltd into Harare because 90 per cent of the passengers then alight from Qantas aircraft and fly, via South African Airways, to Johannesburg. We do not do that because, of course, it is profitable for Qantas, the Australian taxpayers, the Australian economy and the Australian Government. We maintain our contractual obligations and agreements with South Africa through De Beers and our involvement with the Argyle diamond mine. The fact of the matter is that this Government is indulging in selective morality. The saddest thing is that debate on this subject lacks in many respects-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I am trying to hear Senator Crichton-Browne. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am delighted to hear that, Mr President, because that makes two of us that I can recognise. The debate on this subject, in my view, lacks reason, objectivity and healthy balance. The argument in Australia on South Africa is perhaps one of the most debased, mouldy, corrupt, intellectually false and weak of any substantial debate that we could expect ever to find in this country. The sadness for me-and for very many Australians, I suspect-is that if people are opposed to sanctions they are automatically judged to support apartheid. Of course the truth of the matter is quite to the contrary. The vast majority of the people-the vast majority of Australians particularly-I suspect are opposed to apartheid. We depart along the route in the course that we would take to overcome apartheid as an intrinsic part of life in South Africa-a part of life which was inherited; over 350 years of lifestyle and culture has brought apartheid with it. It seems to me that those who support sanctions have no plan, no constructive proposals, other than apartheid is a means to an end. They seem not to have thought through what the policy is intended to do, what its long term objective is and how it will achieve the objective they pursue. It is a myopic approach in terms of an intellectual contribution to the debate on South Africa. I put it to the Senate that denying a visa to the Manager of South African Airways is not a statement about apartheid; it is not a statement about South Africa; it is a statement about and a reflection on Australia. It is tokenism at its most naked and obscene worst. It reeks of a sanctimonious and false indignation which in many respects corrupts the integrity of this Government and Australia's foreign affairs policy. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.31) —There has been a little controversy on the so-called sworn statements that have been mentioned in the Senate tonight. I ask Senator Giles and Senator Zakharov, as they have quoted from various sworn statements in the Senate, to table them. I do not think I need to seek leave. Honourable senators on this side have endeavoured to answer the controversial allegations made in these statements but I think in fairness to the Senate and all those concerned that the honourable senators should table those sworn statements. If they are not prepared to do so, I would ask them why they are not prepared to do so. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think Senator- Senator Gietzelt —Who does he think he is? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Gietzelt. Senator Gietzelt —Well, who does he think he is? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Giles or Senator Zakharov may seek leave if they so wish to table documents in the Senate. If leave is granted the documents can be tabled. Senator Kilgariff is entitled to move under standing order 364 that the documents be tabled. Senator KILGARIFF —Thank you, Mr President. I move: That the statements be tabled. I also take the opportunity to answer Senator Gietzelt. He asked who am I to do this. I remind Senator Gietzelt that I am a member of the Senate. I represent certain people in Australia and, regardless of the way in which Senator Gietzelt operates within his responsibilities, I have responsibilities too. Senator Gietzelt has absolutely no right to challenge me on this issue. On another point, I do not particularly refer to the camping of these women on the lawns of Parliament House but I refer generally to the practice of demonstrators camping on the grounds in front of Parliament House. I think that we have reached a rather extreme situation when demonstrators can come here and camp in front of Parliament House as if they have a right to do so. Senator Ryan —On a point of order, Mr President: Senator Kilgariff has risen to move a motion. He has done that. He is now debating an entirely different matter. The PRESIDENT —Order! In any event, I think Senator Kilgariff's motion is out of order at this stage. Standing order 364 states: A Document quoted from by a Senator not a Minister of the Crown may be ordered by the Senate to be laid upon the Table; such order may be made without Notice immediately upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator who has quoted therefrom. Because of the last phrase in that standing order I think Senator Kilgariff's motion is out of order. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.36) —I move: That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Senate from ordering that the documents quoted from by Senator Giles and Senator Zakharov be laid on the table. I have moved that motion because it is quite clear that the documents make very serious allegations about a number of honourable senators. Of course, it may well be that, had a point of order been taken, an objection could have been made under standing order 418 to interrupt the speeches that were being made, but that was not done. I make no criticism of the Chair for not doing that because there has to be a free flow of debate in this place. My interest in the documents flows from the fact that I picked them up, and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, made the point, which I must say I did not understand-I would like to make that clear-that the two honourable senators had not tabled the documents; they had merely put them on the table physically for the assistance of the Hansard staff. I picked them up and that explains why I made the comments I did. I had seen them and noticed that the names had been blanked out and so on. The fact of the matter is that on the basis that the two honourable senators had documents which were supposedly statutory declarations, very serious allegations were made about some honourable senators. On the basis of the visual evidence I have seen on television-I express my concern at the limitations of that-those allegations are certainly not in accord with what I have seen. Since those very serious allegations have been made, I think it is rough if the honourable senators concerned do not have access to those documents. For that reason I have moved for the suspension of Standing Orders. I hope that we will not have to have a vote because I am sure that a number of honourable senators from both sides of the chamber will have gone home and it will be a bit of a gamble as to who wins the vote. However, I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who are in the chamber, and the honourable senators who have quoted from these documents, to ponder on the ethics of the situation. As I have said before, quite serious allegations have been made about a number of honourable senators. It is on the public record that those allegations purport to be made in statutory declarations. It would be known to millions of Australians that those allegations sit oddly with the evidence of those Australians' own eyes. Because of the accident of my picking up the documents from the table I can say that those documents I looked at might once have been statutory declarations but the names have been blanked out. I think people are entitled to have access to the facts of this matter so that these serious allegations can be assessed in a proper way. I have moved the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and I hope that it will not be necessary to deal with it by weight of numbers. I hope that the Ministers at the table will concede that propriety indicates that that is the appropriate course and I hope that this motion will be carried on the voices and without dissent. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(11.39) —The Government will not agree to Senator Chaney's motion. As Senator Chaney has admitted, there was an opportunity during the debate to ask for the documents to be tabled. That opportunity was not taken. It is simply not good enough for Senator Chaney to say now that, because he accidentally, as it were, saw the documents, he wants a retrospective effect to have the documents tabled. Senator Giles has explained clearly that her purpose, and Senator Zakharov's purpose, in raising this matter tonight was to give a different point of view on a subject that has had a great deal of coverage in this place and in the media. They wished to give the opportunity to people who had a completely different version of events to have their version put on record. I suppose that none of us can do anything other than to make an impressionistic judgment as to which version is right and which version is wrong. Those honourable senators had very good reasons for not wishing the documents to be tabled; namely, wishing to protect the privacy of those who have signed their names to them. We are not in a court of law. The matters of allegations and so forth that Senator Chaney has raised are not relevant. Senator Zakharov and Senator Giles are entitled to put before the Senate a different account of some very controversial and public events. Opposition senators did not take the opportunity that was available to them to seek those documents and, from our point of view, it is too late now. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.40) —I wish to speak in support of the motion moved by Senator Chaney. With the greatest respect to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), this is not a question of seeking retrospectively to get the benefit of standing order 384, I think it is, nor is it a question of which version of what happened on the lawns on those two particular days is right. It is a question of some honourable senators choosing to come into this place and use the adjournment debate to bucket a few other senators. The Minister for Education, who is at the table, once said to me that I should not do that unless I had told the relevant honourable senator what was going to be done. I trust that the Minister will give the same advice to her own colleagues. That is what has happened. Senators have come in here unannounced and done a bucket job. I am not worried about that but they have been unprepared to put the material forward. I have heard a lot of hypocrisy from the other side of this chamber over the last couple of weeks about vilifying people without giving them the opportunity to answer. I would have thought that if anyone had any stomach and there was the slightest chance of their version being held up this material should be made available to honourable senators on this side so that we can answer the allegations that have been made-not just answer the bit that Senator Giles or Senator Zakharov chose to quote from, but have a good look at the whole lot of what has been said. Let us have a look at their version. I do not mind putting my version and standing it up against theirs. I have not got a magnifying glass to see the names, but I would like the opportunity to answer the allegations that have been raised, hinted at and then shoved under the carpet because they have not got the stomach to put these so-called affidavits forward. On that basis, I support the motion moved by Senator Chaney. Under the accident of believing that these documents were tabled, I had an opportunity to have only a quick look at them. There are a number of errors. I would like to have the opportunity to peruse the documents in detail to list what I believe are the errors. I am not going to have that opportunity if the matter does not proceed via the support of Senator Chaney's motion. Let me see those documents. I will deal with them one by one. I know one of them refers to honourable senators forcing their way into the camp. What a cheek! These people occupy public space-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Vanstone to come back to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator VANSTONE —Some of the allegations are quite clearly wrong. I do not mind people coming in here and making allegations that are wrong, but not providing the information for other senators to answer the case makes for very weak noises from the other side about hypocrisy. In that case, I support the motion moved by Senator Chaney. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.43) —We are dealing with a very important principle. Of course, there are strongly contested points of view about the issues that took place on the lawns outside Parliament House. I recall Senator Vanstone, Senator Knowles and other honourable senators from the Opposition benches having the opportunity to present a point of view and be heard in silence. They sought, and correctly so, to present their interpretations of the events that took place here several months ago. Of course, they are views that are held by Opposition senators. It is argued, from another standpoint, that the actions of some members of the Opposition may have been provocative, but that was their decision. They were entitled to take the view they did and the steps they took in respect of that incident. However, having conceded that, the Government is entitled to say that members of the Government, having been duly presented with the alternative point of view, valid or otherwise-it is not for the Senate at this time to determine that-have been entitled to present in the adjournment debate a different point of view from that which was freely put previously. It is part of the tradition in this place that people are able to present a view using copious notes and documents, and the Hansard staff may request the use of those notes to assist in finally compiling a record of a particular meeting of the Senate. Senator Chaney concedes that he took those documents to be tabled documents, and they became not only his property but also the property of other members on this side of the Senate. He correctly admits that he misinterpreted the reason for those documents being on the table in front of the Hansard reporter. I put this to the Senate because it is an issue which can work both ways in this place. From time to time, Opposition senators will present arguments and have documents to support their points of view, and they will not necessarily want them to become public documents. That is their right as senators, as I believe it is the right of Senators Zakharov and Giles to make that decision. If a senator makes available to Hansard documents which he or she does not table and those documents become public property Hansard, the Parliament, perhaps, and the public record will be disadvantaged. That is a two-edged sword. Whilst at this time it may suit the Opposition to take that view, there will be times when Opposition senators will have documents that they will not want to become public and they will read into the record only those portions that they believe suit their arguments. Therefore, it would be proper for the Senate to reject the proposal that is before it. The documents about which we are talking are not the documents of the Senate. They are not available for public dissemination. Only those portions of the documents that were read into the record by Senators Giles and Zakharov are public. For those reasons, as well as the longer term reasons, the Senate ought not to agree with the motion moved by Senator Chaney. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.47) —I was in the chamber when this debate started, when the two Government senators decided to make their statements. They both announced to the Senate that they were reading from statutory declarations, sworn declarations and so on. At the conclusion of the speeches when the papers were put on the table I thought it was quite reasonable that I should inspect them to make sure that they were what they were purported to be. They clearly were not. What we in the Senate had been told was clearly incorrect. I picked them up to make sure that they were all the same. There was not a statutory declaration amongst them. Accordingly, if the purported documents are about, I invite the honourable senators to table them. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.49) —I rise to speak in support of the motion. This is the most extraordinary circumstance I have ever witnessed in the Senate. Two senators came in here tonight without fulfilling the courtesy of advising the senators involved that they were to make the most scurrilous, cowardly and unprincipled attack on their professional reputations. Putting that aside, I was here for the whole of the debate. The opening statements by both senators were that they were reading from statutory declarations. I took them to be true. I did the honourable senators the courtesy of believing that they were reading from bona fide statutory declarations. I did not interrupt when they embarked on their premeditated path of character assassination. I did not apply standing order 418 because it was in the interests of debate that they should have a say. I believe everyone has a right to put a point of view in this chamber. But where I differ with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, is that this is not an argument about principles, it is not an argument about facts; this is a premeditated character assassination on a number of senators on this side. Justice demands that those senators opposite who made that scurrilous attack have the courage of their convictions and put the documents on the table for the benefit of the Senate so that we can assess their accuracy and we can take the legal action to defend our names that justice demands. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.51) —Mr President-- Senator Gietzelt —A great civil libertarian! Senator PUPLICK —Yes, a great civil libertarian; and I will give Senator Gietzelt a few principles about civil liberties from which he might actually learn something. Senator Zakharov and Senator Giles this evening came into the chamber and said, in effect, that Senator MacGibbon is guilty of having embarked upon a number of offences in that he assaulted people-that is what they said. He is accused of having committed a number of offences by way of assault. Senator Knowles and Senator Vanstone stand accused by what they have said of misleading the Senate and speaking untruths to the Senate, since their comments and the comments of the so-called statutory declarations cannot both be true. If the statutory declarations are to be taken as having any validity, what Senator Knowles and Senator Vanstone have said to the chamber is untrue. The bases of those accusations are alleged to be statutory declarations-which the honourable senators want to have printed in the Hansard and distributed around the country so that they are part of the public record, but do not want to have inspected by the persons against whom the accusations are made based upon those documents. Here is one fundamental principle that Senator Gietzelt seeks to defend. He says, `Let us print in the Hansard the documents which accuse one honourable senator of assaulting people and other honourable senators of misleading or lying to the chamber, but let us not make those documents available for the Senate for any other honourable senator, or anybody else, to inspect'. He says that we `do not have the right' to look at the documents. Here are documents which seek to accuse, which seek to make charges against people, and which people `do not have the right' to look at in order to inspect their validity and in order to inspect whether it can be identified as to whether they are simply the ravings of some lunatic or whether they are something to be taken seriously. The next point Senator Gietzelt made was that this chamber had no right to determine what documents and what materials shall be laid before it. Nothing is more antithetical to the principles of this chamber than that this chamber should not itself determine what documents-which have been quoted-it has the right to demand be produced. Senator Archer said that he has looked at the documents and does not find among them any statutory declarations, despite the fact that that is how they were described. Senator Zakharov —Nit-picking. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Zakharov says that that is a nit-picking criticism. What she does not say is that it is untrue. What she does not say is that the point Senator Archer made, that they are not statutory declarations, is untrue. That is the point which is put forward as far as they are concerned. We now have this extraordinary saga with Senator Gietzelt, whose record in terms of sensitivity to the civil liberties of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, or anybody else that he can manage to traduce, has been condemned roundly throughout this Senate-- Senator Ryan —Mr President, I raise a point of order. For some time Senator Puplick has not been speaking to the motion to suspend Standing Orders. Senator Chaney —Mr President, may I address the point of order? The motion before the Senate is that we suspend Standing Orders to permit me to move a motion requiring the tabling of certain documents. At this time of night that is quite an unusual motion to move and I think the Senate is entitled to be told why such a motion needs to be moved in this unusual way. Senator Puplick is addressing you on the use to which certain documents have been put and the reasons why it is important that those documents be put on the table. It seems to me that that is directly relevant to the decision the Senate is being called upon to make, which is whether it should suspend Standing Orders to enable that motion, which would produce those documents to be moved. Whilst I understand the sensitivity of Senator Ryan, she must be deeply embarrassed by the unprincipled behaviour of the honourable senators who have quoted from these documents. I can understand that sensitivity, Mr President, but I do not think that her point of order has any substance and Senator Puplick should be allowed to continue his remarks and complete his arguments. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have been listening carefully to Senator Puplick. So far he is in order. I ask him to continue to restrict his remarks to giving reasons why Standing Orders should be suspended. Senator PUPLICK —Thank you, Mr President. It is only if Standing Orders are suspended and Senator Chaney's motion is passed that the honourable senators who have been traduced in these so-called documents will be given the opportunity to inspect them to see what their full purport is. Otherwise we will not know whether the documents are internally so inconsistent, so false or so palpably untrue that by looking at the documents as a whole they would be exposed as being false and untrue. The honourable senators who have been traduced by these so-called documents have a right to defend their names and their reputations, something they cannot do if they are denied access to the documents upon which those charges are selectively laid, and which have been introduced late at night on the second last sitting day of this Parliament in order, undoubtedly, to prevent them from having the opportunity to reply. We know that this is a tactic being defended this evening by Senator Gietzelt, who puts forward the proposition that the motion should not be passed and the documents should not be produced. He would give to Senator Vanstone, Senator Knowles and Senator Crichton-Browne the same degree of opportunity to reply to the charges, to deal with the matter on its merits and to deal with the principal of natural justice that he has been prepared to give Air Vice-Marshal Flemming in terms of his traducing of him over the whole of the Australian War Memorial incident. Senator Chaney has put forward a quite simple proposition. It is simply this: The bona fides, the veracity and indeed the behaviour of senators on this side of the chamber have been challenged on the basis of documents which are so insubstantial, so false, so flimsy that the perpetrators are not prepared to allow them to be subject to scrutiny or to inspection. If either of the honourable senators had any sense of propriety, as far as their responsibilities in allowing those who they have traduced by the use of these shabby pieces of paper are concerned, this motion would not be necessary because, as a matter of honour, they would have been happy to have tabled the documents, produced them and allowed them to be inspected. The fact that they are concealing those documents is indicative not only of the worthlessness of the documents themselves but also of the baselessness of the whole fabricated case that has been put here this evening. It is defence of the indefensible. The accusations made are in clear contradistinction to all of the public evidence which is available on the subject. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government is not prepared to allow those documents to be tested and the truth to be found out. If there is one thing that this Government's front bench and Government senators who have spoken this evening are concerned about it is that the truth should not be exposed and the documents should not be produced. They do not have the courage to back up their accusations with inspection of the documents or with any attempt to see just how false and baseless their accusations have been. Friday, 5 December 1986 Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.01 a.m.) —The issue that Senator Chaney's motion endeavours to air is very important. In moving for the suspension of Standing Orders he is really seeking to establish whether the status claimed for a document is correct. A statutory declaration is not a light matter. A statutory declaration is the most serious statement that can be made. It is sworn. It has a status in the community. That status was sought for it in this chamber by the people presenting their case tonight, which was done without notice and in a manner which, naturally and quite properly, has been strongly criticised by members of the Opposition. It is an essential element of this discussion that that status be capable of being established. It is only by Senator Chaney's motion that the Senate has the opportunity to establish whether the Senate has been grievously and deliberately misled, whether the Senate has been held in a contemptuous way and treated in a way which is intolerable and which-- Senator Gietzelt —You weren't even in the chamber. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —What a highly intellectual interjection. Has the Minister never heard of the loud speakers? The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Baume to restrict his remarks to the motion before the Chair for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —If the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) would be silent, I would not be tempted to respond to his asinine interjection. He forgets that there are loud speakers in rooms. Senator Ryan —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Senator Michael Baume referred to my colleague with the term `asinine'. I ask him to withdraw. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I did no such thing. I said it was an asinine interjection. I certainly have no intention of withdrawing that comment. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Baume to withdraw the word `asinine' in relation to its being used against Senator Gietzelt. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I withdraw, Mr President. The interjection was unintelligent. The interjection had no merit and no basis and does not advantage the issue one bit. The important issue, which is a matter of significance to the Senate, is whether it is proper to enable people to seek to provide a status to a document when that status is open to question and when it cannot be checked and whether those people should be allowed deliberately to set out to mislead the Senate. Deliberately misleading the Senate is a matter of major moment. Senator Puplick —It is contemptible. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Puplick says, it is contemptible. It is treating the Senate with contempt. It is only if Senator Chaney's motion is passed that the Senate can judge whether the behaviour of the two honourable senators is such as to merit appropriate action against them for setting out deliberately to mislead the Senate. Senator MacGibbon —They could have written the damn things themselves. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator MacGibbon says, how do we know that they did not write the things themselves. As Senator Puplick pointed out, it is only if Senator Chaney's motion is passed that the integrity of these two honourable senators involved can be put to the test rather than the integrity of the honourable senators on this side who have clearly, on the evidence of Senator Archer, been falsely attacked on the basis of phoney documents and in a way that demands the right of these Opposition senators to establish the integrity of the documents and to establish the status claimed for them. The only force behind this nonsensical allegation is the status claimed for those documents. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M. Baume, Michael Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Coates, J. Grimes, D. J. Colston, M. A. Jones, G. N. Cook, P. F. S. McClelland, DouglasCooney, B. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. McKiernan, J. P. Devlin, R. Maguire, G. R. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I seek your guidance because I feel a censure motion coming on. I would like to know whether you would rather I did it tonight or in the morning. Senator Puplick —It is morning. Senator Chaney —Actually, I think my colleague wishes to have the call. I will think about it. The PRESIDENT —I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition sleep on that proposal. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(12.12 a.m.) — Earlier this evening, I suppose an hour ago now, I chanced to hear Senator Giles mention my name. Senator Aulich —She tries to avoid it. Senator NEWMAN —I wish she would avoid it more often because she did not do me the courtesy of letting me know tonight that she was intending to use my name in this place. I have been here only nine months but I have already been instructed that that is the courteous thing to do. I am concerned that not only was she mentioning my name and the names of my colleagues but also she was reading from documents which are completely and utterly misleading and false. I believe they have been brought here for very suspect motives. I would very much like to know just what was intended by this action, and I certainly find the procedure of scratching out names on documents that are purporting to be statutory declarations to be totally and utterly offensive, and the Senate should reject them utterly. They have been described as statutory declarations. None of us has the opportunity to see whether they are or not. It is a disgrace that any honourable senators could bring them to this place, quote from them-I heard them described by Senator Giles as statutory declarations-and then prevent honourable senators from scrutinising them and being able to answer them in detail, as Senator Vanstone said. I condemn this attempt by the Government not to allow these documents to be tabled. This is typical of the way in which the Government, which is making it increasingly difficult for the average citizen to make use of the Freedom of Information Act, is trying to close up shop. It has a lot to hide. As it happens, I too, have a statement. My statement is not a statutory declaration, but it is the word of an honourable senator and I trust that it will be received as such in this place. I made it on the day in question, the date when the women were demonstrating over on the lawn, on 20 October: At approximately half past twelve, Senators Vanstone, Knowles and I, accompanied by a male staff member from Senator Vanstone's office, went down to the lawns opposite Parliament House with pens and notebooks to have a look at the peace camp and to talk to the women who were camped there. We were challenged by a woman who refused to allow us to pass in the company of a man. We pointed out that this was public land and should be accessible to all Australians and we intended to proceed. One woman told me that they had been given permission by `the authorities' to camp. I asked her who were `the authorities' but she refused to answer me. The women then formed human rings around us linking arms and humming. We tried to move forward but without using force were unable to do so. We then stood our ground and argued that we had a right to walk on that land and that they should allow us to do so. They said it had been designated women's land and that men could therefore not pass. A camera crew came down from Parliament House after we had been there about 10 minutes and filmed what was taking place for approximately 5 minutes. The women continued to argue with us and we then returned to Parliament House at ten to one. We decided to give notices of motion on the subject. These notice of motion were then given to the Senate and Senator Margaret Reynolds gave notice of a motion praising the protestors for their stand. Senators Knowles, Vanstone and I, again in the company of the staff member concerned, but also with Senator David MacGibbon, returned to the lawn during question time and advised the women that we had placed those motions on notice in the Senate and urged them to allow us passage as we had urged before. Once again the women formed circles around us and started to push and shove. I managed to slip through the ring by talking to one of the women and attempting to convince her that we had genuinely tried to talk to them. She accused me of being a spy but I pointed out that a fifth of the Senate was female, that they had been camped there for over a week and that in that time none of them had approached us to discuss the issues on which they were demonstrating. In the light of that we had decided to visit them. She then agreed to allow me to see what I could and while the remaining Senators were being jostled, pushed and punched in the circle, I asked her to show me the lavatories which she did. There were six and apparently clean. I asked her how many did they service. Her answer was approximately 400 including children, that they had come from all over Australia and that she herself had come from Lismore. She said that they had come in peace and accused us of being aggressive. I denied this but pointed out that I was very angry because during my first visit earlier in the day an unknown woman, in encircling me, had drawn a feminist symbol with a felt pen on the collar of my white shirt. She had a look at this and sympathised with me and told me that in fact there were some very violent women in the camp. I assured her that my Party was very committed to peace but that we believed in peace through strength and it was in that area that we diverged from their approach. I also pointed out that I had been a foundation member of WEL and two shelters and that my credibility in the Womens movement was strong, but that I felt their actions damaged their cause. She agreed that there were extremists in the group. She then offered to show me the peace tent and we went together to inspect it. There I was cornered by three women who shrieked and yelled at me and after a short discussion, I left the peace tent and returned to the steps above the lawn where there were a couple of TV crews filming the other Senators who were still being pushed and kicked. Police by this stage had arrived and allowed us to return without further incident to the Senate. I understand that the police were the same police who were watching the proceedings from the front steps of Parliament House. I understand also that they only intervened after a request from Senator Michael Baume who had seen the melee from Parliament House windows. I do not intend to delay the Senate further except to say that I understand that the Australian Federal Police also made a written report. I simply say once again that I condemn the Government for refusing to allow those suspect documents to be tabled. I have no fear in putting my facts before the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 12.19 a.m. (Friday) The following papers were tabled: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 349. Australian National Railways Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 348. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 346. Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 350. Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 351. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 353. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 352. Public Service Act-Determination 1986 No. 6 No. 94. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 347. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1986- No. 77-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 5). No. 78-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 6). Regulations 1986- No. 25-Co-operative Societies Regulations (Amendment). Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 345. Telecommunications Act-By-laws-Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 73. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1270) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5 1983. (2) What were the dates and salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows: The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce has reclassified nine (9) Senior Executive Service (SES) positions since 5 March 1983. The details of the reclassifications are as follows: (all references to salaries are based on current rates and do not include expenses of office allowance) Position No. Q1 Former classification Amended classification Q2 Date of reclassification Salary variation $ 2762... SES L3 SES L4 15.3.84 4766 2995... SES L1 SES L2 15.3.84 4765 2898... SES L1 SES L2 15.3.84 4765 2783... SES L1 SES L2 15.3.84 4765 1203... SES L1 SES L2 15.3.84 4765 2799... SES L1 SES L2 15.3.84 4765 2860... SES L1 SES L2 15.3.84 4765 1189... SES L1 SES L2 15.3.84 4765 3554... SES L1 SES L2 3.10.84 4765 On 9 December 1985 a Department reorganisation involved the following change to the SES structure: Level Former structure Reorganisation (9 Dec. 1985) Variation Salary variation 5 ... 2 2 - - 4 ... 2 6 +4 +$126,328 3 ... 9 6 -3 -$175,194 2 ... 12 24 +12 +$643,584 1 ... 25 13 -12 -$586,404 50 *51 +1 +$8,314 * Note: this figure includes two interim SES Level 3 positions and four interim SES Level 1 positions for which supplementary staff budget cover (2.5 staff years) has been provided until December 1986. Since the reorganisation, the following variations to the organisation of the Department's SES have been made: Level Variation Date Salary variation Current structure 5 ... . . . . . . 2 4 ... . . . . . . 6 3 ... . . . . . . 6 2 ... +1 7.10.86 +$53,632 25 1 ... +1 21.7.86 +$48,867 14 +2 +$102,499 53 (Question No. 1350) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) On how many occasions has Australia sent representatives to the United States (US) 7th Fleet scheduling conference. (2) What were-(a) the dates of each conference; and (b) the names of the Australian representatives at each conference. (3) What is the purpose of-(a) the conference; and (b) Australian representation at the Conference. (4) What was the date or dates of Australian attendance in the US regarding the `US/Australian Special Undertakings'. (5) What is each `Special Undertakings'. (6) Under what agreement or authority was each `undertaking' based. (7) What is the purpose of each `undertaking'. (8) Who were the Australian representatives on each visit to the US regarding `Special Undertakings' and from what-(a) Service; or (b) Division, of the Defence Department did representatives come. (9) On how many occasions has Australia sent people to the US in connexion with `Special Undertakings'. (10) What was the purpose of sending a RAAF Group Captain to Guam in connexion with B52/Mirage operations. (11) On how many occasions has Australia sent representatives to US territory in this connexion or the US sent representatives to discuss the matter with Australia. (12) What was the date of each such meeting. (13) What is the relevance of Mirage operations in connexion with B52 operations. (14) Are the Mirages referred to RAAF aircraft or foreign aircraft. (15) If they are RAAF aircraft, what is their role in this context. (16) If they are foreign aircraft, have any entered Australian air space; if so-(a) on what dates; and (b) for what specific purposes in each case. (17) To which nation or nations do foreign Mirages belong. (18) Is the Mirage referred to by a code name; if so, for what operations or activity is it a code name. (19) What are the Interrogation Techniques in connexion with which a Lieutenant Colonel was sent to the US, UK and Hong Kong. (20) What was the purpose of sending an Australian. (21) Were the techniques entirely in compliance with-(a) international law; (b) the laws of war; and (c) all relevant treaties and agreements to which Australia is a party; if not, (i) why not, and (ii) in which specific respects were they not. (22) On how many occasions has Australia participated in this way since the present Government took office. (23) What is the JANUS program. (24) What is Project SAUCEPAN. (25) What is-(a) the nature; (b) the duration; and (c) the purpose of Australian involvement with the UK and US concerning JANUS and SAUCEPAN, respectively. (26) Who was the Principal Research Scientist sent to the UK and US in connexion with `Cooperative Laser Research Programmes' and from what area of the Defence Department did he or she come. (27) What are the Laser Research Programs referred to in each case. (28) When did Australia join each program. (29) What is the purpose of each program and its name, if any. (30) Is any such program, or part of any such program, related in any way to-(a) the US SDI; (b) UK participation in SDI; (c) US or UK BMD or ABM research; and (d) nuclear-driven laser research; if so, in each case what is the Australian role. (31) Has Australia sent scientists overseas before or since the visit in connexion with `Cooperative Laser Research Programmes'; if so, what are the details in each and every case since 5 March 1983. (32) Is there any connexion between the `Cooperative Laser Research Programs' and the `TTCP on Laser Technology'; if so, what are the details; if not, what is the TTCP on Laser Technology. (33) Is the TTCP on laser technology connected in any way whatsoever with the US SDI, ABM or BMD efforts; if so, what are the details. (34) Are any other nations besides Australia and the US involved in the TTCP; if so, which nations. (35) In connexion with which US Navy communications satellite or satellites was a RAN Lieutenant Commander sent to the US. (36) When was he or she sent. (37) Have there been other visits to the US, or US visits to Australia, in connection with any or all of the satellites referred to; if so-(a) when; (b) by whom; and (c) for what purpose, in each case. (38) When did Australia join the TEAL RUBY users group and for what purpose. (39) Is Australia represented at-(a) all; or (b) some meetings of the Group. (40) What are-(a) the dates of each meeting attended by Australia; (b) the location of each meeting; (c) the duration; and (d) the purposes of each meeting. (41) Is the TTCP on Teal Ruby the same TTCP under which we sent a scientist overseas in connection with laser technology; if so, what are the details; if not, what is the TEAL RUBY TTCP. (42) What was demonstrated at the TEAL RUBY experiment. (43) For how long is it anticipated that Australia will remain in the TEAL RUBY Users Group. (44) For what purposes did a Brigadier visit the US in connection with the joint facilities. (45) With which facility or facilities was his or her visit connected. (See answer to House of Representatives Question on Notice No. 3349, Hansard, 19 August 1986, p. 32). Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1 to 3) Australian officers have attended Seventh Fleet Scheduling Conferences for many years on an invited basis for the purposes of co-ordinating programmes and training opportunities. Australia is represented twice per annum. Details of dates, attendees, venues and discussions are classified. (4) The visit referred to took place in the period 29 September to 23 October 1984. (5) The `Special Undertakings' referred to are the Joint Defence Space Research Facility (JDSRF) and the Joint Defence Space Communication Station (JDSCS). (6) JDSRF-`Treaty Series 1966 No. 17 Agreement (Canberra 9 December 1966) Between Australian and the United States of America relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility'. JDSCS-`Treaty Series 1969 No. 25 Agreement (Canberra 10 November 1969) Between Australia and the United States of America relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Space Communications Station in Australia'. (7) I refer the Honourable Senator to the Prime Minister's statement to the House of Representatives 6 June 1984 (Hansard Page 2982). (8) Personnel sent by the Defence Department to the United States principally in connection with special undertakings during 1984-85 were: Postion Responsible Area of Dept. (a) Australian Defence Representative Alice Springs Defence Science and Technology Organisation (b) Director of Defence Security Policy Co-ordination Division (c) Director of Defence Security Designate Policy Co-ordination Division Note: A visit to the United States by the Deputy Chief Defence Scientist in this period involved both special undertakings matters and other matters of interest to the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. (9) In the three-year period July 1983 to June 1986 there were 26 occasions on which the Defence Department sent people to the US principally in connexion with special undertakings. 10) To discuss procedures and tactics for intercept training between B52 and Mirage aircraft, discuss mutual electronic warfare training and joint and combined warfare doctrine. (11) From records available, this would appear to be the only occasion. (12) 27 July to 2 August 1984. (13) It provides the opportunity for the RAAF to practice the high performance interceptor characteristics of the Mirage with aircraft which have an electronic warfare defensive capability and which can operate at high altitudes. (14) RAAF Aircraft. (15) The aircraft perform as interceptors in the Air Defence role. (16) See answer to (14). (17) Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Egypt, France, Gabon, Israel, Libya, Pakistan, Peru, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Venezuela and Zaire fly Mirage III or derivatives. (18) No. (19) The interrogation techniques on which the officer was briefed are those that British and US forces anticipate may be used against members of their own forces if captured. (20) As part of the general preparation of the military capability to defend Australia, the Australian Defence Force is developing a training program to provide Australian Servicemen with knowledge relating to conduct after capture. In preparing that program, there needs to be some knowledge of interrogation techniques that may be employed against Australian Servicemen. (21) a-c. Techniques used by countries that British and US forces train against may not comply with international law and the laws of war. ADF training in conduct after capture complies with both the letter and intent of humanitarian law and the various international conventions that apply. (22) This is the only visit for this purpose by an Australian Army member since the present Government took office. (23 to 25) JANUS was the project name given to a co-operative research and development program between Australia and the UK on advanced signal processing for sonobuoys. The duration of the JANUS program was from 1980 to 1984; the purpose of the JANUS program was to improve the performance of underwater detection systems such as the Australian BARRA system. Saucepan is a classified Defence Project which serves an intelligence function. Consistent with the handling by this Government and previous Governments of questions concerning such matters, I am not prepared to comment further. (26) The Principal Research Scientist was from the Laser Research Group in Physics Division at the Materials Research Laboratories of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. (27) The laser research programs were a conference on laser technology in the USA and visits to US and UK establishments for technical discussions in relation to Australian Defence interests and activities in laser technology. (28) Australia has been co-operating in laser research programs since joining The Technical Co-operation Program (TTCP) in 1965. (29) The purpose of TTCP as agreed by the participating countries is to provide a means of acquainting the participating countries with each others defence research and development programs so that each national program may be adjusted and planned in cognizance of the efforts of the other nations. This process supplements each program with the knowledge and resources of the others, avoids unnecessary duplication among the national programs, promotes concerted action to identify and close important gaps in the collective technology base, and assures to each country the best technical information available for advice to their governments and military forces on all matters related to defence research and development. TTCP is concerned primarily with the technology base. Our defence scientists also pursue specific interests by their attendance at scientific conferences and in discussions at individual defence establishments overseas from time to time. (30) The Minister for Defence on 8 April 1986 (Hansard page 1797) advised Parliament that Australia does not endorse the SDI concept, and that the Government will not be entering into any agreements for Australian participation in SDI research or for research funded under the SDI program. Australia has a long history of successful international collaboration in defence related research and development which has been of great assistance to this country. Any such co-operative research and development has always been based on clearly identified Australian defence requirements and is kept under review by the Government to ensure that it is consistent with national priorities and policies including those related to SDI, ABM and BMD issues. (31) Yes. In April 1983, to USA, for discussions on the use of laser technology in avionics systems; in June 1983, to USA and Canada, for discussions on the use of laser technology in hydrography; in September 1983, to USA and Canada, to attend a TTCP meeting on laser technology; in February 1984, to USA, to commence a one-year attachment at the Naval Research Laboratory to pursue laser technology research; in May 1984, to the UK and USA, to attend a conference on lasers and for discussions on laser technology at various defence establishments; in March/April 1985, to USA, to attend a TTCP meeting on laser technology; and in September 1986, to UK, to attend a TTCP meeting on laser technology. (32) See answers to (27) and (29) above. The `TTCP on Laser Technology' refers to meetings of defence scientists from each of the nations participating in The Technical Co-operation Program (TTCP) to exchange information on respective national programs of research into laser technology. (33) No. (34) Yes. Canada, New Zealand and the UK are also involved. (35) The United States Navy Fleet Communications System. (36) The visit occurred between 11 and 15 March 1985. (37) Yes: (a) 21 to 24 July 1986 (b) The Director of Naval Communications (c) To discuss conditions under which the Royal Australian Navy might use the United States Navy Fleet Communications System. (38) The `TEAL RUBY users group' is informal terminology used for the discussions among participants in the TEAL RUBY experiment to plan and co-ordinate their proposed activities. Australia's involvement in these discussions commenced in 1982. (39 to 40) Australia has participated in some of the meetings and discussions of this group. The dates of each meeting were March 1982, November 1982, April 1983, November 1983, March 1984, August 1984, March 1985 and September 1985. All of these meetings were held in the USA and their duration in each case was about one week. The purpose of these meetings was as indicated in (38) above. (41) Yes. Laser technology is one area of the technology base covered under TTCP while the TEAL RUBY experiment was addressed under another area of TTCP. There was no connexion between the two. (42) The TEAL RUBY experiment (which has not yet taken place because of the unavailability of the shuttle) will examine the ability of a satellite or infra red detector of advanced design to detect and track individual ships, aircraft and other military targets. This ``demonstration'' simulated the TEAL RUBY experiment as a means of testing arrangements for command and control, positioning of the targets to the satellite's track and the distribution of the data to Australian, US and other participants. I refer the Honourable Senator to the answer to her question on notice 1355 (Hansard of 17 November 1986, page 2360). (43) Until the TEAL RUBY experiment is conducted. (44) The visit was related to his responsibilities for co-ordinating protective security arrangements at the Joint Facilities. (45) The JDSRF Alice Springs and the JDSCS, Nurrungar. (Question No. 1367) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What are the function or functions of the Statutory Authorities titled: (a) Foot and Mouth Disease Eradication Trust Account; (b) National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account; and (c) Forestry and Timber Bureau (Board of Higher Forestry Education). (2) How many people are currently employed by each Authority on a part-time or a full-time basis. (3) How many of these people are employed in an honorary capacity. (4) To what extent is each Authority subsidised by the private sector and what has been the cost to the Australian Government for maintaining the Authorities for each year of their existence. (5) Is it a fact that each Authority is not required to produce an annual report; if so, why not. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) The Foot and Mouth Disease Eradication Trust Account, established in 1961, was renamed the Livestock Diseases Eradication Trust Account in 1978 when the Foot and Mouth Diseases Act 1961 was repealed by the Livestock Diseases Act 1978. The Livestock Diseases Eradication Trust Account is not a statutory authority. Its purpose is to retain monies for the payment or recoupment of compensation payable to owners of animals which have to be destroyed and for the payment of recoupment of expenses including salaries or wages of people involved with controlling a particular disease in a disease declared area. (b) The National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account is not a statutory authority. It is a Trust Account established under sub-section 10a (1) of the Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1964, for the purposes of section 62a of the Audit Act 1901. Functions of the Trust Account are- (i) receipt of amounts collected by the Commonwealth equivalent to the cattle disease eradication components of livestock slaughter levies and livestock export charges; (ii) receipt of interest from investments of monies standing to the credit of the Trust Account; and (iii) with the approval of the Minister, making payments to the States and the Northern Territory, and meeting costs incurred by the Commonwealth, for the purpose of the eradication of any cattle disease that is endemic to Australia. (c) The Board of Higher Forestry Education is no longer part of the Primary Industry portfolio. It was superseded in 1965 by the Australian National University's (ANU) Advisory Committee on Forestry Education when the ANU replaced the Forestry and Timber Bureau as an organisation responsible for tertiary forestry education in Australia. The Board was responsible for providing professional advice to the Director General of the Forestry and Timber Bureau on the provision of educational facilities for the training of professional foresters. (2) (a) The Livestock Diseases Eradication Trust Account has no employees; (b) the 1986-87 Budget provides for the payment from the National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account of salaries and allowances to 634 full-time staff equivalents. These staff are employed principally by State and Northern Territory governments and Department of Territories and are engaged in the National Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign (BTEC); (c) The Board of Higher Forestry Education (while with the Department of Primary Industry) did not have employees. (3) Neither the Trust Accounts nor the Board of Higher Forestry Education have employed staff in an honorary capacity. (4) (a) The private sector has not subsidised the Livestock Disease Eradication Trust Account and no monies have ever stood or stand to the credit of the Livestock Diseases Eradication Trust Account; (b) The National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account is entirely funded by levies and charges collected from the cattle industry and by interest on investments standing to the credit of the Trust Account. The direct cost attributable to the Commonwealth has been the write-off in 1982 of a cattle industry debt of $23.5 million in relation to BTEC. (c) It is not possible to provide an estimate of past costs to the Australian Government for maintaining the Board of Higher Forestry Education for each year of its existence prior to 1965. (5) Yes. (a) and (b) A statement of receipts and expenditure in relation to each of the Trust Accounts is provided each year to the Minister for Finance as required under section 50 of the Audit Act. These statements are tabled in Parliament in conjunction with the Auditor-General's Report. (c) The Forestry and Timber Bureau was required under its Act to produce an annual report. Activities of the Board of Higher Forestry Education were reported upon in these annual reports until the transfer of education responsibilities to the ANU in 1965. (Question No. 1389) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 24 September 1986: What is the estimate of expenditure to be made by the Australian Government concerning the America's Cup (a) directly; (b) by way of income tax foregone on donations to those promoting Cup defence; and (c) by way of income tax foregone on allowable expenditure for advertising, promotions and sponsorship connected with the Cup. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) $29.5 million is being made available to Western Australia for community facility and services projects related to the impact of the America's Cup defence. Any other direct expenditures are a matter for the relevant portfolios. (b) and (c) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that statistics that would enable an estimate to be made of the cost to revenue of allowing deductions in respect of donations to those promoting the America's Cup defence together with deductions for expenditure on advertising, promotions and sponsorship connected with the Cup are not available. (Question No. 1395) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What is the amount of uranium ``owing'' to France under existing contractual arrangements. (2) What is the contracted price for this uranium. (3) Is it intended to seek new markets for Australian uranium in France. (4) What measures are in place to monitor the use of Australian uranium once it has come into the hands of the French. (5) What measures are available to the Australian Government to ensure that French Government assurances that Australian uranium will only be used for so-called peaceful purposes. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Contractual details and arrangements are commercial-in-confidence and as such cannot be released. (3) The lifting of the embargo on uranium sales for end-use in France could create a potential market opportunity for the three Australian uranium producers. However, it is up to them whether they wish to pursue such an opportunity. (4) and (5) Australia has concluded a network of bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements, including an agreement with France. This network of agreements, which is monitored by the Australian Safeguards Office, provides Australia with binding assurances relating to the peaceful use and control of Australian uranium. A detailed description of Australia's uranium safeguards was given by Mr Hayden on 10 September 1985 in response to Question Upon Notice No. 884 and I refer the honourable senator to this reply. (Question No. 1406) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: How many- (a) Australian; and (b) US, personnel were employed at: (i) Pine Gap, and (ii) Nurrungar, as at 1 July 1980, 1 July 1982, 1 July 1984, and 1 July 1986. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Numbers of Australian and US personnel employed at the Joint Defence Space Research Facility (JDSRF) at Pine Gap and the Joint Defence Space Communications Station (JDSCS) at Nurrungar are shown in the following table: 1 July 1980 Australian US 1 July 1982 Australian US 1 July 1984 Australian US 1 July 1986 Australian US JDSRF... 235 239 234 235 249 283 273 284 JDSCS... 188 204 198 207 205 227 221 251 (Question No. 1429) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: Does the Minister for Territories consider the Cocos Island hospital facilities, and the maintenance of the hospital, to be adequate. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands hospital is equipped to handle most types of medical emergency. The Health Service staff comprise a Doctor, four Nursing Sisters and a Health Aide. There are facilities for surgery and X-Ray examinations. Patients requiring treatment which the hospital facilities and medical staff are unable to provide are evacuated by air to Perth. (Question No. 1434) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: (1) Does the Federal Government intend to review the arrangements relating to contracts of employment for employees in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands; if so, is it anticipated that employment contracts may be altered so that they cover a period of 2 or more years, rather than the present situation where they are only for one year's employment, with the possibility of an extension. (2) If the period of employment is extended to 2 years, with the possibility of extensions, will the contract include provisions for either party to withdraw from the agreement with the consent of the other party. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Officers in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are employed by the Administration and other Commonwealth bodies for periods of time varying from 12 months to two years, on long-term temporary transfer, secondment from mainland Departments or specific contracts of employment. These arrangements take into account the unique circumstances of the Territory, and provide flexibility for both employer and employee. (2) If the Department of Territories were to review the duration of employment of Administration officers, the question of withdrawal from the contract before its expiry will be considered as part of that review. In any case, if an officer employed in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Administration wished to return to the mainland before completing his or her period of employment, that application would certainly be considered on its merits. (Question No. 1497) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) Was the British Government's case to stop publication of a book by Mr Peter Wright, a former MI5 agent, discussed in Cabinet this week. (2) Whatever the answer, has the Government decided to support the British Government in its attempt in an Australian civil action to stop publication. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The case was discussed by Ministers. (2) The Government decided that a senior Australian official would give evidence as to Australia's national interest in the case. (Question No. 1534) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) What was the level of beef exports from Australia in the 2 financial years 1984-85 and 1986. (2) What are the projected levels of exports in the current financial year. (3) Could the Minister for Primary Industry give a breakdown in percentage terms of export levels to the various countries to which Australia exports beef of cattle `on the hoof'. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australia exported 415,985 tonnes (shipped weight) of beef and veal in 1984-85 and 468,009 tonnes (shipped weight) in 1985-86. (2) The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast exports of beef and veal in 1986-87 at 448,000 tonnes (shipped weight), a reduction of 4.3 per cent on the previous year. (3) Australian exports of cattle in the last two financial years are detailed in the following tables: Country of Destination Breeding Slaughter Fattening Total Per cent 1984-85 Japan ... 5,025 2,420 7,445 15.1 Malaysia ... 539 9,820 7,667 18,026 36.7 Indonesia ... 6,043 6,043 12.3 Singapore ... 1,162 1,162 2.4 Brunei ... 7,635 7,635 15.5 Kuwait ... 395 543 938 1.9 Qatar ... 100 100 0.2 Saudi Arabia ... 504 3,120 3,624 7.4 UAE ... 75 75 0.2 Bahrain ... 1,999 1,999 4.1 Egypt ... 1,125 1,125 2.3 PNG ... 27 27 0.1 New Zealand ... 35 35 0.1 Other ... 889 24 913 1.9 All Countries ... 8,432 30,628 10,087 49,147 1985-86 Japan ... 7,658 15,003 22,661 30.7 Malaysia ... 2,304 9,369 11,774 23,447 31.8 Indonesia ... 4,389 1,200 5,589 7.6 China ... 775 775 1.0 Singapore ... 26 1,004 1,030 1.4 Brunei ... 3 7,658 7,661 10.4 Kuwait ... 1,083 3,084 4,167 5.6 Qatar ... 8 449 457 0.6 Saudi Arabia ... 400 1,209 1,609 2.2 UAE ... 12 375 387 0.5 Bahrain ... 60 4,035 4,095 5.5 PNG ... 863 1,011 1,874 2.5 New Zealand ... 10 10 neg Other ... 68 68 0.1 All Countries ... 10,001 35,852 27,977 73,830 (Question No. 1218) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: (1) What action is being taken to increase the participation in science-related subjects in Australian schools. (2) What action is being taken to foster more positive public attitudes to science. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I regard education, particularly science education, as a vital aspect of Australia's future development. A scientifically literate community and a pool of well-educated science graduates are essential if Australia is to hold its own as a modern industrialised nation. Within my portfolio, the CSIRO has played a major role in promoting science-related subjects in schools. CSIRO has worked closely with the Australian Science Teachers Association, assisting with many of their activities such as the BHP Science Prize, Australian Science-In-Schools Week and the production of CSIROPRAC, a book of school science experiments from CSIRO scientists. CSIRO has also maintained a close working relationship with State Education Departments. CSIRO Science Education Centres, for example, have been set up in Melbourne and Adelaide. These `hands-on' Centres have proved popular with visiting students and teachers, and new Centres are planned for other States in 1987. The Education Centres are the focus for CSIRO's recently developed science club, Double Helix. The club aims to develop students' enthusiasm for science through special events, competitions and newsletters. Another initiative is the CSIRO Women-In-Science Project. Its purpose is to encourage more girls to continue with maths and science at senior secondary level. My colleague, the Minister for Education, has also taken a number of initiatives in this area, details of which are available from her office. (2) A major initiative of this Government in fostering positive public attitudes to science has been the establishment of the Commission for the Future (CFF). Its first annual report, now tabled in the Parliament, gives an indication of the broad and comprehensive range of activities undertaken by the Commission in its first year of operation. These include: publication of the Commission's bi-monthly magazine, In Future, which is distributed widely to members of State and Federal Parliaments, all secondary schools, unions, libraries, business and service organisations and a large and growing list of individuals; a series of seminars for Parliamentarians in the Federal and State Governments; a wide range of conferences and workshops examining the impact of technology on various facets of Australian public life. The CSIRO also has taken action to foster more positive attitudes to science, recently undertaking a major review of its communication activities. This has added impetus to the Organisation's efforts to communicate effectively with industry and the community at large. Changes already made include the creation of the Bureau of Information and Public Communication. As part of the new Bureau, the Public Communication Unit has the specific role of fostering greater public interest in science. CSIRO already produces a range of publications and video programs (some shown on ABC television) aimed at the public at large. Open days at CSIRO Divisions are a further means of reaching out to industry, and community groups and Divisional information officers are available to facilitate use of CSIRO expertise. New public-comment guidelines were recently issued to encourage CSIRO staff to contribute more actively to debate on public issues involving science. This is in keeping with the Organisation's intention to adopt a higher public profile and to help develop more positive public attitudes to science. In January 1986 the Government approved the establishment of the Science and Technology Centre in Canberra. The Centre's objective is to provide all Australians with a practical means of acquiring a better understanding and awareness of the role and application of science and technology in today's society. This will be achieved through the provision of specially designed `hands-on' exhibits and other educational programs. One of the most exciting and important features of the Centre will be its extensive travelling exhibition which will take exhibits and science `shows' to people throughout Australia, no matter whether they live in cities or in the outback. The Centre will become the focal point for science and technology in Australia by: providing a wide range of interactive exhibits in both the Centre and in its travelling component; ensuring that the travelling exhibition visits a wide range of centres including outback areas from 1988 onwards; disseminating information about science and technology and its impact on society; conducting youth demonstration lectures along similar lines to the Royal Society in the United Kingdom; promoting the establishment of similar centres throughout Australia; and hosting workshops for staff from smaller institutions in Australia and overseas. (Question No. 1234) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 August: (1) What instructions were issued by the Special Minister of State in relation to the apprehension and extradition of Robert Trimbole in 1986. (2) To whom were those instructions directed. (3) On what dates were those instructions issued. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (2) and (3) My portfolio responsibilities encompass the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority. I have issued no instructions to either body in relation to the apprehension of Robert Trimbole in 1986. These authorities are well aware of their responsibilities in such matters and require no instructions to carry them out. Extradition is a matter for the Attorney-General. (Question No. 1239) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) In view of the New South Wales Government's decision to establish its own drug commission, what is the future of the Commonwealth/NSW Joint Task Force on drug trafficking. (2) With both these organisations and the National Crime Authority working in the same field, does the Minister agree that the effectiveness of the effort against the drug trade will be severely hampered by the extra division of resources and expertise. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Commonwealth/New South Wales Joint Task Force on drug trafficking was the subject of an independent evaluation in 1984 by Mr R. J. Walton. The Commonwealth and NSW Governments accepted Mr Walton's recommendation that the JTF continue as an ongoing operation, subject to normal review by the Management Committee of the Task Force and further evaluation of the Joint Task Force concept in 1989. (2) An Intelligence Co-ordination team has been established under the Chairmanship of the JTF leader to ensure that there is no duplication or overlap between the various agencies operating in New South Wales. The Team includes representatives of the NCA and the State Drug Crime Commission. A major objective of the Government is to ensure that resources available for law enforcement are used in the most efficient manner. Appropriate measures will be taken if evidence emerges that that is not the case. (Question No. 1404) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) Has the Australian Taxation Office commenced a campaign of telephoning businesses requesting lodgement of fringe benefit tax forms? (2) Is the Treasurer aware of any such telephone calls being made to businesses in the Northern Territory? (3) Has the campaign been authorised by the Australian Taxation Office: If so, at what level? (4) What is the nature of the information or requests being made via this campaign? (5) Is it the case that officers of the Australian Taxation Office have visited businesses and refused to leave until individuals have filled in the fringe benefits tax forms; if so, under what authority has this action been taken? (6) It is proposed that this sort of tactic continue to be used or adopted in the future? (7) Is the Treasurer able to comment upon the statements in the ``NT News'' that the behaviour of officers of the Australian Taxation Office is causing distress to business people? (8) Does the Treasurer believe that this is an appropriate way for the Australian Taxation Office to carry out its business; if not, what steps will the Treasurer take to put an end to this practice? Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The Commissioner of Taxation advises that officers of the Australian Taxation Office are contacting those employers who have not responded to either of the two circulars issued to them. About 446,000 employers were sent requests in recent months for some basic information about their possible liability to FBT. (2) Yes. The Commissioner confirmed that Northern Territory employers have been contacted by telephone. All such contact has been made from the Adelaide Branch Office. (3) Yes. The campaign was authorised by the Commissioner. (4) The information being requested will enable the ATO to determine which employers will or will not be liable to FBT. Those affected by FBT are being sent relevant documentation and FBT forms to enable them to comply with the FBT law. (5) No. The Commissioner advises his officers do not adopt a coercive approach to employers. They are either telephoning or visiting those employers who have not responded to the circulars. To 29 October 1986, these contacts have resulted in 95,755 Request for Information forms being completed. During the course of these contacts and while carrying out normal PAYE inspection work, all taxation inspectors are taking the opportunity to advise employers of their responsibilities under the FBT legislation and are responding to questions about the tax. Explanatory material on FBT is being provided to those who require it. (6) Taxation officers will continue in a courteous and professional manner to contact those employers who have not responded to either of the two circulars requesting some basic information about their possible FBT liability. (7) The Commissioner advises that the approach taken by his officers has been to ask only the basic questions necessary of an employer with minimal interruption to his business. Should the employer be unable to answer the questions after having basic FBT requirements explained to him the discussion is politely terminated. Employers are not pressured to provide information. (8) I believe the approach taken by the Commissioner is appropriate. The telephone contact by his officers has been necessary because of the slow response by some employers in providing information requests in the two circulars about their possible liability to FBT. The information is needed so that employers liable to FBT can be furnished with explanatory documentation and FBT forms to enable them to comply with the new law. To 29 October 1986 completed Request for Information forms have been received from over half of the employers circularised. 102,446 employers have indicated that they are providing fringe benefits. (Question No. 1423) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs' attention been drawn to an article in the Courier Mail of 3 September 1986, headlined ``Ex-Nazi welcome to visit, says Joh'' (meaning the Premier of Queensland). (2) Does the Australian Government have any information in regard to the wartime activities of Herr Strauss, now Premier of Bavaria, in particular, does this information contain any reference to any wartime activities that involved any Australian service personnel or any other member of the Allied forces. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) My attention has been drawn to such an article in the Courier Mail of 30 September 1986. (2) My Department has no such information. Given that there is no allegation that Herr Strauss was a war criminal, it is unlikely that Government records would be concerned with his wartime activities. (Question No. 1461) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: What has been the cost to the Department of Territories in each of the last 3 financial years, of its activities to regulate the taxi and hire car industries in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is not practice to separately cost areas of activity within broader areas of administration, unless there is a justification for doing so. (Question No. 1478) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Who bears the responsibility for honouring financial commitments, such as contracts, entered into by community advisors or similar office-holders in Aboriginal communities. (2) If a community becomes insolvent, who is liable to meet its outstanding debts. (3) Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs confirm that the Kalka Aboriginal community, has run up debts in the vicinity of $100,000. (4) Who is to bear the liability for meeting these debts. (5) What measures have been taken to see that the debts are paid. (6) When can creditors expect to receive payment. (7) In relation to the specific case of a building contractor who is owed almost $37,000 for the construction of housing for the community, what advice has this person received, and from whom, indicating to him, when he can expect repayment. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The corporate body representing The Community. (2) The corporate body representing The Community. (3) Yes. (4) The community at Kalka is an unincorporated body. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has customarily paid grants for the benefit of the community at Kalka to the Pitjantjatjara Council Incorporated. The prime extent and nature of responsibilities for the debts of the community at Kalka are matters to be determined by the community and the Pitjantjatjara Council Incorporated. (5) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is now paying all its grant monies for the benefit of the community at Kalka into a trust account. Active measures have been adopted whereby the community is required to trade out of its deficit as soon as possible. (6) It is hoped that payments to creditors will have commenced by March 1987, and that they can expect to have been satisfied in full by 30 June 1987. (7) In relation to the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Senator, the firm of accountants administering the trust account have advised that creditor of the proposed schedule for payments. (Question No. 1494) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) In regard to the implementation of the proposed Administration Charge, will the Department of Education try to ensure that those students who transfer-without academic penalty-from one institution to another, be able to do so, without being required to pay the Administration Charge twice. (2) Would the Minister not agree that a national policy needs to be adopted on the collection of the Administration Charge and that such a policy should involve the simple transfer of funds from one institution to another for those students who do transfer, particularly those students who transfer from one institution in one State/Territory to another institution in another State/Territory. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The legislation to implement the Higher Education Administration Charge will not prevent institutions from providing a refund where a student has enrolled and subsequently withdraws or transfers to another institution. However, the reduction to an institution's grant by the Commonwealth for each relevant enrolment will not be adjusted to take account of refunds made by an institution. (2) My Department and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission have had discussions with the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the Australian Committee of Directors and Principles in Advanced Education, following which guidelines have been developed and forwarded to all higher education institutions to assist in the implementation of arrangements for collection of the Higher Education Administration Charge. The guidelines cover the situation of students transferring between institutions. (Question No. 1543) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs' attention been drawn to a press report in the Canberra Times dated 19 October 1986, that the Simon Wiesenthal Centre had forwarded a list of suspected Nazi war criminals, believed to be living in Britain, has been made available to that government, and does the report also claim that a similar list has been forwarded to the Australian Government some 2 weeks ago. (2) Is the report correct; and has such a list been examined, or is there any proposal to take action to investigate these matters. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) My Department has drawn my attention to the article in the Canberra Times of Sunday 19 October 1986. (2) I can confirm that the report is correct in respect of the Australian Government. While attending the 41st Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, I met Rabbi Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles who gave me a list of suspected war criminals believed to be living in Australia. I arranged for the list to be brought urgently to the attention of Mr Andrew Menzies, O.B.E. who is heading the review of Material Relating to the Entry of Suspected War Criminals into Australia. It is understood that the Review would examine and assess the material in the list along with other information available to it. The question of further action will be examined by the Government in the light of the Report from Mr Menzies.