Friday, 20 February 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. 2. The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: continue the fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senators Crowley (from 109 citizens), Richardson (from 19 citizens) and West (from 37 citizens). To the Honourable President and senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers, including Local, State and Federal Government Departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. by Senators Peter Baume (from 11 citizens) and Puplick (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (1) That the Government's proposed Identity Card is the greatest threat to civil liberties in the history of this country; (2) That the I.D. card will be a costly and unnecessary method of attacking tax evasion and social security fraud; and (3) That the proposal will impose yet another bureaucratic burden on the business sector. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject the Government's legislation to introduce the Australia Card or any other identity card system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 389 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 house- wives 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 and 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 Senate, 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. by Senator Parer (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will reject the proposed Bill of Rights as Australians' rights are already protected by the traditional system of common law and urge that any proposal for a Bill of Rights should be put to the Australian people through a referendum. by Senator Coleman (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is a need for an independent and Multi-Cultural Broadcasting Corporation to give a firm legislative and financial basis for the SBS Network. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should pass Senator Vigor's Bill with all expediency. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 165 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the imposition of the $250.00 Administrative charge will: (1) Prove a dis-incentive for all students-particularly part-time and mature age students-from continuing their tertiary studies. (2) Lead to higher levels of youth unemployment as fewer students will now enrol in tertiary studies. (3) Impose economic hardship upon the student population at large. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote to reject the imposition of the Administrative charge, or, at the very least, vote to impose a lower fee on students who are not full-time. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 133 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: (a) Aboriginal and Islander languages, which numbered approximately 260 when Europeans first arrived, are even more seriously endangered-already 145 have become extinct. (b) English-speaking population expansion and English-speaking mass media expansion threatens the survival of the remaining languages of Australia. (c) Aboriginal languages reflect an ethos that is truly Australian and unless steps are taken to implement language maintenance, this ethos will be lost not only to Aborigines but to non-Aboriginal Australians, and to the world. We humbly pray the Government to: 1. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide $300,000 per annum for a guaranteed period of ten years to enable the Aboriginal community of Australia to establish a co-ordinating body to implement steps to prevent the extinction of the remaining languages, and to introduce programmes which will enable these languages to continue into the future for the sake of all Australians. This body will enable us to maximize existing financial, material, and human resources, and is the least expensive way of implementing urgently needed maintenance programmes. 2. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide finance for the establishment of Regional Language Centres-ten are urgently needed-cost $200,000 each. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sove-reign purposes for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the under-signed citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that in the International Year of Peace, young Australians face an uncertain future due to: 1. a continuing arms race between the super-powers which threatens to extend into outer space 2. military expenditure continuing at ridiculously high levels 3. continuing testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to make our future more certain, by: 1. encouraging peaceful dialogue through diplomatic channels as the means of solving issues. 2. persuading all developed countries to spend less on armaments, and more on basic needs like food, health, shelter and education for all people of the world. 3. promoting the extension of agreements to reduce testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 82 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the under-signed citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986, now before Parliament, should be withdrawn because: 1. There is growing concern about the economic concentration of the seed industry and the loss of traditional food plant varieties in overseas countries with this legislation. 2. Genes, seeds and other plant genetic material should remain a public resource. 3. The demand for uniformity, imposed by P.V.R. legislation, reduces genetic variability and could lead to the loss of traditional genetic material. 4. P.V.R. will discourage the free exchange of information, seeds and genetic material and is therefore likely to adversely affect Australia's public breeding programmes. 5. Our choice of food, its quality and nutritional value will increasingly be determined by the interests of large overseas companies rather than those of the Australian consumer. 6. There is no requirement in the bill for superiority or for merit testing of varieties to protect the interests of our farmers. 7. The bill can be interpreted to allow the registering of `discoveries' of previously unknown Australian native plants, many of which may have great social and/or economic value. 8. P.V.R. will mean higher costs for the farmer and the consumer and an increased burden on the Australian taxpayer. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament recognise the widespread community opposition to P.V.R. and promote alternative incentives for plant breeding in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 201 citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate and Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: We are highly concerned as to the extreme concentration of media ownership in Australia. We believe that such concentration of media control is not in the interests of the Australian nation and a free democratic society, further we do not believe that any form of media within Australia should be owned and controlled by persons other than Australian citizens. We call upon the Parliament of Australia to bring about legislation which would ensure that the control of the media is disbursed to the extent that a person or group cannot own or control an unacceptable percentage of the media access to the Australian nation including television, radio and newspapers, further such legislation should prohibit ownership and control of any media interest by any person or group other than those who are Australian citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will accept the views expressed in this petition and act in the manner sought. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 654 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned for the future stability of the Tasmanian forestry industry as a result of continued attempts to disrupt our vital industry. We humbly draw your attention to the continued efforts by the Tasmanian Government and all those persons who derive their livelihood from the State's forestry industries to abide by guidelines established as a result of several Environmental Impact Studies, State regulations and a Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to ensure stability of our industry by informing the people of Australia of the moves being taken by the forestry industry in Tasmania to preserve the environment and to farm our forest resources for the mutual benefit of all Australians now and in the future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 317 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: On the subject of sexual and physical child abuse, murder, rape, pornography and violence in television, video films and literature etc. Politician Mr Bennett, made a statement on radio, on the 28th May, saying that the public should play their part in helping to solve these problems by writing to the Government. We should be demanding that the laws governing these horrific crimes be dramatically changed and with the utmost urgency as they are fast becoming more numerous and more devastating as the days go by. This has prompted me to take up a petition to send to both state and commonwealth governments, to ask them to change these laws for the people's protection: 1. Complete ban on all violent and pornographic videos and literature. 2. Much more appropriate and stronger sentences to persons committing offences of all kinds on other people. 3. More emphasis being placed on the victim rather than on the perpetrator of the crime. 4. Censorship boards completely revised in the right direction according to the people's wishes. 5. Lastly, but most important, that the parole board and its laws be thoroughly investigated and revised. by Senator Walters (from 49 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notices of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name for two sitting days hence concerning the Nature Conservation (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 and the Public Service Board Determination No. 81 of 1986. 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 Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.05) —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- Mr President the purpose of this Bill is to protect the Olympic insignia, that is the five interlocking rings, and the other designs of the Australian Olympic Federation from use by persons not connected with the Olympic movement. The Bill also provides that these insignia shall not be registered under the Designs Act 1906. The Bill invests the Australian Olympic Federation with a monopoly in the insignia and provides that the insignia are not to be used in trade or commerce unless a licence for such use has been granted by the Federation. Background The Australian Olympic Federation is established under the charter of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in Australia. It is the responsibility of the Federation to promote the Olympic principles in Australia and to co-ordinate the massive effort required to ensure that Australia is effectively represented every 4 years at both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games by the best possible team of sportsmen and women in the country. It is a task that the Australian Olympic Federation has undertaken for 90 years involving the attendance of Australian teams at every one of the 23 Olympiads. This great distinction is shared by only two other countries, Greece and Great Britain. I would like to point out that this has been achieved despite the horrendous pressure from the previous Government on the Federation and the athletes selected to represent Australia to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games. Had the previous Government been successful in its endeavours this great distinction would have been lost. Who, in this place, now remembers the nations that did not attend the Moscow Games? Who remembers the nations that boycotted the Los Angeles Games in retaliation, 4 years later? The Federation's responsibility has, of course, increased greatly over the period of the modern Olympiads. The size of teams that the Federation has had to prepare has increased greatly-for example in 1948 Australia was represented by 88 athletes and officials whereas in 1984 Australia was represented by 335 athletes and officials-a four fold increase. The performance of Australians at the Olympics has been quite outstanding given the country's size and resources-right from the first modern Olympiad in 1896 when Edwin Flack won two gold medals, through to the champions in 1984-Glynnis Nunn, Jon Seiben, Dean Lukin and the team pursuit cyclists-Michael Grenda, Kevin Nicholls, Michael Turtur and Dean Woods. The environment within which the Australian Olympic Federation has to set about its responsibilities has also changed dramatically over the years. The world of sport has become tougher and more competitive. The margin between success and failure is constantly shrinking with the pressures to improve and to win being greater than ever. It is the Federation's task to respond to these pressures in a way which strikes and sustains a balance between the desire to succeed and the no less important values and principles for which sport is rightly renowned. Indeed, it might be said that this is the challenge to Australian sport in 1986 and the years beyond. The Federal Government has been playing its part. We have taken up the challenge to offer more effective support to the sports community as it strives to realise its own high ambitions. Government funding to sport over the past three years has increased substantially. This Government recognises the important contribution that the Australian Olympic Federation makes to Australian sport. The Federation has on its Board leading persons from all walks of life who are deeply committed to the furthering of all sport in Australia as well as the Olympic sports. The president, Kevan Gosper, is the managing director of the Shell Group of Companies. Phil Coles a great Australian sportsman is the Secretary-General. Mr Gosper and Mr Coles are also the Australian representatives on the International Olympic Committee and Mr Gosper was recently elected to the IOC Executive. They have taken over from Syd Grange and Judy Patching who retired at the end of last year and both of whom, on behalf of the Australian Government and all sports lovers, I would like to thank for their tireless and total commitment over the years in promo-ting Australia and the Olympic movement. I'm sure that Kevan Gosper and Phil Coles will emulate their efforts and ensure the attainment of the Olympic ideals in Australia. Judy Patching is of course continuing his great effort as the Secretary-General of the Oceania Olympic Committee. The Olympic movement is respected world wide and makes an important contribution to the spread of goodwill and better understanding amongst all nations. It thereby contributes greatly to world harmony and it is fitting that this contribution is recognised, especially in this Year of World Peace. The Government supports the Federation's endeavours wholeheartedly. It makes a substantial financial contribution to the Federation and considers it to be a blue chip investment in Australia's sporting future. For the 1984 Games the Government provided $1.4 million towards the preparation of the Olympic team. This compares with $40,000 provided for the 1960 Rome Games. The total cost of preparing the Australian team for the 1984 Games was $5 million and the Australian Olympic Federation was responsible for raising the balance of these funds. It did so through a range of marketing programs which involved the use of its various insignia. With the escalating cost of participating in Olympic Games, the Australian Olympic Federation must ensure a continuing flow of funds. To do this it has embarked on a major marketing program based on the licensing and franchising of the Olympic insignia. This campaign has proved very successful with exclusive rights being granted to some 66 products of major international and national companies. This campaign will provide an on-going and major source of funds and will help to ensure that Australia is represented in a fitting and proper way. It may be seen as a measure of the success of the Australian Olympic Federation's marketing program that it has encountered problems with unscrupulous persons whose use of the Olympic insignia suggest, deceptively, to the public that they, or their products, are associated with, and help fund, the Olympic movement. Given the Government's support for the Australian Olympic Federation, and the Federation's responsible efforts to ensure its own financial independence, such unauthorised and deceptive use must be prevented. The Government has decided that, as with the Advance Australia Logo and the Bicentennial logo, legislation is necessary to aid in securing the rights of the Federation to its insignia and to prevent them from being used in a deceptive manner. It will also ensure that, if they are used deceptively the Federation has a speedy and simple mechanism available to curtail such conduct. This is the purpose of this Bill. The ability to ensure exclusivity of use is also a matter of critical importance for the Federation when negotiating the best terms for its licensing agreements. I might add that this protection is not without precedent in Australia. Prior to the 1956 games held in Melbourne the Government of the day brought in legislation prescribing the Olympic rings, the Olympic motto and the words ``Olympic champion'' as prohibited trade marks, that is they could not be registered under the Trade Marks Act. That, however, does not prevent persons using them as unregistered marks and in these commercial times when sponsorship plays such an important role, greater protection is required. This certainly would have been the case with Brisbane had its bid for the 1992 Olympic Games been successful. Regretably it wasn't. Nevertheless, the Brisbane City Council and in particular the Lord Mayor, Alderman Sallyanne Atkinson, together with the Olympic Project Office must be commended for their tremendous endeavours to win the Games for Australia. They showed real confidence in the ability of Brisbane and Australia to take on such a mammoth task. They were also well aware of the really significant benefits through tourism and increased employment which major sporting events, such as the Olympics, bring to both the national and local economics. Major Features of the Bill The Bill provides that the Australian Olympic Federation has a monopoly in design in Australia with respect to the Olympic rings thus ensuring its rights to use the rings in relation to any article. The Bill also provides that the Australian Olympic Federation has ownership of the copyright in the Olympic rings. These provisions will not, of course, impede the fair use of the rings for the purposes of disseminating information on the Olympic movement or its activities by the media. The Bill makes provision for the Australian Olympic Federation to grant licences to use the insignia in return for a payment or other consideration. Mr President, the Australian Olympic Federation is a voluntarily organisation whose purpose is to promote Olympic sport in Australia. The Bill provides speedy and effective mechanisms to ensure the Australian Olympic Federation is not in a situation where it must devote scarce resources, through common law actions, to protect its rights. The Australian Olympic Federation, or the holder of a licence in relation to the insignia whose interests are affected, may bring action against an unauthorised user of the insignia. The remedies available to the Federation include injunctions, damages and accounts of profits. It is recognised that some persons use the Olympic rings in conjunction with their goods and have done so for a considerable period. These persons have never held themselves out as being connected with the Olympic movement and do not increase their activity in Olympic years when the Australian Olympic Federation's fund raising campaign is at its peak. The rights of these persons to use the insignia are recognised and the Bill expressly preserves existing property rights in the insignia. Mr President, the Australian Olympic Federation does not restrict its campaign only to the Olympic rings. The Federation has developed a range of logos for which it grants licences. Senators would be familiar with ``Willy the Koala''. I have it on good authority that `Willy'' unlike some of his cousins, is very well behaved in public! In addition to Willy, these logos include the Olympic rings and Boomerangs and the Olympic rings and kangaroo. The Bill has provision for these logos to be registered as Olympic designs. Registration provides similar protection to that provided for the use of the Olympic rings. It also provides similar remedies for their unauthorised use. As these designs may change over time, registration for each logo will be for a period of 12 years, after which registration may be renewed. The maximum number of designs that may be registered at any one time will be restricted to 10. This will ensure that when the Australian Olympic Federation no longer has a use for a logo it will pass into the public domain. It also minimises the administrative costs associated with the process of registration. Mr President, in terms of financial impact I would like to assure Senators that the on-going financial cost to the Government of administering this legislation will be minimal. The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism will have no on-going administrative costs. The office of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs will incur costs associated with the registration of Olympic designs. However, given that the Australian Olympic Federation is the only eligible applicant, and that a maximum of 10 designs only will be registered at any one time, the administrative costs will be minimal and, in any case, will be offset by the payment of an appropriate fee, for each registration. This fee is currently set at $65. This is the same as the amount charged for design registrations under the Designs Act (1906). The Government firmly believes that the measures provided for in this Bill will greatly assist the Australian Olympic Federation in ensuring that it is able to field the best possible teams in Seoul and Calgary in 1988 and in subsequent Olympics. It is likely that the increased security of the Olympic designs will improve the Federation's capacity to raise funds from its marketing program and consequently reduce its call on Commonwealth financial assistance. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Macklin had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after ``That'', insert ``the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986 be withdrawn pending the outcome of the study by the Commission of the European Parliament into the extent to which genetic erosion has affected cultivated plant varieties in the European Community. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.06) —I made the point last night, in the few moments available to me, that perhaps the most significant contribution I could make to the Plant Variety Rights Bill-the contribution has not been made by the Government-was to ensure that the legislation is put in place as quickly as possible. As I said last night, it is sad that the Government has not had the courage, the capacity or the fortitude to have had such important legislation in place some time ago. It is not as if there is a lack of knowledge of the effects and implications of plant variety rights. Plant variety rights, in one form or another, has been a reality for many years. The rights and protection of growers have prevailed in the United States of America for almost 50 years. In Australia, the debate has gone on for 20 years. The previous Government introduced legislation under Mr Peter Nixon, the then Minister for Primary Industry. The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources brought down a report supporting plant variety rights. The Government, to give itself breathing space, provided a report which was prepared by Professor Alec Lazenby. It is not as if we are embarking on unexplored ground. Almost all western European countries, the United States, Japan, New Zealand and a number of South American countries have plant variety rights. The reasons for that are obvious and manifest. The amount of research that takes place in those countries and the level of their productivity in the rural sector have increased dramatically. Also, plant variety rights has allowed those countries to import the most modern, efficient and productive types of plants and seeds for their own industry. We have had more than one piece of legislation on plant variety rights. Senator Hill introduced a private member's Bill some little time ago which the Government chose to shelve, notwithstanding the fact that the legislation before us is an almost precise reflection on his Bill. Because of his Bill, he was able to maintain pressure on the Government and keep alive the hopes of the rural sector which in turn ensured that the Government continued to be reminded of the necessity for such legislation. There are a number of objections to the legislation by those on our left and the Australian Democrats. Most of the propositions are fallacious. It seems to me that the overall objection is that plant breeding ought to take place in the public sector. The socialists are horrified at the thought of the private sector playing any role; they would rather leave it to government. It has been shown in other countries where private breeding takes place that the level of research has gone up dramatically. It is a great pity that in Australia we have the myopic bigotry of the Far Left, with its illogical blinkers fixed firmly against the face of logic denying Australia, until now, the opportunity of plant variety rights, notwithstanding the fact that the rural sector is required to be more competitive than ever before. States such as Tasmania are now feeling the effects of not having plant variety rights, particularly in as much as they are now required to compete on an equal footing with New Zealand, which has plant variety rights and therefore is able to attract the best quality plants. It is also perhaps a reflection of this Government's insensitivity to the interests, concerns and, perhaps, needs of the rural sector that it has denied us plant variety rights for so long. As I said at the outset, I support the legislation. I hope that it is set in place as quickly as possible. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.11) —The Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986 could be more appropriately named the plant patenting rights Bill or even the multinational plant racketeering Bill. This Bill seeks to enable plant patenting legislation in line with the UPOV Convention-that is, the International Union for Protection of Plant Variety Rights Convention. Seventeen countries are now full signatories of this Convention. Several more have legislation pending. Very few countries have in fact joined the UPOV Convention in the last 10 years, Hungary being one of them. Those countries that passed laws concerning PVR more than 10 years ago did so without public debate on any of the merits and did not consider the unintended consequences, even amongst the farming communities. In the last 10 years there have been strong moves in farming and political groups in those countries to call into question the original legislation. As I see it, the debate over the PVR issue covers four main areas-namely, the benefits to plant breeders; the impact of plant variety rights on the seed industry; the effect of plant variety rights on farm crops, the varieties available and the genetic diversity in our community; and the costs and benefits to the community in general. While the Government bases its arguments for PVR mainly on the apparent increases in economic advantages available to Australian plant breeders and to Australian exporters of plant products, this argument cannot be proven. The history of PVR in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Europe runs completely counter to this particular proposition. In fact, no significant increase in plant breeding can be demonstrated in the United States of America or the United Kingdom to have resulted from plant patenting. There are some examples of recent increases by small New Zealand breeders but they have been operating only for a short time and the effect has not been fully proven. We do not know how many of these breeders will go broke. While there have been a number of spectacular crop variety expansions, they have never been ascribable solely to the PVR legislation. One of the most cited examples of this is the almost coincidental increase in the soya bean varieties available in the United States of America with the introduction of plant variety rights in that country. What is often overlooked is the immediately preceding dramatic growth in exports of soya bean to the European Economic Community, which increased by eight times in one single year-1970. That was the year in which the United States Plant Variety Protection Act was passed. PVR is not the only means of obtaining exclusivity in seed protection. Other methods, such as hybrid breeding, are a much more reliable means of ensuring that people are not able to breed from the seeds of the hybrid plants, as they do not breed true to type from the parent varieties. In fact, in the United States, PVR has had very little impact on the major crop species such as corn for which hybrid varieties are available since the added hybrid vigour confers an extra advantage on the seeds, which are not reproduceable. It is only for varieties such as wheat and barley, for which no satisfactory means of hybridisation has been discovered, that PVR confers any type of technical benefit. In the United States of America considerably more commercial breeding effort is being put into developing hybrid wheat and barley varieties than is going into breeding specific registerable varieties of these seeds for plant variety rights registrations. Genetic engineering is still in its infancy, but is likely to offer more potential for hybridisation of these hitherto recalcitrant species than has been available in the past. We can expect that the commercial breeders will, if the opportunity presents itself, very quickly jump on to a new band wagon and take advantage of the very different breeding techniques which are available through biotechnology. In this case we are likely to see in the very near future a request to extend the plant variety patenting to cover exclusive rights to newly registered engineered species, which may even include symbionts to the species, such as wheat varieties which are capable of having nitrogen-fixing nodes on their roots. The right to independent life of a species will, I believe, vanish in the near future. The moral implication of giving a person or enterprise royalty rights to all reproduction of a particular species is mind-boggling, especially if we consider patenting animal life, beyond plants, which is the next step if this trend continues-and maybe even human beings. One of the main questions, which is usually ignored, is the statistics presented which appa-rently support the beneficial aspects of the plant variety rights legislation. These statistics do not take into account the long time spans which are needed to launch new breeding programs and to register the resultant new varieties. It takes at least seven years-commonly, 10, 12 or 15 years-to develop and prove a new variety. When looked at in this light, very little change can be shown at this stage because of the introduction of new breeding programs in any country since the PVR legislation was introduced. Where this can be demonstrated for particular crop species, other factors are usually seen as dominant. This is particularly obvious in the development of exotic ornamentals in the post-war period when increasing wealth led to increasing demand for such plants. One strong surge in breeding activity has been the development of fast growing forest trees. This has not occurred in countries with PVR- I point this out to the supporters of PVR-but in developing countries that are seeking solutions to the increasing rate of deforestation in their countries. Given economic incentive, PVR is not necessary to stimulate the search for new and improved varieties. In fact, the economic advantage of having those species is important. To demonstrate this, I seek leave to incorporate some tables in Hansard concerning soy bean, pea and wheat varieties which cover the period before and after PVR inspired programs could have got off the ground. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- SOYBEAN BREEDING PROGRAMMES SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS FOR SOYBEANS IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS Institute 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 PAT Cokers KWS '76 10 Northrup King Sand '76 29 Soybean Res. Found 31 Teweles GPC '73 4 Purdue Univ 10 Bellati 2 Pioneer 35 Burpee ITT '78 1 FFR Co-Op. 8 Mississippi AFES 3 Florida Foundation 2 Ring Around 2 OXY '78 17 Syler 1 Agripro Shell '74 7 Bryco 1 Ferry Morse Limargrain '81 2 Lynnville Lubrizol '85 5 Minnesota AES 6 V.R. Seeds Lybrizol '85 7 Delaware 1 Voris 1 Americana 1 Asgrow Upjohn '68 25 Funk Ciba-Geigy '74 1 Napb Shell '73 31 Terral-Morril 2 Gold Kist 1 Jacques Lubrizol '85 7 Iowa AG. 15 Land O Lakes 10 Kansas AES 5 Callahan 7 Nixon 1 Helena Bayer 3 Mississippi AG. 1 Schultz 1 Delta Pine Southwide '78 6 Hartz Monsanto '83 8 Nebraska AES 1 Ohio ARDC 6 Scientific Seed 1 Dairyland 11 Milburn 1 Zoecon OXY 2 Illinois Found. 2 Midwest Oils 4 Missouri Univ. 1 Nebraska Univ. 1 Stanford 2 Annual Applications 8 9 14 16 11 13 22 20 35 36 49 60 29 18 340 PEA BREEDING PROGRAMMES SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS FOR PEAS IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS Institute 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 PAT Agway 1 Asgrow Upjohn '68 42 Brotherton 8 Morrison 6 Stubbs 1 Unilever 1 Rogers Sandoz '75 14 Gallatin Sandoz '75 11 Pure Line 7 Western Valley 3 Canners 11 Crites-Moscow 10 Gustafson 9 General Foods 1 Wilbur-Ellis Pillsbury 6 Cebeco-Handelsraad 1 Green Giant Pillsbury 2 HGCT 2 Musser 3 Agrigenetics Lubrizol '85 1 Wisc. Cia 3 Annual Applications 4 5 6 7 16 7 16 10 10 15 8 16 19 1 140 SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS FOR WHEAT IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS Institute 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 PAT Dekalb Dekalb-Pfizer 5 Cokers KWS '78 7 Funk Ciba-Geigy '74 2 Nebraska AES 14 Oklahoma AES 4 North Carolina ARS 4 Purdue Univ. 20 Northrup King Sandoz '76 17 World 9 Ohio ARDC 4 Cargill 1 NAPB Shell '73 11 Seed Res. 13 Shallow Water 1 Eklund 1 Pioneer 16 Germains 2 Greenbush 2 Colorado SES 2 Vita Grain 1 Harpool 2 Jacquot 2 Kansas AES 2 South Dakota AES 4 Wisconsin AES 2 King 3 Western PL 0 Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Significant pressures have been placed on the public sector research and plant breeding institutions in the countries mentioned in these tables. Private sector seed merchants have accrued considerable benefits from the exclusive monopolies which have been conferred upon them by plant variety rights. The ability to spend vast sums on advertising these varieties has given them considerable advantage over the public sector and over other small local enterprises. In the United Kingdom pressure from international firms, especially Imperial Chemical Industries and Shell, has led to a government decision to sell the foremost cereal breeding facility, the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge University, to the private sector because of the pressure put on it by private competitors. This will, of course, please the Opposition. We can expect similar pressures to close down public breeding facilities in Australia should PVR be introduced. We are possibly spelling the doom of some of the excellent facilities that exist within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing the leading 10 genetic supply enterprises, which comes from a thesis that is being done on this subject in Manitoba, Canada. Leave granted. The table read as follows- LEADING INTERNATIONAL GENETICS SUPPLY ENTERPRISES Parent Enterprise Nationality Industry Seed Sales (US$ mil.) Seed Companies Controlled Pioneer Hi-Bred ... American Seed 716 38 Sandoz ... Swiss Chemicals 281 36 Royal Dutch/Shell ... Anglo-Dutch Petro-chem 200 70 Volvo ... Swedish Auto 205 47 Dekalb-Pfizer ... American Petro-chem 199 34 Upjohn ... American Chemicals 140 15 Ciba-Geigy ... Swiss Chemicals 185 31 Lubrizol ... American Chemicals 110 16 Suiker Unie ... Dutch Agribusiness 100 28 Cargill... American Agribusiness 100 29 10 Firms Total ... 2,246 326 In US$ millions in mid-eighties based on company annual reports and investment analysts includes mergers, takeovers, equity interest and newly-created enterprises involved in some aspects of the genetics supply industry. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The effect on the seed merchandising industry has been to reduce the number of local seed companies and to pass increasing business over to a few multinational corporations. In the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Europe traditional seed firms are disappearing at an accelerating rate and the new enterprises are becoming increasingly linked with large chemical concerns which provide special chemicals and total packages for their seeds. There has been general growth in the number of internationally active seed enterprises in the last decade. This increase has not been only in countries with PVR legislation. In fact, the growth has been similar for states with and without PVR. However, whatever the cause of increasing internationalisation of seed merchandisers one thing is sure: The extra monopoly rights and the sole trading rights provided by PVR legislation give extra clout to the large organisations with large capital reserves for buying out the multiplicity of small enterprises and the multiplicity of small developed varieties. These organisations can sit on varieties and not do anything with them. Senator Mason will move an amendment which will endeavour to protect this area if this Bill actually manages to get through. It is unlikely that these international trading enterprises will exhibit more responsibility in marketing their plant varieties under the monopoly rights given by PVR than such enterprises have shown in the past in their treatment of unwary, developing and poorer countries. Seed industry sources themselves estimate that no more than 10 to 20 multinational corporations will control the world industry by the end of the century. The difficulty facing national governments and this Government is who will control the transnational corporations. The move by crop chemical companies in to this area is a major environmental concern. It is cheaper, faster and less risky to adapt plants to chemicals than to develop disease resistant plants which do not need chemicals. Farmers are likely in the future to pay more for more vulnerable seeds and to pay much more for chemicals to treat the crops which these seeds produce. The deleterious effect on health and the environment from the increasing use of chemicals and residues from these chemicals may prove to be disastrous to the development of our country. Australia already has vast tracts of previously highly productive land, such as in the Tweed Valley, which have been declared unsuitable for agriculture as a result of overdoses of pesticides and herbicides. While it is argued that many more varieties are now available to farmers in the United States of America as a result of PVR protection, it must be pointed out that the apparent diversity of variety names does not mean any real genetic diversity. In fact, as with cars and breakfast cereals, the real differences are in advertising-in the image-and not in the quality of the product. These advertising costs are passed on to the farmers without any real benefit in the form of improved varieties. Another problem is that some buyers will buy only produce for which they provide the seed. This puts a farmer into a pincer movement between two arms of the same multinational corporation. It is expected that Australia will become a net exporter of seed varieties. We have an enormous genetic pool of new plants in Australia. We do not need plant variety rights to protect them. We can produce new plants, using our biotechnology facilities, from the great pool of natural resources which has been undeveloped in Australia. But without merit testing, local farmers will be in no position to evaluate the real or illusory merits of commercial seed varieties on the market and their suitability to our climate and conditions. Merit testing is costly and will be done at the expense of the public or the farmer, if at all, which means that farmers will again be disadvantaged by this particular legislation. Experience overseas shows that farmers tend to succumb to advertising dreams rather than face the cold realities of supporting the local public breeders who develop varieties suitable to the climate, soil conditions and other local conditions which are specific to that farmer. Diversion of public breeding energies towards merit testing of commercial varieties will add to the pressure on our public research institutions. They will stop doing research work and end up testing commercial varieties. This is quite unsatisfactory. The likelihood is that Australia will suffer the same fate in plant patenting as it did in the manufacturing industry. We will pass our locally developed products to multinational corporations for development and marketing, and pay royalties for restricted rights to market these overseas products in Australia. This has happened to us in the manufacturing industry through patenting laws and is liable to happen to us in this area. Our balance of payments will suffer even more than it is now. We will increasingly face restrictive marketing arrangements for the sale of our produce overseas in competition with that of the corporation's country of origin where it is not Australia. These restrictive arrangements have been a feature of overseas developments, where small breeders have been effectively kept out of the market by cross-licensing techniques within international agribusiness. I believe we cannot afford to leave ourselves open to this type of pressure. The Industrial Property Advisory Committee report on patents, innovation and competition in Australia is generally scathing on the impact of patenting on the Australian industry. It concludes that if Australia had no patent system there would be no justification at all for introducing one today. It also concludes that we are lumbered with an international patent agreement which we cannot afford to get out of, and recommends changes to minimise the damage we are currently suffering from that patent system. In particular, the report recommends removing exclusive rights under a patent. It considers this to be one of the most destructive aspects of the Australian patents system. However, Government is now planning to put this type of protection into the plant variety rights area, almost the same type of patent system, and to continue the practice of exclusive patent rights which has conferred such monopoly privileges on the large international corporations in Australia. One wonders who sets up the Government's policy. In this sense, the implications of the Bill for Australia are horrific. It will continue the branch office syndrome because the development of plants under PVR will be an expensive process which will end up having to be financed by large corporations which will own the plants and end up licensing them back to us. Why should we sell our genetic heritage in this way? We are embarking on yet another patenting sellout of local innovation and enterprises. We are increasing the costs to farmers and primary producers, as has been experienced in Europe and the United States of America. We are decreasing market outlets for crop varieties adapted to Australian conditions. As food processors buy into the seed marketing business at increasing rates they will say: `We will only buy the products from the seeds that we supply'. We will experience decreasing pest and disease resistance and lose the adaptation of seeds for local conditions. If we have plant variety rights over the whole local area better adapted seeds will not be available. Seeds will be aimed at the mass market rather than at local needs, better production and the specialised need of people in a local area. We are moving into mass production. There will be opportunities for transfer pricing and taxation shuffles when vertical integration in international corporations dealing with food and chemical areas happens as a result of our becoming integrated and plugged into the international seed agribusiness system. Implications of PVR world-wide are even more devastating. We will be promoting yet further loss of plant genetic diversity. We would be promoting further world monopoly of trade in seed and primary produce as we offer monopoly control and, hence, higher profits to the corporations which own the seeds. We will be concentrating the remaining genetic reserves of common food species into vulnerable gene banks controlled by commercial interests and unavailable for public use. We may even end up with the problem of people destroying seeds so that others cannot get access to them and use them so as to protect their particular variety. That is the type of thing that happens in times of disruption. Diversion of profits from and access to natural gene resources from countries of origin to multinational monopoly enterprises will continue to distort the world's economic system and leave us with terrible problems in that area. However, the most serious problem world-wide is the long term accelerated loss of genetic diversity caused by the pressures associated with PVR and similar activities. This is an irreversible loss, a throwing away by our present generation of diversity built up over aeons, from the origins of life to the current time. The expanding human population since the Industrial Revolution has already had a devastating effect on our available resources. In particular we have seen firstly an expanding demand for food, living space and resources such as timber and minerals. Secondly, we have seen that an increasing pollution of the environment is affecting wilderness regions and also regions which are beyond populated areas. Acid rain is changing the ecological balance and killing off vast numbers of plants. PVR will complete this process. The end result of increasing efficiency of food production through traditional monoculture and the rapid decrease in wilderness and natural habitats has meant a consequent increasing loss of genetic diversity in animals, plants and micro organisms. The world is becoming a much narrower place and this type of legislation is helping that trend. Plant patenting accelerates the trend towards monoculture and consequently accelerates the resultant decrease in crop varieties. It means that an industry can be virtually flattened overnight by pests or disease. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the effects on plant varieties of monoculture in the Netherlands which comes from their seed protection campaign. Leave granted. The table read as follows- GENETIC EROSION AND GENETIC VULNERABILITY IN THE NETHERLANDS: PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS CAUSE GENETIC WIPE OUT AND DOMINANCE OF JUST A FEW VARIETIES VARIETY DOMINANCE IN SPECIFIC CROPS (NETHERLANDS, 1985) Winter Wheat, 2 varieties occupy 75% of cultivated winter wheat area Spring Wheat, 2 varieties occupy 74% of cultivated spring wheat area Spring Barley, 2 varieties occupy 78% of cultivated spring barley area Winter Barley, 3 varieties occupy 76% of cultivated winter barley area Oats, 2 varieties occupy 86% of cultivated oats area Rye, 3 varieties occupy 93% of cultivated rye area Peas, 1 variety occupies 51% of cultivated peas area Potatoes, 2 varieties occupy 50% of cultivated potatoes area Fodder maize, 4 varieties occupy 69% of cultivated fodder maize area Sugar Beet, 3 varieties occupy 91% of cultivated sugar beet area Apart from genetic uniformity within the different crops, Dutch agriculture is heavily specialized on just four crops that occupy 80% of the total Dutch crop area: Winter Wheat, Potatoes, Fodder Maize and Sugar Beet. This results in only 11 varieties (of these 4 crops) occupying 50% of the total Dutch crop agricultural area. In specific regions, the genetic uniformity is even much higher. In the most important agricultural region (``Polders'') only 6 varieties (of three crops) occupy 60% of the total agricultural area of that region. Source: ICDA Seeds Campaign 1987, on the basis of data from the Dutch Agriculture Ministry. Senator VIGOR —Plant patenting also accelerates the demand for the discovery of new varieties related to economically valuable species. New varieties gain their different properties through breeding in new characteristics which come from wild or relatively unrelated species. This type of process will mean that there will be a world-wide search for plants by large organisations trying to net or to own certain genetic characteristics. I believe the next stage beyond this legislation will in fact be the patenting of particular gene characteristics in plants rather than the patenting of seeds. This will have an enormous effect on genetic diversity and will mean that more and more of our species will be liable to be wiped out by chance diseases. As wild and different species become scarcer there will be an increasing incentive to restrict free access to these plants because they will be a resource, like diamonds, which people will try to keep scarce by various means, and that may involve destroying them. The value will be much enhanced by restricting these plants. This legislation introduces an incentive for people to act in an unreasonable way. Plant patenting, I believe, contributes to a general decrease in the genetic pool. It is absolutely unacceptable as a means of protecting the interests of breeders. If breeders have a good product they will be able to make commercial use of it; they are now. Many Australian companies, such as Kimberley Seeds Pty Ltd, are collecting our native plants and crossing native species with conventional food crops and developing them. They are using normal commercial channels, confidentiality and the necessary lead times to carry out the work concerned as a protection in Australia. They are quite successful in doing this type of work. I do not think these people will benefit in any way from PVR activity. All that will happen is that the large companies will come in, take them over and sell our genetic heritage to the rest of the world to our disadvantage. The European Parliament is currently considering plant variety rights. The debate in Europe is an ongoing one and it is by no means accepted that all European farmers and people in the European community-or in Canada, where consideration is now being given to plant variety rights-are convinced that PVR is a good thing. In fact, there is a very strong movement from people to oppose it. Although the Australian Democrats are in a minority in this Parliament, I believe there is a large number of people out in the community who are beginning to see the problems that we are talking about. I thank the Senate. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.39) —I will be quite brief. I had not really intended to buy into the arguments. Having delivered a speech on the subject some years ago, I will not bother to go over what I said then. Senator Robertson —Would that others would follow your example. Senator ARCHER —I am sorry; I am last on the list. Senator Kilgariff —You think you are, but you are not. Senator ARCHER —Well, there you are. I will make a few points on some of the so-called issues that have been raised and, more particularly, on the foibles, fallacies and falsehoods that have been stated. Senator Vigor is usually rational in these matters. I was surprised that on 11 occasions during his speech he mentioned the nasty multinationals destroying us, and so on. I think it is quite extraordinary that he should see this as being clearly the major issue when by no standards is this possible. It does not work only in one way. There is absolutely nothing to stop Australian producers from buying patent rights if they so wish, or from buying the product of patent rights if that suits them. We are part of a world market. We have just as many rights in one direction as in the other. The question of profiteering is another that seems to raise hackles in certain places. People do things for reward, whether by working, making things or growing things. A certain element in our society believes that the introduction of some method of reward is a good way in which to motivate people. That is so in this case. I have been involved in a certain amount of seed and plant production. I have produced new varieties. I have not done so for the purposes of making a profit, because I was not good enough. But I am well aware, having grown things such as daffodils from seed, that, in regard to the production of a new variety of daffodil, it would take a person at least 10 years to get into a marketing situation. When one adds up the cost-only one in 1,000 or one in 10,000 may represent a genetic improvement-one sees that it is a job for people who have the time and the interest and who are looking, in the end, for something on which they may be able to capitalise. It would be wonderful if the Government were responsible for seed production and genetic improvement. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has now entered the chamber. I am sure that anyone who says to Senator Walsh that this area should be in the hands of the Government and that there should be unlimited government funding for seed production and genetic improvement will be terribly disappointed. There are two reasons: Firstly, we do not have the money to increase payments to every area of society; and, secondly, it is not an area in which the Government needs to be totally involved. There is no practical reason why all knowledge and wisdom should be considered to rest with the Government and its various departments. Many of the major improvements that have been made-in regard to either plants or animals-have been carried out by people in a very small way. I refer, for instance, to birds. The birdman of Alcatraz carried out a one-man operation in a one-room cell in Alcatraz. He discovered more about the genetics of canaries than has anyone else in the world, before or since. There is the question of plants falling into the hands of successful people. Of course, the socialist live off failures. They cannot stand people who are successful. I believe that we will certainly not succeed in keeping plant genetics out of the hands of successful people. The world is moving ahead. I would have liked this debate to have taken place at the time that we were talking about liquid fuels, inventing motor cars, or making doors for houses. I think the Australian Democrats in particular would have been arguing just as much against all of those things. I have received some roneoed circulars from people over the last week or two. I think I have received about six or eight. The misinformation about and misinterpretations of the proposition are quite remarkable. Two or three have asked why we do not study the system of the National Seed Development Organisation-NSDO-in the United Kingdom, which relies on the sale of seeds to fund its research. I have been to the NSDO and its main income comes from the growing of PVR seeds. I therefore have really no argument against this letter, but whoever wrote it and circulated it should know a little more about the subject. I did visit the equivalent of the plant variety rights establishment at Cambridge and I have discussed the matter with the people there quite extensively. In fact I still correspond with one of the staff members there. I have seen how the registry operates and I have been to various plant research stations. I noticed that Senator Walters was talking about East Malling, where I have also been and studied the apples and the various blackcurrants. We cannot get those blackcurrants into Tasmania. We can grow blackcurrants better than anyone else in the world, but we cannot get Ben Lomond, Ben Nevis and Ben More blackcurrants because we do not have plant variety rights to protect the establishment. People wanted us to grow various seeds in Australia to increase their pools, but we cannot get them either because we have no reciprocal rights. We have to remember that we are only part of a much bigger world in this area. To isolate ourselves and to put ourselves down at the bottom, with the Third World countries, is absolute nonsense. Senator Kilgariff —This legislation will give it. Senator ARCHER —This legislation will give us an opportunity at least to match our major competitors. The New Zealanders have passed us like a rocket. We need to be able at least to deal with others in a broader way in the advancement of plant species. The biggest fallacy of all is that people will buy junk. A number of times I have heard people say that the introduction of plant variety rights will drive the price up or that it will do something else. We cannot expect people to pay for what they do not get. Unless people are able to develop a product that has an advantage there will be no sales. I do not care what is produced. I do not think even the Australian Democrats would be able to sell something to people if it had no demonstrable advantage. No one can be prevented from keeping the dear old varieties. If someone wants to grow the 30,000 varieties of rice that there were at the beginning of the century, so be it. No one will stop anyone from doing that. By the same token, no breeder who produces something new has to register it. The impression that we are being given is that it has to be done, but it does not have to be done. I venture to suggest that a very small number of plants that will be produced will be registered. Let us get down to the real acid test and avoid talk about things such as merit. If ever I have heard nonsense, it is when someone tries to describe what merit is in a plant. I have heard talk about tomatoes. Someone might want a tomato that will grow in a colder climate, or one that is a very early producer, or one that has a different colour or shape. Who is going to determine merit? Merit is what somebody wants and every buyer has the right to determine what sort of tomato he is after. I do not care what sort of PVR we have. If we are not producing the sort of tomato that is appropriate for someone else's needs, that person is not going to buy it. I have also heard people say that this has cost the farmers millions of dollars. Nowhere in any of the speeches that I have looked at has it been said that it has made the farmers millions of dollars. The improvement in the varieties has brought farmers millions of dollars in profit. Look at what they have done with corn and sorghum. Look at all of these things. This has all been done as a result of plant breeders. It does cost more for better seed, but who wants to buy cheap and poor seed? Who wants to buy seed that will not produce a crop? Would we not rather have three crops a year than two crops a year? Would we not rather have two crops a year than one crop a year? There are all these sorts of things. We cannot do these things unless we get better seed, and we cannot get it unless we make it attractive for people to be in there where the action is. I have been told about the elimination of competition. Competition will come through people being able to see that there is an opportunity. We will not get competition if we do not create a climate for opportunity. I am absolutely amazed at some of the arguments I have heard in this place over the last 24 hours from people who I would have thought ought to know better. Development in Australia will improve, and there is nothing wrong, of course, with government organisations-to wit, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-becoming involved in trying to fund its own development from plant variety rights. I believe that people such as Jim Peacock could do a tremendous amount of extra work if they were able to increase their own funding through PVR advantages. We are told that plant breeding will fall into the hands of two or three multinationals. The number of breeders in New Zealand has increased enormously as a result of PVR. The number of breeders in the United Kingdom has increased over and over again. At the same time, the prophets of doom and gloom who want us to go back into the Dark Ages say: `It will all fall into the hands of a couple of nasty chemical companies'. Of course it will not. I would like to see the work that is being done by the CSIRO in improving the resistance of plants. This is the sort of thing that we will be spending our money on and this is the sort of thing that the public sector can do very well. If we can follow up the work that is already being done and get plants that are resistant to insects, chemicals and various other things, then that is the direction we want to take. Plant variety rights will help us do that; it certainly will not hinder us. If we want to go back to the sixteenth century with the Australian Democrats, so be it. But no one in the whole world with any sense who is interested in trying to feed people and make a better world could do anything other than go along with the legislation. I am sorry it has taken so long to get here, but I am glad that it is here now. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.53) —I will not take very much time; the issue has been canvassed very thoroughly. I think it is time, however, that the record is made straight. The Australian Democrats, of course, are trying to ensure that we all have a place in the coming years and centuries; we are trying to ensure that we do not oversimplify our environment to the point where it has no diversity and in fact collapses. The whole system that maintains our earth is one of diversity, and any time we limit diversity we cause more difficulties. Plant variety rights, of course, limit diversity; there is no argument to that. It limits the number of seeds and the number of species and this causes problems. It causes problems because of disease. Disease can wipe out a limited number of species. If we have more species we have less chance of having the entire food supply wiped out at one time. We have heard in this debate how there used to be thousands of varieties of rice in India; now there are only 30. Senator Walsh —There are 50,000 varieties in collections all around the world. Senator SANDERS —Yes, they do exist now. They should be encouraged to exist rather than be eliminated by the strict control of seeds by the transnationals. It benefits the transnationals to control these resources. They are into vertical integration-and who benefits most? It is the oil companies and the chemical companies-in the same way they have benefited from their strict control over the marketing of petroleum products. They have vertical integration: They take the oil out of the ground; they refine it; they sell it to themselves; and also they make sure that no other sources of energy can come on to the market, such as solar energy or even ethanol. We will find the same thing with plant variety rights. The oil companies will reap a windfall from this measure, because they can be in on the development of seeds which require for their growth specialised fertilisers and specialised insecticides which only they can sell. It will be necessary for even very poor farmers to buy them. They will be encouraged to do this. Their yield will be very great in the short term. They will lose their traditional seed crops which, after all, were merely seeds left over from the harvest and which cost them nothing. They will lose those crops and go in for the new crops and will thus not be able to continue without being hooked on the insecticides and fertilisers. It is a way of hooking Third World farmers on modern technology. I am sorry to see that this discussion has degenerated into a commie bashing exercise. Opposition senators have continually called groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, the Australian Consumers Association, the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, the Australian Council of Churches and its affiliates and the Australian Democrats, fellow travellers. That sort of thing demeans the debate. Of course, Senator Jessop and Senator Archer are looking for cans to kick. They realise that their arguments for plant variety rights are deficient so they have to stoop to denigrating groups that are actually acting for the people. Senator Archer —Which group? Tell me the group that I mentioned. Senator SANDERS —The honourable senator referred to us as being socialist inspired, communist led and all that. Last night Senator Jessop specifically named the Australian Conservation Foundation and the groups that I have mentioned. He implied that the Australian Conservation Foundation was getting $1m a year from various government organisations. If it were, it would be very happy indeed; but, of course, it is not. These groups are very sincere in what they oppose in plant variety rights. I have a letter from the Uniting Church in Australia, the Synod of Victoria. It states: We believe that the judgement that economic benefits will accrue to the corporate seed section is insufficient-indeed, dangerous-justification of PVR. This economic argument ignores the social and ecological impact of monopoly ownership, which will discourage the free exchange of information, seeds and genetic material. PVR also provides for the loss of genetic diversity which is probable upon its introduction because the legislation requires `distinctness, uniformity and stability' (DUS). Opposition to plant variety rights says nothing about a person's political leanings. It says a great deal about his common sense and desire to see the world survive and maintain its viability and productivity for our children and our children's children. I oppose the legislation. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(9.58) —I enter the debate briefly to indicate my opposition to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I will not speak at length because those who wish to know my position can read the minority report of the Standing Committee on National Resources, which investigated the matter. Senator Walsh —How many Committee meetings did you go to, George? Senator GEORGES —Quite a number. Senator Walsh —That is not what I am told. Senator GEORGES —The Minister for Finance may have been told a number of things. In order to discredit my position, I suppose he will take it that, because I did not attend the same number of committee meetings as others did, I was not familiar with the subject and that I did not read the substantial material that was sent to me both for and against the legislation. If the Minister wants to discredit me on the basis of my lack of attendance at the meetings of that particular Committee, I advise him that my work on committees has been considerable. Sometimes I have served the Australian Labor Party by filling a position on a committee which was short of members. If that is the basis of the Minister's argument against me, he can persist with it. I wish to mention only one or two matters. I have an objection to patents. I have as strong objection to the length of patents that are given to discoveries by people, groups of people, or institutions. My view is that patents limit the spread of knowledge. Patents are over-protective and merely seek to isolate knowledge and to give an undue level of profit to those who make discoveries. I also have a problem with patents in that they restrict the spread of innovation. They do not facilitate it; rather, they limit it. There are classical examples available where people who have made new discoveries have patented them, those patents have been purchased and that knowledge has been restricted and limited. What has happened is that the person, persons or corporations which have a great vested interest in the processes over which they have control seek to limit any competition. Therefore, rather than spread competition, patents limit it and the spread of knowledge. There are classical examples of this going back over generations. Just recently there has been the development of a particular style of engine in Western Australia for which patents have been taken up overseas, which will not accelerate the production of the item but will limit it. I have a strong objection to patenting of a human discovery. Possibly that, Senator Walsh, is at the basis of my position. For that reason I object to the length of a patent in the Bill. The period was 20 years, it is now 15 years, and I would like to see that period, if there is to be patenting, limited to five years. The problem I face is that it does not really lead to improvement. Certainly in the plant variety area it will not lead to improvement. It has been said in debates here that there will be improvements in varieties, but from the consumer point of view there is no improvement. The tomato was mentioned. The tomato which is produced by the variety of genetic changes and by plant breeding has been unpalatable and unsatisfactory to the consumer, but it suits the distributors. It suits those who produce machines. It perhaps even suits the farmer, but it does not suit the consumer. The great firms that distribute these products need a product that is hard, indestructible, easily handled and suffers very little waste, because that is their need. Therefore, an article is produced that is quite unacceptable, but the problem is that no other variety is easily available. The process that we are endorsing by this Bill will lead not to an improvement from the consumers' point of view but to a deterioration. It will also lead to a situation where better strains are excluded. Other considerations are taken into account-not the main consideration, which should be the needs of the consumer. I shall vote against the Bill. There are too many considerations that lead to doubt about the suitability of plant variety rights. It does not help small breeders. It will eventually exclude the small breeders and put them at a disadvantage against major breeders and at a disadvantage in protecting their rights, even though they have patent rights. They will find it very difficult to protect themselves against the mighty corporations which seek to exclude people from competition and whose purpose is not to improve but to maximise profits. Our problem-and if Senator Walsh were honest on this matter I am sure he would agree-is that we have to follow what happens overseas. We seem to have been caught in a situation where, if we do not follow a trend or development overseas, we face exclusion. It takes a lot of courage to resist some of those trends from overseas; it might lead to some economic disadvantage to do so. Senator Walsh —It helps to have a feeble and closed mind. Senator GEORGES —Well, Senator Walsh has a pretty open mind. I have noticed it at work in this place. I have noted the way he applies it. It is not a bad mind, but the way he applies it is often to his discredit. He should just put his case and his reason and leave the abuse to one side. If he wishes to engage in that sort of thing with me, he is welcome to try and I will respond as often as I can. But he should just put his case and not talk about other people's closed minds, because if one does that it indicates that one's own mind is starting to close up. Some of us might not be as bright on our feet or as smart at invective. Nevertheless, we endeavour to put a point of view, and I will insist on putting mine as often as I can. I will oppose this Bill. I will support the amendment, which seeks to have the investigations in Europe taken into account. I think that is wise. I believe, as I said before, that it would be far better to allow the development of new strains to take place more in the public area than in the private area. I do not think this is an area in which profit should be the main consideration. I believe that the public interest is much more important than the profits which individuals or groups of individuals can gain by patenting and limiting the availability of certain new advantages. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.07) —At the outset may I say that I have always regarded the issue of plant variety rights as not particularly important. However, in spite of that, some years ago when I was shadow Minister for agriculture I probably received more letters about this matter than about everything else put together. I think that there have been about 17 speakers in this debate. The attention and the amount of time that the Senate pays to some matters can be roughly and inversely measured by their importance. Those who have opposed the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986 have made two assertions which I believe are wrong but which are nevertheless possibilities. They claim that if plant variety rights legislation is introduced and more private money goes into plant breeding and research, two things will happen: First, that public funding will be withdrawn and, secondly, that the gene banks-the 50,000 rice varieties, for example, which are replicated in a number of countries around the world-will be abandoned. I believe those are wrong assertions, false assertions. Nevertheless, should either of those things happen it is probably correct, and it is certainly correct in the case of the gene banks, that the long term consequences-and possibly even the short term consequences-would be adverse. Leaving those two points aside, the common denominator of the opponents of this legislation is a profound ignorance of agriculture, wrapped up in a transnational conspiracy theory. Senator Siddons put this argument quite explicitly and Senator Vigor, I understand, put it in a fairly incomprehensible way. The argument is that if PVR legislation is introduced, the wicked transnationals, principally the oil companies, will produce hybrid varieties which will not germinate unless they are treated with a poisonous chemical, will not ripen unless they are treated with another poisonous chemical and will need two or three doses of poisonous chemicals during their growing period in order to survive. This is where the profound ignorance of agriculture comes in. The argument goes on that hybrid seeds are sometimes sterile or-in a slightly more sophisticated form-the hybrid vigour does not carry over into the next generation. The real point, however, is that the people who produce hybrids-leaving aside this nonsense about transnational conspiracy theories, poisonous chemicals and all that rubbish-are in control of the parent stock already and therefore plant variety rights has absolutely no relevance-- Senator Georges —That is right. Senator WALSH —I am pleased that the honourable senator acknowledged that because some of the other fools on his side do not seem to understand that, and no matter how many times they are told they still refuse to acknowledge it; hence my reference to feeble and closed minds. A number of false assertions are made about this but probably the second most common is that if PVR is introduced farmers will finish up growing only one variety of any particular cultivar. Again, those assertions display a profound ignorance of agriculture. Leaving aside the fact that precise measurement is not always possible, what farmers will grow, at least in the long term, is the variety that yields the highest income. They do not always know what that variety is because of the limitations of the accuracy of testing. But that is the crop that farmers will grow whether or not there is PVR. Farmers in the long term will grow those varieties of any cultivar which yield the highest income, with or without PVR. Senator Georges —Let us move away from cereals. Senator WALSH —Be they cereals or anything else, farmers will grow the varieties that yield the highest income. But it is important to know for the record that it is not always possible to determine that with any precision. The presence or absence of PVR will not affect that decision. The kindergarten Marxists and marshmellow leftists who, along with a few other cranks, specialise in opposing this legislation and putting the contrary argument also seem to be under the impression that once plant variety rights is introduced it will be illegal to grow any varieties other than those patented under PVR. The fact is that no existing variety will be subject to the legislation so any farmer who wants to keep growing what grandfather grew or what any previous generation of farmers has grown will be able to go on doing that regardless of the existence of PVR. Senator Vigor —Nobody will buy it. Senator WALSH —Whether anybody buys it is a choice which the consumer has. I thought that some of the woolly-minded people on that side claim to represent the consumer. What is the honourable senator saying? Senator Vigor —It is the intermediaries that are the problem, like the Wheat Board which set up-- Senator WALSH —I was about to come to that because it is an important point-not in any sort of objective sense but because it is another fallacy that is repeated by woolly-minded people like Senator Vigor or by those with an inability to distinguish between the existence of plant variety rights and a restricted list. I know all this jargon. I read it 10 years ago. The opponents of this legislation seem not to be able to separate the restricted list from the question of plant variety rights. The rambling argument goes that if we have PVR we will get laws that forbid farmers from growing other than a number of specified varieties. We do not have a law, but in this country we have a system of dockages and deterrents, which does not compel but which certainly penalises those farmers who do not grow the wheat varieties which are recommended for particular geographic areas. We have that now. Again, it is a totally separate issue from the existence or non-existence of plant variety rights legislation. Senator Macklin —Why? Senator WALSH —Why? Because it exists now, and we do not have plant variety rights legislation. I would have thought that even an Australian Democrat's mind would reject the theory of retrospective causation. There has been a great deal more religious dogma or moral theology than there has been science in this debate. The most important demonstration, I suppose, of the moral theology or religious dogma is that it is evil for anybody to charge a fee for usage of a plant variety because plant varieties are the common property of the human race. I wonder why that theory is not extended to, say, a motor vehicle engine which is patented and made from metal. Because the metals are lying around in the ground, one could argue with equal validity that they are the common property of the entire human race and that it is evil to charge a patent or a licence fee for anything which is made from these metals which are the common property of the human race. That is obviously absurd when it is put in that way, but that is exactly the same argument that these feeble-minded people put because they say it is evil for any plant breeder who combines in a different way from the way in which anyone has combined before the genetic material which is available and in a way which produces a variety which has a higher yield or produces a higher income for some other reason and it is evil for any fee to be charged for that service having being performed. Senator Georges —You are supposed to be a socialist, Senator. Basically that was the position that you took. Senator WALSH —The position I took on what? Senator Georges —Are you not a socialist? Senator WALSH —It depends what you mean, George. Hitler called himself a national socialist; I am not one of those. There are some national socialists, as Senator Grimes once remarked, I think. There are certainly some national socialists in the Liberal Party in Sydney, and some people would even argue that some of them from time to time have been in this Parliament representing the Liberal Party. That is a fairly meaningless word. Senator Georges —But you have escaped answering the question. Senator WALSH —I believe, George, in a more equal distribution of income. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! Senator Walsh, I would like you to direct your remarks through the Chair. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do not think I should go on for very much longer. I think the points have been made. The pig ignorant fools are most vociferous in opposing this legislation-I exclude Senator Zakharov from that and, even in view of his interjections, Senator Georges. The valid points which can be put against it have been put in that dissenting report. All this nonsense about hybridisation, the transnational conspiracy theory, restricted lists and the implication that it will be illegal for any farmer to go on growing the varieties he has always grown is patently absurd. The Senate has already wasted much more than enough time on this legislation, and I do not propose to add to it. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Macklin's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Georges, G. Powell, J. F. Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Jessop, D. S. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Ray, RobertColeman, R. N. Reynolds, M. Collard, S. J. Richardson, G. F. Colston, M. A. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C. Foreman, D. J. Townley, M. Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. West, S. M. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reynolds, M. Coleman, R. N. Richardson, G. F. Collard, S. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M. Cooney, B. Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Teague, B. C. Evans, Gareth Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S. Grimes, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret West, S. M. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. Jessop, D. S. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vallentine, J. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Powell, J. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.34) —I move: Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), after the definition of ``Court'', insert the following new definition: `` `description', in relation to a plant variety, means- (a) a comprehensive catalogue of the botanical attributes of that variety; and (b) a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the commercial, environmental and nutritional characteristics of that variety;''. This amendment is proposed on the basis that at the time the original plant variety rights legislation was introduced by the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr Nixon, on behalf of the coalition Government, a series of amendments was put forward by the current Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on behalf of the then Opposition. While we reiterate our total opposition to this legislation, we feel that a good many of the amendments proposed by Mr Kerin at that time have some merit. If Australia is to be burdened with plant patent legislation, we believe that these amendments should be included in such legislation. This amendment addresses one of those key issues. It introduces a definition of `description' and, most significantly, it speaks of botanical attributes within that definition. Paragraph (b) of the amendment states: a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the commercial, environmental and nutritional characteristics of that variety; This is very significant and very important. One of the key issues in the debate on this legislation has been the effect, in terms of consumers, at two levels-primary producers, farmers, horticulturists, and nursery people and consumers of the end products, in particular, the food products. The Australian Democrats are extremely concerned that, if we are to have legislation, it should be legislation that takes account of the environmental qualities of products that will be sold in the community at the behest of companies whose track record thus far in the commercial world has restricted access to a range of products, not just in the food area but in a whole range of areas, with little regard-as we have said in our amendment-for the environmental and nutritional qualities. We do not believe that the market forces have any merit standing on their own. We do not believe that this sort of legislation should be in place. I must say that I am utterly astonished that, when the Australian Labor Party finally caved in to the multinational pressure which has caused this legislation to come before us, it dropped a great many of the aspects which it tried to get into the legislation previously proposed by the coalition Government. We have moved this amendment because we believe that it would reintroduce into the legislation some of the positive elements which Mr Kerin attempted to introduce when in opposition. I would expect the Government to support that same Mr Kerin, who is now the Minister for Primary Industry. There is no question that, if we are to have this kind of legislation, this sort of safeguard is necessary. Senator Zakharov exhorted us to look at the safeguards in the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I thought that she had a bit of a struggle demonstrating that there were safeguards. I certainly would expect Senator Zakharov to support this and other allied amendments which will be coming up which are definitely safeguard amendments and which the Australian Labor Party obviously thought were useful a few years ago but, for some odd reason, has not incorporated in this Bill. We now provide the Labor Party with the opportunity again to support the inclusion of this safeguard in the Bill-a safeguard which will mean that commercial, environmental and nutritional characteristics are part of the definition in plant patent legislation. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.38) —The Australian Democrats have circulated a large number of amendments. I will speak to this one. However, I do not propose to speak to any of the others. This amendment is of some consequence and some substance. The Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, or somebody else will be relieving me shortly. This amendment covers what is usually described as merit testing. It presumes that farmers are fools. Some of them are. Some of them vote for the Democrats. Most of them probably vote for the National Party. But on matters such as which crops and which varieties of particular cultivars they should grow most farmers are not fools. As I said in the second reading debate, most farmers will grow the varieties that they believe will yield the highest income. Merit testing, in the abstract, is desirable. Of course, it is something that is already done, principally by State departments of agriculture which test a large number of cultivars for yield potential, disease resistance, and so on. Therefore merit testing is not innately undesirable and will continue. This amendment proposes to make it compulsory for any new variety, before it can be registered, to be merit tested. Yield is something that can be measured in a particular environment with precision. Let us look at the other things that have been thrown into the amendment, such as the word `quantitative'. How, for example, would one get a quantitative assessment of the environment characteristics of a variety? Frankly, I do not know what that means. I suppose that somebody will say: `This particular variety will not grow unless the seed is treated with a poisonous chemical; therefore, it is environmentally undesirable and it should be banned'. How would one make a commercial assessment of a new variety other than by measuring yield, which is something that one would expect to happen anyway? It is not sensible to suggest seriously that any government agency can measure all those things in any objective way. The mechanism by which most of those varieties are assessed in this society is, of course, the market place operating both at farm level and, ultimately, at the consumer level. I know that some people believe that government should get more heavily involved in giving people what is good for them instead of what they want. All governments do that to some extent. In Australia, for example, it is illegal for people to use heroin. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable and it is a matter for which I do not think there is any decisive proof. To use heroin even for purely medical or pain killing purposes is illegal in Australia. But I think anybody would agree that there is a limit to the degree to which governments ought to be involved in giving people what governments believe is good for them instead of what they want. It is a matter of judgment where that line should be drawn. The other matter, which is more directly related to my responsibility in government, is that very heavy public costs could be involved in compulsorily testing anything that was submitted for registration unless cost recovery was obtained, probably by State departments of agriculture which would actually do the testing, from those who were applying for a patent. In any case, if new cultivars are produced I expect that the producers will voluntarily approach State departments of agriculture seeking as objective an assessment as can be made of the characteristics of that variety. The Government will not accept this amendment, nor will it accept any of the other amendments. I do not propose to speak to any of the other amendments. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.43) —I just want to comment on one or two of the points made by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). The Minister has suggested that the Australian Democrats believe that farmers are fools. We certainly do not. One of the things we have recognised in this debate is that not all farmers support this legislation. We have been told about letters from the National Farmers Federation which state that this Bill is marvellous and that we must pass it in a hurry. We do not have any of those letters. However, we have letters from the Livestock and Grain Producers Association and from the United Farmers and Stock Owners Inc. I spoke with representatives of the National Farmers Federation back in the pre-Joh days, when reason was prevailing in that organisation as opposed to what I heard this morning. They told me of several specific aspects of the Bill which they were very concerned about. In fact, this amendment and a couple of others are based on those early discussions which I had with the National Farmers Federation. Farmers certainly are not fools and if there is one thing that they need from this legislation it is merit testing. I will comment on one of the Minister's later points. It is obvious that one of the reasons why the Government-in government as opposed to when it was in Opposition-has moved away from this clause, which I remind honourable senators was the clause proposed by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, when in opposition, is that it is afraid that this measure will cost a lot of money. That is probably perfectly correct and it is one of the major concerns which we have with this legislation. In the second reading debate the issue of costs was somewhat muddled by some speakers particularly from the Opposition. It is not only the potential cost to the end user of the new varieties which has been a question at issue in our minds. If we are to have a whole new industry, which is based on the ability of private profit to be made out of a public resource, we have to recognise that if we are to have any control at all over what is produced within that industry it will be a cost and it is a question for government. This Government, through the Minister for Finance, is telling us that we cannot have a Bill in which merit testing is a major feature and I think that is extremely dangerous. He also told us that the reason we cannot have merit testing is that it will cost too much. That is what we have been saying all along. It is not that we believe, as the Minister has suggested, that governments should give people what is good for them and not what people want. However, we believe that governments should ensure that there is choice for people, that when people are making a choice they can choose between things which might not be good for them and things which might be good for them, between things which might be good for the environment and things which might not be good for the environment and between things which might and might not have different qualities. What we have said all along in our arguments is that one of the results of this legislation is that that degree of choice becomes limited because of the oligopoly situation which occurs. In 1982 the Australian Labor Party, then in opposition, in proposing this sort of clause in legislation before the House at that time, was prepared to put up a cosmetic exercise to its constituents. I just want to place on the record that it has moved right away from that position since it has been in government, that it is not prepared to have the safeguards of merit testing in this legislation and that it has not been prepared to accept the fact that that kind of cost has to be paid by someone. In our view it would have to be paid by the people who would be making the profits and those, of course, would be the people who were taking out the patents. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.48) —I rise to support the amendment moved by Senator Powell. There is clear evidence of a lack of concern by commercial interests in the matters of importance to the community that the amendment addresses. This fact was recognised by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, when the amendment was drafted, when the Government was in opposition. It is another clear case of a sellout by the Government to interests for reasons which cannot be specified. To turn down this amendment would give people a green light. It would say: `The Hawke Government approves of anything you can get away with regarding the environment and nutritional characteristics provided it is to your commercial advantage'. That is to be the only criterion. I am not surprised that the Minister for Finance has said that he will not comment any further on any amendments. I will come back to that point in a moment. In this context I can understand that. It must be a bad morning for him because what he has said so far has damned him out of hand and I will quote his exact words to him. He said that farmers are not fools; I would agree with him. Senator Walsh —Some of them are. Senator MASON —Fair enough, some of them are. He said that they will grow varieties which they think will yield the highest income. Senator Walsh —That's right. Senator MASON —That is right; that is what the Minister said. In other words I think the Minister is agreeing with some of the things I said in my speech in the second reading debate. Indeed the criterion will not be the quality of a product; it will not be flavour; it will not be of value to the community; it will not be nutritional; it will not be environmentally good. The only criterion as stated by the Minister is that it yield the highest income. Senator Collard —People aren't going to buy anything that is not nutritious or tasty. Use your sense. Senator MASON —People buy things that are not nutritious. Senator Collard knows that as well as I do. Senator Collard —You said last night that people were queuing up to buy old tomatoes. There are market forces operating. You cut your own argument to ribbons. Senator MASON —Apparently Senator Collard is asserting that people will not buy anything that is not nutritious. That is crazy. The honourable senator knows perfectly well that one has to go only to a fast food shop or to look around the community to find people who will buy food that is not nutritious. Senator Collard —Not if there is something better. Senator MASON —The honourable senator has raised a very important point. It is not something of which all members of the community are necessarily aware because they are busy with other things. There is food one can eat in our society and things that one can have that are not particularly good for one. I would have thought that this Parliament would have a certain duty in that regard. In fact that fact is already recognised, as the honourable senator would know. Why does he think we have the National Health and Medical Research Council and its standards? We have them for those kinds of reasons. It is recognised that people do not take just the simplistic view that the honourable senator put, that they will buy what is necessarily good. The Minister has confirmed our worst fears. He has stated that the main bottom line of the Plant Variety Rights Bill is that it will encourage people to grow things which will yield them the highest income and that will be the only criterion of any value or importance. That goes back to the tomato issue. Senator Georges mentioned it in a recent division and I mentioned it in my speech in the second reading debate. It is very good for a grower to have a tomato which has a good tough skin. The tougher it is the better because the tomato can be carried easier, it can go through processing easily. However, it is not what a person wants in a raw tomato when he has to cut it up and eat it. Again it has been conceded that flavour is not in any way a requirement in this Bill. In other words this Bill gives an open brief to people to turn out the nastiest and worst tasting food they can possibly grow provided, as the Minister said, it yields the highest income. If ever one could see naked motivation of what the Government is doing it is in this legislation. I would like to comment briefly on the Minister's statement because I think it has to be raised. Time and time again we get the situation in which the proceedings of this chamber are called into contempt by Ministers. The Minister has stated that he will not comment on future amendments. That is an insult to this Committee and I think it is something that has to be considered in that light. It implies that the proceedings in Committee of the Senate have no value. Indeed the Government can treat them as it wishes, with contempt. It can either take them or leave them alone, one might say. I would not have thought that that was what this Parliament was about. The amendments which have been moved are reasonable amendments. In fact quite a few of the amendments were put forward by the Government when it was in opposition so the Minister cannot treat them lightly. He cannot say that there are things he does not want to discuss. That is one point. Mr Chairman, you might say: `What is new?'. You are sitting here patiently and might easily ask that question. I am saying that at this stage this matter ought to be raised, that the Government and Ministers in particular have no right to treat the Committee with that kind of contempt. I personally resent it and I think all honourable senators should resent that view taken by a Minister in this place. As I have said, the Minister's contribution to Senator Powell's first amendment so damned him out of hand and so nakedly exposed the lack of concern that he and the Government have for the effects of this legislation that I am not surprised he does not want to expose himself further. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.54) —I just reiterate what I said in my speech in the second reading debate. Senator Walsh —Put it on the record that the Democrats want to stop farmers maximising their income. Senator COLLARD —I thank the Minister. That is really what it gets down to. The Australian Democrats want to stop farmers maximising their income particularly when times are as hard as they are. We will not be supporting any of the amendments. The concept of plant variety rights has been around for years. There have been numerous inquiries to which the public has been able to make submissions. Those inquiries have all come up with a recommendation that PVR proceed. The Industries Assistance Commission has recommended it quite a few times. I doubt whether there is any major primary producer organisation that is against PVR. Senator Sheil —It works in other parts of the world. Senator COLLARD —It works in other parts of the world; I do not know why it could not work here. We do not want to see this legislation held up any further than it has been. Obviously, the Democrats are out to filibuster. So, I will not take any further part in the Committee stage. I do not want to give any substance to the Luddite mentality which is prevailing in the Democrats today. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Powell's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vallentine, J. Powell, J. F. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Childs, B. K. Puplick, C. J. G. Coates, J. Ray, RobertColeman, R. N. Reynolds, M. Collard, S. J. Richardson, G. F. Colston, M. A. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crichton-Brown, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C. Foreman, D. J. Townley, M. Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, E. E. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. West, S. M. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.03) —I move: (2) Pages 3 and 4, sub-clause 3 (5), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following new sub-clause: ``(5) For the purposes of this Act, a person shall not be taken to have originated a plant variety by reason only that the person discovered the existence of plants of that variety, whether as a result of deliberate search or otherwise.''. This amendment, in contrast to my first amendment, incorporates one aspect of the original legislation-the Nixon Bill-introduced by the Opposition when it was in government. It addresses the very important concern as to what happens under this legislation with regard to discoveries. We were told constantly during the second reading debate on this legislation that it does not apply, firstly, to varieties which currently exist and, secondly, to varieties which are discovered. We believe, after looking at the legislation, that the provisions are far from firm or tight enough on this issue. I must say that we were astonished somewhat to find that we preferred the strength of the way in which the original Nixon Bill addressed this issue. This amendment, I believe, makes it quite clear that a person cannot claim to have originated a plant if it is found in the wild by one means or another. This amends aspects of the Bill which, as I said, seem to be too indefinite for our liking. Currently, the Bill does not make this quite clear. I refer, as I did during my speech on the second reading of the Bill, to a couple of people in the Australian context who are showing a little entrepreneurship by going out into the wild and forming a new industry. They are doing extremely well by finding, storing and selling plants and seeds. It is terribly important that we be able to continue to do this and that through this sort of legislation this kind of opportunity is not lost. Hence, we propose this amendment. I was quite astonished when Senator Collard spoke at the second reading stage. He, having received these amendments from me some time ago, said that there would be no support for any of these amendments. The Opposition, like the Government, is now walking away from its original position on plant variety rights legislation. I think it was Senator Collard who referred to some confusion in the Primary Industry Newsletter about who was supporting whom on this legislation, that publication having suggested that the Opposition was falling in line with the Go-vernment. As I said at the time, I do not blame anybody for being confused about this matter. Neither party seems to be sticking to its original position. What really disturbs the Australian Democrats is that it is those aspects, both of the original Bill and of the original Kerin amendments to it, which appear to protect the public interest and Australia's genetic diversity and other such aspects which are being walked away from for the sake of a Bill the genesis of which must be a matter of great question during the Committee stage of this legislation. I will be raising other questions about where in fact support for this legislation is coming from, because information that I have had and requests I have had, both from the farming community and from the seed industry itself-from some of the people who have been pushing for this legislation for many years-tell me that these people share the concerns of the Australian Democrats which we are using the Committee stage and these amendments to address. We are distressed that the Minister has chosen to absent himself. We will, however, continue to press ahead with our concerns, and it will become more and more obvious that they are consistent and that they address the major issues. I am pleased that, in spite of what Senator Collard said before, he has chosen at least to remain in the chamber for this amendment. There is at least another amendment which picks up another of the provisions of the Nixon Bill. I will be interested to discover why the Opposition does not feel now in 1987 that it can support a very important provision which would preserve for all time, quite clearly, the natural gene pool in its natural state in this country at least, even if we cannot do it for those other areas in the world where the natural genetic base is centred. I commend this amendment to the Committee. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.08) —I am quite disturbed that there has not been an effort from Senator Collard to speak to this amendment. It is extremely important that we should protect Australia's genetic pool from pirating. Basically, what this amendment seeks to do is stop people coming into Australia and treating it as an area in which they can prospect for seeds, taking things that we already own, pirating them and then selling them back to us at our cost. This is actually turning a lot of our genetic advantage, our genetic heritage, into a disadvantage to the people of Australia. I do not agree with the whole Bill, but unless this amendment is passed we are really making a giant step backwards. I would like to commend the drafting people who suggested this idea in the original Nixon Bill. I am surprised that Senator Collard and his colleagues are not supporting what was originally put forward by their colleague. I would also like to get from the Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, who is at the table and who I know is a very fair-minded person in these matters, his reaction and that of the Government. Is the Government really prepared simply to allow people to come in to pick up varieties of plants in Australia and say: `I have discovered this; it is now mine'? It seems reasonable, if people work for many years breeding something and doing some biotechnology and such, that they should have some personal interest and gain from the work that they did. But if it is simply a prospecting exercise then not only will it be possible for a person to patent a wild plant but also it will be possible for somebody who finds that wild plant later to be accused in the courts of having used patented seeds. There is no way in which this even makes legal sense. Senator Tate, with his legal background, will, I believe, recognise this. There is no way that the rights for a plant variety found in this way could be enforceable in the law courts. This amendment makes it clear that there is no way a person can patent a plant simply because that person has discovered the existence of that plant. Somebody else may discover it later and then be bound by laws which are very difficult, almost impossible, to follow. We are creating a legal nightmare and an impossible situation for the people of Australia. I commend to the Minister the consideration of this matter and urge him to give us a reasoned argument for rejecting this amendment, which I believe would give us some protection at least against people walking into Australia, picking up a plant and saying `this is mine', and selling it back to us at a later stage. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(11.13) —It is the intention of the Government, of course, not to support this particular amendment. I am interested that Senator Vigor should make the concession that if persons do breed a particular new variety, and have put some biotechnology, as he said, into the effort over many years, they should enjoy some personal gain. I think those were his words. That seems to me to be the whole basis of this Plant Variety Rights Bill. It is astonishing to me that, that concession having been made by Senator Vigor, the Australian Democrats should have opposed the very principle at the second reading stage. Having dealt with that, I am advised that it is not possible under the terms of the legislation for a person to come into Australia and take a particular piece of genetic material out of the wild, out of the bush, and patent it. The real reason, of course, that I am concerned about the Australian Democrats' amendment in this particular respect occurs to me when I think of the orcharding industry in Tasmania. The terms of the amendment may prevent somebody who finds, say, on his apple orchard, a particular mutant and works on it, tests it, develops it and markets it-as, I think, occurred at one stage with the granny smith apple-getting some reward. I think perhaps such people should. For those reasons, anyway, the Government is not supporting this amendment. For instance, they may find something which competed with one of their own products and which in fact was a much better product. As we shall find when we get to a later debate on clause 38, the Government leaves that matter wide open. There is ministerial discretion but there is no way in which a dishonest government, or a less than honest government, at some future time might not allow an open brief in that kind of area. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.14) —A number of points raised by Senator Powell and Senator Vigor are still flying loose in the wind, as one might say. The point really being made by the Australian Democrats is that if a natural thing exists it ought to be protected. It is well known-and we hear this time and again-that our rainforests represent one of the world's most important gene originating areas. A great deal of work needs to be done there. What we are saying now with this legislation is that anybody at all in the world can come into Australia and use that resource as a sort of mine and that that mine can then be exploited-not necessarily for our interests, but possibly even against our interests. The other point that needs making is that not only could something be picked up which has not been discovered, but something might well be picked up and patented which is already used by people to whom it would never occur to take out a patent. One has only to think of the Aboriginal people and the food they use. I can see a situation arising here where somebody might come in and pick up a particular staple, or type of, food or drug that the Aboriginal people use, walk away with it, patent it and then come back and say to the Aboriginals: ``You can no longer use it because I have the patent''. I would be most interested in the Minister's comments on whether this amendment, even if it provides that kind of safeguard, might not be worth while. My view and the Democrats' view is that in the Committee stage of this Bill-and I know that this is a serious accusation-the Government is taking an irrational and completely unjustifiable stand. In other words, when rational points are put forward, as we are putting them forward, they should be dealt with by the Minister. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has shown his cowardice by leaving the chamber and allowing Senator Tate to take this matter over for him. That is not to the Minister's credit. However, we will attempt not to embarrass Senator Tate in this Committee stage. In any case, I prefer his sitting there to his predecessor. I believe that Senator Collard is gravely at fault. He is not looking at some small matter, at something which has not had a respectable status in the past, but is looking at an amendment which originated in his own area and with which presumably he agreed when it came to caucus, if he were present, as a good thing. I do not know, and I shall not ask him, whether he spoke up in caucus and said: `I, Senator Collard, say that this amendment is not to go through. I disapprove of it'. I doubt that he would have said that because we all know that Senator Collard is a reasonable man. I would like to hear from him on that basis. I can sympathise with his wish not to comment on the amendments because he is in a hard place on this one particularly. But for his own self-respect and for the sake of the dignity of this place and its procedures, we would like to hear from Senator Collard on this one, if we could have that privilege. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Powell's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vallentine, J. Powell, J. F. Vigor, D. B. Alston. R. K. R. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Childs, B. K. Puplick, C. J. G. Coates, J. Ray, RobertColeman, R. N. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Richardson, G. F. Colston, M. A. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C. Foreman, D. J. Townley, M. Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. West, S. M. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 to 10-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 11 (Public notice). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.25) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 6, sub-clause 11 (2), line 17, at end of sub-clause, add ``and in a daily newspaper circulating generally in each State''. (4) Page 6, sub-clause 11 (3), line 22, after ``Gazette'', insert ``and in a daily newspaper circulating generally in each State''. (5) Page 6, sub-clause 11 (5), line 34, after ``Gazette'', insert ``, a daily newspaper circulating generally in each State''. (6) Page 7, paragraph 11 (6) (c), line 6, after ``Gazette'', insert ``and in a daily newspaper circulating generally in each State''. I have moved these amendments as a group because they all have the same effect. This section of the Plant Variety Rights Bill relates to the giving of public notice of matters of which the Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry is required by the legislation or by the regulations to give public notice. Under this legislation the only requirement is that that should be given in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. It has been made perfectly clear in the course of this debate that the Australian Democrats have enormous concerns about this legislation and its potential impact. We believe that at the very least, given that we will have this legislation imposed in Australia, the public should have the fullest possible access to information about the legislation. Therefore, these amendment demand that as well as publishing any notices which are required to be published in the Gazette, the Secretary shall also publish them in a daily newspaper circulating in each State. This issue of public access is critical. There are some review processes promised for this legislation. We do not see how any review of any aspect of the legislation can be effective if the general public has not had the opportunity to know what has been going on in the interim. Given that we believe that the impact will be not just within the seed and agricultural industries, but also on the community as a whole, we believe that the community has the right to know. It is not just the general community to which I refer. One of the problems with this kind of legislation-and in the industries concerned themselves-is that very often the only people who are really in the know are those who are at the top levels of those industries. They are the people who have resources in order to have access. In our current information age this becomes more and more so. Even for people within the industries concerned, it is important that information be available in the broadest possible way. I commend these amendments, which are not from the former Opposition, the current Opposition, the former Government or the current Government, but purely and simply, for a change from the Australian Democrats. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(11.27) —The Government will not agree to these amendments. It is important that the public should have some means of knowing what applications or grants or revocations are taking place in this area. The Commonwealth of Australia Gazette will include that information. As more material is required to be published, we hope to move to a situation which obtains in like jurisdictions overseas where a plant variety rights journal is published. That will help those who have a real interest in this area to get hold of the information necessary to their interests in that form. In the meantime we believe that the Gazette publication will be adequate. In particular those interest groups which have flourished over the last few years will know that that is the case, that they need to keep an eye on the Gazette, and no doubt they will do so. The Department of Primary Industry in each State will no doubt be a ready place for those who are interested to gain the sort of information that will be gazetted. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.29) —I wish to ask the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) why a different principle is being adopted here in relation to these amendments from the one that the Government itself adopted in the Biological Control Bill 1984. In that Bill it set out very clearly that the operation should be advertised in a daily newspaper circulating in each State. In that debate Senator Grimes, the Minister who was in charge of that piece of legislation at the time, made great play of the fact that this type of information was necessary when one was engaging in such activities. Obviously in the case of the Biological Control Bill there was as much concern about damage and changes that might result from some type of activity on behalf of the Government as there is in this area. I would have thought that the principle was probably even more important in this area. Why was that principle adopted in the Biological Control Bill and not in this Bill? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(11.31) —I am not sure of the exact reason for the dichotomy between the two approaches. I have been advised that in relation to biological control matters there would be a wider community need to be aware of the introduction of such controls in order to deal with a pest of some description. In this case one is dealing with the necessary publication of formal steps in the process of application and the granting and revoking of rights under this Bill. At the moment, in these early days, the Government considers that gazettal will be sufficient. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.32) —I support the amendments and wish to push home the points that have been raised by Senator Macklin. It seems to me that tampering with the public's foodstuffs is just as important or more important than any other consideration that the Government might like to have. The Commonwealth of Australia Gazette does not have wide readership, as we know. That is putting it mildly. It is a way of advertising things if one does not want anyone to know about them. On that basis I suggest to the Minister that he should take this matter a little more seriously. After all, this amendment is an attempt to save the Government from its own worst follies. In our charity we try to do that from time to time. This whole area of plant patenting is highly controversial-I am sure that the Government understands that-and this set of amendments would at least give the appearance that the Government wants the public to be informed as fully as possible. But no, here again, not only are the growers to be encouraged to consider their financial gain as the only important criterion in growing food, but also the public is not to know about it. Every step that can possibly be reasonably taken will be taken to ensure that it does not know about it. Here again we have that unfortunate flair for secrecy which has been one of the characteristics of the Hawke Government. I do not know whether it comes from the Government itself, or its leader, or whether it is just being heavied by public servants in the Yes Minister mould thinking that it is much better that the public should not know things. I could be quoting Sir Humphrey in saying that. I am sure that we have public servants in Australia who sincerely believe that it is better that the public does not know things because there are guardians, in the platonic sense, in the senior echelons of the Public Service who will look after us all. I am sure that they feel that there is no need whatsoever for the public to be given expensive advertisements in the daily newspapers telling them what is going on in what could be quite unconscionable tampering with its foodstuffs. In view of the nature of this Bill, there will almost certainly be unconscionable tampering with its foodstuffs. I should have thought that this was an area that needed free ventilation. I see that Senator Collard has withdrawn from the battlefield. Perhaps Senator Archer or even Senator Walters might enlighten us as to why the Liberal and National parties feel that it would be wrong in this case to inform the public. I am sure that the Liberals and Nationals have opinions on this. Whether they will ever enlighten us on those opinions remains to be seen but again it begs the question. Do they not want to comment on this matter? We have made some reasonable points. It is necessary to have proper publicity of this sort of thing. Presumably one of two cases obtains. Either they agree that there should not be such publicity or they have not thought about it carefully enough; I suggest that in that case they should. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Powell's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vallentine, J. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Powell, J. F. Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael McIntosh, G. D. Baume, Peter McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Childs, B. K. Puplick, C. J. G. Coates, J. Ray, RobertColeman, R. N. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Reynolds, M. Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sheil, G. Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Townley, M. Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. West, S. M. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 12 to 15-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 16 (Form of application). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.43) —I move: (7) Page 9, after paragraph 16 (h), insert the following new paragraph: ``(ha) particulars of any tests carried out demonstrating the commercial, environmental or nutritional characteristics of the variety;''. This amendment raises again the issue which was raised in my first amendment; that is, the demonstration of the commercial, environmental and nutritional aspects of a variety. But in this case the amendment is not proposed in the context of an application being made for the issue of a patent for a new variety. We are asking that a clause be added which will require the applicant for a patent to include, amongst the information which is provided to the Secretary, information on the particulars of any tests carried out which demonstrate the commercial, environmental and nutritional characteristics of the variety. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) addressed this issue when he spoke to my first amendment and he made the point that this type of merit testing is very expensive. As I did then, I point out that the amendments are based on an amendment which Mr Kerin, the current Minister for Primary Industry, proposed to the original legislation. As I said before, it is obvious that at that time it was important to the Australian Labor Party-or at least the ALP wanted its constituency to think that it believed it was important-that varieties should be tested for such characteristics and that that should be placed on the record. In this case I want to make the point that the reason we are pressing for this testing to be done and, in this case, for particulars of such testing to be on the record at the time of application is that one of the dangers with this kind of legislation is that of cosmetic breeding. A lot has been said in the debate about the way that choice which is offered to the consumer can be and, in overseas experience, has been restricted very often and how genetic diversity has diminished and dwindled. I remind the Senate that this is not something which comes out of our imagination; it comes from the European Parliament, after up to 30 years experience with this kind of legislation across the range of European countries. The Opposition was at great pains during the second reading debate to draw to our attention the number of countries. I noticed, however, that one member of the Opposition-I think it was Senator Hill-who at first said that he would not read us the whole list then did, but he baulked at saying the USSR at the end of his list; he stopped at the USA. It is a fact that when we talk about the European Parliament here we are not talking about a bunch of people who, firstly, have not had any experience or, secondly, do not represent the broadest range of the countries in Europe. It is they who have expressed concerns about the narrowing of the genetic base. Cosmetic breeding is one of the ways through which this happens. Cosmetic breeding makes very, very good commercial sense. For a person or a company involved in this industry it is exactly the right thing to do. Senator Archer —Just answer an intelligent question. How many countries have pulled out? Senator POWELL —I suggest that when the report comes down from the European Parliament we might very well see some countries getting very cold feet. With some of the requests of the European Parliament, in particular to remove exclusivity from the legislation which is currently in place, we might very well see some forms of legislation coming through in the range of European countries. This is one of the great benefits of the European Parliament as it currently stands, although in such an enormous parliament it must be absolutely horrific. Senator Macklin has been there and might share some of his observations with us. One of the benefits, even in such a large gathering, must be the fact that these countries can get together-they obviously have on this issue-and share their concerns, and it is now a matter of public record that this is to be investigated. To return to my point about cosmetic breeding; it makes perfectly good commercial sense. We have said that we do not believe farmers are stupid, and they are growing varieties because they are selling them. In many cases, however, particularly in the case of not so much our broadacre crop but those more specialist products which are grown both for local markets and for overseas markets in the horticultural area, one of the dangers is cosmetic breeding. It is that area which we are told needs so desperately plant variety rights because it is just about on its last legs, yet in the last eight years the vegetable industry has increased by 800 per cent or 900 per cent-I do not know the exact figure-and is bringing in a very respectable and strongly growing export revenue without plant variety rights. It seems to me quite astonishing that we have had the farmers' parties in this Parliament saying what a rotten job these growers are doing; they are actually doing an extremely good job. No doubt they can and will do a better job. We are certainly not here to see that that does not happen. One of the aspects of selling, particularly horticultural products, is that one then has to deal with the middleman. We know from our experience-this is reflected overseas as well-that there is an oligopoly at that level as well. It is for that reason that we have this hard-skinned tomato that has been getting such a difficult time in the Parliament today. I am absolutely delighted that it has because, as a consumer and as the provider of family meals, as many of us are, it has been a bone of contention for a long time. The reason that the vast majority of tomatoes which are consumed in this community are that particular kind of tomato, which we are all grizzling about, is not that that is the one we choose but that that is the one that is on the shelves of the supermarkets. As we know, there is an oligopoly; the companies dictate to the producers what will be grown. Such a tomato transports well and looks good on the shelves, and they can get away with the fact that it tastes bad because they have the distribution sector tied up. It is a simple matter for companies at the various levels, even if they are not under the same umbrella, at least to co-operate with each other because there are so few of them. We have only to look at what is going on in other areas of takeovers in Australia at the moment to see how carving up the market between a few big players is very effectively done. In that context, if growers are growing varieties which are selling and they are re-using their seed or their stock which, under this legislation they are able to do, the companies which are selling the breeding stock or the seed have to come up with something new. If the farmers and the horticulturists are using and re-using their seed, the market is not growing. So, to make the market grow, the seed producer has to come up with another variety. He has to come up with one that is different in looks, taste, feel or transport ability. He can do that. It might be a lettuce, and the lettuces might be selling very well, but he might come up with one which has a purple edge. It may be no different nutritionally or as far as yield is concerned, but it may just look different. Because the company has great resources it can mount a very strong sales campaign. We know how such a campaign works with new products. Our society is susceptible to that kind of a campaign. So next week when everybody goes to the supermarket to buy their salad vegetables what will they all be looking for-the new, super, whizz-bang, polyunsaturated, supercalifragilistic-dare I even say-incentivated lettuce with the purple edging? If the growers do not have that one they will have to buy that seed. It is this kind of thing that this kind of provision in a Bill such as this is designed to prevent. I suppose Mr Kerin had these same concerns in 1982, but obviously those concerns have not endured until 1986. That is a pity. I think this kind of provision which requires an application for a patent is absolutely fundamental to the interests of the people who will buy the seeds or the plant material. Those are the farmers, horticulturalists and the nursery people in Australia. I am very disappointed that the Government has said that it will not accept this, even though again this is one of the amendments which Mr Kerin attempted to make to improve the original Bill of the coalition Government in 1982. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 17 to 19-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 20 (Objections to grant of plant variety rights). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.53) —I move: (8) Page 12, paragraph 20 (1) (a), line 5, leave out ``commercial''. This amendment, as did an earlier amendment, comes from the original Nixon Bill. As I said when I moved the earlier amendment, amendment No. 2, I am astonished that the Opposition is not supporting its former Minister. I said that then, but since then I have remembered a newspaper article which I saw not more than a day or so ago in which I noticed that Mr Nixon had said that he would leave the National Party of Australia if Joh took over. So now I am not as astonished as I was that the current Opposition is not supporting Mr Nixon's original proposition. I think the Joh factor is operating in this chamber today. In the original Nixon Bill the word `commercial' did not occur in this clause. We do not believe that it should be in this legislation either. According to the clause as it stands, an objection to a grant of plant variety rights, which is what this clause addresses, can be put on the basis that the commercial interests of a person would be affected by the grant of these rights. During the passage of this Bill we have indicated that we believe very strongly that there are, and ought to be, far more issues than just commercial issues involved in this legislation. Obviously the Opposition felt the same way, or it would appear it felt the same way, when it proposed this legislation at the time it was in government. I imagine that the fact that the Opposition has now agreed to a much more limited right of people to object to the grant of plant variety rights means that it also holds a much more limited view. It is fundamental that anybody whose rights might be infringed by the issue of a patent ought to be able to object. I think it would be useful if the Minister could enlighten us as to why the Government does not believe that a range of interests of people could be at risk if this legislation goes through. At present the Bill provides that an objection can be made only if commercial interests are at risk. I ask the Minister why it is that the Government does not believe that other interests which might be infringed-for instance, the environment or some kind of individual right-should not be part of this legislation. This amendment would ensure that such interests are considered. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.57) —I would like to make a comment about the non-commercial aspects of this clause. One non-commercial aspect that concerns a number of people, including people in the foreign aid area, is the impact of plant variety rights in overseas countries and, expressly, on the Third World. Let me very briefly illustrate what will happen by outlining the following scenario. I instance a situation in which a farmer is now growing not only his own food but his own seed. It is going to be irresistible for this small Third World farmer when the Standard Oil snake oil seed, insecticide and fertiliser salesman comes around and says: `Look at what Jose has done in the next field over there. Look at his crop. It is bumper high and it is doing well. Your crop, Porfirio, is not doing so well. How about buying our seeds, our insecticides and our fertilisers because if you do you can increase your yield'. Porfirio, of course, is going to say: `Oh, Si, senor, I will do that thing. Okay, but I have no money'. The seed salesman, who works for the Standard Oil Company, will say: `Okay, well, we will loan you-we will advance you-some money'. So Porfirio gets hooked on the system. Things go well for a few years, but then he finds that he cannot sell his crop. He still has to keep buying the seeds and as a result he goes broke. If he happens to be a freeholder, which might be unlikely, he will be heavily in debt for past purchases. He will probably be forced to sell his property to big agro-business. Big landholders will come in and take over and thus put him out of business. He will not even be able to engage in subsistence agriculture as he has already lost his seed crop of the old varieties because he has gone to the new varieties which are hybridised, will not grow and need all of the oil company's chemicals to make them flower. So the situation concerns not only the commercial aspects; it has to do with the impact on lifestyles, and the sustainability of life itself, in the Third World. This should be considered. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 21 (Inspection of applications and objections). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.00) —I move: (9) Page 12, clause 21, at the end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ``(2) The Registrar shall, within 21 days after public notice of an application for plant variety rights has been given, cause a copy of the application to be made available for inspection at the principal office of- (a) the State Department of Agriculture or the equivalent Department in each State; (b) the equivalent Department in the Northern Territory; and (c) the Department of Territories in the Australian Capital Territory.''. This clause of the Bill, which is somewhat similar to an earlier clause in respect of which we were concerned about access to information, relates to the ability of people to inspect applications and objections. Clause 21 provides merely that a copy of the application or the objection will be provided upon payment of a fee, if any, as prescribed. When that provision was proposed in the original legislation, Mr Kerin, the current Minister for Primary Industry, moved an amendment-it was lost, as were the others to which we have drawn attention-which would have required that notice of that application be made available for inspection basically at the State departments of agriculture and the equivalent departments in the Territories. This comes under the heading of access to information in a slightly more limited way than does another matter which was the subject of an earlier clause. It seems to us that there is a further need in the legislation to provide specific access to information and notice of application on the basis that access should be made as easy as possible because we believe that there is a very strong potential for this legislation to have a negative impact. Once more, we have a situation where the Government, when in opposition, believed, or said it believed, in these sorts of principles. This amendment does not require enormous widespread application. It simply provides that this information shall be made available to departments of agriculture in the States and the Territories. This link between the State departments and the federally administered program under plant variety rights will be absolutely critical. During the second reading debate, one honourable senator and, I think, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in summing up, made reference to State departments of agriculture. At the moment these departments are very important players in the whole business of the provision of very high quality seeds and plant material to farmers and producers, and they will continue to play an important role. People who are interested, and who have a right to know what is happening in this area, should be given as much access as possible. The State departments are a perfectly appropriate place for this to happen. Once again, it appears that the Government is not prepared to support a position which it held only four years ago when in opposition. Nevertheless, I commend this amendment to the Committee. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 22 agreed to. Clause 23 (Characteristics of plant varieties originated outside Australia). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.05) —by leave-I move: (10) Pages 13 and 14, clause 23, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ``Characteristics of plant varieties originated outside Australia. ``23. For the purposes of this Act, where a plant variety in respect of which an application has been accepted was originated outside Australia, the variety shall not be taken to have a particular commercial, environmental or nutritional characteristic unless a test growing of the variety carried out in Australia at the cost of the applicant and taking not less than 2 years has demonstrated that the variety has that characteristic.''. (11) Page 14, after clause 23, insert the following new clause: ``Characteristics of plant varieties originated in Australia. ``23A. For the purposes of this Act, where a plant variety in respect of which an application has been accepted was originated in Australia, the variety shall not be taken to have a particular commercial, environmental or nutritional characteristic unless a test growing of the variety carried out in Australia at the cost of the applicant and taking not less than 2 years has demonstrated that the variety has that characteristic.''. This particularly important part of the legislation relates to characteristics of plant varieties originated outside Australia. Given the history of this type of legislation internationally, and given the Government's stated intention that we should become a member of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, there is no doubt whatsoever that, through this legislation, Australia links itself irrevocably to the international system of plant patents. Of course, Australia is already strongly linked with this international scene of agricultural production, exports and imports. That is not the question in issue. Given that it is highly likely-and it will not be a very palatable exercise-that we will have to come back into this chamber at some future time and point out that the Australian seed industry has been successfully taken over by international forces, as have other seed industries, this clause has enormous significance. We are extremely unhappy that the legislation before us requires very limited discretionary testing. Our amendment will make testing mandatory and it introduces that area of merit testing which the Minister addressed before, as Senator Mason said, he fled the scene of battle. It seems to us that, given a takeover of the Australian seed industry following this legislation, it is most likely that more and more varieties will be coming from overseas. If those varieties do not have to be tested in Australia and any tests applied to them do not have to include the sort of merit testing which the phrase `commercial, environmental and nutritional characteristics' demands, our farmers and our horticulturalists, whom the Opposition has said it stands for and we do not care about, will be very badly at risk. The Australian environment is a particular environment, as is the environment in any other country. But Australia is the driest continent on earth. It is one of the oldest continents on earth. Somebody from the Opposition accused the Australian Democrats of being people who had obviously never grown a seed or a plant in their lives. I was brought up on a wheat farm in western Victoria. I have grown plants and seen seeds grow, and I know about, and have a deep understanding of, the problems in the country. Other members of this Party have had similar sorts of experiences. Senator Vigor is currently still involved in primary industry interests and other Democrats have various interests in this area. One of the things we know from personal experience is that our farmers are working in a particular environment in Australia. It is a harsh one and sometimes it is extremely unkind. We know that one thing is not possible: We cannot have an expectation that plants and seeds which are brought in from overseas will grow and produce in Australia in exactly the same way as they do overseas. Pure common sense tells us that. If I had never seen anything grown in my whole life pure common sense would have told me that. For instance, something might do very well in California and not do well in South Australia, although in general, global terms those two areas share relatively the same climatic conditions. The whole Australian environment, with the very uncertain nature of the rainfall, the sorts of pests we have to deal with and the soil types in most areas, is extraordinarily unique. We might have exactly the same climatic combination-the same rainfall and the same temperature range-but be trying to grow seeds in a quite different soil. We might have the right sort of soil but the rain might occur in different months. All those things have to be taken in account and will affect the way a plant variety which might have been thoroughly tested overseas will grow and produce in Australia. The points I made earlier about the ability of very large companies to market their products to growers and farmers comes into play here. A variety coming from a very large commercial concern can be highly promoted through television advertisements, through the supermarkets, through a whole range of advertising, which is highly persuasive in our society, and through commercial journals related to the industry. We have only to look at what happens in the medical industry with the very effective and well placed glossy advertisements in medical journals which persuade doctors that the very best thing to give to those manic housewives who keep coming to them saying they have aches and pains are some of the industry's wonderful wonder drugs, which the housewives subsequently get hooked on, resulting in a tremendous social problem. Let us picture the same thing happening in the rural industry. The rural journals are full of glossy advertisements for new products and new varieties-the ones, we are told, that everybody is dying to get his hands on, even though my information is that a person who really wants a product that is working can get it anyhow. Farmers in Australia are swallowing all this cosmetic hype, as well they might. Unfortunately, it is the way in which our society operates all too often. The farmers are people who are struggling. They do not have a lot of time and money to get out and find things out for themselves. They trust people like us to make decisions which will protect them. Senator Zakharov talked about safeguards in this legislation. Every one of the amendments that we are proposing today has the effect of providing a safeguard which is not in the legislation. We are doing it so that these people will not be hoodwinked, will not be sold a pup or, as the horticulturist who got in touch with me said, will not be fed a con. If something is going to come in from overseas it is very important that it be tested here for a range of characteristics-commercial, environmental and nutritional. There is no way that this Parliament should be passing a piece of legislation which states that farmers can be sold a product which does not have to be compulsorily tested or tested for those characteristics. The effect of the first of the two amendments that I have moved together is to safeguard against that. The second amendment relates to varieties originating in Australia and reiterates the point made in the first amendment, which was rejected by the Minister and by the Government. It insists on the commercial, environmental and nutritional characteristics being tested, taking testing out of the discretionary area and puts it into the compulsory area. Under the original Bill it is discretionary. We believe that it should be compulsory and that it should be at the cost of the applicant applying for a right. We believe that the applicant for or the owner of a right should be paying the cost. Obviously that person will be in a position to pass it on to the farmers. That is a concern. That is one of the reasons why we are stressing our concern about the takeover of this industry by a very few people. We know, from experience in a number of other areas what happens, when we get a monopoly. We have two levels of consumers in this argument-the grower, the farmer and the horticulturist who will use the seed, and the consumer who uses the end product. These amendments have the effect of protecting the interests of both those categories of consumers. I commend the amendments to the Committee and remind the Committee that this type of merit testing was originally supported by the Government when in opposition. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.14) —I just want to add a few words to what my colleague Senator Powell has said on the question of testing. The first of the amendments which we are now considering is the one that interests me. It seems to me that this relates to one of the worst possible gaps in the Bill, which is bad enough, heaven alone knows. This gap, as Senator Powell has identified, is a very serious one. One can infer a couple of points from what Senator Powell has said. The first is that claims will be made for material brought into Australia and marketed here. Those claims will be made on the basis of overseas experience. Presumably they will be made in good faith because that is what the Bill states: It states that we do not have to do anything more than that. If a product is grown in California, Iceland, Cornwall or New Zealand that is perfectly okay here and therefore there is no need for any further testing. But if someone wants to be silly enough to test it and to place himself at an economic disadvantage by doing so then, of course, he can. That raises the second point. The great failing in legislation is that all discretionary or voluntary requirements of people particularly of business, cost money. When testing or a procedure of any kind is provided which is not obligatory, which is not mandatory, one is really saying-draftsmen and, I am sure, departmental draftsmen must know this very well-to people: `Do not test. It is not necessary for you to test. Do not be silly. We are putting in this requirement because it looks good; it is cosmetic only'. If a person produces something in, say, Iceland and he wants to grow it here and he is silly enough to test it, he places himself at an economic disadvantage. It costs money to do these things. The grower will say: `That is all very well but your particular product is costing more than X's product. I know X says that his stuff is good. Look at all these claims which are made about it. This brochure has been printed in San Francisco and it is great stuff'. Tremendous. The person who has been honest enough to test his product will not do it again because it places him at an economic disadvantage. I stress that point because I think it is very important that this matter be taken into account not only in this Bill but also in other legislation. The only fair way of ensuring equal treatment is to make such testing mandatory and that, of course, is what Senator Powell's amendment proposes. I would very much like the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to answer this point because it seems to be quite basic and fundamental. Again it begs a number of questions. If it is not answered, there may well be a good answer to it. I cannot imagine what it would be. The Government and certainly the Opposition-some members of which, I think, even now still pretend to represent the rural constituency-ought to take up these matters. It is said that silence gives consent. It could be inferred from this debate-and I want to make this point on the record where the Government and the Opposition have declined to comment on these amendments-quite properly and logically that they have taken the opposite position. In other words, they are in absolute agreement with what is in the Bill and in absolute disagreement with the amendment. Worse still, however, the Government is not prepared to say why it disagrees with the amendment even if a reasonable case were put forward, as is the case with this amendment which requires an answer. This is a problem for the Opposition because a confidence trick is being played on the Australian farmer. He is being sold out very badly by the failure to provide a safeguard, which is important. If I were a farmer I would not go to the trouble, as most farmers would not, of reading through all of the amendments, all of the material and certainly not the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. I would be getting on with the job and would probably think that the product would be tested. Senator Archer —Please do not go into farming. The farmers have enough trouble without you. Senator MASON —In the past the attitude of Australian agriculture and Australian governments towards agriculture has been such that safeguards are provided, as Senator Archer would know full well. Even in Tasmania I think these things are done. Things are not just allowed into the country. One would not allow sperm or anything like that into this country without reasonable tests having been done. Those tests are carried out and I think that fact is in the farmer's mind when he buys the product. However, this legislation will not ensure that those tests will be done. Again this is a cause of concern for the Australian Democrats. It has worried us as we have gone right through this Bill and it has made it necessary for us-- Senator Archer —It does not waive quarantine. Senator MASON —If the honourable senator wants to talk about that matter he can do so later. He can speak; it is his job to speak not to interrupt what I am saying. He has interrupted my train of thought and that is a serious matter. However, I will attempt to regain my train of thought. Farmers in this case will buy things which they think will work but which will not work. This can be a very serious matter because often it is not just a small thing that was bought. This has been the case in India, the Philippines and other countries with some of the rice varieties. A variety may seem to be very good especially if it is grown in overseas conditions. It may be so good that an enormous amount of it is planted. Virtually the whole industry may turn over to it. Then disaster can strike as has happened in the Philippines and India where varieties in that area were found to be subject to disease or pests which were not suspected earlier. That situation could quite easily happen here. We could have one of those wonderful things which the people who are pressing this Bill, as I have said, tell us is in the Garden of the Hesperides, in Europe or somewhere, where marvellous things, beautiful things, are being grown but we cannot get them. How terrible for us. We are naturally seized with a sense of deprivation as a result of this. If that line is to be pushed it would be with some eagerness that local growers would embrace that measure. They would say: `This is great stuff. We want it'. They will assume, as I have said, the products have been tested but, of course, they will not have been. I would like the Minister to take up those points if she would not mind, particularly the point about the economic disadvantage which would inevitably be faced by an importer who wanted, for reasons of conscience and integrity, to go through the expensive task of testing which would place his organisation at a competitive disadvantage to those less scrupulous ones which would not bother to do so. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(12.22) —I will answer Senator Mason's queries. The departmental secretary must be satisfied that the plant variety will perform as it performed overseas. If it does not and it gets a right, the variety will not be successful in the market-place. The present provision gives flexibility for the secretary to admit varieties from New Zealand with minimum delay. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.23) —I am sure that Senator Mason appreciates the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) answering his question which is in relation to my amendment and therefore I also appreciate it. However, I just point out to the Committee that the wording of the Bill states that if: . . . the Secretary is satisfied that- I will read the sub-paragraph- . . . any test growing of the variety carried out in Australia would probably demonstrate that the variety has that characteristic . . . It is that sort of terminology in this legislation which has moved us to attempt to strike out that whole sub-paragraph because it is all a question of whether the Secretary is satisfied with a whole lot of things. I point to the use of those words in the Bill. I have no idea how anybody-the responsible person in this case is the Secretary-can possible make the kind of judgment that something would probably demonstrate. As I said when I moved this amendment, one can look at data. I suppose what is proposed is that this whole matter would be put through a computer program. One would take the rainfall, the temperatures and the soil types and put the statistics through a computer because I understand that that is what people do these days. I grew up on a farm and I am not satisfied that something which will come into this country and be sold to a farmer will be brought in on the basis of tests which I am assuming will be done through a computer. If they will not be done by actual test growing of the product under Australian conditions, I am not satisfied and I do not think the Committee should be either. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.24) —I would like to take this point a little further because it raises yet another point which is of basic importance not only to this legislation but also to the whole process of Government. I ask: How does the Secretary find out the facts which would allow him-or her, with respect to my colleague Senator Powell-to make that judgment? He cannot because no test is required. It is a very slovenly attitude of Government which seeks to impose on a public servant a responsibility which that public servant ought not properly to be required to assume. In other words, who carries the can? The Secretary carries the can. Is back-up given to the Secretary? No, there is no back-up given to the Secretary. The Secretary carries the can in conditions where importers do not have to test; they test only if they want to. They can give the Secretary all sorts of assurances. They can say: `We have tested it there and it is great stuff`. They can take him to lunch and say: `There is nothing wrong with this, Joe, it is perfectly okay'. But after that process is completed and something goes terribly wrong-and that could happen-presumably the person who will get clobbered is the Secretary. This is not satisfactory. It really is thoroughly and fundamentally unsatisfactory. We in this Parliament are paid to take the responsibility for seeing that that sort of thing does not happen-that public servants are not placed in that intolerable position. If we allow this provision to slide through, I suggest we are very much failing in our duty. I think this is a matter of very great importance, Senator Powell stated it at some length. She has not overstated it. Senator Vigor, I think, has strong feelings on it, too. No doubt we will hear from him shortly. But before he starts to speak, I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to raise that point. I think it has been eloquently demonstrated by Senator Powell's reading of the actual Bill. It is an intolerably unfair burden-in a matter of potentially tremendous consequences to this country-to impose on a Secretary of a department. There is no back-up and no real teeth in the machinery that he can invoke to protect himself. If some variety is brought in and there is something wrong with it which we did not know about and if, meanwhile, the Secretary has said `As far as I could establish, the tests were okay', does the Minister have his head? What happens? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(12.27) —Quite clearly, in a case such as this, the Secretary would have available to him or her the technical advice of experts and make the decision based on that expert advice. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.27) —We are talking about a real problem. One can raise some examples. The one that I would like to raise is one which is outside the plant variety rights area, but which could turn up in the plant variety rights area if proper merit testing is not carried out. The McDonald's fast food chain has standards for the potatoes which it requires for its outlets. It has set down quite specific varieties which have, I believe, been sold to them by various other people who are associated with its business. Because it has specified these plant varieties, various farmers have tried to grow these varieties under conditions which were not ideal for them. The people who have borne the cost of this exercise have been the farmers who have taken up the challenge and got rotten yields. What the Government is doing-what the Opposition is doing by not supporting these amendments-is leaving our farmers open to yet another vagary in the commercial scene. There are enough problems with the weather and all the other general difficulties that farmers must face. In this case we will also leave them open to the fact that the seed, the basic growing material with which they will start, will not be properly screened for them. They will not have the information. We are not saying that people should not be able to take a risk. As Senator Mason has said, essentially, the imprimatur of the Secretary will be to the effect that this variety is probably a reasonable one to grow. Farmers are generally not too gullible, but they will accept this type of statement, if the legislation is to do anything at all. If the legislation will not do anything, why have it? So they will accept this statement. Unless we have proper merit testing within Australia and we actually determine that the seed products that we are giving to our farmers are of a reasonable standard, we are really failing in our responsibility by giving an imprimatur to those seeds. We are entering into a false pretence situation. I ask the Government and the Opposition to reconsider their decision, or at least to tell me where I am wrong. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Powell's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vallentine, JPowell, J. F. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume Peter McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Newman, J. M. Coleman, R. N. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, M. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Sheil, G. Evans, Gareth Short, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Townley, M. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. West, S. M. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 24 (Test growing of plant varieties). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.35) —by leave-I move: (12) Page 14, sub-clause 24 (1), lines 23 and 24, leave out ``a test growing, or a further test growing, ``, insert ``a further test growing''. (13) Page 14, paragraph 24 (1) (a), line 26, leave out ``or'' (second occurring), insert ``and''. (14) Page 14, paragraph 24 (1) (b), line 28, after ``particular'', insert ``commercial, environmental or nutritional''. These amendments are designed to address several issues which arise out of the early sections of clause 24. This clause relates to test growing, as do other clauses, of plant varieties and to applications for grant of patent on plants. The amendments would have several effects. The first is that of, in a sense, anticipating that test growing will have taken place before the application is made. What we are therefore calling for is a further test growing which the Secretary might consider necessary. The second amendment changes the word `or' to `and', because we believe that the fullest range of aspects should be looked at in a further test growing. I point out that the provisions of the Plant Variety Rights Bill, under clause 24 (1) (a), deal with determining whether a plant variety is homogeneous or stable. I point out that that is actually not consistent with the requirements for grant of plant patent under the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants system which union we are destined to join. UPOV requires proof of distinctiveness, uniformity and stability. That is of concern to us because one of the issues in this debate is the narrowing of the genetic base. This UPOV requirement has that effect, especially in monoculture which, of course, is still the predominant form of agriculture in Australia. We would have, then, varieties which are extremely narrowly genetically based. Obviously, in modern agriculture, most varieties which are grown, particularly those that are grown in quantity in a monoculture situation, as I said, do not have a great deal of genetic diversity within them. But there can be some. What this sort of requirement tends to do, and has done, is to ensure that a variety when it is bred has the narrowest of genetic bases, because very often-too often-it needs to have that to be able to satisfy the requirements of distinctiveness, uniformity and stability. So I just point out that the legislation before the Parliament is couched in terms different from what the requirements-I imagine the overriding requirements-will be under the international convention of the union which this Government supports our joining. That is of concern because I do not know whether the Government has used this terminology so that we will not realise that we will actually be doing just a bit more than that. The third amendment, amendment 14, seeks to introduce, as we have done several other times in the course of moving these amendments, the specific characteristics of the commercial, environmental and nutritional features of a variety for which a variety right is being sought. We are doing so for the same reasons that we have already outlined. I point out that again this was an aspect which the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, when in Opposition, believed was important and which he attempted to introduce to the equivalent clause of the original Bill. This whole clause goes to many of the issues that we debated in relation to the previous amendment-issues of how much and what kind of testing should be required before a variety is granted a plant variety right or patent and before a variety is promoted for sale out in the community as something new and as something which, by virtue of its being promoted for sale, would be supposed by the community to have some inherent merit. I must at this stage address a point made several times during the debate when it was suggested that we do not believe there should be a private plant breeding sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is one now, there should always be one, and I suggest there always will be one under any circumstances. It is simply that under this type of legislation, as the international experience shows, that private sector seed industry will end up in the hands of a very small number of groups of companies whose other connections cause us concerns as to what their motivation will be in their plant breeding. We are not trying to kill off any private plant breeding sector but rather to ensure that it is motivated by the desire to develop an industry which will serve the interests of the community and, indeed, maximise the profits of farmers and others and provide a range of quality products for the community, while at the same time allowing to operate, as there does now, alongside and complementary to that private seed industry, a public sector. Consideration interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate, both in that capacity and as Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, to yesterday's landmark decision by the Victorian Equal Opportunity Board in awarding damages against a company which, under threat of strike action, dismissed a worker who refused to join a union. Does the Minister agree with me that this is a significant blow against the closed shop tradition which dominates so many Australian workplaces and that it should be welcomed, certainly by all those who believe in genuine freedom of association? Does the Minister also agree, however, that the decision could leave employers in a catch-22 situation, squeezed between their legal obligation to the individual employee and the threat of industrial blackmail by powerful unions? What action can or will the Government take, and what changes will it make to help employees, already hard hit be record interest rates and an inflation rate out of line with our trading partners, who might face such a dilemma? Senator BUTTON —I notice that Senator Chaney is joining his colleague Mr Andrew Hay in apparently getting great comfort out of this decision. That does not surprise me. Senator Chaney —Are you suggesting that you disapprove of it? Senator BUTTON —I am about to come to that, Senator, if you will allow me time. First, let me say in regard to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Board legislation that the circumstances are somewhat distinct from the circumstances which I think Senator Chaney might have suggested in his question. It is not designed to cover lawful industrial agreements. That legislation could not be invoked when unions and employers have come to some arrangement or agreement about union membership. It invokes State legislation and is unlikely to have any national ramifications. This Government would encourage people to join and actively participate in the affairs and management of unions. I am sure that is a bipartisan policy because that was frequently said when those opposite were in government, and I do not think there is any dispute about it. But we recognise that a balance needs to be struck between individual freedom and the public interest in a healthy industrial trade union movement and in maintenance of good industrial relations. Insofar as the Federal Government has responsibility in these matters, it is reflected in the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That Act and regulations under it provide it that federally registered trade unions have to be voluntary associations. Preference to unionists can be awarded only by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and then only subject to certain criteria. The Act further provides for conscientious objections to membership of trade unions. In the context of the Victorian legislation, and in particular having regard to some unfortunate incidents which they have had in Victoria over the last few years, one in particular, I think that the decision of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Board is an important one, but I do not think it has relevance to Commonwealth Government legislation. I do not think that any external verities can be drawn from this decision about the attitude one should take to trade union membership generally. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. How much revenue could be raised by implementing a broad based indirect tax of the kind that John Howard is proposing? In view of the Queensland National Party policy, is the Queensland Premier a hypocrite and a fraud in opposing a consumption tax? The PRESIDENT —Order! Under standing order 418 I ask the honourable senator to withdraw those aspersions. Senator REYNOLDS —I will rephrase my question. In view of the Queensland National Party's policy-- Senator Chaney —On a point of order, I would ask you, Mr President, to ask the honourable senator to withdraw, not to rephrase her question. The PRESIDENT —Senator Reynolds, you have not yet withdrawn. Senator REYNOLDS —In deference to you, Mr President, I will withdraw `hypocrite and fraud'. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr President, I would ask that you seek an unqualified withdrawal. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Reynolds to make an unqualified withdrawal. Senator REYNOLDS —I would be happy to make an unqualified withdrawal. The PRESIDENT —I thank the honourable senator. I call Senator Archer. Senator Archer —Mr President- Senator Reynolds —I rise on a point of order. I seek to rephrase the question and to ask my question in its original form. How much revenue could be raised by implementing a broad based indirect tax? Senator Chaney —I rise on the point of order. The honourable senator, having been asked to rephrase her question, then sat down and did not keep on her feet and try to rephrase the question. You then called Senator Archer, and I suggest that in those circumstances he should be allowed to ask his question. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Reynolds sat down. I was not sure whether she was going to ask the question or not. There was a time lag, she stood and she asked the question. I have given her the call and now ask the Minister, Senator Walsh, to answer the question. Senator WALSH —A value added tax at a rate of 8 per cent, which is the type proposed by Mr Howard, would yield just under $5 billion of revenue additional to that which is raised by the present wholesale sales tax. It was Liberal Party policy to abolish the wholesale sales tax and to have a VAT-type tax at a rate of 8 per cent, which would yield nearly $5 billion more revenue that a wholesale sales tax does. That policy, I understand, has since been vetoed by the Queensland National Party, the tail that is wagging the Liberal Party dog. So Mr Howard has an additional $5 billion of credibility gap to account for, something that he as yet has failed to do. It is interesting that the National Party in Queensland should have torpedoed the Federal Liberal Party policy in the way it did because the platform of the Queensland National Party says: The National Party favours increased reliance upon indirect (consumption based) taxation, rather than direct (production based) taxation. And so on. It is not so surprising when one looks at other sections of the National Party's economic affairs platform because the very first item says: The National Party of Australia, Queensland, stands for the free enterprise economic system. It goes on to assert: A competitive market system which is subject to a minimum of regulation and government intervention provides the form of economic activity for the achievement of maximum efficiency. That is in direct contrast to what actually happens in Queensland and is entirely consistent with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's current practice of talking about one thing while doing another. Senator ARCHER —The Special Minister of State will recall answering a question from me on Tuesday about the decision to close the Perth office of the National Crime Authority and his reply that the NCA did not expect to need to operate an office in Perth in the next few months. Can the Minister confirm a report in today's West Australian newspaper that the main thrust of the Authority's Perth investigations is so-called front-end insider trading? Is it a fact that these investigations will continue from NCA offices on the east coast? If, as claimed in today's newspaper report, the original NCA terms of reference have opened up `a can of worms so large that it was daunting', can the Minister assure the Senate that such follow up investigations can be pursued by remote control from Sydney or Melbourne rather than on the ground in Perth? Will the Minister have urgent discussions with Mr Justice Stewart in view of the request by both the Western Australian Government and the Opposition for the office to be reopened and maintained. Senator TATE —It is my hope to have a co-operative approach to the task of fighting organised crime, particularly if it relates to drug trafficking, but not confined to that, with my shadow, Senator Archer. But I assure him that that collaboration will not go to the extent of revealing any operational information to do with investigations, the gathering of intelligence or any action under particular references from the intergovernmental committee which might be the basis for action by the National Crime Authority. To that extent I will refrain from commenting at all on what is, after all, no more, even in the terms of the front page article in the West Australian, than information the source of which is unrevealed and anonymous. Therefore, the first part of the question is beyond what I would wish to reveal to the Senate. On the general question, I said last Tuesday, and it still remains the case, that the decision to close the Western Australian office of the National Crime Authority was taken by that Authority quite autonomously and without any political interference whatsoever, as indeed was its decision to establish that office. When the Authority undertakes a general investigation it does not need to go to the intergovernmental committee for a particular reference which gives it more coercive powers than it may need to use. So there has been no political interference whatsoever in either the establishment or the closure of that office. I remind the Senate of my answer last Tuesday in which I said, and it is the case, that I had had discussions that very morning with Mr Hill, the Western Australian Minister for Police, who had indicated to me-no doubt he was acting with the advice of his Commissioner-that he was happy with the course of the investigations which had been undertaken by the National Crime Authority and was not concerned that the closure of the office would impede any ongoing investigations, the references having been substantially concluded. As for meeting with Mr Justice Stewart, it is my intention on Monday at 8 o'clock in the morning, to meet not only Mr Justice Stewart but also the other members of the National Crime Authority in my office in Parliament House, where I have no doubt I will be fully briefed on those matters which the Authority wishes to bring to my attention. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Did the Minister hear an interview with the National Farmers Federation Deputy Director, Rick Farley, on the AM program this morning in which he indicated National Farmers Federation support for Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's thrust into Federal politics? What are the implications for the farming community if Sir Joh's policies are implemented, in particular in the areas of taxation and interest rates? Senator WALSH —In a word, the implications for farmers if the National Farmers Federation preferred policy was actually implemented would be catastrophic. However, I was not surprised to hear Mr Farley appearing as a supporter of Sir Joh. Mr Farley is an experienced snake oil salesman. Back in the late 1970s he was the Director of a redneck outfit called the Cattlemen's Union. He spent years in that capacity peddling the Cattlemen's Union beef marketing plan. That was a proposition to establish a monopoly marketing authority and then, using monopoly powers, to jack up prices on the domestic market. It was believed that by extorting the captive market the Union could increase beef producers' incomes. The catch, however, was that there was a high elasticity of demand for beef on the domestic market and the plan would have diverted about 200,000 tonnes from that market to the export market, not at the average export price but at the marginal and very low export price. So the net result of that particular brand of snake oil that Mr Farley was peddling at the time would have been to marginally decrease beef producers' incomes but provide a very large income transfer from Australian consumers to foreigners. Nor does it surprise me that the National Farmers Federation, and particularly its President, is supporting Sir Joh's policies, because the NFF has been looking for an excuse for months to come out in support of a flat tax. The first likely effect of such a tax on farmers' taxation is that it would penalise everyone with an income below $27,000, a figure which is about double the present average taxable income of farmers. More than 80 per cent of farmers would be disadvantaged by the flat tax proposal if it were to raise the same amount of revenue. So the National Farmers Federation is supporting a policy which would disadvantage 80 per cent of the people that it purports to represent. The alternative to that-that is, not raising the same amount of revenue and blowing out the Budget deficit-is as I described it a couple of days ago in the Senate when I presented a scenario of Sir Joh as Prime Minister. Sir Joh would call together the senior bureaucrats and say: `We are having flat tax, flat tax'. The bureaucrats would say: `But Prime Minister, if we have flat tax the Budget deficit will blow out to $16 billion or $18 billion'. He would say `Don't you worry about that, that will be all right; don't you worry about that'. The Treasury officials would then try to sell sufficient additional government bonds to cover the $16 billion or $18 billion deficit and interest rates would rise to 30 or 40 per cent. Then Sir Joh would call the senior Public Service officials together again and say `Bring interest rates down'. They would try to explain to him how it was difficult to bring interest rates down. The one of the white shoe brigade would tell him to stop the Treasury from selling the bonds and not to fund the deficit because that would bring interest rates down. Probably it would for a while until hyper-inflation took over. The farmers who are supporting their alleged leaders' support Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen are asking for either a big increase in their taxation burden or interest rates of the order of 30 to 40 per cent followed by hyper-inflation. My final point is that how the National Farmers Federation reconciles its alleged support for a deregulated economy and the operation of market forces with its support for the opposite sort of economy in Queensland is as big a mystery to me as how John Stone manages to reconcile his support for the flat taxers and the flat earthers with his traditional and trenchantly expressed views when he was Secretary to the Treasury. In short, Farley is a snake oil salesman of old and it is no surprise that he should support Petersen. Mr McLachlan, as always, does not represent those for whom he purports to speak. He represents John Elliott and his fellow Elders IXL directors. The PRESIDENT —I wish to acknowledge the presence in the visitor's gallery of the Niger Minister for Mines and Energy, His Excellency Mr Sani Koutoubi. I welcome him to the Senate on behalf of all senators and I trust that his visit to Australia is both beneficial and enjoyable. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator MACKLIN —I refer the Minister for Education to the agreement between the Federal Government and the States whereby recurrent costs for nurse education in colleges of advanced education are borne 75 per cent by the State governments and 25 per cent by the Federal Government. Does the Minister agree with the reported remarks by the South Australian Minister for Technical and Further Education, Mr Arnold, that imposition of the Federal Government's new $250 higher education fee on college nursing students constitutes a breach of the agreement? He says that the imposition of the fee has given an unfair windfall to the Federal Government and reduced the promised level of Federal Government subsidy per student. Is the Minister taking any steps to repair this breach in the agreement over the transfer of nurse education from hospital based facilities to colleges of advanced education? Senator RYAN —The imposition of the $250 administration charge can hardly be regarded as a breach of the agreement since it was not in existence at the time the agreement was reached. Also, there is no reduction in the per capita recurrent funding provided under the arrangement as a result of the charge being introduced. It is additional funding, 90 per cent of which comes to the Commonwealth and 10 per cent remains with the institutions. Institutions do not suffer as a result of the charge; in fact, they gain 10 per cent of it for their own uses. If a particular institution wished to utilise that 10 per cent for matters concerning nurse education facilities it would be free to do so. There is no basis in the argument that there has been change in the agreement on account of the $250 charged. It is an additional charge. It is not a charge against the States. The State is not having to increase in any way its contribution to nurse education. This is new money over and above any agreement which was reached and, as I said, institutions including those undertaking nurse training will keep 10 per cent of the money. In that event, they will actually have an increase in funds available to them. Senator MACKLIN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the Minister to that part of the question where I referred to the South Australian Minister for Technical and Further Education, Mr Arnold, who declared this charge to be a breach of the agreement between his State and the Commonwealth. I ask the Minister whether she agrees or disagrees with that comment. Senator RYAN —If Senator Macklin had been listening he would know that it is quite clear that I disagree with that. I do not know how Mr Arnold can sustain the view that the imposition of a new charge which does not affect the States contribution to nurse education in any way can be regarded as a breach. I also pointed out that of student nurses, those who will be required to pay the charge will be only those who are not in any of the exempt categories or those not eligible for Austudy. It is my understanding that the same proposition of student nurses are eligible for Austudy as in any other course of study-in the vicinity of 40 per cent. There may also be some pensioner beneficiaries in the exempt category undertaking nurse studies. They will not be affected, nor will any Aboriginal nurse trainees. As I said before, this is a new charge. It does not affect the States' contribution to the arrangements we reach with the States; so in no way can this be regarded as a breach of the agreement. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister able to provide any recent information as to the effect of the non-deductibility of entertainment expenses on the restaurant and hospitality trades? If so, does the information lend any support to the claims made by members of the Opposition in relation to job losses and restaurant closures? Senator WALSH —The short answer to the question is that the facts do not provide any support for the assertions made 15 or 18 months ago by assorted members of the Opposition. Indeed, the facts flatly contradict the predictions that they made. Just to remind the Senate of some of the predictions: In December 1985 Senator Messner cited a BIS-Shrapnel Pty Ltd alleged study which claimed that a total of 18,000 people directly and indirectly would lose their jobs. From that I can assume only that Phillip Ruthven was very fond of the free boozy lunch. A month after the announcement Senator Knowles said that 5,000 restaurant workers had already been sacked. Senator Boswell said that there would be a massive fall in employment in February-March 1986 and about 14,000 jobs would be lost. Senator Short said that 20,000 people would be put out of work, Senator Jessop said that 1986 would see the demise of restaurants throughout Australia and Mr Hodgman said that 80,000 people would be put out of work. Those are the predictions of members of the Opposition and they stick by them, I notice. They do not allow their prejudices to be clouded at all by the facts. Once their propositions have been tested imperically and been found wanting they persist with the beliefs that they had before, just as they persist with their belief in a deregulated labour market-a free for all in the labour market-that would produce a wages explosion followed by another catastrophic recession, just like the one they engineered in 1981-82. It is said that the higher anthropoids generally have the potential for trial and error learning. I regret that the members of the particular sub-section of the higher anthropoids who populate the Opposition benches do not seem to have that capacity. They insist on trying to repeat their mistakes. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. I suggest that the Minister has just crossed that fine line of abusiveness which renders his remarks unparliamentary. I ask that he withdraw that last remark. Quite simply, the Opposition is sick of the boorishness of the Minister for Finance, his total lack of manners and his continual abuse. He has been forced to withdraw on half a dozen occasions in the first three days of sittings. I again ask that he be made to withdraw his comments. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I ask Senator Walsh to get back to the question that was asked by Senator Maguire. Senator Gareth Evans —Amend that to the lower anthropoids. Senator WALSH —I note the comment of Senator Evans. I was about to make a similar comment or offer if it would help Senator Chaney. Contrary to all the dire predictions that were made, the fact is that employment figures for the year ending November 1986 show that employment in restaurants, hotels and clubs had increased by 15,000 in round figures-some 6 per cent-from 230,000 to 245,000. Senator Messner —What was that category again? Senator WALSH —The category was restaurants, hotels and clubs. I suppose that Senator Messner will go away and try to do the same sort of shonky analysis as did Senator Baume- Senator Messner —Why don't you stop telling lies. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Messner to withdraw the remark. Senator Messner —Which remark? The PRESIDENT —The remark that you made. Senator Messner —Mr President, he is not telling the truth to the Senate. I said `lies'. If he considers that to be objectionable I withdraw it. Senator WALSH —I dare say that the Waste Watch Committee will produce another Press release, with the same sort of shonky analysis that it produced in the Press release about 12 months ago on this subject, and distribute that next Sunday. I just warn the Press Gallery that if that happens I would appreciate it if they would get in touch with me or my staff and have the correct position put to them, lest they fall for another shonky Waste Watch Committee scoop. Senator KILGARIFF —I preface my question to the Minister for Education by drawing the Minister's attention to the subject I raised in the matter of public interest debate on Thursday this week when, in refuting her claims concerning financial aspects of the University College of the Northern Territory, I referred to the Minister's decision to refuse recognition to the University College and her claims in defence of that decision that the University College would detract from enrolments at the Darwin Institute of Technology. In view of the fact that this year's effective full time enrolment at the Darwin Institute of Technology totalled 1,100, which exceeds the Institute's quota by 30 places, and in view of the fact that the University College now has 225 firm enrolments, including 30 overseas students, does the Minister now concede that the offer of 20 places at the Darwin Institute of Technology for University College students, made by the Commonwealth, is totally inadequate? Will the Minister now reverse her decision to deny Austudy and Abstudy to Territorian students at the University College? Senator RYAN —Whatever interpretation Senator Kilgariff likes to put on the situation, the fact is that the Northern Territory Government, against the advice of the Commonwealth and without its agreement, pursued an extravagant policy of funding a separate university college on a campus quite a long distance from the Darwin Institute of Technology-at a great capital cost to the people of the Northern Territory and ultimately to Commonwealth revenues, and with a recurrent cost per student of something in the vicinity of $30,000 per head instead of what would have been the cost of about $8,000 per head at the Darwin Institute of Technology. That is an act of total extravagance. The only reason that the Northern Territory Government had for pursuing this course was its view that it is on the verge of statehood-I do not know why that is its view-and that therefore it wishes to have a university on a separate site from the Institute of Technology to enhance the Terri- tory's prestige. It is just not good enough at a time when funds for higher education through Australia are under great pressure, and at a time when the Northern Territory has legitimate claims on the public purse for education and other purposes, for the Territory Government to engage in self-aggrandisement and extravagance of that kind. The Commonwealth could not possibly agree to that course of action. We warned the Northern Territory Government that if it wanted to persist in this extravagant proposal, which by the way had many practical drawbacks from the students' point of view as well as being extravagant, we would not recognise that and the Territory would have to bear all of the costs, including the cost of student assistance. The preferred course of action by the Commonwealth was that a university college should have been established alongside the Darwin Institute of Technology. That would have given the opportunity for maximum development of joint services, such as library services, administration, student facilities and things of that kind, and the joint numbers would have comprised a student body which would have made it easier and more efficient to provide those services. It would have been in the interests of the students; it would certainly have been in the interests of the taxpayers and, we believe, there would also have been educational benefits because, we hoped, students would have been able to move between the two sectors quite easily. The Northern Territory Government rejected all those practical arguments, all those efficient arguments and all those educational arguments because it was intent on a matter of self-aggrandisement, and it has now landed itself with the cost of several million dollars for the capital cost of rebuilding the old Darwin hospital, an enormously high recurrent cost per student and, we believe, student assistance costs. At a time when conservative spokespersons, Liberals or-what party was Senator Kilgariff in before he became a Liberal?-Nationals or independent Nationals, are exhorting us to slash public expenditure and are frequently mentioning Commonwealth education as an area in which funds should be slashed, and when people are running around the Northern Territory supporting Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the party to which Senator Kilgariff once belonged, we are being told that we must be more efficient and more productive and that we must slash public expenditure. They expect us to turn round and agree to a proposal which is extraordinarily extravagant, which has no educational benefits-indeed it has educational disbenefits for students-and somehow get away with it. The question of enrolment numbers that would have been available to a college adjoined to the Darwin Institute of Technology was never finally determined. There were some original discussions at which a small number of places were mentioned, but there was never any final agreement because the Northern Territory pulled out of the joint development that we were proposing long before any question of student enrolment numbers had been settled. It is simply a red herring for Senator Kilgariff to suggest that we would not have been able to enrol an adequate number of students at a college adjoining the Darwin Institute of Technology. Since early discussions with the Northern Territory Government we made the decision to fund 3,000 extra higher education places, some of which would have gone to the Northern Territory, so that is a complete red herring. What is very clear is that the Northern Territory Government, led by people on the conservative side of politics who like to lecture us about the necessity of cuts in public funding and the necessity of cuts in Commonwealth education funding, should run away, engage in this extravagance and turn round and expect the Commonwealth to pay for it. We told them we would not, and we are not. Senator KILGARIFF —I address a supplementary question to the Minister for Education. Will she read the public interest debate in this chamber yesterday and not continue with her political victimisation of the Northern Territory? Senator Ryan —It is not a supplementary question. The PRESIDENT —It is not really a supplementary question if the Minister does not want to answer it. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, relates to an interview with Mr Ian Cameron, a National Party member from Queensland, on radio on Wednesday. The essential thrust of Mr Cameron's statement was that, if and when the National Party's flat rate tax plan is implemented, government spending in all areas will need to be reduced to offset the lower tax revenue. I ask the Minister: Does this statement refer to cuts in payments to veterans, including disability, war widow and service pensions? Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Clearly it is very similar to a question which you ruled out of order yesterday. It is quite hypothetical. The honourable senator quoted a general statement and then asked the Minister whether that general statement involves cuts to his Department. It is clearly a bit of nonsense, Mr President. If the honourable senator is not clever enough to phrase a question within the Standing Orders she should be denied the opportunity to ask a question. It is clearly in breach; it is hypothetical; and I am sure there are a number of other reasons why one would object to it. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I will allow the question, but I will ask the Minister to reply only to those areas of his ministerial responsibility. Senator GIETZELT —Mr Cameron's statement in respect of pensions has a specific application to my Department through which I pay some 406,000 service pensions. Mr Cameron is, I think, either the third or fourth de facto leader of the National Party. As a result of his radio interview, my Department has had some representations made to it, asking whether it is the Government's policy to reduce pensions. Mr Ian Cameron has said: I guess the pensioners might have to stand still. The reason, if the economy, if we can bring the economy under control, if we can bring inflation under control . . . if we can have less taxes there's no reason why we should be giving pensioners or anybody else in the community any more funds. As the service pension is directly linked to the age and invalid pension-that is, it is the same pension but it is paid five years earlier because of pensioners meeting the criterion of having served in a war zone in any past war-Mr Cameron's statement that pensioners should stand still naturally creates alarm in the Australian community for those millions of persons who are in receipt of Commonwealth benefits. It certainly has created some concern in that section that comes under my portfolio, and that is the service pension area which includes approximately half of the people who receive benefits. Of course, one is entitled to draw the conclusion that he relates his statement not only to pensions of a social security or service pension category but also to the disability pensions that my Department also pays to war widows and to those who have an acceptable disability under the determining system. So it is of some concern that persons who claim to speak on behalf of the National Party are making statements in the media that suggest that pensioners should stand still. I recall members of the Opposition criticising the delay that was made in the last Budget in respect of pension payments, suggesting that should not take place. Now people who seem to lay claim to the leadership of the National Party say that not only should there be a delay but also that pensions should stand still in a period in which there are certain increases in the consumer price index. Senator KNOWLES —My question which is directed to the Special Minister of State follows on from his answer to Senator Archer earlier today on the closure of the Perth office of the National Crime Authority. The Minister stated that the State Minister for Police is quite happy about the closure, yet it has been stated in today's West Australian that the State Minister has asked for the Office to be reopened. What really is the state of the matter as of today? Has the Minister for Police changed his earlier opinion since more information has come to light about the depth and seriousness of the NCA's investigations that need completion? Senator TATE —I have no intention of taking a newspaper report as accurately portraying the current state of mind of my colleague the Western Australian Minister for Police. I reported my conversation with that Minister, which I held last Tuesday, at which time he indicated to me that he understood that the office had been closed by the autonomous decision of the National Crime Authority, a matter which I have emphasised and re-emphasised in this chamber. I would have thought that, with support from all sides, there should be no political interference in its decision either to open or to close that office. The Minister also indicated without my prompting that he thought that the Commonwealth had indicated in its resources allocation to the National Crime Authority in the last couple of years a dedication to the fight against organised crime with which he was happy, and its ramification is certainly within his jurisdiction. I would assume and understand that the Minister's comments to me were based on his own consultations which he would have held with his own Police Commissioner. So I have nothing further to add to those several answers which I have given in the course of this week in the chamber. Senator FOREMAN —The Minister representing the Minister for Transport is no doubt aware of the recent spate of coach crashes and of the deaths of passengers as a result of those accidents. Firstly, what can the Federal Government do in regard to maximising passenger safety on buses? Secondly, is the Federal Government considering the introduction of more rigid structural guidelines to bus design to help safeguard passengers involved in accidents? Senator GIETZELT —At the outset I think I should say that the Government and, I am sure, the whole Senate express their very deep sympathy with the families of those passengers who were killed or injured in the recent bus crash in Cairns and, more recently, in the bus crash in Victoria which involved passengers from overseas. I think these incidents have raised very sharply the need for the Australian Transport Advisory Council to pay close attention to this problem and to examine ways and means of improving the safety regulations of this form of transport which obviously is being extensively used by visitors as well as Australians to travel around our country. The Government has therefore asked for an urgent report from the Council on the feasibility of compulsorily fitting seat belts in buses. The Government is currently discussing with the States whether we can reach some agreed position in this respect. The Senate, of course, would be aware that the licensing of and standards involved with buses are primarily a State responsibility. However, obviously there is community concern in this matter as more and more people use coaches to travel throughout our country. It is pretty clear that we will need to learn from overseas experiences. It has already been suggested to the Government that we can pick up the United Nations standards for improved seat strength and padding to minimise injuries. The Government is committed to improving our national road system. We recognise that that is an important and integral part of road safety. Therefore, we are currently seeking as much information as we can from overseas sources in order to reach the optimum that we believe is needed to improve coach movements throughout our country. I reiterate that the Government is conscious of its responsibilities and is actively taking the matter up with State authorities to reach a uniform position. Senator JESSOP —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the criticism levelled at the Australian Capital Territory by the Secretary of the Hospital Employees Federation, Mr Hedley Rowe, on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio yesterday? Is it true, as Mr Rowe alleged, that there is insufficient money available to maintain properly the mortuaries in the Australian Capital Territory? Is it also true that the lack of funds is due to the increase in bureaucrats employed by the Authority since Dr Blewett reorganised it? Can the Minister verify, as Mr Rowe further alleged, that these bureaucrats are refurnishing their offices with new and expensive furniture and are obtaining new air conditioned cars, and that such expenses are depriving the Authority of funds to maintain medical services? Can the Minister say whether the staff of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, since being reorganised by Dr Blewett, is twice the size of the staff of the South Australian Health Commission? Why do a quarter of a million residents of the Australian Capital Territory need an authority twice the size of a body servicing one and a quarter million residents in South Australia? Finally, why is it that, with all this extra staff, the authority is unable to expedite the processing of new contracts for doctors required to service the various hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory? Senator TATE —I have to disappoint Senator Jessop. Looking at my brief for the second time this week I see that it includes material on the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, diabetes, drug abuse and food. However, there is nothing under `mortuary'. I just am not in a position to answer the question. I do not underestimate the seriousness of what the honourable senator asked. However, I will have to refer all elements of the question to the Minister. Senator ROBERTSON —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that there is considerable interest among organisations representing small business in the introduction of a VAT-type consumption tax in Australia? How would a VAT-type consumption tax affect the operations of a small business such as a small shop? Senator WALSH —May I at the outset offer an apology for the length of this answer. The procedures with which a small business, like a shop, would have to comply if a value added tax were introduced are so horrendous that it would take a very long time to give an account of them. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on an anticipatory point of order. The PRESIDENT —Are you taking a point of order, Senator Chaney? Senator Chaney —Yes, I am taking a point of order, Mr President. The Minister has been asked a very wide question on VAT and has indicated, I think very sensibly, that to answer the question and to describe VAT in detail would take a very long time. I would suggest to him that, if he wants to aid public understanding on this complex tax matter, the appropriate thing would be to make a statement. That statement could be then debated and discussed in this place in the normal way. I would ask you, Mr President, to direct the Minister to give a brief answer to this question and, if possible, to make the paper available for further consideration by the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have no power to direct the Minister how to answer the question. However, I draw the Minister's attention to standing order 100, which deals with debating a question. I would ask him, therefore, to keep his answer to an appropriate length. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I certainly will not be debating the question. I will be setting out a series of facts. I am, of course, aware that Andrew Hay and Peter Boyle, among others, are advocating a value added tax and they purport to represent small business. The procedures which would have to be complied with if a VAT were introduced are as follows: Each business enterprise would have to register with the VAT authorities and obtain a VAT number; every registered trader would have to pay tax on all inputs and charge tax on output; and each business would have to hand over to the VAT authorities the difference between the output tax and the input tax at prescribed intervals, together with appropriate supporting documentation. For a small shopkeeper, VAT would have to be paid on all goods bought from wholesalers, on the electricity, phone bills, repairs to equipment, advertising bills and so on. In addition, the shopkeeper would have to keep track of all invoices and keep records of the VAT numbers of all his or her suppliers. Where the VAT is paid on something that was used for partly private and partly business purposes-such as electricity and phone bills-if the shopkeeper lived on the premises, there would have to be a division of the VAT into claimable and non-claimable parts. Records would have to be kept to substantiate that. In the United Kingdom, the VAT is administered by the Department of Customs and Excise. That Department is separate from the Internal Revenue Department-the equivalent of the Australian Taxation Office-which administers income tax. Both departments, of course, employ substantial numbers of inspectors, the VAT inspectors having quite substantial powers to police compliance with the tax. As I have said earlier in the Senate, the costs of compliance imposed on business enterprise by VAT are far from trivial and proportionately fall far more heavily on small business than on big business. Finally, in view of the time, I have not gone through a completely exhaustive list of compliance measures that will be put in place. It used to be said that inside every small business person was a big business person waiting to get out. These days, it looks as though inside some of the so-called spokespeople for small business is a Liberal Party politician waiting to get out. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister for Education to a telegram sent to her last week by Elaine Darling, the Australian Labor Party member for Lilley, which began: Crisis situation developing in south east Queensland as social security benefits have been cut while Austudy has not come through. Young people in flats with no rent allowance could end up in the street. Is the Minister aware that this crisis situation exists not only in south-east Queensland but right around the country? What bungling ineptitude in administration caused students who properly notified the Department of Social Security of intending participation in Austudy not to have their Austudy funds available? Finally, what action has the Minister taken or will she take to eliminate the delays in Austudy payments? Senator RYAN —I am sure that Mrs Darling will be very pleased at the publicity Senator Vanstone has given to her very assiduous attempts on behalf of her constituents to ensure that they do not suffer any delays. I must say that I find it very heartening that our back bench senators, our people out in the electorates, are working so hard on behalf of their constituents to make sure that any possible problem is anticipated. It is true that persons cannot receive two benefits at once. If a person passes from the status of being unemployed to the status of a student he or she should move from social security to Austudy. Some delays have been reported, but I am happy to explain to honourable senators that, if they know of any person suffering severe difficulties as a result of that, they can advise that person to go to a Commonwealth education office and ask to have the application for Austudy accelerated through the system. We have been able to do that in a number of cases and when specific-- Senator Vanstone —Not in my constituency. Senator RYAN —Senator Vanstone has said that is not so in her constituency. I suppose that Senator Vanstone has not been as assiduous as Mrs Darling and has not brought particular cases to the attention of the Commonwealth education authorities. There are emergency procedures for students who are moving off the unemployment benefit and on to Austudy. Any senator or member seeking to assist a person in those circumstances should contact the regional or State Commonwealth education office and ask whether those special procedures can be utilised. Senator SANDERS —I direct the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry to the present situation in the orange roughy fishery off the north-west coast of Tasmania. For the edification of honourable senators, the orange roughy is a fish which lives at a depth of half a mile and spends its life in total darkness, like some people in this chamber whom I could mention. Senator Townley —You catch them with mushrooms. Senator SANDERS —No, mushrooms are not used as bait. I ask: First, is it a fact that the magnitude of the present massive uncontrolled catch of orange roughy is causing problems in processing and handling, including the dumping of spoiled fish and the rejection of a container of spoiled orange roughy by United States authorities? Secondly, is the Minister confident that the present extremely high level of trawling will not cause long term damage to orange roughy stocks? Thirdly, if so, on what does he base his opinion? Fourthly, if not, what steps is he taking to curtail the present over-fishing which is jeopardising the Tasmanian industry? Senator WALSH —I suppose one of the things that surprise me about Senator Sanders's desire to preserve a Tasmanian industry which apparently is paying its way is that it is in conflict with normal Australian Democrats policy, which is to close down every industry that can pay its way and to prop up others. There are a number of errors in the assertions contained in his question. The catch is not uncontrolled. He asserted that there is over-fishing. In reality, according to my advice, there is just not enough known to determine whether or not it is being over-fished, and it is not uncontrolled. Indeed, the conditions under which the vessels operate are restricted by the provisions of the south eastern trawl management plan. It appears that some 20 vessels are fishing and that six are expected to commence operations in the near future. Advice from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is that it is difficult at this time to estimate the abundance of the resource in the north-west area. From the evidence available, it seems that it is inappropriate to close the fishery at this point. The Minister for Primary Industry has agreed to limit the amount of the resource that can be taken by current operators to 20,000 tonnes a year-a limit which will be subject to continuous review as more information becomes available. Senator Sanders —Is that per vessel? Senator WALSH —No, it is the total. Senator Sanders said that there have been reports of alleged wastage of fish and stinking fish landing on United States wharves. I am advised that a number of investigations of these reports have indicated that there is no evidence at this point that the United States authorities have rejected any shipments of orange roughy from Australia. However, further investigations are being carried out by the Department of Primary Industry in an endeavour to ascertain whether that has occurred. If I get any further information I will see that it is passed on to Senator Sanders. Senator VALLENTINE —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to documents released in January about 11 separate bases in Australia which are essential to the operations of United States Pacific Command based in Hawaii. Each of the bases is stated to serve some role in secret military plans. My question to the Minister concerns three that are named in the documents that were released under the terms of the United States Freedom of Information Act. Can the Minister identify the secret operations referred to at North West Cape in addition to the communications and other operations mentioned? Which agreement covers these operations and are they in the interests of Australia? In relation to Perth, can the Minister tell the Senate whether the Government is aware of the existence of a United States military facility in the city, identify the facility and state which agreement covers the secret operations involved? Finally, is the supply facility and Naval Control of Shipping Office referred to at Fremantle located there or at Cockburn Sound? Senator GARETH EVANS —I should say right at the outset that there are no United States bases as such at all in Australia. Any media reports to the contrary are manifestly wrong. There are some defence facilities which are jointly operated, as is well known, by the United States and Australian governments, but there are no United States bases. If this document released under United States FOI is to be taken at face value it may be the case that someone in the United States Administration, has compiled a list of facilities which have been seen as being of potential assistance to possible United States military operations. But there would be no question whatsoever of any Australian facility being used without the full, informed and prior concurrence of the Australian Government. We are absolutely certain that there are no United States facilities or operations in Australia of which we are unaware. We are fully aware of, and concur with, all the roles and functions of all the facilities in Australia that are used by the United States of America including the joint facilities at North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar. The document to which Senator Vallentine seems to be explicitly referring is a Pentagon document entitled `US Base Requirements Overseas'. From what the Government has seen of this document so far, although it is inquiring further as to its credentials, I am afraid that it can only be described as a load of codswallop. I suppose I can summarise the particular contents of that document which give rise to this assertion on my part, but let me deal first with the specific concerns about North West Cape and so on. Certainly, there are no secret operations at North West Cape. The function of that facility is to provide defence communications, as is well known, to United States Royal Australian Navy surface ships and submarines. Some of the messages which pass through the facility are, of course, classified, but that is the only sense in which anything that goes on there is secret. Concerning the question about Fremantle and Cockburn Sound, which apparently is also referred to somewhere in the document, the Australian Government agreed in November 1986 to arrangements for United States Navy use of facilities at HMAS Stirling, for storage of diesel fuel and for the United States Navy to lease commercial facilities for the storage of aviation fuel. That was foreshadowed by me in this place on 10 April last year. There is also a small liaison office at HMAS Stirling whose function is to facilitate arrangements for United States ship visits to Western Australia but beyond that there is absolutely nothing there. As far as Perth is concerned, things start to get a little more extraordinary. Regarding the alleged secret US base serving allegedly secret military plans said to be located in Perth, when one identifies the co-ordinates of that particular location from the document in question, I am advised that they are identified as being a patch of grass in the middle of Perth Airport. As far as some other locations in this document are concerned, the alleged base at Ipswich-lest anyone be minded to think that Bill Hayden has something to do with it-appears to be co-located with the Royal Australian Air Force Base at Amberley. I can assure Senator Vallentine that the Government is not considering any proposal to move US Air Force assets from Clark Airfield in the Philippines to Amberley. There is no US base at Ipswich or Amberley nor is there likely to be one. Finally I give another illustration of the credibility of this document. There is an identified location at Alice Springs-the so called secret air strip in Alice Springs-which when it is located turns out, I am advised, to be the golf course in that city. This is what we are confronted with. I do not know what the explanation is for the document. It may be that the taking of overdoses of valium is a little more widespread in the United States Administration than we had hitherto thought. All I can say is that the Department of Defence is examining the document a bit more closely trying to get a better fix on its status from the United States Department of Defense. Senator Vallentine ought not to give it any credibility whatsoever; it is as I have described it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-Today at Question Time the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, falsely described my statistics as shonky and yesterday at Question Time he falsely alleged that I had fiddled the figures in what was, in reality, my totally factual and correct statement as Chairman of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee that this week's official figures show an increasing trend towards more Commonwealth public servants retiring through invalidity than from reaching retirement age. When asked at Question Time yesterday whether my claims were true Senator Walsh said: `The answer is no' and then falsely alleged that I had claimed: That the number of invalidity retirements from the Commonwealth Public Service exceeded the number of other retirees. I made no such claim and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my press release which shows what I said, not what Senator Walsh's fictional version was. Leave granted. The Press release read as follows- WASTE WATCH COALITION WASTE WATCH COMMITTEE Senator Michael Baume (Chairman) Senator Jim Short Mr Alexander Downer, MP Mr Michael Cobb, MP Parliament House, Canberra 2600 GOVERNMENT INVALIDITY RIPOFF WORSENS A multi-million dollar fraudulent ripoff accounted for a large part of last year's $320 million payout in invalidity pensions to former Commonwealth Public Servants, the Senate was told today. Opposition Waste Watch Chairman, Senator Michael Baume, told the Senate that today's Annual Report of the Commonwealth Commissioner for Superannuation revealed an extraordinary and unsupportable level of invalidity retirement from the Commonwealth Public Service, in all States except New South Wales and the ACT. The Report reveals that 428 more Commonwealth Public Servants retired from alleged invalidity last year than the 2,599 who retired through reaching retirement age of 60 or over. As invalidity retirement provides a higher rate of pension than early retirement, a sizeable proportion of the 29,373 invalidity pensions (averaging close to $11,000 a year) appear to have been improperly obtained. Last year's 3,027 invalidity retirements from the Commonwealth Public Service represents an increase of 26 on 1984-85 while age retirements decreased by 10. This worsening trend is despite the Government's assurance that action would be taken to correct this ripoff after the Waste Watch Committee exposed it early last year. While the Victorian experience of 887 invalidity retirements to only 513 age retirements involves some improvement in which is still an unacceptable ratio, in Western Australia it has blown out to almost double, with 244 invalidity retirements and only 124 age retirements, while in South Australia it is 301 to 236, and in Queensland 404 to 303. There is no explanation in the Commissioner's Report for the far more ``healthy'' result in New South Wales where almost twice as many people (991) retired from reaching retirement age as the 580 who retired from invalidity. There is a clear inference from these figures, which reveal an invalidity retirement rate per 100 contributors of 0.66 in New South Wales and 0.72 in the ACT but roughly double that in Tasmania with 1.37, Western Australia with 1.42, South Australia with 1.18, Victoria with 1.17 and Queensland 1.05. The major reason for the incredible difference in invalidity between the States is in the numbers of Commonwealth Public Servants retiring through alleged mental disorders and bad backs-both of which are difficult to diagnose. In Victoria 229 Public Servants retired through neuroses compared with only 83 in NSW where there are about 10,000 more Commonwealth Public Servants. In total 599 Commonwealth Public Servants retired last year through alleged neuroses and 412 from ``disorders of the spine'' (with Victoria once again with 121 being about double of NSW total of 65). In total, the Report reveals that 52% of invalidity retirees last year were through mental disorders or ``diseases of the musculo-skeletal system and connective tissue''. Government Departments and Instrumentalities with invalidity retirement rates way above the average for the total Public Service of 0.93 per 100 include the ABC with 1.52, Australia Post with 1.28, the Department of Housing and Construction with 1.22, Special Minister of State with 1.2 and the Department of Transport with 1.2. The Government will have to do far better this year in halting this ripoff, which is unfair to those many hundreds of Public Servants who genuinely are forced to retire through invalidity, as well as loading an unwarranted burden on Australian taxpayers. Canberra ...17 February 1987 Further Information: Senator Michael Baume (062) 72 7708 Senator MICHAEL BAUME —There are no errors in my statement. The facts show Senator Walsh to be either mistaken or misleading the chamber as the report of the Commissioner for Superannuation for 1985-86 clearly shows that the number of retirements through invalidity from the Public Service last year increased by 26 to 3,027, continuing a four year trend, while the number retiring through reaching retirement age dropped by 10 to 2,599. These figures totally support my statement that this worsening trend means that 428 more Commonwealth public servants retired last year through alleged invalidity than from reaching retirement age, compared with 392 in the previous year. In falsely alleging that my figures were incorrect Senator Walsh sought to mislead the Senate by including the increasing number of people who voluntarily retired before reaching retirement age and by comparing that totally different figure with the number of invalidity retirements. To demonstrate the accuracy of my claim about the worsening trend to invalidity as against age retirements under Senator Walsh's maladministration that the official statistics clearly show, I will seek leave to incorporate in Hansard table 6 from the 1985-86 annual report of the Commissioner for Superannuation so that honourable senators can see for themselves the worsening trend referred to in my statement. Senator Walsh's false claim that I fiddled the figures can properly be applied to his own mischievous attempt once again to mislead the Senate. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard table 6. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 6 REASONS FOR EXITS FROM CONTRIBUTOR MEMBERSHIP Reason for Exit 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Age retirement 60 and over... 2,513 2,520 2,609 2,599 Early retirement under 60 voluntary... 672 732 994 1,052 involuntary... 475 287 520 597 Invalidity retirement... 2,652 2,767 3,001 3,027 Death... 530 570 561 556 Resignation and other... 14,353 14,852 18,258 20,939 Total... 21,195 21,728 25,943 28,770 Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Harradine asked me a question about immigration policy in relation to sufferers from the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. I now have information which I think is appropriate to put on the record. The guidelines of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on the medical acceptability of people who are required to be health screened, that is migrants and longer term temporary residents, as part of an application to enter Australia, make the following specific reference to AIDS: Evidence of AIDS or a related condition is cause for recommending rejection. These standards have been set by the Department of Immigration in close consultation with the Department of Health. They are designed to protect Australian public health and to minimise the risk that through ill health persons seeking to enter Australia will become a burden on public funds. The reference to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases in the guidelines is in the section dealing with infectious diseases because any of these conditions would give rise to public health risks even if not properly described as an infectious risk in the same way as other illnesses to which Senator Harradine referred yesterday and to possibly considerable health care costs. Finally, as to the compassion question that was put to me, in deciding on applications for entry to Australia all relevant factors are taken into account. For example, where there are compelling compassionate factors these may result in an approval for entry of a person whose health condition would normally result in a refused application. Senator GARETH EVANS —I would also like to add further to an answer I gave to Senator Crowley three days ago about Palestinian refugees. In that answer concerning the situation in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon I indicated that there had been encouraging reports that food and medicine had been allowed into the camps. Subsequently I have learnt through our Embassy in Vienna that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Vienna has advised that despite reports of aid entering the camps UNRWA has not been able to gain access to any of the camps concerned. If this is the case and if other relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, have been unable to enter the camps the situation remains a cause for very considerable concern. The situation is very confused because of the complex nature of the conflicts in Lebanon. However, efforts are being made to check out the situation. As I said earlier in the week, no new appeals have been received from the UN and international relief agencies operating in Lebanon. However, the Government will give sympathetic consideration to requests for assistance if and when they are received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-In my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, I wish to make a statement on defence initiatives in the South Pacific and to incorporate that statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The islands of the South Pacific have always been regarded as fundamental to Australia's strategic well-being. As long ago as the middle of last century, Australian leaders recognised that events in the islands to our North and East could have a decisive effect on our security. This was proved correct in World War Two, when battles on land and at sea in the island chain to our north turned the tide of Japanese expansion. It was at Milne Bay that Australian forces won the first significant victory against Japanese land forces in the Pacific War. It is absolutely vital to Australia that we not forget the strategic lessons taught by the Pacific War. Paul Dibb has said a self-reliant Defence Posture demands that we shape our defence capabilities to suit our environment. Likewise, it requires that we pay great attention to maintaining and strengthening the congenial features of that strategic environment. In doing this we must of course go well beyond the specific area of defence. Our policies must encompass aid, trade immigration and a host of other issues. But as the island groups of the South Pacific have developed into independent nations, they have developed their own strategic perceptions and concerns. This has increased the scope for co-operation in this field. This government is concerned to explore and develop the opportunities for defence co-operation among our island neighbours. We intend to give them the same priority as we give to our much older and more substantial defence relations which have been established with the nations of South East Asia over the last four decades. Naturally the specific nature of our defence co-operation with the South Pacific requires careful adjustment to the needs and wishes of the countries themselves. Developing effective programs to meet those needs and wishes will be a major policy challenge over the coming years. In this region, Australia's longest-standing defence relationship is with Papua New Guinea. With its geographical position, its relative size and its proximity both to Australia and to Indonesia, PNG is an important factor in Australia's security considerations. Our close defence relations with PNG, continuous since World War Two are reflected in our largest Defence Co-operation Program. In this statement I wish to focus on the efforts we are making to develop our newer defence relations with the other South Pacific Islands. The island countries lie across important lines of communication between Australia and Japan-our major trading partner-and the United States-our major ally. They also lie across important trade routes and approaches to Australia's east coast, where many of our major population centres are located. An unfriendly maritime power in the area could inhibit our freedom of movement through these approaches and could place in doubt the security of overseas supply to Australia of military equipment and other strategic materiel. The Government has recently decided upon a number of initiatives to help protect and extend the strategic interests we share with our island neighbours. These initiatives include: moves to help island countries upgrade their national maritime surveillance systems by provision of patrol boats, naval advisory assistance and training; deployments of RAAF long-range maritime patrol aircraft to the region; increasing numbers of RAN ship deployments to the island countries; and defence cooperation activities providing technical support to island defence and security forces. The closer defence relations between Australia and the island countries now being forged will complement our older-established defence links with other countries in our region including those with our partners in the Five Power Defence Arrangements and with Papua New Guinea. Our activities in the South Pacific are being developed in close consultation with our allies the United States and New Zealand, both of which are also giving increased priority to their defence contacts with the South Pacific region. In the future, as in the past, our international security will be inextricably bound up with that of our island neighbours, if only because we share the same geographical neighbourhood. More importantly, we also share with the peoples and governments of the island countries, a common commitment to democratic ideals and principles, and a desire for continuation of the regional peace and stability necessary for economic development and growing prosperity. Since World War II, the island countries have been remote from regions of the world where major power rivalries or local disputes produced tensions and armed conflict. These fortunate circumstances, together with the fact that, until the 1970s, most of these countries remained under the administration and protection of Western powers friendly to Australia, meant that there was little justification for Australia to develop closer defence links with the island countries in this period. Over recent years, however, there have been far-reaching changes in the region. With the exception of the French Territories and American Samoa, all of the island countries have moved from their former dependant colonial status to full independence or to self-government in free association with the former administering state. There are now eight independent island states ranging in size from Fiji, with a population of over 600,000 to Tuvalu which has only about 8,000 inhabitants. During this period too, the island states have begun to develop their own national and, in many areas, regional approaches in dealing with the outside world. Conversely, the South Pacific region has begun to attract increasing international attention. These processes are inevitable and reflect the growing international self-confidence and self-reliance of the island states. We recognise that these changes have made our regional strategic environment more complex. They carry the potential risk that disputes between the major powers, and influences which could be harmful to our longer term strategic interests, may be introduced to the region. In these circumstances, the Australian Government seeks to encourage the island countries to develop common views, attitudes and approaches to international issues, including strategic and defence issues. We do this, not as a major power seeking to impose its views on smaller, less powerful nations, but rather as a friend, counsellor and equal partner to our regional neighbours. We aim to achieve a common regional approach to these issues through dialogue, discussion and subsequent consensus, in what the islanders themselves call the ``Pacific Way''. This approach to developing defence relations among the South Pacific community of nations is already well established and has proved its effectiveness in practice. Through it we aim to maintain our position as a natural partner to the island countries in defence matters. This requires an active Australian defence role in the region. We intend to increase that activity, not only through regular consultations and discussions with island leaders about matters of mutual defence and strategic interest, but also through practical working co-operative activities in which Australian defence units and personnel combine with island government agencies to achieve mutually desired goals. In increasing our defence activity in the South Pacific, we are mindful of the fact that the small size of the island countries' defence and security forces imposes a practical constraint. Moreover, the island governments believe, quite correctly in my view, that in their current and foreseeable economic and strategic circumstances, economic development is their main national concern. The island countries' pre-occupation with economic security and greater self-reliance highlights the continuing importance of Australia's contribution to regional social and economic stability through the various means of international co-operation that are available. Obviously, our civil aid programs and trade and commercial policies will play the main role, but our defence activities can make an important contribution to the overall Australian effort. One area that presents opportunities for such an Australian defence contribution is the upgrading of the island countries' abilities to manage and protect their maritime resources and to safeguard their national sovereignty. Australian defence support in this area accords with the priorities of the island countries themselves. It also serves Australian defence interests by making a direct contribution to our knowledge of maritime activities in our region of primary strategic interest. From a practical point of view it is also a field of activity where the Australian Defence Force possesses appropriate resources and expertise that are not readily available from outside the defence community. Accordingly, the Government has agreed that I should take steps to enhance and extend the defence relations that Australia has with Pacific island countries, concentrating on initiatives in the maritime area. Much of the groundwork has already been laid. Shortly after this Government assumed office, the Prime Minister announced to the South Pacific Forum meeting, in Canberra in August 1983, the Government's offer to assist the island countries in developing a Pacific Patrol Boat, specifically designed to meet their needs for surveillance of their 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zones. Subsequently a contract was concluded with a West Australian firm, Australian Shipbuilding Industries. The project is now well advanced: the first of the 12 boats on order is now undergoing sea trials off Fremantle; it will be handed over to a trained Papua New Guinea Defence Force crew in the next few months; in addition to Papua New Guinea, which is taking 4 Boats, other countries participating in the project are Fiji (which is also taking 4 boats), Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Western Samoa and the Cook Islands; RAN technical advisers who will assist in bringing the vessels into service have already taken up duty in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji; another will shortly be posted to Western Samoa. I would emphasise that at an estimated total cost of $61.7m the Pacific Patrol Boat project is far larger than any previous Australian Defence Cooperation project, in the South Pacific, or in South East Asia. Many of the other defence initiatives the Government has now decided on in the South Pacific will complement the Pacific Patrol Boat project by assisting the development of island country maritime surveillance systems or by supporting their operations with Australian defence resources and expertise. I will briefly detail the more important of these initiatives. We are increasing the number of RAAF Long Range Maritime Patrol aircraft deployments to the South Pacific from 5 to 10 per year. These deployments generally extend over five days, during which time surveillance of several countries' maritime areas can be accomplished. Using the data available from the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency in Honiara, we shall aim to concentrate the increased level of operations at the times of the year and in the areas where intrusions by foreign fishing and other vessels are known to be most probable. Maritime surveillance authorities in the island countries will be consulted when we are planning these deployments and we shall pass reports to them. We shall maintain close liaison with the New Zealand Defence authorities to ensure that our efforts and their similar deployments are complementary. I have also asked my Department and the Defence Force to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of operating RAAF Long range Maritime Patrol aircraft from suitable airfields in the island countries for short periods, if this should be desired by the governments concerned. Turning to naval activities, we shall endeavour to ensure when planning the RAN Fleet Program that RAN ships make regular visits to the independent countries of the region. This year, some 17 RAN ships will be deployed to the region and will visit ports in 12 island countries. I would add that these RAN deployments are not simply flag-showing exercises. Our vessels will engage in cooperative activities with the maritime authorities of the island countries, including passing on any surveillance observations made in local waters. The smaller, more remote ports will not be overlooked. Extended deployments by the RAN FREMANTLE Class patrol boats will be given priority. These vessels and their crews will become familiar with all of our significant island neighbours. They will participate in combined fisheries surveillance exercises with the Pacific Patrol Boats to help maintain the skills and expertise of their island crews. Another area of Australian Defence Force expertise relevant to South Pacific requirements is hydrographic survey and charting. As part of our Defence Cooperation arrangements with Fiji we are assisting the Royal Fiji Military Forces Naval Squadron to acquire a hydrographic survey vessel, replacing one which had to be taken out of service. Fiji has agreed that, with our assistance to meet the additional costs involved, this vessel will be used to undertake survey work in the waters of other South Pacific countries when requested. In the longer term, this will contribute to a steady improvement in charts of South Pacific waters, a reduction in hazards to navigation and consequent benefits to inter-island commerce and economic development. We also plan to continue to assist the development of the island countries' national maritime surveillance systems. This assistance, which will comprise technical advice, training and provision of specialised equipment, will complement the Pacific Patrol Boat project and help ensure that island countries gain maximum benefits from the boats' operations. Looking to the longer term, we shall encourage and endeavour to facilitate, cooperation and coordination of maritime surveillance on a region-wide basis. Subject to the agreement of Forum countries, this could involve assistance to the Forum Fisheries Agency in Honiara to enable it to better fulfil the coordinating role assigned to it by the South Pacific Forum. In cooperation with the Australian civil aid authorities, my Department and the Defence Force will work closely with the Agency, including through provision of advice, equipment, and training in maritime surveillance management techniques. Other initiatives my Department will pursue in this area include sponsoring a seminar for South Pacific Forum country representatives to discuss maritime surveillance systems and procedures; and the establishment of a maritime surveillance course for regional countries at the Australian Maritime College. Over the past 10 years Australian Army survey personnel have played a key role in surveying base lines for South Pacific countries' Exclusive Economic Zones. This survey work is an essential prerequisite to permit the island countries to define, protect and to gain maximum benefits from their maritime resources. We plan to offer further assistance to the island countries in survey operations and the preparation of maps and charts. Australian Army engineers are also making valuable contributions to our co-operative activities with South Pacific countries. Each year we deploy an Engineer Construction Troop to a South Pacific country for 2 to 3 months to undertake a construction project in co-operation with the local authorities. In 1986, the deployment was to Western Samoa to construct some of the shore facilities required for the Pacific Patrol Boat. This year, we are examining the possibility of a similar project with the Vanuatu authorities. In conclusion, I would stress once again that all of the activities about which I have spoken are undertaken in the closest possible co-operation with the island governments concerned. In many instances their complementary efforts make essential contributions without which our common aims would not be achieved. Together we can ensure that the South Pacific remains an area characterised by peace and stability in which the island people can continue to pursue economic progress and prosperity. Senator GARETH EVANS —Pursuant to the arrangement agreed to with the Opposition whereby this matter will be allowed time for debate early next week, I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I table the report of Mr Menzies and other documents relating to the dismissal of the Director of the Australian War Memorial. I seek leave to make a statement and to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Mr President, for the information of honourable senators, I have tabled the report of Mr A. C. C. Menzies, the Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs' letter of 6 January 1987 to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's response of 12 January 1987, and the Press release issued on 19 January 1987 by the Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs. All of these documents relate to the termination of the appointment of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming as Director of the Australian War Memorial. Background Honourable senators will recall that the report provided to the Council of the Australian War Memorial by Mr K. N. Jones, AO, CBE, which was tabled in the Parliament on 11 November 1986, drew attention to serious deficiencies in the administration of the Memorial. Mr Jones found there were serious weaknesses in the management performance of the then Director. Mr Jones also concluded that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming had engaged in capricious decision-making and had provided inaccurate, inadequate, misleading and untimely advice to me as Minister for Veterans' Affairs. While Mr Jones found this justified my expressed lack of confidence in Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, he concluded that although the Director had displayed a less than satisfactory level of competence and carelessness in expression where the circumstances required truthfulness, no misbehaviour, as he understood that term, had occurred. However, contrary to Mr Jones's view, legal opinions provided to the Government by the Solicitor-General and Mr Graham, QC, without ruling out other matters which may amount to misbehaviour, advised that in relation to a particular matter before Mr Jones there was misbehaviour for which Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's appointment could be terminated, pursuant to sub-section 24 (1) of the Australian War Memorial Act. I wrote to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming on 27 November 1986 to inform him of this. I also advised him that before the Government took a decision on whether it should advise the Governor-General to terminate his appointment, in accordance with that legal advice, I wished to inform him of the grounds relied upon and to afford him an opportunity to be heard and to put forward both his response to those grounds and any other matters which he might wish to advance as reasons why the power of termination should not be exercised on those grounds. The grounds which I provided to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming were: (a) ``That by letter dated 28 October 1983 addressed to the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment sent for the purposes of providing information to enable the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment to answer a Parliamentary Question on notice you knowingly gave false information. Part of the said question inquired `What arrangements were made to investigate the services of the various available banks'. The false information was contained in your response which read `Discussions were held with trading banks concerning their services''. (b) ``That in a document delivered under cover of a letter dated 15 October 1986 addressed to Mr K. N. Jones who had been appointed by the Council of the Australian War Memorial to conduct an Inquiry inter alia into the said matter and to report thereon to the Council, in response to a question by Mr Jones, you knowingly gave false information. The said question concerned the discussions referred to in sub-paragraph A, and inquired, `With which banks and with whom did you or your staff have those discussions?'. The false information was contained in your response which read: `I am not familiar with the Parliamentary Question quoted but regarding banks contacted, I had discussions with the Commonwealth Bank, London Circuit, Canberra-Mr L. Ferguson. The Commercial Banking Corporation (now National Bank), London Circuit, Canberra-Mr Drury. Manager of Westpac Banking Corporation, Petrie Plaza, Canberra-Mr John S. Smith. The Regional General Manager Westpac Banking Corporation-Mr Fulton Muir. The ANZ Banking Group, Ainslie Avenue, Canberra-Mr Carey.' '' Air Vice-Marshal Flemming was also informed that the Government had decided that an independent person, Mr A. C. C. Menzies OBE, would be appointed to consider these grounds, and any response to them from Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, in accordance with procedures which would afford natural justice to him. Subsequently Mr Menzies conducted an inquiry during which Air Vice-Marshal Flemming was represented by legal counsel at Commonwealth expense and had the opportunity to examine witnesses and to make submissions. In his report to the Government, Mr Menzies found that ground A, to which I have already referred, was not established. The Government accepted that finding. However, Mr Menzies found Ground B was established in that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming knowingly gave false information to Mr K. N. Jones in the course of an inquiry into the administration of the Australian War Memorial. Mr Menzies identified two distinct elements of falsity, namely: that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming claimed that he had dealt personally with all the named officers of the banks which he specified in his reply to Mr Jones; and that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming had dealt with all four major trading banks on an equal footing. A copy of the Menzies report was provided to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and he was offered the opportunity to make written representations on whether the facts found to be established constituted misbehaviour and, if so, why action should not be taken to terminate his appointment. When Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's response was received, the matter was put before the Acting Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. Their joint advice to the Government was that: In our opinion there is no obligation, by reason of principles of natural justice or otherwise, to give any further hearing to the Director, whether by judicial inquiry or otherwise. If Cabinet accept the findings of the Menzies Report (and we have stated our view that the findings should be accepted) it is our opinion that as a matter of law the finding of Ground B constitutes misbehaviour within the meaning of sub-section 24 (1). Upon consideration by Cabinet of the matters as to discretion and mitigation raised in the Menzies Report and by the Director in his letter of the 12th January 1987 there will be full compliance with the obligations of natural justice in respect of the issue of termination of office of the Director. In these circumstances any consequent termination of the appointment of the Director by the Governor-General in Council pursuant to sub-section 24 (1) would, in our opinion, be valid. The Government's Decision Mr President, the Menzies Report, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's representatives and the joint opinion of the Acting Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General were given careful consideration by the individual members of Cabinet. Particular attention was given to the mitigating factors relating to the Director's conduct which were outlined in the Menzies Report and to his representations of 12 January 1987. The members of Cabinet concluded that Mr Menzies' finding on Ground B should be accepted and that it was a proper ground for removal of the Director from office. The Government was of the view that it regrettably had no alternative but to regard with extreme seriousness the finding that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming knowingly gave false information on matters pertaining to his office. For these reasons the Administrator-in-Council was advised to terminate the Director's appointment. The press release of the Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs of 19 January 1987 sets out those reasons. I emphasise that the Government's consideration of the Director's dismissal turned on Ground B of the Menzies Report and not on other concerns related to the Memorial's administration. The Seriousness of the Director's Misbehaviour Since the Director's dismissal, attempts have been made to portray the matter that led to the Director's dismissal as trivial, as involving a lapse of memory and as not related to the administration of the Australian War Memorial. Let me draw the Parliament's attention specifically to what the Acting Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General had to say in the joint opinion provided to the Government: Notwithstanding the Director's assertion in that letter (of 12 January 1987) that he did not intend to mislead Mr Jones, the formal finding of the Menzies Report, after full consideration of the facts and matters raised at the hearing whereby the Director and his legal representatives were present and permitted to examine witnesses, and to call their own evidence (including medical and character evidence) and to make submissions, was that the intention on the part of the Director to give false information was established. Moreover, the detail of the untruthful answer, which names four bank officers, tells against mere oversight or inadvertence. In essence the finding is one of dishonesty pertaining to a matter relevant to the office of Director. As such it is misconduct of a serious kind. In our opinion it is conduct which, in itself, is of the requisite seriousness to constitute misbehaviour within the meaning of sub-section 24 (1). To summarise, the misbehaviour in question was serious. It was intentional. It was dishonest. It was not a mere lapse of memory. It related to the office of Director. The Government believes it was totally unacceptable conduct for a senior statutory officer to engage in. It is not a matter that would be tolerated in the private sector, nor should it in the public sector. Ministers and the Parliament are entitled to expect honest and reliable advice from our public officials. Affording Natural Justice to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming Mr President, honourable senators will recall the complaints made by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and others that the adverse conclusions reached in the Jones Report allegedly involved a denial of natural justice. The Menzies Inquiry was commissioned in response to those concerns by choosing an impartial person to receive Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's submissions. Indeed, the Government went to considerable lengths to ensure Air Vice-Marshal Flemming was afforded natural justice before any conclusions were reached on his position. In the Menzies Inquiry: Air Vice-Marshal Flemming had legal representation the reasonable costs of which are to be met by the Government; Mr Menzies also had the assistance of legal counsel; specific allegations concerning Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's conduct were referred to Mr Menzies for consideration and report; relevant Australian War Memorial and other documents were made available for examination by Mr Menzies; 20 witnesses were called and examined, including 3 character witnesses who gave evidence on the Director's behalf; Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's counsel had the opportunity to examine witnesses and to make submissions on relevant issues; Mr Menzies applied a rigorous standard in examination of the evidence relating to the grounds which were put before him, particularly having regard to the seriousness of those allegations. When the Menzies Report was received, as I have said, the Director had the opportunity to make representations which were then taken into account by the Cabinet. Mitigating Circumstances relating to the Director's Misbehaviour The circumstances put by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming in mitigation of his misbehaviour were also taken into account by the Cabinet in reaching its decision. Much has since been made of some of these circumstances concerning Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's poor health, the stress he was under and the effect the drugs he was taking had on him, at the time the misbehaviour occurred. While I was not involved in the Government's decision (being on annual leave at the time) let me make my own position clear. Nothwithstanding these factors, Mr Menzies found that the Director had intended to give false information to Mr Jones. I agree with this finding. There was no inadvertence or lapse of memory. As the Acting Attorney-General and Solicitor-General's opinion indicates, the detail given in the written answer to Mr Jones tells against such a conclusion. As to the suggestion in mitigation that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's inability to refresh his memory by obtaining Memorial records may have led him to provide false information, let me again make the true position clear. Access to Memorial records was available to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming under the terms of reference of the Jones Inquiry. However, what is of even greater significance is that there are no relevant Australian War Memorial records in existence that would have assisted Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. It has also been suggested by way of mitigation that when the false information which Air Vice-Marshal Flemming had given to Mr Jones was drawn to his attention, he corrected it immediately in an answer given to Mr Jones on 3 October 1986. In fact, Mr Menzies found that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's purported correction on 3 October 1986, and other statements subsequently made by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming to Mr Jones and the Australian War Memorial Council, continued to be misleading, up until a statement made to Mr Menzies on 8 December 1986. General Administration of the Australian War Memorial I have made it clear that the only basis on which the Government acted to terminate Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's appointment was his misbehaviour in relation to the matter identified as Ground B in the Menzies Report. Because of the continuing claims being made by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and others on his behalf about matters relating generally to the administration of the War Memorial, and in particular the role played by the Minister, it is however necessary to clarify for the record once more some basic facts about the overall situation. The Council of the Australian War Memorial is an independent body established under the War Memorial Act. As I have said, it is responsible for the conduct and control of the Memorial's affairs. Its members include the three chiefs of staff of the Armed Services. The Director of the Australian War Memorial is accountable to the Council and to the Minister, to the Government, to the Parliament and ultimately to the taxpayer. Regrettably, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming had no conception of my accountability as a Minister of the Crown to this Parliament for the activities of the Australian War Memorial and of his responsibility in providing me with accurate, honest, timely and reliable information. Air Vice-Marshal Flemming has dismissed as trivial and irrelevant the proven instances of inadequate, misleading and inaccurate advice which he provided to his Minister. I take very seriously indeed any instance which could have led me to mislead the Parliament. I reiterate that the Government and this Parliament are entitled to expect honest, high-quality and reliable advice from public officials. Air Vice-Marshal Flemming also failed to respond to my repeated requests to be kept informed concerning aspects of the Memorial's activities. He failed to respond to my Constitutional right and obligation as a Minister of the Crown to request such information. My attempts to gain access to Council papers were continually thwarted. Air Vice-Marshal Flemming also refused, over a long period, to redress management deficiencies in the Memorial when they were drawn to his attention. He denied that they existed. He strenuously opposed my request that the Council arrange for a management review to be conducted by the Public Service Board. And yet what do we now find? Three reports which contain damning criticisms of his administration. (Australian War Memorial, Special Audit of Council Resolutions, Arthur Young Services, 18 September 1986; Australian War Memorial, Audit Report on Accounts and Records, Office of the Auditor-General, 30 October 1986; Inquiry into the Australian War Memorial, K. N. Jones, AO, CBE, November 1986). There are findings of incompetence. There are findings that his decision-making was capricious. There are findings that there were serious irregularities in the financial and administrative arrangements prevailing in the Memorial. There are findings that he has failed to follow the proper procedures on crucial occasions. There are findings that there has been extremely poor staff morale. Are these not matters of importance? Are these not matters of serious concern? Are these not matters a Minister of the Crown should take an interest in? It has been put about by the former Director and his supporters that this was a conflict involving the Government and the Minister, who were allegedly attempting to take over the administration of the Memorial, and a ``can-do'' administrator with an impatience for bureaucratic red tape. This scenario has no basis in fact. There has never been a personality conflict between me and Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, as indeed he himself has publicly stressed. So there is no political conspiracy. There is no vendetta. I have not exercised undue or improper influence. I have not been vindictive. I was not even involved (being on leave at the time) in the final decision made by the Government to recommend the termination of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's appointment, although I supported that decision. What I have done is to respond appropriately, in accordance with my sworn ministerial responsibilities, to matters of accountability and competence in my portfolio. Mr President, it is a matter for considerable regret that AVM Flemming did not choose to accede to the AWM Council's wishes that he take early retirement. It was not just I who expressed no confidence in him. The Memorial Council also resolved that they had no confidence in his ability to administer the affairs of the Memorial. The Returned Services League declined to support him. Certain staff associations also expressed no confidence in him. Nevertheless, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming rejected the Council's repeated requests that he resign or at least not attend for duty. Mr President, the real issues in the debate about the Australian War Memorial are not about left-wing takeovers nor about creating a peace museum. These were never more than furphies concocted by the former Director and his supporters in certain media outlets to distract attention from the real and pressing concerns regarding his administration of the Memorial. The real issues are about accountability and competence. They are about the proper relationship between a statutory authority, its senior executives and the responsible Minister. They are about issues of administrative competence and my requirement for high-quality management. Role and Future of the Australian War Memorial Council It is necessary that I set to rest concerns about the future direction of the Australian War Memorial. The functions of the Australian War Memorial are laid down by legislation in the Australian War Memorial Act 1980. In that Act it is clearly stated that the Memorial's functions are: (a) To maintain and develop a national memorial to Australians who have died on or as a result of war service or as a result of any war or war-like operations in which Australians have been on active services; (b) To develop and maintain as an integral part of the national memorial a national collection of historical material; (c) To exhibit, or to make available for exhibition by others, historical material from the memorial collection or historical material that is otherwise in the possession of the Memorial; (d) To conduct, arrange for and assist in research into matter pertaining to Australian military history; and (e) To disseminate information relating to: (i) Australian military history; (ii) the national memorial; (iii) the Memorial collection; and (iv) the Memorial and its functions. Under the Australian War Memorial Act, the Council is responsible for the conduct and control of the affairs of the Memorial in accordance with the legislation. The recent media releases by the Council have emphasised that this is the position and that Council is unanimous that the original purpose for which the Memorial was established will always be safeguarded. I, as Minister, have no powers under the Act regarding the policy of the Memorial. Moreover, as the Council Chairman, Dame Beryl Beaurepaire states in her press release of 29 January 1987, I have never sought to raise with or to direct the Council on any questions of policy and, contrary to reports, had certainly never raised with the Council any political issues such as a peace memorial at the Australian War Memorial, conflicts between European settlers and the Aboriginals or moratoriums. Furthermore I wish personally to assure the Parliament that I have never raised any of these issues with any individual member of the Council. Whatever the merits of commemorating these issues, they do not come within the functions of the Australian War Memorial as laid down by legislation. This Government has no intention of altering the Council's role nor of affecting the independence of the Australian War Memorial. The Australian War Memorial is and always will be a tribute to those who have died in war for Australia. I believe that it is one of the World's finest War Memorials. As Dame Beryl Beaurepaire said in the Council's statement of 11 February 1987, the Memorial is sacred to the Australian people and is an intrinsic part of the Australian ethos and culture. For over half a century the Memorial has stood as a reminder of the sacrifices made for Australia's sake and for all that is best in human qualities. The Government will continue to provide additional resources and support for this treasured national shrine. In my time as Minister, 40 extra staff have been provided to the Australian War Memorial and there has been a 50% increase in funding. Finally, I would inform Honourable Senators that I as Minister and the Memorial Council by unanimous agreement have undertaken that the post of Director will be filled in accordance with the normal Public Service procedures. Mr President, neither I nor the Government take any pleasure in the serious course of action of terminating the statutory appointment of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming as Director of the Australian War Memorial. But nor is that anything in the conduct of this matter, either in the context of our concern with the general administration of the Memorial or the action we took to terminate his appointment, for which we have any need to apologise. Senator GIETZELT —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.09) —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has just incorporated in Hansard a statement concerning the very sorry history of the relationship between the Minister, the Government and the former Director of the Australian War Memorial, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. As we have come to expect from Senator Gietzelt, it is a very long winded statement which canvasses the issue from its earliest period. It is also a very self serving document and one which is designed to justify the Minister's own highly questionable attitude in this matter from the very beginning of this saga. In the end he tries to justify his actions in regard to many matters that are quite outside the report that was commissioned from Mr Menzies, which the Minister has now tabled. The report that was obtained from Mr Menzies, of course, was that of the first inquiry that was designed to give Air Vice-Marshal Flemming any semblance of natural justice. It was conducted in accordance with basic principles of natural justice. The conduct of the former inquiry by Mr Jones-although I am not impugning Mr Jones's inquiry-was dictated, of course, by the Government, and it was really an administrative inquiry. The inquiry by Mr Menzies, although it was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, was circumscribed to two particular questions only. As can be seen from the Minister's statement, there is a whole range of matters which the Minister has argued are matters which justified the dismissal of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. So we have here a most extraordinary gulf between the true reasons that motivated this Minister and this Government to get rid of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming-and they ultimately succeeded-and, of course, the very narrow grounds under which they asked Mr Menzies to make a finding for them. They used a finding of Mr Menzies to make the very decision about which they had made up their minds months previously. I want to traverse quickly the history of this sorry matter, as I have already referred to it. I understand-although I was not present-that Senator Gietzelt made an extraordinary statement at the end of an Estimates committee hearing in about September last year. Apparently, he must have been disappointed that no questions were asked which would enable him to get off his chest the views that he held about the Director of the War Memorial. At the end of that Estimates committee hearing, he made a statement. That would have taken people by surprise, as no background information was requested or arose out of the hearing. That was the first salvo that was fired by Senator Gietzelt. The first I became aware in this place of his attitude to the Director was from a series of dorothy dix questions which were referred to him by some of his back bench colleagues. We were treated to quite a number of questions, although I have not counted them. Day after day Senator Gietzelt, in answering those questions, openly attacked not only the competence of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming but also usually his bona fides. In the course of the series of answers that Senator Gietzelt gave he said on at least one occasion, if not more, that he had lost confidence in the Director. Of course, it was during this time that we suddenly became aware that there was some conflict of view within the Council of the War Memorial. Indeed, the Minister, during this period, declined to reappoint at least one member of that Council-a former Premier of South Australia, Mr Des Corcoran, who was on his way to the airport to attend a meeting of the War Memorial Council when he was told that his appointment would not be renewed, even though until that eleventh hour he had been given the impression that it would be. Senator Gietzelt was engaging in a numbers game with the members of the War Memorial Council, presumably to try to get a sufficient number of members of the Council to support the decisions which he had already made. At this time on the last sitting day of the week, in responding to a ministerial statement I do not want to canvass all the very serious questions that arise about Senator Gietzelt's conduct in this matter; his attitude to the War Memorial and his attitude in particular to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming; and the various ways in which he went about trying to achieve this purpose. Suffice to say that a whole series of inquiries of one sort or another were conducted. I think he engaged some management consultants. A senior officer of his Department was also involved. After there had been a good deal of protest about what was going on, he finally decided that an inquiry should be conducted by an independent person, a distinguished retired public servant, Mr Jones, who conducted a very sound form of inquiry. It was not perhaps fully in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as it was purely a wide ranging administrative inquiry. Mr Jones, although critical of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming in some respects, made a clear finding that he had not been guilty of misbehaviour. That should have been the end of the matter, in accordance with the Minister's own approach to this matter. He was under pressure. He was told that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming had not been found guilty of misbehaviour by a man exercising the sort of judgment that a distinguished retired public servant is very capable of exercising. But that did not suit the Minister. He then proceeded to get the opinion of the Solicitor-General. Guess who that was! That is the man who gave this Government the opinion about Mr Justice Murphy. He defined `misbehaviour' so narrowly that the government of the day said: `It does not even warrant any inquiry'. Of course, we know that since then lawyer after lawyer and, just recently, the judicial committee of the Constitutional Commission have said that `misbehaviour' has a much wider meaning than Dr Griffith thought it had. So, the Government got an opinion from the Solicitor-General. This is becoming a very familiar pattern, as we know. The Solicitor-General gave an opinion that Mr Jones was wrong in one respect; that one finding that Mr Jones made about the conduct of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming did amount to misbehaviour. But the Minister was also told that there had to be a proper inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice before the Government could act on that opinion. The Government then appointed Mr Menzies, who conducted an inquiry in accordance with that advice. Mr Menzies was asked to make a finding of fact on two matters. On the first matter he found that no false information had been provided by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. But on the second matter he found that some false information had been provided by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. That related to a letter that he wrote to Mr Jones on 15 October. Mr Menzies found that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming made available to Mr Jones two pieces of false information. Mr Menzies has appended to his report a separate chapter on a whole range of what he calls `matters in mitigation'. I will read them, because one would not know what they were by reading the Minister's statement. As I said, it is a totally self-serving statement, relying on the matters that support the Minister's premeditated decisions in this matter. I want to place on the record the full matters of mitigation that Mr Menzies found, which do not appear in the Minister's statement. Mr Menzies stated: There are a number of matters that should be noted by way of mitigation: (1) the previously unblemished record of air Vice-Marshall Flemming and the evidence as to past good character and integrity: (2) the absence of any motive of personal gain; (3) the fact that the change of banks- which was the point at issue- has not operated to the financial disadvantage of the Memorial and indeed, several witnesses stated that it had operated to the positive financial advantage of the Memorial. Honourable senators will remember all the hoo-ha about the way the Memorial's bank was changed from the Commonwealth Trading Bank to Westpac by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming in 1983. That was the subject of the first question, the first salvo which was directed at Air Vice-Marshal Flemming back in 1983. I suppose it upset a number of people in the Government that the bank was changed from the Commonwealth bank to a private bank. That seems to be the greatest sin that he could have committed in the eyes of Senator Gietzelt, committed socialist as he is. In fact, Mr Menzies has found that the change of banks had not operated to the disadvantage of the Memorial and may well have been a positive advantage to it. The fourth matter of mitigation Mr Menzies sets out reads as follows: At the time Air Vice-Marshal Flemming gave the false answer, he was working at home, away from records under circumstances of considerable stress and under the influence, to some extent as least, of drugs which probably impaired his mental processes and affected his concentration and memory. Incidentally, I might add that these drugs were, of course, medically administered to deal with a condition of tension which had resulted from all the business that he had been suffering at the hands of the Minister. Senator MacGibbon —And his war service too. Senator DURACK —Yes, no doubt his war service was affecting him as well. Finally, Mr Menzies found that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming had `corrected the particular false information after it was brought to his attention'. I want to give a little example of the attitude the Minister has revealed in this statement. As I said, Mr Menzies said clearly that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming had corrected false information after it was brought to his attention. On page 12 of this statement which the Minister has tabled he says: It has also been suggested by way of mitigation that when the false information which Air Vice-Marshal Flemming had given to Mr Jones was drawn to his attention, he corrected it immediately in an answer given to Mr Jones on 3 October 1986. In fact, Mr Menzies found that air Vice-Marshal Flemming's purported correction on 3 October 1986, and other statements subsequently made by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming to Mr Jones and the Australian War Memorial Council, continued to be misleading, up until a statement made to Mr Menzies on 8 December 1986. The correction emerged in the course of Mr Menzies' inquiry and Mr Menzies found that after the false information was brought to his attention Air Vice-Marshal Flemming corrected it. But this statement attempts to suggest that, again, there is some falsity on the part of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. In fact, the Minister is claiming that it was corrected earlier than it was. I do not know where this date of 3 October comes from, because in fact the letter to Mr Jones, which is the subject of this inquiry under Mr Menzies, was not written until 15 October 1986, and certainly there was subsequent correspondence. So I think the Minister himself ought to have another look at his own self-justification in that respect, and many other respects, of this particular statement. I quote again from page 12 of the statement. The Minister said: . . . the only basis on which the Government acted to terminate Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's appointment was his misbehaviour in relation to the matter identified as Ground B in the Menzies Report- that is, two knowingly false statements to Mr Jones in the course of conducting his inquiry. Mr Menzies exonerated Air Vice-Marshal Flemming from any alleged falsity in the statements he made when providing material to answer a ministerial question back in 1983. So the dismissal was based on only this one respect of the false answer given to Mr Jones. That was corrected by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, as Mr Menzies found, when it was brought to his attention during the Menzies inquiry. Mr Menzies added a whole range of most important mitigating circumstances; yet in the face of all those findings the Government could not act quickly enough to take the technical point of the finding of misbehaviour as the technical ground for dismissing this statutory officer under the Act. This should really put shivers through the whole of the Public Service and all statutory officeholders under the Commonwealth, because if governments are going to act that way on technicalities without having proper regard to all other circumstances, as Mr Menzies has listed them in his report, I think this raises a very serious question indeed about the security of their positions under this Government, despite their appointments and their protections under statute. From page 12 of this statement onwards the Minister has set out all the real reasons why Air Vice-Marshal Flemming was dismissed. They really have nothing whatever to do with this technical finding. That has only been used by the Government as the excuse to get rid of someone whom the Minister had taken a set to for whatever reason. The Minister sets out a whole range of objections he had found with Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. He suggests that he had no conception of his accountability to the Minister. I do not know quite what that extends to. He was a statutory officer and I thought mainly accountable to the War Memorial Council. He claims that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming has given him misleading and inaccurate advice, that he failed to respond to his repeated requests for information, that there is a long record of management deficiency, and he also refers to the low staff morale which Mr Jones had found at the War Memorial. The Minister then goes on with what I think are very strong protests to cover himself. He denies that there was any political conspiracy; he says he conducted no vendetta. I do not know what all the answers he gave in the Senate were supposed to be, if they were not a vendetta against Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, the then Director. This was before the Jones and Menzies inquiries were set up. The Minister was making judgments that he had no confidence in him; yet he now tries to say that there was no vendetta against him. Let us just listen to the final pathetic justification of the Minister: I was not even involved (being on leave at the time) in the final decision made by the Government to recommend the termination of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's appointment. Senator MacGibbon —That is a pathetic Pontius Pilate act. Senator DURACK —It is Pontius Pilate personified. Pontius Pilate himself has been resurrected and is sitting in the Senate. He washed his hands of the final decision. What an amazing performance. There we have the sorry record of this Minister and an even more sorry saga of a man with a distinguished record-whatever his faults may have been as a Director of the War Memorial; I will not go into them now-being dismissed on what is simply a technical breach. The giving of false information to the inquiry of Mr Jones is certainly a serious matter, but in the discharge of his duties up to the time of the inquiry of Mr Jones nothing was found on which to base a finding that he was guilty of misbehaviour. It was only this one answer that he gave, among many, many answers, to Mr Jones. In respect of even that there is the finding by Mr Menzies of these very important mitigating circumstances. But not only your life! Nothing was going to stop this Minister or this Government getting rid of a man whom they had months ago decided to get rid of. Talk about principles of natural justice! Clearly there has been no natural justice in the ordinary sense accorded to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming by this Minister and this Government. The Opposition has at all times called for a full, open and proper judicial inquiry into allegations against Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, and we continue to do so. We have also expressed our concern about and our strong belief in the need for an independent and traditional role for the Australian War Memorial. At long last the Minister in his statement has sought to assure people that he also shares that view of the War Memorial. He denies that he ever raised any political issues about peace memorials or other matters that have been alleged against him. He also says that the Government has no intention of altering the Council's role or of affecting the independence of the Memorial and quotes with approval the statement of the Chairman of the Council, Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, to this effect on 11 February. Finally, the Minister has on behalf of the Government suppressed its commitment to the traditional role of the War Memorial. We will wait to see how far that is given effect to. But we reiterate our concern that this man, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, the former Director, has not been dealt with in a fair and open way by this Government, and certainly not by this Minister, and is still entitled to a proper hearing and determination in accordance with natural justice. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.32) —From time to time there are bizarre happenings in government, and they occur too often. This is one such case. Certainly one of the most honoured shrines and institutions in the country has become involved in the past few months in an imbroglio of controversy and disputation, much of it at a nitpicking level-and that has not been helpful-when none of this to my mind should have been necessary. It goes back to a wrong approach. The Government, with all respect to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), seems to me to have handled this matter with no delicacy, and that is the understatement of the year. If it had been handled with some delicacy from the beginning, the problems would never have arisen. It is worth looking briefly at what happened so that we may hopefully learn from that experience. A Minister of the Crown and a distinguished Australian ex-serviceman somehow were placed in a confrontation situation publicly, and having got into that situation they found it difficult to retreat from it. I gather from what I read in the media that the matter is not yet over, and that there are other actions between the individuals concerned which will carry this matter on and which will not in the long term rebound to the credit or benefit of any of the people concerned. It is easy to be wise after the event and I do not want to place myself in that position. I do not make these remarks in any sense of smugness or anything like that, but I feel that there is room for some sort of conciliatory area in cases of this kind. Maybe it could be provided somewhere in the Public Service. I do not know quite how it could be done, but it should be possible in a case like this where obviously there were problems to begin with, where the Minister quite honestly, I am sure, believed that he had a problem and where Air Vice-Marshal Flemming also thought he had a problem. I feel that both men did not understand each other's position. Because they are different personalities and their views of the world and its values are probably quite different in many respects, they found that they were attacking each other, with what appeared to be good will and good faith. Unfortunately, that situation occurs regularly on this planet, but it ought not to. It should be within our ability in a place like this, or indeed within any area of government, to see that it does not happen. I feel that there should be some sort of area, be it informal or formal, of conciliation when there is friction between a member of this Parliament, a Minister perhaps, and a senior public servant. Surely it should be possible for that group, before the matter hits the fan, before it gets to the Parliament, and before it gets to the Press, to negotiate on some amicable basis. Then that group itself could establish, without formal inquiries and in an informal way, the truth of the matter. If that group felt that it was too big for it to handle and that it was a really serious problem, the matter could go to inquiry. It is right and proper that that should happen. I suspect, perhaps wrongly, that this case was not quite like that. This one would have been amenable to some sort of persuasion or resolution if it had been negotiated earlier by people quite apart from the main protagonists. They might then have been able to come to the main protagonists and say: `In our view, the situation could best be dealt with like this'. I am not in any way canvassing this as a rerun of the past, and I put it purely as a hypothetical case. That group might have said to the Minister: `This is a matter on which we know you have a problem, but could we leave it for a while? Do not force it for the time being'. That same group-and again I am not canvassing the matter-might have gone to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and said: `There is a problem here. We know that you think that you are right and believe that what you are doing is right, there is an intractable problem and it will run us all into trouble if we go on with it. What about it? Perhaps after a certain amount of time you might want to get your beach cottage and go fishing'. Such a situation might well have resulted, and if that had happened it would have been so much better for the reputation of the War Memorial, for the people concerned, for this Parliament and for the dignity of our proceedings here. I hope that two things will happen about the Flemming case-and here I am in some sort of disagreement with Senator Durack. I do not see that much will be rescued out of the individual case. There are court actions arising from this, as I understand from the media. I do not think that much will be achieved for Air Vice-Marshal Flemming by pressing this further. Although I agree with many of Senator Durack's comments, what preferably should happen is that nothing of this kind happens again in the same way. One should learn from experience and certainly it should be possible to learn from experience. On this matter, of all matters, I think that should be the case. If any Minister or senior member of parliament in this place has a problem of that kind and such a problem blows up again, could not some machinery be instituted to see that it does not become a public scandal for public debate, with all sorts of issues coming out which do not present any of the protagonists with dignity or charity? I would like to feel that some mechanism existed to deal with the matter before it reached that stage. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Senate adjourned at 3.39 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Public Service Act-Determinations 1986 Nos 90, 93. Supported Accommodation Assistance Act-Variation to the Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Queensland, made on 11 March 1986, dated 3 February 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 768) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) What is the preliminary estimate of cost in 1985 dollars of the following defence activities: (a) moving the Royal Australian Navy from Sydney to Jervis Bay; (b) moving the Army from Sydney to the Bathurst/Orange, Cobar and Singleton areas; (c) moving the Proof and Experimental Establishment from Port Wakefield in South Australia. (2) Does provision exist for any of these projects in the current Defence Five Year Rolling Program; if so, how much expenditure is planned for which projects in which years. (3) Which of these projects have received Government approval in principle, when was that approval given and by whom was the approval given- (a) the Prime Minister (b) the Minister for Defence; or (c) the Cabinet. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) The proposed relocation of a naval armament depot from Sydney to Jervis Bay has been announced. Costs are expected to be in the order of $120m in 1986 prices. A study is being conducted into the scope for moving certain naval operational support facilities from Sydney. The study is addressing implications of basing more warships in WA and of developing fleet base facilities at Jervis Bay. Depending on the option chosen, costs at Jervis Bay could exceed $1000m. (1) (b) As announced during 1986, the Government has decided not to proceed with proposals for the establishment of Army training areas near Bathurst-Orange and Cobar. No costs have been developed for works at Singleton pending further studies. (1) (c) There is no proposal to move the Proof and Experimental Establishment from Port Wakefield. However the Minister for Defence announced on 29 August 1986 that the range there was to be extended. The cost of land acquisition for that purpose is expected to be of the order of $2.5m. (2) Provision is made in the Five Year Defence Program for land acquisition for and construction of an armament depot at Jervis Bay, and for environmental and other studies associated with that proposal and the proposal to move elements of the Fleet there. The tentative expenditure spread is as follows: 1986/87, $0.4m; 1987/88, $4.1m; 1988/89, $5.0m; 1989/90, $7.8m; 1990/91, $20.1m; later years, $109m. Provision for land acquisition at Port Wakefield is $2.0m in 1986/87 and $0.5m in 1987/88. (3) The Prime Minister announced the intention to relocate the naval armament depot in a joint announcement with the NSW Premier on 17 December 1985, and the Minister for Defence announced the study of the relocation of certain naval operational support facilities from Sydney on 3 October 1985. There will be no Government decision on relocation of those facilities, until the necessary environmental and other studies have been undertaken. (Question No. 1046) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Education's attention been drawn to the publication entitled ``Your Rights-1985'' by a John Bennett on behalf of a body styling itself the Australian Civil Liberties Union. (2) Is this organisation a genuine civil liberties organisation. (3) Do the Australian Council for Civil Liberties, the peak body of Council of Civil Liberties, reject this organisation. (4) Does the publication contain anti-semitic and pro-Nazi propaganda denying that the holocaust did not occur in Nazi Germany. (5) Are any Commonwealth funds used to support the provisions of this publication for school libraries. (6) Will the Minister warn educational institutions and their libraries which are under the Department's administration of the anti-semitic content of the publication. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (3) and (4). Although these questions are not relevant to my portfolio, I want to make clear my abhorrence of any anti-semitic statements. Concerning this particular publication, the honourable senator may wish to refer to a Question Without Notice asked of the then Attorney-General on 27 March 1984 (Senate Hansard p. 689) concerning a similar publication entitled ``Your Rights-1984''. (5) The Libraries element of the Commonwealth's Capital Grants Program which provided funds for library resources within schools was discontinued in 1986. As the selection of appropriate resource materials is considered to be the responsibility of individual schools, I am unable to ascertain whether Commonwealth funds were used, prior to 1986, to support the provision of this publication in school libraries. (6) Those educational institutions which are under my Department's administration comprise the five ACT Further Education institutions. Those institutions are responsible individually for the selection of appropriate resource materials. Such selections are not monitored or controlled by my Department. However, the honourable senator's question and my answer, including the Hansard reference above, have been drawn to the attention of the heads of those institutions. (Question No. 1443) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Ammunition Factory, Footscray, which in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at the Ammunition Factory, Footscray, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: (1) In many establishments of the Office of Defence Production there are a number of work practices which Central Office and local management believe are restrictive and cannot be justified on operational safety and health or other grounds. Many of these work practices have come about over long periods and do not take account of the impact of changes in equipments or the skill base now provided to many trades. Work practices in question include demarcation of responsibility for work; use of tools by ``white collar'' staff; retention of high manning levels; overtime practices which are excessively costly; timekeeping methods; restrictions on contracting-out, temporary employment of staff or use of sub-contractors for short term peaks in workload; and restrictions on multiple machine operation. Unions and staff associations do not necessarily share the views of management on the classification of such practices as being `restrictive' and requiring change. Following the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the ACTU and Employer Federations to discuss restrictive work practices, the ACTU and Departmental officers have agreed to discuss the nature and extent of restrictive work practices and the potential for change. These discussions are to take place early in 1987. (3) Most practices of a restrictive kind are long standing. (4) Some changes have been agreed during the year, particularly at Garden Island Dockyard and Williamstown Dockyard, (5) Due to the nature and variety of work practices being addressed costings have not been made. (Question No. 1445) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Munitions Filling Factory, St Mary's which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at the Munitions Filling Factory, St Mary's, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) In many establishments of the Office of Defence Production there are a number of work practices which Central Office and local management believe are restrictive and cannot be justified on operational, safety and health or other grounds. Many of these work practices have come about over long periods and do not take account of the impact of changes in equipments or the skill base now provided to many trades. Work practices in question include demarcation of responsibility for work; use of tools by ``white collar'' staff; retention of high manning levels; overtime practices which are excessively costly; timekeeping methods; restrictions on contracting-out, temporary employment of staff or use of sub-contractors for short term peaks in workload; and restrictions on multiple machine operation. Unions and staff associations do not necessarily share the views of management on the classification of such practices as being `restrictive' and requiring change. Following the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the ACTU and Employer Federations to discuss restrictive work practices, the ACTU and Departmental officers have agreed to discuss the nature and extent of restrictive work practices and the potential for change. These discussions are to take place early in 1987. (3) Most practices of a restrictive kind are long standing. (4) Some changes have been agreed during the year, particularly at Garden Island Dockyard and Williamstown Dockyard, (5) Due to the nature and variety of work practices being addressed costings have not been made. (Question No. 1447) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Explosives Factory, Maribyrnong, which in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Explosives Factory, Maribyrnong, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) In many establishments of the Office of Defence Production there are a number of work practices which Central Office and local management believe are restrictive and cannot be justified on operational, safety and health or other grounds. Many of these work practices have come about over long periods and do not take account of the impact of changes in equipments or the skill base now provided to many trades. Work practices in question include demarcation of responsibility for work; use of tools by ``white collar'' staff; retention of high manning levels; overtime practices which are excessively costly; timekeeping methods; restrictions on contracting-out, temporary employment of staff or use of sub-contractors for short term peaks in workload; and restrictions on multiple machine operation. Unions and staff associations do not necessarily share the views of management on the classification of such practices as being `restrictive' and requiring change. Following the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the ACTU and Employer Federations to discuss restrictive work practices, the ACTU and Departmental officers have agreed to discuss the nature and extent of restrictive work practices and the potential for change. These discussions are to take place early in 1987. (3) Most practices of a restrictive kind are long standing. (4) Some changes have been agreed during the year, particularly at Garden Island Dockyard and Williamstown Dockyard. (5) Due to the nature and variety of work practices being addressed costings have not been made. (Question No. 1448) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Mulwala Explosives Factory, which in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Mulwala Explosives Factory, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) In may establishments of the Office of Defence Production there are a number of work practices which Central Office and local management believe are restrictive and cannot be justified on operational, safety and health or other grounds. Many of these work practices have come about over long periods and do not take account of the impact of changes in equipments or the skill base now provided to many trades. Work practices in question include demarcation of responsibility for work; use of tools by ``white collar'' staff; retention of high manning levels; overtime practices which are excessively costly; timekeeping methods; restrictions on contracting-out, temporary employment of staff or use of sub-contractors for short term peaks in workload; and restrictions on multiple machine operation. Unions and staff associations do not necessarily share the views of management on the classification of such practices as being `restrictive' and requiring change. Following the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the ACTU and Employer Federations to discuss restrictive work practices, the ACTU and Departmental officers have agreed to discuss the nature and extent of restrictive work practices and the potential for change. These discussions are to take place early in 1987. (3) Most practices of a restrictive kind are long standing. (4) Some changes have been agreed during the year, particularly at Garden Island Dockyard and Williamstown Dockyard. (5) Due to the nature and variety of work practices being addressed costings have not been made. (Question No. 1452) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Ordnance Factory, Bendigo, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Ordnance Factory, Bendigo, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost to these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the questions which the honourable senator raised on work practices at nine Defence production establishments: (1) and (2) In many establishments of the Office of Defence Production there are a number of work practices which Central Office and local management believe are restrictive and cannot be justified on operational, safety and health or other grounds. Many of these work practices have come about over long periods and do not take account of the impact of changes in equipments or the skill base now provided to many trades. Work practices in question include demarcation of responsibility for work; use of tools by ``white collar'' staff; retention of high manning levels; overtime practices which are excessively costly; timekeeping methods; restrictions on contracting-out, temporary employment of staff or use of sub-contractors for short term peaks in workload; and restrictions on multiple machine operations. Unions and staff associations do not necessarily share the views of management on the classification of such practices as being `restrictive' and requiring change. Following the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the ACTU and Employer Federations to discuss restrictive work practices, the ACTU and Departmental officers have agreed to discuss the nature and extent of restrictive work practices and the potential for change. These discussions are to take place early in 1987. (3) Most practices of a restrictive kind are long standing. (4) Some changes have been agreed during the year, particularly at Garden Island Dockyard and Williamstown Dockyard. (5) Due to the nature and variety of work practices being addressed costings have not been made. (Question No. 1453) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Ordnance Factory, Maribyrnong, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Ordnance Factory, Maribyrnong, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost to these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the questions which the honourable senator raised on work practices at nine Defence production establishments: (1) and (2) In many establishments of the Office of Defence Production there are a number of work practices which Central Office and local management believe are restrictive and cannot be justified on operational, safety and health or other grounds. Many of these work practices have come about over long periods and do not take account of the impact of changes in equipments or the skill base now provided to many trades. Work practices in question include demarcation of responsibility for work; use of tools by ``white collar'' staff; retention of high manning levels; overtime practices which are excessively costly; timekeeping methods; restrictions on contracting-out, temporary employment of staff or use of sub-contractors for short term peaks in workload; and restrictions on multiple machine operations. Unions and staff associations do not necessarily share the views of management on the classification of such practices as being `restrictive' and requiring change. ACTU and Employer Federations to discuss restrictive work practices, the ACTU and Departmental officers have agreed to discuss the nature and extent of restrictive work practices and the potential for change. These discussions are to take place early in 1987. (3) Most practices of a restrictive kind are long standing. (4) Some changes have been agreed during the year, particularly at Garden Island Dockyard and Williamstown Dockyard. (5) Due to the nature and variety of work practices being addressed costings have not been made. (Question No. 1456) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Australian Government Clothing Factory which in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at the Australian Government Clothing Factory, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) In many establishments of the Office of Defence Production there are a number of work practices which Central Office and local management believe are restrictive and cannot be justified on operational, safety and health or other grounds. Many of these work practices have come about over long periods and do not take account of the impact of changes in equipments or the skill base now provided to many trades. Work practices in question include demarcation of responsibility for work; use of tools by ``white collar'' staff; retention of high manning levels; overtime practices which are excessively costly; timekeeping methods; restrictions on contracting-out, temporary employment of staff or use of sub-contractors for short term peaks in workload; and restrictions on multiple machine operation. Unions and staff associations do not necessarily share the views of management on the classification of such practices as being `restrictive' and requiring change. Following the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the ACTU and Employer Federations to discuss restrictive work practices, the ACTU and Departmental officers have agreed to discuss the nature and extent of restrictive work practices and the potential for change. These discussions are to take place early in 1987. (3) Most practices of a restrictive kind are long standing. (4) Some changes have been agreed during the year, particularly at Garden Island Dockyard and Williamstown Dockyard. (5) Due to the nature and variety of work practices being addressed costings have not been made. (Question No. 1460) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Guided Weapons and Electronic Support Facility, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at the Guided Weapons and Electronic Support Facility, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) In many establishments of the Office of Defence Production there are a number of work practices which Central Office and local management believe are restrictive and cannot be justified on operational safety and health or other grounds. Many of these work practices have come about over long periods and do not take account of the impact of changes in equipments or the skill base now provided to many trades. Work practices in question include demarcation of responsibilty for work; use of tools by ``white collar'' staff; retention of high manning levels; overtime practices which are excessively costly; timekeeping methods; restrictions on contracting-out, temporary employment of staff or use of sub-contractors for short term peaks in workload; and restrictions on multiple machine operation. Unions and staff associations do not necessarily share the views of management on the classification of such practices as being `restrictive' and requiring change. Following the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the ACTU and Employer Federations to discuss restrictive work practices, the ACTU and Departmental officers have agreed to discuss the nature and extent of restrictive work practices and the potential for change. These discussions are to take place early in 1987. (3) Most practices of a restrictive kind are long standing. (4) Some changes have been agreed during the year, particularly at Garden Island Dockyard and Williamstown Dockyard. (5) Due to the nature and variety of work practices being addressed costings have not been made. (Question No. 1479) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Small Arms Factory, Lithgow, which in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Small Arms Factory, Lithgow, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) In many establishments of the Office of Defence Production there are a number of work practices which Central Office and local management believe are restrictive and cannot be justified on operational, safety and health or other grounds. Many of these work practices have come about over long periods and do not take account of the impact of changes in equipments or the skill base now provided to many trades. Work practices in question include demarcation of responsibility for work; use of tools by ``white collar'' staff; retention of high manning levels; overtime practices which are excessively costly; timekeeping methods; restrictions on contracting-out, temporary employment of staff or use of sub-contractors for short term peaks in workload; and restrictions on multiple machine operation. Unions and staff associations do not necessarily share the views of management on the classification of such practices as being `restrictive' and requiring change. Following the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the ACTU and Employer Federations to discuss restrictive work practices, the ACTU and Departmental officers have agreed to discuss the nature and extent of restrictive work practices and the potential for change. These discussions are to take place early in 1987. (3) Most practices of a restrictive kind are long standing. (4) Some changes have been agreed during the year, particularly at Garden Island Dockyard and Williamstown Dockyard. (5) Due to the nature and variety of work practices being addressed costings have not been made. (Question No. 1548) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) Has any decision been taken by the ABC in relation to the provision of live coverage of sporting events to outback communities, previously provided with satellite coverage of such events vis Intelsat, but left without such a service since the inception of Aussat; if so, what action is proposed to be taken in relation to the provision of such a service to the people of the outback. (2) When can outback people, still awaiting the commencement of the Aussat commercial licence service, expect an interim service by the ABC, providing live coverage of major sporting events, to commence. (3) When is it anticipated that the Aussat commercial service to the Fourth Remote Area Television Zone will commence. Senator Walsh —The following answer to the honourable senator's question, based in part upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has been supplied by the Minister for Communications: (1) In considering the ABC policy, account has been taken of their special capacity to provide full national television delivery of events of major public interest. The ABC is prepared, as a service to the public, to assist wherever possible in making major events available to all Australians. The ABC agrees that a significant number of Australians living in remote areas would like to have access to live coverage of events of national interest. On the other hand, if the ABC does not have primary rights or secondary regional rights to coverage of the event, then transmission to remote areas only, if it is possible, is expensive and time-consuming. It may be unsatisfactory in terms of the standard and content offered, and it will affect the normal scheduling of the national network. In effect, their other audiences may suffer. In most remote areas the only means of transmission available is via HACBSS transponders which must also feed other regions of the State. (For satellite transmission purposes, NSW, Victoria and Tasmania are one footprint, i.e. the south-eastern area). Terrestrial lines to regional areas, where the lines still exist, are expensive to use. In effect it is difficult, expensive, and in some cases impossible to arrange a separate signal to remote communities with no commercial service. If communities with access to commercial services cannot be separated out from the remote communities, then the agreement of the commercial rights owner would be needed in order to arrange a satellite transmission which would inevitably interfere with their coverage. Apart from these logistic considerations, the ABC is also placed in a situation where it must make value judgments on the level of interest present in different communities, and the likely effect on other members of those audiences if the scheduled programs are not shown. Experience has shown that many in the audience do not appreciate regular programs being interfered with by ``special'' events. For all these reasons, while the ABC is prepared to make a special effort for those areas where no commercial TV services exist, the ABC is willing to transmit only what it regards as a suitable coverage at a suitable time. Such transmissions would be arranged on the proviso that any significant additional circuit and switching costs were met by parties outside the ABC, for example the local community. While the ABC make every effort to give people in remote areas access to events of national interest, the Corporation cannot give an unqualified assurance that in every case coverage will be possible. (2) The ABC is currently providing live coverage at selected sporting events. It recognises that it has a responsibility to all Australians and is sympathetic to those people in remote areas who have no access to events covered solely by commercial television, and for that reason is prepared to make special arrangements. Those special arrangements, however, can apply only within the confines of commercial and technical feasibility and cannot be allowed to operate to the detriment of their other audiences. Thus, no timetable can be unequivocally stated regarding the expansion of these services. (3) The Tribunal issued the licence to Imparja on 22 January 1987 with a commencement date condition of 31 December 1987. However, no commencement date can be set for the Central Zone RCTS because the issue of the licence to Imparja is subject to legal challenge. This will have the effect of delaying the process until a decision has been handed down by the courts.