Wednesday, 25 February 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 241 citizens), Peter Baume (from 218 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 238 citizens), Childs (from 239 citizens), Gietzelt (from 202 citizens), Mason (from 240 citizens) and Puplick (from 241 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned concerned Australian citizens hereby petition the Honourable Members and Senators to totally reject the current proposals for an I.D. card and the proposed Data Protection Agency. We believe that they represent potentially undesirable interference in the lives of honest Australians. Provision for protection of privacy cannot be guaranteed as Statutes are easily altered by future Governments. We believe that there are more efficient methods to prevent fraud in the areas of Social Security and taxation without the use of these two proposals, which go well beyond the reach of the true role of democratic government, i.e. That citizens may live quiet and peaceable lives. The I.D. card and Data Protection Agency have strong potential under this or future administrations to interfere with the quiet and peaceable lives of its subjects. We your humble petitioners in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in 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 316 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-effective and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill. The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the 1986 Census deprived housewives of the right to record their occupation and instead forced them to give the negative response: ``No, did not have a job''. That the 1986 Census could have been used, at no extra cost to taxpayers, to give a genuine `fair go' to all women to record their views on the government's National Agenda for Women. That coinciding with the 1986 Census, the Office of the Status of Women is conducting a costly, selective survey titled: ``A Fair Go For Women''. This survey requires no identification of respondents, making the results of the survey highly suspect since it is known that various groups 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 Boswell (from 18 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland showeth that the electoral system in Queensland, base on a 4 zonal weighted system, is an affront to democracy. The National Party under the leadership of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen is always returned to Government with no opportunity for the voting public to bring about change. Your petitioners point out that under the Queensland voting system the National Party at the State Elections on 1 November 1986 managed to achieve 55 per cent of the seats with only 39 per cent of the votes. This demonstrates that 61 per cent of Queenslanders do not want a National Party Government yet received one. Your petitioners therefore earnestly pray that the Federal Government legislates as a matter of urgency to bring about a democratic system of voting in Queensland State elections based on the principle of one vote one value. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 49 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: If, there is to be legal process against alleged war criminals resident in Australia, the foundations of justice should be clear and equitable. 1. Let the term, ``War Crime'', be first clearly defined. 2. Let specific prosecutions be swiftly launched against those individuals alleged to have committed them, thus releasing the rest of the co-nationals from unwarranted slur and suspicion. 3. Let an Australian tribunal hear the charges. Nobody should be deported to face the ``tender mercies'' of any foreign government. 4. Let the presumption of innocence until proved guilt be clearly established. 5. Let all evidence obtained from the Soviet or any other communist government be set aside and totally disregarded. 6. Let all the costs of any person charged and found not guilty be paid by the Commonwealth Government so that innocent people are not financially ruined in the course of establishing their innocence. As your petitioners as in in duty bound ever pray: by Senator Robertson (from 82 citizens). To the Honourable the President and 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 Senator Robertson (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of wide-spread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 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 Childs (from 389 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Australia Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combatting the growing problem of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will pray. by Senator Reid (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal of the above said Bill `National System for Therapeutic Goods for Human Use'. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: (1). Block the introduction of the above said Bill `National System for Therapeutic Goods for Human Use' and (2) Continue to allow the free availability of vitamins, minerals, homoeopathic remedies, biochemic remedies and herbal remedies to the general public through the present distribution outlets. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from six citizens). Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, from 64 citizens from the Albany Peace Group praying that the present treaty between the United States of America and Australia concerning the nuclear installation of Pine Gap be rescinded: Dear Members of the Senate, We strongly urge you to consider the necessity to rescind the present treaty with U.S.A. concerning the nuclear installation at Pine Gap near Alice Springs. Our main reasons are: (1) American control endangers the Sovereignty of Australia within her own country. (2) It greatly increases the danger of Australia becoming a Nuclear Target. (3) A C.I.A. spying system established in Australia threatens democracy in every country. Signatures supporting this letter are enclosed. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petitioning letter bearing 17 signatures requesting that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 be rejected. Labor Senator Richardson, Graham F. C/- Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Sir We, the undersigned, have read with concern that Senator Gareth Evans has labelled the opposition to the Bill of Rights legislation as `'idiot harassment'' on the part of ``the forces of darkness'' in Australia. We wish you to know that we are decent, hard-working Australians deeply concerned with the future of this Nation and we are opposed to the Bill of Rights. We believe that the Bill of Rights, contrary to all the proponent's views, will not benefit Australia or Australians. It is unnecessary, dangerous and anti-family. We therefore request that you influence your Party to withdraw the Legislation in the next sitting of Parliament or at the very least, if it is indeed a Bill of Rights for the people, let the people decide in a Referendum. Petitioning letter received. Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Interim Report on Canned Fruit (Statutory Marketing and Interim Assistance Arrangements)-Industries Assistance Commission Report. 2. Norfolk Island-Annual Report 1985-86. 3. Australian Capital Territory Agents Board-Annual Report 1985-86. 4. Canberra Retail Markets Trust-Annual Report 1985-86. 5. National Capital Development Commission-Annual Report 1985-86-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to Section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957. 6. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies-Annual Report 1985-86-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to Section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1954. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the time for presentation of the Report of the Select Committee on Television Equalisation be extended to 23 March 1987. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the recovery of minerals from Moreton Island, and for related purposes. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Federal Government immediately place an import tax of 10 per cent on all imported orange juice, and that the Government give urgent consideration to a similar tax on other unnecessary or luxury imports. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the Federal Government on the representation made by Australia's ambassador to the United States to the Reagan Administration on 9 February 1987 criticising US proposals to broaden its interpretation of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, the most important arms control measure passed since the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963; (b) notes the remarks of Mr Kenneth Adelman, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, that US allies have no business telling the US how to interpret a bilateral treaty between the Soviet Union and the US, and that he prefers the views of allies on issues they know more about; (c) deplores the Reagan Administration's appalling record of sabotaging all moderate proposals for arms control put forward by the Australian government and other Western allies; and (d) urges the government to realise that our alleged special relationship with the Reagan Administration is worthless in the face of such intrasigence, and to move towards a positive, non-aligned international position whereby we can constructively criticise both the US and the Soviet Union in the company of states such as those associated with the Five Continent Initiative. Motion (by Senator Archer) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the National Crime Authority Act 1984. Bill presented by Senator Archer, and read a first time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.08) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to extend the life of the National Crime Authority by repealing section 63 of the National Crime Authority Act 1985 which provided for the termination of the life of the Authority on 30 June 1989. The urgent need for the legislation is to ensure the continuity of the work of the Authority and to be able to offer reasonable terms of engagement to officers joining the Authority and to provide security to those already employed and who have of necessity to consider their positions beyond 30 June 1989. Mr Bingham's term expires in 10 months and the question must be raised as to who would take such a senior position when there is no undertaking of employment beyond 18 months. In the case of Mr Justice Stewart, the Chairman of the Authority, his term expires on 30 June 1988, leaving only 12 months before the date on which the life of the Authority is due to expire. There are many other changes due to be made in the operation of the Authority, but extending the life and introducing some stability to it is so essential that this Bill has been introduced. The Government, as well as the Opposition, must be seen to have a strong commitment to its attack on organised crime. This is not a party political issue and I seek the support of the Government and other senators to pass this legislation and show their commitment to the Authority and attacking organised crime. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the se-veral stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.09) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GUARANTEES (CHARGES) BILL 1986 The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the imposition, from 1986-87, of an annual charge on borrowings or other raisings of money by Commonwealth semi-government authorities which are guaranteed by the Commonwealth. This charge, which the Treasurer announced in the Budget Speech, has regard to the favourable interest rates paid by Commonwealth authorities due to the fact that their borrowings are guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The main consequence of the charge will be to ensure that the effective cost of borrowings to authorities is more directly comparable with that faced by private sector borrowers, thus ensuring that authorities take full account of the cost to the community of their investment decisions. Similar loan guarantee charges have recently been announced by the New South Wales and South Australian governments in respect of semi-government authorities in those States. This Bill provides that when a Commonwealth authority borrows money, or raises money otherwise than by borrowing, and the Commonwealth guarantees that borrowing, the Treasurer may determine that a charge, not exceeding 0.5 per cent per annum of the amount borrowed or raised, is payable to the Commonwealth for the guarantee. The authority may also be required to provide to the Treasurer information relating to the amount of the charge for which it is liable. The authorities which may be liable for the loan guarantee charge may be considered in two groups, Commonwealth financial institutions and other Commonwealth business enterprises. In relation to borrowings or raisings of money by Commonwealth business enterprises-other than financial institutions-while there are some instances where Commonwealth guarantees are provided automatically by force of laws of the Commonwealth, in most cases the Treasurer is empowered, at his discretion, to provide Commonwealth guarantees. It will be open to these authorities, where guarantees are provided at the Treasurer's discretion, to decide whether it is in their financial interests to seek the provision of a Commonwealth guarantee in respect of a particular borrowing or raising. The Government has decided that in respect of these authorities, the Commonwealth guarantee charge will be set at 0.5 per cent of the outstanding amount of gua-ranteed borrowings or raisings undertaken on or after 1 July 1986. Special arrangements will apply in the case of Commonwealth financial institutions-the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia and Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia-the Commonwealth Banks-and the Australian Industry Development Corporation-AIDC. At present, all moneys payable by these authorities to any person other than the Commonwealth are automatically gua-ranteed by the Commonwealth. Under the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1986, to be introduced by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, it is proposed that the AIDC itself will be empowered to determine whether any borrowings or raisings of money made by it after 8 October 1986 are guaranteed by the Commonwealth. Where borrowings or raisings of money by the AIDC on or after 1 July 1986 are subject to a Commonwealth guarantee, the Government has decided that the Commonwealth guarantee charge will be set at 0.5 per cent per annum. All moneys payable by the Commonwealth banks-other than to the Commonwealth-will continue to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth. However the Bill provides that in the case of the Commonwealth banks, the Commonwealth guarantee charge will be payable only in respect of borrowings or raisings of money which in the opinion of the Treasurer are overseas borrowings. This reflects the Government's intention that the Commonwealth guarantee charge should be confined to borrowings or raisings of money in which the provision of the Commonwealth guarantee confers an interest rate benefit on the bank relative to other major Australian banks. It is considered that this only applies when the banks undertake long term borrowings or raisings of money in overseas financial markets. Having regard to the size of the interest rate benefit, the Government has decided that the Commonwealth guarantee charge will apply only to long term overseas borrowings by the Commonwealth banks at a rate of 0.25 per cent per annum. It should be noted that while this Bill provides for authorities to provide information to the Commonwealth relevant to the calculation of the Commonwealth guarantee charge, it would not permit or require any information to be provided which would breach the present fully confidential relationship between Commonwealth financial institutions and their customers. The Commonwealth guarantee charges to be imposed under this Bill are estimated to raise revenue for the Commonwealth of $3.4m in 1986-87. I commend the Bill to the Senate. AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1986 This Bill will amend the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 by providing for the current Commonwealth statutory guarantee on borrowings and raisings by the Corporation to become optional at the Corporation's discretion. The guarantee was provided to the Corporation as part of this Government's amendments to the Corporation's charter in 1983. The proposed amendments arise from the Government's intention to levy a charge in respect of the guarantee on borrowings or raisings by Commonwealth business enterprises. The levy would have had an adverse impact on the Corporation as a financial institution if the levy had applied to all the Corporation's borrowings or raisings. Therefore, in consultation with the Corporation the Government decided that all new borrowings and raisings made by the Corporation on or after 8 October 1986 will only be guaranteed by the Commonwealth if the Corporation decides that the Commonwealth guarantee should apply to those borrowings and raisings. The statutory guarantee by the Commonwealth will of course continue to apply to all borrowings, raisings and other liabilities of the Corporation entered into prior to 8 October 1986. This new initiative acknowledges the commercial strength of the Corporation and its ability to stand on its own two feet as a successful government-owned development bank. Despite the difficult economic environment the Corporation has recently reported a record after tax net profit of $19.1m. This demonstrates the Corporation's continued effectiveness in financing industries vital to the Australian economy. The Corporation has responded well to the Government's 1983 initiatives and, since the Government came to office, the Corporation has grown very rapidly. For example total assets at 30 June 1986 amounted to $2167.4m compared with $768.1m at 30 June 1982, an increase of 180 per cent. The corporation is to be congratulated on its achievement and the Government looks forward to continued strong growth in the Corporation's activities. Of course, this growth was made possible by the Government's 1983 initiatives to increase the Corporation's authorised capital to $150m and to provide regular contributions of capital. Paid up capital now stands at $100m compared to $62.5m at June 1983. The Corporation's gearing ratio was also increased to 15:1. The passing of this Bill will further enhance the Corporation's ability to respond positively to Government initiatives in industry policy. Mr President, a detailed explanatory memorandum has been circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid )adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate requesting changes in the membership of certain committees. Motion-by Senator Gareth Evans-proposed: (1) That Senator Coates, having been duly nominated in accordance with Resolution of the Senate of 25 March 1982, be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. (2) That Senator West, having been duly nominated in accordance with Resolution of the Senate of 28 February 1985, be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. (3) That Senator Sibraa be discharged from further attendance on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, and that Senator Morris, having been duly nominated in accordance with resolution of the Senate of 28 February 1985, be appointed a member of the Committee. (4) That Senator Tate be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and that Senator McKiernan, having been duly nominated in accordance with Resolution of the Senate of 25 May 1982, be appointed a member of the Committee. (5) That Senator Tate be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and that Senator Reynolds, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36aa, be appointed a member of the committee. (6) That Senator Black be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment and that Senator West, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36aa, be appointed a member of the Committee. (7) That Senator Cook be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Orders Committee and that, the Manager of Government Business, Senator Evans, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 33, be appointed a member of the Committee. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.12) —I wish to take this opportunity of registering an interest in becoming a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I have made this point on a number of occasions privately but I do so now to the Senate. I acknowledge the difficulties when appointments are being made to parliamentary committees in exhibiting a bipartisan approach to membership. I also acknowledge that my work load on committees is pretty severe. I am on five committees already. Nevertheless, I simply take this opportunity of again registering publicly my interest in the matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 20 February. Clause 24 (Test growing of plant varieties). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.13) —My recollection is that some days ago upon the adjournment of the consideration in Committee of the three amendments I had moved I was pointing out that these amendments were, in substance, amendments unsuccessfully moved by the now Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to the original 1982 Bill presented by the coalition Government. I remind the Committee that these amendments have the effect of enforcing one aspect which the Australian Democrats are very concerned is all too absent from this legislation, and that is the aspect of merit testing and, in particular, testing for commercial, nutritional and environmental aspects of varieties which are intended to be patented under this legislation. I remind the Committee of that before it votes on these amendments, as it has voted on and rejected the previous 11 amendments proposed. It has been a feature of the debate that the Government significantly moved from the position that it took when in opposition, especially that of the present Minister for Primary Industry. To be fair, not all Government members have moved from their earlier position. The only Government speaker to speak against the Bill at the second reading stage was Senator Zakharov. Unfortunately, it has not been reflected in the votes on the amendments and the second reading. With these amendments, as with previous amendments, the Democrats are trying to ensure, in the interests of Australians involved in agriculture and horticulture, that merit testing be a feature of the legislation. When we attempted to do that in our first amendment the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) responded by saying that it was too expensive and too difficult to do. We believe, that, in the interests of Australia's agriculture and horticulture, it should be done. We are particularly disappointed that the previous amendment on varieties from overseas was lost. I urge the Committee to understand the importance of merit testing in a patent system as proposed by the legislation, and to support the amendments. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.16) —I will lay down the Opposition's position once again, because we have come back to a piece of legislation which we considered the other day. In the second reading debate I put down the chronology of events for plant variety rights-how it started; how a colleague in a previous government, Peter Nixon, first introduced it. Subsequent to that there was a Senate standing committee report on the legislation which made recommendations and suggested certain amendments. Those have been picked up. Since that time there has also been a report by Professor Lazenby to the Hawke Government. Therefore, the Opposition feels that there is no need for any amendments or further debate. The issue has been around for a long time. The industries, without exception, are waiting for the legislation to be passed. Therefore, we will not support the amendments. We do not want to see the legislation held up. Anybody wishing to make representations to any member of this chamber or any political party has had adequate opportunity to make such representations to any one of the committees considering the legislation, and have the committees deliberate on those representations and make recommendations. As has been said, the legislation is the result of previous legislation and it is the result of the deliberations of a Senate Standing committee and Professor Lazenby's committee. Therefore, we in the Opposition support it. We will not support any of the amendments which have been introduced by the Australian Democrats. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.18) —Equally, it will be no surprise to learn that the Government opposes the amendments. The first is linked to the previous two amendments, which called for test growing of every applicant variety and which were rejected. Amendment Nos 13 and 14 amount to attempts to introduce the requirement for merit testing, for which earlier amendments have already been rejected. Merit testing is a separate issue. Amendment No. 15 is opposed on the basis that it involves unnecessary administrative procedures which would add to the cost of operating the scheme. Notification of grants will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and later in the PVR Journal which will be available at Department of Primary Industry capital city offices. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 25 agreed to. Clause 26 (Grant of plant variety rights). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.19) —I move: (15) Page 16, clause 26, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ``(8) Where an objection to the grant of plant variety rights has been lodged under section 20 and the Secretary grants the rights, the Secretary shall, within 30 days after granting the rights, give written notice of the grant to the person who lodged the objection.''. The Minister alluded to this matter a minute ago. With this amendment, once again, the Australian Democrats are attempting something which the Government attempted when in opposition in the name of Mr Kerin, the present Minister for Primary Industry. This amendment is part of a series of amendments which we have attempted to make to this legislation and which have been designed to address one of a number of problems we find with this legislation apart from our absolute opposition to the legislation per se. In an effort to minimise its negative impacts we have drawn up this and other amendments to ensure maximum access and information through the process of the granting of exclusive rights to plant material by individuals or corporate interests. The addition made to clause 26 by this amendment will require the Secretary to give notice to persons who have lodged objections when rights against those objections have been granted to applicants. As I have said, in previous amendments we have attempted to ensure a much wider dissemination of information about the processes. In spite of having been espoused by the Australian Labor Party in opposition, our amendments have not met with the sort of positive response which we could have expected. Certainly the people who look to the Labor Party for this kind of consideration for consumer and public interests would have expected support for the amendments. The Minister who has been left in charge of this legislation today has already stated the Government's position. I note for the record that the Senate Minister who is responsible for primary industry informed us at the beginning of the Committee stage of this legislation that he simply was not going to participate in the Committee stage. That attitude does less than justice to the import of this legislation. If it is the Government's opinion, as has already been expressed by the Opposition, that it is crucial that this legislation be passed, at the very least one would have expected the responsible Minister to have given more attention to the issues which are raised by this and other amendments in the Committee stage, if only for the reason that there is genuine concern in the community, which we are reflecting in the chamber today. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.22) —This amendment is very important. The whole question of the availability of knowledge to the public about what is going on in plant variety rights and plant patenting is vital. I must stress, as we are in the Committee stage of this Bill, that the Australian Democrats are utterly opposed to the legislation in any shape or form whatsoever and that we voted as a complete party against it at the second reading stage. The reasons for that are known in the community but I am sure that they will come up again in the Committee stage. I am convinced that the public does not really understand what is going on now, that they have been taken for a ride and that there has been a sort of smokescreen of publicity which has said that this is a purely legitimate situation, that one is patenting something like a piece of machinery. If one is going to evolve or develop a piece of machinery, a new gimmick, a gadget or a useful piece of equipment, why not patent it? It is too easy by extension to extend this notion to plants which, after all, are living things. That is the basic problem behind this legislation and the basis of our objection. Members of the public have not yet understood that when this legislation comes into effect the quality of their foodstuffs will begin to decline quite rapidly. The amount of material available to them, the number of varieties of fruits and vegetables, will be strictly limited. Growers will not be dictated by what the public wants. Far from it. They will be dictated by what is the cheapest, easiest and most convenient thing for them to purvey. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, who is in charge of the Plant Variety Rights Bill, said the other day in the Senate in one of his few contributions to the Committee stage that the only consideration he was prepared to bring forward here was that the legislation should enable farmers to make money. That is the only consideration that is regarded as important in the selection of the varieties that will evolve as a result of this legislation. Here we find the key to the Government's failure to accept our excellent amendments which would protect the public and involve the testing of these varieties so that they are good, amendments which have been brought forward by my colleague, Senator Powell. All of our amendments are excellent. Most of them originated, not with the Democrats, but with the Labor Party in opposition, as is the case with this amendment. This amendment was put forward quite strongly and reasonably by the Australian Labor Party when it was in opposition. The public might well ask why the Labor Party is now retreating from it. This amendment, as with other amendments of ours which the Government refused earlier in the Committee stage, would have allowed the public greater information on what was going on. The Government does not want that; it wants a wall of silence. It knows that there is something wrong with the patenting of plants and it does not want the public to know. There is something of a conspiracy going on in this country to see that this happens. It is of great interest that, apart from an excellent article in the Australian this morning by one of our most respected agricultural journalists, Mr Julian Cribb, there has been virtually no media coverage of this Bill whatsoever while it has been passing through the Senate. The newspapers are ignoring this; they do not want to cover it. Are they in it too? I do not know. There are very strong and big commercial interests in this which want to push this legislation through without the public knowing about it. They want as little fuss as possible. The Government is in this conspiracy, which is why the Bill is coming up now. It wants this legislation out of the way as early as possible, before the election is too close, because it knows that there will be flak from it. It is right and proper that there should be flak from it, and it will be a continuing issue right up to the election even though the Bill, in spite of our objections, will be passed today without amendments which it ought to have, including this one. Have those people listening ever noticed how bad our foodstuffs are becoming? For instance, winter tomatoes, with their tough skins and lack of flavour, are almost unable to be used as a food in its raw form. In fact, these tomatoes can be ripened only under gas; they do not ripen naturally. It is great for the growers because the tomatoes can be picked green and thrown into packing cases. That is good, but when people start patenting food varieties those are the criteria they will use. The more people who know about this and think about it, the better. It is a great pity that there has not been an enormous public outcry about this. In the newspaper article I mentioned, Mr Cribb said that there was no doubt whatsoever that this legislation in Australia would lead to a narrowing of the sources of supply of genetic material for plants and a drop off of what is being done in the public area. That is important when one considers that Australia has done so much in the public area, through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and others. A general concentration of this in the hands of private industry will manipulate these essential basic foodstuffs to the benefit of industry and what the public wants will not be of any importance. People opposite have said during the Committee stage that the public will not buy what is good for them if they do not like it. But they will have no alternative; they will have only these things offered to them and they will eat these or nothing. A generation or two will pass and we will have a society in which our grandchildren will not even know what a good apple, tomato or peach should taste like. They will have a sort of non-food, a nasty, unpleasant perversion of the natural product designed explicitly to bring the grower as much money as possible, to make it as easy as possible to handle, process and can the product and, incidentally, to provide the least possible nutritional content and flavour that can be arranged in those circumstances. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.28) —The Committee has been subjected to another ill- informed demonstration of trying to appeal to people's emotions by telling them that the qua-lity of foodstuffs will decline following the passage of the Plant Variety Rights Bill. All the great debates have already taken place. There is widespread support for this legislation throughout the informed community. There are very small pockets of vocal opposition and we are seeing a filibuster in this chamber to try to delay the passage of this Bill. If somebody invests his or her time and capital in testing and developing a new variety, it would seem right and reason-able that that person should be entitled to a return. Surely the economic and humanitarian advantages of a new strain of rice which can grow a crop three times a year will be preferable to one which will yield one or two crops a year. In fact, the improvements in the quality of rice growing have greatly contributed to the feeding of the world's population in some of the Third World centres. Prior to acceptance and registration the variety characteristics have to be clearly set out. Each must be a new plant variety. It is a lot of hogwash to try to engender into the community the fear campaign that quality will be downgraded. If anything, quality will be upgraded. In fact, we are likely to have fewer chemicals used on plants because of the breeding in of rust resistant qualities. I believe that all the great debates have already taken place and the repetitious contribution in relation to this clause has constituted nothing but a scare tactic. It is not surprising that the Press is not taking up these ill-informed arguments of the Australian Democrats. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.31) —The argument has just been demonstrated by Senator Watson, one of the proponents and inventors of the free lunch for farmers. Senator Watson has described the assertions about which the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) spoke previously and to which Senator Mason has already referred, about the criterion being the return to farmers instead of the nutritional value of food, as scaremongering. He has decided that the nutritional value of a product is not important and that the criterion should be whether there is a dollar in it, not whether it is useful. We already have growing evidence of malnutrition in this country, but according to Senator Watson that is not important; that is scare tactics. We must not concentrate on that in this place; all we must concentrate on is whether there is a dollar in it. That is his type of argument. All the other things are of no concern whatsoever to parliamentarians. Senator Watson, one of the proponents and inventors of the free lunch for farmers, says that there will be extra profits for the seed companies-but no one will pay for them-and that is why he and his colleagues want to hurry this legislation through. Some of his friends in the multinational companies, some of the people who fund him and his Party, and now the Labor Party, want to hurry it through because they want profits. Fine, they will get profits, but the profits will not come from anywhere. Nobody will pay for them. The consumers will not pay and the farmers will not pay. Anybody who believes in the type of voodoo economics that Senator Watson propounds can be happy with that argument. Senator Mason —Snake oil. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, snake oil. One of the new proponents of snake oil has just arrived in the chamber. There is not such a thing as a free lunch. If there are new profits to be made in this area they will be paid for by somebody, and they will be paid for first of all by farmers. It is about time somebody realised that. Farmers will be the first to pay, and they will pay through the nose. Farmers in this country cannot take one more add-on cost. They are ground down already. They cannot take an increase in the cost of seed. What will happen? The cost will be immediately passed on to the consumer. I say to Senator Watson that there is no such thing as a free lunch. His people in the multinationals will be happy to make profits, but the profits will come out of the pockets of farmers and out of the pockets of consumers. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.34) —I wish to comment briefly on Senator Watson's claim that scare tactics are being used and that there is no problem about varieties being weakened if they are subject to monopolisation by large companies controlling all the varieties. We have the example of Turkey where a large German company took over all the seed manufacturing. Within a very short time there was virtually no native sugar in Turkey at all. All the native varieties disappeared. Within a few generations, the variety manufactured by the German seed company that had the monopoly in Turkey became so weakened that older varieties of sugar had to be imported. The countryside had to be scoured to see whether there were native varie-ties of sugar in that country. Very nearly the whole sugar industry in Turkey was ruined because of one company having a monopoly and not being prepared in developing sugar varieties to take into account the local varieties because it was less profitable for it to do so. There is that evidence, and many other pieces of evidence could be cited. There are real dangers. The European Community committee that looked into this matter raised that very point-that there is a considerable weakening of the varieties being developed by large multinational seed companies. It is a real concern within the EC. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.35) —I wish to join in this debate to take up some points made by Senator Macklin. If one were to take Senator Macklin seriously-most farmers do not take the Australian Democrats seriously-one would think that farmers are completely unable to make a commercial decision. It will be up to the farmer to make a commercial decision as to whether he should buy a particular seed variety. He may wish to experiment, but ultimately whether or not he buys a particular type of plant variety will be his decision. At least he will have access to varieties that have been denied to him because Australia has not had plant variety rights legislation. A number of horticulturists right across Australia, from Tasmania to Queensland, are demanding plant variety rights. The Democrats have some left wing philosophical hangup that I have never been able to get to the bottom of. The National Farmers Federation and all the other farmer organisations in Australia have said that they want plant variety rights. The National Farmers Federation has said it, the horticultural industry has said it and the wine industry wants it. All it is going to do is-- Senator Macklin —Increase the cost of seed. Senator BOSWELL —It will not increase the cost because if the farmer does not want a plant variety he does not have to use it. He can make his own choice. We are not interested in what the Democrats want, because they have been anti-rural throughout the time that they have been in this Parliament. The Australian Democrats is the most anti-rural party; it is even more anti-rural than the Australian Labor Party. That is very hard to understand, but it is a fact of life. Let it be known to rural Australia that it was the Democrats who forced upon this Parliament the animal welfare committees that are running around and that have cost Australia $20m in lost sheep exports. They are the ones who caused it; it was their idea. And now they are crying crocodile tears for the farmers. The farmers could not care less about the Democrats. Honourable senators interjecting- The CHAIRMAN —Order! There are too many interjections from the Democrats. Senator BOSWELL —Thank you, Mr Chairman; I appreciate your protection. They are getting excited. Senator Macklin knows that 39 per cent of his Senate quota comes from rural Queensland and he is trying to tell those people how interested he is. My view is that Senator Macklin has never done a thing for the farmers in Queensland except impose cost after cost. He has encouraged Senate animal welfare committees to go out there and disturb what the farmers are doing. Senator Macklin —Ha, ha! Senator BOSWELL —Senator Macklin can laugh now; he will not be laughing after the next Senate election though, because he will be gone. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Boswell, we are considering clause 26 of the Bill. Senator BOSWELL —The point I want to make, Mr Chairman, is that no longer will farmers be unable to compete with the imports that are taking their markets. We have only to go out into the fruit shops to see a classic case involving imports. Nectarines and peaches are being flown in from New Zealand and are taking the markets of Australian horticulturists. On the other hand, the Australian horticultural industry can grow, provide more jobs and create overseas sales if it has access to plant varieties with increased yield, better colour and better fruit. The Australian rural industry can be only better served when this plant variety legislation is passed. It could have been passed three or four days ago or three or four weeks ago-even before the Parliament rose for the Christmas break-if the Democrats had not tried to ambush this Bill and to filibuster on it. The delay is costing the Australian taxpayer thousands and thousands of dollars, when every rural person in Australia wants this legislation. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(10.41) —I support Senator Powell's amendment to regulate the provisions of the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986. Obviously, it will be passed by the Senate. I disagree with Senator Boswell when he says that the Democrats are trying to ambush the Bill or to filibuster. What is being attempted here is to put some regulation on the provisions of the legislation to ensure that its effects will not be quite as devastating if it goes through unamended. I think it was really offensive when we were debating the various amendments last week constantly to see members of the Labor Party going to sit on the laps of the Liberals in every division. There is less and less difference between the two major parties in this country on a range of issues but particularly on this piece of legislation. Members of the Government were opposed to it when in opposition, including the present Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Vallentine, we are considering a specific amendment to clause 26. A general debate on the merits of the legislation is not in order at this stage. Senator VALLENTINE —My remarks are relevant to the comments that I am making about the Minister because he has actually lobbied members of the Senate to try to get them to change their minds on something that was originally his own amendment. He has given us no good reason for a change of mind; neither has any member of the Labor Party who has consistently crossed the floor to sit on the laps of the Liberals. In fact, the overseas evidence from the European Parliament suggests that there is increasing concern about plant variety rights legislation as one of the major causes -- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Vallentine, I drew your attention a few moments ago to the fact that we are considering an amendment moved by Senator Powell about written notice being given to people who lodge objections. You should relate your remarks to that amendment. Senator VALLENTINE —I think my remarks are very important because this was originally the Minister's own amendment when he was in opposition. Thousands of letters have come in from constituents around the country opposing the plant variety rights legislation. To my knowledge, none of these letters are in support of the legislation. The people of Australia, I believe, are being ignored. It is no wonder there is a great amount of disillusionment with the way in which the country is being governed, not only on this issue but also on others. It is important that the people's voices be heard, particularly relating to this amendment, which I support. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(10.43) —I object to the Australian Democrats amendment to clause 26 because it would be very restrictive. Australia is in an ideal situation. Many growers in this country are producing and exporting fruit and vegetables. If the legislation is amended in the way in which the Democrats want, it will not be of such great advantage to the export from Australia of new varieties of fruit and vegetables. In my State, South Australia, three years ago overseas airlines started carrying exports of fruit and vegetables. In three years they have reached an annual level of $10m. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Elstob, we are not considering the general merits of the plant variety rights legislation; we are looking at a specific amendment which deals with written notice of grants of plant variety rights being lodged and what is then done about them. That is the Australian Democrats amendment which the Committee is now discussing. Senator ELSTOB —The written amendments would stop the development in this country of new varieties which are essential. Senator Mason —Why should that be, just by informing the public? Senator ELSTOB —That is simply not so. The varieties that can be exported may not be used in this country, and that is what we have got to get through to those honourable senators. They will be restricting the whole process. New industries could be developed because of this. The Democrats' amendments will simply hamstring the whole thing. Senator Macklin —Give somebody information; that is what we will do. Senator ELSTOB —It is not that at all, and the honourable senator is fully aware of it. I believe that the Government and the Opposition are absolutely correct on this. I believe that this Bill should go through and that further delay will only restrict the business that could be created by the passage of this Bill, and I support it. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.46) —I think, as you obviously do, Mr Chairman, it is important that we clarify that this amendment relates to what happens in giving notice to people who have made objection when there has been an application for grant of a patent on a plant. The reason for moving this amendment, which says that anybody who objects should be informed once a patent is granted, is that we believe and I think the Minister's comment on this actually confirms our belief-that there will be a lot of objections. The Minister said that this would tie everything up in red tape. That must mean that the Minister believes there will be a lot of objections. We have heard the Opposition-and interestingly enough, the last contribution was the first, other than from the Minister, to come from any Government senator-pleading the Government's case on this Bill. It is a very interesting occurrence and one which Senator Vallentine has underlined. I think we here might be seeing the Johalition at work as the Opposition pleads vehemently for the Government's Bill, with Government refusing, as in the case of this amendment, even to look seriously at its own former amendments. We believe there will be a lot of objections. Mr Julian Cribb in this morning's edition of the Australian said that there was a core of respectable support for the Democrats' opposition: . . . ranging from the Australian Consumers Association, the Australian Council of Overseas Aid, the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, the Australian Conservation Foundation and- note this- even several plant breeders of national and international repute. Such bodies are obviously going to take a very close interest when there are applications for patents on plants under plant variety rights legislation, and we believe they will object. So too, perhaps, will farmers object if they are concerned that the very excellent public breeding sector which we have in Australia, particularly in the cereals industry, is at risk. Our evidence is certainly different when it comes to who is in support of this and who is not. The United Farmers and Stock Owners of South Australia and the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales are two organisations of farmers which have expressed concern to us, and so too has the National Farmers Federation in discussions with me when this Bill was first before the House of Representatives. Later amendments will be ones which the National Farmers Federation has suggested in the interests of farmers. However, given that there is such a broad range of concern about the specifics to do with the whole issue of patenting plant material if not outright opposition by everybody, there will be a number of objections when a patent is applied for and therefore-- Senator Watson —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. You have already ruled on this. This is a persistent attack by the Democrats against your rulings that they debate the amendment before the Chair rather than indulge in second reading debate speeches. I do not think we should have to get up and plead our point of view simply because they have been allowed to range so widely in relation to this Bill. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I have been listening to Senator Powell. She has been talking to the subject of objections, which is the subject of this amendment. Nevertheless, Senator Watson's point of order was in general correct. This has been a far too wide ranging debate and I intend to confine it to the actual matter of the amendment before the Chair. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.50) —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am glad of that point, since I intend to address specifically what Senator Watson said earlier in this debate in relation to the amendment. In fact Senator Watson did not address himself particularly carefully to the amendment. He spoke about the legislation being above board, being good legislation and that sort of thing, which is quite off the subject. The point I want to make is that if Senator Watson indeed believes that there is nothing wrong with this legislation, and that this is the best thing for the country-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Mason, before you continue speaking, I wish the debate to be confined to the amendment before the Chair, which is in relation to words proposed to be added. Senator MASON —If you let me finish my sentence, Mr Chairman, you will hear that it is. If Senator Watson believes those things he would support this amendment. There would be no reason whatsoever for him, the Opposition and the others to say that there is any objection-in fact doing exactly what Senator Powell's amendment states. The only possible conclusion from an objection to that, and a refusal by the Government or the Opposition to pass it, is that they have something to hide. In other words, as Senator Powell was saying a little while ago-I will pinch a phrase from her-it is mushroom legislation: Keep them in the dark and feed them on fertiliser. That, of course, is what the intention is; the public is not to be given information. Senator Watson is in the great cover up with everybody else in the Liberal Party and the Labor Party-and we do not know who they are in cahoots with-to cut down on public information. Because of that, Senator Powell's reasonable amendment, which would give objectors information at the time they ought to have it and which will allow them to operate within the normal public and democratic processes, is to be refused, regardless of the fact that this was something that the Labor Party thought was great and put forward itself when it was in Opposition. How far can we go with this? What will be the end of this matter? Every time the Democrats ask questions in Committee we see that both sides, the Labor Party and the National-Liberal Party, get deeper and deeper into this mire of concealment, and that relates to this particular amendment. They want to conceal things. We want them not to conceal things. Senator Elstob —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I take strong objection to the honourable senator saying that there is concealment. I thoroughly object to it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! That is not a point of order, Senator Elstob. Senator MASON —I would reply to Senator Elstob's interjection through you, Mr Chairman-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Mason, I ruled that it was not a point of order, so continue with your argument on the clause before the Chair. Senator MASON —Yes. It is essential that anybody who feels that there is nothing wrong should support this amendment. That is the only way that the Government can tell the public, us, and everybody else that the Government is levelling with them and that there is nothing wrong. Just pass this amendment; it is as simple as that. If honourable senators vote against it they will be in the business of concealment, and they know it. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 27 to 31-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 32 (Duration of plant variety rights). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.54) —I move: (16) Page 18, clause 32, line 29, leave out `20', insert `15'. This clause relates to the duration of the right which is issued under this legislation. The Bill provides for a period of 20 years for a patent on plant material. I make the point that this amendment was suggested to me by a person involved in the seed industry, Mr Jack Sewell, who had a Churchill fellowship, who travelled overseas investigating plant patent systems and who has been a very strong supporter of plant patenting for Australia over the past 10 to 15 years. He is also a member of the industry committee for plant breeders' rights, a group which since the mid-70s has been promoting this very strongly in Australia. It is of enormous interest to me that I, as a very strong opponent of this legislation, should find myself on my feet in the Committee proposing an amendment which a person who has deeply studied and strongly supported this legislation has asked me to move. Therefore I ask myself: Why is this legislation providing for a period of 20 years when that is not the period that the people in the industry require but a longer one? Mr Sewell informs me that a period of around 15 years is much more the norm overseas. We know from our industrial patents legislation that 16 years is the more normal period. Why are we facing legislation that will lock up the ownership of living material for a period of 20 years? If it is not Australia's seed industry that has asked for this, who has? Perhaps it is the prospective new owners of the Australian seed industry. We have brought evidence before this chamber that has demonstrated that in a very short space of time, in the experience in the United States of America, in the United Kingdom and in Europe, the small business people who made up the local seed industry and who supported similar legislation in the mistaken belief that it would be of benefit to them, were taken over by the 20 or so international companies, largely multinational petro-chemical companies, which now control the industry. The Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd is the largest seed company in the world. Union Carbide Ltd, Ciba-Geigy Ltd, Sandoz Ltd and companies such as those are the leading seed companies in the world-not the companies run by people like Jack Sewell. Maybe those companies are going to invest in the next round of takeovers here-maybe this will be the next industry to face that-and, in order to cover that investment, they want rights that will last a full 20 years. I proposed this amendment because I understand this to be the case from a leading seed grower in the industry who, as I have said, is a Churchill Fellowship holder. This clause in the Bill raises perhaps one of the clearest concerns about who and what is behind this legislation. Although, as Senator Mason has pointed out, the Australian Democrats are totally opposed to this legislation, if this amendment were to be passed at the very least we would be limiting the right and the damage to 15 years for each individual application that has total and unequivocal support in the community. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.58) —The Bill does specify a term of 20 years from the date of application. For some tree fruit the test growing period may last two to four years or longer, thus reducing the owner's effective period to capitalise on the new variety. The terms in other countries that have plant variety rights include: New Zealand, which has 23 years for trees and so on, and 20 years for other varieties; the United Kingdom with 25 to 30 years for trees and 20 years for others; Japan with 18 years for trees and 15 years for others; and the United States of America with 18 years from the date of the grant. Under those circumstances, and against the background of those comparisons, for reasons that should be self-evident, the Government will oppose the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Proposed new clause 32a. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.59) —I move: (17) Page 18, after clause 32, insert the following new clause: ``Liability of grantees ``32a. Where plant variety rights are granted in respect of a plant variety, the grantee is liable for any loss or injury caused by plants of that variety, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, loss or injury caused by reason that a plant of that variety- (a) is a weed; (b) carries or transmits a disease or a virus; or (c) is toxic.''. This amendment is of particular significance. Unlike some of the others which we have proposed and which came from original Australian Labor Party thinking-and even one or two that came from the original Nixon Bill under the previous coalition Government-this amendment by the Australian Democrats is proposed out of our genuine concern that, in the case of the grant of right, which is of course very much a privilege-we say that it is an extraordinary and outrageous privilege that something that is really growing should be locked up in private ownership-we also believe that liability should rest with the grantee of that right. There is always the possibility and the danger-particularly under legislation that has absolutely limited the amount of testing that has to go on-that there will be some kind of negative impact in an absolute sense. As the amendment suggests, a variety that is patented might eventually be found in certain circumstances to be a weed, might transmit a disease or a virus or might be toxic in some way. If that should occur, we believe this should be covered in the legislation through the clause that we propose to be added, which very clearly places the responsibility and the liability on the owner of the right to that variety. Of course, this is even more critical now that the earlier amendment that we proposed for testing in the Australian environment varieties coming from overseas has been lost. Honourable senators from both sides have refused an amendment of ours that would have imposed the absolute necessity for any variety being brought in from overseas to be tested in Australian conditions. Who knows what the circumstances might be with a variety that has been grown overseas, perhaps successfully, once it comes into Australia with a totally different environment? This country is a country like no other. If anybody knows that, it is our farmers. We do not know what the effect will be of the different aspects of our soil or of our climatic conditions. We do not know what will happen when rain falls or when it does not fall or when there is humidity-or even what the effect of surrounding plant growth, surrounding insect colonies and so forth will be on a variety that has been brought in from overseas. This is a large island continent and even a variety that is grown in one part of the country may not grow when transferred to another part of the country. Who knows? The Australian Democrats do not claim to have any crystal ball. What we are trying to do is to put in this bill some kind of assurance that, should something go dreadfully wrong, or even slightly wrong, the liability will be on the head of the person who has the privilege of making money from having received a grant to that variety. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.03) —This is a particularly important amendment. Those people who are aware of the history of the introduction of plants into Australia from overseas are very much aware of the problems that have been caused not only to the rural sector but also to a whole range of people in this country by the introduction of plants or animals that have somehow gone beyond their original purpose. Senator Boswell, who is in the chamber and who is from Queensland, is well aware of a number of such instances. If one travels out west, one finds a series of weeds growing, rather ominously, particularly around airports, surrounding them almost like triffids. Many of these weeds are causing enormous problems to local government and the cost of eradication of particular varieties has increased. We have a history in this country of the introduction of various plants-plants as innocuous as lantana, which was originally introduced as a border for homes in urban areas but which has devastated vast areas of our continent and still costs an enormous amount in clearing and grubbing every year. So it is not a frivolous matter that we are addressing here. It is a very important matter. Until now, where plant breeding and the introduction of plants in Australia has been in the possession of public authorities, they have carried the cost for testing in Australia. I have no need to remind honourable senators that particular varieties of plants in Australia may be benign, as Senator Powell has already said, in one area but in fact may take off in another. The reasons for this are obvious. They are to do with climatic differences around the country and also with differences in the grubs or other biological matter which may exist in various parts of the country. It was not so long ago that we had a debate in this chamber on a biological control Bill. Quite a number of examples were given then of the problem. Paterson's Curse, as it is called by some people, or Salvation Jane, as it is called by others, is probably one of the best known examples in Australia of a plant which is considered to be mightily useful by some and a weed by others. Up to now the problems that may result from an introduced plant have been carried by the public purse. This amendment suggests that if a company is to make a private profit it should also pay for the public loss. I think that is a fair exchange. Why should a company under this legislation be permitted to make profits but the public have to carry the loss? That seems to me completely unconscionable. I do not know of any other area in the private sector where this is the case. If one looks through the whole range of professions in Australia where people make profits-- Senator Mason —The nuclear industry. Senator MACKLIN —I am corrected by Senator Mason-the nuclear industry is one; that is correct. In the professions where there is private profit, there is also considerable private loss. The reason for that is that enormous insurance has to be carried by professionals who have to insure themselves against problems that may occur as a result of their activities. Likewise, the manufacturing sector has to carry enormous insurance for the same reason. We already know that in this country we have suffered enormous losses, particularly in those areas outside urban centres where the local government sector is carrying enormous costs. They are costs to ratepayers and to individuals in this country who are still paying for mistakes that were made 30 or 40 years ago. If we are now moving this over into the private sector and if the private sector is now going to reap the profits which up till now have come via various mechanisms to the general country, it also ought to take the downside of its commercial activity; that is, it ought to foot the bill for the problems it is likely to cause as a result of its helter skelter move to try to make profits out of seeds. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.08) —This amendment will be opposed by the coalition because technically it has the potential to have a wide application and wider implications. Therefore, it is unacceptable. The amendment can be construed technically to give very small interest groups the opportunity to exploit the amendment, particularly paragraph (b). For instance, particular plants may be subject to a common disease running across the species. However, a small interest group could select a particular variety that has been subject to plant variety rights registration and enforce the amendment's penalties and so give rise to a legal situation. It allows for the possibility of exploitation because the disease may not attack the particular variety subject to plant variety rights, whereas it could wipe out a whole species. Therefore, I believe the amendment is far too dangerous and is not practicable in the circumstances, given the wide variety of climatic conditions in Australia. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.10) —We have just had a very good argument from Senator Watson for supporting the amendment. Following up his statement, we have examples of diseases such as rust on grasses and weeds which requires that the spores of the rust and the rust be held on some type of suitable plant over the period between various spates of monoculture. If one has wheat crops, one can actually stop rust if one gets rid of all the volunteer grasses and other species in between crops in the particular area. Senator Watson gave an example of the three crops a season type rice or the three crops a season type wheat. Those particular wheats and the continuous cropping of a particular area mean that there is time for the predator, the rust, to grow on those varieties and if it wipes out the whole crop in Australia, the people who introduced that should be responsible and should pay for it. Senator Watson has given us a marvellous example of why we should be supporting this amendment. I also believe that in Australia we have policies of wiping out certain species which carry disease. In the Northern Territory mimosa was introduced as a possible volunteer feed plant. It was carried by buffalo throughout quite a large region of the wetlands around Darwin and it is now a major pest. It was thought to be something quite good at the time it was introduced. A number of other plants have been introduced by the grazing industry into some of those areas which have totally wiped out some of the local grasses which were able to resist drought conditions, so we end up with vast growths of these particular plants and then, in times of drought, we end up with completely bare earth and erosion. The effects are very negative. All of these things are reasons why, if people are going to put a variety on to the market, we should at least make them think about the consequences of that product. Senator Watson has introduced privatisation of profits. We have to have privatisation of liability as well. The issue in this amendment is that we want the person who takes full profits from the proposal of being on the register of plant varieties to take full and unlimited liability for any damage that these plants may cause. That is important because we have had examples throughout the years in Australia of skeleton weed, which was an introduced feed, which has completely devastated large areas of wheat crop. The cost of weed control of skeleton weed in South Australia is enormous. Prickly pear devastated the mid-west of New South Wales; yet it was quite a useful plant, the fruit being quite edible-- Senator Mason —It could have come in under PVR. Senator VIGOR —It could have come in under PVR quite effectively. It is grown successfully in South Australia because the climate does not allow it to get out of hand. Australia has different problems from those in other countries. For instance, section 92 of the Constitution says that we cannot restrict the movement of plants across borders. Prickly-pear, if it were a commercial variety, could be carried across borders even though the carriers were advised by public organisations, such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, that it might get out of hand in New South Wales. We have real problems with the various thistles; for example, the Scotch thistle which was brought in for sentimental reasons by various people from another part of the world. It was a beautiful plant in gardens, but in Australia it has got completely out of hand. The sour sob-however beautiful the yellow fields may be in South Australia-is a pest to farmers. It is almost impossible to eradicate. Currently, the legislation carries no provision for merit testing, simply because the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party, together, have conspired to make certain that there is no such provision. Because there is no such provision for testing, we must have some other hold on people. That hold has to be the fact that if their plant gets out of hand, if it does not perform, if it becomes a weed or if it becomes a carrier of disease, then we have, at law, the ability to pursue them and to get damages from them in the long run. If we are to have privatisation, we must have both the carrot and the stick together. Basically, that is what the amendment does. It is an amendment to turn what is a rotten piece of legislation into, at least, a reasonably fair one. Currently, there is no way in which the legislation addresses the problem of suitability of varieties for our environment. There is no protection of the purchaser in terms of nutritional value. There is no guarantee that the product that comes in may not be subject through a symbiont-for instance, some bacteria growing on the plant-to becoming poisonous. Plants such as rye grass can become poisonous when various species grow on them. It is quite possible for those varieties to carry such diseases. Today's genetic engineering and bioengineering make it possible to transfer bits of genetic material from one plant species to another quite unrelated one, and eventually even from an animal to a plant or a bacterium to a plant. That is all possible now; it is not in the realms of fantasy. During that bioengineering process one can transfer genes which carry side effects. If we do not have merit testing, as we do not under the legislation, we must have a comeback on those who introduce disease. Senator Sheil —Has any of this happened in any of the countries that have the legislation? Senator VIGOR —Things have happened in Australia. Admittedly, they have not been distributed. Various genetically changed plants have carried much more than the specific change which was introduced by biotechnology. Unless we have very extensive testing in that area, as is required under the administration of drugs, we cannot do anything about having any comeback with those people. Senator Sheil —Has it caused any harm? Senator VIGOR —Senator Sheil asks whether it has caused any harm. I believe that we should not, as the Opposition and the Labor Party want to do, wait until we do have such harm before we act. It seems to be the same process with road accidents: We wait until there are deaths before we modify a corner. In this case the Democrats are thinking ahead. It is the only party that is thinking ahead in this area. The resultant engineered varieties of plants can, quite unbeknown to their originator, carry genetic coding for potentially lethal or dangerous properties which may be specific to only a small part of the community. For instance, some people are allergic to certain colouring materials and some become hyperactive when they are in contact with such materials, dyes, and things of that nature. Such things can be produced within plants. The toxic products may be toxic to only a small group in the community, but we must be conscious that that can happen. We do not have any merit testing. Nobody sets standards in that respect. It is up to us to set the standards. The Opposition is not prepared to set the standards. If the industry is to handle its own standards, we must have a stick and say: `Look, you have been bad boys and you must pay for the fact that you have not done a reasonable job in terms of self-regulation'. The Opposition believes in self-regulation. If there is self-regulation, there must be some way of getting back at the people who do not obey it effectively. I believe that the owner of the rights of any plant must bear the responsibility, as well as the privilege, for spreading and releasing the plant on to the market-place. It is extremely important for this Parliament to take its responsibilities seriously. I implore honourable senators on both sides of the chamber to consider those responsibilities. If some people are killed as a result, Senator Sheil will be personally responsible. Question put: That the proposed new clause (Senator Powell's amendment) be inserted in the Bill. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— 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. Kilgariff, B. F. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R. 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. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G.Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCollard. S. J. Reynolds, M. Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crichton-Browne, 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, A. E. Giles, P. 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. Clause 34 (Plant variety rights subject to conditions). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.30) —I move: (18) Page 19, sub-clause 34 (1), line 31, after `interest,', insert `or where the Minister has been advised by the Advisory Committees,'. This amendment includes in clause 34 advice to the Minister from the Advisory Committee which is set up by this legislation in case where the Minister has to take action in relation to the granting of plant variety rights. I move this amendment because although, as will become evident with later amendments, we also have concerns about the make up of the Advisory Committee it seems very important to the Australian Democrats that, given that there is an Advisory Committee and should further amendments be successful and the Advisory Committee were to be generally quite representative, when the Minister considers it necessary in the public interest under clause 34 that a right granted under this legislation should be subject to a range of conditions relating to restriction, licensing and so forth the Committee should have an important role in it. I expect that the Minister here today will suggest that that is something we could take for granted. However, the Australian Democrats would prefer that the Advisory Committee, which, as I have said, ought to be a fairly widely representative advisory committee, have a part in considering the public interest in relation to this legislation should be spelt out in the Bill. The Australian Democrats have made it quite clear that the public interest is our concern in relation to the plant variety rights legislation. I have moved this amendment to ensure that the Advisory Committee is involved and has a role in protecting the public interest partly because of comments on the legislation which were made to me by representatives of the National Farmers Federation and partly because of comments from other organisations which have expressed total opposition to this legislation. While the National Farmers Federation, or elements of it, might have some sympathy with the legislation, it is not total. One of the concerns expressed to me was not only that the Committee was not representational enough, which I will come to in a later amendment, but also that farmers, who can expect to be represented on the Advisory Committee, should have more influence over such decisions as what varieties are granted patents, what species are part of the system and so on. That was a quite firmly held concern. As I said in earlier debate on this legislation, my discussions with the National Farmers Federation were held in about October 1986. I recognise that since then within the National Farmers Federation and the Opposition there has been some interesting political turbulence. If that organisation is totally and unequivocally now in absolute support of this Bill, I can only say that it probably is the mysterious Joh factor at work again which leads to a totally uncritical assessment of almost everything. If we are to have an advisory committee-as I said, we will be questioning its composition-it should have a very significant role when it comes to the public interest. As this clause is related to the public interest, I have moved this amendment to ensure that the Minister, if he is advised by the Advisory Committee to take certain action in the public interest, will be required to take that action. I am addressing the issue of a voice, in the case of the National Farmers Federation, for farmers as consumers of seed and plant products under this legislation as expressed to me in perhaps less turbulent political times when this legislation first came before the Parliament in another place. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.35) —Clause 34 is very important because it is one of the few clauses in the Plant Variety Rights Bill which attempt at least to convey the appearance of safeguards of some kind or other against the power in the hands of the Minister. On that basis, I support Senator Powell's amendment because I believe that it is absolutely essential that, whatever consideration the Minister has, there should be some public input. In other words, the Hawke Government rather touchingly takes the view that it will be there forever and creates legislation on the basis that there will not ever be anybody who would not do the right thing. However, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), a senior Minister, has said that the only criterion for patents is the amount of money they can produce for farmers. That is rather worrying if this is to be a matter for the Minister's consideration. Perhaps some day Senator Walsh will be the Minister responsible for this area, and his consideration under clause 34 could well be that it would be just great to restrict a variety, perhaps a very good variety of, say, wheat, because farmers were producing another variety which was more suited to local conditions such as land contouring and soil acidity. A Minister who said what Senator Walsh has said here would say that that could be a good reason for weighing in and restricting some perhaps excellent new species. Apart from supporting Senator Powell's amendment, which addresses this question very materially-it means that at least other people would be involved in that decision and there would be some public discussion of why the Minister was taking the action he proposed-I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is at the table, how the Government believes that this clause will operate. What sort of safeguards does it have? How does the Government feel that the mere statement of the Minister's consideration of the public interest can satisfactorily cover such a wide ambit of concern? I would be interested in the Minister's views on those points. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.38) —While the Minister is gathering his views, I ask him also to address himself to this clause in connection with clause 44 (2) (a), which looks at the functions of the Advisory Committee. As I read it, it states `at the request of the Minister'. Senator Powell's amendment would move the initiative on to the Advisory Committee. Admittedly, clause 44 (2) (b) states: . . . to advise the Secretary on such technical matters arising under . . . the administration of this Act . . . I imagine that those words, at least on a reasonable interpretation, could be seen as giving distinct powers. If that is the case, it would seem that the Advisory Committee will be precluded from giving advice, of its own volition, to the Minister on the `desirability of a genus or species being declared by regulation to be a genus or species to which this proposed Act applies'. In other words, clause 44 (2) (a), which specifically says `at the request of the Minister', will effectively rule out the input of the Advisory Committee at the most crucial point of the operation of the proposed Act. Senator Powell's amendment would overcome that and would allow the Advisory Committee, of its own volition, if it felt the need, to advise the Minister. After all, the Minister would only be advised, not directed. I would have thought that the Minister would welcome that type of advice from the Committee, which after all will be paid for by public money, because it would be a further input to the decision making process that the Minister will be required to go through under the legislation. I would welcome a response from the Minister in terms of the interpretation I have given of clause 44. If that interpretation is incorrect, can we have an indication from the Minister of how the Advisory Committee will get into the act on this item? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.40) —Senator Macklin's interpretation of clause 44 (2) (a) is probably correct, but it has to be taken in conjunction with clause 44 (2) (b), which provides that the function of the Advisory Committee is: . . . to advise the Secretary on such technical matters arising under this Act, and such other matters relating to the administration of this Act, as the Secretary refers to the Advisory Committee. Under that provision the Advisory Committee will not be precluded from talking about public interest matters or advising the Minister about public interest matters. The Government's view on this clause, to which Senator Powell has moved an amendment, is that it correctly provides for ministerial discretion. It is not considered likely that the Advisory Committee will consider details of individual varieties, but nothing in the legislation would prevent the Committee from advising the Minister on those matters if it considered it so desirable. The Minister, as a responsible Minister, has alternative sources of advice available to him, from the public, public interest groups, and so on. Whilst I understand the spirit of the amendment, the legislation will not preclude advice from a variety of sources and in that sense is not intended to. The amendment will not be accepted because ultimately it is considered that there should be ministerial discretion based on advice, whether it be from the Advisory Committee or other sources. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.42) —I thank the Minister. I take the Minister's point about clause 44 (2) (b), but it seems to me that the question of desirability is raised in that clause. Why is it drafted so that the advice has to be given at the request of the Minister? If what the Minister is saying is correct, can he indicate whether or not, when we get to clause 44, the Government would be willing to delete the phrase `at the request of the Minister' so that there will be no ambiguity in this regard? I accept the Minister's point about the administration, but I would have thought that, having specifically written into the legislation a clause dealing with desirability, that would be seen, at least if this matter ended up in court, to be the overriding power on this matter and would rule out the ability of the Committee, of its own volition, to go to the Minister on a matter which may be defined as administration but which also dealt with the desirability under the legislation of putting a species under plant variety rights. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.44) —The scheme of the proposal before the Committee is that the Minister will have the discretion and the responsibility which goes with the exercise of that discretion. It is undoubtedly a fact of life that if there were problems about the desirability of a genus or species being declared, the Minister would receive advice from a wide variety of circles, just as all honourable senators have in respect of the provisions of this Bill. It is in those circumstances that the Minister would probably act under clause 44 (2) (a) and say: `We have had these submissions and views put about this matter; I am now requesting the Advisory Committee to advise me about them'. The point I seek to make about clause 44 (2) (b) is that irrespective of the Minister's request, under 2 (b) the Advisory Committee is not precluded from saying to him, `Our view is that you should look at this'. That seems to be the scheme of things. Given the Government's view that the discretion should lie with the Minister in these circumstances, we cannot accept the amendment. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.45) —I am pleased to have a Minister in the chamber at the moment who is prepared to answer our genuine concerns shown in these amendments. I thank the Minister for that. I point out that clause 44 (2) (b) reflects a concern which arose in an earlier amendment-which was lost-and the reference from the Secretary to the Advisory Committee relates to technical matters. Senator Button —No, it does not. It says, `and such other matters'. Senator POWELL —Certainly. The only other specific area referred to in this is technical. Another point which makes me a little uneasy about accepting totally the points made by the Minister on 44 (2) (a) is that a great deal of advice in general has been given on this legislation and obviously the Government is not taking that advice at this time. In the public interest it might be necessary to have something a little firmer in the legislation than what is there now. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 35. (Revocation of plant variety rights). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.46) —I move: (19) Page 20, sub-clause 35 (1), before paragraph (a), insert the following new paragraph: ``(aa) the Secretary becomes satisfied that the characteristics of plants of the variety have so altered that the plants no longer correspond to the description of a plant of that variety entered in the Register;''. We believe this amendment is critical, given that we are to be faced with plant variety rights legislation in Australia. We need something further in this legislation by way of a safeguard. I remind the Senate that Senator Zakharov in her contribution in which she spoke basically against the legislation, attempted to convince us that there were safeguards in the legislation. A number of areas which have gaps have been exposed this morning, and this is yet another. We are proposing in this amendment that the right granted under plant variety rights legislation may be withdrawn if the Secretary is satisfied that the characteristics of the plant variety have altered so that the plant no longer conforms with the description given when that plant variety was granted. This amendment was one which again was recommended to me by Mr Jack Sewell who is a member of the Industry Committee for Plant Breeders Rights. He provided me with information which demonstrated that overseas legislation of this type has requirements-in fact stricter requirements than the Democrats are proposing to be inserted in this legislation-which place the responsibility upon the owner of the right for the genetic purity of the variety which is being patented. We are attempting to at least ensure that the exclusive right to that variety is removed if the characteristic's of the variety move, in any way, away from the distinctiveness and uniqueness which is required before the right is granted. Article 12.10 of the Japanese plant breeders' rights legislation says: The Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries must cancel the registration of a variety in the cases listed as follows: (1) When it has been found that the characteristics of the plant of the registered variety have become different from the characteristics of the plant at the time of registration of a variety; This Australian Democrat amendment meets almost word for word the words in that legislation. I raise these examples because of the attitude of the Government and the Opposition, but mainly the Opposition, which earlier pleaded the case for the Government's legislation and has done so over its passage. The legislation from West Germany, under the heading `controls of maintenance of varieties', states: Under the Variety Protection Act and the Seed Act varieties which are protected and/or registered in the variety list have to be controlled as to whether or not they remain unchanged. This requires systematic maintenance breeding by the breeder. . . . . In case the control test reveals that the variety in question no longer meets the registration requirements, it is deleted from the list. I am entering this overseas legislation in the record as we are supposed to be accepting this legislation in Australia because of the wonder, joy and benefits brought overseas. We are choosing to forget what the European Parliament thinks about that at the moment. I am sure we will get to that before we get to lunch today. Since the Government and the Opposition are telling us that this is wonderful legislation perhaps the legislation should mirror more closely than it does the legislation from overseas. The Plant Varieties and Seed Act 1964 in the United Kingdom says: Every holder of plant breeders' rights shall ensure that, throughout the period for which the rights are exercisable, he is in a position to produce to the Controller- which I think is the equivalent of our Secretary- reproductive material which is capable of producing the variety to which the rights relate with the morphological and physiological and other characteristics taken into account when the rights were granted in respect of the variety. It goes on that the Controller may, if he thinks fit, at any time terminate the period for which the plant breeders rights are exercisable. Quite clearly, these are international examples of the very thing we want to introduce here. It is very interesting. I am assuming that this amendment will meet the same fate as previous amendments. The exclusive right of ownership of seeds and plant materials, according to the Government and the Opposition, is to the benefit of the farmers and horticulturalists as they will have these wonderful new varieties which they cannot get now. We have challenged that with information we have from people who are growing the plants. They have told us that from their experience over the past decade it is-as plant variety rights legislation came closer-the threat of Australia having plant variety rights legislation, the anticipation of it, that has dried up the overseas sources which previously were not closed to us in any way. Of course, the opportunists and the profiteers overseas said: `We might make more money if we hold off. Let's squeeze them'. That is what has caused us to have this legislation before us. One factor which is embodied in this legislation is that there must be a distinctiveness and uniqueness about the characteristics so that varieties can be granted a patent. This amendment tries to cement that in place, to ensure that that is the case, that our farmers and horticulturalists do not continue to be sold a variety for which they are paying extra, paying royalties. These may be varieties which have moved away from the distinctiveness and the uniqueness which caused it to be granted the right in the first place. This may happen over time for a range of reasons to do with their having been grown in the environment, on farms, in the orchards, and in the vegetable patches. I repeat, that sort of clause is in overseas legislation. It ensures at least that if a person is paying extra for a variety which is owned wholly and solely by someone else that person should be paying for something he believes he is paying for and not for something which, in some way, has moved away from the original characteristics. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.54) —I support this amendment. It basically corresponds to the requirements we put on normal trading under the trade practices legislation that goods should satisfy the description which are given to them. However, here we have a much more difficult task with seeds to actually prove that the objects that are being distributed are in fact suitable. It requires highly technical tests to validate whether a variety is the variety which is held under the patent. This requires that the Secretary, who does have such resources available to him, should be essentially the final arbiter. We do not believe that self-regulation in this area, any more than in the previous area of legal responsibility, will be adequate. We are beginning to know a lot of things about the breeding process which suggest that there is drift in characteristics during the course of the life of a variety or species. It is quite normal; it is the way in which genetic development takes place. We heard recently that the deadly acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus can be transmitted via an infected sperm cell, through artificial insemination, to both mother and the resultant child. This is an example in the human area of a germ cell passing a virus which is apparently completely separate from the normal genetic material. A lot more study has been made of human biology in this area, but we have absolutely no reason to believe that this does not also apply to plants. We know that we have plant viruses and that similar types of bodies are carried which do result in specific strains being carried on. In grapes, for example, the coloration in the leaves is carried on through the seeds of replanted grapes, and so we end up with the glory vine genetic mutation which is in fact the result of a virus within an original plant. We can induce this effect artificially. We know that viruses can exist latently in cells and we know that often these viruses are associated closely with the normal genetic inheritance and will reproduce in a normal fashion at the same time as the host cells multiply. They can, after years of apparent dormancy, become lethal. We can see the results of this in many places in nature. It may also be that some of these characteristics are related to environment, and if a variety is not completely pure, a set of clones-if the seeds are not essentially clonal, with the exact same genetic pattern, which is quite unlikely over a period of time-some particular environment will favour one group of seeds against another so that the variety will drift. This legislation will be out of date before it is passed unless it embodies the responsibility of breeders and the Secretary to make certain that the seeds on the market in fact satisfy the description. We have seen that there are known ways in which genetic characteristics can drift. There are other even more important reasons for requiring the Secretary to be involved in the process of continual testing and monitoring of the species, because undesirable characteristics can be transferred quite deliberately into a plant variety by biotechnological means. To give a completely ridiculous example, we can transfer the ability to produce the prohibited drug opium to a weak variety. This is technically feasible; the method is available. Once again, since the official testing of the plant variety before release on to the market is to be done by the developer and the registering body, it is important that somebody take the responsibility for ensuring that there is safety and quality and that this is not slipped in at a later stage. Lots of people who get supplied with the end products of the agricultural process could, for example, supply the seed and the buyer would specifically contract to get only the results of growing that particular seed. That is already happening. The suppliers could knowingly supply innocent growers and have them produce illegal drugs on their behalf. This example is a complete fantasy, but we do have to consider this type of situation. It is technically feasible and we have to be able to look at it. Provision must be made under this legislation for responsibility to go hand in hand with privilege. It is also important that the state, through the Secretary, make certain that the natural product that is being passed on in fact satisfies the cri- teria it is supposed to satisfy. If we are going to give the imprimatur of the state and say `this is a particular product, a particular variety', the state must take the responsibility for what it is saying and must be prepared to test and guarantee the product. Otherwise, plant variety rights are not worth a cracker. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.01) —I do not want to spend too much time on this. The Government takes the view that this amendment is not necessary. Senator Vigor described himself as engaging in fantasies. I do not wish to pursue all his fantasies; indeed, that would be an unprofitable and time consuming exercise. The Government does not believe that the amendment is necessary, because if a variety altered a characteristic it would not legally be the variety to which the right attaches. I make the further point that the Secretary could revoke the right because the variety is not stable, as required in sub-clause 3 (2). That is the Government's position and I think it is an impeccable one in terms of what the powers of the Secretary are. So, we will not accept the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Powell's amendment) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Sanders, N. K. Mason, C. V. J. Vallentine, J. Powell, J. F. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R. 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. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reynolds, M. Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R. Devlin, R. Tate, M. C. 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. 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. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.11) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 20, paragraph 35 (1) (a), line 8, leave out ``or''. (2) Page 20, paragraph 35 (1) (b), line 11, leave out ``payable.'', insert ``payable; or''. (3) Page 20, subclause 35 (1), at end of subclause, add the following new paragraph: ``(c) within 2 years after the grant of plant variety rights in respect of a plant variety, the grantee has failed to comply with subsection 39 (2) in relation to that variety.''. My three amendments are quite simple. The first two are consequential to the third; they are mere drafting amendments. The third, in effect, inserts a new sub-clause (c), which gives the Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry the right of revocation of plant variety rights in respect of a plant variety if, within two years after the grant of plant variety rights in respect of a plant variety, the grantee has failed to comply with proposed sub-section 39 (2) in relation to that variety. Proposed sub-section 39 (2) reads: The grantee of plant variety rights shall . . . take all reasonable steps to ensure that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to that plant variety are satisfied. It is notorious, in public perception and in reality, that things which are patented are not always brought to the market. It is known throughout the world. The suggestion came up in conversation during the last division that there are somewhere stockings that never ladder, light bulbs that never burn out and refrigerators that work very cheaply and that these things have been patented and then locked away by people. I think there is a burden of truth behind this perception. If that is an inadequacy in patent legislation-as indeed it is in many places-it is no reason why it should be a fault in this legislation also. There are very cogent reasons why this legislation, even more than any other legislation, ought to have a provision whereby once something is patented-presumably its research and development stages are absolutely complete by that time-it should be brought to the market if there is a demand for it. This bears very much on the whole background of our spirited opposition to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. Diet habits in communities, especially the Australian community, are changing extensively. Many people eat more fruits and vegetables than previously. Large numbers eat very little else. They are opposed to eating any kind of processed foods on principle and because they do not know what is in them. This makes it important that if a variety which is of value comes up it should be mandatory for the patentee to bring it to the market within two years if there is a demonstrated demand. I think two years is quite a reasonable time to allow. This amendment becomes all the more important because our proposed amendments to clause 32 and clause 34 have not been accepted by the Government and have not been passed by this chamber. Clause 34 has been left in its totally unsatisfactory state. As the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is in charge of this Bill, is in the chamber, I repeat that the Minister said, in one of his rare utterances in reply to a question of mine in the Committee stage earlier, that the main purpose of this legislation was commercial, to provide farmers with the means of making money. If this Minister were the Minister for Primary Industry and responsible for the administration of this legislation, under clause 34 no doubt he would agree to the withholding of a useful variety if it did not meet commercial considerations. To do the Minister justice, perhaps it was a hasty statement by him; maybe some Minister of a future government that he does not even know of would do that. The situation is being left far too open for our liking. The Australian Democrats believe that the public-any reasonable person-would like to have this point underlined. There is every reason in the world why it should be underlined. After all, I hope we are looking at the positive side of the legislation. If anything of value comes up, I hope it will be something which, after patenting, will not be withheld. Without that we have an almost open situation where the owner of a variety which is doing very well commercially, who feels that there may be some threat to that variety because there are obvious varietal possibilities around it, patents everything around it. That would not be too difficult an exercise. In these days of bio-chemistry it would be quite possible for the owner of, say, a wheat variety to go right around that as far as he could and pick up everything which he thought might be a modification of it, take out patents on them and sit on them. Some of those varieties might indeed turn out to be very good-we would never know in that case-perhaps disease resistant and higher producing, of enormous value to the human race and even commercially, but if narrow commercial interests were allowed to be brought to bear on them, they would never see the light of day. The Government will probably argue in the Committee stage-and I would expect the Minister to say this-that there are safeguards. He may take me back to clause 34 which states that when the Minister considers it necessary he can do various things and impose conditions. But that is far too vague for this legislation. I suggest to honourable senators that this is too important a point, to be left just at that. This is something which should have been in the legislation right from the start. I think any reasonable person would agree to that. If something useful is patented and its research and development finished and there is a requirement to put it on the market, then it should be put on the market. If it is not put on the market within two years, the patent should be revoked. It would then revert to the public domain so that it could in fact be put to use by all people concerned. I have moved these amendments on that basis and I ask honourable senators to consider them seriously and carefully. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.17) —I will reply briefly. There are conceivably quite valid reasons why it might take more than two years to breed up a new variety in sufficient quantity for bulk release. For example, something that is grown under natural rainfall conditions could be planted out for one season in a drought, so there could be negligible bulking up, and indeed there might even be a decline in the total seed population. So the Government will not be accepting the amendments. I find it hard to understand the total argument being put by the Australian Democrats. On the one hand we have the first conspiracy theory; that is, that the wicked multinationals will peddle new plant variety rights protected varieties and use their propaganda and other power to ensure that only one variety, which only they supply and which needs poisonous chemicals at various stages of its growth to mature, comes on to the market. The second conspiracy theory is that they will lock up this variety and keep it forever, for reasons which are not at all apparent to me. I just note that the two conspiracy theories, leaving aside their innate absurdity, are mutually exclusive. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.18) —In picking up the point made by the Minister about certain varieties possibly taking more than two years before there is sufficient plant material or seeds available, I would have thought that certainly by the time a patent right had been granted the plant would have been fully bred up. I suggest that if a company or individual were in possession of a right, the bona fides would be able to be established by that company or individual at least accepting orders and getting out into the market place to sell in anticipation of having sufficient plant material or seeds. I rise to provide a very interesting example of the potential for this legislation to act against the public interest in the absence of the sort of clause that Senator Mason suggests, and in support of his amendments. At the beginning of February this year there was a Press report concerning plant geneticists, and the ability to clone cereals. Previously, under the green revolution we have heard about, new varieties of wheat and rice-and new varieties of such grains and cereals have indeed been useful over past years-have been very dependent on fertilisers, chemicals and pesticides. With the new processes that were announced in this article of 2 February, it appears that scientists now believe that such chemical dependencies can be solved by inserting the qualities of resistance through cloning into the plants themselves, thereby reducing the need for fertilisers and other chemical products, and even for irrigation. It seems very important that if a variety is bred, through any form of biotechnology, which would have the sorts of characteristics which would make its production much less expensive, farmers in Australia and anywhere else would want and should have access to that variety. Without this clause in the legislation it would be possible for a variety with those qualities to be bred and patented and not to be released into the public domain. Given that we have illustrated, and that it is a fact, that the largest seed companies in the world, in the vast majority of cases, also sell the sorts of products upon which a great many of our plant varieties are currently dependent, such as fertilisers, pesticides, weedicides and so on let us take irrigation for example, since that is a farming aid which has been proven to cause some difficulties with salinity and so forth and is certainly very expensive-if we can breed varieties that do not need that sort of assistance, they should be out in the public domain. Senator Mason's amendments would make this a requirement under this legislation. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.22) —The conspiracy theory is more than just a theory. It has been demonstrated by facts, by what has happened in Europe under plant variety rights. It is now taken seriously by the European Parliament, which last year raised this point. The conspiracy theory is a fact. The vast multinationals which manufacture pesticides and fertilisers have moved in in other parts of the world, bought up small seed companies and introduced varieties which are dependent on those things. That is one of the reasons why the Australian Democrats voted against this Bill at the second reading stage. We opposed it absolutely then. We are now merely trying to tidy up something that was passed over our protests. The Minister said that what he called two conspiracy theories were exclusive. That is not so. I think any rational viewpoint would reveal that the two conspiracies would result first in a suitable variety and then in the holding back of others which might compete with it. There is nothing exclusive about those two things. There could be conditions under which they were seen as very sound commercial practice. On that basis I am afraid that I cannot accept the Minister's argument. I urge honourable senator's despite the sort of blanket and rather unintelligent opposition to all our amendments, from both sides of this chamber, to have a little bit of lucidity and thinking outside party caucuses just for a few minutes. We must recognise that here we have something which is perhaps a little more important than other things that have been raised and which, once we let go, will have created a situation which is truly a Pandora's box. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Mason's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— 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. Knowles, S. C. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael McIntosh, G. D. Baume, Peter McKiernan, J. P. Black J. R. Maguire, G. R. Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J. 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. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R. Devlin, R. 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. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. West, S. M. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Kilgariff, B. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.31) —by leave-I move: (20) Page 21, sub-clause 38 (1), after paragraph (b), insert the following new paragraph: ``(ba) sell plants of that variety otherwise than for private profit;''. (21) Page 22, after sub-clause 38 (1), insert the following new sub-clause: ``(1a) The Advisory Committee shall, within 60 days after each year ending on 30 June, advise the Minister, the Secretary and the Registrar on the operation of sub-section (1).''. (22) Page 28, paragraph 45 (1) (c), lines 10 and 11, leave out ``one member who, in the opinion of the Minister, is an appropriate person'', insert ``two members who, in the opinion of the Minister, are appropriate persons''. (23) Page 28, paragraph 45 (1) (d), lines 13 and 14, leave out ``one member who, in the opinion of the Minister, is an appropriate person'', insert ``two members who, in the opinion of the Minister, are appropriate persons''. Amendment No. (20) to sub-clause 38 (1) outlines the aspects on which this legislation should not restrict sales for food, fibre, fuel, et cetera. A chief concern of the Australian Democrats throughout this debate has been with the potential for and the evidence of restriction of access, the restriction of use of plant material and the products ongrown from plant material in the whole international sense. The amendment is moved out of concern for people's community rights in general. The Bill allows that there should be no restriction to propagate, grow and use plants for purposes other than commercial purposes. That means that, if a plant does have a patent, we can grow it, which is comforting. Of course, we will have to pay, but that is an issue that has been addressed in past parts of the debate. Other sections of this clause provide that plants of that variety, once they are grown, can be used as food or in other ways. It provides that, if one sells a property on which a patented plant is growing, the plant can be sold as part of the property, which again is comforting. Reproductive material of patented plants can be sold for use as food or for other use, as long as that does not involve the production of plants of that variety; if it did, a further royalty would need to be paid. My amendment allows that plants of a patented variety can be sold for other than private profit. I have in mind a situation under the provisions of this Bill in which we may be permitted to grow a patented variety in our own private garden or on our own farm. But there seems to be no provision in this legislation by which we could, as we might do today, grow from that plant, as we are permitted to do under the legislation, a further plant and sell it but not for our own profit. For example, it could be sold for a fund raising exercise on a street stall. It seems to me that this is a perfectly reasonable proposition to put to a parliament on both sides of which we see privatisation becoming a major feature. It seems to me that in a great many aspects of our lives we will have to run more street stalls in the future to be able to pay for things. So it seems perfectly appropriate that under this legislation people's rights should not be restricted in that sort of area, which is outside the commercial area per se. The second amendment in this group of amendments-amendment No. 21-again is an amendment which Mr Kerin, the current Minister for Primary Industry, attempted to make to the original legislation. It relates to the same clause of the Bill. These rights of the public not to be restricted in certain ways should be the subject of an annual report by the Advisory Committee to the Minister, the Secretary and the Registrar on how this clause is operating. I move this amendment, as Mr Kerin did in 1982, in the interests of an ongoing review of the rights of the public not to be restricted under this legislation. While it is all very well to have provisions in legislation which say that the public's rights will not be restricted, that would have to be under constant review. The view of the Australian Democrats is that it should be the subject of an annual report. The final two amendments relate to clause 45 of the Bill, the clause which sets in place the Advisory Committee to which we have referred quite often during the Committee stage of this Bill. The Advisory Committee, as constituted in the Bill, provides for a Registrar, two members who in the opinion of the Minister are appropriate to represent breeders or likely breeders, only one member who in the opinion of the Minister is likely to represent producers or likely producers of new plant varieties-presumably the seed industry itself-and one member who in the opinion of the Minister is an appropriate person to represent the interests of consumers and likely consumers of new varieties or of the products of new varieties. I suspect those consumers would be, in particular, farmers and horticulturists using the new varieties. The Bill provides for another two members who, in a more general sense, the Minister believes have the necessary qualifications and experience to be members of that Committee. We propose with these final two amendments the inclusion of one additional member under sub-clause (c) to represent producers or likely producers of new plant varieties. During the course of the debate on this legislation we have expressed our concern for the fate of the Australian seed industry, which is currently an industry comprising a great many small concerns. Whilst I do not have great confidence that even the passage of this amendment would really do a great deal to ensure a greater voice and more protection for those people who expect to be in the business of producing seeds of new varieties once they are bred, I do believe that the very least the Australian Democrats can do in these circumstances is to ensure the greater representation of those people on the Advisory Committee. The amendment to sub-clause (d) allows for a further member who would represent that group, which would basically consist of farmers and the growers of varieties. As I have said before, concern has been expressed to me by the National Farmers Federation that the farmers' voice in all of this is not prominent enough, and for that reason this amendment is proposed to the Committee. I certainly would have expected the Opposition, which cries support for the farmers, to have supported this amendment, which would give the farmers and the people who are going to be growing the new varieties a greater voice in the administration of this legislation. In the original legislation proposed by the then coalition Government, Mr Kerin's proposal for the membership of the Advisory Committee was substantially higher than what we currently have. I do not believe that the addition of two more members makes it unwieldy or cumbersome. The area of the public interest and the survival of various Australian industries which the Australian Democrats believe are under threat by this legislation might benefit from those two amendments. I commend these final amendments to the Committee. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(12.40) —I wish to confine my comments to the second of the amendments under discussion at the moment relating to the matter of street stalls. It is ridiculous that people in community groups can be prosecuted for selling plants from their own gardens at street stalls to raise money for worthy causes. I would like to tell the Committee very briefly about a case which illustrates the absurdity of this possibility. It concerns a Dr Jock McClaren who sometime last year was selling plants on behalf of Community Aid Abroad to further its very commendable self-help programs. It was a Saturday morning street stall in Subiaco, Western Australia-a scene familiar throughout the country. The local Subiaco City Council prosecuted him on behalf of commercial interests because his selling of home grown plants was seen to be interfering with their Saturday morning trade. This raises all kinds of questions relating to civil liberties and free enterprise, albeit in this case on behalf of others and not in a self-interested way. The prosecution was defended by Dr McClaren and finally the charge was withdrawn-a very embarrassing situation for the Subiaco City Council, which was quite rightly seen as protecting vested interests. This was a local council action, but with the provisions of this legislation we could have a Federal government prosecuting people for selling plants on street stalls. What is important from this example is the question of profit. This Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986 is all about money. Senator Mason —At Labor Party street stalls it would be okay. Senator VALLENTINE —Probably. The plant seed companies stand to gain a great deal by the regulation of plant varieties to suit their vested interests. The only conclusion I can make for the Government's change of mind on the issue of PVR-which it so strongly opposed only a few short years ago-is that it has been bought lock, stock and barrel by the companies that stand to make enormous sums of money with the introduction of this legislation. I cannot see any other reason why we have been constantly faced with the offensive spectacle of the Lib-Labs sitting on each other's laps not only against the better interests of the Australian people but also against the better interests of the world's people, whose food supply should be of concern to us all. The world's seed banks should be a shared heritage of all people and not the property of select few whose main interests is in making money. I support Senator Powell's amendments. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.44) —I just want to expose a bit of humbug. Senator Vallentine accused the Government of having had a change of mind. Senator Vallentine, as a senator from Western Australia, received correspondence from a nursery at Wanneroo last year seeking her views or putting an argument on this very piece of legislation. She replied and said that she was elected to the Parliament on one issue only and that that was the only issue she was interested in. That, of course, was not plant variety rights. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Powell's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 46 —— 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. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael McIntosh, G. D. Baume, Peter McKiernan, J. P. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R. Black, J. R. Messner, A. J. 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. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Crowley, R. A. Tate, M. C. Devlin, R. Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. West, S. M. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.50 to 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT —Order! Honourable senators will be aware of the presence in the chamber this afternoon of television cameras and lights. I advise the Senate that I have approved of the filming with the prior agreement of the party leaders. Television networks will film the proceedings during the first half hour of Question Time for the purpose of updating the footage they use in illustrating news items about the Senate. Some still photographs will also be taken for use in Senate brochures. Recognising the discomfort caused by the increased lighting, I ask that the film crews ensure that the lights remain on only for the minimum period necessary to film the footage that they require. At the same time I ask that honourable senators bear with the discomfort which they may experience by virtue of the increased lighting. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Does the Government accept that present high interest rates are causing hardship to many Australian families, particularly those with non-bank home loans whose interest rates are not subsidised by the Commonwealth and who have been hit by repayment increases under this Government? Is it a fact that when the Government decided in April last year on a 12-month, $145m subsidy to the savings banks it expected that interest rates would have fallen by the time the subsidy expired? Does the Government accept that in order to keep new bank home loan interest rates at the existing 15 1/2 per cent, it will have to extend the subsidy beyond the end of next month? Will the Government be able to commit itself to continuing a subsidy of such magnitude at a time when it has embarked on a process of substantially reducing expenditure? Senator BUTTON —I believe that the Government accepts-I certainly do-that interest rates are an additional burden on home owners and home purchasers at present. The Government believes that the alternative to that interest rates policy may well be a further decline in our economic position as a result of movements in the exchange rate which, in turn, would place alternative burdens on families and industries in this country. So the answer to the first part of the question essentially is yes, we accept that. It was expected, I think it is fair to say, at the time of the interest rates subsidy decision of April last year that interest rates would decline. In fact, interest rates were declining quite significantly prior to some international exchange rate movements which occurred in January of this year and which had the effect of halting that decline. In the last week or two interest rates have declined somewhat but in no way to the extent which the Government and, indeed, any responsible government concerned about the welfare of home owners would like and expect. The question of extending the interest rate subsidy arrangements is a matter which the Government will have to address in the next two or three weeks. As Senator Chaney pointed out in his question, it will be a difficult question to address because of the Government's commitment to reducing government expenditures and outlays. It will be a difficult task. The Government will confront that difficult task as it has confronted a number of difficult tasks during its period in government, in contradistinction to the previous Government which confronted no hard decisions in a hard way and left this country in the awful economic mess it was in when the Australian Labor Party was elected to office. My colleague Senator Walsh, if Senator Chaney wants to ask him a question about it, will remind him of interest rates under the former Government. I can remind him of unemployment levels of nearly 11 per cent, which certainly affected many an Australian family; of inflation rates well in excess of 10 per cent, which affected many Australian families; and also of high interest rates, which affected many Australian families. These were all characteristics of the Australian economy which we inherited when we came to office. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —I understand that facts are unpalatable to Opposition senators but nonetheless, yell as they might, they are going to hear them. One thing that is quite certain is that the Government will not solve these problems by allowing the deficit to blow out to the extent to which the Fraser Government did as a means of solving its perceived political problems in 1982. We will not do that. Senator Chaney —You urged a higher deficit at that time. Senator BUTTON —Really? I reminded Senator Chaney yesterday of Mr Fraser, Mr Anthony and Mr Nixon, the trifecta of the past, who were up here to advise him about the Opposition's current problems last week. Senator Chaney should have asked them about that at the same time. Those three gentlemen showed, as did other Ministers in the Fraser Government, that they had no perception of the basic economic difficulties confronting this country. Honourable senators opposite still have no perception, even in opposition. As I have said before in Question Time, senior Australian businessmen have said to me about this Opposition, not that it does not understand the problems-it can comprehend them-but that it does not even understand the issues, the questions. That, they say, is the problem with the Opposition. That is why the Opposition embarks here day after day on a series of totally tangential questions, all unrelated and inconsistent and not addressing the basic issues which the economy confronts. Senator ROBERT RAY —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Communications give an assurance that when the 26 new licences for regional commercial radio stations are issued these licences will be given to applicants who have no other television or newspaper ownership or interests? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether I can give an assurance because, as I remember it, that policy has still to be considered and finalised. But I will see whether Mr Duffy has anything more definitive to say on the question. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and concerns his non-answers last week and his half answers this week about the Soviet base at Cam Ranh Bay. I ask the Minister whether he recalls his own statements to the Senate on 16 and 17 October last year, including the following statement: The reality is that what I said yesterday is perfectly straightforward. What I said was that the Government has no evidence that the Soviet Union has deployed weapons systems in Vietnam which directly endanger Australia. In the light of satellite evidence recently released and his statement yesterday that the Government accepts this evidence, will he now admit that he was wrong and that he misled the Senate in October? In particular, can the Minister still deny that the Soviet Union has deployed at Cam Ranh Bay nuclear armed Echo-2 submarines and a squadron each of Bear and Badger strike bombers? Can he any longer deny that they are equipped with nuclear armed cruise missiles capable of reaching Australia? Finally, why has the Minister never endorsed Mr Beazley's statement on page 2259 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 13 May 1985 that the Bear bomber `unrefuelled radius of action . . . operating out of Cam Ranh Bay . . . describes an arc which runs approximately between Adelaide and just north of Brisbane'? Senator GARETH EVANS —I see no need whatsoever to change the language I employed last year, which was a denial of the proposition that there is anything going on in Cam Ranh Bay which could be construed as directly endangering Australia. There is no doubt that there are some weapons systems based there which could be regarded, on extreme logistic analysis of the kind that Senator Teague, with his new found enthusiasm for another discipline, is regaling us with, as capable of constituting some threat and some hypothetical scenario. That is not deniable. But if we are talking about a real world situation of a force based there of a kind which could be construed as directly endangering Australia-they were the key words in the question I was responding to last year-I have nothing to add to or vary what I said then. Equally, as I said yesterday, what the Opposition was talking about with the Cam Ranh Bay base is essentially something which is of very great strategic significance in a North Pacific and South East Asian context, but not in the context of the South Pacific, which was the particular context of the debate over the past few days. Beyond that, the further point I was making yesterday, which I repeat today-nothing which anybody else has said is at variance with this-is that it is not the practice of the Australian Government, nor of previous governments, nor will it be in the future, to comment directly on the value or otherwise of intelligence-derived material. We do not propose to vary or divert from that principle in the context of alleged photographs of Cam Ranh Bay from United States of America intelligence sources, any more than we would diverge from it in any other context in which questions about the proper evaluation of intelligence material are concerned. That principle obviously must be fully maintained. Senator TEAGUE —I have a supplementary question. Is the Minister saying that the Soviet forces and weapons systems deployed at Cam Ranh Bay do not endanger Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —The particular expression used was `directly endangering Australia'. That was the question I was responding to last year. There is nothing I am aware of that has changed the situation since then. I will ask the Minister for Defence whether he wants to add anything further to what I have said in the light of any recent developments that may have occurred, but I do not believe that he would wish to, for the reasons I have just indicated. Senator DEVLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation and relates to concerns expressed by some in the community on the likely implication of plans by the Department of Aviation to consolidate air traffic facilities and staff into fewer, larger centres. I ask the Minister whether he will ensure that the changes are kept to a minimum and whether the Department of Aviation will continue to consult before facilities are closed. Senator GIETZELT —It is true that the Department of Aviation is examining proposals designed to consolidate air traffic service facilities into fewer, larger centres. As I have indicated previously when we have discussed other matters that the Department has undertaken, the changes are made always in consultation with the local communities and with other service receivers. I can assure the Senate, and Senator Devlin in particular, that every reasonable effort will be made to limit the effects of the changes on the communities. Discussions are currently taking place with officers of the Department at regional centres and their views will be very much taken into consideration before any final decision is made. This approach is similar to that adopted in respect of the consolidation of rescue and fire fighting units. Changes will not take place until consultation is finalised and, I hope, agreement is reached with all interested parties. PACIFIC DEFENCE REPORTER Senator MASON —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, concerns an advertisement on page 17 of the February issue of the Pacific Defence Reporter, headed `Why nuclear submarines are cheaper'. I ask: Is it a fact that, whilst the format and style of that material suggests that it is an advertisement, there is no clear indication of that and no indication of authorship or responsibility for the content? Does the submarine depicted in the text appear to be a French submarine? Is the material tendentious? I refer particularly to the concluding remarks, which criticise the Australian decision to build additional conventional submarines for our fleet. While the material is clearly in breach of the Media Council of Australia's advertising code of ethics, does it also breach section 52 of the Trade Practices Act? If so, will the Government take the necessary action to ensure that the offence is not repeated? Senator GARETH EVANS —In deference to Senator Mason's enthusiasm on this subject, I have had a look at the advertisement in question in the Pacific Defence Reporter. I think it is fair to say that its format and style suggest an advertisement and there is no clear indication of authorship or responsibility for it. I also accept that the submarine depicted in the article appears similar to-I am advised; I would not have a clue myself-the Rubis class French submarine. Senator Mason —Its number has been blacked out. Senator GARETH EVANS —Take it away, Sherlock. With regard to the question of whether the article could be considered tendentious-that is not a word that I employ very much these days, in deference to Senator Durack, who once had some difficulty with its definition-essentially that is a matter of personal judgment. It certainly suggests a view which I believe would have little support in the Australian community and I would accept Senator Mason's description to that extent. As to the query whether it breaches the Media Council's advertising code of ethics and the Trade Practices Act, these are not matters pertinent to the defence portfolio, nor is it appropriate for a Minister ever to offer a legal opinion on anything-not that that stops us on occasions. But I have received the reaction of the Attorney-General's Department to this in the following terms: Section 65A of the Trade Practices Act exempts the Pacific Defence Reporter from the operation of section 52 in this instance, unless the offending item is an advertisement. There are other bases of exemption which may not be applicable. It is not clear, according to the Attorney-General's Department which takes a very dogged view of these things, on its face whether the material is an advertisement, which does not bear any attribution to it. If the material is to be regarded as an advertisement, section 65A does not exclude the application of section 52. It is only then that the question of whether the material or its format is misleading and deceptive falls for determination. The Government will, therefore, in the light of this uncertainty as to what it is all about and the possibility that it may constitute a breach of the provision, refer the matter to the Trade Practices Commission for further investigation. Senator AULICH —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of criticism reported in various newspaper articles in recent months of passenger processing at Australian international airports? What measures have been taken or are planned to be taken by the Government to speed up passenger processing at Australian international airports in view of the significant increase in tourism? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the situation which Senator Aulich asked me about. I have taken quite an interest in this matter, as I am sure a number of honourable senators have, because it is very important. Last year, in the Budget context, the Government announced additional resources for the Australian Customs Service to deal with the increased passenger work loads being experienced. That increase is very significant because of the relatively enormous influx of tourists that took place in calendar year 1986 and is projected for this year and the following year. The Customs Service, following those initiatives in the Budget, embarked upon a campaign to improve passenger handling. This campaign has involved extensive consultation and negotiation with other agencies, such as immigration, quarantine and aviation. More recently the Government's Efficiency Scrutiny Review Unit, headed by Mr David Block, has taken up the initiative commenced by the Customs Service for a major scrutiny of that process. The impact of additional Customs resources and the campaign to speed up processing has already had some impact. In the two weeks ended 31 January 1987 the national statistics on queueing at the primary Customs line showed that 97 per cent of all passengers had passed through the Customs line in less than 40 minutes and 92 per cent in less than 30 minutes. Those statistics are not necessarily the most outstanding statistics in the world but they are a vast improvement on what the situation was previously. I should say also, from my own experience, that it is highly desirable that the Customs Service adapts as rapidly as possible to facilitate the handling of overseas, non-English speaking tourists. In September, I think, of last year we initiated a program of translating Customs forms into a number of foreign languages. Prior to that in Australia all Customs forms for incoming passengers were printed in English. Senator Puplick —Some sort of English, anyway. Senator BUTTON —Senator Puplick may say `bad' English, but it was recognisable as English. Since then we have arranged for Customs forms to be printed in Japanese, in Arabic, I think, and in some other languages. They are already in use and that is a considerable improvement. It means we are no longer insulting incoming passengers, as we would regard ourselves insulted if we had to fill in forms in foreign languages when visiting other countries. So that is an improvement. I can also commend the Queensland division of the Australian Customs Service. It has some Customs officers now in Japanese language training courses, which again is a considerable improvement on the mediocre performances of the past. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Given the recent comments made by the Prime Minister in the Middle East on the Australian Government's commitment to helping the peace process, is the Government going to condemn the Syrian Army's entry into West Beirut? What immediate relief is the Government going to give to the Palestinian refugees who are in camps that are the meat in the sandwich between the Syrian forces and the Amal Shi'ite militia? Senator GARETH EVANS —The entry of additional Syrian troops into West Beirut at the invitation of Prime Minister Karami and several Moslem political leaders who are members of the Lebanese Government is a new and important factor in the various efforts to bring about stability to the country. Prime Minister Karami is reported to have said that the invitation is within the context of the 1976 request by Lebanon for the deployment of an Arab deterrent force in Lebanon with Syria remaining the only member of that still in Lebanon. President Gemayel is reported to have described the invitation to Syria as unconstitutional. How the Lebanese Government resolves this internally is essentially a matter for it to decide. The Australian Government has stated often enough before that all foreign forces in Lebanon should withdraw except those who are there at the request of the Government of Lebanon and whose presence is necessary to allow the development of conditions which can allow social, economic, and political stability to be re-established within Lebanon and the authority of the Lebanese Government to be asserted. We are obviously still very concerned, as everyone is, about the violence which has continued on various levels in Lebanon. We do not see any solution as being likely to be found unless and until all groups recognise the rights of all Lebanese to coexist side by side. We are not a party principal to efforts to promote a solution to the problems of Lebanon; we have simply urged in the past, and will go on urging, all parties involved to exercise maximum restraint and to enter into negotiations aimed at national reconciliation and a peaceful settlement. As to the question of the position of the Palestinian refugees and humanitarian assistance, I have made already a couple of statements on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in response to questions here. I have no more up to date information than that. All I can say is that as further appeals are received, as I expect they probably will be in due course, from the United Nations and other international agencies operating in the region such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East and the International Committee of the Red Cross, we will continue to give sympathetic consideration to such requests if and when they are received. Senator BLACK —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. In view of Press reports of massive financial gifts being given to candidates currently attempting to enter the Commonwealth Parliament, will the Minister give consideration to amending the Electoral Act to make the penalties for non-declaration of gifts proportionate to or equal to the value of the gifts? Senator TATE —As to the question of penalties under the Electoral Act, I think it would be fair to say that, before I suggest any review of the impact of those penalties on improving the honesty within the electoral process, there should be some collaboration with the Attorney-General to ensure that the penalties would be commensurate with those in other Commonwealth legislation. In answer to a question by Senator Black last week I indicated that it would be useful for those who are considering becoming candidates in an election to the Commonwealth Parliament to be reminded that a candidate, for the purposes of the Electoral Act, is defined in relation to an election as including a person who has announced his intention to be a candidate in that election. Such a person ought to bear in mind that, under section 304 of the Act, within 15 weeks after the polling day that person is required to submit a return of gifts received during the period that commenced when that person's candidacy got under way, which, as I said, could be the date on which that person indicated an intention to enter the Parliament. Such a person, in putting in a return within 15 weeks after the poll, needs to indicate the nature and value of gifts received during that election campaign, the period that is covered under the Act. Indeed, it is unlawful for a person during that period to receive a gift if it is not known who is making that contribution. In other words, an anonymous gift cannot be received without an offence being created where the gift is of a value of $200 or more. What occurs under the terms of the Act is that, where a candidate receives an anonymous gift of $200 or more, a forfeiture of an equivalent amount is made to the Commonwealth Treasury. That is something that needs to be borne in mind by those who wish to proffer themselves as candidates to the Australian people. Whether the penalties are adequate in that respect is something to which I will give consideration. The penalties in regard to forfeiture I think are quite severe; whether they are sufficiently severe right across the board is something that requires further discussion with the Attorney-General. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to recommendation 19 of the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which recommends that the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission be given jurisdiction over previously independent sub-contractors and that these sub-contractors be considered as employees. Is it the Government's intention to introduce legislation which will implement recommendation 19 of the Hancock report and, if so, when will the Government be introducing this legislation? Senator WALSH —I cannot remember what the decision on recommendation 19 was explicitly, but the Government intends to introduce legislation in this session giving effect to the decisions. Senator Boswell will have to wait for that legislation to be introduced to find out what the response is to recommendation 19 of the Hancock report. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters. It refers to the fact that in the last year in which figures were available, 1985, there was an increase of 3,204 in the number of public servants, whereas the Government reduced the number of youth in permanent Public Service jobs by 913. Will the Minister give to the Senate the total figures for 1986 of public servants employed and the number of young people under 21 who are in Public Service jobs? Senator WALSH —When the 1986 figures are available I will make them available to the public. This is an old hobby horse of Senator Harradine's in which he shows that he is either innumerate or a mountebank. The plain fact is that when the rate of growth slows down, as it has in recent years, the number of people below the 21 age group will inevitably decline because those who were 16 five years ago are now 21. If we stop recruiting altogether for five years, there will be nobody in the Public Service under 21. I would have thought that was an arithmetic fact that most people should be able to understand. Either Senator Harradine is incapable of understanding it or for his own political reasons he insists on running this campaign, alleging that there is discrimination against young people in Public Service recruitment. Senator Lewis —He is not doing too badly with it. Senator WALSH —What was that? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, I suggest that you ignore the interjections and address the Chair. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Public Service recruitment is determined according to the merit of the applicants, so far as it can be accurately assessed, and there is no discrimination against anybody. Senator HARRADINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question, following the Minister's response. Will the Minister explain why in 1980 there were 127,173 officers in total and in 1986 there were 145,433, whereas the number of youth employees totalled 9,291 in 1980 and, last year, 8,105? Is the Minister saying that the Public Service Board figures are not available and that it does not know how many public servants there were as at 12 December 1986? Senator WALSH —I did explain-I think most members of the Opposition understood-that when recruiting slows down, other things being equal, the number of people under 21 will decline. I would have thought that even Senator Harradine would understand that. I am sure he can understand it; this is just his latest political stunt. Senator Harradine —You are discriminating against youth; that is what you are doing in your own Department. Senator WALSH —Even Senator Harradine should be able to understand this. He is a friend of the tax dodgers, a protector of tax evaders- Senator Harradine —The Minister is discriminating against youth; that is what he is doing. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, you have already asked a supplementary question and I call you to order. Senator WALSH —He apparently wants to get himself suspended so that his stunt will be better advertised. I would have thought that even somebody who could not remember whether or not he was a member of the National Civic Council-- Senator Harradine —Every one of the departments is discriminating against youth. Employ a few more youth. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, you are consistently interjecting. You have had the privilege of asking a supplementary question. I ask that you cease interjecting and allow the Minister to answer the question. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I would have thought that even somebody who told the National Executive of the Australian Labor Party that he could not remember whether or not he was a member of the NCC should be able-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, I suggest that you answer the question you were asked. Senator WALSH —I am. He should be able to understand that, if recruitment ceases entirely and there is nobody under 16 in the Public Service, in five years time there will be nobody under 21. Senator Lewis —We get that. Senator WALSH —I am sure Senator Lewis and just about all of his colleagues understand that. Likewise, other things being equal, when the rate of recruitment slows down the proportion of people under 21 will also decline. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Minister will be aware of Mr Hawke's plan to introduce a Bill which will have the effect of preventing logging in the Lemonthyme and southern forests regions of Tasmania and that compensation will be payable to those who are affected. Will the Minister inform the Senate: Will those entitled to claim compensation include all persons who directly obtain their livelihood from logging operations, for example, logging and haulage contractors, as well as the companies; will the same compensation also be payable to those who indirectly derive income from the existence of logging operations, such as machinery dealers, repairers and component suppliers; will the Tasmanian Department of Forests be entitled to compensation because of lost royalties; who will administer the legislation and what powers will be available to that body in its task; what records will need to be provided by claimants in order to justify their claims for compensation; will there be a sunset clause in the legislation so that it does not become a back door method of banning logging in the area; is the legislation a rebuke of the Minister for Primary Industry who, despite all his efforts-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, the question is far too long. Could you bring it to a conclusion. Senator WALTERS —This is the last point-has not been able to abide by the agreement with the Tasmanian Government he signed just a few months ago? Senator BUTTON —The legislation which has been referred to in the Press relates to a series of negotiations between the Tasmanian Government and the Federal Government to try to reach agreement about the facts-facts relevant to a very difficult situation in the Lemonthyme area relating to logging. Insofar as the question goes to details of that legislation, I ask Senator Walters to put it on notice as it is a very detailed question. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen recent articles criticising the Buy Australian campaign for encouraging consumers to purchase Australian made goods out of patriotism rather than choosing products for quality and value for money, whatever their country of origin, and for charging a licensing fee for the use of the green and gold logo? Are such criticisms justified? Senator BUTTON —I am grateful to Senator Zakharov for asking me this question because it provides me with an opportunity to say one or two things about criticisms of the campaign. It is an important issue and I congratulate Senator Zakharov on raising it here. It is good to have important issues raised. Senator Macklin —Can't you find your place? Senator BUTTON —I can. The real problem is whether the honourable senator can find his place-not just on a sheet of paper but in life, in politics. Can he find his place there? I am not sure. Perhaps the next election will tell whether he can find his place again. The aim of the campaign to which Senator Zakharov referred accords with the sentiments of the Australian Consumers Association and the views expressed by the Government; that is, buying Australian does not mean buying Australian made products at any cost, irrespective of quality. If people do that, they will not be doing Australian industry a favour. The future prosperity of Australian industry will depend very much on quality innovative products designed to fill niches in the Australian and world markets. Of course the depreciation of the Australian dollar means that many Australian made products represent value for money in terms of price, but the message of the campaign is that they have to represent value for money in terms of quality, innovation and so on. Research carried out by a Melbourne based marketing and social research firm indicates that the campaign has achieved virtually total awareness in the community, at 89 per cent, and has raised public consciousness about the need to consider the issues of buying Australian goods more often. Of those surveyed, 65 per cent indicated that their buying behaviour had been influenced by the campaign, and the survey indicated that public attitudes towards buying Australian have improved. There is a very strong feeling that the campaign itself has been worth while and should continue, and that is reflected in the views of 82 per cent of the respondents. With regard to the licensing of the logo, that cannot be properly administered without incurring costs which would have to be met through higher taxation. Under the user pays principle, the Advance Australia Foundation can manage and police the certification system and put licensing fees back into promoting the campaign, and that body has been charged with fulfilling that function. It is an important consideration in changing attitudes and habits in Australia-not only attitudes and habits of consumers but also the attitudes and habits of manufacturers and employees of manufacturers. I think from that point of view it is very worth while indeed. The PRESIDENT —Order! I wish to advise honourable senators of the presence in the President's gallery this afternoon of a delegation from the Association of South East Asian Nations Inter-Parliamentary Organisation, led by the Speaker of the Malaysian House of Representatives, Tan Sri Mohamed Zahir. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome the delegation and trust that its visit to Australia, and to Canberra, will be a success. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the announcement that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming will not take legal action to challenge his dismissal from the position of Director of the Australian War Memorial. Is the Minister aware that the major reason given for this decision was the Air Vice-Marshal's concern about the high cost of ultimate resolution of this question before the High Court, as it would be a test case of the meaning of `misbehaviour'? In view of the long history of this matter and the succession of inquiries, will the Government give consideration to meeting Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's legal costs on the basis of it being a test case so that the question of misbehaviour can be decided, if necessary, in the highest court? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer that question to the Attorney-General but I doubt that his answer will be in the affirmative. Any grant of legal aid depends on some assessment as to the likely success of the case in question. It is not believed by the Government that there is any conceivable foundation for a challenge to the action that took place, either on the grounds of procedural defect, natural justice and so on, or so far as the definition of `misbehaviour' is concerned. I do not want to rehearse again the circumstances of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's dismissal. I simply make a point, as has been made very cogently by Senator Gietzelt in this place, that when misleading information is given in circumstances in which there can be no doubt whatsoever as to the intention of the false information in question, where that information goes directly and immediately to the conduct of a statutory authority for which the person concerned is responsible, on any conceivable definition of misbehaviour-that is an issue which of course has been canvassed very widely in this place-there is no foundation on which such a case could be made. That is obviously the substance of such advice as Air Vice-Marshal Flemming has already received. I say that on the basis of Press reports. I imagine that is the basis on which he has very sensibly decided to accept the decision that has been made. But as I said, I will refer the question to the Attorney-General. He may wish to add something more. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. After about three supplementary answers I think I am entitled to a supplementary question. When the Minister refers this matter to the Attorney-General, will he remind him of the Government's decision to pay enormous legal costs incurred by the late Mr Justice Murphy in a series of similar inquiries and legal proceedings? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will do no such thing, Mr President. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to President Reagan's experiment in so-called supply side economics in the United States of America; that is, attempting to stimulate investment and entrepreneurial effort by means of major personal income tax cuts. Does the evidence from the Reagan experiment support claims that a policy of incentivation would work in Australia, compared with the policies of the Hawke Government? Do major income tax cuts for high income earners, as occurred in the United States of America, simply fuel share market speculation at the expense of real investment in productivity boosting plant and equipment? Senator WALSH —The Reagan Administration was elected on a policy of stimulating economic growth through the provision of incentives derived from tax cuts, particularly tax cuts for the rich. That, it was said, would so expand the economy and the income tax base that the Government would actually finish up collecting more revenue than it would have done under the previous higher tax rates. That was the theory of supply side economics or Reaganomics, as it was later known. What happened was that the United States Budget deficit, which stood at-I will use round figures-$US79 billion in 1981, ballooned in two years to $US208 billion in 1983. That is an increase of more than 150 per cent. The deficit has kept on growing since and the 1986 figure was $US221 billion. So the effect of Reaganomics on the Budget deficit was to increase it by almost 200 per cent in five years. All this consumption spending-public and private, of course-sucked imports into the economy. In 1981-82 the United States of America had a balance of payments surplus on current account of $US4.6 billion. By 1983-84, in two years, that had turned into a deficit of $US80.0 billion and in 1985-86 the current account deficit was $US130.6 billion. So the record is that supply side economics or Reaganomics is a voodoo theory which has been empirically tested and found not only to be wanting but to have produced results diametrically opposed to those which it was supposed to produce. It is a thoroughly discredited piece of economic voodoo. It has a great deal in common with-indeed, it is almost inseparable from-the incentivation theories currently being peddled by the Australian Opposition. They also entail a huge income transfer from the poor to the rich. As Professor Nevile recently remarked about this, he thinks the Liberal Party is using `incentivation' because it does not know how to spell `selfishness'. Professor Galbraith said in an interview a couple of days ago that the theory is based on the assumption that people are not working hard enough; the rich are not working hard enough because they are not being paid enough, and the poor are not working hard enough because they are being paid too much. As a final comment in answer to the question about the success or otherwise of Reaganomics or supply side economics, I refer honourable senators to page 29 of Lester Thurow's Zero-Sum Solution, some of which I will quote: To raise America's savings rate, the Reagan Administration enacted a series of tax cuts in 1981 designed to substantially cut the taxes of high-income Americans on the grounds that they were precisely the Americans who were most likely to save income not taken in taxes . . . It did not happen. When the tax cuts were fully effective, America's personal savings rate first dropped to 5 per cent in 1983 and then rose to 6.1 per cent in 1984. But there were no significant increase in personal savings. When it came to the bottom line, Americans of all income classes were spenders, not savers. The 1981 tax cuts empirically demonstrated that high-income Americans did not in fact have a high marginal propensity to save out of extra take-home income generated from tax cuts. Nor did they go to work in record numbers. Labor force participation rates rose almost four times as fast under President Carter as they did under President Reagan. America's consumption behaviour, however, converted what was supposed to be supply-side economics into demand-side economics. Senator Messner —Are you softening us up to knock off the tax cuts? Senator WALSH —I was asked by Senator Messner whether I wanted to knock off the tax cuts. I am glad he asked that because the fact is that this Government has put into legislation the only tax cuts which this country can afford. Anything beyond that, let alone anything markedly beyond that, is grossly irresponsible. Indeed, as the responsible Right, personified by people such as John Hyde and John Nurick, recently wrote, any politician promising tax cuts of more than a few dollars a week to people around average earnings should not be believed. Senator SANDERS —My question, which is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, follows on a question asked by Senator Vallentine, to which the Minister referred as codswallop. I now draw the Minister's attention to a letter to Dr Peter Wills of Scientists Against Nuclear Arms in New Zealand from the Assistant Secretary of Defence of the United States of America, Mr Robert B. Sims, dated 22 September 1986, in which he informed Dr Wills of his decision to release the United States Base Requirements Overseas List. I ask the Minister: Given that Mr Sims is directly responsible to Defense Secretary Weinberger, does this not prove that the Reagan Administration regards North West Cape, Nurrungar and Smithfield, which are on the list, as US bases and not as joint facilities? The list reveals that secret operations are being carried out in Perth, and that anti-submarine warfare operations are planned to be conducted from Darwin. Will the Minister give full details of those operations and plans? If he is unable to supply these details, is this not further evidence that these bases are not joint facilities, but rather US bases? Senator GARETH EVANS —The fact that Assistant Defence Secretary Sims may have acted formally, under the terms of the United States Freedom of Information Act in releasing the document, indicates absolutely nothing about the status of the report, and certainly does not imply any high level endorsement of the report. I think any Australian Minister would hate to think that some of the documents prepared by officials and released under the Australian FOI Act are to be somehow taken thereby as endorsed as to their content by the Minister thus releasing them. Manifestly, there is no connection whatsoever between those two propositions, and each document has to stand or fall as to its correctness or endorsement on its own terms. The particular document we talked about, labelled `US Base Requirements Overseas', does not reveal, as I said in detailed fashion in answer to Senator Vallentine on 20 February, that so-called secret operations are being carried out in Perth or that anti-submarine warfare operations are planned to be conducted from Darwin. It does not reveal anything about anything and it certainly does not reveal anything about the existence of alleged US bases in Australia, because there are no such bases. As I said, there are some joint facilities, but not bases, and there are certainly not bases in the areas that are described with a great deal of enthusiastic excitement by those relying on this document. The document appears to be nothing more than a notional planning document, and one of a peculiarly clodhopping kind, which compiles a list of facilities which are seen by the officer in question as potentially useful to US forces in peacetime and in wartime. To the extent that it has any significance at all-and that is a matter for doubt and further investigation, as I said-it would appear to reflect US contingency planning and no more. Senator SANDERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister concede that the United States itself feels that these are bases and not joint facilities? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would hesitate to make any generalisation of what the US Administration feels, believes or thinks about anything, because the viewpoints vary from department to department. Certainly there has never been any belief or use of terminology, that I am aware of, at any high level in the United States which thinks, talks or describes the facilities in question at Nurrungar, Pine Gap and so on, as US bases. They are not properly so described. Anyone who described them in those terms would be using a form of shorthand which is in fact quite inaccurate. Senator SIDDONS —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a very simple question: Why is the Government not prepared to act directly on our balance of payments problem by restricting imports, when it is clear that we cannot afford to pay the interest on the money we have already borrowed to pay the import bill in the past? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator said that it was a simple question, and I will give him a simple answer. If the Government were to restrict imports I suspect it would have an enormous and significant effect on prices in Australia. It would do little in the short term to redress the balance of payments situation and it would be seen, correctly, as a very ad hoc strategy for dealing with what is a medium to long term problem; and the Government is not proposing to proceed down that course. Senator ARCHER —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and construction whether he acknowledges the appalling current problems of housing Australians, and the situation of both buyers and renters caused by record and rising interest rates, the consumer sell-off of rental housing following the introduction of the capital gains tax and other measures, rapidly rising waiting lists for government rental housing and inflationary new house costs caused by the value of the Australian dollar? What will be done about this? Senator RYAN —Senator Archer's question made a number of claims with which I would not agree. I remind Senator Archer that the Government's economic strategy, including last year's Budget, is directed at providing an environment conducive to achieving lower interest rates. At this stage it appears that any reductions in market rates that may appear over the course of 1987 will not be sufficiently sustained or will not result in a reduction of loan interest rates in 1987. Accordingly it does appear unlikely that reductions in housing loan interest rates will occur until the first half of 1988 at the earliest. Senator Chaney —Mr President, could I ask the Minister to table the paper from which she read? Senator RYAN —Happily. Senator ROBERTSON —Will the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce comment on a report in today's Australian Financial Review which suggests that the steel division of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is facing problems? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I can comment on that. The answer is that BHP's steel division is facing problems, as is revealed in the article. Senator Boswell —Give it another $80m. Take it off the farmers. Senator BUTTON —Why does Senator Boswell not ask me an intelligent question about that? He should get somebody up in Queensland to help him to phrase questions. He should ask me about the general level of assistance to agricultural industries in Australia compared with the steel industry. The steel division is facing some difficulties. The reasons for those difficulties are revealed in the article in the Australian Financial Review. The major difficulty arises from the fact that the Chinese have temporarily reduced their steel imports because of a lack of foreign currency for them. BHP does not expect this to continue but it will affect its performance this quarter. The other difficulty is due to a period of industrial disputes in mid-1986, which have been the subject of questions in the Senate. It appears that those issues have been substantially resolved by the company and the unions, but they did cause some supply problems. I think, apart from the present quarter, the anticipations of the company, in relation to the performance of the steel division, are quite optimistic. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. He will recall, in answers to questions last week about the closure of the National Crime Authority Perth office, that he said the State Minister for Police and Emergency Services was not concerned with its closure even though the contrary had repeatedly been reported. Now the Premier of Western Australia has also claimed that he is unhappy with the closure of the office. Can the Minister confirm or deny that the positions of the Premier and the State Minister are wrong and unfounded, especially given the enormous concern of the public on this matter? Can the Minister also explain, obviously within the bounds of security, the results of his discussions that he said he was having on Monday morning with the NCA? Senator TATE —I did hold discussions with Mr Justice Stewart and the two other members of the National Crime Authority on Monday morning. I am pleased to say to the chamber that the members of the Authority confirmed the absolute propriety of the answers which I had given in this chamber in the preceding week. Those answers were to the effect that the investigations which had led to the establishment of a Perth office of the National Crime Authority, and the secondment to it of officers of the Western Australian Police Force, had been completed, with some minor matters still to be tied up. In essence, the work for which that office had been opened had been completed satisfactorily. I also indicated that, should it be the case that investigations warranted the opening again of a Perth office, that would be undertaken, no doubt by the NCA in consultation with the Western Australian Minister for Police. I indicated at the time that the Western Australian Minister, in a telephone conversation with me, had been reassured by my conveying to him my knowledge of the situation. I understand that Mr Hill is now seeking a meeting with the National Crime Authority Chairman in Melbourne on Thursday. I hope that that meeting between the two men will result in a clear statement of-- Senator Durack —I thought you told us before that you had satisfied Mr Hill. Senator TATE —I cannot answer for Mr Hill's continuing expressions of need for reassurance on this matter. But I am saying that I am confident that, when he has had his meeting with the Chairman of the National Crime Authority on Thursday in Melbourne, he will find that what I have told the chamber will be confirmed by the Chairman. I have no doubt that the briefing that Mr Hill will get will satisfy him, but of course I cannot reveal to this chamber what that might contain. Senator KNOWLES —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I ask the Minister again why the Premier has taken the position that he has taken in calling for its re-opening. Senator TATE —I am not sure that I can answer for Mr Burke in this matter. Senator GIETZELT —On 18 February, Senator Walters asked me a number of questions in respect of my portfolio. I advise her in the following terms: With the introduction of the Veterans' Entitlements Act on 22 May 1986, all repatriation beneficiaries are required to lodge claims for reimbursement of travel expenses within three months of completion of that travel. The application of this limitation would hinge entirely upon the circumstances of each individual case and acceptance of the claim may vary depending on whether or not there exists an ongoing need for specific treatment involving travel. This policy will be administered sympathetically and compassionately, taking into account the general thrust of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. On 9 February 1983 I announced the formation of an Advisory Committee for Repatriation Legislation Review to present the views of veterans and their dependants. The Committee included representatives of the major ex-service organisations, including the War Widows Guild of Australia. It was the recommendation of that Committee that travel expenses be accepted only if claims were lodged within three months of the expense being incurred. Prior to the introduction of the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the Department of Veterans' Affairs undertook an extensive publicity campaign to enable the ex-service community to be aware of the provisions in the Bill and to give them an opportunity to comment. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave- I give notice that, nine sitting days after today, I shall move: That the amendment to the Meat Inspection (General) Orders, as amended, as contained in Meat Inspection Order No. 4 of 1986 made under the Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations, which were made under the Meat Inspection Act 1983 be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Regulations and Ordinances Committee is scrutinising these Orders, which are subject to tabling and disallowance. The Committee has written to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) about the provision of statements of reasons to people affected by certain very important administrative decisions. Today is the last day on which I can give this protective notice of motion on behalf of the Committee and I do so to protect the scope and effectiveness of the scrutiny of the Orders. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 25 February, from Senator Archer: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order No. 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Hawke Government to reverse its high interest rate and high taxation policies which are having such a disastrous impact on home owners and prospective home owners throughout Australia.' Yours sincerely, Brian R. Archer Senator for the State of Tasmania Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.06) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Hawke Government to reverse its high interest rate and high taxation policies which are having such a disastrous impact on home owners and prospective home owners throughout Australia. Australia faces economic circumstances that are unrivalled. At present the future of Australians is in grave danger. We are in circumstances where we have 10 per cent inflation-four or five times that of our international trading partners-and a huge overseas debt of $100,000m, rising at the rate of $111m per day and with no apparent levelling off. We have a fiddled and artificial floating dollar. We have crippling taxes. We have interest rates double those of our trading partners and we have a government which refuses to level with the people on the general overall mess that the country is in. Senator Collard and Senator Jessop will also support the proposal and help in calling on the Government both to acknowledge the disaster and to get the economy back on the track-and to think of the hundreds of thousands of Australians for whom housing is either an impossible dream or a terrible nightmare. This is the most anti-housing, anti-family government in living memory. Every action of the Hawke-Keating economic package has acted against home owners and would-be home owners. In my speech I will cover matters relating to interest rates, statistics on home building, the capacity to pay, the rental alternative and the government involvement. I start with the sociological issue-how it affects the family and the future of families in Australia. The sociological issues fall squarely on the Government. What is the Government saying about that? It is saying nothing at all. A recent newspaper article quoted the director of housing services for the Master Builders Association, Mr John Murray, as follows: There is no doubt that the great Australian dream (of owning your own home) is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain. The article continued: This year 40,000 people who expected to move into a new home will not be able to do so. This is bad for the morale of families, bad for the upbringing of their children . . . What about the extra 40,000? What about those living without any hope at all? What about those-now 400,000 or more-permanently living in caravans? What about those with no homes at all? What is the future for young Australians? What about those bankrupted through their inability to meet huge payments? Is there any conscience in this Government on this issue? No-not a bit of it. Every action makes bankruptcy a greater possibility. Every policy of this Hawke-Keating lot makes it worse and worse. Let me deal with interest rates. Two years ago, in December 1984, the savings bank interest rate was 11.5 per cent; in December 1986 it was 15.5 per cent. The rate for permanent building societies was 13.25 per cent in December 1984 and up to 15.63 per cent by December 1986. What did the Government promise? It promised that things were rosy. Those figures come from the monthly economic and social indicators. The gimmick of this 13.5 per cent maximum is crazy, as everything else in the economic package is crazy. To bribe banks with $145m so that a phoney figure can be cited does little for the thousands of people paying 17 per cent or 18 per cent or more and who are generally not as capable of meeting those payments anyway. The recipients of the $145m, the paragons of fiscal virtue, are the same main purveyors of the famous cocktail mortgages-so much at 13.5 per cent, the balance at 18 to 20 per cent. Let us remember that interest rates are not at the top. They are still going higher. Our high interest rates are of course deliberate Government policy. Interest suffers with the cost of defloating our floating dollar. This is the same thing that makes foreigners put money into Australia and makes Australians borrow overseas. The cost of this is put on the cost of housing and then the added cost of owning is enormous. Does the Government care? Not a bit. Not only does it not care: it is instigating it. The new factor in home finance is this index of affordability. Historically it was universal that buyers could not undertake any commitment exceeding 25 per cent of their average weekly earnings. Now, many are way past the crisis level and up to 35 per cent of average weekly earnings or more. What is worse is that during 1986 lending by the unsubsidised building societies dropped by 36 per cent. Funds for new houses, as against previously occupied houses, fell from 26 per cent to 21 per cent of total lending, and most lending is going to up-market existing dwellings to other than first home buyers. Nationally the cost has risen by 45 per cent in two years. It has risen from 21.3 per cent to 26.7 per cent in one year, even on increased incomes. The Institute of Public Affairs in its current journal points out two things. Firstly, in regard to housing costs, home buyers are spending on housing payments twice what their forebears spent in the late 1960s, while governments are taxing them more ruthlessly than before. It also points out in a very interesting graph that, for anybody who is on 75 per cent of average weekly earnings, the proportion of after tax income spent on housing rose from 24.4 per cent in 1968-69 to 32 per cent by 1973-74 and to 43.5 per cent by 1985-86. Of the after-tax income of low income earners, 43.5 per cent goes on housing. What is this Government doing about that? Not a thing. All it is doing is finding other taxes and higher taxes for these low income earners to make the situation even worse. Senator Chaney —It is forcing people into poverty. Senator ARCHER —It is forcing people into poverty. A Real Estate Institute of Australia Press release of 22 February brings home the stark realities also, where it states: . . . the report released today shows the ratio of average monthly home loan repayments to medium family income at 26.7 per cent across the nation. . . It then goes on to show that in my own State, Tasmania, housing loans repayments have increased by 35 per cent at a time when weekly incomes have increased by only 5.2 per cent. The effect this is having on business generally in Tasmania is appalling. Retailers and commercial people generally are finding that suddenly the money is drying up. These are only averages that I am talking about. Many people are far worse off than the averages. Does it stop there? No, of course it does not. The Government then brought in a fringe benefit tax to mop up any of the surplus that may have got missed in the run. These young people will not forget. They are angry and disappointed. How can they pay? They are in terrible trouble. For those who fall into arrears the trouble gets worse and the mortgage insurers move in. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation annual report states: About three quarters of loans falling into default in 1985-86 had been made in the previous two years, and more than 90 per cent in the previous three years. Over two thirds of those were loans of more than 90 per cent of valuation at their establishment. Senator Chaney —This is all under Hawke. Senator ARCHER —This is all under Hawke. We have only to look at the latest figures for the first six months of 1986 which indicate that there was a rise of 70 per cent in the number of people who were listed as borrowers in arrears. It rose from 1,027 to 1,744 in just six months. I have put a question on notice asking for the figures for the next six months. When I get those figures I will certainly make known the result these Government policies are having. The only thing I will guarantee is that there will be no improvement. This lot of people are angry also. They are angry with this wretched economic pattern against home ownership. They are angry that home ownership, and everyone's ambition can go so wrong when they are trying to do everything right. The appalling record is reflected in the figures as well. After all the huffing and puffing over the pumped up figures in 1984-85 the crash came with a vengeance. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised us 145,000 housing starts and it appears that we now stand no chance of exceeding 120,000. The figures are disastrous. In 1984-85 there were 160,415 dwelling approvals, in 1985-86 there were 140,655 and for the first six months of 1986-87 the figure was down to 61,294-a further 20 per cent drop. All I am prepared to say is that it is still going down and will get a lot worse. Senator Chaney —It's dropping by what-about 20,000 a year? Senator ARCHER —By 20,000 a year. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has produced figures which show that new residential building in the September quarter was down 20 per cent and that the value of work done was down 16 per cent. Everything one looks at in the housing area is getting worse. The slump is disastrous and it is occurring at the same time as a huge interest rise, high and rising inflation, a major sell-off of rental housing and a rise in the number of people registered for government rental housing. And the Government is doing absolutely nothing about it. When the figures were being pumped up the Prime Minister was puffing and huffing and saying that every 10,000 houses represented 15,000 extra jobs. Out there the figures are the same. A loss of 30,000 completions represents several things also. It represents a loss of 45,000 jobs, including probably 30,000 skilled tradesmen, most of whom will never go back to the industry again. It also produces a heartbreak for those who really thought they could get a house of their own. The crazy pumping up of the 1985-86 figures was a disaster. Now to rental properties. There are many reasons for owning rental property. Some are retained by owners who have moved, some were inherited, some are owned by people working overseas and some are owned by people who have bought a second house to keep for their retirement. Very few produce a high income, but they do produce a bit of security. But every single one of those houses provides accommodation to people who need it. Then what happened? The Government moved in and said: `We will soon stop this; we will put on a capital gains tax, then we will disallow negative gearing, then we will see whether we can catch people who get some fringe benefits and so on'. Why would anybody now want to own rental housing? The result of all this is the greatest divestment of rental property in Australia's history. The result is that the number of houses for rental goes down and down, engineered by the Government and its anti-home ownership policy. What is the result? The Real Estate Institute of Australia is able to tell us. In one of its recent news releases it pointed out that the rental vacancy in Sydney was 0.7 per cent. To all intents and purposes this is way past what is regarded as full total occupancy. `Sydney vacancy rates hit rock bottom' is the heading. This situation does not exist only in Sydney. The vacancy rate is as low as 1.7 per cent in Melbourne and 1.9 per cent in Perth. Anybody who has had any experience in real estate will say that anything under 3 or 3 1/2 per cent is full occupancy. The figures will not improve; I can promise honourable senators that. The would-be tenants-the people who are queuing up at real estate agents' offices-are angry with this Hawke-Keating Government. What this Government is trying to achieve, if it knows, is absolutely crazy. Amongst all this the Housing Industry Association is still saying that the costs are going up and up whether one is buying or renting. The Housing Industry Association said in its annual report that one in five of all Australians are now paying more than 35 per cent of their income in rent. To quote further the article in which the statement of Mr Murray of the Master Builders Federation was reported: Perhaps even more critical- and it was talking about the lack of building- is the decline in availability of rental housing. In the 1970s, private rental housing formed almost 30 per cent of the market, but that figure recently has dropped to under 20 per cent. Where is all this heading? How long can we go on in this ridiculous manner? There are now 160,000 families on waiting lists for public housing. When the Hawke-Keating mob moved to the treasury bench the figure was about 100,000. In 1983, it was 123,000; in 1984, 135,000; in 1985, 142,000; and in 1986, 154,000. All that was arranged and organised by the Hawke-Keating Government. What chance do young people have? We must remember that there can be no recovery at all without the full participation of the private sector. Right now, the Government does not and will not recognise that. It does so at its peril. There can be no recovery without the private sector. The Government must have some plan for housing starts. Will the figure be the 145,000 promised by the Prime Minister, or the 135,000 predicted by the Indicative Planning Council? Is it the revised figure of 130,000 or the later revised figure of 125,000, or is it 122,000? I would say that the figure will be under 120,000. That is what I will bet on. The figures and the prospects are getting worse. Material costs are getting higher, inflation is rampant, interest rates are about to explode again, and there is no prospect for improvement. I suggest that the figure will be between 115,000 and 118,000. How could first home buyers proceed given the prospects ahead of them? It is not a very satisfactory situation at best. Even before the banana day mini-Budget of 14 May, what are they going to do? What is the future of the young people of Australia who need a roof over their head so they can raise a family and get some security? How can they pay? I will quote the headlines of a few newspaper articles which have been placed on my desk in the past few weeks: `Hike in home loan bill hits hard'-the Age; `Agents condemn Government's policies'-the Australian; `Home loans cost more despite government aid: survey'-the Australian; `Home loan ceiling to stay: West'-the Age; `Interest rise traps renters, group says'-the Sydney Morning Herald; `Interest bars home buyers'-the Australian; `Plight of the homeless deepens as rents rise'-the Sydney Morning Herald; `Home loan payments jump 36pc'-the Mercury; `Park residents tell of life as fringe dwellers'-the Age; `Homeless to be counted for first time in special survey'-the Age; `Shine rubs off home loan record'-the Australian; and so it continues. Those reports are coming through all the time. Newspaper editorials to that effect are coming through, indicating that the newspapers see the issue as one of importance. What an absolute mess the Government has created! This is no crisis; it is a disaster. There is no drought; there is no America's Cup; there is no test match; there is nothing to blame but the Government itself and its crazy, ideological, unrealistic approach to probably the most fundamental issue to every Australian. The classics of this Government will be long remembered. There was the trilogy-that statement of faith and hope which has been destroyed and is gone forever; the accord, which gave the Government's masters what they asked for and was called an agreement; the J-curve, which was a confidence trick to get people to expect less bad news longer; and the comment about a banana republic. Of all the predictions and statements of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others, that looks like being the only one to be true. Where will that get the young people of Australia who want to be housed, who need to be housed and on whom the future of the country will depend? We need those people to be settled. We need them to make contributions to the community. We want to be able to give them a fair and reasonable go. Under this Government they will not get it. Is it any wonder that they are angry out there. I believe that the passing of the motion today would be one of the steps in the right direction. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(3.24) —Mr Deputy President-- Senator Walters —They haven't got a Minister again. Senator AULICH —I rise to speak and yet I get an interjection before I have mentioned anything other than your title, Mr Deputy President. It is very interesting, is it not? Today, we are debating a motion moved by the Opposition which criticises the Government for its policies on housing and interest rates. It is strange that those who do not have a policy in that area and who failed to deliver during their seven years in government should be determined to initiate this public debate today. It would be more productive for them if they sorted out their own policies and dealt with the divine windbag from the north who is blowing a hole in all their policies-let alone in their housing and taxation policies-before they ventured into this chamber to try to get a debate which would be of use to the public at large. After all, the public is entitled to consider what options are around in terms of both delivery and future policy. Certainly we have not seen the delivery, and we have yet to see the policy. It would have been more appropriate for the issue to have been raised at a later date but, as it has been raised today, we as a Government are quite happy to answer and refute the sorts of charges that have been made by Senator Archer. Actions speak louder than words, even in this benighted chamber. For the sake of the record, I will remind the Senate of the massive improvements in housing and economic management that the Government has been able to bring about in the four short years that it has been in office-improvements that have been made in the face of harsh economic realities bearing down on this country. The housing industry has been lifted out of the doldrums in which it was placed when the Fraser Government was in office, enabling many more Australians to purchase their own homes than was possible in the Fraser years. Let us consider housing starts. Only 105,000 commencements occurred in 1982-83, the last year of the Fraser Government, By 1984-85, we had increased that to 152,700, a 45 per cent increase on the previous year-the highest increase since the Whitlam years of 1973-74. Since then, the figures have been 136,000 in 1985-86, a predicted 122,000 in 1986-87, and a predicted 130,000 in 1987-88. Senator Archer —Rubbish! Senator AULICH —The Opposition can say: `Rubbish!' It can talk about the future as if it has some control over it. It does have one impact in the sense that it is constantly trying to talk down the Australian economy, business confidence and consumer confidence. Sometimes that sort of talking down has an effect. It is a negative, carping approach which does no good for this country and no good for confidence in all sorts of areas, particularly the retail industry. However, the Opposition continues with it because, basically, it is negative. Its members do not really care about being back in government. Their behaviour over the past three or four weeks shows that many of them are intent on staying on the Opposition benches. I turn to employment in the housing and construction industry. In August 1986, the figure stood at 491,000, which means that 70,000 more people were employed in that industry over the figure that prevailed when we first came to office. A total of 70,000 more people were employed in the industry than was the case during the benighted Fraser years. A comparison with the Fraser Government is again relevant when we look at home lending. In the last three years of the Fraser Government we saw 735,000 home loans by major lenders. In three years of Labor, we saw the figure jump 179,000 over the figure for the Fraser period; that is, 179,000 extra Australian families were given a chance to own their own homes-people who would not have had that chance under the Fraser Government. In April 1986, we established a housing package intended to maintain the high level of activity in that area. As many people know, the package included maintaining a ceiling of 13 1/2 per cent on existing loans, providing protection for 900,000 existing home buyers who were clients of banks. The Government provided $145m as a supplement to those banks to keep interest rates down. In return, the banks agreed to lend $6 billion for housing in 1986-87 and to promote the concept of low start loans, a system of lending which provides for heavier repayments to be made later in a person's life rather than at an earlier stage when personal commitments, such as children and lower salaries, make high repayments more difficult. The result is that the $6 billion target will be met. In fact, it will be about $8 billion. Fifteen per cent of all those loans have been granted on a low start basis. A further result that savings bank deposits increased by around 13 per cent in the year ended December 1986. Again, that is a reflection of the increasing confidence that Australians have had over the past three years. Let us consider public housing. In 1984 we renegotiated the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement to broaden the range of people who could qualify for assistance to make the purchase of public housing easier, especially as we based those repayments on the applicant's income. We increased total spending in that area to $1,278m in 1986-87, up 130 per cent on funding to public housing supplied by the Liberals in 1982-83-not a bad change in that area. No credit has been given for that by the current Opposition spokesman on housing, Senator Archer. I have not heard him mention one word about that increased public spending. It was certainly not mentioned when his fellow Tasmanian Kevin Newman was in charge of this area. Let us consider the first home owners scheme, which we introduced in October 1983. The basic formula was about $6,000 for a deposit subsidy, interest subsidy or a mixture of both. Since then over $1 billion has been committed, with 220,000 successful applicants, people who did not need a savings record as was the case under previous Liberal governments. This was one of the major success stories of the Hawke Government. Again, this was not once mentioned by the Opposition spokesman on housing. Why? Because it would kill him to give credit where credit is due. It would kill him to think about the people out there who have been given a chance by this Government over the last three or four years to buy their own homes or to get into public housing. So, in a difficult economic situation, the Government has revived the housing industry and pulled it out of the doldrums that existed under the Fraser Government, opening the housing door to many more Australians than was the case previously. All of this has been achieved, as I have said, in difficult economic circumstances, at a time when necessary major restructuring of the Australian economy is being organised by this Government. It has not been easy. We are facing a different world in terms of housing than the world which faced our parents and the home owners or home buyers of the 1960s. It is sheer hypocrisy for the Liberal Party and the National Party to pretend that we are living in that world. We are not living in that cocooned, insulated world. We are living in a world where economic realities are facing us every day as a result of the Australian dollar-for example, measuring our performance as a nation against other nations. Housing is no longer insulated from the total economic activity of this country. Housing loans are no longer being favoured vis-a-vis other types of loans, with the exception, as I have said, of the ceiling of 13 1/2 per cent. It was easy in those days for people to go out and borrow at low interest rates. It was easy for people to own their own homes in that period simply because housing was a favoured area of the Australian economy and because people in those days were quite happy to have low returns on their savings bank accounts, on the spare cash they had to invest. For example, I recall 4 per cent being a most suitable return for most people on an investment in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Those days are gone. It is foolish and hypocritical of the Opposition to attempt to bring them back because, as I said, we are now in a world of international monetary connection rather than being something that just sits out on a limb at the end of the Pacific. In light of the fact that we are in this different economic situation where harder decisions have to be taken about the economy, the Government's activities ought to be commended. I remind honourable senators, and in this case the shadow spokesman for housing, that unit trusts, for example-one area of arm's length investment-have been growing at about 30 per cent per annum and are now worth about $10 billion in unlisted trusts alone. It is hypocritical to talk about people expecting low interest loans for their houses if they, ordinary investors, are quite happy to go into unlisted trusts, unit trusts or other forms of arm's length management and investment accounts to seek high interest rates. Somewhere along the line we have to take tit for tat. One pays higher interest rates if one, and every other Australian citizen, is looking for higher returns on one's investment. It is these unit trusts and other arm's length management accounts that the Opposition has been promoting as a way of life and a way of investment in this community. So I am surprised that the Opposition is calling for a return to the 1960s at the very time it is encouraging people to maximise their investment returns in other areas. The two just do not fit. We live in one world or the other. We cannot have our feet straddling both the 1950s and the 1980s. Let us consider the interest rate question raised by the Opposition. At the outset it must be said that this criticism of the Government is coming from a group of people who had seven years in government, who had the chance to make the tough decision about restructuring the Australian economy so that we would be competitive in the 1990s. What did they do? They were dishonest. They allowed, and even encouraged, Australians to go on believing that we could be insulated behind barriers as if the rest of the world owed us a living. When oil, coal and iron ore prices were up, when Bass Strait oil was flowing and the world markets were much better we had the revenue to decrease our international debts. What did we do? What did Mr Howard, the Treasurer, and Mr Fraser do about restructuring Australia's secondary industry during that period of greater returns on our resource commodities? The answer is nothing. What did Mr Howard and the Liberals do about the current account deficit, which had reached 6 per cent of gross domestic product in 1981-82? The answer again is nothing. What did they do about wages, which were out of control and which were damaging our competitiveness, and about the industrial relations problems we had at the time which were damaging our reliability? They did nothing. What did they do about inflation, which reached 11 per cent? They did nothing. What did they do about the three quarters of a million people who were unemployed in this country during that period? The answer is nothing. What did they do about floating the Australian dollar, a measure which they knew they had to take to ensure that Australia's financial situation was more responsible to international markets? They did nothing. The Treasurer, Mr Howard, kept the dollar at a false level which was so overvalued it damaged the secondary industries and farmers who relied on overseas markets. Senator Archer knows very well that that was the major problem facing the Fraser Government in that period, yet it did nothing. I did not hear his voice being raised in criticism at the time. The previous Government's record of management, in short, was appalling. It was cynical, geared as it was to winning elections. There was one thing that Malcolm Fraser could do well: He could win election after election. He had a great record of winning elections, but a terrible record of turning this country around to a position of competitiveness with comparative countries, particularly those in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and particularly in terms of preparing us to face the 1990s. The children, the young people whom Senator Archer talks about, were let down during that period of cynical manipulation of the Australian economy, that period of cowardice in the face of some of the decisions that should have been made. Let us consider some of those decisions as we are talking about tax and interest rates. Everyone knows that the double tax on dividends that had operated since 1936 was a major handicap to private enterprise, particularly to small companies. What did Mr Howard do about it at the time? He literally did nothing. I believe that he tried to move it in Cabinet at one stage but backed off when again he was told that the Treasury could not afford it-advice from his own officers. Who did it? This Government did it. Who is being respected in the business community for removing double taxation on dividends? This Government is being respected, not the Opposition, which now sits so humbly on the other side of this chamber. I refer now to the consumption tax, about which John Howard has made so many promises recently-or at least he did until the divine windbag from the north, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, scattered his policies all over the place. Who tried it? We did. Again, Mr Howard and his spokesman in this chamber speak of the need to reduce marginal tax rates. He had the opportunity. He had seven years in government. He had revenues from Bass Strait oil. He had revenues from taxation on all the resources development that was occurring in this country. He had revenue from the high market prices that were being fetched for raw materials leaving this country. What did he do about it? He did nothing. We were the ones who had the courage to forsake the revenue and to cut personal income tax rates, moving them back ultimately to the 49 per cent or so that I think is an appropriate level. So Mr Howard goes from first having no courage to cut even one cent off the marginal tax rates to now calling for a rate of 30-odd per cent. Where is the honesty in a person who, when he had seven years in government, did nothing about removing the burden on ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers and who then suddenly takes a revolutionary, radical, and tough position when in opposition? I cannot have much respect for that sort of person; even Joh Bjelke-Petersen has no respect for that sort of person and the community at large has no respect for that sort of person. What about the Howard tax policy, as opposed to the Sinclair tax policy or the Bjelke-Petersen tax policy? We have already costed the options. The Opposition agrees that our costings are basically accurate. The conclusion we have come to, depending on whether or not we account for the future introduction of a consumption tax, leaves us with a deficit of approximately $14 billion. That $14 billion is based upon the resurrection of a number of tax rorts which this Government put out of operation after many years of their operating to distort the Australian economy and investment to the point where people were more concerned about minimising and evading their income tax and company tax than about ensuring that their companies were investing profitably and positively for the future. That distortion is now coming home to roost. It is stinging those people in the business community who have based their personal life styles and company activities upon the sorts of rorts that were allowed to stay in the tax system for so many years. Many honourable senators opposite agree with me; they are nodding their heads because they know that a tax on the rorts and ramps should have occurred a long time ago when the Opposition was in government. One would hope that if ever the Opposition gets the opportunity to get back into government-it may be a long time, so we will give Opposition senators the chance to think about it-the Opposition will take the opportunity to maintain the attack that we are making on these people who have rorted the system for so many years. I want to look at some of those areas of rorts and ramps that the Opposition wants to bring back for the sake of those people who have been pushing within the Opposition parties. I mention the cost of some of them, just for the record. Firstly, the fringe benefits tax and substantiation: For those people in the real world who have been confused about some of the noise made about the fringe benefit tax, much of it is really a tax on those people who believe that they can drive a Mercedes or Jaguar at the taxpayers' expense; take their wives out to dinner three times a week and charge it to the operating costs of the company at the taxpayers' expense; send their children to private schools and charge it to the company; or have holidays overseas and charge them to the company-ultimately at the expense of the ordinary taxpayers in the community. That is what the fringe benefits tax is all about. It is a tax to attempt to ensure that benefits paid to people are paid in the form of a decent salary, rather than the rorts which were becoming part of the system. The tax deductibility of entertainment expenses was in the same boat, as is the capital gains tax. That applies to people who did not want to make a return on their capital investments at a reasonable level which would suit their shareholders and themselves, but who wanted to sit on an asset and let it grow into a major capital gain which they disposed of at a later date without paying tax on it. That was one of the few rorts that remained anywhere in the Western world in relation to capital gains. It was still in the system when we came to government. Negative gearing was a system where by doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs and thieves put their money into farms, which drove up the price of land in a particular area, and then wrote off the income from their businesses against a farm which did not even need to be productive. The basis of that whole rort was to make a loss. If the Opposition still supports the bringing in of these rorts and ramps, as it has indicated in the past week or so, God help it when it has to face the electorate at large. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.44) —It seems to me that on an almost quarterly basis in this chamber, at least since I have been in the Senate, we have launched ourselves into a debate on the problems facing home owners at that point in time and attempted to put our finger on what the real cause is. We on this side of the chamber did it regularly during the last years of the Fraser Government when there was such intense rage in the mortgage belts at the ever-increasing interest rates that were applying to their home loans and we have done it periodically during the terms of the last two Labor governments. Senator Archer —They didn't know when they were well off, did they? Senator HAINES —Senator Archer and I in the last couple of years have regularly got to our feet and complained about this, but just as regularly I got to my feet-and the then Labor front bencher got to his-and complained about the same situation when the Fraser Government was in power. It seems that this is yet another area where there is not much difference between the policies, and hence the consequences of the policies, of the two major parties. In Senator Archer's contribution he talked about the fact that this was an unrivalled crisis. I beg to differ. If he goes back and looks at the situation which applied in 1981-82 he will discover that the number of mortgagee sales was rising on a monthly basis as interest rates rose, sometimes at one per cent a month. The people living in those ordinary, average homes simply could not balance that against their wages and salaries, which were basically remaining static. So I do not agree that this is an unrivalled crisis, although I agree with Senator Archer that it is a crisis which needs the attention of any government which even pretends to be a caring government. This is not the most anti-housing government in living memory, but it probably comes perilously close to it. Those of us who have been here even in the last five years know that something similar was happening only a few years ago. Another point which we have been raising, and which Senator Archer raised, is the increasing number of homeless people or people living in quite unsatisfactory forms of accommodation-accommodation which was meant to be temporary but which has been turned into permanent accommodation, sometimes for families with several children. Senator Archer's reference to the fact that some 400,000 people or more are living permanently in caravans is an indictment of this Government, but over the last five years or so there has been an increasing number of people, including youngsters in their teens, who are either totally without housing or living in quite inappropriate accommodation. I share Senator Archer's concern about the fact that this Government bribed the banks-that certainly is an appropriate word to use in this case-with $145m in order to encourage them, shall we say, to keep the 13.5 per cent ceiling on existing loans while allowing new loans to be increased. I point out to Senator Archer that it was his Party which supported this. It agreed to the deal between the Government and the banks which has done nothing to help. In fact, it has only encouraged the banks in recent days to look to getting a further handout of money under the threat of withholding finance for housing loans or letting people suffer from increasing interest rates. Senator Aulich —They can try this time. Senator HAINES —I certainly hope that the Government does not succumb to it because, far from allowing any form of deregulation of this type, the Government should be putting a lid on housing interest rates and pursuing some of the other areas where there are anomalies which reflect on the housing interest market. We are losing to Consolidated Revenue hundreds of millions of dollars annually because the Government-and I presume the Opposition would continue it-has a tax policy which is extremely preferential in its treatment of certain business dealings. It is preferential to those business dealings regardless of whether they are productive, how much they contribute to this country's economic development, how many extra exports are produced and how many jobs are created. The continual allowing of negative gearing for large companies which borrow large amounts of money from overseas for essentially non-productive takeover bids and share raids is contributing very largely to the problem we have here. Every dollar that we lose to Consolidated Revenue is a dollar that cannot be put into concessions that are certainly offered to people overseas who have mortgages on homes-things such as allowing ordinary home owners to deduct all or part of the interest payments on their home loans. If we allow businesses to deduct that sort of non-productive interest repayment, surely there is even more reason for allowing home loan borrowers to deduct those interest repayments, because in a very real sense they are contributing to employment and to development in this country. I suspect that under a Liberal government this would not change, that home loan mortgage holders will still not be able to deduct even part of their interest rates, and that the big business companies and so on will be able to continue to do it. I suggest too that this Government will de- regulate housing interest rates at its peril. I hope that I do not see even partial deregulation occurring. Despite comments from some of the banks indicating that interest rates for housing loans will and should rise, I think this Government ought to have a look at what happened to the Fraser Government in 1983 when the mortgage belt in particular gave it a considerable vote of no confidence and threw it out of office, very largely because housing interest rates had been allowed to go through the ceiling. Senator Aulich —Do you think the banks are greedy? Senator HAINES —Far be it for me to say anything like that. The fact that they are making record profits, and have been doing so for the last three years, and are still demanding the opportunity to make even greater profits does not, I am sure, indicate that they are greedy. I am sure it indicates that they have the interests of their shareholders in mind. Unfortunately, what they do not have in mind are the interests of the average Australian home buyer who realises that the cost of housing has been increasing at a much greater rate than the income to that home from wages and salaries. In South Australia, for example, average monthly loan repayments increased by $134. That is something that the average family, particularly if it is a single income family, cannot keep up with indefinitely. We have talked in this place year after year about how owning a home has been the dream of all Australian families, to a far greater degree than it has ever been known to be overseas. But for some it will be a dream that is destined not to come true unless this Government and successive governments come to terms with the problems that those people are facing. The Real Estate Institute of Australia survey that was published in the Age last month indicated that many families are expending a far greater proportion of their income on mortgage repayments than ever before-far greater than they ever expected. According to the REIA report based on a national survey during the 1986 September quarter, families are paying an average of 26.7 per cent of income on home loan repayments. That is an extraordinary burden for any family to bear when we are talking about a necessity, that is, housing. It is not a luxury, it is not a choice; it is a necessity. In some States people are paying as high as 28.7 per cent of their income simply on meeting the repayments on their home loans. That is a very real indictment of this Government and, as I said earlier, it is no consultation to know that this crisis is not the product of the last 12 months or even of the 12 months before that, but the result of an on-going refusal by governments to consider the realities of the problem and to look at disparities in the tax system, to look at anomalies, in particular in the tax concession system, and to attempt to right what is a very great wrong. Consequently, the rate of dwelling approvals has recently decreased rapidly as in fact it decreased in the last year of the Fraser Government. Again, I draw that similarity to the attention of honourable senators opposite. The Fraser Government did suffer at the hands of the electorate. The symptoms are there now to indicate that this Government is facing very similar problems. I suggest that rather than worrying about placating the Alan Bonds, the Holmes a Courts, the Fairfaxes, the Murdochs and the John Elliotts of this world it start looking at where its votes will be coming from at the next election and the needs of those electors. The rate of lending for housing was $7.1 billion in the last year of the Fraser Government, and the rate for the last 12 months of the Hawke Government is not much higher. Even allowing for inflation, $11.5 billion is perilously close to being the equivalent of the $7.1 billion in the last year of the Fraser Government. It is a lesson that needs to be learned. What is worse is the situation of public housing, which is the only other area that people can go to if they cannot afford to buy a home and do not want to go into a caravan. We have touched on an area in which presumably, the Opposition parties are not particularly interested. Mind you, Mr Deputy President, this Government has not evinced any great enthusiasm recently for this area. The situation in public housing is even worse than that in the private sector. Commonwealth funding for public housing fell over the full period of the Fraser Government by over 60 per cent in real terms. The Hawke Government, admittedly, has increased expenditure on public housing, but the increase is so inadequate that the outstanding applications for public housing stand at well over 110,000. Add that to the 400,000 people who are living in caravans and we have a very sizable part of the population that is either unhoused or inappropriately housed. Senator Archer —It is 160,000. Senator HAINES —Senator Archer is saying 160,000. I knew it was well over 110,000 but I did not have the time to get the exact figure. I thank him for that information. Essentially we are looking at a very large group of people who are simply destitute as far as housing is concerned. The housing crisis is not a new thing; it has existed for as many years as many of us have been in this place. That is no excuse. In fact, it is a far greater criticism of the policy makers and the decision makers in this place that after all these years ordinary average Australian families have still not been given the sort of assistance they need to cope with rising interest rates, lack of public housing funding, and inadequate housing generally. I suggest, however, that the housing crisis is not exclusively due to the high rate of interest, but there is no denying, as Senator Archer and others have pointed out, that it is a significant factor. I point out that interest rates are not a problem just in the housing sector. The small business sector in general is suffering very badly through its incapacity to borrow because of high interest rates, as are those wanting to establish new businesses and those who are involved in the highly debt ridden farming sector. I suggest to this Government that, if it wants to survive a record third term as a Labor government, it make some adjustment to its tax and interest rates policies. Those might well include questioning the value of negative gearing for non-productive company takeovers and the requirement that some of our big superannuation and life funds invest in Australia instead of offshore. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(3.59) —I support Senator Archer in his matter of urgency which deals with high interest rates and high taxation policies that are having a disastrous impact on home buyers and prospective home buyers. It was interesting to hear the response from the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to a question earlier from Senator Archer. I thought that the quality of the answer indicated that Senator Ryan was not particularly well briefed. I am disappointed that she is so uninformed on the subject that she is not joining in this debate on behalf of the Government. With due respect for Senator Aulich, it is such an important subject that I would have thought it merited the attention of a Minister at least instead of him. I note from the brief tabled at the request of Senator Chaney that this does not give much joy to the Minister anyway. It is quite laughable. In the resume of this document it is stated: The Government's economic strategy, including the Budget setting for 1986-87, is directed at providing an environment conducive to achieving lower interest rates. At this stage it appears that any reductions in market rates that may occur over the course of 1987 will not be sufficiently sustained or pronounced to result in reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987. Accordingly, it appears unlikely that reductions in housing loan interest rates will occur until the first half of 1988 at the earliest. The document then refers to action taken by the Reserve Bank of Australia, which has had the result of placing upward pressure on general levels of short term interest rates. Further, it points out: The Report of the Indicative Planning Council to be presented to the March 1987 meeting of the Australian Housing Council will contain an assumption that any reductions in market rates that occur this year will not be sufficient to allow reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987. It goes on to say that housing rate reductions may occur in the first half of 1988, but it is unlikely that there will be any significant impact on building activity until the second half of that year. Australians will remember that in early 1983 the then Hawke-led Opposition campaigned throughout the mortgage belt suburbs of Australian cities on the basis that only through Labor could home buyers ensure low interest payments on their dwellings. Senator Aulich in his contribution spent most of his time dealing with macroeconomic situations. He ignored the expectations of so many Australians who have worked hard, expecting that their enterprise would be rewarded with improved living standards. These expectations have been shattered by the explosion of government spending and debt. Public spending today amounts to 45 per cent of our gross domestic product and the increase during the term of the Hawke Government is the most far-reaching structural change the Australian economy has ever experienced. Australians generally are prepared to make sacrifices if the result is worthwhile, but under the Hawke-Keating Administration large amounts of public expenditure have gone to small public interest groups whose main aim is to destroy Australian society. People are totally disenchanted with this gross waste of their hard-earned money. They want to know, for example, how much of their money went to stage the so-called gay mardi gras in Sydney last weekend. I could go on and point to the many excesses that demonstrate the present Government's waste. Those who had already embarked upon the purchase of a house are now spending twice what their forebears spent in the late 1960s on house repayments. At the same time they are being taxed more ruthlessly than ever before. The increase in interest rates on loans outstanding has turned their dream of owning a house into a nightmare and in some cases has shattered them beyond restitution altogether. The Hawke Australian Labor Party Government is crushing the very people who are its main pillar of support-the rock solid, taxpaying, middle class family. Our national debt is increasing at the rate of $4.6m an hour. In building and construction terms, Australia's debt is increasing at a rate equal to the cost of one new Parliament House every ten days. The building industry is drastically affected by high interest rates, a decline in real household disposable income, a capital gains tax, the abolition of negative gearing for housing investment and various State government regulations. Despite what Senator Aulich has said about the wonderful ALP housing record, after falling by 20 per cent over the past two years new dwelling commencements are currently down to as low as 118,000-no higher than in 1981-82-compared with the 135,000 forecast by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). This level of new dwelling commencements is as low as the 1981-82 level when the Fraser Government was grappling with the worst world-wide depression since 1929 and Australia was in the middle of one of the worst droughts in its history. No excuse can be made at this time. The fact is that sustained improvement cannot occur in the housing area until interest rates fall substantially. Over the past six months funds for new dwellings have declined from 26 per cent of total housing lending to 21 per cent, while money for the purchase of existing dwellings and alterations or additions to houses has increased from 74 per cent to 79 per cent during the same period. Over the past two years new home loan interest rates have risen from 11.5 per cent to 15 per cent, and in the case of the National Australia Bank the rate is as high as 17.5 per cent in certain cases. My colleague Senator Peter Baume tabled in the Senate on Monday a document which showed that the average family is now spending more than 25 per cent of its gross income on home loan repayments. That is an absolute indictment of a Government that is supposed to be looking after the young people and the middle class people of Australia who want to build their own homes. The first home owners scheme continues to run down at an increasing rate. Potential first home buyers face increased prices, increased interest rates and a diminishing household disposable income. Thus, progressively the dreams of our young homemakers fade away. The Hawke Government, through its negative gearing and capital gains tax policies, has virtually destroyed investor housing. Over the past four years it has declined from 25 per cent of the housing market to 9 per cent and, as a result, privately owned dwellings for rental have decreased, with vacancy rates down and rents increasing faster than the rate of inflation. As a result, waiting lists for public housing have increased during the past four years from 100,000 to over 160,000-Senator Archer reminded Senator Haines of that a while ago-at a time when government spending must be curtailed. An increasing number of Australians are forced to live in caravan parks; that figure is now in excess of 400,000. However, up to 100,000 Australians are now permanently or temporarily homeless. In this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless I believe that the Government must get its priorities right, and I hope that it will take the opportunity to do so in the proposed May mini-Budget. How have average home loan repayments increased since the 1984 election? I have a table which indicates that, in New South Wales, average home loan repayments have increased from $472 to $678 a month since the 1984 election, when this Labor Government was returned to power. In Victoria the figure has increased from $405 to $609 a month; in Queensland, from $413 to $532; in South Australia, from $415 to $622; in Western Australia, from $368 to $495; in Tasmania, from $293 to $468; and, in the Australian Capital Territory, from $541 to $871. Senator Archer —Enormous! Senator JESSOP —These are enormous increases. I saw a housewife being interviewed on a television program this morning. Her monthly housing commitment has risen by over $200 to something in excess of $500, I think she said. Her husband is now out of work because of a back injury, and she is desperate. At the moment she is hanging on very grimly. She has had consultations with the people from whom she received the loan and she is living from day to day fearful that that couple will have to sell their home and find alternative accommodation. That case is typical of many throughout Australia. The Opposition recognises that there is a desperate need for something to be done, firstly, to reduce public expenditure. This is an unpopular step for any government to take, I have no doubt, but it must occur. Other aspects of economic management must be addressed. I sincerely hope that the Government will do so in May. I am worried about the slump in the housing industry caused by the high loan repayments due to the level of interest rates. It is adversely affecting many ancillary industries. About half a million people are directly employed in the building industry throughout Australia and about the same number are employed by it indirectly. So we are looking at the employment prospects of one million people. A slump in the housing industry affects manufacturing industry-building supplies, PC items and tools. In the materials area, it affects resources such as timber, sand, gravel, stone and clay. The industry also enables many Australians to start their own business by subcontracting. So this matter seriously affects future employment. Although more money is available for housing now than in early 1986, increasingly the funds are being used for larger loans for more affluent Australians to purchase more expensive existing homes. I think Senator Haines mentioned that building society lending remains at lower levels, reflecting the $120m interest rate subsidy provided to the savings banks under the Government's housing assistance package of April last year. That was just a band-aid provision which has had only a very temporary affect. The Government needs to deal with the matter urgently and I hope it will do so in the mini-Budget in May. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.13) —I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Government's performance on the economy. Today the Opposition has offered us another pathetic challenge; this time a matter of urgency relating to housing, home ownership, interest rates and taxation. It is symptomatic of the chaos and confusion in the teetering ranks of the Opposition that it has the temerity to criticise the Government. Firstly, let me address the program of the Government. Since April last year its program has been typified by the very successful home ownership assistance package. Last year we pegged, and will continue to peg, the 13 1/2 per cent rate for those who took out loans before April last year in order to protect the nearly 1 1/2 million people associated with those 900,000 loans. We deregulated new loans with the result that many of the savings banks and building societies are continuing to provide loans at 15 1/2 per cent. The success of this package is reflected by the fact that there has been a great growth in savings bank deposits. In March last year they were running at only 2 per cent; in December last year it was increasing to the annual rate of 13.2 per cent. Prior to the package, savings bank lending was running at about $3,500m per year; after the package, in the three months to November last year, lending for savings banks was running at $9,000m per year. With regard to lending for all significant lenders, the December figures show that lending for housing was running at an annual rate of $13,000m. We are also continuing with the first home owners scheme, another successful initiative of this Government. Unlike the situation under the previous Government's deposit assistance scheme, loan applicants do not need a savings history, and an interest subsidy in a lump sum is paid out under this Government. The current rate of approvals is running between 700 and 800 per month. We are also pressing the banks to offer low start loans under the guidelines of the package. These loans are particularly important to first home owners. The Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr West, has pointed out the figures. With a 15 1/2 per cent interest loan of $50,000, repayments are $676 per month. In contrast, payments of $522 a month on a Commonwealth Savings Bank low start loan have the effect of making the starting rate of the loan about 9 1/2 per cent. This is another initiative of this Government. Unlike the Opposition, we intend to hold public housing policies in place. We have offered $1.3 billion to the States for 1986-87, which will result in some 18,000 additions to public housing stocks. We can compare this with the 8,500 additions in the last year of the former Government, the Fraser Government. Unfortunately, there has been a deadly silence from the Opposition about housing in the Fraser years. The figures we have on the board are very significant. We have increased employment in the housing and construction industry by 100,000 over the last three years of this Government. That is the evidence of the progress in housing made by the Hawke Labor Government. What is significant, of course, in the contributions of Senator Archer and Senator Jessop is that they have not dealt with the housing experience in the Fraser Government. They were both supporters of that Government. When the previous Government left office there were 105,000 starts a year. This compares with a figure now of 118,000 starts a year. The Opposition says that it will throw out the tied grants from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, the mortgage and rental relief schemes and the crisis accommodation program. When the Opposition was in power, after the Whitlam Government, it cut spending on public housing to $264m-40 per cent lower than the funding in the years of the Whitlam Government. It is worth while to recall what the Liberal and National parties did last time they were in office. In contrast, this Government has increased the funding by 42 per cent in real terms since we came to power. Supporters of the Opposition should be very worried today because we have had two senior front bench members of the Opposition speaking and they have not said what an Opposition housing or economic program is. They berated this Government but offered no alternatives on the vital question of taxation policy which is linked to the development of housing. I understand why Opposition members cannot say anything, because there is absolute confusion in their ranks as to what they might do. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, has already done some arithmetic. He has examined the Opposition's program. It is worth while having a look at what those opposite will actually do because people are entitled to know what an Opposition economic framework would be if they were to be successful. The first action that they would take in government would be to honour the promises they have made to return to members of the elite group in society they have represented over the years some of the money they had prior to this Government tightening up taxation. It would first return $900m from the fringe benefits tax and substantiation. It would give back $320m from tax deductibility of entertainment expenses and, of course, $25m from the capital gains tax. Although the capital gains tax was deplored by Senator Jessop, the lack of a capital gains tax distorted the development of our economy in the period of the Fraser Government and even before that. In addition, $10m would be restored by negative gearing for property investments. This gives a total of $1,345m that the Opposition has pledged from a repeal of this Government's reforms. All these measures that this Government brought in to bring equity into the taxation system will be jettisoned by the Liberal Party. There would then be less money for housing, and particularly for public sector housing. Contrary to what Senator Jessop said, such a significant loss to public revenue would mean a reduction in public sector housing. Of course, the Opposition has already made a long list of promises to its supporters. It would give $2,850m from income splitting. I do not know whether that is operative at the moment, because from day to day rumours rush through the Opposition ranks about what is in and what is out of its economic policy. Senator Jessop —You do not give details until the election is over. Senator CHILDS —An amount of $115m is promised from the repeal of the wine sales tax. Senator Jessop interjects that we will not know until the election is on. But the reality is that the people facing the problem of getting a home at the moment ought to know how realistic the Liberal and National parties' promises on housing are. The Opposition parties say that they will repeal the lump sum superannuation to save $85m. They will also introduce child care tax rebates of $115m-to favour the wealthy people in society. We know that at the end of this term the Labor Government will have doubled the number of child care places in this country. But the Opposition parties want to favour the elite, and so make this promise. All the money for housing must be found somewhere, and it makes a hypocrisy of the Opposition's suggestion that this Government is involved in high taxation. The Opposition will rebate petrol used by farmers and will restore income equalisation deposits and tax averaging, resulting in savings of $145m and $25m respectively. It will reinstitute the immediate write-off on conserving or conveying water, with a saving of $55m. It will abolish the sales tax on oils and lubricants, resulting in a saving of $70m, and remove the excise on brandy, saving $40m-giving a total of $3,840m. Of course, the promises do not stop there. In a statement in August last year Mr Howard made additional promises that have not yet been repudiated, and of course they include the repeal of the assets test, saving $160m. We then move to the Opposition's industrial relations policy. Once again it has two bob each way. On the one hand, it says that there will be a 12 months wage freeze, with the tremendous effect that that will have, probably taking $500m from wage earners. On the other hand, and in addition to that, it will also get rid of the Prices Surveillance Authority. So the Opposition will use the potential home buyers, in a way, by preventing them from being able to bring some pressure to bear upon rising prices. This is particularly important, because another sinister aspect of the Opposition's industrial relations policy is to force wage and salary earners to negotiate at plant level to try to get increases. There is a real threat of the law of the jungle with the industrial relations policy, and it is in sharp contrast to the stability of the Hawke Government's industrial relations policy, through the prices and incomes accord, which of course Senator Archer disparaged but which has been the basis of the economic recovery in this country over the last three years. Most sinister of all is the Opposition's tax policy, yet to be fully announced but based on newspaper reports, on partial announcements, and on the document which fell off a truck and which conveys thoughts of Senator Messner, the shadow Minister for finance and taxation matters. That is where the big money is going to come from because there is to be a rearrangement of the tax scales involving over $6 1/2 billion, a reduction in company tax of over $2 billion and, of course, the introduction of an 8 per cent broadly based consumption tax. It is the flat tax and the consumption tax promises of the Opposition that are particularly difficult for anybody concerned about home ownership, because what the Opposition has not told people is that the consumption tax will affect everything in the home-household furniture, curtains, blinds, electrical appliances, bed linen and household utensils. The last household survey carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 1984, showed that the average Australian spent $27.69 a week in this area. A consumption tax would add $115 a year to that bill. This shows that the Opposition does speak with a forked tongue because, without declaring what it does, it evokes sympathy for people who are facing difficulties at the moment-and we do not deny those difficulties-yet what it has in store for people who are struggling to buy a home will be far worse. I conclude by referring to what Senator Messner said about a flat tax. He said that 80 per cent of taxpayers earn below $27,000 and therefore would pay more tax. He warns his Liberal colleagues that the simplistic slogan of the National Party of Australia for a flat tax would have a devastating effect on anybody trying to buy a home, because 80 per cent of the people would be disadvantaged by the Liberal Party's flat tax proposals. Or are they those of the National Party leader from Queensland? Perhaps we will find out in a moment whether Senator Collard is going to support his Queensland Premier, his Leader, Mr Sinclair, or somebody else. We do not know what the Opposition will do. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.28) —It gives me great pleasure to stand here today and support my colleagues Senator Archer and Senator Jessop on this matter of urgency: The need of the Hawke Government to reverse its high interest rate and high taxation policies which are having such a disastrous impact on home owners and prospective home owners throughout Australia. We have just heard Senator Childs talk about everything else but that. I do not blame him for doing that, because he has no answer to the basic assumption in that matter of urgency. He asked: `What would you do? What are your policies?'. We are not the government; we are not even a government in exile. We are the Opposition and we are fully conversant with the tremendous damage that has been done to the economy of this nation by the Hawke Government in four terrible long years. When we get that tremendous damage down to a basic level, we see what it has done to the ordinary men and women in Australia. One of the basic aspects of it is vastly increased interest rates. I have some interesting quotations here. In an interview with John Laws on radio 2UE on 5 November 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: . . . because inflation is coming down and inflationary expectations are down, interest rates will come down too. The Prime Minister, in addressing a business lunch in Adelaide on 20 November 1984, said: At present, the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. I would hate to see what the interest rates would be now if they had not been looking so bright then. Again, in the address to the same business lunch, Mr Hawke said: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. My gosh; he is dead right. Are they not reaping the rewards of the past policies of this Labor Government? Mr Keating, on the P.M. program on 14 March 1985, said: I still stand by the remark I made in the election campaign that I think there is an interest rate step fall ahead for Australia and its interest rate structure generally through 1985. Mr Keating, we are still waiting! The Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr West, in the House of Representatives on 12 November 1985, said: In the longer term, it is perfectly obvious that the benefits of the depreciation will flow through into the balance of payments, and when that situation does improve, as I expect it to do and as the Government expects it to do in time, the exchange rate will, of course, trend upwards and at that point of time interest rates will trend downwards, and that will be very good news for housing interest borrowers. We are still waiting, Housing Minister West! We are still waiting for all these predictions to come true. As recently as 19 November last year, the Prime Minister said: We will not interrupt that flow of forces which we believe, if allowed to operate, will mean that as we go through 1987, there will be a gradual lowering in the interest rate regime in this country. How much longer have we to wait and put up with these predictions of good fortune just around the corner? While we are waiting, people are being forced out of houses, forced out of jobs, forced out of business and forced out of all those things that we have taken for granted in Australia for so long. The fact about interest rates under the Hawke Labor Government is that, despite numerous promises to the contrary, they have continued to rise to all time record levels. During the December 1984 Federal election campaign the Prime Minister and other Ministers promised time and again that interest rates would fall. The truth about what has happened to interest rates between November 1984 and February 1987 is as follows-and very sorry reading it is. The rate on savings bank home loans-pegged by this Government-went from 11.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent. It is a similar story with Bankcard. So many people are quite aware of the rise in interest rates on Bankcard as the bills are now coming in for those Christmas presents and the provisions that they bought during the Christmas period. People are now getting those Bankcard bills and seeing what the interest rate really is. In November 1984 it was 18 per cent and in February 1987 it is 22 per cent. Who would have thought, when this Government took over, that such things could happen to the ordinary men and women of Australia? In November 1984 the prime rate for big business was 13.5 per cent and it is now 18.25 per cent. It is no wonder we are seeing a lack of investment in business and manufacturing in Australia. The overdraft rate for small businesses and farmers was 14.5 per cent in November 1984 and is 20.5 per cent now. It is interesting that on Tuesday 24 February 1987 the Sydney Morning Herald headlined its front page with the statement that the National Australia Bank will lift its home loan interest rate to 16 per cent, even if the Government continues its current subsidy to the banks, which is aimed at keeping the rate at 15.5 per cent. In other words, savings bank home loan interest rates are set to take off again. Yet, as recently as Tuesday 17 February this year, the Prime Minister was once again predicting interest rate falls. He told Parliament: We look to 1987 with a cautious optimism about the economy including a fall in interest rates in 1987. How can this Government even think that it has any credibility left in the minds of the people of Australia? In this short period of sittings-two weeks-we have seen a current account deficit of $1.2 billion announced for January. Our total foreign debt has been announced at $100 billion, which represents over $6,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. To put it in another way, every baby that is born today is born with a debt of $6,000 around its neck because of the profligacy and the bad economic management of this Government. Government senators often look across at us and call us a lame duck Opposition. Well, after reading the polls today, these lame ducks are flying higher, faster and more confidently than the Hawkes of this world. Senator Button —That is a very good analogy. Senator COLLARD —If Senator Button wants me to go further with an analogy, this Government is an albatross around the necks of the people of Australia who elected it. Housing is in crisis. As both my colleagues have said in their contributions to this debate, new approvals are down 17 per cent this financial year. Rental housing is stifled. Of course, this is very plainly because of this Government's policies. It was quite adequately explained by Senator Archer. We have had the abolition of negative gearing as a tax deduction, the imposition of a capital gains tax and, as if that were not bad enough, on top of that we have had State government legislation, particularly in the Labor States, which restricts the rights of the landlord to the benefit of the tenant. I for one am not advocating that we should go back to the Charles Dickens period as far as rental housing goes, but the rights of landlords have been restricted and all the rights have been given to the tenants. How many landlords must be saying: `Why bother? Why should we invest in rental housing? We can put our money somewhere else'. As I have said in previous debates, this is a government of records-record taxation, record expenditure and a record low for the Australian dollar. The list is almost endless. We now have another record four years. In that four years this Government has demolished that great Australian institution-home ownership. This has been achieved by a combination of things-blind arrogance, misguided ideology and gutlessness to take hard decisions. It has been said-I think it might have been said by a Minister in the Whitlam Government-that every home owner is a little capitalist. If we bear that in mind, we could be forgiven for thinking that for ideological reasons alone this Hawke Government has set out deliberately to destroy home ownership. This is the thing that we have taken so much for granted-our own home. The thing for which we have worked, saved and denied ourselves has been denied us-our own home. When young couples get married, they both go out to work to save for their own home and put off having a family. Then they decide to have a family and they lose one income. Having bought their house, they then find that, because of this Government's policies, they are forced out of that home for which they scrimped and saved and denied themselves for so long. What a terrible indictment that is of this Government which seeks to represent the men and women of Australia. We in the Opposition applauded the decision to float the Australian dollar. However, when we do that, we must recognise that we put ourselves in a position where the world economies can make a decision on our economic performance. That has been done. Those economists have cast judgment on us. Of course, the second point about that is that any government that floats its currency needs severe economic discipline. This Government has not done that. It has seen its expenditure blow out. It has not disciplined itself at all. As a result, we have seen taxes rise and Federal borrowing rise. To keep the Australian dollar above the value of the Mexican peso, to prevent our dollar really going through the floor, this Government has had to put up interest rates to attract money into this country. Of course, that overseas money has done nothing other than to show our current account deficit in a better light than it should have been. It has not created any new jobs, it has not created any new industries, but it has had a disastrous effect on the home owners of this nation. People in business and on farms, when they went into their original contracts, worked out with their accountants that they could do this or that and which repayments they could meet. But in a few short years, whether we talk about home owners, businessmen or farmers, they have found themselves in a position in which in their wildest dreams they could never have imagined themselves a few years ago-all because of this Government's policies. Home owners with a $50,000 loan over 25 years have seen their home repayments increase by $152 since the last election when the people of Australia put this Government back into power. Much has been said of the pegged interest rates. That is right. This Government has made a great thing about it and Senator Childs mentioned it but, of course, immediately we pay interest rates to try to shore up our faltering position, we immediately cut off the money supply because people will not put money into the savings banks where the money would be available, so the money goes elsewhere. There has been a very big lack of money in savings bank accounts to provide for housing. People have had to go to other places for home loans. We have seen tragedies of people even going to finance companies, and then really getting caught as the interest rates have gone up. We have seen repossessions unprecedented in Australia's history as people have sought money elsewhere, thought they could meet the repayments, as indeed they could at the time but because of what has happened since they have been forced out of their houses. The other part of the equation is the costs. We have the accord. On many occasions I have said that the accord has its good points. It stopped the excesses of some of the more outrageous unions, but it has also meant that despite productivity and the ability of the community to pay, wage rises have gone on and costs have gone up. On top of that we have the superannuation claim, which is estimated to increase the cost of a house by $1,500 and so it goes on. The deplorable economic record of mismanagement and of profligacy-whatever adjectives one likes to think of-this Government has forced people out of rental accommodation. It has forced people already in houses out of them and it has forced people who thought they could buy a house to think again and put it off. It is getting increasingly difficult for people to own what we once considered a great Australian institution, their own home, and all because of the disastrous, inept policies of this Hawke Labor Government. Senator BLACK(Queensland)(4.42) —I listened with interest to Senator Collard's comments. At the outset I think I ought to say that he is really being a bit modest when he says that the coalition is not in government, therefore it has no specific alternatives to offer and there is no obligation on it to offer specific alternatives. He is forgetting that in Queensland the National Party of Australia-I assume it is still his Party-has been in government since October 1983 and has a pretty deplorable economic record which I will go into later on in this speech. I would like to discuss some of the realities of our current economic situation. Australia's balance of payments situation requires over $1 billion a month to fund the current account. The structure of interest rates simply has to reflect this position. The Federal Government cannot be blamed for creating this situation. Firstly, I point out that the Commonwealth is responsible for only 10 per cent of this external debt that we are now facing. Most of the money has been borrowed by the private sector. Secondly, Australia's balance of payments situation is a direct legacy of the neglect of proper public policies by conservative governments during the 1960s and the 1970s. As a result of this neglect, Australia's export and import competing base has been narrowed significantly. When commodity prices fall, as they have in the last 18 months-the worst fall, I might point out, since the Great Depression-the country has not been able to fall back on a broad base of manufactured exports as it has been able to do in the past. Turning around over 20 years of conservative government neglect is a bit like trying to turn around the Queen Elizabeth II. No party could achieve a rapid turnaround in our trade situation and no serious analyst, private sector economist or businessman believes it can be done rapidly, but that seems to be the belief of the Opposition. Let us look at what the Government has done in the area of fiscal and monetary policy. The tax cuts which took effect on 1 December 1986 and which are to take effect from 1 July 1987 are worth an aggregate $4.5 billion. Of that, $1.5 billion is funded by base broadening measures such as fringe benefits and capital gains taxes, the results of which will go straight back to the income earner. The remainder will be funded by genuine expenditure cuts of $43 billion. In summary, the Federal Government's current policy is, firstly, to make substantial savings-$4 billion in last year's Budget-to fund our tax cuts, and secondly, to make further expenditure cuts this year as indicated just yesterday by the announcement of a May economic statement to keep budgetary policy in line with Australia's trading circumstances. In the current economic climate the framework of the Federal Government's economic policy is a firm monetary policy, a tough fiscal policy and wage restraint. The Government backs up its framework with detail, while on the other hand the Opposition does not even have a framework. I would like now to touch briefly on the Opposition's alternatives, such as I can nail those alternatives down, and then I will discuss the Joh alternative, as it is known. The Opposition seems to think that it can wave a magic wand and bring down interest rates. This demonstrates its appalling lack of comprehension of economic fundamentals. The Opposition's fiscal policy consists of $32.6m in expenditure cuts and billions of dollars in tax bribes. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has been making the same promises since the last election, but after two years he has become no more specific except to admit that the nation cannot afford his tax policy. The Opposition's wages policy is regarded as frivolous nonsense by the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian trade union movement. I would now like to go on to what is popularly known as the Joh alternative. It is an alternative that is likely to be put by a large section of the Opposition at the next election, so I would like to canvass some of his records in Queensland. While the Federal Government has been taking constructive measures to establish a firm economic policy, the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, has presented a dangerous alternative in his campaign to enter the Federal arena. While the Premier has labelled himself Australia's great white hope, his home State is wallowing in an economic mess. Let us look at the Queensland situation in relation to taxes and charges; firstly, charges. Between the December quarter 1983 and the December quarter 1986, Brisbane had the highest increase in State and local government charges-30.1 per cent. This compares with the capital city weighted average of only 21 1/2 per cent. Over the same period the consumer price index rose in Brisbane by 21.7 per cent. Secondly, motor vehicle registration fees-- Senator Boswell —I raise a point of order. The business sheet today says: The need for the Hawke Government to reverse its high interest rate and high taxation policies which are having such a disastrous impact on home owners and prospective home owners throughout Australia. I put it to you that the honourable senator is not addressing this matter of public importance and that you should ask him to be more relevant to this matter of urgency. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Black is replying and he is entitled to put his side of the case. Senator BLACK —As I said earlier, I am attempting to flesh out the Opposition's policy alternatives to what the Government has been doing and I am seeking to illustrate the effect those policies are likely to have on the national economy through illustrating what those policies have done to the Queensland economy. I would like to go on and talk about metropolitan electricity prices, and get Senator Boswell even more upset. Metropolitan electricity prices have risen in Queensland by 31.6 per cent since the National Party won government in October 1983. The consumer price index in Brisbane over the same period rose by 21.7 per cent. The average Brisbane householder's quarterly electricity bill has risen to $136.80, higher than that in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Hobart. In respect of taxes, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that in the 1985-86 financial year Queensland had the lowest level of State taxes per head of population of any Australian State. Senator Boswell will agree with that. Queensland's figure for the Budget sector was $552.35 per person, but the catch is that this figure did not reveal the hidden taxes in Queensland such as the rail freight surcharge paid by mining companies. This hidden tax is estimated at $394m for 1985-86 and if it was included as part of the tax structure in Queensland, as was pointed out in the Senate earlier this week-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. I came into the chamber just a few minutes ago but I fail to see any relevance at all to the motion before us in what is being said. The people of Australia are groaning under the high interest rate policies of the Hawke Government. The Minister for Education, Senator Susan Ryan, tabled a paper today-a briefing to her Government-indicating quite clearly that there is no relief in sight. This is a very serious matter. Yet we find that an honourable senator from Queensland who is participating in the debate is waffling on about matters that have nothing to do with it. Parliament is in low enough odour as it is without that sort of irrelevance. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to look carefully at the motion which is before us and to take the honourable senator back to the very important issues that the Senate is supposed to be discussing. Senator Tate —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: The whole question of the interest rates which must be borne by those purchasing a home or wishing to purchase a home is affected by all those competing in the market for moneys for various programs, including State governments. Therefore, it is relevant for Senator Black to raise the question of the direct and indirect taxation policies and the borrowing requirements of the Government of Queensland. It is also relevant for him to raise matters such as the amount that those in the metropolitan area of Brisbane have to pay for electricity, because that reduces the disposable income of home owners, and those wishing to become home owners, to service the loans that they get from a bank or building society. Senator Archer —Mr Acting Deputy President, I support the point of order raised by Senator Chaney. Senator Black's contribution so far has had nothing to do with the question before us, that is: The need for the Hawke Government to reverse its high interest rate and high taxation policies which are having such a disastrous impact on home owners and prospective home owners throughout Australia. That is very clear. It is very straightforward, and Senator Black is nowhere near it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! There has been a wide- ranging debate. I rule that Senator Black is within the Standing Orders. Senator Archer has the right to reply at a later stage. There is no point of order. Senator BLACK —As I said earlier, I do not believe that the national government can set priorities for Australia without taking into consideration the policies of the various State governments. They will be forced to nail their banners to the masthead shortly and to indicate just what share of the burden they are prepared to take. It is relevant to discuss their record and to relate that to the Opposition's statements. I will continue in that vein. Senator Tate —We want to hear you. Senator BLACK —Thank you. I will talk about the hidden taxes which people in Queensland have to pay. The tax paid by Queensland mining companies was estimated to be worth $394m in 1985-86. If that were included as part of the Queensland tax structure, it would increase State taxes for that year to $705.82 per person, which is higher than those paid in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania-- Senator Archer —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: I was prepared to accept the ruling by the Chair on this question a moment ago, but I feel that to discuss rail freights under what is a housing debate-we are talking about the policies of the Federal Government on taxation and housing-is to step way over the line. Senator Elstob —On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: This is a States House. Senator Black has brought in relevant material and has answered the Opposition in this debate. I maintain that Senator Black is within his rights because this is a States House. I ask you to rule in those terms. Senator Chaney —The Senate is debating the following subject: The need for the Hawke Government to reverse its high interest rate and high taxation policies which are having such a disastrous impact on home owners and prospective home owners throughout Australia. A somewhat similar point of order was taken a few minutes ago. As I understood the point that was made in opposing that point of order, it was that the States have an influence on interest rates. The point being made by the Government is that the States, by their excessive borrowings, are having an impact on interest rates. What Senator Black is complaining about is not high State borrowings but high State taxation, which is a totally different proposition. If the States were taxing more and borrowing less, the whole problem would disappear. The economic case that is being put forward is not the case that was defended in the earlier point of order. We have simply an argument about State taxes which has nothing at all to do with the level of interest rates. If we were talking about the States' public sector borrowing requirements-if that is what Senator Black was talking about-I would totally agree that he was being relevant to the motion. However, he is not. He is talking about the quite separate burden which has been placed on individuals; namely, State taxes. That is a completely collateral matter which has nothing to do with the motion before us. It is a shame that this issue, which is of such significance to literally millions of Australians, has been totally ignored in this debate by the Australian Labor Party, which is responsible for their plight. Senator Haines —I rise on this occasion-I normally keep out of arguments on points of order-because, much as it delights me to hear people point out the disparity between what the Premier of Queensland says he would do for Federal politics and what he actually does in his own State, I agree with some of the previous speakers that some of the issues that have been raised by Senator Black have been, not to put too fine a point on it, drawing rather a long bow. Although they are interesting of themselves, I suggest that they are not particularly relevant to this debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I uphold the point of order. Senator Tate —Mr Deputy President, I would like to be heard. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Do you have a new point to make, Senator Tate? If you go on, the matter will be solved by the effluxion of time. There is only about 30 seconds left for Senator Black to speak. Senator Tate —It seems to me that Senator Chaney conceded that any comments by Senator Black on borrowing programs of State governments, or charges which they might impose on residents in the State which reduce their disposable income, are relevant. Insofar as one is talking about the taxation policies of State governments and insofar as the matter of urgency speaks of high taxation policies having an effect, I understood Senator Black's point to be that high and low taxation policies and programs can be quite illusory. It is apparent that the Queensland Government's claimed low taxation policy is balanced by the impositions it makes by way of freight charges on those using the railways. In that regard, I think that Senator Black is perfectly relevant to the question of the mix of high and low taxation policies and other government charges. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Black's time has expired. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.58) —in reply-In closing the debate, I need to remind the Government that the problem of housing for Australians exists now. We have had discussions on what may have been the case five or 10 years ago and we have had irrelevancies on other matters, but the problems with Australia's housing exist now, and will do so into the future. The motion calls on the Government to reverse those policies that are having a disastrous impact on both home owners and potential home owners-people who, in future, will be the new Australians of the age. In Question Time today I set the scene by asking a simple, straightforward question of the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). After considerable delay she was unable to find any sort of answer. I was somewhat surprised because housing is a very serious matter. She was completely uninformed and was unable to give any answer at all. I was even more surprised when, as the Minister in charge of this topic in this chamber, she was not in a position to know enough to be able to make a contribution to the debate on this matter of urgency. It speaks very ill of the Government that it was not able to provide the Minister with an adequate brief so that she could respond to the matter in the chamber. During the debate there has been a considerable amount of irrelevancy in one way or another. Then a Government senator finished his speech by begging us to tell the Government how it could solve the problems. What an admission! The Opposition is very concerned about the families of Australia. We are concerned to see them well and economically housed. We are also very keen to see that the problems which the Government has created are dealt with adequately. What is the potential now for young people? What is their choice? Apparently, their choice is to join the small army of half a million people living in caravans; or they can join the queues for government housing, whose numbers have risen from 100,000 to 160,000; or they can join the queues for private rental accommodation. Private owners have been driven out of the rental market by the stupid capital gains tax. All the capital gains tax has done has been to remove virtually the entire stock of private sector housing from the market. It has done nothing to replace that housing for the people who have been put out on the street. The final alternative for young people is to try to buy something. We know the problems of trying to buy on the present market. Interest rates, even according to the briefing note we were able to get from the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, are unlikely to fall. The briefing note said in effect: `Don't expect any benefits to come from falling interest rates in the foreseeable future'. What an admission! If the Government wants to know how its housing policies are working, let it check with the banks and the building societies. Let it check with the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Federation of Australia, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and the people seeking housing. They are unanimously and totally opposed to what the Government is doing. The people out there are getting pretty angry. If the Government ignores them it will do so at its peril. This is not a crisis; it is an absolute disaster. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.02) —Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines, moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate to provide for General Business Notice of Motion No. 308 standing in her name and relating to the reference of further matters to the Select Committee on Television Equalisation to be called on forthwith. In moving this motion to suspend Standing Orders in order that the Senate debate a motion to extend the terms of reference of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation, I am aware that the central issue of the debate must be why it is necessary to debate the matter now and not leave it to some other time like Friday fortnight, next month or next year; that is, why should we suspend Standing Orders to bring on for debate something which is on the Notice Paper and which, in the fulness of time in this place, would have come on for debate anyway? The answer is fairly simple. The issue of media ownership in Australia and, in particular, the contentious issue of the concentration of media ownership is really a question of who has or who could have control of the dissemination of information in Australia and who could have or who has control of the newsprint or the electronic media in this country. It is an issue which should concern all of us as a matter of urgency and which sadly, I suggest, too many members, senators and others are prepared to run away from for a variety of reasons. They are prepared not to confront the issue now. They were not prepared to confront the issue last month. They were certainly not prepared to confront the issue at the end of last year when the Government indicated what its proposals were for changes in media ownership. As a consequence, events have almost got away from us. The reason I want this motion debated today and do not want it left on the Notice Paper until we come back in March, April or the Budget session-until after the Government has legitimised some of the actions that are taking place and made it almost impossible for this Parliament to have any further control of what is going on in the area of media ownership-is that it is an extremely important element in Australian life and is of monumental importance to the Australian public. It needs to be looked at now before any legislation comes in, and we are trying here to make decisions on the run. That aspect was certainly acknowledged last year when this chamber set up the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation to look into television equalisation, because it realised that changes to media ownership and changes to cross-media ownership in regional areas could have a considerable impact on the information given to people in those areas and the slant or slants put on the information. As you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, in this chamber it is possible for any matter to be debated if that is the wish of the majority of senators. From time to time issues of importance have taken precedence over other business, which is how it should be. If on some occasions that has happened against the political wishes of the party in power, against the wishes of the Government, I suggest that it is not a bad thing. We are, presumably, still a democracy in this country and the parliamentary process is part of that democratic process. So in the same way that a defence paper was debated with considerable enthusiasm earlier this week, I suggest that matters of such importance as media ownership, the narrowing of media ownership and the whole question of the dissemination of information in Australia should be brought on for debate when something can be done to correct any problems that are foreseen. It will be too late if we leave it until the debate on the legislation. It is close to being too late now. This Parliament is only one part of the democratic process. At least as important is the reporting of what goes on here and elsewhere. If we allow control over that to slip out of our hands, we will have done a very grave disservice indeed to the Australian public generally. The selection of material, the portrayal of issues and the emphasis on issues that are portrayed all affect how Australians perceive those matters. That is something no one can argue about. If we do not see something in the newspapers or on television or do not hear it on the radio, the chances are very high that we do not know of the existence of that issue. To allow, without challenge, the sorts of changes which the Government proposes to media ownership would be a gross dereliction of the duty which members of parliament take on in this place. Without adequate information not only can we not make decisions about legislation or issues but also no responsible or informed decision can be made on issues by the general public-the people who put us here to protect their interests. So the urgency of this debate is based on the need for us as parliamentarians, as representatives of people in the community, to make our own decisions on the proposed changes to media ownership only after we have been in receipt of all the information we can get. A rather silly editorial appeared, from memory, in the Brisbane Telegraph. It said essentially: `We do not need another inquiry. We do not need to extend the television equalisation inquiry. If you want to find out, Senator Haines'-the editorial was having a go at me particularly-`just what is on about media ownership in Australia, get one of your research staff to do a check of companies. You will soon find out who owns what in the media'. Unfortunately, the editorial writer totally missed the point. We are not arguing, I would hope, simply about the personalities concerned. Although it has been changing on an almost daily basis in recent months, we are all able to keep pretty well up to date with who own what. What we are not in a position to know, because there has never been an inquiry of that sort on a national basis, is what the social, political and economic impact of those changes will be. We can speculate all we like about whether one particular proprietor will be better for the interests of one political party, but that is not the issue; the issue is what the likely result of these changes will be. As members of parliament it is important that as soon as possible we avail ourselves of the opportunity to get some of that information. We can do that only by moving away from the question of personalities and looking at the question of the social, political and economic consequences of the Government's proposal to change media ownership requirements and the actions that have already taken place in the market-place. Yet this has not happened to date. Politicians, for one reason or another, appear to have been loth to seem critical of the key players in this little charade. They have certainly been few and far between in coming forward to indicate their concern about this. I suggest that the only logical way in which we can correct that oversight is to have a public inquiry into some of the more important aspects. It has been suggested to me by groups in the community which are concerned about this that we ought to set up a royal commission. Royal commissions can be set up only by governments and I get the distinct impression that this Government is not at all keen to set up any inquiry at all. Royal commissions are also expensive and they have one other detracting feature; that is, that members of parliament are not intimately involved in a royal commission in the way they are involved in parliamentary committee inquiries. Should technical and sensitive commercial material come before a royal commission and evidence be heard in camera, none of us would have access to that information. That is not the case as far as a Senate or joint parliamentary inquiry is concerned, because at least some members of parliament are in possession of all the information. I suggest that the only realistic way to approach this is to have a Senate inquiry. To get that off the ground very quickly, the most obvious way is to extend the terms of reference of the current Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation. It has been suggested that it would be easier to set up another select committee. Quite frankly, Mr Deputy President, I do not know about you, but it seems to me that we are rapidly running out of senators for standing and select committees. Despite the impression in the minds of many in the general public, we all do a fair amount of work outside this chamber. The obvious solution is not to add an extra burden to those few senators who are not already on committees but to extend the terms of reference of a committee which is already looking into part of the problem. The Select Committee is looking at the specific question of aggregation, at the impact on regional areas of the proposed networking system. I know that it has a requirement to report on that and a deadline to meet. I am not arguing that the Committee should move away from that deadline or from the terms of reference currently before it in order to give priority to this matter. I am saying that many of the people who are giving submissions to that committee are expressing concern already about the sorts of things that are incorporated in the expanded terms of reference, so the Committee is already picking up some information. Let the Committee meet its deadline, if it can, on its current terms of reference, but let it also receive this reference in time for it to encourage submissions on the extended terms of reference and to question legitimately those witnesses who are preparing to appear before it in the next few weeks to comment on these issues. These concerns are shared by a great many people; concerns relating to increased concentration of media ownership. In a country such as Australia, where the population spread is not even and the interests of that population are extremely diverse, we cannot assume, as the Government appears to be assuming in its proposals, that what is enjoyed by viewers of television in Sydney and Melbourne is automatically enjoyed by viewers in the capital cities of Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane or regional Australia. Indeed, extensive rating surveys indicate that quite the reverse is true and that those programs that rate well in Sydney and Melbourne do not necessarily rate well outside the States of which those cities are capitals. Yet we are looking at a proposal by the Government for a maximum 75 per cent viewing audience, which could well lead to a diminution of the sorts of services we would like and which country people would like, on the assumption that if it is good for New South Wales and Victoria it is good for the rest of the country. That is not so. Local content is very important to most people outside the major city areas. The Select Committee is already looking at that aspect. It would take very little effort on the Committee's part to adopt the terms of reference on the Notice Paper and extend its inquiry. Those terms of reference include some of the concerns I have raised already-questions about the current level of media ownership and control-but, more importantly, the effects of changes of levels, much less current levels, of ownership and control on things such as the diversity of information and opinion that is available to the public; whether the supply of information and opinion is comprised or whether there is even the potential for compromise by the wider commercial interests of media owners. We know already that very few of the large corporate conglomerates which now dominate Australia's business landscape are centred on a single item. In many areas where there are media interests there are also interests that stretch across a number of unrelated industries, such as gold, beer and so on. I do not need to point to specific individuals, but we all know enough about the players in recent months to know that there is cross-industry interest on the part of many of those individuals. We need to look also at the potential problems, if not the actual problems, of foreign ownership of the Australian media. The Australian Taxation Office issues to foreign investors and potential foreign investors quite distinct guidelines about how they can go about purchasing Australian companies and so on. One of the guidelines points out that foreign ownership is totally discouraged in, of all things, ethnic newspapers. Every other sort of foreign ownership of the media is looked at on a one-off basis on its merits, but foreign ownership of ethnic newspapers is discouraged unless there is significant control over editorial content by local individuals. If that is not an indication from the Treasury and the Foreign Investment Review Board that there is a capacity for editorial control, I do not know what is. I consider it a slur on the ethnic communities that the Government considers that the only likelihood of improper editorial control could come from people owning their newspapers. Nevertheless, the Government in that guideline has clearly indicated that there is potential for it. Therefore, we ought to be concerned about it and it ought to be part of an inquiry. Another issue that people are becoming increasingly concerned about, and on which we have very little information, is the question of programming with particular reference to overseas content and to measures needed to maintain and protect appropriate local community and national interest programs. Much has been said about the fact that conglomerating the sorts of media interests means that they have better capacity to make deals as far as packages are concerned. But I have a sinking feeling that that simply means they will be able to acquire, more economically, packages in particular from the United States which means that essentially we will be getting larger and larger amounts of American soap operas, and that the levels of good Australian programs will diminish. We need to look at levels of employment in the media industry. There have been plenty of examples from overseas where there have been significant problems in that area. We need to look at associated economic things such as the cost of advertising once the media is divided into too few hands, and particularly, of course, the impact of advertising costs on people in small businesses who are low volume advertisers. There are other areas that need to be looked at including the direct communication media, and the measures necessary to encourage community based and controlled media outlets which are designed like the United Kingdom's Channel 4 to provide a wide variety of information and opinion. Those issues could well never be aired because they will be largely irrelevant if we as a parliament do not move fairly quickly to act on them. If we do not have these looked at, considered, and recommendations on them made by the Committee that is already meeting, it may well be too late. I know that it is too much, as I said earlier, to expect Government members to break away from the position that has been imposed on them by, I understand, Cabinet and Caucus. I also know that there are many members of the Government who are concerned about this and there are equally as many members of the Opposition parties who share the concerns expressed by one of their colleagues, Mr Don Cameron, a Liberal MHR from Queensland who, as recently as Monday night at a Commission for the Future meeting, expressed his concern that too many political leaders are sitting back and allowing the changes that we have watched over the last few months to take place by default, allowing the situation to roll on until it is almost past stopping, almost past looking into. I suggest that if we do not act soon it will be too late to act at all. Free market forces, or the so-called free market forces that some members in some parties argue ought to be allowed to operate, should not take precedence over the needs of rural Australia. They should not take precedence over the needs of capital cities other than Sydney or Melbourne. They should not take precedence over people in the community who want local programs instead of American soap operas, and they should not take precedence over those people who want real choice and diversity of programs and not just two or three channels showing more of the same, and newspaper chains which simply echo those stories which are highlighted in the electronic media. Of course, we really do not have free market forces operating as I am sure you are aware, Mr Acting Deputy President. Those people who argue that there is no room for government involvement, no room for government regulations in the media empires in Australia, ignore the fact that these are being heavily subsidised by the taxpayer in a variety of ways through the tax deductibility of advertising costs as well as, in the most recent cases, the negative gearing that is permitted to those people who are purchasing electronic empires from one individual who is buying up newspapers. While one company can borrow $800m to purchase the holdings of another and then have the interest repayments deducted from tax, Australian taxpayers are very intimately involved in what is going on and should have a much stronger say than they currently do through the parliamentary system. I contend that it is vitally important that Opposition senators send these expanded terms of reference to the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation and that they do so today. If left until next month, when I understand we are likely to see the Government's legislation appear in at least one House of the Parliament, it will be too late. Only if we get it off to the Committee today will sufficient time be given to people wanting to make submissions and for the Committee to consider those submissions and make the appropriate recommendations prior to this Parliament having to consider and vote on the Government's proposed legislation on changes to media ownership. It is a matter of urgency and I simply ask members of the Opposition to put the interests of the Australian community before concerns they might have about having the occasional media baron say something nasty about them in editorials during the coming election campaign and support this motion. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(5.26) —I oppose the motion of the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) not because I am worried about whether media barons-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The motion deals with the suspension of Standing Orders. Does the honourable senator realise that? I just remind him of that fact. Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think Senator Haines has some misconceptions about the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation; about why it was set up, and about its role. Most importantly, she has some serious misconceptions about the relationship of my Party with media barons. I will get to that in a moment. The Committee on Television Equalisation has been meeting over the last month and so far has had four full days of taking evidence from the public. It sat last Monday morning and will probably sit four or five hours this evening. It has been dealing almost exclusively with the question of aggregation, about whether that is the appropriate method of delivering better services to regional and rural television viewers. That is what the Committee has been about. To the reference by Senator Haines about the changes to cross-media ownership as being the reason for the Committee being set up I say that as a reason it must have been way out on the periphery. If one looks at all the submissions-there were nearly 70 of them-one will see that it was something touched on only marginally and only in a few. The Committee has almost exclusively dealt, so far, with aggregation. In looking at the submissions that came in-part of the terms of reference can apply to this aspect as the honourable senator probably realises-they are almost exclusively to do with opposing the concentration of media ownership in newspapers. Almost exclusively they look at newspapers, not at television and not at radio. As most of us are fully aware, the powers of the Commonwealth in respect of newspapers are, to say the least, limited. If we were to set up another committee, if we were to extend this Committee, were it to go another six months to look at the changes to ownership, particularly in the Press, one wonders just what the Parliament could do at the end of six months. Our powers are severely limited in that respect; they rest with the States. In resting with the States I suspect that perhaps we should ask them to set up a committee because there is precious little power here. Peppered right through the speech of Senator Haines there were references to it being too late. The phrases that I wrote down were `do it today, or it is too late', `it may well be too late' and `it is almost close to being too late now'. The reality is that it is not five minutes to midnight for an inquiry into media ownership; it is five minutes past. The realities are that if one looks at what has occurred over the last three months one would have to say that it is far too late now. The truth is that in respect of the announcement made by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) last November, the players in this game all acted pretty quickly. The changes have occurred. We have seen television stations change hands at a frantic pace. The reality is that this Committee can spend six months looking at it, but if it in any way holds up legislation that deals with those changes, if it in any way inhibits, for example, any change in the legislation involving the two-station rule, what we do here will bear absolutely no relationship to commercial realities. We have to have some responsibility in the Senate, just a skerrick of responsibility, not, I might say, to a handful of media barons but at the very least, one would think, to their hundreds and thousands of shareholders, many of whom are small shareholders, and more importantly to a public that is not breathless about the issue. In my view, the concentration of media ownership that is being talked about is largely outside the powers and responsibilities of this chamber or indeed the other place. The lack of Commonwealth power in the area of newspaper ownership is manifest; no one really disputes it. A six-month inquiry into it is, in my view, a waste of time, a waste of our effort. The Committee that has been set up has already been extended until 23 March-or, at least, I gave notice of that intention this morning-because we could not finish in time even the relatively small task of inquiring into aggregation. We are going on for an extra month. If we were to accept what Senator Haines is saying now and inevitably hold up the Government doing anything about the two-station rule, we would throw the Australian media into total confusion, and with it the Australian people, and I suspect that the low esteem in which some of us are held by them would only grow. If there is one fear I have never had, it is that of someone referring nastily to me in an editorial. All the media barons have referred to me in such a way at one time or another over the last couple of years. I have learned to live with it, I dare say that it will happen again. But we are all over 21 and we are big enough and ugly enough to take care of ourselves. That ought not to be, and is not, the motivation for anyone on the Government side, nor I would think for anyone at all in the Senate. As far as the Government is concerned, it is too late. The Committee inquiring into aggregation will report in a month's time. Senator Haines —You have let it be too late. Senator RICHARDSON —We have not let it be too late. The reality is that events have overtaken all of us, including Senator Haines. It is not the first event to have overtaken here, nor will it be the last. For most of the time during which these changes took place I was on holidays, and I cannot be blamed for that either. Those changes occurred with such rapidity that, in my view, it is beyond the power of the Senate to deal with them now. It is a waste of time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.33) —I do not wish to speak at length on this matter; indeed, I wish only to speak on the actual motion before us, which is the motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable a General Business motion to be brought on now. I indicate that the Opposition does not support the suspension of Standing Orders for that purpose. The position is that Australian Democrats senators, like any senators, are entitled to move a General Business motion. They are entitled to bring such a motion forward in General Business time and, in the case of the Australian Democrats, they next have General Business, I think, on 2 April. We would see that as a perfectly reasonable time for them to bring forward their motion, given that we already have a select committee looking at the legislation which is currently of concern to the Parliament. That committee has had to extend its time on the aggregation inquiry until 23 March, and we do not see the commencement of an inquiry at this point of time as being at all necessary. So, the Opposition will not support this proposal. We do not see the need for urgency which has been raised by the Australian Democrats. The only unfortunate thing is that we are now likely to spend the next couple of hours hearing endless Democrat speakers trying to pursue the same course. Senator Haines —There are only six of us. We are not endless, Fred. Senator CHANEY —Even two Democrats are capable of seeming endless. Senator Richardson —Just one. Senator CHANEY —It is rare that I agree with Senator Graham Richardson, but when he suggests that one Australian Democrat can seem endless-I suspect that we are all looking in the same direction-I am inclined to agree with him. In fact, Mr Deputy President, the only real point of substance I want to make is that I think we are about to have a debate in which the Democrats will attempt to discuss the substance of this motion rather than the suspension of Standing Orders and I would ask you, in the interest of our getting on with some of the business we have to deal with in this place, to pay heed to the relevance rule and try to keep them on the suspension of Standing Orders rather than the broader media issues which Senator Haines canvassed in her speech. That may have been permissible for the mover of the motion, but it would not be permissible for the rest. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.36) —There appears to have been some urgency about this matter, probably to get this debate on drive time radio and in order also to canvass all the issues that are not relevant to the motion to suspend Standing Orders. I just state my position clearly on the relevance and urgency of the matter. I do not per se oppose an inquiry into the media now or in the future, but I do point out that it has been suggested that it is urgent for the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation to look into this matter. We will not be able to deal with it with any urgency because, as our Chairman has indicated, we must go until about 23 March to complete our current inquiry, which probably covers about 5 to 10 per cent, at the maximum, of the matters of interest in the media area. I also point out that this Senate has many inquiries under way and Senator Haines is suggesting that we undertake yet a further inquiry. If there is ever to be an inquiry into the media, there are two appropriate means by which that should happen. The first is by way of a joint select committee of the Parliament. That is always more appealing to me because we get a much wider cross-section of people involved. To deal with the urgency of this issue, a joint select committee may be appropriate. I do not know whether Senator Haines is aware that a standing committee of this Parliament, of which my good friend Senator Colston is chairman, has complete coverage of this area. I wonder whether, because it is so urgent, Senator Haines has bothered to consult him to find out whether he is willing to undertake such an inquiry. Obviously, Senator Haines has not even had the courtesy to approach Senator Colston or the Opposition representatives on that committee. Senator Haines —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: I resent the allegation that I am in any way discourteous to any chairman of any standing committee, or indeed to any chairman of any committee. I point out to Senator Ray that there was a very good reason for not doing that. As he would well know, that committee could drop that reference to the bottom of its list. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Haines, that is not a point of order. Senator Ray I appreciate the difficulty in this debate, which is merely on the suspension of Standing Orders, in avoiding discussing the merits of what would be discussed if the motion were carried. You should confine yourself, as far as practicable, to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator ROBERT RAY —I value your guidance, Mr Deputy President. Could I also say that it is not as though we have not had inquiries into this matter in the past. That is relevant to whether we need a current inquiry and hence whether we should suspend Standing Orders. There have been many inquiries into the media. A vast amount of material is available; but, whilst that material is available to people on this side and in the Opposition, and they are able to read it, absorb it, analyse it and come to a conclusion, apparently the Australian Democrats cannot. They need a formalised inquiry where they are aided by staff and where they are guided by the other two political parties to come eventually to some policy decision. They do not have a policy on the media; it is just a general area they can beat up. That is the truth of the matter. I want to go to just one other area that Senator Haines raised. She says that the Government will not act on this because in some way it is in the pocket of the media or the media barons. I am not in the pocket of the media or the media barons, or anyone else; but if we do have an inquiry two things will eventuate. Firstly, it will take the Committee six, eight, 10 or 12 months to come in with conclusions. Undertaking one of those inquiries is a massive task. If a royal commission were set up to inquire into this matter it would cost several million dollars to run. What the Australian Democrats are asking this Senate to do is to extend the inquiry of the Committee, with its very limited resources, for six to 12 months. And I suspect we are putting enormous strain on the Senate at the moment with the existing inquiry. Once there is an inquiry into this general area the Australian Democrats will use it as an excuse to say that no legislation can be introduced on the subject. They are the tactics and motives of the Democrats. They cannot tackle the matter and that is the reason they have brought up this trumped-up suspension of Standing Orders motion today. We are not going to fall for this tactic and we will vote against the motion. Even if the motion to suspend Standing Orders were carried today and even if the Senate were mindful to launch an inquiry, who would change their minds at the end? We do not have constitutional power over a large section of the media; that is, the newspapers. That is one of the problems. I finish by congratulating the Government for its approach on the media. It has not just drafted legislation and shot it into the chamber. As on a lot of issues, including the Australia Card and industrial relations with the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and System, the Government has stated a position, let the public discuss it, consulted widely in the industry et cetera and then given notice it would bring in legislation at a later time. That is the appropriate way of dealing with things-not to ambush them. Every time a complex or difficult issue comes into this chamber the snake oil merchants from the Democrats, trying to grasp its complexity, say that it is all too hard and that is should be shunted off to an inquiry where someone else will come to an understanding for them. In the end, they use the resources of four members of the Labor Party, three members of the Opposition and one member of the Australian Democrats. This happens each time. They think that is a good idea. I do not think it is a particularly good idea that we have to sit on these committees when in the end those inquiries just place on the public record details already known to people in this Parliament. Senator Haines —Give us a spot on the Public Accounts Committee. Put us on the PAC, then we will be happy. We had a fight about that yesterday. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Haines, with an irrelevant interjection, said: `Put us on the PAC'. If I were a member of the PAC she could have my spot, I promise her. In fact, Senator Haines might have a look at the committees on which I serve. She might be able to have my spot on some of those. The problem with the Senate setting up more and more inquiries is that senators can give their constituents less and less time. As chairman of a committee I know how difficult it is to get all 11 members of the committee to attend on the one day. They cannot all attend on the one day because they have commitments to two or three other committees. The Senate is becoming bogged down with impossibility because of the number of inquiries. I believe we should have a limit on the number of inquiries we have and we should determine their priority. Mr Deputy President, having diverged with your indulgence, I reiterate that the only urgent matter at the moment is that we are being broadcast on prime time radio and the Australian Democrats want to get as much on the record as possible even though they know that they will not win. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.44) —Senator Haines, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, has moved that so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent her moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate. The Liberal-Labor coalition has now opposed Senator Haines bringing on a motion that she has on the Notice Paper that the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation report not only into the areas it already has in its terms of reference, but also on: (a) current levels of media ownership and control in Australia; (b) the effects of current levels of ownership and control on: (i) the diversity of information and opinion available to the public, and whether the supply of information and opinion is compromised, or potentially compromised, by wider commercial interests of media owners, and whether the supply is compromised, or potentially compromised by foreign ownership of Australian media; (ii) programming, with particular reference to overseas content and the measures needed to maintain appropriate content reflecting local community and national interests; (iii) levels of employment in the media industry; (iv) cost of advertising, particularly to casual and low volume users, e.g. small business. (c) an acceptable level of concentration of media ownership and control in the light of matters ascertained in (b); (d) the measures necessary to reduce current levels of concentration of media ownership and control if these are found to be above acceptable levels; (e) the measures necessary to maintain media ownership and control at acceptable levels, and to prevent foreign ownership and control of Australian media; (f) the measures necessary to encourage community-based and controlled media outlets designed to provide a wide variety of information and opinion, and assess to what extent government support should be given to alternative community-based media; (g) direct communication media (VAEIS, cable services and satellite distribution services) and determine what, if any, controls and licensing regulations are needed; (h) the legislative and other measures necessary to implement the Committee's recommendations. (2) That the Committee commence its inquiry into the matters referred to it by this Resolution upon the completion of its inquiry- I emphasise that part for Senator Richardson's benefit- in relation to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986. Senator Haines has moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to deal with that motion. A motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is moved in the Senate in an attempt to create priorities other than those laid down by the Government. In other words, we are asking the Senate to express its view of the importance of foreign control of Australia's media with regard to other items which we have on the Notice Paper-other exciting items such as the Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 1987, which as I understand it has been floating around in the bureaucracy for five or six years! Indeed, Senator Mason raised this issue first over six years ago. It is exciting, important, urgent and at the top of the list! That is a matter of priority that we are talking about in relation to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. We want to establish a new priority in this chamber, a priority which gets things right, which looks at the important things, those things which are confronting the Australian community today. In this case, it is not emergency stores of petrol; it is the ever-increasing ownership of our media. That is what we are talking about when we move to create a new priority for discussions in this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, on behalf of the Opposition, has raised the argument that this is not a matter of urgency, that the Australian Democrats have the possibility to bring on the matter on 2 April under General Business. I do not know whether the attentive audience listening to the broadcast around Australia-people would have to be attentive to listen to Parliament-would know that General Business notices of motion are generally talked out. It happened to an Opposition motion last week. I understand that in an endeavour to overcome this problem the Opposition parties will bring on Senator Messner's motion again tomorrow to try to get a vote on the matter. That is a legitimate tactic for the Opposition to use, but of course Opposition senators have access to far more General Business time than other senators in this place. That is proper because of the numbers that the Opposition has in this chamber. When we seek to create a new priority by moving for the suspension of Standing Orders it is not good enough for us to wait until our turn on 2 April, when it will be talked out, and then to take our next turn probably in the Budget session. That is not a way of getting a new priority for this chamber, because the motion would undoubtedly suffer the fate not of being voted on but of the rather innocuous operation that goes on with people talking and talking. Senator Chaney, when speaking to Senator Haines's endeavour to suspend Standing Orders, raised a couple of other matters as to why there should not be a priority, one of which seemed to suggest an implied criticism of his own people for speaking earlier this week ad infinitum on a procedural motion. They spend far more time than we have available to us today, even if this motion were discussed until 7 o'clock. They went on and on, on a procedural motion, to make a particular point. It hardly seems to be to be fair of Senator Chaney to criticise his own people for that. The reason they did that was to make a point. We are proposing the suspension of Standing Orders now to make precisely the same point, and that is what the priorities ought to be and what types of motions ought to be debated here at this time. Rather than take the Government's priority-a Bill which has been floating around the bureaucracy; those people having only now managed to get off their backsides to bring it into the chamber-we should look at a high priority issue. I speak of a high priority not just for the people in this chamber, not just for politicians, but for parliamentarians representing their electorates-that is, senators representing the States in this country, where the media is a vitally important issue. The ownership of the media is a vitally important issue. It is really not good enough to say: `This is not important. We can do it some other time. Let us leave it to 2 April. Let us put it off'. It is not good enough to use Senator Gareth Evans's defence of some of his celebrated operations: `It seemed a good idea at the time'. I think Senator Richardson's defence was a sophisticated version of that. It was: `I was on holidays at the time it all happened, so don't blame me'. For the first time we have an opportunity in an inquiry to look at the ownership of the media in this country, if it is to be treated as a priority by this chamber. There is undoubtedly a great deal of sensitivity on the part of honourable senators about making this a priority item, and we can well understand that. We are not the only people who have suffered at the hands of the media. I am sure that every senator in this place has suffered at some time or other at the hands of the media. But, quite frankly, if we allow that type of threat to get in the way of our duty, to get in the way of what we ought to be debating in this chamber, we are not worthy of the support of our constituents. I know it is a delicate matter because that control is basically our conduit to the electorate. If we get a sufficient number of people offside by making this a high priority, what will happen? We will lose our seats. But it is about time that we in this place, who have been elected by the constituents, stood up and fought for their interests-not just for ours and not just for a safe seat in this place until be get our superannuation. We must not bow down to the media barons. We must not be told: `Don't touch them, leave them alone. Let us not make the matter a priority for debate in this chamber because we might get a bad editorial and we might not be re-elected'. That seems to me to be the coward's way out when it comes to a debate on this matter. I acknowledge that it is a delicate matter, but it is a matter which we have to take on. It is not something which we can put aside. It is vital, and a top priority. We must rearrange our program to make sure that this issue is brought on now. There are a variety of other ways of doing it, and we have been stopped at every avenue. This is our last avenue to try to get this chamber to debate this issue, and to debate it sensibly. We are now debating a procedural motion to enable us to have this genuine debate, but we are being frustrated even in having that genuine debate in this place by people who are running scared of the owners of the newspapers because they may get a critical editorial; they may be attacked day in and day out. So what? Their task is to do precisely that. That is why we need that type of priority. That is why we need to suspend the Standing Orders to make sure that we can have that debate. We would welcome it. We are quite happy to put our cards on the table. All we ask is that the other honourable senators also put their cards on the table in terms of what we have to debate and our priorities for debate. I think it is a pity that the Government has expressed its opposition to the suspension of Standing Orders to allow this debate to occur. The debate would be about the reference of this matter to a parliamentary committee, and we believe that that is probably the most appropriate way in which to handle this type of thing. It removes the onus from political parties to front up, so it takes the pressure off them. Individual members are able to be disowned at the end of the exercise if they bring in a critical report but at least we and the members of the community would then have that report in our hands. I draw the attention of honourable senators to a previous suspension of Standing Orders, following which a particular reference went to a committee. A number of members of the now Opposition parties signed a majority report against their own Party's policy. I am sure honourable senators can remember that happening, and it has probably happened on a whole range of issues. That is why it is very important for us to have that debate. If we have it I am sure we will get that reference sent to the Committee. Once we have it before the Committee I am positive, given the quality of our committees, that we will get an excellent report back. I entirely reject the proposition put by Senator Robert Ray and Senator Richardson which, I believe, cast aspersions on the way that the committees of this chamber have operated. They mentioned how we were all on numerous committees, and I was going to count the ones I was on. Senator Ray did the same thing. We tend to meet in committee after committee. It is difficult, but that is part of our task, part of our job. Let us stop whingeing about having to do our job, for goodness sake. Other people out there have far worse jobs than we do and they do not get paid anywhere near enough. Why do we whinge all the time because we have to work? That is what the population pay us to do. One of the places in which this chamber has shown that it works best is in its committees, and this type of activity is best undertaken in the Committee to which I have referred. Senator Haines's contingent notice of motion, which she has taken up, to move for the suspension of Standing Orders, quite rightly was directed towards getting those terms of reference to a committee. So let us stop all the whingeing, let us stop being cowards. Let us confront the issue head on and acknowledge that the media in Australia is vital to the health of our democracy. The control of the media is vital to the health of that media, and hence the control of the media is vital to the health of our democracy. I do not care whether the Government at this time feels relatively happy because Murdoch et al are being nice to it, because it should know that the wheel turns and when he is no longer nice it will want this inquiry and so too will the Opposition parties. We are all in this together, not just as members of the Parliament but as representatives of the people. That is why we should suspend our Standing Orders. That is why we should get on to the substantive debate on the motion which Senator Haines has on the Notice Paper with regard to items as important as-I remind the Senate that the Government does not want to discuss it-the current levels of media ownership and control in Australia. That is what the Government has said to us by saying that it will talk and vote against the suspension of Standing Orders. The Opposition has said that it does not want a debate. They are all running scared of Murdoch et al. They do not want to upset anybody who owns the media. But look! Those types of media barons like people to stand up to them, quite frankly. They do not mind a bit of healthy opposition. How about the politicians of this country giving them a bit of healthy opposition? How about our expressing what we believe is in the interests of this country and of the people of this country when it comes to who controls our media and who provides the information upon which governments are elected? Surely we can at least do that. If we cannot do that, we are not worthy of the pay that we receive or of the seats that we occupy in this place. We should at least be willing to confront the very hard issue of the people who control the media by which we get to talk to the electorate, whether it be the newspapers, radio stations, television stations, satellite channels, cable or any other means of communication that we as members of parliament talk to the electorate. We need to know who owns the media. We need to know whether it is owned in the interests of this country or in the interests of other countries. I know of no other comparable country that would be happy to allow its media to be controlled by an outside power. That is what we are happy enough to do. Senator Graham Richardson said: `It's all over. I am sorry that I was on holidays and I cannot do anything about it. It has all gone.' This chamber and the other place have the power to do something about it if we can at least get into the debate. Many eminent Australians have expressed themselves in the media in recent times, saying that they believe that this is an absolutely vital issue for us to be debating at large. If we could get into this debate and get a reference to a committee, those people would come forward in droves. Quite frankly, it is an embarrassment to have people stand up in this place and suggest that we should not take this to one of our committees, which have done so well. It is a further embarrassment because what is really being said is this: If we took this reference to a committee, it would receive more submissions than any committee has ever received in the whole history of the operation of our committee system. That is how important it is to our community. That is how important it is to every group and every individual who wants to make his or her views known, who wants to say something or to communicate. People may want to tell the rest of Australia: `These are the facts that you should be concerned about'; `look at this'; `pay attention to that'. A committee would be absolutely inundated with submissions. I accept that and that there would be a massive work load. But unfortunately, the stance that the Government and the Opposition have taken in not agreeing to our procedural motion is to say: `Yes, we know that that would happen and we do not want a bar of it because we are happy with the situation of foreign powers owning our media because at the moment they are on our side'. Well, the wheel will turn. It will turn and they will be offside and the Government and the Opposition will really whinge about that. But that is not the important thing. I do not care if they whinge later on, as they undoubtedly will. It is like trying to rig electoral laws; they will eventually turn back on you. The important thing is that, by not allowing people to express their views about media ownership in this country by having a committee inquiry, we are cutting off one of the only avenues left to people to express those views. If they want to express their views about ownership of the media outside, who will carry that message to other people in Australia? Will the media have such largess as to attack themselves and their ownership? Come off it! There is only one other place where these types of community concerns can be aired. It is in the Parliament. It is the historic tradition of the Parliament to do so. It is an historic abnegation of the role of the Parliament in this country for the Opposition and the Government to combine to crush this motion and not to allow the people of Australia to express their views about who owns the most vital communication channels by which Australians talk to Australians. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.05) —We are addressing a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders in order to enable a further motion to be moved for the reference of media ownership to a committee. Of course, the Standing Orders are fairly strict and one needs to keep within the bounds of the Standing Orders and not address the issue of whether or not the matter should be referred to a committee. That is for a subsequent motion. I intend to vote for the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders because I feel that it is the duty of Parliament to address questions that are vital to our human liberty, to our society and to democracy, when these issues impinge upon the rights and responsibilities of the community and of individuals in the community. Clearly, the question of media ownership is of importance to democracy in our society. In agreeing to vote for this motion to suspend Standing Orders, I remind honourable senators-the Australian Democrats in particular-that in December last I attempted to move for the suspension of Standing Orders to deal with a matter that was absolutely vital to human liberty, to our society and to our democracy. In fact, notice of that proposition had been put forward by me as far back as 5 May 1986. The proposition was to reverse the situation in which this Government's legislation on sex discrimination had been designed to compel Australians, under pain of penalty, to treat de facto or cohabiting couples as though they were legally married. That action denied people the freedom to follow their consciences when formed in good faith. It was an attack on the very keystone of human liberty. If one were setting out to create a totalitarian state, it would be mandatory to begin by denying the authority of conscience. That was the issue that was under consideration in December of last year. Of course, this current issue is one to suspend Standing Orders. I agree with what has been said. The opportunity to zero in on matters of such vital importance and to have them properly determined, as distinct from a gas-bag session, is not always available. On this occasion, I think it quite justified for members to vote for the suspension of Standing Orders so as to enable the debate to take place. People may have different views on the subject, as presumably people had different views on the subject of placing de factos on the same basis as married people. I was denied, by a vote of all of the Democrats and all of the members of Australian Labor Party, the opportunity to bring that matter forward on 4 December last year. However, I do not take a dog in the manger attitude; I take a consistent attitude on these particular questions. I think the case that has been made out today for a suspension of Standing Orders is quite a valid case, and I intend to support it. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(6.10) —I rise to support the motion by Senator Haines for the suspension of Standing Orders largely on the basis of the case put by the major speaker for the Government against this motion, Senator Richardson, who is the Chairman of the current Select Committee on Television Equalisation. Like Senator Richardson, as a member of that Committee I have an interest in the subject matter which this suspension would allow the Senate to debate, should it be successful. In speaking against this motion for the Government, Senator Richardson made some comments about whether it was possible to extend the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Television Equalisation. The case for the extension of the terms of reference of this Committee has been very capably put by Senator Haines, and she and Senator Macklin have put the case for the urgency of the issue as well. I just recall to the Senate that the reference to a committee of the legislation relating to television equalisation was made in this House late in November 1986 when the spokesperson on communications for the Australian Democrats, Senator Vigor, together with Senator Lewis for the Opposition, so moved. At that time we had before us statements from the Government which related to proposed ownership rules and proposed changes to issue such as the percentage of population available to any one television owner and limitations on cross-media ownership. Upon the publication of a request for submissions to that Committee, when it was set up, it was noted that the Committee would indeed look at the issues surrounding television equalisation in the light of the Government's proposals. Subsequent to that we have seen a rash of media takeovers across the whole spectrum of Australian media and communications-news services, television, radio, newspapers and magazines. Senator Richardson suggested-actually, I feel that he was quite categorical about it-that the Committee had received a lot of submissions, which is quite true, but that the major concentration of the Committee had been on the technicalities and details of the equalisation issue. I support the contention of Senator Macklin and Senator Haines in moving for the suspension of Standing Orders that the broader issue, as opposed to the narrower issue of television equalisation, is a matter of great concern out in the community. In spite of the fact that we had a Senate select committee set up on two pieces of legislation specific to television equalisation in regional areas with a mere reference to the fact that there were some proposals for some changes in government policy, contrary to what Senator Richardson implied many of the submissions which came in in the very short time in which people had to present them-some two months, including the Christmas and New Year breaks-addressed almost solely the very issues which are part of the terms of reference which the Australian Democrats are attempting to have debated through the suspension of Standing Orders in the Parliament today. Those submissions came from people such as the Australian Children's Television Foundation, the Australia Council, Academics for Responsibility in the Workforce, the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association, the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia, the Producers and Directors Guild of Australia, the Australian Film Corporation, the Australian Journalists Association, the Australian Council for Children's Film and Television, Huw Evans-a renowned broadcaster and consultant-the Free Speech Committee, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Staff Union, the Public Interest Action Committee-which was under the heading of a number of unions as well-and Free the Media, a group which was formed at about the same time as the current select committee. Only a small number of these groups have been called to give verbal evidence to the Committee. So that the Senate is aware that there are significant people, as well as the groups that I have mentioned out there in the community, who I am sure would congratulate the Senate for suspending its Standing Orders and allowing debate on this most significant issue and, at the end of that debate, extending the terms of reference of the current Senate Select Committee, which is what the Australian Democrats eventually would like to see happen, I will just list some of those people. The Free the Media group, which was formed out of concern about what was happening at such a rapid pace to Aust- ralia's media, putting at risk our very democracy, has an interesting list of patrons: Dr Veronica Brady, Professor Max Charlesworth, Father Brian Gore, who knows something about the loss of democracy, David Williamson and Hal Wootten, QC. Its conveners in Melbourne are Paul Chadwick and Pat O'Donnell, who themselves have a great deal of understanding and knowledge of the media, and its conveners in Sydney are Philippa Smith and Kate Harrison. I understand that further people have become patrons since the letterhead from which I have listed those people was published. So it is not true to say that, if the Senate passed this motion, suspended Standing Orders and debated the extension of reference to this Committee, it would not be a matter of great interest out in the broader community. We have had conflicting reasons from the Opposition and the Government as to why this suspension motion will not be supported. Following Senator Richardson's complaint that the current Committee is too busy anyhow, Senator Chaney said that it is not urgent. Senator Richardson has said that it is too late anyhow. It is interesting to note that, on the one hand, we are faced with an Opposition which says that all of what is happening in the media ownership and control area at the moment is not important and, on the other hand, we have a Government representative-indeed, the Chairman of the current Committee-saying that in any case it is too late as it has all happened. There is a priority in this. Senator Macklin said that the Senate, if it is to act responsibly, must get its priorities right. There really is very little time, in fact. It is not the case, legally or in any other way, that some of what has happened-indeed, a great deal of what has happened-cannot be investigated and, if necessary, have some action taken on it. But that will not happen unless the Senate acts. The Senate has a committee in place. As a member of that Community, I agree with Senator Richardson that it is busy. When it is sitting tonight and other senators possibly have time off, I will be thinking of that even more. But as a senator in this place, I believe it is my responsibility-and I am perfectly prepared to carry that out-to address issues which are important and which really are the responsibility of the Parliament of Australia. In the case of the committee system, on a multipartisan basis it is something very special when people in the community can come forward and express their concerns. As I have said, the current Committee, with its much narrower terms of reference than those which the Australian Democrats wish to include, already has a large number of submissions expressing very deep concern about the current takeover activity. In conclusion, I believe that the very fact the takeover activity has taken place and that there is uncertainty about the whole arrangement concerning government policy and potential policy in this area means that the Committee, under its current terms of reference, may have an impossible task because of the way things have changed since the reference was given to the Committee. The terms of reference, which include the Government's propositions on ownership and control, cover per se a much wider area than perhaps the Committee's Chairman would like them to cover. I have made public statements to that effect before. I believe that possibly events have overtaken the Committee and that it needs broader terms of reference. I understand that the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Richardson, made a similar statement publicly, being published in the Sydney Morning Herald, on the first day of the Committee's hearings-a week before the Parliament resumed this year. However, it appears that today he has said something different; that the Committee can forge ahead and that it needs no broader terms of reference. If the Committee does not, certainly the community of Australia does. There is deep concern in the community about what is happening regarding the media. Our media are vital to open and free communication. I am sure that Father Gore, who is a patron of the Free the Media group, would agree. It is up to us to retain not just-as in the case of the television equalisation issue-localism for local people but the ability and the knowledge that we are receiving communication across the board, a full range of opinions and ideas in all areas of our media. We may not be in a position to do that for much longer in Australia unless some sort of action is taken. I support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders so that the Senate can properly debate this extraordinarily vital issue and set up or reconstitute a committee of this Senate to handle it. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.23) —I rise with great pleasure to support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. As Senator Harradine has said, the debate will not take place at all. The Government and the Opposition should have recognised right from the beginning that they have failed in their duty by not having the matter brought on for debate. They should have allowed the suspension of Standing Orders so that this debate could take place immediately. That would have given a better service to the people of Australia, who want that kind of service from this House rather than what is going on now. I have hopes that even the most unrepentant and obdurate of minds can be persuaded, so the Australian Democrats will continue to argue for the suspension of Standing Orders. We are not satisfied that there are good reasons why that should not be allowed. Indeed, we have not heard any good reasons from the Government or the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in that respect. I am getting rather tired of the matters-I will have to reply to them-that have been brought up in this debate in an effort to vilify the Democrats. We have been accused of grandstanding and there have been other cheap little insults. That came from Senator Chaney, who is the leader of a party which, not 48 hours ago, tied up this place for two whole days on a grandstanding exercise. It was not on a matter of the urgency and consequence of this issue. Defence is always important. It will be just as important next year as it is now. The matter before us is of vital importance. There is a very severe contrast. I found it very strange for Senator Chaney to speak in that way earlier. I seem to recall that Senators Ray and Richardson had some things to say along the same lines. In what they said they exposed themselves in all their metaphorical nakedness. In effect, they said: `We do not want to discuss this matter; close it up; shut it up. There is no need to do anything. Steps are being taken. Other things are being done'. So they are, with mirrors! Every honourable senator knows what is going on-that the whole attitude to the media question is a sweeping-under-the-carpet exercise, a failure to do anything at all about the fundamental changes occurring in the Australian media. It is extraordinary to think that people such as Senator Chaney, Senator Ray and Senator Richardson are so out of touch with the electorate-the people they say they represent; whom they do represent, whether they like it or not, and should represent effectively-that they say there is no interest in this subject. That is nonsense; there is a great deal of concern in the community. Virtually every Australian is deeply worried about it-probably more so than any other-because he is perceptive enough to see its urgency. It is necessary for somebody to come to grips with it quickly, to put it up for free debate in the only place where it can be debated with any freedom-this House. It is unlikely that the Government, with its numbers, would allow such a debate to take place in the House of Representatives. It is unlikely, since there are no Democrats in the House of Representatives-that is something which we will repair in the near future-that the matter would be raised in that House. The basic point is that it can only be done here. That is why the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) has raised it, with the full support of all her colleagues and the Party. We regard it as important because many Australians have said to us: `Can't something be done about it, not in a month's time or a year's time but now?' Why has not something happened already? I have had a number of discussions with a number of very eminent and important members of the Free the Media group. The Free the Media group is not just a group of ratbags or, to use Senator Evans's term, kryptonites. Perhaps some day we will be able to carry the term `kryptonite' as a badge of honour. It is not a bad little slogan; I quite like it. One gets all sorts of things with krypton. If honourable senators follow the comic books, they will know that. Senator Chaney —You are driving poor Senator Evans into the Opposition. Senator MASON —I have driven him to sit next to Senator Chaney. He is shrinking there against Senator Chaney, seeking solace. Give him solace; do not be unkind to him. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! I ask the honourable senator to return to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator MASON —I am sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was provoked by the Leader of the Opposition. I will return to the substance of the matter before us. It is a fact that the Free the Media group is a group of very intelligent and able Australians. They have got together with that organisation because they want something done about the matter now. They are already collecting an impressive volume of facts which require only to be brought before the public in a reasonable way. I support Senator Macklin's statements. He raised some issues that go to the point of the matter. There is a philosophy behind this attempt not to allow the suspension of Standing Orders-not even to allow discussion. We are not necessarily calling on the Senate to make a decision. Only the Senate can do that, we cannot force it to do so. All we are asking is that there be a free discussion on a matter of great public concern. What we are being told by the Opposition and the Government is that that must not happen: No matter what else happens, that must not happen. Senator Macklin made the point, and as an ex-journalist, I support it, that there is an idea that one has somehow to massage the media-I have heard that phrase around here until it makes me sick-and be nice to them or they will not run one's Press releases. I will not say what I really think it is, but the word `nonsense' is a good bowdlerisation News is news whatever its value and from wherever it comes. I regard the media as responsible enough to do that. They are responsible to the extent that they will publish news when it comes. So any idea that one must be careful and not do anything against the media is just a chimera; it is a lot of nonsense and a myth which has grown up in this place. It is a dangerous and damaging myth too. The motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is an attempt to break through that, an attempt to at least make one gird one's loins a bit-get a bit of courage together and show a bit of enterprise and actually do something about it. Both parties should not be a blanket censorship sort of organisation, as the public increasingly perceives them to be. The Australian Labor Party and the Liberal-National parties often gang up together. I can assure them that the Australian public distrusts both sides completely. Why do they think the Democrats' figures-in spite of our internal problems, which we are resolving very nicely, thank you-are as high as they have ever been in the Party's history? It is because the public does not trust the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party. It trusts us. It trusts us because we do what we are doing now. Somebody here had the hide to get up and say that we should not be doing this on peak broadcast time. Of course we should be doing it in such a way that our words and our thoughts get through to as many people in Australia as possible so we can show up the major parties for the the charlatans that they are. They sit here drawing their salaries, pretending to be members of parliament representing people, and fiddle around with a lot of nonsense day after day when the real issues, such as this one, are left alone with nobody wanting to do anything about them except us. As I have said, it is all very well to talk about grandstanding. What is grandstanding? It is, by definition here today by the Opposition and the Government, raising any matter which they do not want raised. It is time that truth was sheeted very deeply home. We have a duty to raise matters here on behalf of the community and to raise them urgently when there is an apparent necessity to do so. We have waited patiently. We have followed this matter week after week. We have discussed it in our own councils and thought that surely the Government would take a hand in it sooner or later. But no, that has not happened. It must be an election year. This matter is urgent for another reason. We do not really know what is going on. In a matter as substantial as the control of the media in this country, it is intolerable that the people and the Government of this country do not really know what is going on or that, if they do know what is going on, they do not want to discuss it. This is very bad. If we go back into the history of dictators such as Hitler and Peron of Argentina we find that the first thing Peron did was to destroy the independent Press, La Prensa. Everybody knows how important media judgments, media ownership and the balance of news and media are to a whole society. Australians understand that. That is why they are worried and why they have asked the Australian Democrats to take this kind of step. It has not been merely an individual approach. People have been ringing us and writing letters to us every day about this matter-ordinary members of the public, constituents, who have read in and seen on the media what is going on. There has been this takeover and that takeover. They do not know what is happening. They are confused and worried. That is a reason for something being done now, today. It is the best possible point I could bring forward. The widespread public agitation about and perception of this matter are probably the most important issues in politics at the moment. That is a reason for us to go ahead and debate it. I find it quite astounding that the words used so far in this debate by my colleagues supporting the motion that we should debate this matter today have not been listened to carefully enough by the Opposition and the Government. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) or the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is here now, should have got up long ago and said: `Yes, we will support the suspension of Standing Orders'. An intelligent, statesmanlike mind such as Senator Harradine's perceived this at once. He said: `Yes, of course. That is the way the Senate should operate. It ought to allow the suspension of Standing Orders straight away'. He will vote for it, and I appreciate his support. He has not done so through any great love of us, but because, as an honest senator, he sees it as necessary that he should support it. All other honourable senators should see that it is necessary and support the motion, too. This is not a matter to sweep under the carpet. The public do not like it being swept under the carpet. It is tired of things being swept under the carpet by this Parliament. Members of the public are becoming increasingly disillusioned by both the major ancient political groupings. They want more input into the political situation. They want to know what is going on. They have every right to expect this place to carry out a debate which will tell them what is going on and, what is more, carry it out when they can hear it. In other words, the point about the debate being on at broadcast time is a good one. What would be the use of our having a debate on this issue which was buried away when most busy people could not hear it? If there is to be a debate on this matter in the Senate it should take place in broadcast time. Now is a good time. Let us start. In fact, it ought to be advertised in advance that the debate is to take place in broadcast time so that at least our fellow citizens are taken into consultation and told that we are going to do that. But no, broadcast days are for grandstanding by senior Ministers and leaders-- Senator Archer —By the Democrats. Senator MASON —Things are changing a little. There is no harm in that. I stand corrected. Let me put it this way: Previously, broadcast days were days for grandstanding by leaders of the opposition, leaders of the government and senior Ministers on matters of no particular importance. This is a matter of importance. I suggest that we get on with it. Our communications spokesman, Senator Vigor, properly will have to be heard on this matter. His view is important. Following what we have to say, let us support this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and, as quickly as possible, get on with the substance of the debate. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.35) —It is extremely important that Standing Orders should be suspended now to enable us to debate this matter. When I came to this Parliament I followed Senator Chipp, who used to say that our role was to keep the bastards honest. It is probably much easier to keep bastards honest than to keep wimps honest. If people will not debate with us, we have a real problem. That is exactly the problem we have tonight. The problem tonight is that apparently neither the Government nor the Opposition is willing to debate this matter. Yet it is a significant matter for the whole community. Our media-our radio, television and newspapers-are changing hands like a large game of musical chairs. We do not know who owns what! The Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, himself recommends that various people should break the law. He is saying to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: `Please consider that the Government will make certain through the legislation it is going to put forward that the new provisions for 75 per cent ownership will allow you to own a large number of television and radio stations and newspapers at the same time'. People are acting upon Mr Duffy's advice. There is an enormous problem when a Minister suggests that people in the community and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal should act to break the law. If we can refer this matter to a Senate committee and get it looked at in the calm of the committee room, we can determine a long term communications policy for the Australian community based on the current urgent need to solve the problems which are facing us now: The rapidly increasing media ownership concentration; the loss of community input; the decrease in program standards as a result; the increase in the vulnerability of our journalists because there are so few employers around that if they speak out about problems in the community and in the businesses which are associated with the newspapers for which they work, they may end up being sacked; and the eventual possibility of a totalitarian Press. This is all happening now. Even Senator Richardson has told us that it is too late. If that is the case, we really have a serious problem, and there is a very good argument for the suspension of Standing Orders to debate this matter at length. There is decreasing Australian content in the media. Media conglomerates can do exactly what they want. They are controlled by a few individuals who can dictate to government. It is a very serious matter when the leaders of political parties do not say anything about matters concerning the Press simply because they are afraid of the effect which the Press barons will have upon them at the next election. It is extremely important that this Senate should consider that particular problem, which is a serious threat to open democracy within Australia. One of the most important operations for us to look at is the whole issue of political influence of newspapers, radio, television and the new media coming in. The Government has, through the backdoor of Radiocommunications Act licences, only just recently allowed for the operation of VAEIS-a satellite based video and audio entertainment and information service. That is happening without this Parliament really considering it at all. The owners of those operations are the same as the owners of the main broadcasting stations. They are getting into a grandstand seat to be able to take over cable television and high definition television when they turn up. We currently have a crisis on our hands, yet both the Government and the Opposition are telling us that we should not spend time debating this issue. To show the type of shambles which the Government is in on these matters, I asked a question last Monday of Senator Walsh, to which I have not received any answer. Senator Walsh, who is in the chamber, told me that he would get an answer to my question. I asked-I believe at this stage I should go through it in more detail-whether the Minister was aware of an item in the foreign investment policy guide of the Department of the Treasury, which states: Foreign investment in mass circulation newspapers is restricted. All proposals for foreign interests to establish a newspaper in Australia are subject to case-by-case examination irrespective of the size of the proposed investment. Approval is not normally given to proposals by foreign interests to establish ethnic newspapers in Australia, unless there is substantial involvement by the local ethnic community and effective local control of editorial policy. I went on to ask the Minister why it was that the foreign ownership requirements for the ethnic Press were so much more stringent than those for the mass circulation Press. Senator Mason —Because they are smaller. Did he say that? Senator VIGOR —It is obvious that the Government is willing to go into bullying operations, but the Minister has not answered. No answer has been forthcoming, even though he had three days to handle this, including a day's notice of the material. The Minister, who had almost a day's notice of the question, did not know of the particular quote from the foreign investment policy area. It is very urgent that we should debate these matters and that the Government should participate. We are currently being faced with a wall of silence from the Government and the Opposition on this matter. The Government is not willing to come forward and explain why it has not called in the Foreign Investment Review Board to look at some of these issues, or why the details associated with the takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd and the submissions to the Foreign Investment Review Board have not been released. There is no way in which Australians can judge what is actually happening, or the interrelationship between the Government and the media or the Opposition and the media, unless they are willing to debate those matters in this House. We can only assume the worst. That is why I urge all honourable senators to vote for the suspension of Standing Orders so that we can debate this most important matter and do the job that we are paid for, which is to make certain that the people of Australia have a properly planned future for the media and are not subjected to de facto censorship by any person or to decisions being made by default. It is important that the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation consider these matters in a cool, calm, collected and tripartisan way and that the decision of the Committee be allowed to come back to this Senate. I urge the Senate to make the decision to allow us to send this reference to the Committee. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(6.45) —I oppose this motion for the following reasons: We have been called wimps and it has been said that the Government and the Opposition spare no time for debate and that this is a very urgent debate. The Australian Democrats have libelled us on this side of the House. If the matter is so urgent why was it not so urgent when the placing of business was called at item No. 9? Why is it that in the middle of the business that was set out for today the Democrats suddenly say that this is a matter of urgency, when it was not urgent earlier in the day? Why is it that the Democrats want to put aside Standing Orders, which have been produced with the consent of the whole House to run this House properly? Why is it that at the last minute this motion was introduced in terms which insult every member of the House other than the Democrats? If this matter was not urgent earlier in the day, why is it urgent now? It seems to me that the reason may well be that it is broadcast day. Of course it is important to have discussions on the media; but people who have prepared speeches in relation to items listed on the Senate business sheet are not able to speak because of this motion. It is unfair that the business of other people before the House is set aside simply to debate matters of urgency which were not urgent when the business of the Senate was put down this morning. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.47) —in reply-I begin by responding to Senator Cooney. In my response to him I will lay down what may well be our mode of operation in this place. We had this motion down earlier this week. Senator Cooney would have noticed that I gave notice of it last week for discussion this week, in order to give a few of the slower thinking members of parliament the opportunity and the time to prepare a response. I did not move this motion at the placing of business today because the Manager of Government Business (Senator Gareth Evans) was begging for some legislation to be dealt with. If Senator Cooney regards that as somehow being an indication of our lack of seriousness or urgency about this matter I am happy to tell Senator Cooney now that any intention we ever had as far as co-operating in getting business through this place has been well and truly put on the back burner; notwithstanding the fact that bringing on this motion at the placing of business would not have in any way at all moved the Select Committee on Television Equalisation any faster than bringing it on, as a courtesy, after the matter of public importance. We will consider Senator Cooney's suggestion and the next time we want to move a contingency motion we will move it at the placing of business and take up hours of debate then. If the Manager of Government Business, as a consequence, suffers from some sort of mental hernia, be it on Senator Cooney's head, if he will pardon the mixed metaphor. I think I can probably dismiss Senator Chaney's contribution with the sort of contempt that he apparently dismissed not only our motion but the contents of it. His brevity was-- Senator Powell —Breathtaking. Senator HAINES —Breathtaking, as my colleague interjects. And his flip argument that we could have waited until 2 April because that would be soon enough was an equally breathtaking example of his failure to understand just how far down the track we have already gone with this particular problem and how soon something has to be done about it before it has got to five minutes past midnight-that rather quaint term used I think by Senator Robert Ray or it may have been Senator Richardson. Since they were playing tweedledum and tweedledee, it does not matter much anyway. We have had two conflicting suggestions from a couple of speakers early in the debate. One was from Senator Chaney, who said that everything was really alright and that we could leave it until 2 April and deal with it then-that would be soon enough. What is probably the more realistic contribution came from Senator Ray: We are to let it go because in any event it is too late and the whole series of events has overtaken us. I ask Senator Ray and Senator Richardson: Since when have we in this place ever allowed individuals or companies to act as they please-following, I might add, a few heavy hints from a few senior members of the Government-and then legislated to legitimate the actions of those individuals and companies? It will set the most appalling precedent, for the manner in which this place operates, that it has been my misfortune to run into. I wonder too where in the last couple of hours have been those Liberals who are more concerned about the processes of democracy-either in the running of this place or in the behaviour of individuals and companies outside it-than Senator Chaney appears to be and that a number of members on the Government benches seem to be. Where are those so-called wets or members of the Ian Macphee faction who could at least have done their spokesman the courtesy of supporting what is his widely known belief that an inquiry is necessary? They were missing. So much for the rhetoric that we have heard around this place and in the newspapers from some members of the Opposition parties that these takeovers and share raids cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Senator Ray and Senator Richardson-and again I cannot remember which of the two said it, and it does not matter much anyway-argued that in any event we are too busy in this place to be bothered with an inquiry of this sort-one of the more appalling suggestions that I think I have heard. Senator Macklin —They are whingeing about their work load. Senator HAINES —Senator Macklin said they are whingeing about their work load. If they cannot take it, they should get out and leave it to somebody who can manage to be on committees and to speak in debates in this place without falling in a little heap on the floor the minute somebody suggests that they might like to take on a bit extra. Senator Colston —That is cheap. Senator HAINES —No, it was not cheap. Senator Ray was arguing that this was a bit of grandstanding that nobody would pay any attention to because in any event senators here are too overworked. There is a Senate committee already in operation on this matter and it is quite capable of taking it on. I have more faith in its capacity to investigate these sorts of things than Senator Ray apparently does. As for his suggestion that we should put it to a Senate standing committee, it does not take anybody much time in this chamber to know that a referral to a standing committee can get dropped to the bottom of the order of priorities for as long as it suits the committee. Senator Ray went on to say that in any event we cannot do much about newspaper ownership, which he seemed to believe was what most people are interested in and concerned about, because that is a State responsibility. Maybe he has not caught up with the comments of an eminent lawyer, an ex-colleague of his, who disagrees with Senator Ray's comments and who did so loudly quite recently. Mr Whitlam certainly does not believe that the Federal Parliament and the Federal Government are powerless in this area. He says that it is claimed that the Federal Parliament has, by High Court interpretation, been given power to make laws concerning the electronic media but does not have powers concerning the print media. The claim, he says, completely misses the point. Under the Constitution the Australian Parliament has power to make laws with respect to foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. The Australian Parliament is able to pass laws dealing with the operations of corporations, whether trading interstate or intrastate. He went on to say that there is not a want of Federal power but a want of Federal will with respect to transfers of media ownership. I could not agree with him more. While we are talking about the High Court let me simply add at this point that had Sir Garfield Barwick, a man whose beliefs I do not often uphold, had his way in the area of restrictive trade practices some 20 years ago, and had he not been torpedoed by Sir Robert Menzies, we would not be in the position that we are in today and we would not be having the debate that we are having today because his proposals certainly would not have allowed this kind of thing to happen. I had a phone call following the debate from somebody who informed me that he was an ex- member of the Liberal Party. I will not mention his name because he may well not want it known. He said that this whole question of media ownership had been raised as early as 1972 in the Liberal party room for discussion and that it was only the loss the Liberals suffered at the election that seemed to have stopped it being brought on. So certainly there was agreement in 1972 among the Liberals in the party room that something had to be done. Senator Mason —They are all wimps now. Senator HAINES —Yes, I think they have gone wimpy. Whether it is the fact that it is an election year or whether they are just of a lesser calibre than the people who were around in the 1960s and the 1970s in the Liberal Party is anybody's guess. But they have certainly bought out of this argument very effectively. To be slow to act or to be blind to the problems confronting us 20 years ago is no excuse for our failure to act now that we have been alerted to the problems, and the potential problems, in changes to media ownership. If it is good enough for Britain, for Canada, and for Sweden, to name a few countries, to have in the past seen the need for an inquiry, one must ask why Australia's Parliament sees no need for something similar here. We are not omniscient. We do not read crystal balls any better than the parliaments in those other democracies. Why then have we been so slow to acknowledge the fact that there is a pressing deficiency in our information and an equally pressing need for that deficiency to be filled with information garnered from something like the sort of inquiry that we are proposing? One wonders increasingly in this place why Opposition and Government senators do not permanently occupy the benches on the President's right. Certainly they are making increasingly frequent cosy deals to let legislation whiz through and to bury issues that might cause some contention in the community. I point to the plant variety rights legislation that we have recently been dealing with as one indication. Left to honourable senators on my left and my right that piece of legislation would have skipped through the Parliament with no concerns expressed about the problems inherent in it. They have certainly sat squashed together often enough during divisions in recent months. They have sided with each other on amendments and contentious Bills so often that they might just as well acknowledge their unity permanently for the public to see. I am deeply disappointed that no Government or Opposition senators in this place have had the courage of their privately expressed convictions, in many cases, to support at least the suspension motion, and then, if they had any character at all, to support the motion that was on the Notice Paper. Senator Mason —Senator Harradine supported it. Senator HAINES —I pay considerable tribute to the contributions that have been made today by my colleagues and by Senator Harradine and only wish that there had been enough senators in this place with similar forceful feelings about this issue for us to be sure of success in the division I intend to call for. Question put: That the motion (Senator Haines's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Haines J. Powell, J. F.. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vallentine, J. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. 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. Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M. Cooney, B. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R. Devlin, R. 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. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. West, S. M. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. 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)(7.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is the same in substance as the one introduced by the Attorney-General in the House of Representatives at the end of the last session of Parliament. It provides legislative support for the establishment of a single national stock exchange and the creation of a National Guarantee Fund. The Bill incorporates a number of minor technical amendments the need for which has become apparent since the introduction of the previous Bill. By way of background, the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, at the request of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges-AASE-approved introduction of the previous Bill into this Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. This was done to enable the Exchanges to fully develop the constituent documents and business rules of the national stock exchange on the basis of the restructuring provisions contained in that Bill. The AASE's primary concern in pressing for that early introduction and passage of the Bill in the current session is that the Trade Practices Commission's authorisation for a number of existing stock exchange practices expires on 31 March 1987. The Commission identified these practices as being anti-competitive and refused to authorise them beyond 31 March 1987. The new articles of association for the single national exchange to be established by the Bill address these areas of TPC concern. For example the restrictions on corporate ownership have been removed. Authorisation has been sought for these changes and the AASE is concerned to avoid the need for some ``interim'' structure to be put in place after 31 March 1987. To do this it is necessary for the Bill and the necessary State and Territory translator regulations applying the Bill's provisions in those jurisdictions, to be in place by 1 April 1987. By introducing the previous Bill in the last session to meet the AASE's timing concerns, it was possible to closely examine some of the more technical aspects of the Bill. As noted, this has pointed up the need for a number of minor changes. There are no policy changes involved. A number of amendments are designed to ensure there is a proper jurisdictional nexus between the proposed National Guarantee Fund provisions and each State and Territory comprising the Co-operative scheme. In addition a potential anomaly in relation to multiple claims against the National Guarantee Fund in respect of dealer insolvencies has been rectified. Minor drafting changes have also been made to facilitate the making of State regulations which insure that, without changing the policy of the Commonwealth law, this legislation can sensibly be applied as State law. I introduce this Bill pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. In accordance with the formal agreement under that scheme, the Ministerial Council for Com- panies and Securities has approved introduction of the Bill into this Parliament. The restructuring of the stock exchanges and the creation of a National Guarantee Fund will be achieved by amendment of the Securities Industry Act 1980. Consequential amendments will also be made to other co-operative scheme legislation. The impetus for change to the structure of the major Australian stock exchanges has come from the stock exchanges themselves. The Australian Associated Stock Exchanges formally requested legislative support for the change from the Ministerial Council in March 1986. Such support is required because of the significant logistic and timing difficulties inherent in separate schemes of arrangement in each State which would otherwise be necessary to facilitate the desired restructuring. It is worth noting briefly the sorts of developments in Australia which have prompted Australian stock exchanges to adopt a more national focus. One of the major developments in Australia and throughout the world's capital and securities markets has been the trend to internationalisation of securities markets. This has been stimulated by technological advances in communication, increasing sophistication of investors in the management of their financial risks and, of course, this Government's initiatives in abolishing exchange controls as part of its general policy of deregulating the financial system. Accordingly, Australian stock exchanges have been subject to greater competition from overseas exchanges. In this context, the AASE has estimated, on the basis of interviews with larger stock exchange members, that a substantial proportion of their business (ranging between 30 per cent and 50 per cent) was being sent overseas either for execution (in relation to Australian Securities) or for investment in securities issued by overseas companies. This development alone suggests that Australia's current fragmented State based stock exchange system is inappropriate and that anything that can be done to assist in providing a stock exchange structure better able to meet this competition, should be done. There is also increasing pressure from investors for a national securities clearing house to speed up transfer of securities and for the adoption of screen trading. These trends also serve to highlight the need for a more streamlined and integrated system for trading securities and raising capital in Australia. The associated establishment of a national guarantee fund to replace the existing separate fidelity funds of each of the State capital city exchanges will assist in maintaining investor confidence in Australian securities markets. The 1986 Australian share ownership survey conducted by the AASE indicated that almost 90 per cent of adult Australians do not own shares. One of the major reasons given by those surveyed was that they preferred safer, less risky, investments. The contract guarantee and insolvency protection afforded by the National Guarantee Fund may serve to alleviate some of these concerns. The no-fault contract guarantees will ensure that where a party to a securities transaction does not complete his obligations, those obligations will be met by the National Guarantee Fund. This no fault system of contract guarantees contrasts with claims against existing fidelity funds under the provisions of Part IX of the Securities Industry Act 1980 where defalcation or fraudulent misuse of property is required to establish a claim. Direct access to the National Guarantee Fund for compensation in respect of a dealer insolvency also contrasts with existing fidelity fund provisions which only allow for compensation via formal Bankruptcy Act mechanisms. In addition to these investor protection measures, the establishment of the National Guarantee Fund will enable funds to be made available for industry development purposes approved by the Ministerial Council. These funds will comprise the amount of the pooled assets not required for investor protection purposes and it is envisaged that one of the purposes for which such funds will be used is the establishment of a centralised securities clearing house. Financial Impact Statement The Bill will not have any financial impact on Government revenue and expenditure. Sharemarket investors will benefit from the contract guarantee and insolvency provisions of the National Guarantee Fund. The capital and securities market is expected to become more efficient from the more co-ordinated, centralised ASX approach. In addition, allocation of excess funds of the National Guarantee Fund to national development purposes approved by Ministerial Council should allow technological advances with resulting efficiencies. Conclusion This Bill assists the Stock exchanges in their attempt to establish a more co-ordinated nationally oriented securities market and provides additional investor protection to maintain confidence in that market. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Archer) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria) —Minister for Resources and Energy) (7.10)-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend section 15 of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 to correct anomalies that have become apparent following advice from the Attorney-General's Department. As it is currently drafted the Act provides for the determination of a guaranteed minimum price, GMP, for Australian Standard White Wheat, ASW, and other prescribed categories of wheat on a basis which was not intended by the Government, which is inconsistent with other sections of the Act and which would run counter to sound and broadly acceptable accounting procedures as currently used by the Australian Wheat Board. The current methodology adopted by the Australian Wheat Board for calculating the GMP for ASW wheat involves inclusion of the actual value of ASW wheat sales and an imputed value for sales of other categories of wheat on an ASW basis. This methodology has been employed by the Australian Wheat Board for both the 1984-85 and 1985-86 seasons. Advice from the Attorney-General's Department is that section 15 (2) of the Act as it is currently drafted only provides for the actual value of ASW wheat sales to be included in the calculation. However, the Government considers that the current methodology being used by the Australian Wheat Board is consistent with understandings reached with the Australian wheat industry at the time the current wheat marketing arrangements were formulated. While the current Act provides for the determination of GMPs for categories of wheat other than ASW, the intention was to continue the practice of the Wheat Marketing Act 1979 under which a single pool based on ASW wheat would operate. The ASW GMP would therefore be the benchmark against which GMPs for other prescribed categories of wheat would be determined. If the methodology implied in the advice from the Attorney-General's Department were used it would involve a move away from this approach towards separate pools for separate categories. This was not the Government's intention and hence my proposal to amend section 15 of the Act to properly reflect the current methodology. Section 15 is also not consistent with sections 16 and 17 of the Act which provide for the calculation of the net pool return rate. This latter figure when compared with the GMP for ASW wheat determines the size of any underwriting commitment. It is also intended to amend the Act to clarify the treatment of interest on credit sales and income on investments. It is proposed that these items be included as revenue in the calculation of gross returns for ASW wheat. Pursuant to sub-section 15 (1) of the Act, the Minister for Primary Industry is required to determine and gazette the guaranteed minimum price for all prescribed categories of wheat by 1 March of each season. If such gazettal notice has not taken place, the AWB is not empowered to make the final advance payment to growers, which would, in the normal course of events, take place about two weeks into March. The Minister for Primary Industry has already indicated that there is the possibility of a payout under the underwriting arrangements for the 1986-87 pool. Any payout depends on exchange rates as well as export returns and so a precise figure cannot be fixed on Government commitment until the pool closes in about three years time. The amendments themselves should not involve any additional Commonwealth Government costs, savings or revenue. The Australian Wheat Board is currently employing accounting procedures which would accord with the Act in its amended form. Mr President, the Bill amends the current Commonwealth legislation so that it conforms with the Government intention, and with current methodology used by the Australian Wheat Board. It conforms with understandings and expectations of State governments and industry. Passage of this legislation this week will allow for the expeditious payment to growers of money owed to them. It will allow for the appropriate levels of payments. Mr President, I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —I seek leave to make the Government's response to the second report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I am pleased to note that the second report of the Joint Committee on the NCA, which was tabled on 27 November 1986, records a marked improvement in the relationship between the Joint Committee and the NCA from the differences revealed in the first report. Indeed the Committee notes at paragraph 7 of its report: This relationship is characterised by a degree of mutual trust, a regular exchange of information and a willingness by each body to allow the other to discharge its statutory duties. As a result of the discussions which my predecessor instigated between the Joint Committee and the Authority to examine these differences both bodies have developed a greater appreciation and understanding of the other's responsibilities and concerns. I am pleased that an appropriate working relationship has now been established. In this regard I am pleased that the Committee records its satisfaction with the level of co-operation of the Authority in providing it with information. I also note that the Joint Committee has reviewed the administrative methods and information systems employed by the authority. One of the Committee's concerns was the potential increased threat to civil liberties posed by the Authority's computer database. However, the Committee's report records that these concerns have been allayed by the Authority's approach. The Committee's report also raises the matter of the future of the NCA after 30 June 1989 when the sunset clause in the National Crime Authority Act 1984 is currently due to come into effect. As the Joint Committee has noted, a review of the achievements and impact of the Authority will need to be undertaken in order to come to a view regarding the future of the Authority and its modus operandi. In this context, the Committee points out the great difficulty of establishing criteria by which to evaluate the Authority's effectiveness. It rejects as a `simplistic measure' any attempt to judge effectiveness solely by the number of prosecutions resulting from the Authority's work. The Committee's report suggests looking to another criterion, namely that it may be possible over a period of perhaps five to seven years to disrupt the financial structures and organisation which surround much of the activity of organised crime. I agree with the Committee's `caution against making hasty judgments as to its effectiveness', as the issues to be considered in conducting such a review are complex. Nevertheless, proper and timely consideration of them is vital as a means of assessing progress made in the fight against organised crime and in order to ensure that Parliament may be given an informed assessment in good time before the sunset clause operates. In reviewing the NCA's performance the Government will need to take into account a wide range of views, and acknowledges that the joint committee will have a particularly important contribution to make to this progress. I thank the Joint Committee for its second report and look forward to its continuing contribution to the process of assisting the Parliament understand and combat organised crime in Australia. Senator TATE —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(7.11) —I draw attention to the fact that in the statement the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) said that it is necessary to have investigations to come to a view regarding the future of the National Crime Authority. I believe that the Minister should be able to come to this conclusion fairly quickly. This matter is the subject of a Bill that I introduced into the Senate today. It is coincidental that the two things should come down together. It is very important that the staff of the Authority should know where they stand. We do not want to see people leaving the Authority and we want to be able to fill vacancies that occur. While ever we leave it in the air that we have not come to a view regarding the future of the Authority the position will be somewhat clouded. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(7.12) —The Australian Democrats welcome the Government's response to the report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. It is very important that the Government and particularly the new Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) give this type of support to the Committee and to the Authority. The notion I want to draw attention to concerns the ability to review the effectiveness of the Authority over time. This is dealt with at considerable length in the Committee's report, and the Minister, in the statement which he has just incorporated, makes particular reference to this. I think it is vitally important that no simplistic measure be used for the effectiveness of the Authority. Head counting is not an important way in which to go about it. Also, I draw attention to the fact that the Committee, in legislation, has a particular role to play in working out and providing information to the Parliament so that it can make a balanced decision on the effectiveness of the Authority. It seems to me that one of the important tasks of the Committee was to overview the National Crime Authority following its establishment to make sure of its efficiency and effectiveness. I welcome the Minister's support for that ongoing process. I noted that the Minister stated that we must stay away from the simplistic methods of judging whether the Authority is effective. As we all know, if the Authority manages to disrupt the patterns of organised crime in Australia-the Minister has drawn attention to this-that in itself would be a major gain for our community. I welcome the Minister's statement in support. I believe that if we have the Government, the Committee and the Authority working as one-as the Minister has indicated he is certainly going to do and as his predecessor did very well-the attack on organised crime can proceed apace. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I table the fleet base relocation study report and, on behalf of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), seek leave to make a statement relating thereto and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I have pleasure in tabling this report of a defence study into options for basing the fleet at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia and at Jervis Bay in New South Wales. The study was initiated by this Government for two main reasons. It recognises that the defence of Australia requires an increased naval presence in the west. It also recognises that the main base of the fleet in eastern Australia cannot remain in Sydney Harbour indefinitely. This is in keeping with the intention of the Government to establish a defence infrastructure appropriate to a self-reliant defence posture. A need for a substantial naval presence in the west, if the Navy were to properly fulfil its responsibilities, was recognised early this century. It was not until the early 1970s, however, that a decision was made to establish the facility we now have at HMAS Stirling in Cockburn Sound. It is a measure of this Government's determination to ensure an effective defence of our country that establishment of Stirling as a major base there should no longer be put off. This Government is committed to further developing Stirling, and thereby making a two-ocean navy a reality. It was this Government which decided to home-port the first destroyer at Stirling-HMAS Stuart-in 1984, and the second, HMAS Swan, in 1985; and it was late in 1985 that I announced that Stirling would become a major base for Australia's submarines. The development of Stirling reflects a strategic need to have the capacity for maritime operations to be conducted from the west as well as the east coast, and the consequent need to ensure that maintenance support is available there. Ships operating in the strategically important areas of the north and north-west and supported from Stirling will gain a substantial increase in their effective operating time-by 13 per cent for destroyers and 31 per cent for submarines. The basing of more ships at Stirling will also enable the Navy more readily to develop expertise in areas in which it would need to operate in contingencies that could arise in shorter time scales. The report states that the development of Stirling for up to half the fleet would be a sensible planning objective to be achieved progressively. It is now the Government's intention to move half the fleet to Stirling. I have already announced that Stirling will be a major base for the new submarines. The first submarine to transfer will be HMAS Oxley, which will be home-ported there from September this year-in addition to the two destroyers already home-ported there. The report makes it clear that two Oberon submarines and four destroyers could be based at Stirling by 1990. Further development and basing could follow in the 1990s as the new classes of minehunters, submarines and light patrol frigates enter service. The report addresses the detailed implications of developing Stirling. Specific proposals now need to be considered in the light of the overall defence program, the Government's other important defence initiatives, and particular aspects such as provision for basing there further ships as the fleet expands to 16 or 17 surface combatants. Development of Stirling will have a significant local impact. Investment in Stirling could amount to some $330m over 10 years or more. Up to 1,000 persons could be directly engaged in construction. Some 3,000 extra Navy personnel, wives and dependants could be expected to generate an increase in demand for consumer goods and services of $50m annually and create some 900 additional jobs in the area. The significance of establishing docking or ship-lift facilities in Western Australia for destroyers and submarines, particularly for emergencies, will increase with the number of ships at Stirling. The Government has decided to make a commitment in principle for a Commonwealth contribution to a Western Australian marine support facility in order to ensure that this capability is available in Western Australia. Detailed matters which now need to be resolved include-the scale and timing of the total facility, and of the Commonwealth's contribution to it, the development of other related support capacity in Western Australian industry and at HMAS Stirling, and the terms and conditions of RAN access to the facility. A team of senior defence and RAN personnel will shortly begin discussing these details with Western Australian Government officials with a view to finalising the matter by May this year. It has to be remembered, of course, both in regard to this proposal and the total fleet basing issue, that the Commonwealth is operating in an environment of extraordinary economic difficulty. This will, of course, influence our negotiations. Development of Stirling will also have extensive indirect impact on the Navy generally, as it adjusts its whole infrastructure, oriented till now to an east coast navy, to the realities of an east-west coast navy. Historically, Australia's major military establishments have developed near the major population centres. Such location reflected a combination of factors-local defence of those centres together with ready access to industrial support; a policy of supporting the operations of allies; and the ability to train and despatch expeditionary forces. That has changed, and changes to the logistic and other support arrangements need detailed consideration in consequence. It is also timely to examine options for developing a fleet base at Jervis Bay-against longer term prospects of a need to move the base from Sydney and the suitability of Jervis Bay as an alternative location for the fleet in the east. While moving half the fleet to Stirling will relieve problems in Sydney for the medium term, a long term perspective is necessary. I repeat what I have said publicly before. The future growth of Sydney will impose increasing constraints on the Navy's operations. There are also inevitably competing and growing demands for limited space in big cities. The Navy's armament depot at Newington is a particular case. Not only is the extent to which it can now be used limited by new safety standards and encroaching development, but its occupation of 260 hectares of land for this purpose in the centre of a city is neither prudent nor operationally sound, nor consonant with the other uses that urban pressures would suggest. It needs to be relocated to where it can efficiently and effectively support the fleet. We need therefore to begin to plan for an eventual move of the eastern half of the fleet to a more suitable long term location. The Government will now commission the environmental studies that need to proceed. The report notes the advantages of Jervis Bay over other locations for a new fleet base. There are a number of naval facilities there including the naval air station at Nowra, and collocation would be advantageous. A new base would permit integration of those elements of the fleet left after buildup in the west, and enable efficiencies in support. Such a base would remain close to industrial support, including the dockyard, in Sydney. The area has room for expansion and consolidation of other Navy facilities over time. In sum, Jervis Bay has been clearly established by defence examination as the most suitable alternative base in the east for the fleet. At this point, I shall respond to the views of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in its report of 7 October 1986 on relocation of naval facilities to Jervis Bay, when it proposed that an environmental impact study for naval development at Jervis Bay should be undertaken only when a comprehensive planning study and public review of naval facility requirements and alternative sites demonstrates that relocation to Jervis Bay is necessary. The Government notes but does not endorse the position taken by the Committee. The Committee's approach would seem to invite the Government to come to a firm position to relocate to Jervis Bay before commencing an EIS-thus rendering the EIS in any fundamental sense largely redundant. That approach seems contrary to the spirit of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-75 and indeed to the recommendations of the Committee's 1974 report which said: Any proposal to develop naval facilities at Jervis Bay be subjected to an environmental impact study in accordance with the terms of reference of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-75 and if it can be demonstrated that a more suitable site for such development exists the Australian Government should not agree to the proposal. The advantage of the process recommended in 1974 is that the Government will have before it the whole range of factors and interests, environmental and otherwise, which are pertinent to taking its decision. This is regarded as the more responsible approach and is consistent with earlier public statements from the Prime Minister and myself that no Government decision on relocation would be taken before environmental studies were completed. The Committee also questioned the need for fleet base relocations to take place at all. It accepted the case for relocation of the armament depot from Sydney, but it raised doubts about the need for relocation of the fleet-drawing on references from the Dibb report, including the statement that an `accelerated move out of Sydney Harbour could not be justified by any pressing strategic imperative'. The Committee went on to comment that in its view the fleet base in Port Jackson would be capable of adequately accommodating a fleet of the present size into the twenty-first century'. Even at the most optimistic rate of relocation, and assuming planning were to commence tomorrow, establishment of the fleet in Jervis Bay could not be achieved before the twenty-first century, that is, some 15 to 20 years. The high cost of relocation-$1 billion-and the size and complexity of the task could well require a much longer timeframe for relocation. While it is true, as suggested by the Committee, that a buildup at HMAS Stirling, Western Australia, will relieve pressure on other naval facilities, that does not offer any long term solution to the prospect of increasing problems I have mentioned associated with Sydney Harbour. This Government is not prepared to ignore the fact that what are presently only difficulties in Sydney Harbour could eventually constrain naval operations. The second recommendation of the Committee dealt with the need for any proposed development at Jervis Bay to be considered and planned in the context of the overall proposal for fleet facilities and bases around Australia. I simply observe that such issues are addressed in the report I am now tabling and are taken into account in the course that is being followed by the Government. Once again I would stress, as has been done in previous statements, that there is no commitment at this stage to relocating the fleet to Jervis Bay. There is a commitment to examining fully the environmental considerations of what is clearly the most suitable alternative location for the major fleet base in the east. That will be done before the Government reaches any decision. The environmental assessment for Jervis Bay will therefore proceed. Finally, I need the emphasise that the possibility of long term relocation of the fleet from Sydney must not preclude action necessary in Sydney in the meantime. For example, development necessary for Australia's mine-countermeasure capabilities is a high priority imperative and cannot be deferred. There will always be a requirement for mine-countermeasure vessels in Sydney because of the Harbour's enormous economic significance to Australia. Accordingly, the development of those facilities necessary in Sydney to support this capability will proceed. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(7.15) —This statement from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on the report of the fleet base relocation study is very important. Its purpose is to give the Government's comments on the report, which was published in January this year. The significance of the statement by the Minister is that it indicates that the Government has made a decision in favour of a two-ocean Navy concept. In other words, the study concludes, and the Government has accepted the view, that the HMAS Stirling naval base in Cockburn Sound in Western Australia should be developed to the extent that half the Australian fleet is based on the west coast, as distinct from the policy of the past under which the fleet was virtually all based on the east coast. The development of this new strategy is of particular importance and significance. The Opposition in government was certainly working towards this. Australia was first made aware of the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean and the west coast of Australia for defence requirements by the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. It was the Fraser Government which developed the Stirling naval base. The Minister for Defence, in the statement, has pointed out that this Government is the first one actually to home-port any warships there. The statement refers to two destroyers and a possible third one. The Government is to be commended for that and also for its decision to base submarines in Cockburn Sound. Nevertheless, the basic strategic concept of a two-ocean navy-the importance of the Indian Ocean as well as the Pacific Ocean to Australia's defence-was very much developed by the Fraser Government, and in fairness, particularly the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. Clearly the Opposition does not oppose or dissent from that concept which we are pleased to note the Government has now adopted. Obviously it is based very definitely on realistic strategic perceptions. The statement goes on to indicate the sorts of benefits that will flow to the area of the south-west of Western Australia, particularly around Cockburn Sound and Fremantle, from the development. This work, of course, will not be done overnight; it will be done over a period. Obviously, it will be very expensive and a large number of naval personnel will be based in Western Australia. The study and the ministerial statement also deal with the relocation of the Navy from its traditional base in Sydney Harbour. There is no commitment by the Government at this stage but obviously Jervis Bay is the preferred place to relocate the Navy. The statement indicates that the Government is proceeding with an environmental impact study in regard to that broad concept without in fact making a firm commitment to it. That seems clearly to be the right approach. However, one must note the very high cost of that proposal, apart altogether from the environmental costs, personnel and so on. Under this relocation plan, which is the subject of the study and the statement, capital investment of the order of $1.5 billion will be required. I think we can be assured that it will cost a great deal more than that in order to achieve the policies announced by the Minister. I think one must be somewhat cynical about the Government's real intentions in the long term to follow through with plans of that kind because this Government does not accord defence a very high priority in its spending. We know that one of the first things it did was to rule out the question of an aircraft carrier. It has talked about some replacement platform, but it has done nothing about that. It closed down the Fleet Air Arm at Nowra. Indeed this Government is having great difficulty in retaining adequate personnel in all the Services and indeed in even persuading the people to serve in submarines. So there is a great morale problem in the Services. There has been a cutback on many activities which are important in training and in the morale of service people. The plans to spend money of these proportions, together with the additional expense that will probably be required to increase the naval strength alone to meet this and other defence requirements, raise the question as to how serious the Government really is about this commitment. It certainly made this commitment to the two ocean naval concept. It certainly made the commitment to upgrade these facilities in order that HMAS Stirling could cope with it. But it has not yet made the commitment to Jervis Bay. In any event, it seems to me that we should not get too excited about the fact that the Government is moving on a policy that it has announced. Clearly the two-ocean naval concept is the right policy and the right strategy, but I think it is fair to ask whether this Government will really make the commitment in dollars and cents terms to the requirements of defence in Australia and whether it will carry out the policies that it is talking about here. I have a horrible suspicion that this is much more theory than is likely to be practice. The Government clearly has got to adopt a very different attitude to the defence requirements of this nation, to the requirements of defence personnel and to the requirements of all aspects of our defence needs. It is not simply a matter of putting down a statement such as this, although as I have said it certainly adopts the right concept and the right strategy; there has to be a very different attitude than the one the Government has so far exhibited to defence priorities in its own budgeting. I cannot really see that the sorts of grand plans outlined by Mr Beazley in this statement are likely to be put into proper effect by this Government. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(7.24) —I am pleased to see that the Government recognises that Western Australia is part of Australia from a defence point of view. I am pleased also, where my own State of New South Wales is concerned, that the Government is taking cognisance at least of the points that I have made in this place year after year; that it is absolutely crazy to have a major naval base in the most heavily populated part of our major city. In a time of war that could have the most appalling consequences because if there were any allied ships there-indeed any of our own navy-it would inevitably be a place which would be attacked with nuclear weapons. As a result of this consideration over the years the people of Sydney are well aware of it. Many people have rung me up and written to me thanking me for raising that matter. I am glad that the Government is trying to do something about it. Whether it will do it with any urgency is, in view of this report, debatable. Fifteen or 20 years is too late. More urgency is needed in this business of getting Garden Island out of Sydney, both from a cosmetic and strategic point of view. Garden Island ought to be properly one of the most beautiful and best planned new suburbs of Sydney, and that could be achieved quite easily. A cost of $1 billion is noted, and that cost becomes higher the longer this is left. So I think it is something we have to look at in the not too distant future. I make the point that it would not be a dead cost, and this is something that has to be brought forward. It would be possible to redevelop that whole area with parkland around the coastline in the most beautiful way, and a very good apartment or home unit development, which would be well planned, well developed and which would be worth enormous sums of money, could be built on the higher parts of the area. It is a fact that quite small blocks of land in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, which have on them unit blocks, are valued by the Valuer-General at $2m or more. So it would be quite possible to move at least to regain some of the cost of moving the naval establishment out of the heart of Sydney. Naturally, I would prefer it to be converted to a beautiful public park. If there is to be an alternative to having the mess that is there now, which is very noisy and unsightly-I live near it so I have an interest in this; and it is right that I should admit an interest-I think it would be much better to have an attractive piece of parkland around the foreshores that everybody could use, as well as residential areas so that the beautiful outstanding views and central position of that area could be available to many thousands of Sydney people who would then live there. I do not think this is something that has to be left for a long time. It is the one thing that could be done now to make Sydney the most beautiful city in the world. To take that block out of its heart and to put there an attractive parkland and residential development would make Sydney so attractive that it would then be admired by everyone. It is absurd that we have beautiful buildings, such as the Opera House and so on, marred by something in the background which is not only untidy but totally unsuitable in the heart of such a big city. But as I have said, it is strategic madness to keep it there, because in certain contingencies every hour it stays there would place the most densely populated part of Sydney at threat. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(7.26) —We have only four minutes left and, as I have a great deal to say about this matter, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —by leave-In response to this report I would first like to mention some of the concerns that have been voiced to me by the citizens of Jervis Bay. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) claimed that-I am quoting from his accompanying document: No Government decision on relocation would be taken before environmental studies were completed. He also says: Jervis Bay has been clearly established by defence examination as the most suitable alternative base in the east for the fleet. The citizens in the area will be looking forward to a fair environmental impact study. I hope that some doubts which I have had voiced to me about this environmental impact study are unfounded. Some people are saying that it will be merely a whitewash job, that it is a foregone conclusion and that Jervis Bay will be the new major naval base on the east coast. It is high time that the Minister visited Jervis Bay to speak with concerned citizens who have been worried about this project for some time. I understand that he is going there next week, and I hope that he will be available to hear from the locals as well as from navy personnel. Upgraded facilities for the Royal Australian Navy will have obvious implications for the Seventh Fleet of the United States of America, a nuclear navy. Page D-7 of the report under the heading `Nuclear Safety Considerations' states: A fleet base at Jervis Bay would be suitable for this purpose provided incompatible civil developments do not take place. This is a worry that has been on the minds of people in the area for quite a long time. There are sources in the United States, including Senator Ted Kennedy, who talk about Jervis Bay as another possible home porting site and certainly the site of many future ports of call when the Royal Australian Navy facilities there are upgraded. People are very concerned about this implication of nuclear armed and nuclear powered ships having access to Jervis Bay when it is upgraded to suit the Royal Australian Navy. If citizens at Groton in the United States, where Trident submarines are being manufactured, have heard of Jervis Bay-they know all about it-obviously there must have been government to government discussions about the possibility of frequent port calls which the people of Australia have not been informed about. Whenever questions about this have been asked, there has been the standard fob-off reply. I think it is something that people on this side of the country need to be aware of; that there will be a greater presence of the nuclear navy of the United States if Jervis Bay becomes the Royal Australian Navy's major fleet base on the east coast. As far as the west coast of Australia is concerned, there are many people who feel that it is important that the west coast be defended. But I contend that we are perhaps looking at national security from the wrong point of view if we are looking to military solutions. What we should be looking at are solutions to the security problem of Australia in terms of building better trading relationships with our neighbours and making sure that we have better relationships by training our diplomats at a fraction of the cost that it takes to build submarines and other shipping to expand the role of the Royal Australian Navy on the west coast. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(7.30) —I want to take a few moments this evening to set straight a matter that received some Press comment today. I refer to the arrangements in place to allow Aboriginal people to exercise their right to vote in the forthcoming Northern Territory election. Yesterday, in response to a question in another place, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, took the opportunity to attack, I presume, the Electoral Office in the Northern Territory, and have a side kick at the Northern Territory authorities, the Northern Territory Government. He made accusations that it was discriminating against Aborigines by not providing adequate voting facilities to them. He made other claims to the effect that the closure of the electoral rolls soon after the election was announced also discriminated against Aboriginal people. An examination of the facts shows that the Minister's claims are quite fallacious. Firstly, the Northern Territory is the only place in Australia where mobile polling booths are provided on a large scale to enable people, predominantly Aboriginal people, to exercise their right to vote in person in remote settlements on their traditional homelands. They are not forced to go through the bureaucratic complications of lodging a postal vote, although that option is taken by many non-Aboriginal people living in remote areas. The fact that there are some differences in the times at which mobile polling stations will be available in certain areas can be put down entirely to logistics. Moving the equipment and material about, and staffing the polling booths, is not always easy. It is a massive project. Any differences in polling hours have nothing to do with discrimination. For the Minister to suggest that it was, is quite mischievous and irresponsible and, I believe, an unfair attack on the Electoral Office, which has a massive task at every election. There has been a concerted effort in the Northern Territory to educate Aboriginal people in all communities as to their rights and obligations in relation to voting. The program has been conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. It has involved field officers, a number of whom are Aboriginal people, who go into the communities and explain the concept of voting, voting systems, valid and invalid votes, spoilt ballot papers, et cetera. They also stress the importance of communities becoming responsible for ensuring that their members are properly enrolled so that they are able to exercise their rights. However, the Commission can do only so much. It can educate people but it cannot physically force them to enrol to vote, although it will of course assist any person seeking to enrol to vote. The point is that any person, Aboriginal or otherwise, who was not on the electoral roll when it closed, is disenfranchised only out of his or her own failure to enrol. There is no discrimination against Aboriginal people. Quite the opposite; there has been positive encouragement of Aboriginal people to become involved and to register to vote. One has to wonder why the Minister would make these baseless attacks on the Territory Government. I can only suggest that it is a pathetic attempt to stir up resentment in Aboriginal people by telling them that they are being discriminated against. If this is some sort of ploy aimed at hurting the Northern Territory Government's electoral prospects, firstly, it will not work and, secondly, it is not worthy of the Minister. His Government's Aboriginal affairs policies have already caused divisiveness and racial disharmony within the Northern Territory. I find it incredible that the Minister would want to worsen the situation by making the sorts of claims he made yesterday. As I have said, I can only suppose that it is an attempt to score some cheap political points for the Minister's floundering Australian Labor Party colleagues in the Northern Territory. It is a ploy that I believe was also used just prior to the last Northern Territory election. As I have said, in any case it is not worthy of the Minister and I hope that in future he will refrain from such groundless and unfortunate attacks. Question resolved in the affirmative Senate adjourned at 7.35 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1450) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) What is the reason for the major reorganisation of Telecom's Directories Branch in Queensland. (2) What extra duties are being performed by each of the clerical officers in the 17 upgraded positions in this Branch, and what will be the annual salary impact of this portion of the organisation. (3) What additional delays in the updating of directory assistance database are expected as a result of the abolition of 12 clerical assistant positions. (4) What is the expected effect on error rates of the abolition of the positions of 5 verifiers, and will this fall equally on commercial and domestic customers. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) The reorganisation of Queensland Directories Branch was part of the national Directories reorganisation. This reorganisation has enabled Directories nationally to address the commercial needs of the telephone directory business, through the introduction of the sales and marketing structure within each Branch. (2) The Directories reorganisation in Queensland involved the creation of two new areas of responsibility, viz Directory Sales Development and Directory Marketing. In all some fifteen positions were involved in changes due to the new organisation, three of which have yet to be filled. The variations were made to enable the sales and marketing functions to be established and to strengthen management in the compilation and production areas. The annual salary increase for the Branch was $220,000 (+9.9 per cent). The forecast increase in directory sales for Queensland is in the order of 18 per cent. (3) It is expected that there will be no additional delays as a direct result of the reorganisation. (4) The purpose of the reorganisation was not aimed at error rates but at the introduction of a sales and marketing structure. The reorganisation is not expected to affect error rates. (Question No. 1455) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: (1) What is the estimated current error rate for Yellow Pages entries, Superbold and ordinary White Pages entries and the directories assistance database, in each State. (2) What was the estimated error rate in each directories assistance database case at the end of each of the last 3 financial years. (3) What were the estimated Yellow Pages and White Pages error rates in each State for each of the previous 3 sets of these phone books. (4) What are the expected effects on error rates during the 1986-87 financial year of any reorganisation in the Directories Branch, in each State. (5) What is the expected effect on the overtime payable in the compilation of the next set of phone books as a result of Directories Branch reorganisations, in each State. (6) What was the backlog of directories assistance database entries on 30 September 1986, 31 March 1986 and 30 September 1985, in each State. (7) Is a distinction made between ``errors'' and ``alterations'', if so, when was the distinction first made, and on what grounds, in each State. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. (1) (a) Yellow Pages... 0.08 0.16 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.15 (b) White Pages... 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.06 (c) Directories Assistance... 0.017 0.064 0.027 0.050 0.047 0.018 (2) 1983-84... 0.025 0.048 0.073 0.082 0.074 0.024 1984-85... 0.016 0.061 0.043 0.054 0.082 0.027 1985-86... 0.012 0.069 0.034 0.047 0.055 0.023 (3) Yellow Pages 1983 issues... 0.09 0.14 0.06 0.06 n.a. 0.18 1984 issues... 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.10 1985 issues... 0.10 0.16 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.11 White Pages 1983 issues... 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.20 0.05 1984 issues... 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.20 0.06 1985 issues... 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.13 Notes: Replies to (1) (2) and (3) are estimated % error rates. Reply to 1 (a) and (b) refers to 1986 issues. Reply to 1 (c) refers to the position at December, 1986. (4) The National Directories reorganisation involved the introduction of a sales and marketing structure. This reorganisation is not expected to affect error rates. (5) There may be a marginal drop in overtime due to better work methods and management, but this is part of an ongoing process and not specifically attributable to the recent reorganisation. With the growth of directory entries the workload will necessarily increase and may offset any short term reduction in overtime. (6) NSW Vic. Qld SA 30.9.85... 9,677 12,722 (2.10)...8501 4863 31.3.86... 18 069 14 608 (2.4)...10 349 2245 30.9.85... 14,646 10,679 (21.10)...18 200 3904 Note Victoria maintains different recording dates (shown in brackets) to other States. Queensland records metropolitan figures only. The September 1986 figures were influenced by industrial action. The information requested is not recorded in Western Australia or Tasmania. (7) Yes. The distinction is as follows: an error refers to an incorrect listing published in a book or a listing omitted from a directory. an alteration is where a previously correct listing is amended on customer request, e.g. change of address. These definitions have always applied in all States. (Question No. 1540) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) What is the anticipated cost to the Australian taxpayer of staging `Expo 1988' to be staged in Brisbane in that year. (2) What are the anticipated benefits to Australia and in particular to its balance of trade through export potential from this exhibition. (3) Is the Minister for Trade aware the organisers of `Expo 1988' have decided to impose a charge of $25 for adults and $15 for pensioners and children, $40 for a three day ticket and a spiralling fee which will climb up by $15 every three months between now and 1988 for season tickets, coupled with a further decision not to issue family tickets at concession rates. (4) In view of the fact that these extremely high prices will rule out attendance at the `Expo' for a substantial number of people, what potential damage does the decision to charge so much have to prejudice the success of this venture and therefore do more harm than good to the Australian economy. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) Most of the costs of staging Expo 88 in Brisbane will be met through the Brisbane and South Bank Redevelopment Authority, BESBRA, which is the agency established by the Queensland Parliament to operate Expo 88. The Commonwealth Government is committed to meeting the following costs associated with the staging of Expo 88: the operation of the Office of the Commissioner-General of Expo 88. Expenditure by the Office of the Commissioner-General of Expo 88 to date has been $28,848 in 1983-84, $225,429 in 1984-85 and $217,385 in 1985-86 the planning, construction and operation of the Australian pavilion. Expenditure to date which is to be applied towards the construction of the Australian pavilion is $3m in 1984-85 (held in trust by the Brisbane and South Bank Redevelopment Authority) and $1,617 in 1985-86. A sum of up to $18 million will cover various planning, construction and operation costs of the pavilion the provision of customs, immigration, security and other services needs generated by Expo 88, yet to be estimated the provision with BESBRA of assistance to enable developing countries to participate in Expo 88 such as, for example, China, South Pacific and ASEAN countries. The Commonwealth has agreed to contribute up to $1.28m in 1987-88 for this purpose (with these funds coming from the interest accrued on the Commonwealth funds held in trust by BESBRA). (2) Benefits to Australia from the staging of Expo 88 are expected in a number of areas such as, for example, increased international and domestic tourism, increased awareness overseas of Australia and consequently increased opportunities for the development of trading and investment opportunities and, within Australia, employment generation in both the developmental and operational stages of Expo 88. (3) Yes. (4) The matter of prices for entry to Expo 88 is essentially one for BESBRA. The effect on attendance and the success of the venture through the price of tickets is also a matter primarily of concern to the Authority. (Question No. 1560) Senator Chaney asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 December 1986: (1) Which business representative organisations was the Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC) a member of in 1985-86 and what was the amount of membership subscription paid to each organisation. (2) Has the ADC (a) withdrawn membership from; or (b) taken up membership in business representative organisations in 1986-87; if so, what are the details of these changed arrangements and the reasons for them. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The ADC advises that it had membership of the following bodies during 1985-86, which may be considered to be `business representative organisations': Organisation Subscription $ Asean-Australia Business Council... 500 Australia Indonesia Business Co-operation Committee... 300 Australia Japan Business Co-operation Committee... 1,000 Australia Korea Business Co-operation Committee... 750 Australian Arab Chamber of Commerce 150 Australian Arab Council... 75 Australian Association of National Advertisers... 2,500 Australian Computer Society... 176 Australian Dairy Products Standards Association... 150 Australian Foodservice Manufacturers' Association... 500 Australian Institute of Export... 115 Australian Nutrition Foundation ... 1,000 Australian Organisation of Quality Control... 100 Circulations Audit Board... 35 Confectionery Manufacturers Association... 325 Confederation of Australian Food Technology Association ... 2,080 Food Industry Council of Australia ... 2,650 Food Technology Association (Vic)... 250 Freezing of Foods Council ... 25 Institute of Directors... 75 Library Association of Australia... 128 Melbourne Chamber of Commerce... 925 Pacific Basin Economic Council... 800 Qld Grocery Industry Association... 20 Society of Senior Executives... 100 Standards Association of Australia... 685 Victorian Exporters Association... 60 (2) (a) Yes. The ADC advises that, following a regular review, the Corporation did not renew its membership of the following organisations: Asean-Australia Business Council Australian Association of National Advertisers Food Technology Association (Vic) Melbourne Chamber of Commerce. In line with the Government's policy of providing primary industry statutory marketing authorities with commercial flexibility and autonomy, I do not believe it appropriate to require the ADC to justify its decisions in these matters. I accept the ADC's assurance that its decisions are made on the basis of benefits to the Corporation. (b) No. (Question No. 1582) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: (1) How many people have been successfully prosecuted for offences involving theft of stamps by safe breaking, in each financial year since Vesting Day. (2) How many Australia Post officers in each State had the qualifications and experience which equipped them to repair or replace post office strongrooms and safes, in each financial year since Vesting Day. (3) How many contractors were engaged in each State by Australia Post to repair or replace post office strongrooms or safes damaged by safe-breakers, in each financial year since Vesting Day. (4) Where contractors have been used, what advertising and selection procedures were carried out in choosing them. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) Australia Post is not involved often in the prosecution process for `break and enter' offences, which are offences against State law and handled by State police. Records of successful prosecutions are not held by Australia Post. In addition, a search of records to identify all `break and enter' offences involving theft of stamps by safe breaking in each State in each year since Vesting Day would constitute an unreasonable diversion of Australia Post resources. (2) NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. Total 1975-76 ... - 3 - - - - 3 1976-77 ... - 3 - - - - 3 1977-78 ... 1 3 - - - - 4 1978-79 ... 2 3 - - - - 5 1979-80 ... 2 5 - - - - 7 1980-81 ... 3 5 - - - - 8 1981-82 ... 3 6 - - - - 9 1982-83 ... 4 6 - - - - 10 1983-84 ... 4 6 - - - - 10 1984-85 ... 4 6 - - - - 10 1985-86 ... 5 6 - - - - 11 1986-87 ... 5 5 - - - - 10 (3) The number of contractors engaged, under written contract, in each State to repair or replace post office safes and strongrooms since Vesting Day is as follows: New South Wales...Nil Victoria...Nil Queensland...Nil South Australia...2 Western Australia...1 Tasmania...Nil *Headquarters.....#4 In addition, selected accredited commercial locksmiths are used as necessary. * These are national contracts let by HQ administration for new safe purchases. All States may purchase safes under these contracts. # This figure represents the number of contractors since 1980. Records are not readily available on contractors engaged prior to that time. (4) Normal Government purchasing practice has been followed and public tenders called where appropriate.