Tuesday, 24 March 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. (2) The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: continue the fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senators Robert Ray (from 38 citizens) and West (from 50 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that Raoul Wallenberg was arrested by the Russians in Budapest on January 17th, 1945. He has been sighted on numerous occasions since, the last in 1986. Your petitioners pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should approach the Soviet Foreign Minister to seek the release of Raoul Wallenberg and his return to Sweden. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Morris (from 74 citizens ). To the Honourable the President and honourable members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland showeth that the electoral system in Queensland, based 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 100 citizens). Petitions received. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —I give notice that, two sitting days after today, I shall move: That Marine Orders, Part II (Substandard Ships), as contained in Navigation (Orders) Regulations Order No. 16 of 1986 and made under the Navigation Act 1912, be disallowed. 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. The updated budget for the new Parliament House-Text of a statement by the Minister for Territories. 2. Commissioner for Employees' Compensation- Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 122 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. 3. Australian Environment Council-Eighteenth Meeting, 25 June 1986, Adelaide-Summary record of proceedings. 4. Council of Nature Conservation Ministers- Fifteenth Meeting, 26 June 1986, Adelaide-Summary record of proceedings. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in that capacity and as Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Does the Minister agree that the latest Confederation of Australian Industry and Westpac Banking Corporation survey of industrial trends reinforces the recent findings of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Chamber of Commerce about the dismal outlook for investment in Australian industry? More specifically, is he concerned that both the ABS and CAI-Westpac surveys conclude that investment plans and expectations are being scaled down, suggesting a real decline in investment in the coming year? Does the Minister further agree that, essential as they are, cuts in government expenditure alone will not be enough to create a better climate for investment? Is it not a fact that action is also required on the taxation and wages policy fronts? Has the Government any intention of addressing these other issues in the forthcoming May mini-Budget? Senator BUTTON —I must say that Senator Chaney and I sometimes have private conversations across the table. He said that he was going to ask me a question about petrol prices and I had a very good answer on petrol prices. The CAI-Westpac survey and the other surveys which have been published recently are not very encouraging on the investment front. Investment predictions in the last Budget were not very encouraging either. All I am saying is that the surveys are consistent with the Budget projections; I am not saying that there is any occasion for joy in the Budget predictions or in the latest predictions which go to the question of anticipation and so on. All one can say is that the most reliable figures are the ones which have been published by the ABS, those for the December quarter of 1986, which are quite encouraging in respect of manufacturing investment. It is the surveys relating to intentions which are disappointing. Senator Chaney asked me whether, in view of all that, the proposed Budget cuts or fiscal cuts in the May statement will be sufficient to rectify that situation. I do not know. He then went on to ask me whether the Government proposes any other action of a knee-jerk kind-my expression rather than his-relating to taxation and investment stimulation and whether measures in relation to those matters will be taken in conjunction with the May statement. I am unable to say, but I think it unlikely. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I note the Minister's statement that he does not know whether the cuts in government expenditure will create a better climate for investment. Does he accept the Australian Chamber of Manufactures and the National Institute of Economic Industry Research assessment that high interest rates, coupled with high corporate debt and general uncertainty about economic policy and future economic conditions, are the major causes of the poor investment outlook? If he does, does he agree that there is a need for the Government to improve more than its fiscal policy if we are to get the absolutely essential new investment that is required for economic growth and economic recovery? Senator BUTTON —I really have to come back to what I said in answer to the original question. All I can say is that one cannot say with any definition that the Government is likely to take action on any of these matters. One cannot say at this time whether it is going to be essential for the Government to consider it. There are problems in relation to high interest rates. The Government is concerned about high interest rates. Part of the purpose of the May statement is to help the process of reducing high interest rates. The level of high corporate debt in this country is of very long standing. It is a structural problem which Australian companies have, having been very much influenced in the past by the taxation system. Insofar as there is uncertainty, as I understand it from numerous discussions with industrialists, the uncertainty frequently relates to things such as whether the value of the dollar will increase significantly in the next two or three years. I do not know; I am not an economist. But once again I repeat an answer that I have given outside on many occasions: I think not. There will not be any significant leak in the value of the Australian dollar for a variety of structural reasons associated with the composition of Australian exports, the international debt and so on. I do not think it is likely. But businessmen for one reason or another still claim that as a cause of uncertainty. I would have thought that they would know at least as well as I do what is likely to happen, but perhaps some of them do not. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Have any delays occurred in the transfer of Italian pension payments from Italy to Australia from October 1986 to the present? If so, what has been the longest delay during that period and what has been the average delay? What arrangements, if any, exist between the Italian and Australian governments to facilitate the payments of such pensions? Senator TATE —It is a fact that delays have occurred since October 1986 although I think the Department of Social Security regional officers have reported a great falling off in the number of complaints about such delays in the last several months. Though precise figures are not available, the number of DSS appeals, which might be taken to be some indication of the problem, received during the last three months shows that there have been 10 appeals in New South Wales and only four or five in Victoria. So the problem seems to be lessening somewhat. Nevertheless, there obviously is a need to put in place certain arrangements to overcome delays in the transfer of pensions from Italy to Australia, the problem being that the Department here cannot legally ignore the entitlements of the Italian pensioners even though they are not received during some period of the transfer. At the time when we first became aware of this problem, in about August 1986, we were informed that delays commonly ranged from 12 to 18 months. The problem was raised with Italian authorities in Rome and Canberra. In September 1986 the Italian Embassy advised that the Italian social security authority, INPS, had instituted a special service-Unita di Co-ordinamento-to deal with the problem. Access to the service would be through the Italian consulates. Also the social security delegation raised the matter with INPS in Rome in November 1986. INPS admitted that the situation was unacceptable and had taken action to remedy it. On 29 October 1986, INPS instructed its officers that all transfers of INPS pension payments from Italy to Australia were to be forwarded direct to their international section, which would arrange advance payment of pensions in Australia pending completion of the transfer process. It is too early to say whether that has been an entirely effective system, but at this stage, as I said, the number of complaints seems to be lessening. If I receive any further information to give to Senator Cooney, I will make it available to him. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the tax paid by a single income family on average weekly earnings was 17.5c in the dollar when the Hawke Labor Government came to office, is now 20.6c, and will be 20.5c after the second instalment of the so-called tax cuts in July this year? Is it also a fact that the marginal rate of tax for the same family will have risen from 30 per cent in March 1983 to 40 per cent in July this year, and that it would need a tax cut of a further $15 a week just to restore its 1983 position? Why has the tax burden been increased on these families, leaving them so much worse off under the Hawke Labor Government? Senator BUTTON —I suppose the honourable senator expects me to give some dopey magic-wand answer such as that it has not happened or that we will reduce that burden overnight, or that we will introduce a flat tax of 25 per cent-or something like that. I suppose that is the sort of voodoo remedy he would go for. Having said that-- Senator Lewis —Do you feel better? Senator BUTTON —Not much. I will say something else about that in a minute if the honourable senator is concerned about that. But, first of all, I am astounded at Senator Collard's mathematics. It is a hidden side of his character not previously revealed, and I congratulate him on that. What I do not understand is why he does not address this question to the Minister representing the Treasurer, who is responsible for taxation matters, because he would have all these figures. I cannot answer a question here on whether a particular-- Senator Chaney —You cannot answer the questions within your own portfolio. How could you answer on this matter? Senator BUTTON —Try me again, Senator Chaney. I, of course, cannot answer the question on whether the rate has increased from 15.6 per cent to something else and all that. I suggest that the honourable senator put the question on notice. Senator CHILDS —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy explain the discrepancy between eye witness reports of the thin, dark coloured, fan shaped spiral of smoke in the vicinity of Lucas Heights on 18 March last and the statement made by Mr Jack Walker of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio when he said that there was no smoke outside of the buildings and that what people had seen was water vapour coming off the cooling towers? What was the direction of the wind at the time of the accident, and did the smoke contain any radioactive material? As the Commission routinely monitors for radioactive iodine at its boundaries, can the Minister advise whether these monitors were working at the time of the accident? If so, what was the reading? If not, why not? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not only Mr Walker of the Atomic Energy Commission who said that there were no visible fumes or smoke released into the atmosphere as a result of this fire; it was me also in my answer to a question on this incident last week. I stand by that answer on the basis of all the information that I have received, until then and since. I can only assume that people who claim to have seen smoke, or who thought they were seeing smoke, may have seen, as I said, water vapour coming from the Hifar cooling towers which, in the dusk and through the effects of the orange arc lights illuminating Hifar, could have been mistaken for smoke. The direction of the wind at the time of the fire was to the west, towards the Holsworthy military training area. I repeat: There was no smoke and, as I indicated in my answer last week, the radiation released was in the form of biologically inert noble gases-- Senator Ryan —Senator Durack. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Messner-Evans gases, as we discussed last week-well within the New South Wales authorisation; in fact, it seems less than one-tenth of the weekly limit. As Mr Des Davey, the Chief Environmental Scientist at Lucas Heights, was reported, accurately, as saying in the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 March, the average annual discharge of airborne radioactive material from Lucas Heights is equivalent to about 0.2 per cent of natural background radiation. He stated: Statistically, the risk of getting cancer from exposure to a full year's emissions- from Lucas Heights- is therefore akin to one individual standing at the Lucas Heights boundary fence for five million years. As to the last part of the question, monitors at the boundaries of Lucas Heights were operational at the time of the fire and no radioactive iodine was detected by those monitors. Let me add this: I expect to receive tomorrow a copy of the report of the committee of inquiry which is investigating the fire, and I will make that report publicly available. Senator MASON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and follows Senator McIntosh's question yesterday. I ask the Minister whether he saw a report on page 3 of yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald in which it was stated that officials believe the chance of Soviet missile strikes on Australian cities is remote `because US nuclear armed warships which regularly berth in Australian ports would leave Australian waters in the buildup to a nuclear war'. Does this mean that the safety of Australian cities is contingent on the United States ships leaving them and, indeed, on their having sufficient warning of a nuclear war to make that move? Does the Government seriously believe that such a scenario presents any degree of reassurance whatsoever to Australian city dwellers? Will the Government now take immediate steps to ensure that no nuclear powered or armed ships visit Australian cities? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first part of the question, I did see the report. The remaining matters raised by Senator Mason seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of the Government's position on this issue. I think they can best be answered by briefly clarifying the nature of our judgments. Allied warships make short visits to Australian ports in peacetime primarily for rest and recreation purposes. No foreign warship is permanently based in Australia. There is no blanket approval by the Government for visits by foreign warships, and each visit is approved separately on a case by case basis. The Government does not accept that agreeing to such visits in peactime makes Australian ports nuclear targets. In the unlikely event of a nuclear conflict, major fleet units of allied navies may become nuclear targets. However, it is not credible that a nuclear conflict would occur unless there has been a dramatic deterioration over a period in relations between the super-powers. In such a period of tension United States warships would be deployed to areas of primary global strategic importance. It is unlikely that any of them would remain operating in Australian waters. Senator MASON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Government have mechanisms to ensure that in that contingency the warships would not remain in Australian waters? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing to add to my previous answers. Senator DEVLIN —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen media reports quoting the National Farmers Federation President, Mr Ian McLachlan, as calling for the closure of the Hifar reactor at Lucas Heights? Does the Minister agree with the closure of the reactor? Senator GARETH EVANS —I saw a report published in the Weekend Australian last weekend in which Mr McLachlan seemed to make a bid to become a founding father of Senator Vallentine's green party in that he called, apparently, for the closure of the Lucas Heights reactor to allow Australia to market nuclear-free food to overseas buyers. Mr McLachlan is perhaps better known these days, I suppose, as a potential Liberal Party leadership aspirant-God knows, it needs one. But he demonstrates his profound ignorance, not only of his preferred Party's policy, but also of the role of the whole Lucas Heights facility, by basing his call, as he appears to, for the closure of that facility on the fact that Australia, with its huge coal resources, has no need for nuclear power. Of course, the Government agrees that we do not have any need for nuclear power. I point out to Mr McLachlan and those who might be minded to take him seriously that there is no power reactor at Lucas Heights. The research reactors on that site exist only for research purposes and for the production of isotopes used for medical, industrial and scientific applications. The research is not now directed towards the establishment of nuclear generation capacity in this country, whatever may have been the case in the past. Mr McLachlan's statement fails utterly to recognise the very valuable work being carried out at Lucas Heights in areas such as pure and applied science, medicine, agriculture and industry. He ought to appreciate it in the context of agriculture but manifestly he does not know the interests of his own constituency in that respect. Legislation, as we know, has been passed to change again the focus and direction of that organisation into its now format of ANSTO-the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation-which will focus even more on the practical and socially relevant applications of nuclear science and technology. I say finally that Mr McLachlan's apparent concern about the contamination of food in Australia from the very small Hifar and the even smaller Moata reactors is quite ridiculous even in the extremely unlikely event of the worst possible accident occurring, involving a loss of reactor coolant, and under the worst possible weather conditions. In those circumstances, the worst conceivably imaginable, there would be no possible effect beyond the immediate vicinity of those reactors and even then I have described in the past the chances of injury flowing from such an accident as being about the same as being electrocuted by a torch battery. This is the kind of quality of contribution to public affairs being made by one of the most invisible contenders for the tory crown. It is a sad demonstration of just how far-reaching is the dearth of talent in the Opposition at this time. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. Is it a fact that the net weekly cost of medical and private hospital cover for a family on average weekly earnings has increased, averaged across Australia, from $9.66 before Medicare to $14.30 today? Is it also a fact that the waiting lists for public hospital beds have exploded and that in the Minister's home State of Victoria alone the queue has increased from 10,000 in pre-Medicare days to 34,000 now? Why has the Hawke Government so greatly increased the cost of health care and reduced its availability for Australian families? Senator BUTTON —I do not pretend to be an expert on international health care statistics. Senator Chaney —What about national charges? Senator BUTTON —Just a minute. Do not get excited, Senator. The fact is that the growth in health care charges here is not out of line with the growth in many other countries and that has been the case for a long time. Senator Chaney —Ha! Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney laughs, but the fact is that had this Government not been elected two million Australians would have been without the benefit of support when they required health care from the insurance system. As I understand it, the Opposition's policies would be so again if an alternative government were elected here. With regard to the issue of hospital beds, I will direct that part of the question to the Minister for Health and find an answer for the honourable senator. Senator VALLENTINE —My question, addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, concerns paragraph 4.4 in the defence White Paper referring to Government plans to build a satellite communications station near Geraldton in Western Australia. The Minister said that the station will be totally Australian owned and manned-I change that to `staffed'-and operated by the Defence Signals Directorate. But will he say whether the intelligence will be shared with the intelligence agencies of our partners under the 1947 United Kingdom-United States of America agreement, in particular the National Security Agency of the United States? Could he also say why the station will be monitoring up to eight Soviet geo-stationary satellites sending diplomatic, trade and military information back to the Soviet Union when the Katter report on threats to Australia's security in 1981 and other reports later have acknowledged that the Soviet Union is not a military threat to Australia? Does the Minister not concede that the presence of such a spy base in Western Australia also poses a threat to our neighbours, who know that the station can be used to listen in to their communications as well? Finally, why is the Government spending up to $20m of taxpayers' money on a project which is not connected with the defence of Australia and at a time of economic cutbacks in so many other areas? Senator GARETH EVANS —The questions in Senator Vallentine's opening paragraphs all relate to intelligence matters and as a consequence I do not intend, on behalf of the Minister or anyone else, to provide detailed responses other than to confirm that Australia does collaborate with the United States on intelligence matters. In respect of the final question, as was stated in the White Paper, the Government places the highest priority on our ability to understand strategic developments in our region, and this ability is fundamental to our self-reliant defence posture. Senator SHORT —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to the article by Mr Ron Castan, QC, President of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, in today's Age newspaper in which he undertakes a step by step demolition of the Government's alleged claims of revenue gains from the proposed identity card and reaches the conclusion that the only area in which revenue savings can be claimed lies in the Australian Taxation Office? Is the Minister aware of Mr Castan's reference to recent criticisms of Australian Taxation Office inefficiency which has led to the failure to collect hundreds of millions of dollars of legitimate tax revenue? I ask the Minister whether he agrees with Mr Castan's statement that: To claim that revenue negligently thrown away for so many years is a `saving' or `benefit' to be achieved by the Australia Card is an attempt to perpetrate a gross deception on the Australian public. Senator TATE —No, I am not aware of the article referred to and therefore of Mr Castan's claims in relation to the revenue raising possibilities to be derived from the introduction of an Australia Card, and therefore I am not in a position to agree with his assertions. Suffice it to say that I think that the Australian public, certainly from my experience back in Tasmania over the summer recess, is well aware that the Australia Card is needed as a contribution to the present Federal Government's stated, declared and fostered aim of ensuring that we have a fair tax system and a system which is fair in the distribution of Medicare and social security benefits. The Australia Card will play a very important part in underpinning the fair taxation system which we consider to be so essential. Senator CROWLEY —I refer the Minister for Education to the higher education policy of the Opposition recently released by Mr Shack. Can the Minister say whether this Government's policies of dramatically increasing tertiary places and providing access to a range of students previously unable or unlikely to achieve entrance to tertiary studies would continue under any move to a national public examination system as proposed by Mr Shack? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The question seems to be based on a false premise. It really is simply another attempt by the Labor Party to put up dorothy dix questions on issues. That is an abuse of Question Time, as the Minister told us two days ago, and I suggest that you should rule the question out of order. Senator Crowley —On the point of order, Mr President: Most of us are well aware now of the likelihood of Senator Chaney objecting to questions, and much thought goes into how to write them. I draw your attention first of all to standing order 421, which gives you the opportunity to rule out tedious repetition. Certainly Senator Chaney is guilty of that. Secondly, how can we possibly conduct a proper debate about proper and responsible matters of education within the Minister's portfolio if questions are constantly opposed by the Leader of the Opposition and ruled out of order? This question is largely within the responsibility of the Minister's portfolio and she rightly and properly ought to be able to take up this debate in the Senate. Senator Peter Baume —On the point of order, Mr President: The Standing Orders specifically prohibit the use of Question Time to conduct a debate on an issue. I draw to your attention the fact that Senator Crowley, in speaking to the point of order, made it quite clear that the purpose of her question was partly to advance the debate, and to the extent that she is seeking to invite the Minister to debate any matter she is seeking to ask a question which is outside the purview of the Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —I will rule on the point of order. The question is in order. I realise that over the last two or three days there have been a number of questions about Opposition policies. I ruled one out of order. I brought Ministers' attention to some of the others and asked them to conclude their answers. Senator Crowley really asked the Minister about her portfolio, whether a certain policy would be introduced and whether the Government would continue acting the way it is in respect of her portfolio. I think such a question is in order and I rule that way. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I do not dispute your ruling but I ask for your guidance on what is the proper course when a policy pronouncement-on this occasion, a policy which has been announced by the Opposition-has been quoted from, I believe, inaccurately. I seek your guidance as to what our position is as an opposition when there is an inaccurate statement deriving from a policy document we have issued? The PRESIDENT —The President cannot be responsible for a so-called inaccuracy in respect of an opposition policy and rule on that during Question Time. I rule the question in order and I call Senator Ryan. Senator RYAN —Thank you, Mr President. I think that all honourable senators and everybody interested in education recognise that during our period in government we have created in the vicinity of 40,000 extra higher education places. Those places have not-- Senator Vanstone —Tell us about the-- Senator RYAN —We know that Senator Vanstone does not have the slightest interest in higher education. Those places have not simply been added on to any institution that chose to have growth but we have carefully allocated those places so that institutions previously neglected, such as regional institutions-the James Cook University, for example, and colleges of advanced education in country areas-have been able to grow and expand and offer increased opportunities to young persons who were previously disadvantaged by the previous coalition Government's policies. It is also the case that within that growth we have been able to accommodate some very special improvements for especially disadvantaged groups. For example, there are twice as many Aboriginal students in formal higher education courses now than when we took office. So, really, our Government has achieved a great deal not only in terms of growth in higher education-something for which I think the whole education community has praised us-but also in terms of equity in making sure that previously disadvantaged students, whether they were disadvantaged by their geography, their race or for some other reason, have had the opportunity to get the advantages of higher education. If that system of steady publicly funded growth targeted towards areas previously disadvantaged were to be abandoned, if the growth in public places were to be frozen, which is one of the undertakings that have been made by Mr Shack, the question is rightly asked: What would happen to those students who were not in a position to buy themselves one of the extra full cost places which are proposed in Mr Shack's policy? What would happen to Aboriginal students coming from poverty-stricken communities? What would happen to students who live in poorer areas, such as the outer western suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne or country towns which have had a long period of unemployment? Regardless of their academic merit, it seems that they would have to buy themselves a place at $12,000 a year. Alternatively, and in some sort of contradiction with the pronouncement that there would be no new extra public places-that the present number of public places would be maintained but that extra places would have to be paid for fully by the students themselves-on top of this freeze procedure, there is some sort of suggestion that there would be some sort of national examination. What sort of criteria would apply? Who would administer it? What account would the autonomous institutions-our 19 universities and 46 CAEs-take of this examination? We simply do not know. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator RYAN —Mr President, it is very clear that not only is Senator Chaney extremely sensitive about any reference even to published Liberal Party policies, but half of the Liberal senators opposite are screaming and shouting and trying to interrupt any comments on what would happen to those students who are currently aspiring to higher education places in the event that there were no more public places available to them, in the event that they had to face full cost fees or in the event that there would be some sort of scheme of national examination. If there can be no proper answers to that, I think-- Senator Teague —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister is speaking hypothetically because the Opposition's higher education policy does not mention the word `examination' and does not mention the word `freeze', so the basis of her answer is hypothetical and is misleading to the Senate and she should be told that this is not in order. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, but I would remind the Minister that she is beginning to debate the matter, and I would ask her to answer the question as soon as possible. Senator RYAN —Perhaps it is right that the question is hypothetical because after all, from the leaked document from the Liberal Party headquarters that we had made available to us yesterday, it was perfectly clear that the Commonwealth education function-all programs and all systems-would be abandoned and the whole thing thrown back to the States to pay for the lot. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and follows the rambling that she has just inflicted on the Senate. I ask her: Under her administration what happens to otherwise qualified students who do not meet the quota of available places? Is it a fact that under her administration thousands of such students are precluded from entry to Australian tertiary institutions while at the same time, under her administration, foreign students may buy places at those institutions? Senator RYAN —In the first instance I must point out that there are in the vicinity of 40,000 extra higher education places available on the basis of merit; 40,000 more than would have been available had the policies of the Liberal-National Party coalition remained. So we are 40,000 students ahead before we even start this debate. Secondly, there is the question of unmet demand, and we are waiting on the final assessment of what those numbers will be. There will be an unmet demand; that is, there will be students who will have qualified for matriculation but not scored an adequate mark to get into the course of their choice. However, at this stage it certainly is the case that there are unfilled places in a number of faculties and institutions. So the question has to be taken in terms of the preference of the student. Certainly all the students who would like to get into a medical faculty cannot necessarily do so because the entrance marks are very high indeed. I am not sure that the community generally would like those high entrance marks to be greatly reduced. But the students who do not get the marks to get the place of their choice in the first instance can look for an alternative choice. They can repeat the year or they can do a technical and further education course. There are a number of other opportunities available to them. The solution offered by the Liberal Party is that the students can turn around and pay $10,000 or $12,000 a year, knowing full well that there will be a two-caste system-those who have good enough marks to get a place on merit, and those who have had to pay for their places. That would inevitably, in the longer term, lead to a lowering of standards. We are not interested in lowering education standards in Australian higher education. In fact, there has been a demonstrable increase in education standards during the period of the Hawke Government. As to the question of why overseas students are able to pay the full cost for courses, the first thing to say is that they get those places only if they have got an adequate mark, a mark equal to the Australian students who are already getting them. Secondly, they are not part of their tax raising, revenue raising and redistribution system in this country. They are not going to stay, live and work and pay taxes in this country. They have not earned an entitlement to a tuition free place in an Australian institution. The Australian society will not benefit from their higher education because they will return to their own countries and work there; whereas our Australian students will go into professions, administration and services and will bring back benefits to the community. So the criteria by which we judge appropriateness for overseas students is entirely different from the criteria by which we judge the appropriateness for Australian students. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has given a very long reply without dealing with the fundamental point of my question. Does she agree that Australian students who are academically qualified are excluded from tertiary education while foreign students may buy places? In other words, there are two classes of students, and foreign students in that sense have an advantage over the Australian born students. Senator RYAN —I do not know whether Senator Chaney will now follow the example of some of his colleagues in his State and try to stir up a bit of racism on our campuses by suggesting that somehow overseas students receive favoured treatment compared with that given to Australian students. I will not answer the question in the terms in which Senator Chaney has put it because he has put it in the wrong terms. The implication of his question from the way in which he phrased it is that unqualified overseas students can buy their way into Australian institutions. Two minutes ago I told Senator Chaney, as I have on numerous occasions in this Senate, that overseas students are accepted into Australian university places only if they have reached the same standard as Australian students who are already in the university. The Australian students who have not successfully got a place are at a lower standard. We are concerned about them; we are perusing policies of growth in extra places for them but there is no simple case of inequity between Australian students who do not reach a certain standard and overseas students who do reach a certain standard and have the money to pay for their places. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to a report in the Times on Sunday that the Queensland Premier told a rally at Albury on Saturday-if anyone happened to go: We're going to reduce tax and I promise my Government will abolish the 32 per cent tax on superannuation. Senator Walters —Don't worry about that. Senator BOLKUS —The honourable senator should not worry about it either. Can the Minister say what the costs to revenue would be and what the inequity implications would be of abolishing the tax on lump sum superannuation payments? Senator WALSH —At this time the estimated cost of abolishing the tax on lump sum superannuation payments is $85m and that figure has been increasing at the rate of about $30m a year. So in 12 months time it is likely to be of the order of $115m. However, that is not the whole story, of course. If the superannuation lump sum tax were to be repealed the green light would be visible to all. Any government which did that would legitimise the practice of disguising wages as lump sum superannuation payments. In other words, what purports to be lump sum superannuation payments would, in fact, be deferred wages. Where an employee engaged under contract for, say, three years received about half his salary in wages and an equal contribution to a superannuation fund, at the end of three years when the contract expired the so-called lump sum superannuation payment would be taken and, presumably, under the Petersen plan it would be 100 per cent tax free. Of course, that is going even further than the pre-1983 position when 5 per cent of any lump sum payment was included as assessable income for income tax purposes in the year in which it was received. I presume Petersen intends to go even further. In other words, there would be a huge erosion in a very short time of the income tax base to the point where, in conjunction with the repeal of the fringe benefits tax and the conversion of the receipt of income from cash to kind, virtually the only people who would be actually receiving their wages and salaries as taxable income would be employees of the Commonwealth Government. Under those circumstances even the States would no doubt be pretty quickly up to their ears in widespread tax avoidance. For the private sector it would clearly be open slather with the overt encouragement of the government of the day, should we ever have such a government. That demonstrates that the Premier of Queensland is as out of touch with reality as is the present Leader of the Opposition, who thinks that he can fix up the nation's economic problems by paying pensions to millionaires, bringing back the free boozy lunch and the tax deductible Mercedes. In closing, I think it ought to be noted as well that the Queensland Premier, consistent with his practice, his belief, that nothing that the taxpayer can provide is too good for him-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister was asked a fairly simple question on the 32 per cent tax on superannuation. He seems to be ranging rather widely over some of his current hang-ups. I suggest that he is clearly debating the question and should be called to order. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to complete his answer. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I note for the record once again the Leader of the Opposition's eagerness to defend the Premier of Queensland. But the $100,000 taxpayer-provided car that the Premier of Queensland has indulged himself with is currently free of sales tax. If that sort of tax avoidance by State governments is to continue, perhaps the Federal Government will have to look at it. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education, in that capacity and in her capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. It relates to the effect of the introduction of a tertiary fee by way of a higher education administration charge. I advise the Minister that tertiary enrolment figures are now revealing that, while full time enrolments have held up, enrolments in part time courses, especially by women, have decreased by a large amount. I ask: What action does she propose to take, as the Minister for Education, in view of the diminished capacity of women to enrol in part time education? As the Minister responsible for the status of women, why has she put into place policies which have led to this specific and tragic reduction in tertiary education enrolments by women? Senator Walsh —What about your policy? Senator RYAN —As my colleague Senator Walsh interjects to suggest, if women or any others are having trouble raking up $250, how will they be placed when the fee is $12,000? In terms of what Senator Baume claims to have discovered, that is, statistical evidence of a drop in the participation by women as part time students, it is too early to make any definitive comments on that. As Senator Baume is aware, a research project is being managed through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and being monitored by a representative monitoring committee-including members of this Parliament-which is examining that matter. At this stage, it is too early to interpret changes in full time and part time enrolments as meaning that fewer women are enrolling. Some students for example, are deciding to go full time instead of part time as a result of the $250 charge. That may be a positive development for them. It may be in their interests to get their degree earlier. It probably is. Certainly, if they are studying in order to increase their labour market chances, it is very much in their interests to complete their degree as soon as they can. We do not know yet whether the apparent decline in part time enrolments in some institutions will be explained in terms of the growth of full time enrolments in those same institutions by the same groups. It is simply too early, in terms of the thorough way we are conducting the monitoring of this situation, to make any comments. A great deal of criticism has been heard from the other side about the $250. I would like to repeat what I have said on previous occasions; that is, the most needy students are exempted from the charge or compensated for it. The question of part time students is a little different. One fact that needs to be borne in mind is that about 88 per cent of part time students are in full time employment and therefore, one would think, in a position to get together $250 if they decide they want to proceed with their studies. There is another aspect of this, which is that part time students have a notoriously high drop-out rate, or have had in the past. That is, many people enrol for a part time course in a fairly ambivalent frame of mind and discover a few weeks or months later that they are not really in a position to fulfil the requirements of that course. If we are discouraging dilettantes from undertaking university courses, that is not necessarily a bad thing either. So before we start weeping and wailing, or Senator Peter Baume, whose party is now positing full cost fees, starts weeping and wailing about the effect on women, let us look at the facts and interpret them rationally. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister, in her response, said that she was not aware of the figures and that she could not be aware of them. Is the Minister aware that I represent this Senate on the Council of the Australian National University, and will she accept my assurance that the information I gave her about the diminution in the enrolment of women in part time education is a fact at the university? Also, I ask the Minister again, as the Minister responsible for the status of women: Why has she put into place policies which have led to a specific reduction in the capacity of women to enrol part time in tertiary education? Senator RYAN —I do not think that Senator Peter Baume's participation on the Council of the ANU really alters anything I have said. Senator Baume has access to some information coming from one institution. There are 18 other universities and 46 colleges of advanced education in Australia, and I am waiting to see what enrolment pattern emerges from them. Senator RICHARDSON —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the disturbing progress of the Private Blood Bank of Australia, a private commercial blood bank, as reported in articles in the daily Press from about 5 March to 12 March 1987, wherein the company was said to have had a meteoric rise, fall and a subsequent investigation in an extremely short period? Is he aware that the New South Wales Department of Health and the Private Hospitals Association of New South Wales have refused to allow the Private Blood Bank to operate on both medical and commercial grounds? Does the Minister have any comment to make as to the desirability of private commercial blood banks, especially when the risks of contamination could never be assessed against financial gain? Senator TATE —Yes, I am personally aware of recent Press reports and other reports I have seen on television concerning the financial fluctuations of the Private Blood Bank. For the rest of the answer, of course, I depend on a brief provided by the Department of Health. I understand that the New South Wales Department of Health has cleared the technical aspects of the operation of the blood bank, but has withdrawn permission for it to collect blood within the public hospitals in that State. The Australian Red Cross has offered to provide the same service as the Private Blood Bank at no cost. This will be readily available throughout the nation, and the Australian Red Cross has an enviable safety record, as honourable senators will be aware. If individuals wish to obtain an autologous blood service, the ARC will provide it at no cost. When the risk of acquired immune deficiency syndrome being transmitted via the blood supply was discovered, the Red Cross implemented stringent testing procedures of donors together with requesting persons at high risk of AIDS to refrain from donating blood. This has resulted in the safest blood supply technically possible in the world at present. In these circumstances, I am unable to see any benefit in the services provided by the Private Blood Bank, for which a charge is levied. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. It follows the answer she gave me a few minutes ago about the admission of Australian students who have not received a quota place as against the admission of overseas students. I preface my question with some information I have from the Queensland Tertiary Admissions Commission, that in three main faculties-medicine, engineering and science-not all students who received identical tertiary entrance scores were offered places in the faculties. For example, not all students who received a tertiary entrance score of 985 were offered a place in the medical faculty or school; and, similarly, not all students who received a tertiary entrance score of 930 were granted entry into the engineering faculty. In those circumstances, and given the Minister's reliance on the fact that it was lower qualified Australian students who were being excluded, I ask her whether in such cases-where there is no question of qualifications, because they are, in a score sense, the equivalent of those who are receiving admission-she concedes that these students should be permitted to get a place, either by payment or otherwise, in the same manner as overseas students. Senator RYAN —I certainly do not concede that. I would like to know more about the admissions policies of the institutions that Senator Chaney has just cited. If we have two students with identical scores and one gets a place and one does not, in the same faculty, there must be some other criterion of selection being used. I would like to know what it was before I drew any conclusions. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. This is an important matter affecting Australian students. I ask the Minister whether she will make inquiries and advise the Senate on how, consistent with her earlier answer, we can have a situation where Australian students are excluded under those circumstances? Senator RYAN —Senator Chaney has taken up a great deal of Question Time today pursuing this hobby-horse, and he has raised it on previous occasions. He seems to have it firmly implanted in his mind that masses of Australian students are demanding the right to pay $12,000 a year for a university place. Many of his colleagues opposite, with their cheers, boos and so forth, seem to be suggesting that the higher education policy that Australian students want is the right to pay full cost fees. If he believes that to be the case-and, clearly, some people in his Party, including Mr Shack, must-let him campaign among secondary students and their parents and among those people in Australia who are interested in higher education by saying: `Our policy is that you can pay $12,000 a year'. The Labor Government's policy is that places are awarded on the basis of merit and some students will have to pay a small administration charge. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. I refer to the regulation of the use of telephones in Australia under the Telecommunications Act. Does the Telecommunications Act make an offence the use of abusive language on the telephone? Senator WALSH —Section 86 (c) of the Telecommunications Act states: A person shall not without reasonable excuse send over a telecommunications system a communication of information likely to cause reasonable persons, justifiably in all the circumstances, to be seriously alarmed or seriously affronted. Whether that has any relevance to recent news events-- Senator Chaney —You are not going to give us a legal opinion, are you? Senator WALSH —No, I am certainly not going to give a legal opinion. Whether the celebrated telephone conversation in Melbourne, which contained a good deal of language which was not only abusive but also, I would say, obscene-- Senator Richardson —Shocking! I was appalled. Senator WALSH —Senator Richardson was appalled, and I am not surprised that he was appalled. Indeed, nobody who presents himself as a high profile Christian could contemplate a political alliance with a person who used such obscene language in the way in which both of the people who participated in that conversation did. Whether that conversation constitutes an offence under section 86 (c) is something for, initially, the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide. Senator Gietzelt —You are not going to refer it there, are you? Senator WALSH —It is up to Mr Duffy to decide whether the DPP should become involved in it. But one would think that the legislation was framed with a view to not allowing one person to abuse another person by ringing him up on the telephone. If that were held to be the case, in this instance of the call between Mr Peacock and Mr Kennett the object of the abuse was a third party who was not even listening in on the call-unlike a few other people. I will not attempt to give a legal opinion, but I would have thought that it was designed to stop one person ringing up another and abusing him on the telephone. That is not what happened in the celebrated case in Melbourne last Saturday night. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the announcement by the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, that a satellite spy base will be built at Geraldton in Western Australia to monitor Soviet, Chinese and Indonesian satellites. Firstly, under the terms of our intelligence-sharing arrangements, is it not inevitable that the United States will receive full access to the intelligence gathered by the Geraldton base, thus making it a de facto joint facility? Secondly, what role did the United States have in formulating plans for the base, and what role will it play in assisting Australia to design, build and operate the base? Thirdly, and finally, what steps will the Government take to ensure that none of the intelligence passed to the United States from the Geraldton base will be used in star wars, nuclear war plans and other offensive military operations? Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me comment first on the preface to Senator Sanders's question, which was even more outrageously expressed than his normal contributions in this place, when he said that a satellite spy base would be built at Geraldton to monitor Soviet, Chinese and Indonesian satellites. The announcement of the Minister for Defence concerning the location of the Australian defence satellite communications station was in no way in the terms referred to in the purported paraphrase by Senator Sanders. The Minister's announcement stated the Australian station would enhance our independent intelligence capability. It would contribute to security in our area of strategic interest and it would be totally Australian owned and manned-or `staffed', in deference to Senator Vallentine's preoccupation, and mine these days-by the Defence Signals Directorate. Consistent with the position taken by this and previous governments on the handling of intelligence matters, no details were provided, nor will they be provided, of the proposed mission of the station. The honourable senator's questions all relate to intelligence matters and, as a consequence, I do not intend to provide, on behalf of the Minister for Defence or any other Minister, detailed responses, again other than to confirm, as I did in answer to an earlier question from Senator Vallentine, that Australia collaborates with the United States on intelligence matters. I can, however, assure the honourable senator that the role of the station has no application in the United States strategic defence initiative program. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of current discussion in the media concerning measures necessary for preventing the spread of acquired immune deficiency syndrome? Can he inform the Senate of the direction of the Government's planned educational campaign? Senator TATE —A public awareness campaign is to be launched by the National Advisory Committee on AIDS on 5 April. Recent media reports have indicated that the Australian campaign will focus on condoms, presumably because many overseas campaigns have been portrayed here as promoting condoms. The Australian campaign will, of course, mention condoms. It would be irresponsible and unrealistic not to do so when condoms are the best protective device available to those who, for whatever reason, do not practice abstinence or have one safe sex partner. The campaign itself will, at least in its early stages, be directed more to bringing home to the general community that a killer virus is in our midst and that several steps can be taken to avoid the transmission of that virus. The central theme of the campaign will be that people need to be aware of what constitutes risk behaviour and to avoid it. If they are to have sexual relations-and that is the first hurdle-then it is desirable that those relations be had with one safe sex partner. If not, only then will they be encouraged to make use of condoms. It is also important to remember that this campaign is only one part of the Government's response to the problem of AIDS. The public awareness campaign will be backed up by grants to community organisations to assist them in educating people at the local level. I should remind honourable senators that AIDS presents a serious threat to the health of this nation, and it is the responsibility of governments to support measures which alert all Australians to this fact. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware of the high administrative cost incurred by small contractors when one contractor works for another for a minimum service fee of, say, $16 and is required under the prescribed payments system to withhold 15 per cent and remit that amount to the Australian Taxation Office? Given the high administrative costs in some instances of the contractor employing an outside accountant and the processing costs incurred by the Tax Office, will the Government give a limited exemption for small payments under such circumstances? Senator WALSH —It is a question of policy which I shall refer to the Treasurer for a response. One rather self-evident danger in granting such a threshold of exemption for small payments is that methods will very quickly be devised to divide one large payment into a large number of small payments. Indeed, I remember a case in Western Australia some 10 years or so back where a shire council let for $50,000 a contract to cart gravel when the Local Government Act required that any contract above $4,000 had to be submitted to tender. The $50,000 contract was let out without going to tender. When this was brought to the attention of the Auditor-General or discovered by the Auditor-General, the Auditor-General was told by the council that it was not one contract; it was 13 different contracts all for less than $4,000. The council concerned was Carnarvon. The president of that council at the time was also the contractor who had been awarded the contract, and he is now the member for O'Connor. If Senator Watson is concerned about the administrative costs for small business, however, I suggest that he use his influence within the Liberal Party, whatever it is, to try to persuade it not to introduce the value added tax which it plans to introduce in the unlikely event of its being elected to government, because not only are the administrative costs of a value added tax very high but also they fall much more than proportionately on the small business sector. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time yesterday Senator Vigor asked me a question about advertising and recruitment in relation to the Office of Multicultural Affairs, and general government policy on the question of multicultural affairs. I have obtained an answer for him and, in view of the fact that it is somewhat lengthy, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- 1. Three Senior Executive Service positions for the Office were advertised in 17 capital city and major ethnic newspapers. In addition the positions were advertised in the Commonwealth Gazette. The advertisement and recruitment costs are detailed below: $ Advertising in ethnic newspapers...1,710 Block* advertising...575 Applicants' airfares...930 (* i.e. PM&C proportion of PSB sponsored SES advertising in 3 major daily newspapers) There were also other items of expenditure associated with the recruitment process that can not be itemised readily including costs for telephone interviews. 2. The Government has not yet finalised the general structure for the Office beyond the First Assistant Secretary (Level 4) and two Assistant Secretaries (Level 2). After consultation with ethnic communities and other organisations, the Office will submit a proposed structure outlining the administrative and policy staffing requirements necessary to most effectively carry out the Office's functions. It is expected that the structure will be finalised by June. 3. Rather than hastily establishing an Advisory Council or Office taking no account of community concerns, the Government is committed to consulting with ethnic communities and other relevant groups. The Government wishes the Office to be an efficient professionally staffed body which will assist both the Government and the wider community appreciate Australia's multi- cultural society. This can best be done once the views of the relevant groups on the role and priorities of the Advisory Council and the Office are determined. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have a follow up response to a question asked by Senator Kilgariff yesterday. He asked me, with reference to the Government's White Paper on defence, whether the Minister for Defence was satisfied that the existing transport facilities by road, sea and air would be adequate to enable the implementation of the Government's policies. I am advised by the Minister for Defence that he has every confidence that the existing transport industry facilities would be able to support the type of operational commitments discussed in the White Paper. The national transport infra- structure is recognised as being of vital importance to the operational capability of the Australian Defence Force. For this reason various studies have been conducted over recent years addressing matters of co-ordination between defence and the civil transport industry. This subject has also been addressed by the Transport Industry Advisory Council, which reports to the Minister for Transport. To further assess the capacity of the civil infrastructure to meet contingent defence requirements and to ensure the proper machinery is in place to facilitate its use, Sir Peter Abeles has been appointed recently to chair a panel to conduct a Review of Civilian Transport Infrastructure. As well as being a leader in the civil transport industry, Sir Peter Abeles is a member of the Defence Industry Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Jessop asked me a question yesterday concerning the possibility of Chief Buthelezi visiting Australia under the Government's special visits program. My response on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs is as follows: The Department of Foreign Affairs has administered for over 30 years a special visits program which brings to Australia people selected on the basis of their eminence and capacity to contribute to the development of a better understanding in other countries of Australia's policies and institutions or to heighten awareness in Australia of key foreign policy issues and matters of international concern. There is a lot of detail about that program and its application to the possible visit to which Senator Jessop referred. I seek leave to have that incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- In 1986-87 funding amounts to some $A674,000 and some 35 people (and in some instances their accom- panying parties) are expected to visit Australia under the Program. Among those visitors are politicians, academics and representatives of human rights, anti-apartheid and international economic institutions. In October 1983 the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced the establishment of a scheme (within the Special Visits Program) to bring prominent opponents of apartheid to Australia. The purpose of the scheme is to enable those opposed to apartheid to put their views to the Australian public on a major international issue; The scheme is part of the Government's existing Special Visits Program; There is no separate program specifically for the purpose of sponsoring visits of anti-apartheid advocates; Of the visitors to Australia in 1986-87 under the scheme two are prominent opponents of apartheid; Mr John Kane-Berman, Director of the South African Institute of Race Relations and Mr Tambo whose visit to Australia begins on 27 March. People invited to Australia under the Program are selected after careful consideration of the Government's broad foreign policy interests and priorities, competing nominations and the availability of funds. The question of an invitation being extended to Chief Buthelezi is under consideration in the context of nominations for the Special Visits Program for the 1987-88 financial year. Senator GARETH EVANS —I also have some further information in response to that part of Senator Jessop's question which referred to the visit of Mr Tambo. I seek leave to have that incorporated also. Leave granted. The document read as follows- He will be visiting Australia from 27 March to 11 April, as part of a wider tour to countries in Pacific and Asia regions. From Australia Mr Tambo will go to New Zealand, Japan and Canada. The right of freedom of expression is in keeping with the operations of our democratic society. Mr Tambo's visit will enable the views of the disenfranchised black majority in South Africa to be put to the Australian public. The ANC has made known its views in a number of Western countries and to major Western Governments. The ANC leader has recently met with the US Secretary of State. He has also met with the Foreign Ministers of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. Australia is amongst a number of Western countries which is interested to learn the views of the ANC leader. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the following Senators be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committees- Estimates Committee B-Senators Peter Baume, Crowley, Giles, Sheil and Walters Estimates Committee D-Senator Reynolds Estimates Committee E-Senators Aulich, Michael Baume, Black, Sir John Carrick, MacGibbon and McIntosh Estimates Committee F-Senators Foreman, McKiernan, Reid, Townley, Vanstone and Zakharov. (2) That the following Senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36ab, be appointed members of Estimates Committees- Estimates Committee B-Senators Aulich, Michael Baume, Black, Sir John Carrick and MacGibbon Estimates Committee D-Senator Zakharov Estimates Committee E-Senators Foreman, Hill, McKiernan, Reid, Vanstone and West Estimates Committee F-Senators Peter Baume, Crowley, Giles, Reynolds, Sheil and Walters. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —I table the National Crime Authority's annual report for 1985-86 and seek leave to move a motion relating thereto. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to incorporate my statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- In accordance with sub-section 61 (6) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, I table the National Crime Authority's annual report for 1985-86, together with comments on the report made by the Inter-Governmental Committee at its meeting last December. I would like to add my endorsement to the IGC's commendation of the NCA for its work throughout the year. The presentation of the Authority's second annual report provides an opportunity to summarise its achievements thus far. The Authority has now been operating for some 2 1/2 years, and has overcome many of the operational and administrative difficulties encountered in the first year or so of its life. It is not surprising that the Authority faced some initial difficulties, considering it is a unique organisation in the law enforcement field in Australia and has needed time to establish its role in the network of law enforcement agencies. I believe that, despite some early cynicism and pessimism about its prospects, the Authority has earned a good deal of respect both within the law enforcement field and in the wider community. This respect is based on the fact that the Authority has gone about its task without fanfare or sensation and is now beginning to make substantial inroads into organised crime networks in Australia. As of February 1987, as a result of its work, 150 persons had been charged with a total of 386 offences. The bulk of these charges, some 244, are drug-related. These figures are an indication that the Authority is taking effective action to combat organised crime in Australia. Another noteworthy aspect of the Authority's operations is the identification of undeclared income by those under investigation, or, in the case of persons charged with drug offences, the identification of their assets. Such information is passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Taxation Office. As a result of the Authority's investigations to date, action is in train to recover some $17m to $18m from the proceeds of criminal activity through pecuniary penalty orders, civil remedies penalties and taxation assessments. This aspect has a two-fold benefit. In the first place, it provides revenue to the Commonwealth and, secondly, it has the effect of making crime unprofitable. The available avenues for recovery of the ill-gotten gains of organised criminals will be enhanced by the introduction in this period of sittings of the Government's proceeds of crime legislation. This legislation will widen considerably the opportunities for tracing and seizing the assets gained by criminals as a result of their illegal activities. Despite the encouraging achievements of the Authority to date, its overall impact is difficult to assess at this time. As Mr Justice Stewart says in the report, measuring the effectiveness of a law enforcement agency in countering organised crime in Australia is made particularly difficult because there is no agreement on what is meant by organised crime let alone a firm indication of its extent. As Mr Justice Stewart points out, total crime prevention is an unrealistic objective. What must be striven for is to contain the incidence of crime within manageable limits. The authority interprets this as reducing the incidence of particular types of crime normally undertaken on an organised basis. Accordingly, it has as its targeting areas relevant criminal behaviour in itself-the acts; persons, groups or companies who commit relevant criminal acts-the perpetrators; and conditions which increase or reduce the possibility of relevant illegal acts occurring-the opportunities. As Mr Justice Stewart notes, using the number of arrests as the sole criterion for measuring the Authority's performance is not sufficient, as it relates to only one of those targets. In concluding his discussion on the matter, the Chairman says that during the coming year the authority will be giving closer consideration `to defining objectives which are within its reach and developing logical performance indicators which will allow an assessment to be made of the extent to which the authority is succeeding in doing what can be reasonably expected of it'. I welcome this expression of intention from the Authority, as it will be of assistance in the review of the Authority which is to be conducted before the expiry of the National Crime Authority Act under the sunset clause-section 63. This will provide a useful opportunity to re-examine the Authority's structure and operations in order to assess the value of the Authority in its present form and the current direction and progress of the fight against organised crime. As I recently pointed out in making the Government's reponse to the second report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I acknowledge the valuable contribution which that Committee will be able to make to such a review. There are several matters raised by the Authority in its report which warrant particular comment. The first of these is the report's discussion of the relationship between the Authority and the Parliamentary Joint Committee established under section 53 of the National Crime Authority Act. As the Senate will recall the Committee and the Authority have taken different views as to the role of the Committee and the proper relationship between the two bodies. It should be borne in mind that this report deals with the position as at 30 June 1986. The role of the Joint Committee and its relationship with the Authority were the subject of discussions between the Committee and the NCA initiated by my predecessor last year. In its second report, tabled in November last year, the Joint Committee remarked on the improved working relationship between the two bodies, which it described as one `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'-page 5. The Committee was also satisfied with the briefing provided by the Authority on specific matters relating to the operations of the Authority. Furthermore the Committee notes that it believes that its current relationship with the Authority will allow it to formulate a judgment as to the efficacy of the Authority's operations in due course. The Government is most concerned that the working relationship which has been established between these bodies is maintained, so that the Joint Committee can continue to provide a useful review of the NCA's activities. The report also refers to the establishment of the Authority's office in Perth in July 1985, noting that the Authority is `keeping the operations of the Perth office under review, in order to assess the need for the office to be maintained on a permanent basis'. Honourable senators will be aware that the Authority closed the office in February this year on the basis that, at least for the remainder of the financial year, it does not expect to commence any investigation requiring an office in Perth. As the Western Australian Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Hill, noted, and as I have also pointed out in my responses in this place to questions on this matter, decisions about the Perth office have been made quite autonomously by the Authority, without any political interference whatsoever. The Authority also refers in its report to a number of proposed amendments to the National Crime Authority Act. Those dealing with definition of member of staff, definition of warrant and power of arrest will be included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to be introduced later these sittings. A further issue raised by the Authority and deserving mention is witness protection. The Authority expresses the view that `significant deficiencies' exist in current witness protection arrangements and that they are becoming more serious. The Authority favours the formation of a national scheme. At the same time, it should be noted that the AFP has an established witness protection program for non-custodial witnesses which on occasions provides assistance to State and Territory police and to the NCA. Most other jurisdictions have witness protection programs established to a greater or lesser degree. Nevertheless, the issue raises many complex legal and financial issues. Quite different questions arise with respect to witnesses who are in detention or corrective institutions and those who are not. Arrangements for protecting witnesses are extraordinarily resource intensive in relation to the numbers of witnesses being protected and, given the nature of the task, it is difficult to forecast accurately for budgeting or planning purposes. Accordingly, it is a matter which requires further examination especially as to the degree of consistency which is desirable across jurisdictions in the areas of both custodial and non-custodial witness protection. To this end, following correspondence from the Western Australian Attorney-General on behalf of the Correctional Services Administrators Conference, I have written to the Chairman of the Australian Police Ministers Council suggesting discussions between law enforcement officials and corrective service officials on present witness protection arrangements, both custodial and non-custodial. I propose that the Authority will be a party to these discussions. The Authority also argues in the annual report for its preferred amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986. As honourable senators will remember, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986 was referred to a joint parliamentary select committee for examination. The committee received submissions from many sources, including the NCA, in its consideration of this matter. The Committee reported in November 1986 recommending the establishment of a telecommunications interception agency within the AFP to conduct intercepts on behalf of state police and the NCA. The Government is proposing to introduce a new amendment Bill in early May taking into account the committee's recommendations. Finally, it should be borne in mind that the successful operation of the Authority is only possible with the co-operation of all Federal and State governments and agencies. It is my wish that the good relationships which have been established between the NCA and other law enforcement agencies will serve as a solid basis on which to continue the collaborative endeavour to combat organised criminal activity in Australia. It is in that spirit that I acknowledge the work of the NCA as outlined in the second annual report which I table for the consideration of the Parliament and the general public. Comments by the Inter-Governmental Committee on the National Crime Authority's Annual Report for 1985-86 The National Crime Authority was established on 1 July 1984 under the National Crime Authority Act 1984. During the period under review, from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986, the Authority consisted of the Chairman, the Hon. Mr Justice D. G. Stewart, and two members, the Hon. E. M. Bingham, QC, Mr J. L. Dwyer, QC from 1 July 1985 until 31 December 1985 and Mr R. F. Greenwood, QC from February 1986 until 30 June 1986. Mr Greenwood was appointed as an Acting Member to replace Mr Dwyer. A total of seven references have been issued to the Authority. All of the references were requested by the Authority and unanimously supported by the Inter-Governmental Committee. The issuing of references allows the Authority to use its extensive coercive powers. The Authority is also conducting several investigations under its general powers, some of which will result in prosecutions while others will form the basis of future references. The Inter-Governmental Committee commends the NCA for its achievements in its second year of operation and expresses full confidence in the Authority's ability to continue to make major inroads into organised crime in Australia. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.12) —The Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) has tabled a statement relating to the 1985-86 annual report of the National Crime Authority. The Minister recognises in his lengthy and interesting statement that the National Crime Authority has presented a number of interesting details of its operations. He acknowledges, and I certainly would acknowledge, that the National Crime Authority has fully justified the support that this Parliament gave to its establishment some 2 1/2 years ago. There certainly was a good deal of debate in this chamber when the legislation concerning the Authority was dealt with. Indeed, the legislation was examined in great detail by a committee of the Senate before the legislation to create the Authority was finally passed. The Opposition had and still has some major concerns about the inadequacy of the Authority's powers. However, it seems from this report and from what is set out in the tabling statement that the Authority has been able to overcome these deficiencies. It is recommending to the Inter-Governmental Committee of Federal and State Ministers that references should be given where it sees that course as being necessary. Apparently the Authority is succeeding in getting references where it thinks such references are necessary. The Opposition's view was and remains that an effective crime fighting body operating throughout Australia, such as the National Crime Authority, should be able within its charter to initiate its own full investigations and have full powers. It should not have to go cap in hand to a group of Ministers to seek their authority to take the action which it believes is required. I believe that Senator Tate understands these matters. In fact, he chaired the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which looked at this legislation. I hope that now that he has new ministerial responsibilities, he will see the wisdom of giving this Authority greater freedom of action. We are not suggesting, of course, that this Authority should be able to roam widely over any field of criminal activity in Australia. It was not set up for that purpose. There is ample provision in the legislation which determines its purpose to prevent it from going outside its major task of investigating and preparing briefs for the prosecution of organised crime and organised criminals. But within that general objective and those general restrictions, it is the Opposition's view that this body should not be required to get permission from any Minister before proceeding. I know that there are problems in getting the States to accept that view. We certainly have had great problems in getting the present Government to accept that view. However, I hope that Senator Tate will be able to persuade his colleagues otherwise. Certainly, on return to government we will expand the powers of the Authority to enable it to act of its own initiative against organised crime. I note that up to February of this year the Authority has been responsible for the charging of 150 persons with a total of 386 offences, of which 244 offences are drug-related. Although that does emphasise the fact, not unexpectedly, that the work of the Crime Authority is mainly directed at drug trafficking-and organised crime is particularly evident in that sphere of criminal activity-nevertheless, it also emphasises the fact that there is a wide range of other organised criminal activity which is unrelated to drugs. We should bear in mind that although we tend to think in terms of the National Crime Authority as being concerned mainly with drug related crime-and that is certainly its major task-nevertheless, it has other very important tasks as well. As this legislation has already recognised, organised crime may be operating in the tax evasion, fraud or other areas where there is very serious criminal conduct and where there are great sums of money involved. The Authority has also set in train action for the recovery of some $17m or $18m from the proceeds of criminal activity through other powers which it has. I must say that I am a little disappointed, and in fact a little surprised, that the recovery figure is not higher. We would have thought, from the number of people that have been charged in this area and with the very large sums of money involved, that a greater recovery would have been possible. One of the problems-and one of the reasons why that is not so is set out by the Authority in its report-concerns the legislation which the Government has been working on for some time, its `proceeds of crime' legislation. The Minister says: This legislation will widen considerably the opportunities for tracing and seizing the assets gained by criminals as a result of their illegal activities. But I must express very considerable disappointment that the Government has not proceeded earlier with this important legislation. The report deals at some length with its views on what form that legislation should take. I hope that the Minister will be giving very serious consideration to the Authority's comments about that legislation. The time delay is serious. That reform was one of the major recommendations of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. That report was given to the Government in October 1984, just before the 1984 election. The Government has now had that recommendation from Mr Costigan for 2 1/2 years and it was one of the major points of the report. Following the money trail and seizing the ill-gotten gains were major features of the Costigan report and the Government is still talking about bringing down legislation to give effect to that. The Crime Authority has certainly had some powers in that direction and it has put in train the recovery of some $17m or $18m-it apparently has not actually recovered it as yet-but a much greater effort is required. A delay of this type, 2 1/2 years, does indicate the concern which the Opposition has always had-that this Hawke Labor Government has never really had a strong commitment to attacking organised crime. We said that throughout the whole of the debates in 1983 and 1984. The way in which this National Crime Authority has been hobbled by the bureaucracy, by the legislation and by the cumbersome methods that have to be entered into for it to get references that it sees are needed, are all evidence of this. We now have this delay so the legislation has not yet been brought in-2 1/2 years after it was recommended by Mr Costigan. I hope that the Government and the Minister will be giving very high priority to getting the legislation before this Parliament so that it can be dealt with. It is certainly something the Opposition has been calling for. We adopted that Costigan recommendation as a policy and had we been in government we would have given it the highest priority but that has not been done by this Government. Another major point for comment is the relationship between the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority and the Authority itself. That Committee, in its reports, sought greater powers in relation to its role of monitoring the Authority. Indeed, last year quite a stand-off developed between the Authority and the Committee. The Committee wanted detailed briefings of the operations of the Authority and, apparently, of particular investigations. In my view, that was quite absurd. Apparently, the Committee has now come to some accommodation with the Authority under the chairmanship of the former Special Minister of State, Mr Young. I am very glad to see that that has been achieved and that we have not had to resort to legislation to resolve that matter. Basically it seemed a foolish conflict and one which should never have occurred. The Authority was clearly right in making its stand about the sensitivity of its investigations and the possibility of information getting out in sensitive situations. It may be a different matter for the Committee to be briefed about operations which have passed, but for it to seek briefings about operations which are actually taking place or being contemplated is ridiculous. Nevertheless, the Committee in doing its work obviously has to have as much information given to it as is consistent with the requirements of the Authority's operations and that matter appears to have been resolved. I understand that the Committee is about to embark, or has embarked, upon a general review of the operations and achievements or failings of the National Crime Authority because the Authority is under a sunset clause. Under the present legislation it will go out of existence on 30 June 1989. It was established in 1984 with a five-year life. This has led to the problems which the Opposition again pointed out when the legislation was before the Parliament. For instance, the Chairman of the Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, was appointed until only 30 June 1988. So although the Authority has a life until 1989, the Chairman's term expires in just over 12 months. The term of another member, Mr Bingham, expires in about 10 months. The term of the third original member of the Authority, Mr Dwyer, has already expired, or he has retired-I cannot recall which-and he has only been able to be replaced by an acting member. I think it is still the case that Mr Greenwood's appointment is only in an acting capacity. Senator Jessop —He is not alone there now. There is another one. Senator DURACK —He is replacing Mr Greenwood in an acting capacity? Senator Tate —He is not in an acting capacity. Senator DURACK —Has a third member been appointed? Senator Tate —Yes. Mr Peter Dwyer of the Melbourne Bar. Senator DURACK —Until the expiration of the Authority? Senator Tate —Yes. Senator DURACK —In all events, this has been a most unsatisfactory situation. Just that little interchange indicates how unsatisfactory the situation is concerning the development of efficient operations by members of the Authority. What will happen? Mr Justice Stewart's term expires after four years and the Authority has one year to go. There will have to be a new Chairman. How will that person be able to fit in? Mr Bingham will have gone by then and it has already been proved very difficult for the Government to replace the original Mr Dwyer. Apparently another Mr Dwyer has been appointed. The original third member was a Mr Dwyer. He lasted only 18 months. The Government has had the greatest difficulty getting replacements. The main reason why it has had this difficulty is the limit on the life of the Authority and on the terms of members of the Authority. The Opposition's view is that this sunset clause should be removed here and now. My colleague Senator Archer, who unfortunately was not available today to speak in response to the report and the statement by the Minister, has introduced a Bill into the Senate to remove the sunset clause. It is quite clear from this report that the National Crime Authority is fully justified and is doing a very important job successfully, even considering the impediments that are placed upon it by this legislation-placed upon it simply by the intransigence of this Government when the legislation passed through the chamber. In these circumstances, why should we not make it quite clear as soon as possible that this Authority should continue? The Government still shows coyness in relation to the future of the Authority. I do not know why the Government still does not seem to be too sure whether it wants to have the Authority. Senator Tate shakes his head. In that event, he should support Senator Archer's Bill. We will bring it on as quickly as we can if the honourable senator will support it. We want to see this Authority established on a solid, long term, secure basis so that people working for it will know where they stand. Members of the Authority particularly will know where they stand and will not be subject to these very short term and acting appointments which seem to have characterised the situation to date. In conclusion, I commend the Authority for the work it has done. I commend Mr Justice Stewart for the leadership he has shown in this matter. Certainly, the Authority should be given adequate powers, which it still needs. There is one further power that it needs; that is, in relation to the interception of telephone conversations. The Government brought in legislation on that and then sent it off to a committee. Apparently it is now going to amend the legislation. This has gone on for a year or so, and goodness knows how much longer it will continue. This Authority needs better and clearer powers. It needs greater moral support, from the Government in particular, than it has received. To put the Authority on its full footing, the legislation certainly needs to be changed. It needs the powers that I have indicated in the course of these remarks. I hope that the new Minister will give high priority to fixing all these deficiencies as soon as possible. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to correct a statement I made by way of interjection. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I said that the new member of the Authority was a Mr Peter Dwyer. I meant a Mr Peter Clarke. I am sorry for misleading. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.29) —The National Crime Authority has been in operation now for some 2 1/2 years. I think that everybody in this chamber ought to be pleased to note that in the 1985-86 annual report, which is before us today, there is a clear indication that in that year, to the end of June last year, everybody felt that there had been significant consolidation and progress as far as the Authority was concerned. Certainly, I think that some of us who took part in or who just simply listened to the conference that was held in this chamber concerning the establishment of what was, I think, then described as the National Crime Commission and then later took part in the debates in the Parliament wondered from time to time whether the Authority, as it was finally decided it would be called, would ever get off the ground and be able to operate effectively. Certainly considerable differences were expressed between State governments and the Federal Government and between the law enforcement agencies and the civil liberties representatives, all of whom were party to the original discussions. But as we are not all aware, the Authority did get off the ground and, despite a few teething problems, it has operated, I think, with increasing confidence and increasing support, not just from this Parliament, but from the community generally. As has already been acknowledged in this place, the Authority encountered some difficulties early in its life and, again, this is hardly surprising, given the large number of government and non-government agencies with which it has had to work and the enormity of the task confronting it in meeting its aims. One particular concern, as Senator Durack has mentioned, was the strained relationship that existed for some time between the Authority and the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority that was set up under section 53 of the Act to deal with and liaise with the Authority and to have some sort of nebulous relationship with it. I served on that Committee for a number of years and I can attest, as no doubt my colleague Senator Jessop will if he gets to his feet, that relationships are not always the most cordial, although I think they were always courteous. Certainly the Authority had one view on the matter of section 53 and the Committee from time to time took a slightly different one. The views were different as far as their definition of the roles of the Committee and the Authority were concerned in respect of the relationship that each one had with the other. I have no doubt at all that for a while this certainly did interfere with the proper functioning of both the Authority and the Committee. We seemed to spend more time wrangling over who had jurisdiction over what and who had control over whom than we did in discussing much more important matters. The issue is canvassed in some detail in the early pages of this report. However, I issue a word of caution to anybody who wants to make something of those strained relationships: It has to be remembered that the comments in this report are relevant to the year ended June 1986: that is, the report deals with the situation up to the end of the last financial year, and at that stage the relationship between the two bodies certainly was the subject of some discussions between them. More recently, however-and it is very important that we note this, almost a year after the end of the period that this report covers-the Joint Committee itself has presented its second report and it noted a marked improvement in its relationship with the Authority and described that relationship as being: . . . 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. I think it is very important to note, before we all get excessively concerned or excited over the comments that are made in the early pages of this report, that the situation has changed significantly. What strains there were have diminished considerably; what points of contention there were in 1985-86 have all but disappeared, and the Committee and the Authority have got on to an even keel and are working easily with each other as, of course, was the intention all along. Given the importance of the task on which those bodies are working together, it is very gratifying to see this improvement and, of course, we all hope that it continues. Certainly I was sorry to have to leave the Committee because of other work that I had to take on, because I believe that both it and the Authority are now performing a very valuable service to the Parliament and, indeed, to Australia as a whole. Some other aspects of the National Crime Authority report, I think, are probably more worthy of our attention than the brief period of uneasy relations that existed between the Joint Parliamentary Committee and the Authority itself. The Government's proposed legislation dealing with the forfeiture of assets, for example, is also canvassed in this report. Of course, the assets referred to are those derived from or used in criminal activity. The Authority has gone to some pains to comment on the Government's proposed legislation. At the time the proposal was first mooted, I welcomed it, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, as a matter of principle; that is, we supported the general concept behind it and then held off making any more enthusiastic comments while awaiting specific details of the legislation. I notice on pages 40 and 41 of this report that the Authority also welcomes many elements of the proposed package, while pointing to some weaknesses in it, as a tool in the fight against organised crime. On those pages the Authority makes certain suggestions, and I suggest that both the Government and the Parliament should bear these in mind when considering the final details of the legislation dealing with forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. I think it is important that we realise that what we are talking about is the forfeiture of those assets or proceeds that have derived from some criminal activity. On page 40 the Authority makes the point that it welcomes a number of the elements of the proposed package of measures, including: the forfeiture of property used in or in connection with the commission of an offence, and property derived or realised, directly or indirectly, from the commission of an indictable offence against a Commonwealth law; the imposition of a pecuniary penalty in respect of drug trafficking, organised fraud and proposed new money laundering offences, to equal the value of the whole of the offender's assets on conviction, and any property handled over the previous five years; proposed new money laundering offences; a proposed new offence of knowing or with reckless indifference receiving, possessing, concealing or disposing of property or money derived from the commission of an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth; The report went on to say, a page later: The Authority has made the following suggestions, aimed at making the forfeiture of assets concept a more useful tool in the control of organised crime and enabling swifter action to be taken against perpetrators. The suggestions are two-fold. The first is: Creation by a statute of a cause of action provable on the balance of probabilities and actionable by the Crown providing for the recovery of unlawfully obtained property. Again, it needs to be stressed that we are talking about something unlawfully gained, assets gained which would not otherwise have been gained had it not been for the involvement of the owner in some criminal behaviour. The second suggestion the Authority makes is: Creation of a new Commonwealth summary offence, on a rebuttable presumption, of being in possession of goods and/or monies suspected of having been unlawfully obtained. Further, it is stated: The Authority also considers that the package should incorporate a proposal to make it a criminal offence to facilitate crime through financial and like services, for example by knowingly or with reckless indifference arranging the movement of funds to finance drug importations. I certainly welcome those suggestions and comments from the Authority. Associated with that proposal with regard to forfeiture of assets-and it is a proposal that has not been implemented; I have not even seen the sort of draft-in-confidence that from time to time flits around this place when the Government proposes legislation of this kind-is the Authority's success under present laws in identifying undeclared income by those people under investigation or in the case of people charged with drug offences, the identification of their assets. As the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) noted in his statement, the Authority's investigations so far have led to the probable recovery of $17m to $18m from the proceeds of criminal activity. Senator Peter Baume —Senator, were they people charged, or people convicted? Are you talking about people charged? Senator HAINES —The Minister's tabling statement merely indicated that the Authority's investigations so far have led to the probable recovery of that amount of money. The fact is that, had we not had the Authority, it is not likely that the investigations of the sort that it has been undertaking would have been put in train. The fact that there is that gained revenue, if one likes, or at least not a loss to revenue, is something for which I think it can be commended. If the forfeiture legislation goes any distance to improving that matter, that, of course, will be something that we should look at most carefully. Another matter of some concern raised by the Authority is the question of witness protection. I can remember, as a member of the Committee, having discussions about the vexed problem of protecting witnesses adequately-remembering that we are dealing with some fairly high-powered criminals in the sorts of investigations that the National Crime Authority is undertaking. We, as a party, have also raised this matter on a number of occasions. We have pointed out, among other things, that the provision of witness protection out of already stretched State police budgets is not a satisfactory approach to this increasingly serious problem. Senator Jessop will remember that we canvassed this matter at some length during several Committee hearings and our meetings with the Authority. I am therefore very pleased to see that the Minister has initiated discussions with law enforcement officials, corrective services officials and the National Crime Authority. I point out that it is a very welcome move by the Minister although, given how long ago it was that we had those discussions with the Authority, I would say that it is a touch overdue. The Authority has also commented on other legislative matters, including mutual assistance in criminal matters and extradition arrangements, telecommunications interception powers and listening devices. The undoubted expertise of the Authority should be borne in mind when finalising legislation on all of these matters. In considering this report and future reports from the National Crime Authority, we should all be realistic in our appraisal of the Authority's performance. As the Chairman has noted, the term `success' in regard to its activities is a particularly difficult one to define, and even more difficult to assess in relation to any unique body such as this. A variety of yardsticks has been used by different people, including the number of arrests made as a result of the Authority's investigations. Quite rightly, it points out that this is a somewhat deficient yardstick. It is certainly an easily quantified one and a readily understood one, but it is clearly an inadequate criterion for judging the success of a body such as the NCA. I add that the Joint Committee also addressed this difficulty in its report last November, and concluded that it is extremely difficult to establish criteria by which to evaluate the effectiveness of an authority such as the one we are discussing today. It quite rightly described the number of arrests yardstick as simplistic and dismissed this sort of `scoreboard' material. More realistically, the Committee pointed out that the impact of the Authority's activities is more likely to be cumulative than immediate, particularly as it is difficult to bring organised crime to its knees effectively in the short term in which this Committee has been operating. On this basis the Committee cautioned against making hasty judgments as to the effectiveness of the Authority. The Chairman of the NCA has gone into some detail on this subject. I suggest that his arguments, which I regard as extremely well reasoned, are to be looked at carefully and accepted by people who are concerned about how one judges the success of the Authority. He noted that total crime prevention is impossible, but that a realistic objective stems from the idea of containing the incidence of crime within manageable limits. He said that during the coming year the Authority will be giving closer consideration to defining objectives which are within its reach and developing logical performance indicators which will allow an assessment to be made of the extent to which the Authority is succeeding in doing what it can be reasonably expected to do. I do not suppose that we, as members of parliament, or, indeed, members of the community, would be anything other than human if we did not hold out hope that the Committee had some sort of magic wand and could, even within the confines of the Act, produce the sorts of results that we would all like to see. But we must remember that it has restraints on it; it has all sorts of constraints on it. We should not expect more of it than it can be reasonably expected to produce. I, like the Minister, welcome this expression of intention from the Authority. I also believe that it will be of assistance in the review of the Authority which is to be conducted before the expiry of the NCA under the sunset clause. That opportunity to assess the structure and operations of the Authority will be extremely useful in determining this country's future options as far as the fight against organised crime is concerned. In the meantime, I repeat that the Authority is to be commended for the work it is doing and the results it has achieved. We should all acknowledge that the NCA plays a vital role in combating one of the most intractable problems confronting our society-that is, the problem of embedded organised crime in this country. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(3.47) —I would like to make one or two comments on the 1985-86 annual report of the National Crime Authority. I note what Senator Durack and Senator Haines have said with respect to the relationship in the early stages between the Authority and the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. I think that Mr Justice Stewart approached the parliamentary Committee as he would a dog which is baring its teeth at one end and wagging its tail at the other: He was not quite sure which end of the dog to believe. I think that is understandable, because the Authority was in its formative stage, as was the Committee. We were not quite sure what sort of direction we should take and how we should approach the Authority with respect to methodology, its computer setup, and so on. Since that time we have established a rapport which I think is working well. The Authority seems to be functioning effectively. Cases have been brought to trial, and will continue to be brought to trial, which will help a lot, in particular, in stemming the flow of drugs into this country. I cannot recall-and Senator Haines, I think, will bear me out when I say this-that we ever intruded into current investigations, because we recognised the sensitivity of this area. We certainly would not have wanted to jeopardise any investigation that was going on. Senator Haines —Or threaten the safety of any individuals involved. Senator JESSOP —As Senator Haines says, or threaten the safety of any individuals involved. That is a very important matter about which we acted very responsibly. I think our inquiries largely hinged on methodology and the discovery of whether the Authority had adequate electronic equipment to do its job. More recently we have been concerned about the protection of witnesses, a matter to which Senator Haines referred. The Joint Committee will take up that matter with the idea of helping the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) to make a judgment on what should be done to give effective protection to witnesses in the major crime cases. As Senator Haines said earlier, these inquiries and prosecutions are dealing with very rough characters who have no compunction about inflicting injury, or even death, on witnesses. At the moment the police forces are co-operating from State to State, but are limited by the resources that are made available to them. I understand that in some cases witnesses are given accommodation in motel rooms and are asked to ring in every couple of days to let the authorities know that they are still alive and well. Those matters have to be given serious consideration by the Minister, and I am sure that he will take that matter up with the Authority to see what can be done. Our Committee will co-operate with the Minister to try to assist him. The Authority, according to the report, takes the view that specific legislation is required to permit and regulate witness protection in Australia. The United States Witness Security Reform Act was enacted in 1984 to remedy what was seen as the major defects in the US marshals service witness protection program, and it could serve as a useful model. Therefore, some overseas legislation could be worth considering. The Americans also have some interesting legislation in respect of the forfeiture of property and Senator Haines appropriately drew attention to the importance of dealing with that aspect. Senator Haines —I think the Victorian Government has looked at or is looking at something along these lines. Senator JESSOP —Yes, I think inquiries are being made by the Victorian Government and other institutions in Australia, too. The Americans have a good model that we could examine. It seems that telephone intercepts have given Mr Justice Stewart some reasons for concern. In an interview on television the other night he said that it was wrong for the NCA to be on the end of the queue for telephone intercepts, while recognising privacy and that sort of thing. That matter will have to be examined, and I note that the Authority will make a submission to the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interceptions, which was established at the time the Bill was introduced into Parliament. I refer in particular to the recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Intercepts to the effect that the power of interception be extended to cover all serious offences. I think that should be examined carefully with the object of doing something to assist the Authority. Senator Haines —Recent events might mean that not too many people would talk on the telephone. Senator JESSOP —That is a point to be remembered. It is also important to emphasise what Senator Durack said about the need to get rid of the sunset clause. There is no doubt in my mind that there has been some lowering of morale in the NCA staff and that there is a possibility that, because of this uncertainty, staff could be lost. It is necessary to ensure that the effort in the Authority will continue. It has been established for long enough to recognise that it is an effective way of dealing with major crimes. I suggest that the Minister should seek to enact the Bill on this matter which has been suggested by my colleague Senator Archer. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —by leave-By agreement with Senator Durack, I shall speak by leave rather than close the debate. I thank honourable senators who have contributed to the debate. I do not want to go over the ground of my tabling statement, but I was pleased that so much support was expressed, particularly by Senators Jessop and Haines, experienced members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority at various times, for the relationship which has developed between that Committee and the National Crime Authority. It was a troubled one in the beginning. It seems to have been sorted out, and I am anxious that that relationship should continue-not in a way which makes the parliamentary Committee in any way subservient to the Authority but which nevertheless is respectful of the various jurisdictions and charters. This Parliament will be well served if the relationship, which apparently has been fostered and brought to a reasonable point over the last few months, leads us to be able to make an apt judgment on the work of the National Crime Authority when the time comes for Parliament to make its decision. I shall come to that matter in a moment. I shall not give Senator Durack an assurance that the role of the Inter-Governmental Committee should be abandoned. I remember that in the debates held in this chamber concerning the establishment of the National Crime Authority and in the Committee discussions which preceded that debate-that Committee had before it the National Crimes Commission legislation-the role of the Inter-Governmental Committee was thought to be important. In relation to special references the Authority is endowed with very special and extraordinary powers in the Australian law enforcement scene. It was thought that there should be at least some need for the Authority to approach those who are elected by the people. After all, it is not a set of bureaucrats; it is an inter-governmental committee at the highest level. Ministers, who are ultimately responsible to their parliaments and the people, are asked to give permission for the Authority on a particular reference to exercise quite extraordinary powers. They are very effective powers and, as the report shows, have proved to be an effective means of bringing about the accumulation of evidence and the necessary ground work to ensure that arrests are achieved, but they are extraordinary and should not go without scrutiny when sought to be exercised. For that reason the Inter-Governmental Committee is an important part in the process of the Authority in the exercise of these special powers. As Senator Durack remarked, the Authority has acknowledged that it has never found the Inter-Governmental Committee to be a stumbling block because its case for a special reference is well argued and presented. In any case there is tremendous political pressure on participating governments to accede to requests that are so well argued by the Authority. Senator Durack also made the political claim that this Government has not evidenced a strong commitment to attacking organised crime. During the lunch hour I went to the headquarters of the Australian Federal Police, where I had a briefing session and pleasant luncheon with Major-General Grey, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. This Government has initiated a three-year program to beef up the resources of the Australian Federal Police. We have provided an extra $10m in funding over the three-year program, which has allowed the AFP to engage in a recruiting program which, as I saw from my observations in walking around the building, has enabled that organisation to acquire the services of a very talented, enthusiastic team of young policemen who I am sure, following further years of training, will prove to be a very accepted part of that law enforcement agency. The resources we have put into the Australian Federal Police are matched by the resources we have put into the National Crime Authority. I believe staffing resources at the moment are at a sufficient level. We have of the order of 260 staff compared to a combined staff of 105 for both the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking under the previous Government, and proposed expenditure in 1986-87 is $14.9m compared to the previous Government's total expenditure in 1981-82 of $4m for the Costigan and Stewart royal commissions. So I think the level of resources is quite adequate for the tasks which this Government and indeed the Parliament and the people expect of the Authority. As for the other elements of our attack on organised crime, the fact is that in this autumn session, as has been foreshadowed, we will be introducing a package of measures including a measure dealing with the proceeds of crime. It is important, as has been commented on by honourable senators in this debate, that that legislation provide another way of trying to contain and disrupt organised crime in this country. It has been said time and again that the simple scoreboard approach of looking at arrests, successful convictions, gaolings and fines is perhaps one aspect, but not a sufficient aspect. The way to really deal with organised crime is to make it less profitable for those who engage in these nefarious activities in order to secure tremendous assets. Senator Haines —That is the purpose of their exercise, isn't it-to get pecuniary gain? Senator TATE —That is right, to accumulate assets beyond those which they could otherwise lawfully obtain. We intend with the tracing provisions in particular to be embodied in this proceeds of crime legislation, that the financiers of crime themselves will find themselves stripped of their assets. This will be a valuable part of the armoury of society which will make engaging in crime less attractive. The fact is that a gaol sentence of three or four years may not appear to be of such enormity to those who think that at the end of that period they can walk out and enjoy the fruits of their nefarious activities, their ill-gotten gains. Senator Peter Baume made an interjection at one stage, I think while Senator Haines was speaking, and raised the $17m that has already been identified as available for recovery and transfer into the Commonwealth Treasury. Recovery does not always depend on conviction; in fact, it may simply be that information is passed to the Commissioner of Taxation to enable him to raise an assessment where income has not been disclosed previously. I think that particular package of legislation will be evidence of this Government's strong commitment to tackling organised crime with measures which are rather novel without our society, and the United States models to which I think Senator Jessop adverted have played a strong part in the preparation of that legislation. In relation to the telecommunications interception legislation it is true, as I think Senator Jessop mentioned, that the National Crime Authority was to make a submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority. It did so. That Committee in fact did not recommend in accordance with the National Crime Authority's preferred method of obtaining intelligence through telephone interceptions. Of course the Government, in making its decision as to the form of the Bill, will be taking into account that Parliamentary Committee's recommendations. I say to Senator Durack that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I seem to recall that we adopted the idea of a sunset clause in this legislation because in the legislation proposed by those opposite there was a sunset clause. Am I correct in thinking that in the National Crimes Commission legislation which they introduced there was a sunset clause? Senator Durack —It is irrelevant. Senator TATE —I am now told it is irrelevant, but I think it is a telling point and my reminding Senator Durack of it has taken him by surprise. The fact is that the introduction of a Bill by Senator Archer to strip the legislation of that sunset clause is somewhat premature. I understand some of the motivation behind his bringing that Bill into the Senate but I believe that, as has been adverted to, after only a couple of years of operation of this Authority the Parliament and the people are reaching a point, although they are not yet at that stage, where we even have the correct criteria firmly in mind to judge whether it is in the end the best way in which to set up an extraordinary attack on organised crime. I think my very complimentary remarks about the work of the National Crime Authority indicate the way in which I, in particular, having been Chairman of the Senate committee which established the legislative framework which is now supporting the Authority, believe that the Authority is making very significant breakthroughs in the fight against organised crime, and I envisage that the Authority, in much the same form as it is now, will still play a very important role in the overall co-operation and collaboration between the various law enforcement agencies in that fight. As to whether at this stage this chamber, or this Parliament, should pre-empt a very pre-eminent role which the Joint Parliamentary Committee has asked that it play-that is, in assessing the actual performance and various elements of the operation of the National Crime Authority-I think it is just a little too early to strip the Parliament of the sort of work which I believe the Joint Parliamentary Committee is about to engage in. So, for myself, I will not be supporting Senator Archer's Bill at this stage. Senator Jessop mentioned witness protection matters. The fact is that only very recently, I think last Thursday or Friday, I wrote to the Chairman of the Australian Police Ministers Council suggesting discussions between law enforcement officials and correctional service officials on present witness protection arrangements, both custodial and non-custodial. Of course, the National Crime Authority will be invited and, now I think of it, the parliamentary committee might also be invited, to take part in those discussions. The question of witness protection is a very difficult one because of the resource implications. Such a program, established at a national level, would be very resource intensive and I understand many of the Commissioners of Police themselves in their various jurisdictions have indicated that they wish to retain control of witness protection. So it is not an easy matter to resolve, but those discussions are under way. I thank those who have contributed to this debate on what I think is a very important report put down by the National Crime Authority. It is only one element of the fight against organised crime being undertaken by various law enforcement agencies throughout Australia. In conclusion, what has given me the most pleasure in the five or six weeks since I assumed the office of Special Minister of State is the fact that, in contradistinction to the time when I chaired the Senate committee to which reference was made earlier, collaboration and co-operation between the various law enforcement agencies has increased a 1,000-fold. The jealousy, the protection of turf and the self-aggrandisement which quite often characterised the various elements of both Federal and State law enforcement agencies, in my experience of the last few weeks, has largely disappeared and has been replaced by the sort of collaboration and co-operation which is so essential if we as a nation are to win this particular battle. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —I seek leave to make a statement on child support proposals, to incorporate the statement in Hansard and to move a motion relating to the statement. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- This year will see the start of a system to ensure a new deal for children of separated and divorced parents. When fully developed it will be one of the most effective systems of child support in the world using: Administrative assessments judicial discretion in disputed cases and automatic income withholding- To benefit children who are not cared for by both parents. The Government recognises that child support is an area of great community concern. All of us on both sides of the House know that the present system is unfair and ineffective. More than seventy per cent of parents, no longer living with their children, simply don't pay regular maintenance. Inadequate support by non-custodial parents contributes to the poverty of children living in Australia's sole parent families-it also contributes to the heavy demand on our social security system. Changes in Australian society over the last decade or so have had significant implications for appropriate child support arrangements. Between 1974 and 1985 the number of sole parent families increased by 73 per cent from 183,000 to 316,000. The overwhelming majority of cases are the result of marriage breakdown or a split in de facto relationships. So most of the children in those families come from homes where two parents once shared the responsibility for expenses and care. Unfortunately we have seen a situation develop where too many parents who no longer share a home with their children, now fail to share their income with those children. All too often these parents no longer support their children the way they used to-and the responsibility falls to the social security system. As the proportion of sole parent families has increased over the past decade, so has the proportion reliant on social security. The proportion of sole parents on a pension or benefit increased from 65 per cent to 85 per cent over the last decade. There are currently more than 250,000 lone parents on benefits caring for 450,000 children. For most of those households the pension or benefit is their only source of income. This Government decided to take action on this issue and placed a priority on child support reform to reduce the number of children in poverty, and to ensure that parents face up to their responsibilities to their children. The Government's intention to reform child maintenance arrangements was announced in the 1986 Budget Speech. Its proposals for reform were detailed in ``Child Support: A Discussion Paper on Child Maintenance'', released for public comment in October 1986. In the community consultation which followed there was overwhelming support for the need to reform the currently inadequate child maintenance arrangements. The specific objectives of the proposal also received wide support. They are: 1. That non-custodial parents should share the cost of supporting their children according to their capacity to pay; 2. That adequate support be available for all children of separated parents; 3. That Commonwealth expenditure be limited to what is necessary to ensure that those needs be met; 4. To ensure that neither parent is discouraged from participating in the work force; and 5. That the overall arrangements should be simple, flexible, efficient and respect personal privacy. After close examination the Government agreed that major changes were required to ensure meaningful improvements in the living standards of children, and to facilitate the regular payment of support. We have responded to the complexity of child support reform with sensitivity and concern. And as a result the Government has decided to introduce its reform in stages. Stage 1 in 1987 will introduce legislation to: Establish the child support agency to collect child maintenance, and Amend the Family Law Act to: assert the priority of child maintenance, to make sure that court orders put the financial position of children ahead of everything except the essential commitments of the parents. and remove reference to Social Security eligibility to make clear that child support should not be treated as a ``top-up'' to Social Security pensions and benefits. The current system has for too long awarded inadequate levels of child support. The Social Security system has been burdened with this responsibility. Stage 2 in 1988 will introduce legislation for a formula to calculate maintenance as part of the Child Support Agency's administrative process under the Commissioner of Taxation. The legislation to establish the Child Support Agency will be passed this year. It will come into effect as soon as the necessary administrative arrangements can be put in place. The agency will be able to collect all maintenance orders issued to couples who separate after the date of its establishment. It will also be able to collect orders made in respect of children born after that date-where the parents have not cohabited. Pensioners who already have an order can go to the agency to have that order collected. The agency will also collect orders made after commencement of the agency for all custodial parents who are social security pensioners on the day they get the court order. The Government is determined to give the scheme as wide an operation as possible. So we will investigate the feasibility of including any periodic child maintenance obligation that could be enforced under the Family Law Act. This includes: obligations in agreements registered or approved under the Family Law Act; overseas maintenance orders; and orders under the law of one State being enforced in another State. Further, for the first time since 1961 the maintenance of step children will be dealt with under the same laws as the maintenance of their step brothers and sisters. This has been made possible by the historic agreement of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania to refer constitutional powers on the question to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will consult with the States on the future of the present arrangements which govern the collection of child support by State bodies. With State agreement the agency will take over the collection of all maintenance orders which are lodged for collection with those State bodies as those bodies are phased out. The Government will set up a consultative group as soon as possible to advise the government on the introduction of a legislative formula. The consultative group will provide a mechanism for refining the formula, to monitor the impact of stage one and to advise the Government on the role of counselling in maintenance assessment. The composition of the group will be announced in the near future. It became clear during our community consultations that certain issues concerning the legislative formula needed to be addressed with particular care. In particular, there was concern that the current family law practice of allowing parents to substitute housing or other provisions for maintenance should be allowed to continue in cases where this may best meet the needs of the family. There was also a view that, in some circumstances, the legislative formula should take into account the income of the custodial parent. The Government's consultative group will examine the specifics of the formula to take account of these critical issues. As always when the emotional question of child support is raised we have aimed to ensure that all interested parties have the chance to help shape a new system which will affect so many families at a very sensitive time in their lives. The proposed timetable will give us some flexibility in refining the final stages of the new scheme while allowing people to adjust to the new procedures. The overseas experience is that the introduction of legislative formula and administrative assessment has proven to be as successful and effective reform. But it is very clear that people overseas have needed time to adjust to the changeover from a discretionary court-based system. For this reason the Australian Government has decided on a two-stage reform to allow a smooth transition to the new scheme. The Government did consider alternative and less major forms of reform, including continuing to rely on the judicial system. But several difficulties are likely to arise with continuing reliance upon judicial methods of assessment including The risk of seriously overburdening the family court if the majority of separated parents were to use its services. Current judicial processes act as a disincentive to obtaining maintenance because they are often costly to initiate, often involve a delay in obtaining payment and are difficult to vary in light of changed circumstances. In addition, courts are required under the Family Law Act to look at a parent's capacity to pay in setting maintenance; but, evidence suggests that there is a going rate commonly applied. A central feature of the reform is use of administrative assessment by formula but with reliance on judicial discretion in contentious cases. Considerable benefits are expected to follow. The procedure will eliminate the burden on the custodial parent to initiate court proceedings, Will ensure higher payments and more uniformity in amounts in line with capacity to pay And will lead to a much greater coverage of the custodial parent population. And finally those parents who can afford to contribute will meet their obligation-a big reform on the current system where it is the taxpayer who has largely adopted financial responsibility for the children of separated parents. The timetable has another advantage-in that it will permit Government to address the important access issue. The Government is waiting on advice from both the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Family Law Council on matters relating to the access issue-and we will consider those reports as a matter of priority. The Government remains committed to the principle that access should not be linked to the new system of financial payments for children. We believe that we should retain the strong principle taken by family law to keep liability for child support and access to children as separate issues, but at the same time the Government is concerned to make some progress in investigating ways to ensure that access entitlements are adhered to. The child support reform is an important step towards improving the circumstances of many thousands of children who deserve a fair start in life. It is also part of this Government's commitment to make sure that family law keeps pace with social change. There are four major parts of the proposed reform: 1. a legislative formula to replace the current discretionary system as the method of assessing maintenance obligations. 2. administrative assessment of liability under the formula by a child support agency under the control of the Commissioner of Taxation with judicial assessment in disputed cases. This means in the great majority of cases the parties would not have to consider court proceedings as the maintenance issue would be resolved by a simple administrative process. 3. the collection of payments by the child support agency would be automatically withheld from a non-custodial parent's income wherever that is possible, as in the case of PAYE non-custodial parents. The self employed will have to pay to the agency monthly. 4. distribution of child support payments through the Department of Social Security. The child support initiative is an important reform-not only in its own right. It is also a clear indication of the Government's commitment to help Australian families. The children of separated and divorced parents are among the poorest groups in our society-the child support agency promises a new security for those children, and will contribute to a better start in life for them. Senator TATE —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.09) —The statement which has just been presented by the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) on behalf of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) concerns the Government's response in the area of child support proposals. The statement is a consequence of a discussion paper on child maintenance entitled `Child Support' which was published in October 1986 and which has been the subject of widespread discussion since then. The Minister's response makes clear some elements of the problems we face. Between 1974 and 1985 the number of sole parents increased by 73 per cent, from 183,000 to 316,000. Of course, that figure hides within it a much larger number of the children of those parents. The Minister points out further that the overwhelming majority of cases are the result of a marriage breakdown or a split in a de facto relationship. It is worth emphasising that point because some of the less generous discussion that goes on in the community and some of the more reactionary elements would have us believe that there is an army of promiscuous young women somehow acting on their own who are in fact causing this increase in the figures for the sole purpose of getting access to welfare benefits. The actuality is that by far the majority of people caught in this situation are there as a result of marriage breakdown or a split in de facto relationships. As the Minister points out, most of the children in these families come from homes where two parents once shared responsibility for expenses and care. Further in his statement the Minister makes clear that currently there are more than 250,000 lone parents on benefits caring for 450,000 children. He makes the point that the pension or benefit is the only source of income for most of those households. That gives some indication of the size of the problem with which the Government and the Opposition have been grappling and to which we have been addressing ourselves for some years. We understand that those in receipt of the supporting parent's benefit are, for the most part, in that position as a result of family breakdown. We are also aware that families dependent upon the supporting parent's benefit to bring up their children are, for the most part, living in poverty. We are further aware, as other honourable senators will be aware, that this problem affects particularly the women and children of Australia. It is not a problem which affects men to any great extent; it is particularly a problem which concerns women. This is one of the reasons why there has been feminisation of poverty in Australia. The other significant reason, of course, is the extra longevity of women. There is an increased number of aged women who are often without partners and who have limited income. So, this is a real problem. It is an issue which concerns the whole community. It is especially a problem for women and children. For those who think that it cannot happen to them, we can say that they are only one marriage breakdown away from the supporting parent's benefit. So, it is a potential problem for any one of us. The problem seems to have arisen in part from inadequacies in both the legislative and administrative arrangements which surround the whole question of family law and the questions of maintenance arrangements and the support for children. First of all, the problems have arisen, as is now recognised and as is acknowledged by the Minister, from a primary reliance upon the benefit as a source of income. Secondly, connivance has led to artificial arrangements whereby parents have not been encouraged to take responsibility for their own children after marriage breakdown. Thirdly, the problems have arisen because of the non-enforceability of many of the maintenance orders which are made through the Family Court of Australia. The problem has been of very great concern to us. Indeed, on behalf of the Opposition, Senator Peter Durack introduced a private member's Bill into this place. That Bill received its second reading on 5 December 1985. That happened almost 1 1/2 years ago. Senator Durack's Bill identified certain things that might be done to overcome the problems which we recognised then, which the Government recognises and to which this statement provides some response. Senator Durack sought to do three things. First, he sought to have the Family Court not take into account the eligibility of a party to a marriage for any benefit under the Social Security Act or the Repatriation Act. The fact that we did that in 1975 when we amended the Family Law Act has led to some of the problems. Further, Senator Durack sought to have inserted a sub-section to make it clear that the Family Court, in determining the amount of maintenance which should be the subject of a maintenance order, should give priority to the needs of the party or of the children for which provision is claimed, and to make this the primary provision. The third main provision of Senator Durack's Bill was a suggestion that there should be a power to imprison people who were simply failing to comply with maintenance orders. The Government, in the response which has been put down by the Minister and in respect of which we are now offering comment, seems to have acknowledged the validity of Senator Durack's approach on behalf of the Opposition on what really should be a bipartisan matter. It has indicated that it will be giving support to the first two of Senator Durack's propositions, either in the form in which he proposed them or in a slightly amended form. Senator Crowley —Big difference, Senator. Senator PETER BAUME —I note Senator Crowley's interjection but it is the approach and the principle which are important. Senator Crowley —That is right-what do you think is missing? Senator PETER BAUME —This is an occasion on which we believe the Government has taken notice of what the Opposition has proposed. It has taken notice of the problem as we have identified it, and, to that extent, we find some of the Government's proposals of some interest to us. The Government has picked up the proposal that in fact the needs of the children and of the marriage partner should be placed first. It has also taken up our suggestion that the courts should not really look at the eligibility for welfare as prime concern ahead of looking at the responsibility of the parties to continue to care for their own children, because they are still their own children even after marriage breakdown. We have had the statement for about three hours. On looking at it we get the impression that it is a statement on which we would want to offer some general support. The Government appears to be suggesting that it will proceed through two stages. Stage 1 in 1987 will see the introduction of legislation to establish a child support agency to collect maintenance. Also, the Family Law Act will be amended to do two things. First, it will be amended to assert the priority of child maintenance and to make sure that court orders put the financial position of children ahead of everything except the essential commitments of the parents. That was something that Senator Durack was seeking to achieve. Secondly, it will be amended to remove reference to social security eligibility to make clear that child support should not be treated as a `top-up' to social security pensions and benefits. Stage 2 of the Government's proposal in 1988 would seem to be the introduction of legislation to put in place a formula to calculate the quantum of the maintenance. We are not quite sure what the formula will be. I might make several comments even at this stage. First, we agree completely with the goal that governments in this country should take action to reduce the number of children living in poverty. If this proposal will help to achieve that, we will look at it with great interest and with considerable sympathy. This statement indicates that the Government wishes to ensure that parents face up to their responsibilities to their children-that is what the Minister says in his statement-and to that extent we support that as well. But there are some comments that I would offer. First, the Government has offered us now only half a package. It has said to us what it will do in 1987 and has indicated that the formula, which is an essential part of the package, will not be revealed yet and will not be enacted until 1988. The agency will be established this year but the collection formula will only come later. We know something about the agency from what the Government has announced; we know nothing about the formula. We would hope that the formula, which the Government will put forward, will be acceptable and fair to all parties. We hope that it will be a formula which will achieve the goals that the Minister has identified, to reduce the number of children living in poverty and to ensure that parents continue to take responsibility for their children. Secondly, when we look at what the Government has proposed, it seems that the proposed mechanism is to apply universally instead of applying, for example, to defaulters or to those cases where there is no agreement between parties after marriage breakdown. We would wonder whether it is appropriate to put a formula in place that would apply universally in the event of the dissolution of marriage. Thirdly, it seems to us that the Government is going to use the taxation mechanism, to use deductions through the pay as you earn system, to collect the money. We need more detail on this before we know whether that is the appropriate or the best system. The Opposition welcomes any indication that this Government will move to help reduce the number of Australian children living in poverty as a result of marriage breakdown. If, at the same time, by improving child support we can reduce poverty for women in Australia, for supporting parent beneficiaries who are in this situation as a result of marriage breakdown, that would also be a social gain. What we do not know yet are the fine details of the Government's formula or the details of the actual collection process. We reserve judgment on those. But to the extent that some principles which we have been espousing in opposition for several years, and which are shared by the Government and which are now contained in the Minister's statement, seem to be common ground between us, we welcome the statement and we look forward to more detail from the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a statement on the child support proposals statement by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). Leave granted. Senator POWELL —Thank you. As Senator Peter Baume has said, the statement on child support proposals is welcomed also by the Australian Democrats, but it is also one which has in it some unanswered questions. There is no doubt that there was a good deal of community interest in the discussion paper which was brought before us towards the end of last year. However, there was also considerable criticism that there was not due time for the community consultation which the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) had called for. I imagine that this may have been the case with other senators, but I certainly received quite a deal of correspondence expressing this view. A letter from a significant group concerned with the welfare of women and children, and particularly with those in the single parent situation, said that the group was totally dissatisfied with the two-month limit on community consultation. Another letter-this one from a significant group in Victoria, the Coburg Legal Service-which was perhaps in a little stronger terms, said that the lack of time as a result of the poorly advertised consultation caused this particular group to feel that it had been badly treated. However, we now have before us the Minister's statement and a proposal from the Government. I must say that what we have, as Senator Peter Baume has said, is half a proposal. I think the Government is taking the position that the easy bit will be done now and the difficult bit will be done later. I will have some comment to make on that later. The Minister recounts in his statement the grim facts; that in fact the number of sole parent families has increased in the period from 1974 to 1985 by 73 per cent, from 183,000 to 316,000. We said that the overwhelming majority of cases in that statistic result from marriage breakdown or a split in de facto relationships. Those are facts that we know and this proposed legislation, which, it appears, is to come before us in two parts, is designed to address the poverty which has been the result of that vast increase, as well as the lack of responsibility that has been shown by non-custodial parents; in most cases, that being the male parent. While I certainly agree that this problem needs to be addressed, it is merely the effect of the family breakdown. I propose that the Government also has a responsibility to look at the causes of such a dramatic change in our social structure. I would like to take this opportunity to call to the Senate's attention a pilot program which I believe does just that. I believe it has the potential to do one of the other things which the Government is doing, or is attempting to do, with its moves on child support and other moves with which we substantially agree, and that is to prevent the need for a great deal of government cost in this situation. I am referring to the Family Conciliation Centre, one of two pilot programs. The one with which I am most familiar is the one in Victoria, the Noble Park Family Conciliation Centre. This pilot program was set up by this Government in 1985 at the initiative of the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. I would like to draw the goals of the Centre to the attention of the Senate. The aim of the Family Conciliation Centre in Noble Park was: . . . to develop a service that would effectively resolve family disputes thereby preventing them from getting out of control. The effectiveness of the service as providing an alternative to legal processes was also to be assessed. In summary it stated: . . . the service would recognise the diversity of families and offer intervention strategies in the early stages of a dispute. It was also to empower families to effectively resolve their own disputes. Those were the key aims. Perhaps, as a result, the Centre could provide a true alternative to litigation, which we all know is a very expensive process in the settlement of disputes. In order for families to resolve their disputes the establishment of this Centre recognised that they need two things-information and a forum in which they can communicate and negotiate in order to make decisions. That is provided for in this pilot program through mediation and, as a means of making decisions, this model is very cost effective when compared with others. This program, as was suggested on its establishment, has been continually evaluated and the evaluation report has been presented. That evaluation was conducted by the Commonwealth Department of the Attorney-General and the recommendation from that evaluation is as follows: . . . for the next five years, there be established a specific network of alternative programs in family dispute/conflict resolution, which are charged with the development of new forms of services, continual review of those services, research, training and sharing of information with the rest of Australia. I wholeheartedly endorse that recommendation of the review conducted by the Attorney-General's Department of the Family Conciliation Centre. I do so because I believe that is in this kind of area, as well as in the sort of legislative area which is proposed in the Minister's statement and the in the upcoming legislation, that a major contribution toward redressing the problems can be made, and in particular in preventing the problems which have become the cause of such a dramatic rise in the incidence of family breakdown and, more particularly, in the numbers of children and their parents, most of them women, living in poverty. I conclude my remarks on the Conciliation Centre by drawing to the attention of the Senate that the funding for this pilot program ends on 30 June of this year. I believe that this program has served its purpose as a pilot, that it should have ongoing funding and that the recommendation, as set out, should be followed as far as is possible in a wider sense. This is a community based program which serves the interests of families across the board. It is one which should have been a pilot and should now be the model for a good many other services of a similar nature in order to prevent, as we have seen, the increasing incidence of family breakdown. We do not have a wide network of family conciliation centres and we do have increasing numbers of children living in poverty. The Minister referred in his statement to community consultation, which is the basis of his decisions following the discussion paper. Very many groups in the community found that their time for consultation was too limited and they felt that their access even to the discussion paper was not adequate. It took part of that time for them even to get hold of it. The Minister has said that in order to implement the more difficult second stage-the one which will deal with the problems of implementation and, in particular, with the establishment of a formula-he will set up a consultative group to advise him, to monitor stage one and to be part of the establishment of stage two. My concern is that that consultative group should be broadly based. It should consult with many community groups, particularly community groups which, as I have said, are in daily contact with some of the major problems which result from family breakdown-problems of women and their children. They should be adequately consulted, and drawn into that process. The concerns of women and their children should be listened to very carefully. One other area of criticism which has come to my attention has been that various people who have an interest in this area have been rather disconcerted that some of the decision making appears not to have been made with the fullest co-ordination with other thinking and work that is being done in allied areas. In particular, I refer to the social security review which is addressing families and children in poverty and the role of government services in that area. It issues paper No. 1 `Income Support for Families with Children' in particular addresses these issues. The Australian Law Reform Commission's report on matrimonial property is due to be brought down early this year. The question has been asked whether there has been proper co-ordination on this issue between all of the interested bodies. On page 4 of his statement the Minister gives a list of the specific objectives. I make it clear that the first objective-that non-custodial parents share the cost of supporting their children according to their capacity to pay-is strongly supported by the Australian Democrats. So too is the second objective that adequate support be available for all children of separated parents. I would simply add the words `whatever the source of that support' because I am a little concerned that that objective should be read in context with the third objective, which is that Commonwealth expenditure be limited to what is necessary to ensure that those needs be met. It is important that objective No. 3 does not assume an importance over and above the other objectives. It should be clear that objective No. 2 means that adequate support should be available whether it comes from government sources or from the responsible actions of custodial and non-custodial parents. Objective No. 4 states: . . . to ensure that neither parent is discouraged from participating in the work force . . . Whilst that is a fine objective we must be very careful to recognise that in the case of female parents in particular there are specific difficulties, difficulties which go to the whole question of the continuing inability of women in any significant numbers, to break into the more substantial, more highly paid and highly regarded areas of the work force. Of course those problems are compounded if we are talking about women who are sole parents and have responsibility for children. To that extent I think it is important that a number of other comments which have been made be taken into account in the whole business of establishing the most difficult part of the next stage of legislation in this area. I quote from the Southern Halfway House people in Cheltenham, Victoria, who I think made a very definitive statement. They stated: Where the non-custodial parent has substantial debts the child should be considered as the most important creditor . . . That principle must be part of the deliberations regarding any formula which might be established. That same concern was also expressed by the Institute of Family Studies, which stated: Maintenance or child support is an issue of parental responsibility first and foremost and not an issue of welfare or cost cutting and nor is it restricted to sole parent families. I would urge that those principles be firmly in the minds of the Minister, his consultative group and all of the people who are preparing the next stage of this legislation. In the fifth objective the Minister uses the word `flexible'. The objective states: . . . that the overall arrangement should be simple, flexible, efficient and respect personal privacy. The emphasis in the proposed establishment of a formula should definitely be on the word `flexible'. It is quite a challenge to come up with any kind of a formula which can really address that issue significantly and fully. It is terribly important, and it is one of the things we will be looking at most closely when the legislation comes before us, that any legislation-I again quote from the Southern Halfway House submission-should also take into consideration: . . . that any move on their part that reduces the safety, dignity and privacy of the custodial parent, will, without doubt, adversely affect the lives of the children. That must be a major consideration in the decision making process on this whole area. The Australian Democrats too support the view that responsibility should and must be taken by all parents for all children. To that extent we are pleased to have the Minister's statement. We look forward to the legislation and anticipate that those issues of considerable and important principle will be met in it. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —by leave-It is with considerable satisfaction that we have heard the sensitive and supportive remarks of Senator Peter Baume and Senator Powell this afternoon on the tabling of our child support proposals on behalf of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I would like to make two or three points in response to some of the remarks that have been made. As in any exercise of this nature, which has been correctly described as very complex, the consultation process necessarily required a timetable. I too have heard from very few sources complaints about insufficient time for that consultation but I have also received from other sources congratulations on the thoroughness of that process, the way in which it was conducted and the way in which a wide range of organisations and individuals were given the opportunity to make their views known to government. I assure the Senate that those views have all been taken into account in development of the proposals. A remarkable feature of that series of consultations has been the almost unanimous support for the main principle of this plan which is, of course, to ensure that as many families as possible are able to live in dignity and at a reasonable standard. The principles that have been referred to on a number of occasions in the last hour are included in the statement by the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate). The foremost of them is that non-custodial parents should share the cost of supporting the children according to their capacity to pay. The consultation which will follow the tabling of this statement and precede the development of the second stage will be just as thorough as those which preceded this statement. I guarantee to the Senate that that will be the case. The second stage, which is that of developing the formula, is not necessarily easier than the first stage. To take into account the very many variables that occur within the financial arrangements between custodial and non-custodial parents has not been a simple matter; nor has it been simple to devise a scheme whereby a child support agency legislation can be developed to take account of that set of measures within the Family Law Court and the social security system. I assure the Senate that at all times during this process we have taken into account the work that is being done by Professor Hambly in relation to matrimonial property. We have also taken into account the fact that considerable work is being done on the question of access. There is virtual unanimity that the system whereby access is administered in Australia must be improved but that the question of access itself must be kept quite separate from that of child maintenance. We have also been very conscious of the work that is being done by the social security review and have taken into account all those questions that were introduced into the debate by Senator Powell. I believe that we are as conscious as anybody in this nation of the financial and social problems of those people who are going to be most closely affected by our plan for a child support levy. This set of proposals was not in response to the private member's Bill introduced by Senator Durack in the Senate about 18 months ago. It was in response to what we have been aware of for quite a long time; that is, the poverty of the families that are most directly involved, the feeling in the community that the responsibility for the support of those children should be more fairly allocated and the fact that the Commonwealth Government has a very strong responsibility to do something about this matter. It has been the subject, as we all know, of a considerable amount of community discussion over the past few years and a very comprehensive report that was commissioned by Senator Gareth Evans when he was the Attorney-General. I will make another brief reference to the objectives of this proposal. We are very aware of the fact that the community generally would agree that Commonwealth expenditure be limited to what is necessary to ensure that we meet the needs of the families-the children of separated parents particularly. We are also very aware of the fact that within this community we are dealing with the poorest group, the group on which, we believe, a great deal more concern and community resources should be concentrated. At the same time, there are other groups in the community to which scarce resources should also be targeted. On this occasion we certainly are not looking at a scheme to reduce the standard of living of any group in the community. We are not interested solely in cutting welfare costs. We are very concerned to increase the well-being of those in greatest poverty particularly custodial parents and their dependent children. Working on these child support proposals has been a challenge. We still have a great deal of hard work ahead of us. It is comforting to know that there is a spirit of co-operation in the Senate around the majority of these proposals. It is a source of satisfaction that we are able to present to the people of Australia at this time such a significant measure for the alleviation of much of Australia's poverty. We look forward to the time when we can have our child support levy operating widely within the community and, we believe, operating justly and well. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.47) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I notice in the statement that has been given to us that $982.4m is the latest cost for the new Parliament House. It is interesting to note that the original estimate in 1980 was some $220m. So there has been a dramatic escalation in the cost of the new Parliament House which, obviously, will be a place that all Australians will regard as the foremost democratic House in Australia and which future generations will admire. The fact that this cost has escalated so dramatically in the last few years is of great concern. It is something for which this Government can well and truly be condemned. But the point that I would like to make is that, this cost having escalated so much, the Government has now decided to cut the icing off the cake, as it were, to spoil a beautiful cake for a reduction in some of the costs. One of the reductions in costs concerns the quality of the stair finishes, which saves $143,000. I am told that that will not even be noticed by the people going to the new Parliament House. But if something that has been done so well in the past is now going to be skimped on in the last instance, I believe that that will not be in the best interests of future generations. It is quite interesting that the Waste Watch Committee has been making very good inroads by pointing out where the Government has been wasting money. But I do not believe that that would be an area where money would be wasted, because we will most probably pay in the future for the finish not having been done quite as well at this stage as it should have been. Other reductions include such things as the omission of winches for light maintenance in those areas of the building where access is possible with mobile scaffolding. Apparently the mobile scaffolding will have to depend on cranes hired for different periods of time. The saving there is some $500,000, but most probably the cost over the next few years will be much greater than the small saving now. Also included is the provision of a lease basis rather than the purchase of decentralised PABX facilities in the building, which saves some $2.520m. That is obviously a saving in the short term but most probably will be a cost on the Australian taxpayers in the long term. Other costs could arise through such things as the reduction in the depth of topsoil by 20 per cent. That will most prob- ably save $60,000, or so the estimate that is given to us says, but of course, in the future, because of the extra use of fertiliser and water, this will probably also be a bigger future cost for a small saving now. I mention also the fact that the roads around the new Parliament House are being renewed when people in the rural communities are driving on country roads that most probably have potholes and are not up to the standards of any of the Canberra roads. I think that is another waste that has been allowed to occur by this Government. I think that the fact that industrial disputes have cost $14m is another disgrace for this Government and something for which it will be condemned by future generations as well. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), in the other House, has said that: While reductions in the quality of some finishes and the scope of landscaping planned are unfortunate, economic circumstances demand this discipline to contain costs. I think everyone likes costs to be contained. Everyone believes that the Government should be reducing costs. We will definitely reduce costs when we get into government at any future election. But to cut costs when so much is being spent on something that will be the foremost house in this country is a shame. I think the building will be a great importance to future Australians and this Government stands condemned for taking the icing off what was a beautiful cake. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.52) —I wish to add just very briefly my voice to that of my colleague Senator Brownhill. When I go around my electorate of Tasmania I am constantly asked about the new Parliament House and the blowout in expenditure. My constituents are astounded by the cost. Senator Crowley —Oh, ha! I can see them flocking to ask. Senator NEWMAN —I see that Senator Crowley's constituents in South Australia are not in the least worried about it. I think perhaps some of them might like to let her know just how outraged they are in South Australia also. It is an outrageous blowout in the costs of building and the Government should be condemned for allowing it to happen. Of course, it is not the only building in the Australian Capital Territory for which the Government stands condemned for a blowout in expenditure. In that respect I refer to the criticisms by the Auditor-General of the blowout in the Australian Defence Force Academy building-also an enormous amount, which the Australian taxpayer is expected to fork out willingly to foot the bill. If it were a private client who had to foot the bill for any of these blowouts, he would go bankrupt and so would the people involved in the construction of the building. It just does not work that way when it is the Australian taxpayer who is asked continually to put his hand deeper and deeper into his pocket for such things as this. This is not to say that I believe we should not have had this House and that it should not be the wonderful and exciting building that it is. But I say all that by way of preliminary remarks to my criticism of what is happening now with this ridiculous cutback in the landscaping in the final stage of the building. This is not like landscaping in other buildings; this is an integral part of the design. It is a wonderful design and it should not be allowed in any way to have the final stage relating to its architecture cut out. Honourable senators will find that architects and landscape architects, who are people who understand these things, are appalled that this final cutback should be allowed to happen. But they are not the only people. Even these very same constituents who are so concerned of the blow- out of costs say in the next breath: `They have to finish it; they can't leave it unfinished. It would shame us in the eyes of the world if we could not put the last bit on to this building'. So I condemn the Government for the outrageous manner in which the costs have escalated and for its attempt in this eleventh hour to ruin the ship for a hap'orth of tar. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.55) —This paper which has been tabled on updating the budget for the new Parliament House answers one question; that is, what the latest official cost is. Of course, we had an indication of that anyway last November when the Forward Estimates came out. Those who had the capacity to add up could in fact add the Forward Estimates to the past Budget estimates and come out with roughly that figure, which is, in fact, the figure that the Waste Watch Committee revealed in January of this year. But more significant are the important questions that this statement does not answer and which have not been adequately answered by this Government. Where is the annual report of the New Parliament House Construction Authority for the year that ended on June 30 1986? Where is that report and when are we going to get it? It is ludicrous that we are now in March of 1987 and have not seen a report for a year that ended almost nine months ago. What has the Government or the Authority got to hide? It is an appalling practice to take so long to report. Also, where is the Auditor-General's report on the figures relating to that annual report, and where is the Auditor-General's report on what I understand was an efficiency audit into the Authority? This is a major project involving an extraordinary amount of government money-a totally indefensible amount of taxpayers' money. It involves $1,000m, because this figure of $982m, of course, is calculated in August 1986 prices, and, adding at least $50m so far on to that for the consequences of inflation, we are well over $1,000m, despite the penny-pinching and nonsensical `savings' that are at present being imposed on this building, as I have said, as a direct consequence of some extraordinary mismanagement and misdirection by this Government of the Authority over changes, over what it wanted and over a lack of coherent priorities because of the fast track process that was imposed upon the Authority in order to get the building finished in the bicentennial year. We have had an admission from the Parliament House Construction Authority that the fast track process probably added $100m to the cost of this project. So the area of disagreement, I suppose, between the Waste Watch Committee and the Parliament House Construction Authority about how much money was wasted may not be as large as it appears. Of course, the Waste Watch Committee did dramatise these incredible instances of contracts running far over their agreed prices. We got an answer from the Parliament House Construction Authority saying that 46 major contracts-in excess of $100,000-have exceeded the original contract price by more than 25 per cent for reasons other than escalation; in other words, for reasons other than inflation or normal cost rises and other than extensions of the scope of the contracts. Honourable senators will see that where we have that kind of cost escalation we need some darned good reasons. We do not have the benefit of an annual report yet from this organisation to explain what these reasons were and why such contract overruns occurred. For example, one small plumbing contract was for, I think, $1.6m; it has now blown out to something like $6m and, when I last heard, it had not yet been completed. Let us deal very briefly with one nonsensical comment in the Minister's statement. The Minister said: Honourable senators should note that with the exception of the 14-week closure in 1984, the new Parliament House project has a remarkably good industrial record. That is bunkum. The peaceful financial year of 1984-85 saw an average of more than one working day in every three lost to a combination of strikes and what was claimed to be bad weather. In other words, this was an industrial joke. Eighty days were lost in 1984-85 out of 228 working days that were available. We do not have later figures because we do not have an annual report. I suggest to the Government that if it wants to be seen as fair dinkum about this matter, it should do something to get the Construction Authority off its tail, to produce that annual report, resolve whatever problems it has with the Auditor-General, which may well be holding it up, and advise the Parliament of what is really going on up on the hill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.00) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report is brought forward under section 122 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 and sets out the statistics that are thereby required. It is perhaps an inadequacy in the Act that other statistics are not required-specifically, the sorts of injuries that are caused to those working for the Commonwealth in the work place provided by the Commonwealth, and their cause. Simply to give statistics as to the number of claims and the amount paid does not really present a basis for making reforms in the work place which may save people from receiving injuries. In the introduction to the report the Commissioner has set out that significant administrative reforms have taken place in the sense that the processing of claims has been centralised so that, as he says, `the time taken to process claims has been reduced and the quality of decisions has improved'. There have been savings in the number of staff required to process the claims. Anything which increases the rapidity with which claims are processed must be welcomed. I want to comment, perhaps a little adversely, on one part of the report-that is, the statement made by the Commissioner on pages 16 and 17 of the report when he talks about consent decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I think he indicates that he is rather averse to consent decisions. Indeed, the last sentence on page 17 reads: In my view it should in any event be an exceptional case that required to be resolved by way of a consent order. That seems to be a somewhat amazing statement. Senator Michael Baume —It will do some lawyers out of some jobs. Senator COONEY —Consent orders do lawyers out of costs, and it seems extraordinary that the Commissioner should be suggesting that cases that can be settled at a civil level between the Commonwealth and the victim of an injury should not be solved by a consent order. The parties, surely, are the ones who best know what a case is worth and what should be the result of it-subject, of course, in the proper cases to supervision so that the victim of any particular injury is not badly done by. I say with some feeling that if a legal adviser comes to a suitable out-of-court settlement, the ability of the adviser to see that settlement completed when he is frustrated by a lack of instructions and, perhaps, by the attitude indicated here by the Commissioner makes for protracted litigation and unhappy parties and, indeed, misconceives the idea of what courts should be about. Courts in civil proceedings ought to be used as a last resort when agreement cannot be obtained between the parties. It is perhaps an unhappy situation to see people saying that only in exceptional circumstances should matters be resolved by a consent order. I invite the Commissioner to rethink his approach on that matter, as set out on pages 16 and 17 of the report. It is interesting to look at the statistics on the number of claims that are made and the expenditure that takes place. I see from looking at the list that the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation had 75 claims, all of which have been met. Indeed, the list of those claims that have been met and those that have not makes interesting reading. I think that the statistics as they now exist are not as comprehensive as they should be. Clearly, this Act is one that is in need of reform. It is an Act which does not give adequate compensation to the victims of injuries after six months. In many instances adequate compensation is not paid at all without make-up pay. I commend the Commissioner for his report, except in the respect that I mentioned. We ought to look forward to comprehensive reforms being made to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act later in the year. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.05) —The 1985-86 annual report of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation represents an appalling worsening of last year's scandalous workers compensation record among Federal Government employees. The Coalition Waste Watch Committee pointed to this last year. It strongly criticised this situation. We now find that in the latest financial year expenditure has increased by 30 per cent to $203m. By the way, we see no mention in the report of the number of cases which involved repetition strain injury. At least the Commissioner did refer to this point last year. I regard it as unfortunate that this local disease does not rate an appropriate mention in this report. What we see from the report, however, is that under the present Government workers compensation claims by Commonwealth employees have doubled, by $100m in just three financial years. This is absolutely incredible. In the latest year there has been a 14 per cent increase in the number of cases, which is the highest number in the table which shows the history of these claims. We see that only 2.8 per cent of the claims made last year were disallowed. We see incredible figures relating to permanent injury or disease. According to a survey by the office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, 42.3 per cent of cases involved people who suffered from psychiatric or back injuries-both of which, of course, are very difficult to diagnose. Among the individual departments there are some most extraordinary examples of successful workers compensation claims. For example, in the Office of Defence Production, the number of claims equalled 34.7 per cent of the total number of employees, compared with a figure of only 3.7 per cent of employees in the Department of Defence, which includes the Army. So it is much safer to work for the Army than for a Commonwealth clothing factory or a munitions factory. There is the same sort of situation that we saw last year in the Department of Primary Industry, which has a 31.6 per cent claim rate. Overall, one in eight Commonwealth employees last year made a successful compensation claim. One in eight is, of course, a worsening of last year's figure of one in nine. Of the 546,386 employees of departments and government authorities, there were 67,548 successful claims. If we look at some departments, we can find some improvement. The Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade, which had a 60 per cent invalidity rate last year, has managed to reduce its invalidity rate to 40 per cent-which, of course, is still incredibly high. The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority is now trying to match its fire brigade friends by lifting its invalidity rate from 21.5 per cent to 34 per cent. The Australian National Railways Commission has worsened its rate of successful workers compensation claims from 26.7 per cent to 34.7 per cent. On the other hand, some figures have improved. The figure for the Australian Telecommunications Commission has gone up, but there has been an attempt to improve the number of claims disallowed, by making more effective examinations, and the number of claims disallowed has risen from 120 to 210. But it still has a workers compensation rate of about 16.5 per cent. There are some curious figures. The figure for the Australian War Memorial has gone up from 12.8 per cent to 21.7 per cent. Overall, this is a very dismal and disappointing story of a worsening of the overall workers compensation rate to 12.4 per cent of all government employees. Last year, before this worsening, the situation was already absolutely scandalous. The report says that it hopes Parliament in future has available to it adequate details relating to this expenditure. I agree that it certainly should. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.10) —In speaking to the annual report of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, I shall make some slightly different points from those made so far. I reiterate the comment made by Senator Cooney that the report says that the time taken to process claims has been reduced, the quality of decisions has improved and there have been savings in the number of staff required to process claims since the rearrangement of the branch offices in each State has been put into place. One appreciates those administrative improvements. I take issue with Senator Michael Baume in that, although he picked up the increase in costs and so on, he did not break down those figures to show that there was a slight reduction in the number of new cases coming up for compensation in the 12 months covered by this report. I am somewhat perplexed by statistics that point out that the number of new cases has fallen but that continuing cases have increased. I am not sure where continuing cases would increase from if they were not on the books in the year before. One sees the interesting statistic of 210 for the reduction in new cases, but there has been an increase of 9,000 in continuing cases. I am not quite sure how that happens. What interests me even more is that, although there has been an increase of over 14 per cent in the number of cases, the cost in terms of dollars paid out has increased by 29.6 per cent, or the approximate figure of 30 per cent to which Senator Michael Baume alluded. That would indicate that either the people who are claiming are much more seriously affected or that the other contributing causes of that increased payment need to be further addressed. The Commissioner takes some regard of that because he points out that one of the difficulties up to this point has been the lack of proper and adequate statistics or data in this area. In response to a request from the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) for a major review of Commonwealth employees compensation in mid-1986, some work is beginning to be done. At last we are able to look at some better analysis of statistics and data. This is most important because any examination of reports or work being done by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission highlights the problem of what exactly is accident, what exactly is disease and what are compensable conditions that arise in the course of a person's work. The same difficulty confronts the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation. The report points to considerable difficulty in being able properly to agree on those definitions and properly to collate statistics. Even so, an attempt has been made, and data has now been collected on over 8,000 claimants who have permanent compensation cases. That out of a figure of 67,000-plus means that nearly one in eight claimants have been further investigated. The breakdown of who is receiving permanent compensation makes most interesting reading, although I have been cautious not to draw clever conclusions as to why a person or a number of persons with superficial injuries would be eligible for permanent compensation. That is because I do not know the full details as to where in the work place those superficial injuries occurred, what parts of the body were affected or what the consequences of those injuries were. However, I feel that the breakdown of these figures is a first step in allowing us to make more sensible estimates of the dramatic increase in costs in this area. I would inform Senator Michael Baume that there is a list of repetition strain injuries, as separate from sprains and strains, and the percentage there is 7.5-a significant number. Senator Michael Baume —That is only permanent. Senator CROWLEY —Yes, that is permanent, but the amount of work done on RSI has been acknowledged. While the report does not specifically address the matter, it highlights in that statistic that it is not the only cause of the problem. The footnote at the bottom of the table shows that 30 per cent of the permanent claimants are female, 70 per cent male. I draw the Senate's attention to those figures, because it is sometimes suggested that if there were no women in the Public Service there would be very much reduced compensation payouts. This is a beginning and I am pleased that we have had this analysis of the data and statistics so that we can more properly examine the increasing costs and, hopefully see them reduced. Finally, the figure that shocks me most is that 29 people died in the year under report. That is an appalling statistic. We have not yet managed to reduce dramatically the number of people who die in the work place in this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —The time for consideration of papers has now expired. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the Committee's fiftieth general report of the Joint Committee on Public Works. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the 266th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Committee's 266th report details the Government's response to the Committee's 239th report on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, Appropriation Acts 1983-84. The Advance to the Minister for Finance is a provision authorised by the annual Appropriation Acts. In this instance some $270m was made available to the Minister for issue in accordance with the terms of the appropriation in section 36a of the Audit Act. Each year the Committee examines expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Such expenditure should be confined to urgent and foreseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original or Additional Estimates. Among the matters covered in the report are problems and delays of the Department of Defence in meeting tax obligations, and difficulties in the staffing of positions and management of salaries in the Department of Territories. I commend the report. Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.18) —When the debate was interrupted last night, I had made the point that this legislation is aimed at evening out the unfair advantage that government instrumentalities have compared with private sector borrowers in the market-place because of the guarantee that exists from the Commonwealth Government. I suggested then that perhaps a more coherent way of resolving this unfair advantage, rather than putting an additional cost burden on these bodies of half a per cent for the government guarantee, would be for the Government to dispose of the great bulk of these bodies, to make them private enterprise competitive ventures, particularly those in the market-place competing with the private sector. Senator Button —Are you saying that the AIDC is like that? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am interested in the Minister's interjection because a recent report of a committee investigating venture capital said that basically the greatest disadvantage that venture capital faced in Australia was the Government's capital gains tax. This report was brought down by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and presented to this Parliament. I would say yes, if the Government had the appropriate economic policies and the appropriate tax policies, there would be no need for a governmental body such as the AIDC to lend, for example, millions of dollars to that extraordinary venture in Melbourne which was involved in importing shoes, among other things. That was a most extraordinary investment which had nothing to do with the benefit or the welfare of Australia. Maybe the Minister will do us the courtesy of explaining this great and wonderful investment by the AIDC in a company which, of course, has gone broke, taking with it the taxpayers' money contributed for some extraordinary reason by the AIDC. I hope the Minister will again see fit to interject along those lines and give me the opportunity to give him some more advice on why, if the Government were doing its job properly-and it is a very big if-financing arrangements for venture capital projects, for new ventures, would be capable of being provided by the private sector. That would occur if only the financial environment created by this Government were good enough. The reality is that while we have a government which persists in pushing interest rates through the roof and blocking attempts to provide venture capital-as reported by the report on venture capital by the Government's own committee, the most disadvantageous thing possible for venture capital is the imposition of a capital gains tax and the other anti-business taxes that this Government has introduced-we will have a need for, if you like, recompense for government intervention to try to help people out of the problems created by that government. So the answer to the Minister's interjection is yes, so long as we have a government like his we probably do need an AIDC, but we would not need an AIDC controlled entirely by the Government if the proper environment for investment existed. Senator Button —It is funny, Senator, that a Liberal government created it and kept it there for 10 years. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I accept the point that it was created by a Liberal government, that it was there for 10 years and that it was seen to be required. I make the very clear point to the Minister that one of the things he and this Government have not woken up to is that there is a very strong view now within the Opposition, within the coalition parties, that is very different indeed from the views held by the previous coalition Government, and I believe those views have been changed for the better. The Government continuously tries to smear the present Opposition by saying on the one hand that we did not do it properly last time, that we did not know what we were doing, but, on the other hand, that we are different. The Minister must make up his mind. Are we different or the same? Senator Button —Same people-the same tired, tawdry people. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It is curious that the Minister was prepared to be a member of an Opposition which violently opposed in the most appalling language any attempts to free up the financial market. Those opposite argued appallingly against any suggestions that there should be any freeing up of the money market and violently opposed the suggestion that there should be foreign banks in Australia, but that was when they were in opposition, when talk was cheap. They were quite prepared to say anything to try to win a few tawdry votes but now the Minister, who has so effectively changed his mind since he came to office and has become the champion of the free market, in the most extraordinary and hypocritical way has the hide to suggest that we have not the same capacity to improve. Senator Button —You haven't got a capacity for anything. That is your problem. Ask Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I would have expected the Minister to make that kind of cheap jibe. I would have hoped to hear better from him. When we have the next election he will be able to see the way this coalition will put into effect what I suggest are very sensible proposals-proposals which existed, I might say to the Minister, at the time of the last Federal election as part of our policy speech, and which I trust will be put into effect because of the inevitable improvement in efficiency and services to customers, reduced waste and inefficiency, and reduced costs to Australians that would be involved in getting government out of many of these areas. One can see in the report of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, which was tabled earlier, evidence of extraordinary workers compensation claims. Do they exist in the private sector? The Minister might be able to distinguish for us whether, apart from in some areas where of course there are some ramps going on, the general figure in the private sector is anything like that in the government sector and whether the invalidity retirement rate out of the Commonwealth Public Service-something like 3 1/2 times the rate of invalidity retirement from private sector superannuation funds-does anything to add enormously to the costs suffered by consumers of government-run organisations, organisations which in fact provide no special benefit but do provide special additional costs to their users. The simple reality is that one in every four of the Australian workers is employed by a government of one kind or another. Of this one-quarter, something like 63 per cent are employed by State governments, while the Federal Government employs just under 30 per cent and local government about 8 per cent. The figure of more than half a million Federal employees-according to the report just tabled it is about 546,000-has been rising. Curiously, only about a third of this number are employed in traditional Commonwealth Public Service functions. The rest-something like two-thirds-seem to be employed in trading activities, such as those of Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, Telecom Australia; major operations, such as paying pensions or health rebates, which could be done on a contractual basis; or running airports. It is certainly clear from the report just dealt with in the Senate that many of the traditional terms and conditions of the Public Service are simply not appropriate for those kinds of activities. From previous experience and inquiries of recent times one can see just how much additional cost is imposed on people because of the nature of government control in some of these ventures. According to Dr Paul Nisselle, who was President of the Australian Medical Association some time ago, government hospitals cost $320 per head per day to run while non-government hospitals cost about $150 to $160. There may be some sound reasons for that in terms of the range of services provided but there is no doubt that in this area there is scope for savings. In New South Wales some years ago it cost the State Government's Urban Transport Authority $3.20 per kilometre to run a bus compared with $1.60 for private buses. Australia's government electricity producing authorities' output per man is about one-third of that of private producers in Germany who use similar technology. In 1980-81 the management cost of the Government owned Medibank Private took 50 per cent more out of members' contributions than did the major private health insurance funds. Private laundries in Victoria can clean hospital linen for up to 16 per cent less than the government central linen service can. One looks at these things and one wonders whether it would be a bit more sensible and much better if the Government, instead of frittering around at the edges, changing the cost of government guarantees to government bodies which are, if you like, in the market-place, fixed up the whole system. I know that `privatise' is an appalling word. I do not like it. But let us make these bodies more efficient by getting rid of this whole public sector management and control problem and replacing it with private sector control. In the area of finance, the Commonwealth Bank, for example, has complained in public about the fact that it has an inadequate capital base because the Commonwealth Government does not have the resources available, due to budgetary restraints, to provide it with adequate capital. As a result, I think last year the then General Manager said that he thought the Bank had performed extraordinarily well in view of the restraints and the limitations that had been imposed on its business by its inadequate capital base. The same situation exists in respect of Qantas Airways. Political decisions determine the capital base of magnificent institutions such as the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. They should not be the criteria that are used at all. The criteria should be: What does the consumer want; what does the Australian public require of these organisations? That should be the essential issue, not whether there should be some curious government control. If the Government wants an ear into the private banking sector, it has the Reserve Bank of Australia. The Reserve Bank is a separate body. We must remember that this whole structure has some quaint historical background. It has no basis in practical fact. For many years now the Reserve Bank has been separated out of the Commonwealth Bank structure. Yet, by means of this legislation, we are imposing a charge on the Commonwealth Bank, which is now simply a trading bank which competes with the private sector. What special advantage do customers of the Commonwealth Bank have emerging out of the fact that the Government is its only shareholder? In fact, it emerges that the Commonwealth Bank is hamstrung to a degree in its commercial trading activities by an inadequate capital base because the Government cannot provide the money. That is absolutely ludicrous. If the Commonwealth Bank were owned by the people of Australia who wanted to hold shares in that Bank, the market-place factors would enable the Bank to go to its shareholders and say: `We need to expand our capital base. Will you contribute more money?' The bank would then be able to raise money at a cost dependent on its success and on its status in the market-place. Instead of that, we have this artificial nonsense. The Government is seeking to impose a half a per cent fee-in the case of the Commonwealth Bank, this will apply to foreign borrowings-to even up the disadvantage that the private sector faces in competition with Commonwealth instrumentalities, instead of correcting the basic problem, and that is, of course, that there is no justification whatsoever for the Commonwealth to be in this area. The reality is that just like the competitive private sector, the public sector is subject to the same forces of change in public demand. It is subject to the same sort of external pressures. But the public sector is far more rigid. It cannot respond. It is not adaptable to the same sorts of requirements for change as is the private sector, particularly where the trading operations and factors such as an institution's capital base, or even who should be the managing director, are political considerations determined by governments. I make no reflection whatsoever on the calibre of the new Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank. But I say to this chamber that there was no need for the great distress that emerged from the political decision not to appoint the heir apparent from within the bank. This great distress would never have happened had the board of the bank represented the views of shareholders-in other words, had there been shareholders to represent-and had the Government not been in clear, open, evident conflict with the board of this great institution, the Commonwealth Bank. Legislation of the sort we are dealing with is fiddling at the edges of the problems instead of doing anything coherent to get rid of them. The private sector adjusts to external forces all the time. If one does not adjust, one suffers. Decisions are taken quickly and effectively every day in the market-place. All the decision-makers in the private sector act independently-there is no hierarchical structure, no hidebound Public Service form to go through-because in fact people in the private sector are accountable. Of course, they are also sackable if they fail to deliver. There is a far greater motivation, if you like. The demands of customers are met more quickly. Those who respond successfully to those demands do well; those who do not do badly. Compare that with the way public bureaucracies respond to demands. I can recall that the first thing that happened when attempts were made in the past to trim some public bureaucracies, to make them more lean and efficient-to hold down, say, staffing numbers-was that instead of the administrators of those public bureaucracies thinking `How will I make this more efficient; how will I reduce the cost of service to the public', they said: `How will I reduce the service to the public so that in fact that cut which has been made in my staffing will have to be replaced because the public will be enraged and will blame the Government; it will make it a big political issue'. Here we have the essence of the difference between the public sector and the private sector. If there are to be cuts in the public sector, those cuts will be made in areas where they affect the customers most, so that the customers will bring pressure to bear on the Government to change that. If cuts are made in the private sector, the things that will suffer are those which will have the least impact on the ability to service the customer. I am not criticising individual government competitive instrumentalities such as Australian Airlines on that score. I am saying that the principle is clearly bad. The Government is engaged in many ventures of a commercial nature in Australia which would be better in the hands of people who have much more direct incentive to meet consumers' needs. I would much rather see the discipline of the market-place replace the political pressures exerted by governments themselves or, even worse, exerted on governments by pressure groups which are vocal and effective but which may have no concern whatsoever for what the bulk of the customers involved are really after. I would much rather see a situation in which talented people get rewards because in fact they have been successful performers, and in which the unsuccessful suffer, either having reduced incomes or going broke. Apart from anything else, I cannot see why the effort of government should be directed in so many areas which are not properly the role of government. I think it is absurd that governments leave themselves open to continual attack for the way some of their instrumentalities perform their services. I am certain that many members of this chamber and of the House of Representatives would be overjoyed if complaints about the service of Telecom Australia could no longer be made to them. I have to say that my office unfortunately receives a large number of complaints about Telecom. If that were a competitive business, if it were open to competition, we would certainly not be overloaded or burdened with those kinds of problems. On the other hand, I think it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the way to solve those problems is to get rid of government monopolies and to give them to private monopolists. That is absolute nonsense. I think that the people who talk about privatisation in those terms are deluding themselves. There is no benefit in transferring a public monopoly to a private monopoly. All we would get would be a private bureaucracy, which is basically not responsible to anyone, whereas at least a public bureaucracy has some token responsibility to this chamber; although I do notice the extraordinary reluctance of some of them to report to this Parliament within a reasonable time, which makes me wonder how seriously they take that requirement. I think I mentioned a little while ago the fact that it has been almost nine months since the end of the last financial year and we are still getting reports from some government instrumentalities. I also favour the selling of some government bodies because that would establish much more clearly just where the cost of subsidising some uneconomic services should properly lie. We know that many of the services provided, for example, those provided by Telecom, are absolutely essential and are, in simple, straightforward cost terms, uneconomic. Those services have to be provided at that uneconomical cost otherwise it would be grossly unfair, for example, to the people in remote country areas who receive the benefit of those services. But who should pay for those services? Should other users of the services in areas that cannot be served economically subsidise them or should the whole of Australia subsidise them? It would seem to me to be much more honest if this disincentive by an organisation-be it Telecom or Australia Post-to provide uneconomical services were reflected accurately. In other words, if they are uneconomic, let them be subsidised openly and properly by the people of Australia, if that is their wish, but let us not have an enforced subsidy by cross-subsidisation by those people who are, for example, in the cities and using the city services which provide the surplus, if you like, by making profits to enable this cross-subsidisation. I am totally in favour of having reduced costs for services to remote areas, otherwise the people in those areas would be deprived of an essential part of the civilising elements provided by the technological age. They must have those services, but who should subsidise them? Should the subsidisation be by stealth, by cross-subsidisation, or should it be done openly by deliberate determination of the Government? As I say, this legislation which we have today is toying at the edges of the real problem, and that real problem is whether many of these bodies, which are to benefit from this legislation, should not in fact be government bodies anyway. Let us recognise this: The real criterion for `privatisation', for whether a body should be run by the Government, as bodies are under this legislation, or by the private sector, should be the benefit to Australians, and particularly to the consumers. There is no doubt that this Bill does nothing to resolve that problem. In fact all it does is add to the costs to the consumers of the services provided by those bodies. Whilst I have no objection to what this Bill does, I have a major objection to the fact that in this instance we are not seeing any effort by this Government to resolve the problem. Surely, by even talking about the possibility of selling Australian Airlines, it has acknowledged that it is addressing this question; a question which, of course, it spurned in the past. The whole point of selling Australian Airlines, which the Government itself recognises, is not simply to raise some revenue by selling that instrumentality, but, by making it a more efficient service, by providing a better service to customers, to obviate the need for having to introduce this kind of legislation to provide some kind of offset for the disadvantage suffered by rivals. The Government should not be in these areas in the first place. At last we see the Government changing its mind again. Senator Button is an expert at this but he refuses to allow anyone else to do so. Some time ago, when the Opposition led the way in Australia in this debate, the Government expressed hysterical opposition. Whilst we do not oppose this Bill, my concern must remain that it is not attacking the problem in the most appropriate manner. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(5.47) —Senator Michael Baume has left me in a state of confusion. I thought at one stage that he was arguing that the public sector could be organised on the profit motive, but in his concluding remarks he did seem to indicate that there was a place for the public sector. Of course there is. We have a mixed economy and the public sector performs the very important function of developing our infrastructure, of giving services to the Australian people. On that basis it performs those services in areas where the profit motive will simply not work. In considering this legislation I think we have to start from the premise that there is a place both for the public sector and the private sector; we have a mixed economy in this country. It is the impact of this legislation on the public sector that is of concern to me. The Government, with these two Bills, the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill 1986 and the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1987, is introducing an extra tax on the Australian people under the guise of doing something else altogether. We are told blithely that through the levying of this charge under this legislation semi-government authorities will be placed on a more commercial footing, on an equal footing, with the private sector. I believe this claim is absolutely meaningless. The Government is simply placing a further tax impost on the Australian people. The legislation gives the Treasurer the power to levy a charge of one half of one per cent on the borrowings by government instrumentalities which are covered by government guarantees. In other words, these government organisations or instrumentalities will be taxed a further one half of one per cent. Guess who is going to pay this extra tax? There are no prizes for guessing who. It will be the Australian people. For example, Telecom Australia and Australia Post will be hit by this tax on their borrowings. Therefore the costs of providing postal services and telecommunication services in this country will increase. This will mean that all Australians will be paying more for their telephone calls and postal services because they will cost more. Once again the consumer will be slugged by a government which claims that it is supporting the notion of lower taxes and a lower tax burden on the ordinary Australian. The very important thing to realise about this tax is that it is about the most regressive tax that one could imagine. These services which the public sector provides often reach out to the low income earners. This legislation will make it more difficult to do just that. Senator Robertson —Like Qantas and TAA. Senator SIDDONS —I will come to that in a minute. Maybe, as Senator Michael Baume did, one could make out a case that those government instrumentalities could be organised on a profit basis. Nevertheless I argue that both of those instrumentalities also provide a very important public service. Today people in outback areas that are cut off from telecommunications are virtually thrown on the scrap heap of society. One cannot operate in the modern world if one is cut off from communications. This tax will certainly make it more difficult for people on low incomes to receive vital communications with their fellow Australians. Essentially, the Government has said that Federal authorities are now to be placed on an equal footing with the private sector in regard to borrowings. The point that should be made is that government authorities are not in competition with the private sector, in the generally accepted sense anyway. Their role is to provide services needed by the community and to provide the infrastructure necessary to enable the private sector to operate. Telecom, Australia Post and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia will all be hit. Should the Commonwealth Bank be on an equal footing with all of the other banks in this country? I make out a case that the Commonwealth Bank is there to provide, amongst other things, banking services to people in remote areas. It often operates in these areas as a service to Australians, something which a bank operating on a strictly profit motive would not be prepared to do. The same argument can be made out for Telecom. The Government, by taxing borrowings by government instrumentalities, will make the task of supplying a service to the Australian people just that much more expensive and that much more difficult. For instance, the Australian National Railways Commission is certainly supplying a service to the Australian people that would not be in place today if it were organised purely on a profit motive. A lower infrastructure cost means that we can have a more competitive private sector. It is in the interests of the private sector that these instrumentalities gain access to funds at as low an interest rate as possible. I turn to the second piece of legislation, that relating to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. I note with some concern that the AIDC is to be included under these new taxation arrangements. Any borrowings which that organisation chooses to have backed by government guarantee will be hit by the new charge. Before commenting further on the AIDC let me make it clear to the Senate that the AIDC is a shareholder in a company of which I am chairman-Siddons Industries Ltd. Nevertheless I make the point that the AIDC bought its shares in Siddons Industries Ltd at exactly the same price and at the same time as the Australian Mutual Provident Society bought shares. No preferential treatment at all was given to Siddons Industries by AIDC when Siddons Industries purchased shares. The fact that the AIDC is to be hit with this additional tax is due to a confused idea as to what the fundamental role of the AIDC should be. Certainly we do not need any more merchant banks in this country. We have a surfeit of them already; there are too many. I would have thought the role of the AIDC, certainly as it is laid out in its charter, is to be a bit more adventurous in some of its funding decisions. It should fund projects that it otherwise would be very difficult to find funds for and get off the ground. Not all AIDC projects should be of a high risk character but certainly some of them should be. It is a government instrumentality which is there to support and encourage an innovative approach to investment where the higher costs of finance would make it uneconomic for projects to get started. I would have thought government instrumentalities were there to supply low cost finance to struggling entrepreneurs the private sector is just not prepared to touch. I would have thought that AIDC was there to encourage a greater degree of local equity in Australian industry. It surely has a specific role to perform. It could be used to encourage the development of the small entrepreneur, small business; it could be used to develop the capacity of businesses which have a record of export potential, to encourage their productive capacity and to supply funds for them. To have AIDC as yet another merchant bank takes away the fundamental reason for having such an organisation. We have a very serious problem in this country right now with our very high interest rates. It was pointed out, I think by Senator Short, that interest rates in Japan are running at about 4 per cent and in Australia they are running at 18 per cent. I asked Senator Short what the Opposition's answer was to getting down high interest rates. It seems that the answer is a more severe fiscal policy. Cutting back on government expenditure is, as I understand it, the Opposition's solution to high interest rates. I would have thought that it would be a very dubious proposition that no matter how much one cut back on government expenditure this in itself would reduce high interest rates. That is a very doubtful proposition. There is a way to get interest rates down and many countries use it. They regulate the financial institutions of the country. At one stage we had controls over our banking system; we did not have controls over our non-financial institutions but we have to reregulate our financial institutions if we are to get interest rates down to 4 per cent or thereabouts as they are in so many other countries. That is the fundamental question which this Government and the Opposition have to face up to. How are we going to get interest rates down? At the present time, while we have a completely open economy, a completely deregulated economy, we are having enormous interest rates for no other reason than to bribe foreign capital into the country. Australia is no longer in a position of having the luxury of a completely deregulated economy. Imagine what would happen in countries such as Bangladesh-really poor countries, Third World countries-if they attempted to have a completely deregulated economy. They would be on their knees in no time at all, and Australia is very rapidly approaching that situation. We are selling out our assets, we are selling out our wealth producing industries, to try to pay our way while we sit back and let the private sector borrow enormous amounts of money for no other reason than to invest it in speculative investments on the stock exchange. The $5.5 billion that was used to attack and defend Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd all went into the stock exchange. It did not create one additional job. Most of that $5.5 billion was raised overseas, which means that all Australians will have to earn the foreign exchange to pay the interest on it forever and a day unless the loan is paid back. That is only one example. We cannot afford the luxury of allowing overseas borrowings to be used purely for speculative investment. We have to encourage it, or we have to direct it, or both, into productive areas where it will create jobs and products that can be exported. The AIDC could perform a very important function in helping to rebuild Australia's manufacturing base. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), in his speech, implied that private enterprise had a uniform access to capital at a uniform price and that the public sector had an advantage over private participants. This is obviously a load of rubbish. Many private firms can get capital on terms as favourable, or more favourable, than those available in the public sector. A subsidiary, for instance, of a large transnational company in Australia can borrow on the strength of the enormous world-wide assets of the parent company, assets which in some cases are more valuable than the assets of those of the Australian Government. Many transnationals have links with international banks, which make their good credit raising very easy. For example, the Commonwealth Bank has no advantage whatsoever, I suggest, over the Australian subsidiary of, say, Citicorp on the question of raising capital. The reality is that the Citicorp subsidiary in Australia probably has an advantage over the Commonwealth Bank. At the other end of the scale we have Australian small business men and women who must borrow finance at rates today of up to 25 per cent. Nothing is being done to redress this un- equal access to capital at lower costs. It is ridiculous, for instance, to penalise Australian Airlines in its relationships with the Government when its main rival, Ansett, has the resources of the Murdoch empire behind it. Arguably, those resources are more powerful than the Australian Government today. These Bills are insidious in two ways. First, they bring in a new tax on public borrowings and they prejudice public investment and the development of our infrastructure which will make the operations of the private sector more profitable. Secondly, the AIDC Bill is yet another attempt to legitimise the view that the public sector does not have any special role to play. This legislation is a crude attempt to portray the public sector as being the same as the private sector. That is not the case. In fact, in some cases it is even an attempt to blame the public sector for many of our economic ills. This argument cannot be sustained. The public sector has many special functions to perform. Social and economic development rests very heavily on the public sector. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that it should have equal priority with the private sector when so often the money that the private sector is borrowing is used to gamble on the stock market and in other places. I am very concerned about this legislation. In summary, it does nothing but add an additional tax which will put an additional burden on all Australians through the extra costs being passed on through the consumer price index. I certainly oppose the notion that anything in this legislation will help interest rates at all. The deregulation of the financial system as advocated by both political parties at the moment is responsible for our very high interest rates. Tighter fiscal policies will not solve the problem, nor will cutting government expenditure. The sooner the Australian people wake up to that, the better off we will be and the better chance we will have of keeping control of our own country and control of its assets. Of course, this is putting an additional impost on the AIDC, which should be there to help develop Australian industries, to help develop the Australian entrepreneur and to help buy back the Australian farm. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.05) —I do not propose to delay the passage of the Bills. (Quorum formed) Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.07) —The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, I must say at the outset, has nothing to do with environmental considerations. It is a nonsense of a Bill, and it has been brought about by pure political considerations. There will be a lot of debate on this Bill because, even though the Bill concerns Tasmania, the principle involved concerns any State of the Commonwealth. I will deal with the Bill just on the surface. A lot of my Tasmanian colleagues will deal with it in far greater detail. I will allow them to do that. This Bill comes about first of all because of a little bit of market research by the Australian Labor Party. It found out that there was a perception amongst young voters that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had no credibility with the young people of Australia. It also reckoned that young people were very idealistic. So Mr Bob McMullan and Senator Richardson put their brains together and decided that conservation was an idealistic issue. It was something they could do something about. If they could get the Prime Minister hooked on conservation, it would do something for his image. So we now have a Prime Minister who is a born-again greenie. All converts become a little overzealous. We know this. We know that people who used to have a drinking problem and who have reformed become very zealous. We even know of smokers who reform and become very overzealous. I must say that my colleague Senator Sheil is looking at me. He does not come into that category. He is not overzealous about either of those things. He enjoys both of them as well as his game of tennis. But, like all converts, we have an overzealous Prime Minister. Instead of doing his trip to Damascus he went on a pilgrimage to Kakadu with half the Press gallery to record the scales dropping from his eyes. We all know the results of that. A few pieces of legislation are still to come into this place dealing with that trip to Kakadu. A new management program was brought in, mining in what used to be known as the buffer areas was not allowed, compensation was not allowed, and all the rest of it. While this metamorphosis was taking place, Senator Richardson was becoming more involved and went to Tasmania. He travelled a lot more comfortably than I did when I went there. I went around in one of Australia's own, in a Falcon station wagon with people from the Forestry Commission. I could be wrong, but I understand that Senator Richardson did it by helicopter when he had a look at areas-- Senator Richardson —The Forestry Commission took me in a helicopter and so did the greenies, you see. Senator Robert Ray —We have caught up with advanced technology. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Collard has the floor. Senator COLLARD —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was rather enjoying that. It did confirm that Senator Richardson did it in a helicopter. I did it in a Falcon station wagon. I understand that the helicopter did not transport him to look at the places that really mattered and that he saw some places that would never be logged and was told that they would be logged and all the rest of it. So, of course, when our born-again greenie came back from Kakadu and the scales had dropped from his eyes, the Government had to do something else to keep up the momentum. The Government thought: `Why not clobber the Tasmanians? They are fair game'. That is what was decided. It is a great pastime. So the preservationists-not the conservationists, but the preservationists down there-will not be happy until the whole place is closed down. But they will get their due reward, as indeed the Hawke Labor Government will get its due reward, come the next election, because this will be remembered for a long time. Indeed, I venture to say that the Australian Democrats will reap their reward come the next election for the stand that they have taken on this matter. Most of the Cabinet-especially the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who negotiated the memorandum of understanding-must have been horrified when this unilateral decision was taken by their chlorophyll evangelist. Conservation is a warm-hearted thing that really gets to us, that warm feeling that I think one other Labor politician-- Senator Richardson —Warm inner glow. Senator COLLARD —That is right. He used to call it the warm inner glow. But any research points out that it does not really attract many votes at the end of the day. As a matter of fact, I think somebody once did a rating somewhere along the line and conservation, in spite of the warm inner glow, was rated at about number 33. Other things are far more important. Interestingly, the most important of those categories was unemployment. Of course, one cannot tamper with the forest industry in Tasmania without raising the spectre of unemployment, no matter what one does. The Bill is ostensibly to create a commission of inquiry into the logging in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forest areas of Tasmania. The total area involved is approximately 250,000 hectares. As I said at the outset, the Bill has very little to do with conservation or the environment. It is all to do with getting the current Prime Minister re-elected for his record third term. It has almost become an obsession with him. As I understand it, it is not the office of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) which is handling most of the inquiries and the correspondence, but the Prime Minister's office. The Bill has a short life-only 12 months. Significantly, in 12 months' time the next election will have been and gone. We are not quite sure when are we, Senator Ryan? Senator Ryan —We know what the result will be, though. Senator COLLARD —We do, indeed. But the Bill has a very short life, quite significantly. In 12 months, the life of this Bill, the election will have come and gone. It is just enough so that that perception out there of our chlorophyll evangelist will be in the minds of people, particularly the young voters with whom the market research showed he had lost all credibility. If, as expected, the inquiry confirms the Tasmanian Government's decision, the status quo will remain. But then, as I said, the election will be over. Interestingly, the memorandum of understanding was signed on 12 June 1986 by the Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin, and the Tasmanian Government. It covered such things as logging in National Estate areas. This memorandum of understanding was abrogated without consultation with relevant Ministers by Mr Hawke as his attempt to re-establish himself on the advice of Senator Richardson and his other advisers. Already in the House of Representatives there have been amendments-before it even got to the Senate-to excise small areas in the schedules because the logs were needed to keep a small veneer mill going. I understand that the Democrats have an amendment that puts that area back in and a fair additional area besides. We will not be supporting that amendment, so, Senator Ryan, we are at one on this, if on nothing else, are we not? Senator Ryan —Very good. There should be more of it. Senator COLLARD —There have been nine inquiries in the last few years-some major, some not so major-into the Tasmanian forest industries. In 1972 the Tasmanian Legislative Council had an inquiry. In 1975 there was a Federal working group. In 1975 also a Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment looked into them. In 1977 Mr Justice Everett had an inquiry into private forests. In 1978 the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment issued a supplementary report. In 1981 the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce looked into the matter. There were three in 1985. First, the Tasmanian Legislative Council had a select committee look at it. Also in 1985 there was an environmental impact statement on Tasmanian Woodchip exports beyond 1988. Again in 1985 there was a supplement to the draft EIS on Tasmanian woodchips. As I understand it, the Bill will obviously be challenged in the High Court of Australia by the Tasmanian Government. Some of the other honourable senators will obviously speak to the points regarding its questionable legality. I make two major points. First, National Estate areas are not national parks. Contrary to popular opinion, particularly down in Tasmania, National Estate areas are not national parks. Senator Walters —Ah! Look who's come in. Senator Aulich —It's good to see you again, Shirley. Senator Walters —Where are your mates? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, this admiration is all very good, but I notice that you appear on the list to speak shortly. Could we wait until then? Senator Walters —You bet, Mr Acting Deputy President-and I notice that no Labor Tasmanians are on the list. Senator Aulich —It is an unhealthy obsession you have got with me, Shirley. Senator COLLARD —Now that we have established who is in the mutual admiration society, I will go on. National Estate areas are not national parks. We have seen a clear abuse of what is a good idea; that is, the listing of items, built or natural, on a national estate register. That concept has the imprimatur of both sides of this chamber. Both major parties-the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and National Party coalition-have supported that. But we have got to the stage in Tasmania where it is a case of putting anything on it, because it has been quite successfully put in the minds of many Tasmanians that once something is on the National Estate, it is akin to being in a national park and the area should therefore be sacrosanct. Unfortunately, even private land, without any consultation with the owners, has been included in National Estate areas. In fairness, the Australian Heritage Commission can deal only with the facts as they are presented to it. It is in no doubt about the fact that a National Estate area is not a national park. It has also said on one occasion that the National Estate is `just a process of flagging special values and this will not stop economic activity'. Nonetheless, in the minds of many people down there, National Estate areas are akin to a national park-so successfully has this misconception been used. I think we should put that idea to rest very early in the piece. The second major point I would like to make is that this Bill is just part of a quite long process on the part of this Government of centralising land use decisions. I have said on many occasions elsewhere-probably nowhere does it appear in Hansard, so I will say it again so it gets on the record-that neither at the time of Federation nor in any subsequent referendum have the States ceded land usage powers to the Commonwealth. So to circumvent that, this Commonwealth Government is using devious constitutional means to get around that and to start taking over what are basic land usage decisions by the States. As recently as this week we saw an announcement on foreign investment to circumvent the Queensland Government's legitimate right to make land usage decisions in north Queensland. We have seen the foreign affairs powers used, we have seen export controls used and now we are seeing heritage type legislation being used. For that reason I, as a Queenslander and shadow Minister, am taking part in this debate, and if one looks at the speakers list one will see that many senators from other States will take part in the debate, because the concept involved in this legislation has ramifications which are far wider than the ramifications for the forestry industry in Tasmania. It is of concern to honourable senators on this side of the chamber from every State that this Government is circumventing its lack of constitutional powers by riding roughshod over States in regard to what is their clear responsibility-that is, the making of land usage decisions. If this Government wants to change that position, I suggest that it go to the people of Australia by way of a referendum and see whether Mr Burke, Mr Unsworth or Mr Cain would support it and hand over all of their land usage powers to a centralised Commonwealth government. I bet that they would not. But the Government should at least have the intestinal fortitude to try it out and stop circumventing legitimate States' rights in the way in which it is doing. It is significant that at this point the Tasmanian Government and some Tasmanian businesses are looking at the investment of up to $1.2 billion in a wood pulp industry in Tasmania. It is the very thing that I think honourable senators on both sides of the chamber would encourage. It is an industry which would export not the basic primary product-that is, woodchips-but something which has a value-added component by way of investment in Australia and more jobs, that is, wood pulp. But who in his right mind would invest that sort of money in any industry in any State, knowing full well that a Commonwealth government could and would at any time say: `Whoa, you fellows, we will cut off your raw supplies for some time because there is an election coming up and we want to give a perception that we are concerned about the environment'. It is no wonder that Tasmanians are vitally concerned. Tasmanian senators, the Tasmanian Government and, indeed, the Tasmanian Opposition are vitally concerned about the interference by this Commonwealth Government in what are their legitimate rights. Senator Elstob —You can't talk about the environment. Your family brought kikuyu into Queensland. They call it Collard's curse. Senator COLLARD —Yes, and I will defend it, because that has seen us through many droughts. Senator Elstob —It is a terrible weed. Senator COLLARD —It might be a weed if one is a backyard gardener, but if one has stock and one can grow kikuyu, one is that much further in front of anybody else who cannot grow it. The ultimate challenge for all of us in Australia is not preservation; it is conservation in the real terms of the word, that is, to use and at the same time preserve for future generations. Everybody has accepted that basic definition of conservation. It is not a matter of preservation; it is a matter of using and at the same time preserving for future generations. That is precisely what is happening in Tasmania. On occasions I have visited Tasmania and have looked at the forestry industry and talked to the foresters. They are real conservationists. They are providing an industry, not just for present generations, but for future generations. Government senators do not have the support of the union movement in Tasmania. They do not have the support of their own Party in Tasmania, which is one reason why Senator Aulich obviously is not taking part in this debate. He does not want to be hoist on his own petard at some future time. The challenge for us is to use our resources, but at the same time preserve them. That is the ultimate challenge. We should not lock them away so that they are of no use to anybody. I now move the same amendment to the motion for the second reading as was moved in the House of Representatives: Leave out all words after `That', insert `the Senate declines to give this Bill a second reading, condemns the Government for seeking to delay the making of a decision on the forest industries of Tasmania, and calls on the Government to make a decision on that matter forthwith'. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(6.25) —I am always fascinated to listen to anyone from Queensland, particularly a Queensland National Party member, talk about preservation and conservation. We have just heard the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Senator Collard, give a basic definition of conservation and preservation. Let us look at the basic definition of conservation and preservation of the Queensland National Party. As I remember it, even as far back as a couple of days ago it was that we should sell the Barrier Reef islands to anyone who wants to buy them. Mining Shelburne Bay is another thing that National Party members whined and whinged about earlier in the week-- Senator Elstob —Fraser Island. Senator RICHARDSON —They wanted to mine sand on Fraser Island. There was the disgraceful rort that they tried to pull on Lindeman Island last year, when even Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen had to back off. That is what the Queensland Nationals have in store for Australia in regard to preservation and conservation. What they are about, of course, is destruction of the environment and greed-greed that allows any developer any request at any time. That is something that this Government cannot and will not allow. Senator Walters —You said that-- Senator RICHARDSON —Let us return to the legislation that we are now debating. Senator Walters has been in need of an education for years. If she can manage for the first time in her life to keep quiet for 28 minutes, she will get 28 more minutes of education. Let me refer to the purposes of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. There are two purposes. Senator Collard —We walked through it; we did not fly over the top. Senator RICHARDSON —It seems to be a matter of fascination to Senator Collard that he travelled in a van and I travelled in a helicopter. I spent about 5 hours driving through the forests. We did have a four-wheel drive vehicle which was probably a little more comfortable than his van. Nonetheless, we spent about five hours driving through the forests, and that was after the helicopter got us closer to places which Senator Collard could only have dreamed of seeing. I have always believed in efficiency. If that means travelling in a helicopter, that is the way I will travel. Someone asked who paid for it. I did not, and I am quite happy to admit it. The Bill establishes an inquiry into the effect of logging in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests and determines ways of continuing the Tasmanian logging industry without detriment to the industry or to the environment. Those are the two purposes of the Bill. It would seem to me that it is pretty difficult to argue with a Bill that seeks to do two things that are as tame as those. The inquiry will examine whether the two areas are areas, or include parts, which are of world heritage value, or which contribute to the value of a world heritage area-given that, of course, on the border of those two areas are the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks which contain many wilderness areas that have already been listed as world heritage areas. The Bill provides for interim protection of the two areas during the period of the inquiry, which is 12 months. I would have thought that even Senator Walters could have put up with the chainsaws not operating for a year. Protection is in the form of prohibition of certain activities, such as road building and excavation works. Why is there a need for an inquiry? Anyone who has looked at the history of what has gone on in Tasmania over the last few years would realise that anyone who tries to judge what should happen in the future must look at a welter of counter claims. One side of the argument is that logging should take place and the other side is that it should not. It is pretty hard to find one's way through the claims. It is reasonable for any government faced with making a decision of this magnitude to opt for an inquiry. That is all that has happened. In late 1985 the Commonwealth and Tasmania began to negotiate an agreement that would allow logging to continue while protecting areas of value. Our Government found out pretty quickly that negotiating with the Tasmanian Government on anything is pretty difficult. On this matter it proved in the end to be impossible. That is why this legislation has been introduced. Let us look at the previous attempts. A memorandum of understanding was signed in June 1986. It contained provisions for consultation in the event of disagreement, and the allowance of logging in the Lemonthyme and Jackeys Marsh, subject to satisfactory environmental studies and management plans. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator RICHARDSON —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was going over some of the history of the attempt by the Hawke Government to establish with the Groom Ministry in the Gray Government in Tasmania a memorandum of understanding under which logging operations could proceed and the environment could be protected. I mentioned that under that agreement our Government was to consult, negotiate and settle the dispute. A consulting mechanism was put in place but the Tasmanian Government refused the approaches of the Commonwealth Government, refused to establish a review of forestry areas, and refused a mora- torium on activity in the disputed areas. When the Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin, attempted to initiate the dispute settling mechanism and to meet the Tasmanian Minister, Mr Groom, that Minister refused to meet him. He would not discuss this matter at all. Given the Commonwealth Government's obligation under the World Heritage Convention, we were left with no alternative but to establish this inquiry. That is why this legislation is in the Senate tonight and why this debate is taking place. In establishing this inquiry the Government is addressing the question of obtaining optimum development of a valuable resource without unnecessarily degrading heritage of outstanding world value. Let us look at the basic issues involved in this Bill. First, I mention heritage of outstanding world value. Let us examine the values of the area. We are seeking an example of the Government's commitment to protection of the environment, particularly areas of unique beauty, cultural value going back even to pre-historic times, undisturbed landscape, unique and varied vegetation. We are looking at the research value of all these ecosystems. Let us look at the Government's international obligations. The World Heritage Convention, which Australia ratified in August 1974, came into force in December 1975. We were probably all distracted at that time and probably were not aware of that fact. Nonetheless, that is what happened. Under that Convention Australia has an obligation to take appropriate measures for the identification, protection, conservation and preservation of areas of world heritage-that is, those parts of the cultural and natural heritage of our land that have `outstanding universal value'. It is to meet these obligations, particularly the obligation to identify areas of outstanding universal value which we believe there may be in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests area, that the Government is establishing a commission of inquiry. The Government wants to ensure that the answer to that question is right, so that we may all be satisfied as to the position. I often wonder why people are afraid of inquiries and of the answers they might throw up. Senator Messner —Government by inquiry; is that the answer? Senator RICHARDSON —It does not mean government by inquiry. We are not putting this off to the never-never, as did the Fraser Government on all occasions with everything important. We are saying that for 12 months we will look at something important. Senator Messner —It will be inquiry after inquiry. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Messner is like so many on his side of the Parliament who would simply send in the chainsaws, rip it all up and worry about it later. Fortunately, this Government has a different approach. Let us look at developments. Many senators have stated their concerns about the economic development of Tasmania and its effects. Senator Walters —What State do you come from? Senator RICHARDSON —I represent the State of New South Wales in this Parliament, Senator Walters. I also represent Australia. Senator Walters —What percentage have you got set aside? You would not even know. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! Senator Richardson has the floor. Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President; I am pleased to hear you say that-I wonder at times. The Government is committed to sustainable development of forestry areas in Tasmania, but that must be done within the context of environmental protection. That is something Senator Walters can never understand. Naturally enough, this Government-a Labor government, a government formed out of the trade unions-is concerned with the future of the timber industry in Tasmania and of its workers. We must all acknowledge that many jobs have been lost in the Tasmanian timber industry. In fact, over the last decade thousands of jobs have been lost in that industry. None of those jobs were lost because of environmentalists, because of inquiries, because of world heritage areas or anything else. All were lost because of advances in new technology. Even during 1986 hundreds of jobs were lost because of another form of technology that was introduced. This inquiry will be directed to search for alternatives that imply no diminution in the activities of the industry, taking into account recent trends and possible future development. There have been claims that large numbers of jobs will be lost due to the protection given the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests by the Bill. In my view those claims are fanciful, ludicrous and nonsense. They assume incorrectly, as anyone who has taken time to read the Bill will know, that all National Estate areas in Tasmania will be `locked up', to use the phrase people like to use, for all time. They ignore the fact that, in drawing the boundaries of the Southern Forests area, the Government has excluded current logging areas as far as they are known. In addition, the Bill directs the commission of inquiry to give priority to identifying areas which are definitely not qualifying areas. One of the problems we have all had in looking at Tasmania is the claims and counterclaims from loggers and environmentalists about just how much of these areas need to be gone into, and need to be gone into now. All this inquiry does is give us time to find out and, in the interim, stop logging operations in those areas of the Southern Forests where we have real concerns. The main immediate effect obviously will be on the Lemonthyme. I find it hard to believe that there is no forest in northern Tasmania from which logs could be cut to replace the very small quantity, in terms of what is taken out of the Tasmanian forests at large, due to come from the Lemonthyme and that mills would have to close because of that. I find that extraordinary. It is, of course, a nonsense. The reality is that there are alternatives. What is happening in Tasmania is that the Gray Government, with the compliance of people like Senator Walters, is determined to bring on this matter simply as an issue, determined to rape those forests just to make sure that there is a political issue. Let us look at what would happen if the Government required industry to switch operations from the Lemonthyme to another area, because this Bill provides for compensation. Let us look at the disruption people claim can be caused to the industry. It has been claimed that protection of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests will prevent industry from planning ahead for future development of paper mills. One can understand that companies, such as Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd and Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd, which are planning expansion of their paper making operations in Tasmania, are concerned at the uncertainty which could arise from this review of possible world heritage values in these parts of Tasmania. The Government welcomes their moves towards further processing in Australia of the products of our forests. However, I would have thought that the companies would welcome the Government's intention to not simply reduce uncertainty about what areas they can go into in future, but to remove it completely by establishing the circumstances in which the industry could continue to operate in Tasmania with assured supplies without undermining or damaging important heritage values. That is all this inquiry is about-defining areas for the future. When that is done, APPM, ANM and any other company in Tasmania with a logging or paper operation will be able to plan ahead. Far better that than the current situation, where no one knows what will happen. Continued conflict over the use of Australia's forest resources is in no one's interests. It is not in the Wilderness Society's interests, it is not in the Australian Conservation Foundation's interests and it is not in the interests of the big logging companies, either. We are told that disruption to forestry planning is one of the big problems. Protection of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests will disrupt not only current operational programs but also planning ahead for the next decade. I think Mr Burr raised this in the House of Representatives during an adjournment debate in February. The fact that exclusion of logging from certain areas for the period of the inquiry may disrupt the short term operational planning of forestry operations is, of course, recognised. I do not think anyone on the Government side is denying it. However, I would have thought that forestry planning of this sort would not be so inflexible that no alteration could ever be made. I would expect that forestry plans would in the normal course of events have inbuilt flexibility to cope with weather conditions. God knows, anyone who has been to Tasmania often enough knows that weather conditions can intervene. Senator Robertson —Watch it! Senator RICHARDSON —It is not quite the Northern Territory; it is just a little different. One knows that weather conditions can make areas that people have planned to go into inaccessible at certain times. Companies also need to be able to take account of unplanned events such as fire. The effect of fire is readily able to be seen in any large Tasmanian forest. With regard to longer term planning, which is so important in forestry management at large, with rotations of up to 100 years or more, the reduction of uncertainty which this inquiry will bring about is also important. The commission of inquiry to be set up under this legislation is aimed at reducing that uncertainty and conflict over forest resources. It will enable the forest managers and the forest industry to plan for the long term not just with more confidence, but with some confidence. We also have to look at the effects of mining because in recent times we have been told that the protection afforded the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests by legislation will affect mining operations. There are at present some mineral explorations and small scale mining activities proceeding in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. These activities are not causing large scale damage and I must say, from the very many meetings I have had with environment groups in the last couple of years, that this is not an issue that they raise very often at all. Certain mining activities will be allowed in the areas during the inquiry period, in accordance with agreed Tasmanian guidelines for mining activities in conservation areas. It could be expected that the appropriate consent for such activities, including fossicking, will be issued at the time the Act comes into effect. I mentioned earlier compensation and fair treatment for all parties, particularly where an operation is interrupted, diverted or disrupted because of this legislation. The compensation provisions of the Bill provide for reasonable compensation payable to persons who refrain or are prevented from carrying out actions which the Bill makes unlawful and who thus suffer loss or damage. It provides for the amount of compensation to be agreed upon between the parties, between the aggrieved person and the Commonwealth. Failing agreement the amount will be determined by a Federal court, so the Government has not even put itself in the position of being the final arbiter. It has bent over backwards to make certain that the compensation payments will be fair and able to be justified. Where a person not covered by the compensation provisions in the Bill considers that he or she has suffered loss or damage as a result of the legislation, the Government furthermore will consider compensation for that person as a matter of policy. So one has to say that this Government has looked at every possible angle. There is no cutting off of any possibility of compensation for anyone in Tasmania who considers himself or herself to be affected by this Bill. I now want to try to sum up what all this has brought about. Senator Walters —I am delighted to hear you say that. You will agree with my amendment, then. Senator RICHARDSON —If the day comes that I agree with any amendment of Senator Walters's, I just hope my colleagues can pull me into gear fast enough. However, there is enough IQ left in this addled brain to make sure that that does not happen too soon. I think it is true to say that the Government would have preferred not to have to pursue this course. During late 1985 and last year we thought we had reached a situation where disputes could be negotiated and where consultations could take place. Unfortunately, as I have outlined, the Tasmanian Government-hell bent on creating an issue and forcing the logging companies to go into those areas of great controversy in the forests of Tasmania-made certain that consultations just could not take place. As I mentioned, even Tasmania's Minister for Forests, Mr Groom, was not available to meet with our Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin. Unfortunately, because of that attitude and the Rambo style of Premier Gray and Minister Groom, we have been forced to do what we have done today. Earlier, Senator Collard in his speech made a number of references to me and to my position-which has I think been written about in some detail of late- in regard to the environment movement. Senator Collard said that there is evidence around that trying to placate the greenies or chase the greenie vote does not get one many votes at the end of the day. I would be prepared to concede that it is possible that he is correct. I doubt it, but it is possible. It is certainly possible that in Tasmania some traditional supporters of the Labor Party could be alarmed at the course of action we have taken. As one who has always been associated with the pragmatic whim of our Party and one who has always been associated with wanting to win government, I sincerely hope that there are not votes to be lost. Whether there are votes to be lost or whether there are not, I am certain of one thing-that is, the protection of these forests and the certainty of decision making in this area is so important that it is worth the risk. The Hawke Government has shown itself, with decisions like that relating to Shelburne Bay in recent times and its preparedness to look at what we can do about the Daintree, to be concerned enough about the environment to place itself at risk by making sure the right decisions are made. I want to associate myself with those decisions because I believe it is the right course of action for our party. There are times when principle comes first, and this is one of them. As far as I am concerned, if there is anything I can do to ensure that the process by which 85 per cent of our natural forests have been lost to Australia since European settlement is reversed, I will be in it. I want to make certain that future generations can look at trees and walk through forests. There are far too many people prepared to throw that possibility away. For the sake of my family I am proud of this Bill and I hope that the inquiry goes a long way towards resolving the problems in Tasmania. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.19) —Tonight we are debating the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987, which was brought to us by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and hatched by his advisers, his minders, at a time when, in sheer desperation, they were hunting around for a few more votes to boost their flagging spirits. It was after the by-election in Keating's electorate, where Labor lost 20 per cent of its vote, that Bob Hawke and his minders got together and said: `Let's look and see where we can get a few more votes'. When they lost 20 per cent of their vote in Keating's electorate they said: `We have got to find a few more votes'. Where did they get them? They got them from the good old hardy perennials-the greenies. Well, the greenies will not come to the aid of Senator Richardson's Party enough this time. His Party is on its own. Have a look at the polls. Have a look at the results of the poll that will be released tomorrow. The Labor Party will be looking for more votes again. The poll will show that it is down the drain again. Senator Richardson —Not in New South Wales. Senator WALTERS —We will come to New South Wales in a minute. Mr Hawke engages in this cynical exercise when he is hunting for a few votes. He went up to Kakadu, laid on his back and, with a few expletives deleted, said: `How wonderful'. Then he looked as far south as he could and said: `We won't have any forests cut down in Tasmania'. He had not been to Tasmania. He did not come down and look to see what he was talking about. He made this decision. Let there be no misunderstanding of what that man is doing down there. Neil Batt, the previous President of the Labor Party and now the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, came up here and told Mr Hawke just what he thought of him, just what an idiot he was making of himself. He came back when Mr Hawke would not accept anything and said that he was a blundering hypocrite. That was Mr Batt's opinion of the Prime Minister. What did the Australian Council of Trade Unions say about Tasmania? The ACTU, Senator Richardson, has left the Labor Party high and dry in Tasmania. The ACTU has also said: `You are wrong'. So we have Neil Batt, the Labor Party Leader of the Opposition, saying that the Prime Minister is a blundering hypocrite. We have the ACTU saying: `You are wrong'. We have the Liberal Party saying that the Government is wrong. Mr Hawke and his minders cooked up this proposal because of the 20 per cent drop in support in Keating's electorate. They think this will save them, but I can assure them that it will not. We have an interesting situation tonight. Senator Aulich came into the chamber for a few minutes so that he could say that he had been here during the debate, but he has gone. At least Senator Coates is the only Tasmanian Labor senator who has any honesty in respect of this matter. He is the only Tasmanian in the Labor Party who is willing to get up and tell the truth about what he feels. Senator Coates —How do you know that? Senator WALTERS —Maybe he is not going to do that. Maybe he will cross the floor. But I do not think that Senator Coates will cross the floor. I think he genuinely agrees with Bob Hawke because he is very supportive of the greenies. Senator Newman —Senator Devlin might be persuaded. Senator WALTERS —Senator Devlin will not say anything-he never does. Senator Aulich has fled from the chamber because back home his research officer was sent to the loggers and to the unions and told to say: `Look, this is not a political matter. The Labor Party is really all on side. My boss is very on side'. Indeed, Senator Aulich's research officer was down there competing in a toss a greenie competition. We do not know how far he threw the greenie. Senator Aulich is ducking for cover. He is not game to be in here during the debate while members of the Opposition are talking. Where is Senator Tate? Where is Senator Grimes? Where are the Tasmanians? There is one Tasmanian senator in the chamber at the moment. Every Liberal Tasmanian senator is on the speakers' list and we will hear from all of them. Only one-an apology for one-out of five Labor Tasmanians is participating in this debate. This is because the others are saying: `Look, we don't really agree.'. We live in a democracy in this country and they know that they will be tossed out if they vote the way they say they feel when they are back home. They have to vote for Bob Hawke's legislation. Let me make it quite clear what the situation is in Tasmania. Tasmanian Labor Party members of the Federal Parliament can say what they like when they are in Tasmania. They can say that they disagree with this legislation. But when the crunch comes and they vote on the floor of the Senate, we can guarantee that they will not be crossing the chamber. They lack the courage to do that. Senator Messner —What would Senator Coates's view be? Senator WALTERS —At least Senator Coates is honest; he is backing the greenies. Senator Richardson was very generous when he spoke of the amount of land that he believes should be set aside in Tasmania. Let us have a look at what is happening. At the moment 12 1/2 per cent of the land in Tasmania is tied up in national parks. How much land do honourable senators think that the next State on the list, Senator Richardson's State, has tied up in national parks? New South Wales has 3.6 per cent tied up for this purpose. Victoria has 3.3 per cent. We have already got 12 1/2 per cent of land tied up-without the additional area that is proposed under this legislation. Another 5 per cent will be added in this area if the legislation is passed. If the Government gets its way, 33 per cent of land, if we include the National Estate areas, will be tied up in Tasmania. I can assure the Senate that we will not take that. Tasmanians will not allow this to happen. What would happen if New South Wales were asked to allocate 33 per cent of its land for this purpose? I can assure honourable senators that if this were to happen, Senator Richardson would not be here debating matters. He would have gone to water in the same way as have Senator Aulich, Senator Tate, Senator Grimes and Senator Devlin. Let us have a look and see what is the excuse for this legislation. Let us see what advice has been given to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). The Forestry and Forest Product Industry Council, one of the 11 Federal Government manufacturing industry councils, advises that Australia's forest based industries are capable of increasing their market share against imports provided that the timber resources can be made available. That advice to the Minister has been discarded and their products have not been made available. Under normal situations, the Government has no right or power to interfere in domestic industries. I am sure we all remember the way in which this Government used the foreign affairs head of power in the Franklin Dam case. The Government won that case in the High Court of Australia. The other States had better take note, because the use of this power has been extended radically. Let me explain this to honourable senators. Previously the head of power was used because the area in question had already been on the World Heritage List. The area which is the subject of this legislation is not a world heritage area. An inquiry is to be conducted to see whether it has any world heritage value. In the meantime there will be no development in the area. The other States had better watch out, because if such a thing can happen in Tasmania it can happen anywhere else. Senator Richardson tonight referred to a memorandum of understanding and I will read from it. It says in part: In entering into this Memorandum, the Commonwealth recognises the professionalism and competence of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission and accepts that the Tasmanian Government acting through the Tasmanian Forestry Commission will duly and efficiently perform the many activities necessary on its part to give effect to this Memorandum. Indeed, that is what happened. We also have a whole list of things in the appendix, one of which says unequivocally that export licences will include the condition that: Forest Operations in the Lemonthyme will be in accordance with the Management Plan for the Lemonthyme State Forest 1983. All that was being done, and so the Lemonthyme was able to be logged. Export licences were granted and it was possible to have forestry management in the Lemonthyme Valley. Absolutely nothing was mentioned about coming back to the Minister. There was absolutely nothing, despite what Senator Richardson claimed tonight, about the Minister having to give approvals. It just states that the Lemonthyme can be logged. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has done this in his usual high-handed way. We have to remember that he is a centralist; that he has always believed the States are only a nuisance. Indeed, in one of his Boyer lectures he said: I must confess that I do not have any idea what `States' Rights' are. The Prime Minister said he had no idea. He continued: I do not understand, speaking as a person who happens to live within an area designated on the map of Australia as the State of Victoria, what `rights' that State has. Well, I am telling the Prime Minister right now that his State has locked away 3.3 per cent of land for national parks. Our State of Tasmania has 12 1/2 per cent, and we have a right to say: `Enough, there will be no more. We will not put up with it'. In his Boyer lecture the Prime Minister went on to say: I believe the logical implication of this . . . is that Australians would be better served by the elimination of the second tier of government-that is the States-which no longer serve their original purpose and act as a positive impediment to achieving good government in our current community. The Prime Minister says: `Let's get rid of the States'. He has been trying to do that ever since he became Prime Minister. He has greatly embarrassed his Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin. That Minister honestly came down and agreed with our Tasmanian Minister, Mr Groom, and they both signed that memorandum. That memorandum was still in action in November last year, and Mr Kerin was extremely embarrassed when it was overriden. Mr Cohen, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, needed a bit of education, and I am quite sure that Mr Kerin is rather delighted to see Mr Cohen getting that education. This Government has now decided that it will look at the Lemonthyme to see whether there is any World Heritage value in it. It has had a road through it for 60 years. Only 40 per cent of the Lemonthyme will be logged. Honourable senators may ask: Why worry about only 40 per cent? We worry because we need those mature logs for our industries and we are being denied that development while we have an inquiry. I believe that in drafting this legislation the Government realised that if it took out two important areas of the Southern Forests our veneer factory would close. It had a second look and so it gave us back two small areas so that the veneer factory would not close. Why in the heck does it not have a second look at the whole operation and realise that if we do not have that area not only the veneer factory but many of our other timber industries will be penalised, if not completely closed down, and people will be out of jobs. I will come to that in a few minutes. As has already been said, we have private land in the upper Mersey areas of the Lemonthyme where no development can take place. There has been no consultation with the landowners. I wonder how Senator Richardson would like it if his private area of land was suddenly closed down for 12 months with no development allowed. Senator Kilgariff —He would yell. Senator WALTERS —As Senator Kilgariff says, we would certainly hear about it. We are told that we need that Southern Forests area because it is a buffer zone to the park. But there is already a buffer zone between six and 12 kilometres wide on the western side of the Southern Forests that the Government has no intention of logging. When our previous Premier put up the western area for World Heritage nomination the buffer zone was already included. I would just like to read the following to honourable senators because I believe it is very important: In confirming the Western Tasmanian Wilderness Parks listing the Commonwealth concluded- this is when we put it up to the World Heritage- `it- that is, the area nominated- is large enough to survive as a wilderness and to maintain genetic diversity despite influences from surrounding areas and to permit the experience of solitude. The nominated region is an outstanding example of one of the few remaining temperate areas which is of sufficient size for natural processes to continue. The geology and climate of the three parks have resulted in a unique environment which contains 83 per cent of Tasmania's wilderness area. When that park was put up for listing the Government had already said it was unique, that it already provided the feeling of solitude and that there was no need for any buffer zones. Now, of course, the Ministers and Senator Richardson tonight are talking about nothing else but buffer zones. As I said earlier, the inquiry is being conducted, firstly, to see whether there is any World Heritage value within that designated area; and secondly, if there is to see whether any alternate forestry areas outside those areas can be logged in a feasible, economic and environmental way. If not-I turn now to the Bill-we are told that it should all be done with the least detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry. Do honourable senators realise what that means? Once again the Prime Minister has promised us that no jobs will be lost. Remember the dam? No jobs were to be lost there. The Government should tell that to the Tasmanians on the west coast. Once again the Prime Minister has repeated that no jobs will be lost but in the Bill he says: `If we cannot do it properly we will do it with the least detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry'. Senator Kilgariff —What does that mean? Senator WALTERS —It means that if he cannot do it without loss of jobs he will do it anyway and the Bill states that it will be done with the least detriment possible to the Tasmanian forestry industry. That means he has no intention at all of keeping that promise to us. He realises that he cannot, he realises that there will be loss of jobs and so in the Bill he promises that there will be the least detriment possible to Tasmania. We are told that there will be compensation. I was delighted to hear what Senator Richardson said tonight. I think his words were `anyone affected by this Bill'-we will get Hansard tomorrow-`will receive compensation'. I was delighted to hear him say that because that is not what the Bill says. I foreshadow an amendment that will include what Senator Richardson said-that anyone who is affected by this Bill will receive compensation. That will be very interesting. Senator Coates —Do not misquote him. Senator WALTERS —We will see because I will get Hansard and if necessary I will listen to the tape too. Senator Richardson may well like to support the amendment I am foreshadowing. A lot of people will be affected by this legislation, not just the companies but the loggers, the log hauliers, the dealers in machinery component parts, repairers of machinery as well as employees of the Forestry Commission of the State of Tasmania. A tremendous number of people will be affected by this legislation. How would Senator Richardson like to have spent his whole life's money on log hauling equipment, on big timber jinkers, and have mortgaged his home, how would he like to have all of his money tied up in such a way and a government say: `You have to stop. Your job is gone for a year while we look and see if there is any world heritage value in that area in which you are working'. How would he like it, particularly if he knew that if was just a political exercise that was hatched because of a by-election in Mr Keating's area where the Australian Labor Party lost 20 per cent of the vote? How cynical can a government be when it does that to the people of Australia? Let the people of Australia realise that this is the sort of government it has to deal with. There have been nine inquiries. Senator Richardson said that we will have this inquiry and then we will know. Nine inquiries have all told us the same thing; they have all told us what we know and this will be the tenth inquiry. I was going to quote from Peter Bennett and Associates Pty Ltd but my time is running out and therefore I will just-- Senator Coates —Bad luck. Senator WALTERS —I am sure Senator Coates would know of the Bennett and Associates inquiry that gave us complete assurance about many areas that are of great importance to us. I repeat for honourable senators from other States that this legislation is terribly important to every State in Australia. Once it goes through we have had our chips. Once this has been done to Tasmania, if Labor gets another 20 per cent fall in votes in another Labor electorate, another State will be picked off because the Government cannot go any further than it has with Tasmania. In Labor States the Labor Leader may ask Bob Hawke not to do it, as Mr Batt has done. Members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in other States may be pleading with the Prime Minister but for cynical reasons he will not take any notice. Finally let me state what the Government has already got from Tasmania and what it is asking of it. The Government already has 12 1/2 per cent of our State to walk in if it wants to. We are not giving it any more. In this legislation the Government is asking for another 5 per cent. Senator Richardson comes from a State where only 3.6 per cent is tied up; in Victoria the figure is 3.3 per cent. Tasmania is being asked eventually to give 33 per cent of its State and I am now telling the Government that it is just not on. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.47) — Tonight I am very glad to speak on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill and to follow my colleague Senator Walters, who has just given us an excellent coverage of the problems that Tasmanians are facing. Senator Watson —I am sad that it is necessary. Senator NEWMAN —It is sad that it is necessary, as Senator Watson said, but it is very important that we move this battle to Canberra to tell the people of Australia just what a senseless, brutal, thoughtless, careless Government we have in this country. Gradually the scales are falling from people's eyes. I hope that the Tasmanian logging Bill will be one of the things that makes people finally awake to what sort of a hypocritical government we have sitting in Canberra on the treasury bench. Thank God Government members will not be sitting there much longer. It is very fashionable when Tasmanians speak in this place for people to make aspersions about States rights and cant like that. However, I draw honourable senators' attention to the fact that much more is involved in this legislation than just a State's rights; it is the rights of the people in the State. It is the rights of Tasmanian people to choose the way in which they will manage their environment. As Senator Walters has just said, let the people throughout Australia beware. It is Tasmania today. Which State will it be tomorrow? We have been told by the Australian Labor Party member for Maribyrnong, Mr Griffiths, who spoke in the debate in the other place, that Tasmanians are surrounded by some of the best, the most beautiful country and the most important treasures in the world but he went on to say that to a very large extent Tasmanians are almost oblivious to it because it is there with them but that people coming from around the world and other parts of Australia have a very different feeling. I have to say that that is typical of the patronising attitude of this Government towards my State and my constituents. No mention is made that with Tasmania's co-operation a large proportion of Tasmania's land is preserved in national parks and other reserves and will never be touched. Twenty-eight per cent of Tasmania's land area has been set aside from any development and 12.6 per cent, as Senator Walters said, of the State's forests are formally reserved in crown land reserves. The world heritage listed western Tasmanian wilderness parks contained 83 per cent of the wilderness in the State. No one could claim that we are exploiting our wilderness resource and look himself in the mirror. Senator Coates —That is because they have lost so much already. Senator NEWMAN —I am very glad to hear Senator Coates interjecting because it is very clear to all Tasmanians that he will not support them in this exercise. He is bound by Caucus even if he wishes to do otherwise, which I know he does not. This is a purely political exercise and Bob Hawke is in for a disappointment. Australians are looking for more from their Government than the preservation of Tasmania's forests; they are looking for economic recovery and jobs. I would have hoped that at least Tasmanian senators would realise that this is so critical in our State. Let us look at the history of this issue. There have been a total of nine inquiries since 1972, most of which have been initiated by the Commonwealth Government. In addition there has been an environmental impact statement that was carried out in 1985, at a cost of over $1.3m, to assess the impact of forestry activities in Tasmania. It found that there were no alternatives that were prudently feasible on environmental or economic grounds. Senator Coates —Who prepared that? Senator NEWMAN —I am very glad that Senator Coates asked that. I am glad that he is wanting to learn. Perhaps we will see whether he can learn. There was input from wilderness societies, industry, both governments and the community. Everybody participated. Then on 16 December 1985 the decision not to accept the recommendation of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to ban logging in National Estate areas was made by the Federal Government. That led to the memorandum of understanding being signed on 12 June 1986. Senator Puplick —It is no wonder they preferred Michael Tate when they had the choice. Senator NEWMAN —I thank the honourable senator. That memorandum of understanding advocated the wise use of an important forest resource on a sustainable basis to balance the proper needs of the community in regard to wood production, protection and recreational demands. It reflected the balanced attitude which is the only reasonable way we can approach this issue. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, said in his Press release when the Government made the decision to renew export licences that the decision balances the Commonwealth's commitment to the environment and the need to protect jobs. Tasmania, the Forestry Commission and the forest industry generally heaved a collective sigh of relief. Uncertainty as to the future of the forests appeared to be lifted. Industry could go ahead and it could plan and invest on the basis of an agreed position with the Commonwealth. Then we come to the unilateral decision by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to halt logging operations at Jackeys Marsh, which was conveyed in a letter to the Tasmanian Premier on 5 November 1986. That decision was unilateral. It was made without consultation with the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, or his Department. It was blatantly in breach of the memorandum of understanding. This has been admitted by all concerned, even the Prime Minister. The Tasmanian forestry industry has complied in every respect with the terms of the memorandum. It is the Federal Government which has broken the agreement. Co-operation does not mean bowing to the demands of a government which is struggling for votes in Sydney and Melbourne. It does not mean backing away from the agreement that has been reached. Logging was banned in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests in late 1986, supposedly in response to the logging of so-called sensitive National Estate areas in the Lemonthyme and the possibility of logging in the Southern Forests without consultation with the Commonwealth. But the Federal Government had already approved logging in the Lemonthyme. Minister Kerin's Press release on the announcement of new licensing controls in December 1985 said that forest operations would be allowed in National Estate areas only when adequate management plans reflecting National Estate values could be implemented. The management plan for the Lemonthyme was prepared very carefully with full public consultation and with proper provision for visual, landscape, botanical and archaeological values. It includes a visual management plan to reduce the visual impact of the operations. A person trained in landscape architecture was engaged to help prepare the plan. The plan was accepted by the Federal Government. The short lived 1986 memorandum of understanding says in its appendix that forest operations in the Lemonthyme will be in accordance with the management plan for the Lemonthyme State Forest of 1983. Honourable senators will be interested to recall that on 18 February 1986 Senator Walsh said: The Government does not propose to limit logging in the area beyond those limits already proposed in the Tasmanian Forestry Commission's 1983 management plan. It looks as though Senator Walsh has been persuaded to change his public stance. Now, for the purposes of an election, the Hawke Government has welshed on that deal. We simply cannot have exploration and development locked out of vast areas of our State. The exclusion of national parks and the attention given to environmental safeguards means exploration has to be carried out over as much of our country as possible. We have to locate resources and assess their potential for future development. In the present economic and employment climate, we cannot afford the luxury of locking up vast tracts of our country in case they warrant conservation. Let us look at the reasons that the Federal Government has given for the action it has taken. It says there are two main concerns: World heritage values and the views from the national park. In the Minister's second reading speech, he said: The inquiry will examine whether the two areas are or include areas which are of world heritage value or which contribute to the value of a world heritage area. I believe the Government line is deceitful. It is talking about world heritage values but the areas are on the National Estate list, not on the World Heritage Listing. Do not let there be any mistake; the Lemonthyme State Forest is not wilderness. There is a road which gives access to a working mine and logging has taken place for some years. But neither is the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park wilderness. There we have walkers' huts with coal stoves, pit toilets and a duck boarded track. Some 3,500 people walk that track annually. Any argument that the Lemonthyme is a buffer zone for the world heritage area-that is the park-is false. In nominating an area for world heritage listing the nominating party is required to include a buffer zone within the boundaries. In confirming the western Tasmanian wilderness parks listing the Commonwealth concluded: `The area nominated is large enough to survive as a wilderness', and `the region . . . is of sufficient size for natural processes to continue'. In the Minister's second reading speech, he said that the views of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources-the IUCN-strengthen the concern of the Government about forest operations near the boundaries of the area already inscribed on the World Heritage List. Clearly, the advice given by Mr Thorsell of the IUCN on this matter is based on his personal opinion, formed during his visit to the area which was for less than a day. Senator Watson —Who is he? Senator NEWMAN —He is supposed to be very important to the Government's case. We know about him. In a telephone conversation with an Australian Heritage Commission officer when his visit was being arranged in January this year, he said that the IUCN guidelines to assess scenic value are difficult to implement and that usually visual assessments are made subjectively by the person doing the assessment making his own comparison with other world heritage areas. Yet one of the principal objections of the Heritage Commission to the use of the visual management system contained in the management plan for the Lemonthyme was that the sensitivity level is based on subjective criteria. That is betting two bob each way. Obviously, it is okay for the IUCN to use subjective criteria but it is not okay for the Tasmanian Forestry Commission. The argument is based around the question of the view from the national park. A great deal of care has been taken with the Lemonthyme management plan to minimise the visual impact, something which was apparently acceptable to the Government when the plan was accepted. Forest operations are being carried out in small divided coupes positioned so as to minimise visibility from the park. Only 40 per cent of the Lemonthyme State Forest is planned for logging. The total area is only approximately 55 hectares. The notion that we cannot allow commercial activity within the view of national parks is absurd. Would that mean that all commercial operations, including farming, would be under threat? The closest lookout point in the park is on Pine Forest Moor, and it is seven kilometres away from the forestry operations. Because this is a major lookout, particular care has been taken with the plans. Under one per cent of the view will be affected in any one year of operation. Most of the peaks in the World Heritage area are out of sight of the planned logging. Only about 2 per cent of the overland track will be in view of the logging, and then only for several years out of 85 years-if people know what they are looking for and are determined to be affronted. Senator Townley —You would need to have binoculars. Senator NEWMAN —One would need to have very powerful binoculars. I thank the honour- able senator. In the case of the Southern Forests a large buffer zone has been left and logging will take place in the valleys out of sight of the park itself. The closest logging operation to the park boundary at Farmhouse Creek will be six kilometres away. Associated Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd has told me that it believes the Australian Heritage Commission is refusing to budge from the position that any activity in the Lemonthyme will degrade the view. There is no acceptance of the fact that logging can be done without such degradation. I think that is probably the only leg that the Government feels it can safely stand on. Over the last 2 1/2 months I have been conducting guerrilla warfare with the Government in trying to get documents under the so-called Freedom of Information Act. I have made applications to the Department of Primary Industry, to the Australian Heritage Commission and to the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. I have finally been given some documents without fee, although I had to have the fee reimbursed after fighting a bit of a fierce battle. But there is a number of documents that I have not yet been offered; in fact, I have been definitely refused them. The Heritage Commission said: There are 14 separate documents identified as being relevant to your request but are exempt as they would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege. It said: This material comprises opinions of various people about the World Heritage values of the Lemonthyme Valley and Southern Forests. I have to ask: Why has this information been withheld from such an important debate as this? What is it that the Government does not want the rest of us to know? The job of the inquiry is to find whether these areas are or include areas which are of World Heritage value or which contribute to the value of a World Heritage area. Obviously people have been asked their opinion-we do not know who-yet we are not allowed to see those opinions. We have to have another inquiry at enormous cost instead. The Department of Primary Industry also refused access to its documents on the ground that: Release of those documents could disclose the Commonwealth's negotiating position and ongoing deliberative processes. It said: This would not be in the public interest and would undermine the Commonwealth's ability to achieve the long-term resolution of the issues. It also said that it: . . . would or could also reasonably be expected to cause damage to Commonwealth-State relations. What hypocrisy. What do they think has been done to Commonwealth-State relations by the decisions that this Government has taken already? Despite the reluctance of these departments to reveal anything of significance, the freedom of information application has revealed, I believe, one important admission. The Director of the Heritage Commission, Mr Griffiths, advised Mr Thompson, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, that: The Cabinet decision stated that areas currently being logged should be excluded from the identified area. This area is currently not being logged, as far as we know. But this is the important sentence. Mr Griffiths said: It should be possible, with care, for the logged coupes to be rehabilitated as part of the future management regime for the Forests. Clearly, in private documents the Australian Heritage Commission acknowledges the possibility of rehabilitating the forests. Why, then, is the Government being so dishonest in this matter? There is a plan to rehabilitate these forests, agreed to by both governments. Let us not forget that this issue is critical to Tasmania's industry. Let us not forget that it accounts for 17 per cent of the State's jobs. About 24,000 people are directly employed in mills and forests and indirectly in service industries. One in seven Tasmanians depend on the industry for a livelihood. It contributes 26 per cent of the State's commerce. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said: In taking legislative action, the Government fully recognises the importance of the forestry industry- The Government promised that no jobs would be lost. The Minister said that the legislation simply involves a cessation of operations in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests in certain areas for a limited period, and that the Bill provides for payment of compensation for losses directly resulting from that cessation. It is all very well to compensate those who lose directly. But what about all those who are indirectly dependent on the forest industry-for example, the employers of Tasrail, small businessmen such as truck drivers, service station owners, et cetera? In the Minister's speech he said that the Bill recognises the need not to cause detriment to the long term forestry operations and employment of persons in Tasmania. He is missing the fact that there will be an effect on investment. There have already been nine inquiries, as Senator Walters has said. How long can we expect the industry to put up with uncertainty about the future of its resource? Even the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association has expressed its concern about the uncertainty which is being created amongst forest owners. It wrote to Mr Hawke on 16 March on the subject. It said: As a direct result of your Government's intervention, there is now a real danger of no major industrial development in the Tasmanian Forest Industry ever taking place. It went on at some length. I expect Mr Hawke did not read the letter. We should look also at the contribution APPM has made to the economy of Tasmania. It has 130,000 hectares of forest land-more than any other forest company in Australia. Its annual investment in plantations and tree breeding exceeds $3 1/2m. In 1985-86 it had earnings of $36 1/2m gross. In the same year, $37m was invested by the parent company, almost exclusively in Tasmania. It employs 3,800 people and 800 contractors. But none of this investment and employment would have occurred if the company had not had the confidence in the long term security of its wood resource. It is that security that is being undermined by this Federal Government's actions. Just by way of a sidelight, it is interesting to remember Tasrail. Senator Tate, just on 17 March, told the Senate: Progress . . . reflects this Government's approach of creating an environment in which its business authorities can get on with the job of improving their performance. He was talking about the record of Australian National. He said further: . . . we cannot stop there. Accordingly this Government is continuing to work with AN and its staff to maintain that momentum which will lead AN to become a genuinely commercially viable Government railway. They are marvellous, stirring tones. Will Senator Tate, when he votes with the Government for this legislation, remember that log transport constitutes about 40 per cent of the Tasrail traffic? Senator Townley —You have to be careful what you say in this place, Senator Tate. Senator NEWMAN —Yes. Senator Tate should remember that we are listening very carefully. Let me look quite quickly now at some of the provisions of the legislation. Doubts are expressed about its constitutionality, based on the external affairs power. I do not want to go into that now because I want to move on to clause 13, to which attention was given by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. It draws the attention of the Senate to the application of the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Section 6a of that Act provides that self-incrimination is not to be an excuse for the refusal or failure to produce a document or to answer questions as required by the Commission. Section 6dd of the Royal Commissions Act further provides that a statement or disclosure made by a witness in giving evidence is not admissible against the witness in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings. These sections of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 apply without modification to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry and, in the view of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the protection should extend to any information or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the giving of the answer or the production of the document. The Committee goes on to say that it considers that by so applying sections 6a and 6dd of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 without modification, this Lemonthyme Bill may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. I hope that Senator Tate will be studying that matter more closely, as a former Chairman of that Committee. Clause 14 of the Bill provides: For the purposes of performing his or her functions or exercising his or her powers under this Act, a member or another person authorised in writing for the purposes of this section by a member may, with such assistance, and by such force, as is necessary and reasonable, enter and inspect: (a) the Lemonthyme area and the Southern Forests area; (b) any nominated world heritage area; and (c) any other part of Tasmania that the member or other person considers may be part of a qualifying area or contain forestry resources. Senator Townley —It is sweeping. Senator Archer —Sweeping! It is a bit heavy-handed. Senator NEWMAN —It is very heavy-handed; I agree. Clause 14 (c) confers on the member or authorised person a broad power to enter upon private land based upon the personal opinion of nothing more than the person exercising that power. By contrast, a royal commission must obtain a search warrant from a judge in order to have land or premises entered or searched for things connected with the matter into which the commission is inquiring. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee is therefore drawing the attention of the Senate to the fact that by providing such a broad power of entry upon land, it may be considered to trespass once again unduly upon personal rights and liberties. This Government is a corker for having unintended consequences. I only hope that in this case the consequences are unintended, because if they are not unintended they are positively draconian and it is a disgrace that they have appeared in this legislation. I want by way of conclusion to look at the salient points that we must not forget when we are looking at the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. Let us not forget that the Tasmanian forestry industry has the support of the Tasmanian Government and Opposition, the Australian timber industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and members of this Government, including Minister Kerin and, I believe, Senator Terry Aulich. Let us not forget also that the Federal Government's handling of the matter is very cynical and purely political. Let us not forget that a vocal minority of conservationists has been allowed to dominate all debate by the Government and the media. Let us not forget that the introduction of this legislation is an attempt by the Government to pander to that conservationist viewpoint for its own purposes. It is taking no account of the net social costs of its action. Tasmanians are aware of the beauty of the State in which they live. They do care about preserving it for future generations, but they believe in doing so in a balanced and sensible manner. They believe that their small businesses, their employment and their livelihoods should not be taken away from them by a government which cares more about pandering to the conservation lobby than it does about the real environmental concerns. Let us not forget that the huge debt accumulated by Australia is an unacceptable legacy for us to leave our children. It is only by using the resources we have sensibly and efficiently that we will be able to recover from the situation to which this Government has contributed and the awful hole in which it has placed our country. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.13) —We are debating the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, which is so important to Tasmania. I am pleased to be associated with the opposition to this Bill for reasons that I will mention in a moment. The said purpose of the Bill is to establish an inquiry into the effects of logging on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests and to determine ways of continuing the Tasmanian logging industry without detriment to the industry and the environment. That is the purpose of the Bill as stated in one paper that I have seen. I think it would be useful to give a little background to this legislation. Those two forests are located adjacent to the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair world heritage area in the north-west of Tasmania. The Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair area was listed on the World Heritage Register in 1982, along with part of South West Tasmania. Such world heritage areas must be distinguished from areas listed on the National Estate which, although of recognised value, are not accorded the same degree of protection as are world heritage areas. In December 1985, as part of the renewed export licences for Tasmanian woodchips, the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments began to negotiate an agreement that would allow logging to continue while protecting what were called the more valuable areas. The resulting memorandum of understanding was signed in June 1986. It contained provisions for consultation in the event of disagreement, and allowed logging in the Lemonthyme Forest and Jackeys Marsh, subject to satisfactory environmental studies and management plans. Those provisions were contained in the memorandum of understanding. Following the agreement, a Commonwealth consultative committee was established to consider environmental aspects of proposed logging. The first disagreement relating to the MOU-the memorandum of understanding-arose as a result of the commencement of logging in the Jackeys Marsh area, which is listed on the National Estate. That happened on 5 November last year. A spokesman for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated in a media release that while the MOU does canvass exploitation of Jackeys Marsh in accordance with the environmental impact studies, the clause upon which the Premier of Tasmania appears to be relying, it also provides for a series of consultative measures in the case of areas listed as part of the National Estate. The disagreement over the interpretation of that memorandum of understanding has continued. I will not go into the details; suffice it to say that eventually there was a dispute between the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who approved the logging, and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) who did not approve. The matter was resolved all of a sudden when some people within the Australian Labor Party decided that there were a few votes that they might be able to win during an election period. The Prime Minister, along with the two Ministers that I mentioned a moment ago, released a statement affirming the desire to protect areas of the National Estate that may be of world heritage value. The Ministers also announced that a review would be undertaken to establish if there were commercially and environmentally sound alternatives to logging in the National Estate areas. As a Tasmanian, I am just about fed up with the number of inquiries we have had into logging and the interference we have had in the State over the last few years. There have been nine major inquiries into Tasmanian forestry since 1972. I see that Senator Jessop is in the chamber. He and I have been part of two of those inquiries. In 1975 the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment undertook an inquiry, the report of which was entitled `Woodchips and the Environment'. In 1978 the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment presented a supplementary report entitled `Woodchips and the Environment'. In other words, we have looked into the matter perhaps more than anyone else in this chamber. We have done so over many years and in many areas. We can apply our knowledge to areas other than the particular areas that we looked at at that time. We looked at the entire matter. I know that this is not a woodchipping matter. It deals with the other products of the forest-something which Tasmania needs to have because of its resource-based industries and the number of people who are employed in forestry industries in Tasmania. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the inquiries that have taken place since 1972. They number nine, as I said a moment ago. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 9 MAJOR INQUIRIES INTO TASMANIAN FORESTRY SINCE 1972 Each of these 9 major public inquiries into forestry and the forest-based industries have taken detailed evidence on technical, economic and environmental considerations. Each of these 9 major inquiries has established that there is no overriding environmental reasons why balanced forest development should not proceed. 1. 1972 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee ``Inquiry into Forest Regeneration'' 1972. 2. 1975 Federal Working Group ``Economic & Environmental Aspects of Export Hardwood Woodchip Industry'' Parliamentary Papers No. 116 and 117. 3. 1975 Senate Standing Committee on Science and Environment ``Woodchips and the Environment''. 4. 1977 State Government Board of Inquiry into Private Forestry Development in Tasmania by Mr Justice M. G. Everett. 5. 1978 Senate Standing Committee on Science and Environment ``Woodchips and the Environment'' Supplementary Report. 6. 1981 Senate Standing Committee on Trade & Commerce ``Australian Forestry and Forest Products Industries''. 7. 1985 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee ``State Forestry Report''. 8. 1985 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee ``Woodchip Export Licences''. 9. 1985 ``Environmental Impact Study on Tasmanian Woodchip Exports Beyond 1988'' & ``Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement''. Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. Of course, during the inquiry it will be unlawful to do certain things. It is interesting to note what those things are. It will be unlawful to do certain acts in a protected area from the time that the inquiry period starts until 42 days after it ends without the written consent of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Those who have had any dealings with environmental matters with the Minister will know that to get such permission would be almost impossible. The Bill says that one is not able to damage or remove any part of a tree from the protected area for forestry operations, build roads or tracks in the protected area, excavate or do any act which is prescribed as capable of adversely affecting the protected area. It will also be unlawful if the owner or occupier of land in that area fails without the Minister's consent to take reasonable steps, whatever reasonable steps may mean, to prevent unlawful acts. The point about this is that it not only stops logging; it effectively ties up that entire area. It is obvious that this Bill will have a profound and long term effect on the economic position and confidence particularly of the domestic timber industry in Tasmania, but also of the mining industry. I do not think that has been mentioned so far today. The Government is in the middle of a land grab, and I am sure that most Tasmanians are sick and tired of being told what they should do by the Prime Minister from his ivory tower here in Canberra. Most Tasmanians are against the actions of Canberra. They know that somebody up here cannot direct things as well as their local government can. I note that Senator Richardson led for the Labor Party. Why was it not one of the other senators, perhaps a Tasmanian. Why did the Labor Party get Senator Richardson to lead in this matter? Because it knows that he is the Prime Minister's numbers man, he has more knowledge of the vote that is available from the green sector of the community, and he thinks that by getting an extra one per cent or 2 per cent in the election that may be held at any time he will be doing the right thing. This is purely a political act of sabotage of the Tasmanian economy. I shall not say that the Prime Minister will regret it in Tasmania, because he will not get any candidate selected in Tasmania. He will have the minimum number returned to this place and none in the other House, whenever the election is held, because of the craziness of this legislation. Senator Jessop —Are the unions supporting him in this? Senator TOWNLEY —The unions in Tasmania do not support the Prime Minister in this action. We all know that Mr Hawke would like total power. He would be happy if there were no State governments. He said that in lectures before he even came into Parliament. He would be only too happy if we had just the Federal Government. We Tasmanians know what he would do to us if he had total control. We are informed that this inquiry will take only 12 months, but I do not believe that it is an appropriate inquiry. It is not needed. I have mentioned that we have already had nine inquiries. It is a waste of money and the Government has asked for it for purely political reasons, without any regard whatsoever to the livelihood of those people who will be directly affected by the action. There will be loss of confidence in the whole industry in Tasmania and, along with it, there could well be loss of investment that we might otherwise get. I have always believed that the people associated with the timber industry are well aware of the way they have to look after the forests. Many have been working for several generations in the forests. I have found in my examinations of the forestry industries, and most recently a couple of weeks ago in the Eden area, that the people involved in forestry recognise that it has to be a long term industry and they want it to be such. Senator Jessop —The foresters are all conservationists, aren't they? Senator TOWNLEY —Most foresters certainly are conservationists. These days, following a couple of the reports that we have put down, they are following quite strongly many of the recommendations. I move on to talk about some of the constitutional matters that are involved. I believe this Government's intention to regulate and legislate in this matter will set undesirable constitutional and legal precedents for the prohibition of exploration, mining and forestry in National Estate areas. We must remember that it is not only the forestry industry that is involved. The mining industry, which is so important to Tasmania, will also find it very difficult to operate if the restrictions are applied to them. It was well put by the Minister for Forests in Tasmania, the Hon. Ray Groom, speaking on the effect of this Bill, on 3 March. It is reported: Tasmanian Government Treasury officials have estimated that more than 900 jobs will be lost throughout the State if the Federal Labor Government's year-long ban on logging is enforced. The Minister for Forests, Mr Ray Groom, said today the jobs would go in the forests, in timber mills, joinery, transport and wholesale and retail areas. The report continued: The long-term effects are even more devastating with the threat to investment in Tasmania of more than $1000 million and many new job opportunities. The Federal Labor Government has now thrown a cloud over three major projects, a pulp mill in the north, a new paper facility in the south and the Huon Forest Products' proposal, Mr Groom said. He said the economy of Tasmania could not withstand such disruption. All of us who come from Tasmania realise that we cannot afford to lose jobs through the actions of a government that does not care about Tasmania. It does not have one worry about what happens there. It is interested only in the votes of the trendy greenies who live in the suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney. The report of Mr Groom's remarks also said: . . . the Hawke Labor Government was involved in a massive land grab covering some 284,000 hectares. Senator Boswell —Good grief! Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Boswell is now present in the chamber. He and I are taking part in an inquiry that is looking into what is happening in Kakadu, an area a third the size of Tasmania. A third of Tasmania will be set aside for use if this legislation goes through. Senator Boswell —For a few lousy greenie votes. Senator TOWNLEY —For a few lousy greenie votes. The same thing applies in the Northern Territory. But I shall not get on to that; I shall deal with that at another time. The report went on: . . . he was astonished by the sweeping powers of the legislation introduced by the Federal Government. It even contained a provision which allowed Federal officials to forcibly enter any farm or private property which contained areas of forest. Mr Groom said the State Government maintained its stance that the legislation was unconstitutional and was an attempted abuse of power by Canberra. I shall not read the rest, except the last passage: The inquiry is a waste of taxpayers' money and will achieve nothing, Mr Groom said. I agree with him on that matter. I do not believe it will achieve one thing. It is just a means of putting off a decision on what has to be done in this area until after the election, whenever it is eventually held. Senator Coates —That is a profound statement. Do you mean now? Senator TOWNLEY —Well, it has got a year. Senator Coates sits over there and smirks away. He is the kind of guy who has never had to earn a dollar in his life. He has worked for someone all his life, but it has always been an easy job. He does not know what it is like to get out in the forest and do some real work, and he never will because he is a little snivelling whatever he wants to call himself. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator will withdraw those words. Senator TOWNLEY —I withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy President, as you have asked me to. The Chair is respected and I will withdraw immediately, of course, even though Senator Coates obviously thinks that the words I have used are pretty accurate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! You will withdraw unreservedly. Senator TOWNLEY —I have already unconditionally withdrawn. When we get to the constitutional issues of this matter we see that during the term of the Hawke Government there has been a continuing trend to centralise power in Canberra and to override the responsibilities of the States. As I said earlier, Mr Hawke in his Australian Broadcasting Corporation Boyer lectures went so far as to suggest that we should do away with the States. That is precisely one of the things he is seeking to achieve with this Bill. The Bill establishes new principles which have far-reaching effects on the nature of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States. As I have said, this legislation applies to mining as well. The Bill strikes at the heart of the principle that the States should be primarily responsible for land use and land management. The legislation seeks to override the views of the elected Government of Tasmania. It is opposed by the Tasmanian Labor Party Opposition. Senator Coates does not interject; he knows that what I am saying is the truth. It is opposed by the Labor Party Opposition, by industry, by unions and by a range of community groups. It is clearly an attempt to change the whole basis of the Federation and to centralise more power here in Canberra. We know what the people of Tasmania want, through their Government, yet we have Mr Hawke in his jackboots walking over the decisions made down there. The Hawke Government has repeatedly stated that it would not take an interventionist position on land use issues in the States. We saw how the Federal Government approached the contentious Daintree issue in Queensland. Now, with a Federal election looming, although as I have said there are no votes to be gained in Tasmania, the Hawke Government is seeking to buy some illusory votes in Melbourne and Sydney. It is quite clear that the Government does not have the practical experience or expertise to manage forests from Canberra. Recently personnel from Commonwealth Government departments have been rushing around in a frenzy in Tasmania. They have been drawing lines on maps and then rubbing them out; they have been amending maps and making confusing statements such that nobody really knows quite where the legislation starts and finishes. The legislation is half-baked-like one of my Senate colleagues from Tasmania who is sitting opposite-and is aimed at taking control from the States. Senator Watson —It started off with an ordinary road map. Senator TOWNLEY —That is right. We have had all these inquiries. The Forestry and Forest Product Industry Council, one of the 11 Federal government manufacturing industry councils that advises the Government, advised that Australia's forest-based industries are capable of increasing their market share against imports provided the timber resources are made available. To strengthen the Australian economy and reverse the adverse balance of trade we need growth in export industries, and independent studies confirm the potential for the expansion of employment opportunities in the forestry sector in Tasmania provided resources are not withdrawn in the way that we see today. One in seven Tasmanians depends upon the forest for his livelihood. We who come from Tasmania should think about that. Tasmania must continue to have access to State forests for timber production. National Estate areas will be properly managed, with special management plans available for public scrutiny. Of course that is the way it has been for quite a long time. Tasmania is not seeking to dedicate new State forests; it is simply a matter of seeking to utilise the pulpwood from existing State forests in a situation where the State has already reserved some 26 per cent of its land area as parks. But it does need the mature logs available in the areas that will be proscribed if this legislation is enacted. Senator Newman mentioned earlier that although only 11 per cent of the area of Tasmania is involved, that 11 per cent contains some 20 per cent of the logs that could be used to employ people and be put to the benefit of all Australians. Senator Archer —And for the benefit of the forest. Senator TOWNLEY —Of course, as Senator Archer says, it will be for the benefit of the forest. These days nobody goes into an area and chops down trees without thinking of the next century. The foresters replant, and logging is carried out on a very sensible basis. I think it is time that the conservationists of this country realised that we should have multiple land use. We cannot afford any more to lock up certain areas of land forever so that they are not available for some type of exploitation-I use that word carefully; it is the correct word to be used-in time to come. This country has to apply multiple land use not only to areas in Tasmania but also to Kakadu National Park. In June 1986 there was a detailed assessment of the implications of enlarging the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Park. That report was prepared by Peter Bennett and Associates, and it is complementary to other economic studies that were completed during the preparation of the environmental impact statement into the Tasmania woodchip industry. The report covered similar areas to those proposed for lock-up under this Bill, for which the conservation movement has been pushing the Government for many years. Some of the conservationists I know are never satisfied. If we give them a little bit today they want more tomorrow. I always used to think that the boundary of the national park was the boundary of the national park, but now we have to have a buffer around it. Soon we will have to have a buffer area around the buffer area, if the conservationists go on the way they have in Kakadu. This situation is getting quite ridiculous. A national park should be a national park. Some people have the idea that if there might be visual pollution when looking due east from a particular mountain top, we cannot have any logging or any human life. I think somebody said at a meeting I was at yesterday that if this theme were applied to the Cradle Mountain reserve and one looked north we would have to get rid of Devonport because we would see signs of humans. I do not think all signs of humans are bad. If one goes to decent, managed areas one often finds that they are better than they were before humans arrived. I am not one of those who have to go out into the bush and be totally devoid of human contact. I can put up with humans. Maybe some of the people who go to these areas cannot, but I certainly can. The report I mentioned concludes that the proposal for the enlarged Western Tasmania Wilderness National Park has serious economic and social consequences for the Tasmanian economy which will lead to job losses, a decline in export earnings and major implications for the service sectors of the Tasmanian economy. In summary, the report stated that over a 20-year period over 11,000 jobs, both direct and indirect, would either be lost or not replaced in forestry, mining and hydro-electric developments if that extended park became a reality. No tourist-based alternative, which has always been widely mooted by the environmentalists and the conservation movement, could offset such losses. Such alternatives would never offset the anticipated loss in foreign earnings by way of exports. A decline of some 309 jobs in the forestry and mining areas was predicted by that study. That report joins the many other studies that have been published in recent years, all of which provide the facts and answers to the questions which this Bill and the proposed inquiry are supposed to address. I just wonder where this inquiry system ends. A lot of things were said about this inquiry when this matter was being discussed in the other House. We were told that it was necessary to establish certain facts. The Government members who debated this Bill in the House of Representatives completely misrepresented the Tasmanian situation. I believe that if the Government had taken the time to analyse the facts that were already available, it would have seen that an inquiry was not necessary. The House of Representatives was told that the cutting of forests in Tasmania is 19 per cent in excess of the sustained yield. The fact of the matter is that Professor Jackson, who made these claims was totally incorrect because in his calculations he included, firstly, pine pulpwood; secondly, the understoring species; thirdly, the myrtle on private property; and fourthly, residues generated by sawmills. Another professor who works for the National Parks and Wildlife Service makes all sorts of errors too when it suits him. These errors are not always made unintentionally. But by these technical errors, Professor Jackson arrived at the incorrect conclusion that logging was 19 per cent above the sustained yield. This has been pointed out time and again to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who has not disproved those findings. I would like to say many other things about this matter. I would like to deal with many more aspects. However, I believe that it is not the Commonwealth's role to enter this matter. The Tasmanian State Government, the State Opposition and, as I said, all of the workers and the unions are against this legislation. I believe that the aim of the legislation is purely to give the Government breathing space while it has an election. After that, maybe the Government, which in some way I believe knows the real situation, will accede to the requests that have been made. If this legislation is passed, nothing will be able to happen until after a year plus some 42 days. The inquiry will not be instituted quickly. As I said a moment ago, I believe that what we need in Australia, not only in Tasmania, is multiple land use. Sensible controlled use of the land that is available to the people of this country is what must prevail. We cannot afford to lock up huge areas of Tasmania or of any State. We must combine sensible development with use that is sensible. I doubt, unfortunately, whether that will ever be seen while this Government is in power. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(9.43) —I hope that I can succeed in participating in this debate without using some of the extreme and exaggerated language that has marked the speeches of the three previous speakers-Senator Walters, Senator Newman and Senator Townley. We had accusations about the intentional sabotage of the Tasmanian economy. I think Senator Newman used the term `this brutal Government'. They tried to conjure up wonderful images. I think it is more than time that some sanity was brought into the issue of logging of Tasmanian forests, the woodchip industry and associated issues. What I want and what the Government wants is a balanced outcome, not the sort of attitude espoused by the Tasmanian State Government, which I do not accept as being balanced. This is a highly emotional issue. Both sides at times become hysterical in defence of their differing positions on this issue. Tasmanians, whether they support logging without any Federal involvement or whether they support logging only in a more balanced way, have become sick and tired of the squabbling and fighting over the issue. Forestry has been front page news in Tasmania for a long time. That is why everyone, including the Opposition in this place, ought to be pleased that this inquiry has been proposed. This will allow the issues about the Lemonthyme and the Southern Forests to be settled once and for all. The Opposition keeps saying that this is the tenth inquiry, that we have had nine inquiries since 1972. However, when one looks at the sorts of inquiries that have been cited by the Opposition, one sees that several were carried out by Senate committees which looked not at Tasmanian areas in particular but at the overall principles of the woodchipping industry and that sort of thing. That number also includes a double count in respect of an environmental impact statement and the outcome of that statement. That constitutes more than one inquiry in this case. After all, 1972 was 15 years ago. Of course, it is just not true that all of those nine inquiries have duplicated themselves. It is not as if all of them were held in recent years. Let us just look at some of the events that took place, say, 12 months ago, as an indication of the highly emotive and contentious nature of the whole forestry operation in Tasmania. This month a year ago there were violent clashes at Farmhouse Creek between forestry workers and protesting conservationists. It was alleged at that time that the police stood back and allowed the protesters to be assaulted. A couple of days later, Dr Bob Brown, an independent member of the Tasmanian House of Assembly, was shot at in an ugly scene in the same area. The next day, Mr Risby, of one of the forestry companies, revealed that he and his family had received death threats over the Farmhouse Creek furore. In the summer just past the scuffles, the arrests, the protests and the counter-protests occurred all over again. Sometimes people in the rest of Australia fail to understand that in a State such as Tasmania with a small population, an emotional issue such as the forestry one can be extremely divisive because there is not the same haven of anonymity that can be enjoyed in the more populous States. There is a greater involvement of people in issues in Tasmania and I think in many ways that is a good thing. There is much more openness about people's positions. However, the unfortunate consequences of that can sometimes divide families and friends and split the Tasmanian community, in a way different from but similar to the way that the Franklin Dam issue divided the State. Everyone is obviously familiar with the main players in this struggle-the conservationists, the so-called greenies, the word that is thrown about as a term of abuse by the Opposition, and the so-called pro-loggers, including some, but not all, of the forestry workers. In answer to what was said by Senator Townley, not all of the forestry workers take the attitude that is taken by the Opposition. I think we need to think twice about the use of some of the simplistic shorthand terms that are used in this debate. Because I support the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill I am pointed at as being anti-logger, as if I oppose the forestry industry holus-bolus. Of course, that is not true. Of course the forestry industry in Tasmania deserves support. But we want a balanced outcome from it. Where the Federal Government has powers, we want Federal Government involvement. I resent the sort of accusation that is made in that sort of labelling. At the same time I acknowledge that amongst the so-called pro-loggers there are people who do not take the attitude of wanting to chop everything down that is growing. Of course there are some who do, but there are some who think that they are taking a balanced view. We happen to differ about where that balance should lie. There are a lot of accusations made by the Opposition here and by the Tasmanian Government about conservationist protesters all being unemployed mainlanders who go to Tasmania to make trouble. That is nonsense, and it should not be necessary to make that sort of accusation if the people making it feel that they have right on their side in their argument. That sort of attitude, the throwing about of that broad accusation and labelling grows out of particularly Mr Gray's inability to accept that some Tasmanians hold views different from his. It is not necessarily the majority of Tasmanians who believe that, but I am afraid that there are some people who cannot accept that anyone else can legitimately hold a different view. I am afraid we have become very familiar and very weary of the tactic that if someone thinks differently from Mr Gray they are anti-Tasmanian. I think the Opposition has done itself a great disservice by taking up with Mr Gray on that one. There are two bodies of opinion, as I have said, and they are not necessarily in two clearly defined camps. There are people with a range of views within each. The conservationists say that the Lemonthyme and the Southern Forests should not be logged, or that at least parts of them should not be logged, and that suitable alternatives are available. I think this is the key point that it comes down to. There are suggestions made as to where those suitable alternatives are. There is no need for me to go through them all. The point is that those proposals for alternative areas that would not involve as much needless damage should be properly and thoroughly investigated, and that is the purpose of this inquiry that this Bill, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987, proposes; that is what the inquiry will reveal. On the other hand we have the industry, with the support and encouragement of the State Government, which says that the contentious areas are essential for the survival of the industry and the maintenance of jobs. That is an extreme position that cannot be sustained. This legislation provides for an independent inquiry which will give us the space to allow these two claims, these two competing ideas, to be properly and objectively investigated. In the meantime it will protect the areas under contention from damage while the inquiry is happening over that 12-month period. I think Tasmanians, regardless of their positions, are tired of the conflict and would like it to be resolved. It is plain that Mr Gray does not want to do anything to bring about that necessary resolution. He has his fixed position and he does not want to co-operate. He is provocative in the extreme and he refuses to admit that others can validly hold a different opinion. He continued to be provocative with the Federal Government and childishly refused for some months to sign the memorandum of understanding. It was finally signed in June last year. Then more recently, with emotions running high over Christmas, he allowed logging operations to commence in the Lemonthyme despite the Federal Government's request for a 12-month cessation, a request which was legitimately made under the memorandum of understanding. Even when this legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) said that the Commonwealth was still prepared to negotiate if the Tasmanian Government would come to the negotiations with an openness and a willingness to settle the dispute. The only reason an inquiry by legislation is necessary is because of the lack of co-operation of the Tasmanian Liberal Government. I hope this legislation will provide the mechanism for a lasting resolution of this on-going and somewhat tiresome conflict. I was pleased to see reported in last Friday's Hobart Mercury a more reasonable and restrained comment from the State Minister, Mr Ray Groom. Most of the article was about a management plan for the Douglas-Apsley Forest but there are a couple of paragraphs within it that I would like to read. The article stated that Mr Groom said: . . . the legislation, as it stood- this is, the legislation we are debating tonight- would only affect logging in 80 hectares during the next 12 months-30 hectares south of Farmhouse Creek and 50 hectares in the Lemonthyme. Mr Groom said that the State Government would continue to allow logging in the 80 hectares until it was given legal advice to stop. I do not know if there has been a change of heart on the part of the Tasmanian Government overall or whether it was just Mr Groom being more reasonable compared to the Premier, Mr Gray, but I would have thought that that sort of statement about the 30 and 50 hectares was a reasonably restrained comment, and that it just cannot be matched with the sort of extreme language that has been used by the Opposition tonight. Words like `33 per cent of the area of the whole of Tasmania' have been bandied about whereas Mr Groom is accurately talking about 30 hectares and 50 hectares. He went on to say that the State Government would continue to allow logging in those 80 hectares until it was given legal advice to stop, the implication being that when that legal advice arrived logging would stop in those areas. I would therefore hope that, as a result of that, the alternative possibilities will be used over the next 12 months to allow people to continue in their employment. I suppose the whole thing does boil down to a States' rights argument-the sort of nonsense that is served up by the Opposition. I do not know why some members of the Opposition bother to come here and participate in the Federal Parliament if they do not think that there ought to be any involvement by a Federal Parliament in issues that concern the whole nation. Senator Sanders —They want the Federal money but they do not want any of the responsibility. Senator COATES —Yes, there is that aspect too about Federal grants. Senator Newman ignored my interjection while she was making a point such as that, and I asked her what her attitude was as a Tasmanian to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, the Uluru National Park or Kakadu. Senator Watson —Why don't you put Daintree in this? Because you have a Federal members up there. Senator COATES —Or the Daintree. They are all areas in which all of us, as Australians whether we live in the State concerned or in another State, should have a legitimate interest. I do not see any reason why people outside Tasmania should not have as much interest in the sorts of things that we have in Tasmania that are worth protecting, just as I and other Tasmanians have in the other great natural areas of Australia of which we are proud. Senator Walters talked about how 12.6 per cent of Tasmania is already locked up in national parks, that we are asking for so many per cent here and that eventually 33 per cent will be locked up, and is that not terrible! My response to that is that I am proud to be a representative of Tasmania which has so much that is worth protecting. I am sorry that there is only 3.6 per cent of New South Wales and 3.3 per cent of Victoria that ought to be in a national park. It is a nonsense argument anyway and I suppose I should not be giving it legitimacy by answering it. When one is talking about absolute areas the percentages become meaningless and in any case we ought to be looking at it as Australians looking at the sorts of things we ought to be caring for on behalf of all Australians. The Opposition has said on a number of occasions that this is an outrageous infringement of States rights but, as I am suggesting, it is a tired, old argument. It becomes clearer every time the Opposition uses it that it would be most happy if all Australians were rigidly and parochially divided into their States, owing all allegiance and loyalty to their State alone. I suppose it is almost forgivable in some ways that the Tasmanian Liberals do this more than people in other States. Tasmania is an island and therefore the boundaries are more clearly defined. The Liberals play on our relative isolation with this argument and exploit it for their own political purposes. We have heard it all before. We have heard the accusation that this Federal Government hates Tasmania and such nonsense but it is just Canberra-bashing for their own purposes. Senator Townley said that a local person knows more about the issues than do people in Canberra but all honourable senators come from our local areas and we are just as close to the issues in our States as are State members. Fortunately, the Federal Government does not share this opinion with the Opposition. We believe that all Australians are equal regardless of where we live and that we all have a right to expect the Federal Government to protect our interests. Activities in all National Estate areas are rightly the concern of all of us and it is for this reason that the inquiry into forestry operations in the National Estate areas adjacent to the world heritage area in Tasmania is being set up. Of course we had the argument about States rights and so on at the time of the Gordon below Franklin Dam debate but honourable senators will notice that the Opposition is very quiet about that now. We then had threats of investment strikes-that if that dam did not go ahead Tasmania would lose investment. Everybody now acknowledges that the fact that that dam did not go ahead has been a benefit to Tasmania and the State Government ought to be very pleased that that was the outcome of this Government's action and the High Court's approval of its power to make that decision. The whole question of the Federal Government's powers is something on which there is obviously a basic division between the Government and the Opposition. The Commonwealth should exercise its powers to the limits whereas the Opposition takes the position that the Commonwealth should always seek to avoid exercising those powers. It is not taking the same position as it used to. We all remember that the Fraser Government, to its credit, acted to prevent the export of mineral sands from Fraser Island and that is a matter on which the Opposition has now changed its policy. It has said that it will not in any circumstances use the Commonwealth's constitutional export powers to make a decision on environmental grounds. It is disgraceful that it has changed its position. I would have had much more respect for it if it had maintained the position it previously held. Instead, it is wiping its hands entirely of a clear responsibility and a clear constitutional statement under export powers. In this case we are talking about external affairs powers and the World Heritage Convention. Of course the Opposition will not use that Convention at all. I presume that it would tear up our being a signatory to that Convention. The Commonwealth's power in this area has been upheld in the High Court. If the Opposition has any doubt about this Bill once it is passed of course it can be challenged in the court and the Opposition can see whether its assertions about the Bill's supposed unconstitutionality are upheld. This Government goes along with the legal and constitutional correctness of the situation. If the High Court ruled against this Bill this Government would accept it. If the Opposition is so certain of its position on this whole issue, why is it opposing the Bill and the inquiry? If it thinks that they have no constitutional basis it would let the Bill go through, take the matter to the High Court and get it overruled. If it is so firm in its view that it is absolutely essential to log in the areas about which we are talking, if it is so certain that its view is correct, why is it so unwilling to allow an independent inquiry which is merely intended to give us that answer? The employment aspects are very important. The Opposition, again in extravagant language, stated that the Labor Government does not give a damn about people employed in this industry. Of course that is nonsense; it is an assertion that cannot be sustained. Unfortunately, we have the spreading of fear, and distortion and gossip amongst those involved. Of course a group of people are directly employed in the industry and they have responsibilities for their families and children and, obviously, like everyone else they need their jobs. We have a State government in Tasmania which provocatively allows in contentious areas forestry operations that the Commonwealth has asked it to defer. It does this not for the purposes of maintaining work but to keep forestry on the front pages for its own political purposes. Of course this Government is concerned about jobs and maintaining the industry. Apart from anything else that is one reason why there are compensation provisions in this Bill. They are there in the event that anybody is affected. There is no need for anybody to be affected because there are alternatives for a 12-month period. Even the Forest Industries Association of Tax Ltd has said that it is feasible that forest industry resource requirements could be met from outside the National Estate for the next 20 years. The inquiry will establish what areas are or are not suitable for forestry operations and so end the interminable debate. The cessation of debate will give to those people employed directly and indirectly in the industry security in their employment. It is the State Government, pushing workers into areas which cause debate, that does not care about forestry workers in Tasmania; it just uses them as pawns. I would like to spend time going into the whole issues of forestry management and the pros and cons about these matters, but perhaps I should not because the inquiry should settle this issue. It should settle whether there are prudent and feasible alternatives, where they are, and if there are no alternatives whether there are any protected areas which are less of a problem than other areas. Even while the inquiry is going on the Minister can give consent to certain operations in these areas where it is justified. Senator Townley made some wild assertion that it would be impossible to get ministerial consent. He had no grounds whatsoever for making that assertion. The Forestry Commission has improved in recent years. I think that everyone acknowledges that its operation of the whole matter has improved. But there are still disputes, so that is why we should have the inquiry. We have a responsibility not only to protect the world heritage area which borders on the areas of forest that the inquiry will investigate but also to protect and uphold National Estate areas generally. They are not meaningless areas; they are listed for a variety of reasons-environmental, cultural and historical-and not all of them have forests as their National Estate value. But the point is that under Federal legislation which has been in existence for 14 or 15 years now Federal Ministers have a responsibility to take notice of those listings and make judgments about feasible and prudent alternatives. I would have thought that Federal Ministers could be justly attacked if they reneged on that sort of responsibility. The areas to be protected represent only a small percentage of the forests in Tasmania, not the sort of wild figures that were booted around by Senator Walters. Senator Townley talked about how his position was balanced; that we ought to exploit these things and that this is the wrong time-the economic situation is not right-to protect things. For heaven's sake, surely there are some areas which we ought to leave for future generations to allow them to make some of the decisions about their future. I appeal to people to take a much more reasonable and balanced attitude to this Bill, to the whole question of forestry in Tasmania and to environmental protection as a whole. It is not in the interests of those who will follow us for us to go ahead with total exploitation at this time. We have a responsibility to current and future Australians to protect those areas of value. It may turn out that the inquiry says that these areas are not of much value, or that they are of value but there really is not any alternative. If that is so, let us see that as a result of an independent inquiry. I repeat what I said a few moments ago. If the Opposition is so certain of its position, let it allow the inquiry to proceed and let us see what the result is. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.13) —The Senate is debating the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987, whose objectives are chiefly to establish a commission of inquiry which will examine and report on whether two areas of our State, namely the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests, form part of a cultural or natural heritage and whether there are forestry resources within Tasmania whose exploitation would cause no detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry and would be an environmentally and economically prudent and feasible alternative to the exploitation of any forestry in those two areas. I can tell honourable senators already, without conducting an inquiry, that the answer to the second part is yes. Senator Sanders and Senator Coates could give that answer without going to the expense of this very costly inquiry because the answer is pretty obvious. It is obvious to Forestry Commission men in Tasmania, but that is not the point. This is a very cynical exercise. Let us look to the history of this place. We are fond of tracing history within these dignified walls but this is pretty recent history. On 5 November 1986 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) ordered-how is this?-the Tasmanian Premier to halt logging operations in the Quamby Bluff and Jackeys Marsh area. What a cheek; what impudence! The Prime Minister ordered a State Premier. Does he not realise that he does not yet have his central government and that we are still under a Federal system, with States having certain rights and the Federal Government having responsibilities in certain areas? This decision of the Prime Minister was made, of all things, without reference to his Minister specialising in the area. It was made without reference to his Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin. It put poor old Mr Kerin in an embarrassing position. The Prime Minister was going it alone without advice from Mr Kerin. Not only that, but the Prime Minister did not even consult the Department of Primary Industry. He left Kerin out and also did not bother to consult the Department. He went it alone. The Prime Minister did not even realise at the time that this was contrary to a memorandum of understanding between the State and the Commonwealth which was signed as recently as 12 June last year. Here is another case of the Prime Minister being out in front, going it alone, doing his own thing, without reference to the Department or his Minister. He acted pretty quickly because on 15 December 1986 the Federal Government announced a forced inquiry-how is that?-into what he termed the prudent and feasible alternatives. I have referred to these prudent and feasible alternatives. We know that there are alternatives. Tasmania is a big State. Forty per cent of it is covered by forest. There must be alternatives where there will not be any environmental damage. We are to have this forced inquiry into the prudent and feasible alternatives to logging National Estates. The Prime Minister said that a ban on logging would apply during this inquiry. That is pretty stiff, is it not? It is a bit like going back to Mr Hawke's arbitration days when he said `You boys had better get back to work' or `Stay on strike until the hearing is being held'. The strange part is that this ban was not aimed at the export chip industry. We all know that that industry does not have a lot of added on value. It does not employ as many Tasmanians as would the pulp industry. But this ban was not aimed at the export chip industry with the Federal Government trying to protect our forests; it was aimed at domestic logging operations. Domestic logging operations have been carried on in our State for years and years. Senator Sanders —They have to carry it on for woodchip. Senator WATSON —It did not concern the woodchipping industry, as Senator Sanders would realise, because the Federal Government already has powers in that area. It seemed to be a bit quiet on that for some reason but it decided to attack the poor little guys, the little sawmillers, the truck owners and so on-the domestic industry. The Government did not even wink in relation to its export powers, where it has plenty of controls. As my colleagues have said, there have been nine inquiries into this logging operation since 1972. The Hawke Labor Government has really not attempted to justify this Bill to set up an inquiry and ban logging on the basis of any new information. This is usually the secret word: `Oh, we must have an inquiry. We have new information'. The Government is even bereft of new ideas. It is just forcing this inquiry on to the Tasmanian people and throwing them out of work on that basis. I think it is wrong to say that members of the public have been denied the right to comment on the logging operations, as somebody has suggested. Public submissions were sought by advertisement. Conservationists received a special grant-they got special consideration-from the Federal Government to research the alternatives into logging in these areas. This grant led to the production of a document entitled `A Forest Industries Strategy for Tasmania'. It outlined the proposals-- Senator Sanders —If the Forestry Commission would follow that Tasmania would not be in trouble. Senator WATSON —The Federal Department of Primary Industry, under Mr Kerin, viewed the alternatives as economically and scientifically unsound. What does Senator Sanders think of that? Mr Kerin, the Federal Minister, reckoned that the alternatives proposed in this document-a document which was financed by the Government and produced by this group-were scientifically unsound. This is a Federal Department that rejected this report. We might ask: What has really changed since then? The only thing that has changed is that the Federal Government now desires to appease the trendy and manifestly ill-informed armchair environmentalists who live in marginal seats of Melbourne and Sydney. They are the people the Government is trying to appease; they are the people it is trying to get those marginal votes from at this coming critical election. Let us look at some of the criticisms that have been put forward by the conservationists. One of the principal arguments is that logging, especially in the Lemonthyme, will scar these national estates. That is a pretty serious criticism, is it not-so we had better have a look at it. First of all, we must note that more than 26 per cent of Tasmania-more than any other State, of course-is devoted to national parks. Then we have this buffer zone of approximately seven kilometres between logging activities and the National Estate-seven kilometres of dense forests deliberately and voluntarily left to preserve the aesthetic integrity-that is a good term-of the national parks. Senator Sanders —You have never been to the Lemonthyme, have you? Senator WATSON —I have been there. I have walked the track. I have been down there probably more times than Senator Sanders has-maybe not in recent years, but in my younger scouting days I did, and I know the area very well. In fact, 60 per cent of the forests in the Lemonthyme are not to be logged at all, for aesthetic reasons. Sixty per cent of this whole region is not to be logged at all. In other words, we are only going to log 40 per cent, and it will be done with a great deal of environmental care. Further, there has been a road through the Lemonthyme, right at its base, for over 50 years, leading, I think, to an old wolfram mine, honourable senators may recall. Also it provides access to a number of private properties. These private properties themselves have been logged in the past. So this so-called wilderness area is not as untouched as some of this slick propaganda of the Wilderness Society would have us believe. In fact, I think honourable senators would find that there are only two spots where, from a great distance on that track, one could perceive any evidence of logging whatsoever-and, as I said, that is at a great distance. So the truth of this matter is that the logging companies have been required to work with the Forestry Commission. I must say that this Forestry Commission had been regarded as being at the very forefront of sensitive management, and I pay a tribute to one of our Commissioners who is here today listening to this debate. They have an expertise in and a concern about the environmental aspects and the long term management of this important resource. It does not make economic sense, even for loggers, to remove all the wood without taking into account the suitability of the resource, the aesthetic considerations, the regeneration, the water table and the protection of the environment. All these factors are taken into account. The populist conservation movement over the last 15 or so years had conveniently forgotten that the first conservationists were those who depended on that resource for their livelihood. These were the early sawmillers and loggers who had a far more tangible reason to support-- Senator Sanders —What happened to them? They were put out of business by the woodchippers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! Senator Sanders, you will have a chance to make a speech later. Senator WATSON —These early sawmillers and loggers had a more tangible reason for protecting the environment than winning a few votes in suburban Sydney or Melbourne. They understood these forests and knew that prudent management was essential for their future. I submit that we are now conducting our appraisals on a much more scientific basis than ever before. In fact, Mr Cohen and Mr Kerin have been locked out of discussions on this Bill due to the particular attitude and intransigence of our Prime Minister. Mr Hawke has the completely erroneous view that the logging companies are out to devastate the land. Anyone with any appraisal of the economic and aesthetic implications of the logging operations knows that this is a completely false attitude. It is simply not true that loggers do not have interests in the environment. For example, lest the Senate believes that my views are somewhat jaundiced, as one might gather from one or two of the interjections that have been made, let me quote from at least one other source. In June 1986 a detailed economic assessment of the implications of a bigger Western Tasmania National Park was prepared by Peter Bennett and Associates, an independent consultancy. This report concluded that the proposal had grave economic and social consequences for the Tasmanian economy which would lead to job losses, declines in export earnings and would scar Tasmania's service sector. The report stated, in fact-and this is important-that over a 20-year period, almost 12,000 direct and indirect jobs would either be lost or replaced in the mining, forestry and hydro-electric areas if such an extended park were a reality. Export earnings would plummet by $309m and no credible alternatives have been mooted by the conservationist movement, because none exist which would supplement such a staggering blow to the Tasmanian economy. I submit that, although this attack is initially being directed at the forest industries, the implications so far as Tasmania is concerned will be very much wider. The real implications will be for the mining industry, because the areas of high mineralisation are basically in this area. The national listing of 29 per cent, together with the interim listing of another 5 per cent, effectively locks up something like 34 per cent of the State. So these areas of high mineralisation are basically contained in this so-called locked up area. I believe this will prejudice the future of the mining industry in Tasmania, an industry that contributes so much to our export earnings and an industry whose workers in the past have so loyally supported the Australian Labor Party. This Bob Hawke of today is not supporting the troops who formerly supported him. In fact, one of the older members of the west coast community recently said to me when I was down there: `In the olden days, a lot of the leaders in the Labor Party did not have a lot of education, but they had a lot of intelligence. Nowadays, most of them have a lot of education but not much intelligence'. I think if they had more intelligence they would not be going ahead with the sorts of things we have before us today, whereby they will be throwing out a lot of their own constituents, people who have been loyal to them for generations. But let us look at another source. The Forestry and Forest Product Industry Council is one of 11 specific industry councils which advise Senator Button. It is the Federal Government's own advisory body. It has said that Australia's forest-based industries are capable of increasing their market share against imports provided the timber resources can be made available. So here we are, in difficult economic circumstances, trying to lock up areas, trying to reduce our export earnings in several ways. I seek leave, Mr President, to continue my remarks. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Defence Act-Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1987 No. 2 and reasons, dated 13 March 1987.