Thursday, 26 March 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and 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 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 391 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the under-signed citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that in the International Year of Peace, young Australians face an uncertain future due to: 1. a continuing arms race between the super-powers which threatens to extend into outer space 2. military expenditure continuing at ridiculously high levels 3. continuing testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to make our future more certain, by: 1. encouraging peaceful dialogue through diplomatic channels as the means of solving issues. 2. persuading all developed countries to spend less on armaments, and more on basic needs like food, health, shelter and education for all people of the world. 3. promoting the extension of agreements to reduce testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Elstob (from nine citizens). To The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 Oct 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 Oct 86 to 1 July 87 so that pensions are restored to the 9 Oct 86 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 76 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Tele- vision Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986 be restored to the Notice Paper and that it be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the actions of the Federal Government in relation to the release of information relating to the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure of the various Government departments; (b) notes that the next round of Estimates Committee meetings are now set down to commence less than one week from 26 March 1987 and no information has been circulated to date; (c) views this action as demonstrating a considerable lack of consideration on behalf of the Government of its employees and is yet another example of the contempt with which the Hawke Government holds the people of Australia; (d) believes that the Government, by its actions is placing undue pressure and unnecessary expense on the Public Service who, as always, treat Estimates Committee hearings as a very important part of their operations even if the current Government do not; and (e) resolves that the meetings of Estimates Committees set down to commence on Tuesday, 31 March 1987 be postponed for 12 sitting days. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Student Assistance Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 381 and made under the Student Assistance Act 1973, be disallowed. That the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) of 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 90 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. That the Fisheries Levy (Northern Prawn Fishery) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 397 and made under the Fisheries Levy Act 1984, be disallowed. That the Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan, as contained in Plan of Management No. 12 of 19 January 1987 and made under the Fisheries Act 1952, be disallowed. That the Lands Ordinance 1987 as contained in the Territory of Christmas Island Ordinance No. 1 of 1987 and made under the Christmas Island Act 1958, be disallowed. That amendments of the Schedule of the Scheme under Section 4 of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965 in relation to the States of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, as contained in the Amendment dated 15 December 1986 and made under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965, be disallowed. That the New South Wales Acts Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 91 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. I seek leave to have the list of the instruments, with a short description of the concerns of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Student Assistance Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 381 and made under the Student Assistance Act 1973. (Made 18.12.86, tabled 17.2.87, last day to give notice 26.3.87) Parts of these Regulations are retrospective in operation and the Committee is seeking from the Minister for Education clarification that no one is prejudiced. The Committee also seeks clarification of students rights to assistance in connection with the Higher School Certificate course in the Australian Capital Territory where that course is not extensively pursued while the A.C.T. Year 12 Certificate course, is not referred to in the Regulations, is pursued. Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) of 1986 as contained in A.C.T. Ordinance No. 90 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. (Made 18.12.86, tabled 17.2.87, last day to give notice 26.3.87) This amendment repealed a sunset clause in the Ordinance. The clause had been inserted at the request of the Committee to facilitate a thorough review of the Principal Ordinance which, in the absence of unqualified insurance cover, confers on the A.C.T. Red Cross Society a statutory defence when sued by a person with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. The legislation is problematic in its application to veterans. The Committee was not apprised of the outcome of the review or informed of the decision to repeal the sunset clause. The Committee is seeking this information and clarification from the Minister for Territories. Fisheries Levy (Northern Prawn Fishery) Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 397 and made under the Fisheries Levy Act 1984. (Made 18.12.86, tabled 17.2.87, last day to give notice 26.3.87) These Regulations were designed to correct, retrospectively, an error in drafting. As a result of the error the Regulations did not reflect the intention of the Government's levy collection policy but the policy itself was in fact executed, contrary to the terms of the Regulations. A particular levy of $5 per fishing unit was intended, $10 was in fact prescribed by the Regulations for certain fishing units and $5 was collected. The Committee is seeking the Minister's clarification of the effects of the retrospectivity. Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan as contained in Plan of Management No. 12 of 19 January 1987 and made under the Fisheries Act 1952. (Made 19.1.87, tabled 17.2.87, last day to give notice 26.3.87) The Committee has raised with the Minister a number of points including some confusing drafting errors, the existence of adequate review rights and the legal validity of a part of the Plan. Lands Ordinance 1987 as contained in the Territory of Christmas Island Ordinance No. 1 of 1987 and made under the Christmas Island Act 1958. (Made 30.1.87, tabled 17.2.87, last day to give notice 26.3.87). This Ordinance reforms provisions for the control of leasehold land on Christmas Island. The Ordinance overrides existing laws and leases and the Committee is seeking clarification as to whether this could result in prejudice to individuals. Also certain ministerial Guidelines are not subject to parliamentary oversight, certain important discretions are not subject to avenues of review and there are a number of confusing drafting errors. The Committee is seeking the Minister's views on all of these matters. Amendments of the Schedule of the Scheme under Section 4 of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965 in relation to the States of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania as contained in the Amendment dated 15 December 1986 and made under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965. (Made 15.12.86, tabled 17.2.87, last day to give notice 26.3.87). This instrument is one of a wide and voluminous range of delegated legislative instruments which are sometimes retrospective in operation and affect monetary entitlements. They are subject to scrutiny by the Committee, and tabling and disallowance in Parliament but they are not sequentially numbered for ease of citation nor annotated nor accompanied by any form of even brief explanatory document, notwithstanding that their meaning and impact are rarely apparent on their face. Printing, circulation and public access to such instruments can also be problematic. The Committee has written to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce drawing these significant presentational defects to his attention and requesting his views on them. New South Wales Acts Ordinance 1986 as contained in A.C.T. Ordinance No. 91 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. (Made 18.12.86, tabled 17.2.87, last day to give notice 26.3.87). The Committee has written to the Attorney-General about the re-enactment of certain old New South Wales Acts which are in force in the A.C.T. but which, because the re-enactment is not also a reform, contain provisions which could be at variance with the Committee's Principles. The provisions relate to strict liability offences, arrest without warrant and reversals of the onus of proof. The notice will give the Attorney-General and the Committee a longer period to consider the issues. Senator COONEY —Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Committee has written to various Ministers about a number of pieces of delegated legislation which it has been considering. To enable all of the Ministers to reply and to allow the Committee proper opportunity to examine the replies, I have given these protective notices of motion on this the last day on which I could do so. 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. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park-Central section zoning plan-pursuant to section 33 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. 2. Subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning squid jigging by fishing vessels of the republic of Korea-pursuant to sub-section 9b (4) of the Fisheries Act 1952. 3. Australian Capital Territory Radiation Council-Report covering the period May 1984 to June 1986-pursuant to section 74 of the Australian Capital Territory Radiation Ordinance 1983. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Ryan is in Sydney today on official duties. Any questions asked in this chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Ryan, in relation to her portfolio or those she represents, should be directed to Senator Tate. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) The Senate at its rising on Thursday, 26 March 1987, adjourn till Monday, 30 March 1987 at 2 p.m. (2) The days and hours of meeting of the Senate for the week 30 March-2 April 1987, be as follows: (a) Monday, 30 March 1987- 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (b) Tuesday, 31 March 1987- 2 p.m.-3.15 p.m.; (c) Wednesday, 1 April 1987- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7.30 p.m.; and (d) Thursday, 2 April 1987- 10 a.m.-11.15 a.m. (3) On Monday, 30 March 1987 and Wednesday, 1 April 1987, the Sessional Order relating to the Routine of Business for Week 2 apply. (4) The Order of Business for Tuesday, 31 March 1987 and Thursday, 2 April 1987 be as follows: (a) Petitions; (b) Notices of Motion; (c) Questions; (d) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business; (e) Ministerial Statements, by leave; (f) Presentation of Papers; and (g) Adjournment. (5) The hours of meeting of the Senate from 28 April 1987, and for the remainder of the Autumn Sittings be varied as follows: (a) during the first sitting week- Tuesday, 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 7.30 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Friday, 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 3.45 p.m.; and (b) during the second sitting week- Monday, 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Tuesday, 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 7.30 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Tate) read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(10.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- On December 10 last year, the Federal Opposition and the Australian Democrats forged a brief unholy alliance based on quite contradictory principles and rejected the Australia Card Bill 1986. One part of this unholy alliance wanted simply a different identification system to the Australia Card, the other part no identification system whatever. The Bill was defeated in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Australia Card program is the single most effective weapon available to government to combat tax evasion and welfare fraud. But more than being a deliberate move by both the Opposition and the Democrats to thwart the Government's democratically-earned right to govern fairly and effectively, the rejection of the Australia Card Bill was a defeat for all honest Australians. Over the past two years in which a very lively and open public debate has ensued-and with much of the contribution from the Australia Card's critics being irrational and misleading-support for the program within the Australian community has remained strong. This is because honest Australians have become increasingly aware that the Australia Card program will protect their rights against those who are currently involved in tax cheating and welfare fraud. Honest Australians realise that the Australia Card will ensure that they no longer have to subsidise the cheats within our society. By again rejecting what in the Australia Card would be a highly secure but very basic identification system, the Opposition will be demonstrating once again that it has no commitment to ensuring fairness in our taxation system, and that it has no answers to the problems of fraud in our welfare system. This Government believes that the people of this country have a fundamental right to expect that their elected representatives protect them from those who are operating dishonestly within the tax and welfare systems. They have a right to expect that the government ensures as best as it can that everyone contributes their fair share of tax. They have a right to expect that welfare benefits are only paid to those who are truly entitled to those benefits. They have a right to expect that immigrants to this country and who are operating within our system are here legally. Finally, and very importantly, they have a right to expect that, in going about achieving these fundamental goals, governments do everything within their power to safeguard the rights to privacy and civil liberties of the individual. It is because the government is convinced-as is the majority of the population-that the Australia Card program will significantly achieve and enhance all of these rights that I am today reintroducing the Australia Card Bill 1986. I do not intend to dwell on the details of the Bill today, as this was done on its first introduction in the Senate on November 17, 1986. The Opposition's response throughout the debate which followed could most kindly be described as trivial and shallow, perhaps best typified by one of its members, who offered a $100 reward to the first person to forge an Australia Card. This Opposition's overriding aim throughout that debate was to generate a fear and loathing campaign against the Australia Card through a mixture of misrep-resentation, exaggeration, distortion, and scaremongering in an attempt to undermine public support for the program. That this contemptible campaign failed, and that the Opposition underestimated the intelligence and common sense of the Australian people, has been demonstrated by the minimal impact that their campaign has had. For even a cursory examination of Opposition arguments against the Australia Card exposes their shallowness, and it is now the Opposition which must explain to the public why its political opportunism has come before the rights and needs of the honest people of Australia, why in its quest for power it is prepared to allow tax evasion and welfare fraud to go unabated. The truth is that this Opposition has no policies on how to effectively combat these two major problems confronting Australian society today. Yet by blocking the Australia Card, which-until political opportunism became the catchcry-even front bench Opposition members had agreed would be effective against tax and welfare cheating, the Opposition is writing off a conservative $880 million a year in lost revenue. Indeed, for every day which the Australia Card is delayed, an additional $2.5 million will be lost to tax evaders and welfare defrauders-money which could have been spent on honest taxpayers and needy welfare recipients. That the Australia Card would produce savings of this magnitude cannot be seriously challenged. The most conservative estimate put forward by the Australian Taxation Office of revenue gains in the tax area alone under the Australia Card program is $724 million a year once the program is fully operational. Even Opposition members of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card considered that the estimates of savings were extremely low and could be more than double that amount. In the area of social security fraud, the Government has not stated that there will be no savings, but rather that it is difficult to quantify the extent of welfare fraud, and therefore the level of savings. However a number of specific large false identity cases provide a pointer to the extent of the problem. As the Joint Select Committee stated: ``While the Committee accepts the (Social Security) Department's difficulty in establishing the amount of social security fraud due to false identities, it believes that there is still significant fraud within this area.'' I realise that senators opposite are likely to jump up and down and emit shrill cries about how the Department stated that less than one per cent of identified welfare overpayments were due to false identity while 61 per cent were caused by understatement of income. The Opposition will then attempt to draw the conclusion that the Australia Card would have no impact in this area. But they are wrong, as I shall demonstrate. They have either not read the Australia Card Bill, have not understood it, or choose to ignore the facts about how the program will work. For the benefit of senators opposite, I will attempt to explain it as simply as possible. The Australia Card program will provide the Australian Taxation Office with a highly secure means of linking all sources of income-whether from employment, investment, or welfare payments-to the one identity. Such linkage has been the aim of past governments but is extremely difficult because of the lack of a unique identifier. The Australia Card number provides this unique identifier. Such a system of linkage through the use of a unique identification numbering system was recommended by all members of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, although the Committee split on whether the existing tax file number identification system should be extended and upgraded, or whether a new identification system using Australia Card numbers should be introduced. Thus all agreed on the need for an identification system for tax and welfare purposes, although there was disagreement on how best this could be achieved. The Government's reasons for opting for the Australia Card program were outlined in Dr Blewett's speech in reply to the Joint Select Committee in the House of Representatives on June 6, 1986 and in Senator Walsh's second reading speech of November 17, 1986. Likewise, the Opposition has been fond of quoting the all-party report, ``A Taxing Problem'', by the Standing Committee on Expenditure, as some sort of criticism of this Government. In fact that Committee, chaired by the honourable member for Sturt, recommended that: ``With or without the adoption of the Australia Card the Australian Taxation Office take the necessary steps to establish a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance.'' The reason for these conclusions, and for the Government's decision to move in this direction through implementation of the Australia Card program, is simple. Because the use of a single, highly secure number for each person for identification purposes will facilitate Tax Office attempts to draw together all sources of an individual's income, it will help ensure that the fair and correct amount of taxation is paid. As this linkage will uncover those situations where understatement of income has resulted in inappropriate payment or overpayment of Social Security benefits, then the Australia Card will be extremely effective in enabling the Department of Social Security to rectify this problem. Additionally, because the Australia Card will be highly secure and virtually forgery-proof, false identities currently within the system and used for tax evasion and welfare fraud purposes will be weeded out, while it will be far more difficult in future to create new false identities. Perhaps the most common fallacy perpetuated by the Opposition is that the Australia Card is a major infringement of individual privacy and civil rights because it is in some way something more extensive and sinister than a basic identification system. The Opposition has even gone so far as to claim that introduction of the Australia Card program is tantamount to introduction of a dossier surveillance system. Leaving aside this Opposition's sudden and questionable conversion to civil libertarianism, this totally ignores the limited and specific compass of the Australia Card program. In fact, the Australia Card will do nothing more than provide a highly reliable and secure means of identification in situations where people are already required to provide proof of identity. The Australia Card will be used in relation to: employment; investment, for example interest payments from financial institutions, and income from share and property transactions; and payment of welfare benefits. For convenience, it will also replace the Medicare card. In all of these cases a person is already required to provide personal identification information-more information than will appear on the Australia Card, and in general roughly equivalent to what will appear on the Australia Card register. In most of those cases, proof of that identity is already required; this requirement for proof of identity is increasing, and will increase further even without the Australia Card. In fact, the Australia Card would streamline this process. The only additional information which this legislation in itself makes it necessary to record and report to the Australian Taxation Office is the Australia Card number. Thus when an employer or a financial institution provides details to the tax office on an employee or client, as well as the personal information currently required, such as name, address, and levels of income, will be the Australia Card number. This could hardly be termed much of an imposition. As well, in nearly all instances a person's Australia Card will need to be produced and the number recorded only once-when first opening an account with a financial institution, stock broker, or produce agent, or on initially obtaining employment. The major exception to this is Medicare, where just as now the Medicare card is used whenever a claim is made, the Australia Card will take its place. Indeed, as most people do not change jobs frequently, and do not regularly open new financial accounts, the overwhelming majority of Australians will find that the most common use of the Australia Card will be for the claiming of Medicare benefits. As can be seen from this brief outline of how the Australia Card will work, it is clear that the Government proposal is for a very basic-albeit highly secure-identification system, and Opposition propaganda to the contrary is shallow and unconvincing. The Australia Card and the Associated Register will contain only basic identification material-information which is already held on records throughout both the public and private sectors. The Australia Card itself will have on it only the given names and surname of the person; an Australia Card number; the expiry date of the card; a photograph of the person, and a signature. No other identifying information will be contained on the card. Where the Opposition has been unable to paint the Australia Card itself as being in any way iniquitous, a great deal of nonsense has been uttered about the associated Australia Card register. Despite Opposition claims to the contrary, all that will be on the Australia Card register is simple identification information. The Australia Card register will contain nothing other than basic identifying data such as surname and given names, date of birth, sex, residential and postal addresses, changes of address, any other name by which the person is entitled to be known and wishes to use, and other limited basic identifying information as listed in Schedule 1 of the Bill. The register will also contain administrative details necessary to assist the authority in its management of the program, such as where and when cards were issued, details of any replacement cards, details of amendments made to information held on the register, where and when the changes were made, and by whom. There will most certainly be no central register of personal, non-identifying information such as medical history, credit history, marital status, religious beliefs, education, employment history, income, or voting intentions. For example, although Medicare would use the Australia Card number, the Tax Office and Social Security Department would not have access to Medicare records, just as they are denied access now. There will be no, I repeat, no dossier gathering. Let me remind the Senate that no private agency has access to the register. For example, while an employer or financial institution may ask to see and record the number of a person's Australia Card, they will have no access to the register. As is set out in Part V of the Bill, access to the register will be limited to the user agencies-the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security, and the Health Insurance Commission-with even that access limited to the verification of identity for the purposes of carrying out their specified functions. To give further personal re-assurance, every access and every attempted access by each department, agency and individual will be logged and recorded on the register. All individuals will have access to the information about them which is held on the register, including information as to who looked at their file and why. A person has that right of access to their own file at all times. A person can ask for information on the register to be amended, and if the request is refused can ask for a review by the Data Protection Agency-a special body created under the legislation to ensure that individual privacy is not abused. As was explained to the Senate last November, the Data Protection Agency will be an independent watchdog body which will review, establish, and maintain guidelines for the operation of the Australia Card program and provide individuals with a fast and efficient appeals mechanism in the event of complaints of a breach of those guidelines. The DPA will also be the complaint-handling authority for the privacy legislation. Those safeguards will be the most broad ranging and effective ever seen in this country. With this range of protection, I believe the Australia Card achieves the necessary balance between the protection of individual privacy and the protection of the community from exploitation by the dishonest. Another claim made by the Opposition during the debate last year was that the Australia Card will be used as an ``Internal Passport''. Since that time, one of its members has gone so far as to suggest that police will be able to confiscate motor vehicles if a driver cannot produce a card. Such flights of imagination have become the hallmark of the Opposition's contribution to this debate. The fact is that any person, be it a police officer or a Commonwealth public servant, who asks for a card for a person not specified in the Bill would be committing an offence and could be subject to a maximum penalty of $5000 and/or a prison term of two years. It would be quite an amazing internal passport which could put those asking for it in gaol for two years. A variation of the `internal passport' argument is the claim that people will be required to carry Australia Cards at all times. This totally ignores the fact that the Bill specifically provides that an Australia Card does not have to be carried at all times. Some Senators opposite will of course continue to parrot the claim that the purposes for which the Card is required are such that a person could be called upon at any time to produce it. Perhaps some supporters of the Liberal Party buy property every morning and open a new bank account or engage a new stock broker every afternoon! The Opposition may be surprised to know, that the vast majority of Australians undertake these types of financial transactions little more than a few times in a lifetime. Additionally, Opposition speakers have claimed that people will no longer be able to conduct business by telephone, that every time they want to sell a pig or buy some shares they will have to front up to a stockbroker, marketing authority, or produce agent with their Australia Card. If Senators read the Bill they will realise that the Government has made special provisions for people living in isolated areas, or those who suffer from impaired mobility. Just as occurs now when people apply for a passport, the Government will allow certain groups of people who are prominent within the community to sign ``certificates of identity'' which can then be supplied for identification purposes through the post. After the Certificate has been produced once to an agent, Marketing Authority, Financial Institution or the like and the number recorded, there will be no further need to produce the card for normal business with those bodies and customers may continue to transact all business in their preferred way, including by mail or telephone. Some speakers also tried to exaggerate the effect of the penalties in the Australia Card Bill. The penalties were set by the Attorney-General's Department, and are directly comparable to penalties in other Commonwealth Legislation, particularly the Trade Practices Act and Crimes Act. I wish to emphasise that unintentional clerical errors attract no penalty. Another misinterpretation of the Australia Card Program by the Opposition is that it will have the greatest impact upon average P.A.Y.E. income earners, leaving those persons operating in the `cash' or `black' economy untouched. This is not the case. In practice the card will be of great assistance in detecting large amounts of income earned in the cash economy which cannot to absorbed into daily expenses. Such funds find their way into the mainstream financial system through investments, real estate, shares, and so on. Once money is directed back into the financial system from the cash economy, account-holders can be identified by their Australia Card number, while undeclared income will be far more easily detected through tax audit trials established by the Australia Card Program. In fact P.A.Y.E. taxpayers will be among the main beneficiaries of the Australia Card Program, as generally they are the least likely and least able to avoid tax. The Australia Card would help restore their confidence in the tax and welfare systems by helping to ensure that others are shouldering their fair share of tax and that hard-earned tax dollars are not being wasted on welfare cheats. The only remaining Opposition debating point which is worth mentioning and which needs to be laid to rest is the suggestion that they have a realistic alternative to the Australia Card Program. This is blatant nonsense. In the previous debate, some time was spent explaining why the Government has opted for the Australia Card ahead of the tax file identification system which was supported by all Opposition members on the Joint Select Committee. While the Government's reasons were numerous and rational, they were perhaps best summed up by Tax Commissioner Trevor Boucher late last year when he stated: ``I expect that by the time you take all the steps that need to be taken to get high integrity into, say, a tax file number, then there's the same effects, the same costs, the same privacy questions that you'd get with the Australia Card.'' But amid its many somersaults, the Opposition has now abandoned the tax file option going so far as to vote against a Democrat amendment in this chamber to introduce such a system. Instead, on December 6 last year the Opposition Spokesman on Health issued a press release which claimed that an alternative proposal by the coalition would be ``. . $2735m more cost effective . .'' over the first ten years. I am not surprised to note that, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the recognised economic spokesmen for the Opposition have refused to come out publicly in support of this economic stupidity, because these figures are so obviously a fantasy plucked from the air. Let us look more closely at just some of the claims made by the Opposition. Firstly, the Opposition have claimed that private sector compliance costs in that ten year period will be $2 billion dollars. This was based on two false assumptions: first, that costs to the public sector will be $1000m, and second, that costs to the private sector will be twice that cost. To begin with, as the government advised the parliament last year, the estimated cost to the public sector is $759m, not $1000m. And the Business Regulation Review Unit has stated quite clearly that there was no evidence to suggest that the 2:1 ratio generally applied to government programs to determine private sector costs was applicable in the case of the Australia Card program. One of the largest compliance costs will be to the banks, and the Australian Bankers Association has already stated that the establishment cost of complying with the card will be around $60 million, with on going costs of $4.6 million a year. This on its own makes a mockery of the Opposition claims. The Opposition then claimed that it intended to spend $200m on ``. . radical improvement of the administrative efficiency and upgrading the computer capacity of the Australian taxation office . .'', which would result in savings of $4471m dollars over ten years. Even allowing for a dramatic upgrading of computer capacity in the ATO, it is extremely unlikely that such benefits could be obtained. To begin with, using the figures obtained during the Government's analysis of the tax file option-figures not disputed by the joint select committee-it was estimated that expenditure of $377m (almost twice the amount proposed by the Opposition) would yield benefits of less than $2000m over ten years. This is nowhere near the figure of $4471m estimated by the Opposition. As well, this ignores what is already being done by the government in the areas of undeclared interest, and improved audit and imputation of dividends. In short, Mr President, the Australia Card program is additional to the improvements already undertaken or planned in the tax and welfare systems. The Opposition proposals do nothing about preventing the opening of financial accounts in false names nor about providing a means of linking all sources of an individual's income to that individual. In other words, they fail on the very test so often applied by this Opposition-the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Expenditure for the establishment of ``A high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance''. So let us have no more of this nonsense that the Opposition has some sort of economically rational alternative: it has none. It has plucked a gaggle of figures from the air in some Peter Pan-like flight of fancy. Let me turn finally to the question of possible improvements to the program during the long establishment lead-times which it will require. The Government is committed to consultation on the program to ensure that it is implemented with minimal administrative burden and maximum civil liberty protection. On 5 February 1987 the Government indicated its willingness to consider machinery suggestions for streamlining the operation of the Australia Card program in keeping with the fundamental principles of the Bill. These suggestions related mainly to the operational side of the Bill and were designed to respond constructively to some of the criticisms voiced in earlier debates. The response of the Opposition and of the Democrats was totally and completely negative. The Democrats confirmed their intention to oppose the Bill notwithstanding whatever improvements were made while the Opposition Health spokesman has stated ``regardless of its form, it will be rejected by the Senate''. So much for constructive debate. There will be many crocodile tears shed in this debate for such ``lost'' amendments. In the light of these comments they can be dismissed for the political cant they will be. I would point out that the Australia Card program has long lead times-some six months from passage of the legislation to the beginning of implementation and at least eighteen months before the scheme would be fully operational. Throughout that period the government will continue to work co-operatively and constructively with all those organisations involved in the Australia Card and will take into account their views in any final decisions on improvements to operational aspects of the program. However this is not a time for further delay. It is a time for decision. Early consideration of the Bill by the Parliament in its existing form is essential so that the fundamental principles in the Australia Card program can be addressed as soon as possible to resolve uncertainties about budgetary impact. I repeat that the Australia Card Bill in its present form fully embodies the principles and fundamental parameters of the Australia Card program. The government has to ascertain without delay whether further funds need to be allocated for the program within the immediate financial estimates of the government. And more importantly, if the program fails to proceed, the impact needs to be addressed in the context of the government's long-term economic strategy, as rejection of the legislation will have a marked effect on government revenues. As an example of the enormity of that effect, so far the Senate's rejection of the Bill has delayed implementation of the program by at least six months, which means that already more than $400 million in revenue is destined to be lost due to that delay. I hope that the more reflective members of the Opposition and the Democrats will take a more responsible attitude this time around to this important reform. We are offering the Opposition and the Democrats the opportunity to debate the principles. Having demonstrated that the Australia Card will work, that protections to individual privacy are comprehensive and pioneering, and that the alternatives proposed by the Opposition are as lacking in substance as are their arguments against the Australia Card, I now urge them to accept that the government has overwhelmingly established the case for this program. Once again I ask the Senate to give the Australia Card Bill 1986 favourable consideration. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Hamer) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name for this day, relating to the disallowance of Marine Orders, Part 11 (Substandard Ships) as contained in Navigation (Orders) Regulation Order No. 16 of 1986 and made under the Navigation Act 1912, be postponed until the next day of sitting. Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Collard had moved by way of amendment: 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 DEVLIN(Tasmania)(10.08) —We are debating the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987 and I will continue my remarks from last night. The Federal Government is a party to, and is obligated to carry out, many international agreements. Sometimes this watchdog role impacts on State resources whether that is liked or not. For State governments, this is a necessary function of the Federal Government. In this case the Federal Government has assessed those obligations and it has concluded that its role is to conduct an inquiry the sole aim of which will be to sort out the facts from rhetoric, to establish any common ground between the opposing arguments as well as to safeguard those financially disadvantaged, if any, by this process. Any compensation moneys provided by the Federal Government should, if they are to have a beneficial and lasting effect on the timber resources in Tasmania, be directed through the Tasmanian Forestry Commission into plantation and regrowth development. What is happening in Tasmania at the present time is that sawmillers are carting seven days a week, 14 hours a day. This will result in a piling system. If this Bill goes through this Parliament, employees will be retrenched and there will be a stockpile of logs. The non-co-operation of the Gray Government made it necessary for the Federal Government to enact legislation to progress this matter to an inquiry. There have been a lot of arguments about whether there was timber outside the estates. I have a document on where the timber is in Tasmania-and there is ample timber outside those estates. I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Senator DEVLIN —I thank the Senate. Mr Bills, the Manager of Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd forest products, in a public statement on 26 February, pointed out that woodchips, veneer, wood supplies and jobs at those plants are not threatened by the conservationist groups' hot spots of Farmhouse Creek or Lemonthyme, but that the overall aspect of their proposed national park enlargement does have consider- able impact. The memorandum of understanding provides for such inquiries. It is unfortunate that the Gray Government simply confronts the Federal Government to score cheap political points, even in the face of the outlined financial safeguards. Whether or not the conservation movement can be dealt with in a constructive and responsible manner is something which the Federal Government is determined to test. It is well to remember that their credibility is actually at stake in a properly constituted inquiry-a fact that will never be the case at the barricades of Farmhouse Creek or the Lemonthyme. I support the Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.11) —The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill is but a cynical exercise in political opportunism. Its pedigree is that it was sired by broken agreements out of political expediency. As the Senate will be aware, Tasmania's forest industries went through a long and searching investigation as part of the environmental impact study required by the Commonwealth prior to the renewal of Tasmania's three woodchip export licences. Because of the integrated nature of the State's forest based industries, the EIS considered far more than just the export of woodchips. All aspects of forest management and the forest resources were canvassed in the EIS and in the public comment that formed part of that process. At the Hawke Government's insistence, considerable attention was paid to the environmental and resource values of a large part of the State forest which has been entered on the Register of the National Estate. After more than two years of research and public debate, the Hawke Government decided in December of 1985 that logging should be allowed in National Estate forests, provided that the particular values of these areas were taken into account in management plans. After some months of negotiation, the Tasmanian and Commonwealth governments concluded an agreement on the consultative process which would be applied to planning in National Estate forests. That formal agreement was signed `for and on behalf of the Commonwealth' by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, on 12 June 1986. One of the reasons it took six months to reach agreement was the Tasmanian Government's insistence that the Commonwealth had no right and no power to dictate what logging operations should or should not take place unless the wood was to be exported. Clearly, that was due to the fact that the Commonwealth Government had power-perverted, as it might be, in its use and application-under the Constitution to deny export licences. In the end the State agreed to consult the Commonwealth even on domestic operations. But clause 25 of that agreement states that the Minister for Primary Industry acknowledged that it would be for the State, and the State alone, to decide the extent to which it would implement Commonwealth views on the protection of National Estate values, in relation to domestic operations. Since the extraordinary and ill-advised intervention by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in November, the Tasmanian Government has declared that logging operations in the Lemonthyme State Forest and south of Farmhouse Creek are for domestic purposes. This Bill is therefore a complete, absolute and utter abrogation of a formal signed agreement which was concluded less than nine months ago. In one breath the Government is saying `We cannot tell you what to do except in relation to exports', and in the next breath it introduces legislation to take over vast areas of State crown land in the sovereign State of Tasmania. Senator Coates —What does `sovereign State' mean? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It means that it is part of the Federation, it means it is a creature of the Constitution, it means in certain circumstances it has powers unique unto itself which are not to be overridden by the Commonwealth Government. That is the purpose and the basis of the Constitution. If the Government does not like it, I challenge it to hold a referendum to see whether it can be changed. It would see the proposal ignominiously tossed out, just like all the other centralised socialist referendum proposals that have been put to the people in the past. The turnaround and the betrayal by the Hawke Government is even more starkly demonstrated by the fact that the very operations that this Bill attempts to stop were approved specifically by the Commonwealth for export woodchip less than one year ago. No one can deny that the Hawke Government has ratted on a written agreement and done a 180-degree turnaround on its policy on Tasmanian forests. It now claims that we must have another inquiry to decide the matter once and for all and that in the meantime a vast area of Tasmania should be effectively sterilised. Why? I suppose one could understand the Government's decision to hold an inquiry if it had come across some new information that was not previously available-some new revelation or some new facts. If that is so, no one has heard what the new information is. Indeed, one of the real mysteries of this issue is how the Prime Minister suddenly bought into it in the first place. Certainly, there is no evidence that forestry had anything to do with the Prime Minister's conversion to a born again greenie. The obvious answer lies in the public opinion polls. The same applies to his about-face on Kakadu National Park. The Government clearly has double-checked the polling and has come to the conclusion that there are votes to be had in Victoria and New South Wales. The decision has nothing to do with the economy of Tasmania or the concerns and cares of the people of Tasmania. It is simply a cynical exercise because the Government has come to the conclusion that 10 or 12 seats on the mainland might be affected as a result of its operations, activities and conduct in Tasmania. That is what it is all about. Senator Boswell —It is disgusting. They have sold Australia out. Senator Sanders —Gee, you are noisy since you had your hair cut. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Sanders should not have a haircut then. It is a coincidence that Mr Hawke's so-called instruction to the Tasmanian Government to cease operations in the Jackeys Marsh area occurred on the eve of his departure on a well publicised but transparently political sightseeing trip to Kakadu National Park. He was seen at Obiri Rock, Jim Jim Falls and Twin Falls-the three or four beautiful aspects of Kakadu National Park. We did not see him photographed-- Senator Sanders —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I ask you to consider what bearing this has on the Bill that is before the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —I have been listening carefully. I think it has some marginal relevance. I ask Senator Crichton-Browne to make his point as quickly as possible. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Certainly it was not a coincidence that his statements on Jackeys Marsh were made without reference to the Minister for Primary Industry, who was overseas at the time, and without anybody bother-ing to check with the Department of Primary Industry on the rights and wrongs of the issue. That was not a coincidence; it was simply bad management and bad politics. It effectively placed the Prime Minister in a hole of monumental proportions. This Bill, which was opposed by the majority of the Cabinet, is intended to be the Prime Minister's way out of that hole. In recent times we have heard a great deal from the Prime Minister and others concerning the suggestion by the Premier of Tasmania that the constitutional convention that State parliaments merely rubber stamp the nominations of political parties in filling casual vacancies may be followed in respect of the replacement of Senator Grimes. Senator Coates —Do you want another debate about that? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am happy to argue that matter at any time, but the truth is that it is put to us that State governments simply should rubber-stamp because that is the convention. I shall not go into that matter at the moment because time will not allow me to do so, nor does the subject of this debate, but it is worth noting that the Bill now before the Senate does much greater harm to constitutional conventions than that which has been talked about by Premier Gray in respect of the replacement for Senator Grimes. The Bill attempts to compel a State government to provide information to a Federal inquiry. So far as I am able to determine, that has never been attempted before. It goes to the very heart of the traditional relationship between the States and the Commonwealth and the Australian system of federation. In addition, it claims a very tenuous external relations power effectively to take over control of vast tracts of Tasmania, not because they have world heritage value, but simply because it might be concluded at some time in the future that they may have. When the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act was introduced in the Parliament to stop the proposed Gordon-below-Franklin dam, the Prime Minister told the Parliament that that was a `one-off' situation because of the extraordinary importance of Tasmania's world heritage areas. Now, to get himself out of a hole, he is not only doing it again, but is extending the precedent of Federal land grabs to include areas that are not recorded on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's World Heritage List. The whole issue is undoubtedly tainted with the mark of the Prime Minister's cynical manoeuvrings and his double standards. If his comments about constitutional conventions are to be taken seriously, this Bill should quite properly be withdrawn immediately. My final point on the matter, which yet again amply illustrates the political cynicism and double standards of this Government on environmental and constitutional issues is that most Australians will recall attempts by the conservation movement to stop the construction of a road through the rainforest at Daintree in Queensland. At the time every pressure was put on the Hawke Government to intervene to stop the proposed road and to protect the area. To its credit, the Government chose not to be pressured in any circumstances. The reason for that decision not to intervene was set out by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in a speech on 13 September 1984 to the National Conference on Conservation and the Economy. Mr Cohen said: We will not act unilaterally to nominate an area for World Heritage listing. It now appears that this Government will only recognise States where it holds Federal seats. The Prime Minister obviously has written off the 440,000 Australians who live in Tasmania. He said that the Government would stick to its commitment made at the time the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act was debated and that it would only use the Act as a last resort. How can this Bill be a last resort when the Government already has a written agreement with the Tasmanian Government concerning the management of these areas-an agreement which the Hawke Government itself has now abrogated? Nothing has changed since the signing of that agreement in June of last year, or the decision to permit the export of woodchips from National Estate forests in December 1985. The only reason why this Bill and the consequent dislocation and uncertainty are being thrust on the Tasmanian people is that it suits the Prime Minister's political purposes to go back on his word and to chase the ever-elusive conservation vote. So much for this Government's government by consensus. The Hawke Government is now into cynical government by opinion poll. In my view this legislation is a clear, precise, unambiguous commentary upon the Australian Labor Party and its attitude towards the relative rights and responsibilities of the Australian States, the state of Australia's federation and the Commonwealth Government. It is an unequivocal statement of the ALP's position on the federal system and the ultimate role that it sees for the sovereign States. The Federal Government is seeking, by the most brutal and perverse application of the Australian Constitution, to strip the individual States of all their real power. Senator Button —Don't be nasty, Senator; that is churlish and uncharitable from a person like you. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It may be, Senator Button. Uncharacteristic as it is coming from me, that does not detract from the fact that it is the truth. Senator Coates —Let's see what the High Court says. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —From time to time the High Court tends to change its view, depending on the appointments to it and which governments make them. I notice a change in attitude towards the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. I notice that there has been a change of view about the Constitution in respect of the external affairs power, the corporations power and the implied national power. Senator Button —The High Court used to license crooks under taxation. That is right; I agree with that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Is Senator Button suggesting that judges of the High Court have licensed crooks in the past? Is that what he is saying? Senator Button —Yes, decisions of the High Court have. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —With respect, Senator Button, that is a reflection on the author of those words, not the judges of the High Court. I am very surprised to hear you say that. Senator Coates —You won't accept the result? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I will accept any decision of the High Court. Senator Coates —You will accept the result of this inquiry? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I have no choice but to accept what the High Court ultimately finds-unlike Senator Button, who if he does not agree with the High Court condemns in a very personal way the individual judges on it. This legislation-- Senator Sanders —The legislation, yes; let us talk about the legislation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —What would the honourable senator like to know about the legislation? Let us say this for a start: It is a naked grab by a blindly obsessed Government seeking to snatch away from the States the fundamental right to make fundamental decisions affecting the people of those States. We now have a Government which takes the view that all wisdom resides in Canberra; all knowledge, all truth, all understanding can be found in the Cabinet room of the Federal Government, and the States should simply be mendicants with no competence, no capacity and no ability to know what is good for their constituents. Only Senator Button and his colleagues know what is good for the people of Australia-not the Wran Government, not the Gray Government, not the Burke Government, not the Bjelke-Petersen Government; only the Hawke Government knows what is good for Australia. It will make sure that Australians get what is good for them, and it has ways of making them enjoy it. Senator Button —I thought your complaint was that they didn't enjoy it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am saying that the Prime Minister has ways of ensuring that they enjoy it. Perhaps it is a grimace and not a smile I see. It is my view that matters such as conservation should be arrived at by co-operative federalism resulting from a spirit of good will, understanding and co-operation. Senator Sanders —How can you say that? The Government got no good will at all from Robin Gray. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, an agreement was signed between the Federal Government and the State Government. What happened to that? The Prime Minister looked at the polls and suddenly realised that there was a green vote to be had in New South Wales and Victoria. To hell with the 440,000 constituents in Tasmania; he was after mainland seats. So he ripped up the agreement. So much for the contribution by the Federal Government to government by consensus. When Hawke talks about government by consensus he means government by him, not by good will and co-operation from others. I am reminded that the first time we saw this Government in full flight on matters touching on conservation was the introduction of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 which clearly relied upon the external powers, the implied national powers, the corporations powers and the commerce and trade powers in the Constitution. Our founding fathers never intended that any of these powers should be cynically used, distorted and perverted in the way they are in respect of matters relating to conservation. Of course, one can safely assume that on this occasion the government will be relying very heavily on the external affairs power. Perhaps it would be worth quoting something that Alfred Deakin said. In many respects Senator Button might share his philosophic approach. Senator Button —You know, it is said that the worst thing that can happen to a good cause is that some people should embrace it. Alfred Deakin was a good cause and you are about to embrace it, I gather. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am not about to embrace it. I am simply about to quote a reflection of his cause and ask Senator Button to embrace it. In the constitutional debates prior to Federation, Alfred Deakin said: From the first day Federation is consummated-Heaven hasten that day- it is not a view, I suspect, that will probably be now shared- the people will divide themselves into two parties. He was almost right. He continued: The instant Federation is accomplished, the two Houses will be elected on that basis. State rights and State interests, I venture to say, will never be mentioned because they will never be imperilled. Both sides, in order to secure support, will make the first plank of their platform the maintenance and defence of State interests. Poor old Alfred Deakin would be rolling over in his grave if he could see this socialist lot doing what they are doing, prostituting as they are the Constitution of which he was one of the principal architects, moving from a position of co-operative federalism, of having the States as an intrinsic part of the Constitution, major creatures-- Senator Button —Might I interrupt the honourable senator only to enlighten the debate. I think you will find that Alfred Deakin later on said that the Senate would never work as a States House. It would divide like every other political forum in Australia into party political interests. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Alfred Deakin certainly did say that. But Alfred Deakin did not know that there was going to be a political party, a creature which does not allow its individual senators from the individual States to cross the floor to reflect the views of their States. In my case, the political party to which I belong allows me to cross the floor any time I like, as I have done, to reflect the views of my party. But in the event that somebody stands trembling and dares to venture gamely across the floor to this side of the chamber, it is axiomatic that that person is expelled from that party. What happened to Senator Georges, a man of integrity, a man of responsibility and a man of compassion and concern? I heard him described as a scab by one of his colleagues because he had the courage to speak against his party in the interests of what he believed to be right. Senator Button —How did Andrew Peacock get on as a result of making the phone call? What happened to him. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Andrew Peacock is just having a rest from the heavy duties as shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —I ask Senator Crichton-Browne to return to the Bill before the Senate. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. So we see the place that was intended for the States in the Constitution that was drawn up by our founding fathers. It ought to be remembered that the smaller or less populous States entered into the Constitution on one basis and one basis alone, and that was that each State have an equal voice in this chamber. If Western Australia, for instance, had known what was going to happen to it, that State would never have entered the Federation. I am only sorry that it did not have more foresight. Senator Coates —That is right. We are sorry too-you would not be here. Senator Button —You would not be here. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The honourable senators are quite right-I would be doing something constructive. Of course, without question, in 1897 conservation would hardly have been high in the minds of the founding fathers. It is hardly likely that it would have been high on the agenda of issues that had to be incorporated and written into the Constitution. We can be quite certain that when the founding fathers were looking into the question of external affairs and the powers contained in section 51 (xxix), it was never their intention for a moment that one day that section would be used to prevent logging somewhere in some State. Yet we now find that the Constitution has been so perverted, so corrupted, that this obscure activity has been stopped, suspended for the time being, because of the threat of the use of that provision. One might refer to the corporations power. As Senator Button well knows, it was never intended that the corporations power was to be applied to prevent logging in South West Tasmania or anywhere else. It was meant particularly to protect the community from the failure of companies which were involved particularly in finance and in land, and further to provide uniformity of regulation, particularly for foreign companies. The matter of banks had already been dealt with, as we know, so they were not included. But it was certainly not intended that the legislation be discriminatory or selective in the activity and operations of individual companies. Least of all was it intended to be used by the Commonwealth for ulterior reasons, such as to prevent companies or corporations under- taking activities in South West Tasmania. I remind honourable senators of what Mr Symon said in the Constitutional Convention debate in 1897. He asked: Why not just leave the wording as `corporation'? Alfred Deakin responded by saying that they wanted to include all limited companies, because the class of companies he was speaking of dealt with lands and deposits, and they require careful regulation, especially the land and finance companies which had caused such litigation in the past. It was Barton who added that the reason for making the difference was that it had been seen that the word `corporations' as it existed covered munici-pal corporations, and so the words were changed to `trading or financial corporations'. So we see again that the corporations power was never intended to be used in the way in which it has been used by this Government, nor to have the colourful interpretation that presumably will be placed upon it by the High Court of Australia. So we see a situation where the powers are, in my view, being quite improperly abused. Of one thing we can be absolutely certain: The external affairs power was never intended to implement domestic legislation and to apply in domestic circumstances. It was Chief Justice Gibbs, commenting in the Koowarta case, who observed that if that view was correct-he was talking about the view that the external affairs power could be used for any domestic legislation and the power existing simply because an external agreement had been signed: The Executive could, by making an agreement, formal or informal, with another country, arrogate to the Parliament power to make laws on any subject whatsoever. It could, for example, by making an appropriate treaty, obtain for the Parliament powers to control education, to regulate the use of land, to fix the conditions of trading and employment, to censure the Press or to determine the basis of criminal responsibility-it is impossible to envisage any area of power which could not become the subject of Commonwealth legislation if the Commonwealth became a party to an appropriate international agreement. In other words, if section 51 (29) empowers the Parliament to legislate to give effect to every international agreement the Executive may choose to make, the Commonwealth would be able to acquire unlimited legislative power. That is the effect of this interpretation of the external affairs powers. Senator Button knows that, and those on his side know it. He knows that he is using a section of the Constitution for purposes for which it was never intended. It is my view that the Government ought to have the courage, the conviction and the commitment to go to the people of Australia and have a referendum on the Constitution to allow the Government to do overtly the sorts of things that it wants to do covertly, instead of using its powers in a very sinister and improper way. The truth is that the Government knows that if it puts a proposal to the public to reduce the power of the States in the way it intends using the external affairs powers that referendum will never get through people in the States. So those opposite rely on the High Court to use a rather spirited, colourful and, I might say, quaint interpretation to allow them to override the rights and responsibilities of the States in a thoroughly improper way. There is no better example of that than what they are doing at the present time. I find it distressing in a very serious sense that the Government takes the view that all wisdom resides in Canberra and that States are not in a position to make judgments as to what is right and what is wrong or to reflect and articulate the views and attitudes of the people of the States. I find it regrettable that it is using the Constitution the way it is. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.41) —I very strongly support the coalition's total opposition to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill presently being debated in the Senate. I do so for a variety of reasons that I will make clear during my remarks. I say at the outset that I am a senator from Victoria. One may say-it has been said-that this is only a Tasmanian issue, but the point is that this is not just a Tasmanian issue. If one accepts the principle behind this Bill, that means accepting a principle that goes to the very heart of the issue of the rights of States within a federation such as ours. There is a fundamental issue of States rights involved here. Each and every Australian ought to be aware of that and very concerned about it. I want to make three main points. Firstly, this legislation is an example of the Hawke Government just tearing up previous firm agreements in the name of total cynical political opportunism. Secondly, this Bill sets a precedent such that the Government can call on the foreign affairs power to push through changes regardless of the wishes and desires of most Australians and, as I say, to trample over the rights of individual States-and in this case the legislation is against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Tasmanians, including the Opposition Labor Party in Tasmania. Thirdly, the legislation does not reflect a balanced and considered view regarding conservation. Instead, it reflects this Government's insatiable propensity to appease radical minorities in our community. The decision behind the introduction of this legislation is a reversal of the Government's earlier decision to accept the recommendations of the management plan of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission that logging in the Lemonthyme be permitted. The purpose of the legislation is, of course, to provide for the establishment of yet another commission of inquiry to report on matters relating to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas in Tasmania. The inquiry would 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. The inquiry would also report on whether there are other areas in Tasmania with forestry resources that are capable of exploitation. The Bill also provides for the interim protection of the two areas during the inquiry. By `interim protection' is meant a complete halt to forestry operations in those areas. The decision behind this legislation is clearly evident from the Government's earlier stance in its being a signatory to the 1986 memorandum of understanding. Although short-lived, that memorandum of understanding was a firm and binding agreement arrived at by the Commonwealth and the State Government, and it stated: . . . forest operations in the Lemonthyme will be in accordance with the Management Plan for the Lemonthyme State Forest. In recent weeks, Senator Walsh reiterated his Government's decision on that point when he said: . . . the Federal Government does not propose to limit logging in the area beyond those limits already proposed in the Tasmanian Forestry Commission's Management Plan. The extensive purpose of the legislation under debate today is, as I have said, to set up an inquiry to justify the Government's change of heart, the Government's breaking of firm and binding commitments in relation to the future activities in these areas. The probability is that the inquiry would confirm the Government's new-found change of heart. The Government says its rationale is to establish the facts. I will come back to some of those facts later. The important fact is that the facts of this situation have been clearly established for a lengthy period now and that this inquiry is to be the latest in a series of inquiries into the issue. There have already been nine inquiries into this issue. It is remarkable, and it supports the view that the outcome is stacked in favour of the radical conservationists in our community, not the responsible and objective conservationists. The legislation is a classic example of the new-found enthusiasm of this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his advisers to try to capture the so-called greenie vote. The whole exercise has been masterminded by Senator Graham Richardson, the Prime Minister's political guru. No one who knows Senator Richardson could, by any stretch of the imagination, call him a conservationist. Instead, towards the end of last year some market research by the Australian Labor Party found that it could perhaps win a few votes from particularly the young people if it suddenly embraced the issue of conservation. Therefore, overnight, Senator Richardson became an instant conservationist, and he managed to persuade the Prime Minister to attempt to do the same. Now, as Senator Collard said in his initial remarks in this debate, we have a Prime Minister who is a born-again greenie. That was shown during the Prime Minister's totally cynical pilgrimage to Kakadu towards the end of last year. While he was doing that, or shortly after, Senator Richardson laid the groundwork in Tasmania to build a conservation issue there around the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests issue, and this whole exercise, this present legislation, has grown entirely out of the opportunism as seen by Senator Richardson, the Prime Minister and their mates to try to win a few votes. It goes completely against the responsible attitude taken in the Hawke Government by responsible Ministers such as Mr Kerin and others. The Prime Minister's voyage of discovery to Kakadu National Park last year was the epitome of the kind of desperate reaction that this Hawke Go-vernment has resorted to, to placate also the radical Left within its Party. Overall, one would have expected that after nine inquiries the matter would have been settled. Indeed, the latest management plan agreed to by the Government, prepared after full public consultation, with proper provision for visual and landscape, botanical and archaeological va-lues, seemed to have settled the issue. But no, the issue has not been settled; it has not been allowed to be settled to the satisfaction of the Tasmanian people, their Government and all those who were involved in the management plan of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission. After 21/2 years some $1.3m has been spent investigating the very same issues that this legislation is about. In other words, this legislation seeks to re-invent the wheel but it seeks to do it in a way that provides a different final shape for it. The re-invention of the wheel into a different shape can lead to some very bumpy results and inevitably that will be the effect and impact of this legislation on the Hawke Government. It will catapult on it dreadfully, and correctly so. This Bill implies that the independent consultant's report to the Australian Heritage Commission was bunkum. It implies that the investigations, including the impact of forestry activities in wilderness areas in Tasmania, are irrelevant. It completely rejects the findings of that Commission that there were no prudently feasible alternatives on economic and environment grounds. This legislation is no more than a cynical breach of an earlier commitment by the Hawke Government not to prevent logging in the Lemonthyme. The legislation is nothing more than the blatant and naked pursuit of the votes of the radical and unreasonable conservationists. Proponents of the legislation have argued that their concern lies in their belief that these forests need to be protected to provide buffer zones to protect the already existing world heritage area. Senator Newman —That is not true. Senator SHORT —Senator Newman is totally correct. The fallacy of this view is simply that the obligations of the Commonwealth under the World Heritage Convention are already being met. World heritage areas already have the appropriate boundaries. The Commonwealth, in its report to the World Heritage Commission, acknowledged that fact. Senator Coates —You shouldn't mind what the inquiry says then. Senator SHORT —Why have an inquiry? All of these matters have been established beyond dispute over a lengthy period. There have been nine inquiries into this matter so why does the Government want to set up yet another inquiry unless it thinks that it can manipulate it in such a way that it will produce a result different from earlier conclusions? The only reason why the Government is breaking firm and binding agreements that Senator Coates's Government had given to the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian people is that it is in a greedy and grubby grab for cynically motivated votes. The honourable senator knows that as well as I do; he knows it as well as the people of Australia know it. Supporters of this legislation have accused members of the Opposition of being Philistines on conservation. Nothing could be further from the truth and the facts of the last few years demonstrate that very clearly. Those who have debated the merits of this legislation have clearly done so not from an appreciation of its history but under the direction of the political strategists of the Australian Labor Party. As I have said, the ALP considers that it is losing the greenie vote and that this issue provides the perfect opportunity to capture it. The Opposition has an extraordinarily good record on conservation issues. After all it was those on this side of the chamber who were responsible for the national conservation strategy for Australia. It was under the previous Government that the Kakadu National Park was established. It is ludicrous that the ALP Government can now think that it can con people into believing that the Opposition is anti-conservationist. It is absolute nonsense. On the contrary, what we are opposed to is preservationists who simply want to lock away areas of Australia and throw away the key. A key assumption of the radical conservationists is that they reject the positive aspects of development. One cannot have a real appreciation of the environment without coupling it with a positive appreciation of development. Our opposition to this legislation comes from our position as people who wish to see sensible responsible development coupled with sensible and responsible conservation and the two are not mutually exclusive. The record of the activities of Tasmanian foresters shows that they are determined to carry out their operations on a sustainable yield basis, that is, logging takes place alongside replanting and only in limited areas. It would be self-defeating for foresters to deplete the forests; there is no economic rationale for them to do so. I turn to the foreign affairs power that is being invoked in this matter and that is really what is happening. It has already been evoked on a range of conservation issues. It is beyond debate that it is good that we have in our Constitution a facility to protect regions within Australia's boundaries from destruction in line with our obligations under the international treaties to which we are signatory. Indeed, we have used that foreign affairs power on several occasions in the past-in the Antarctic in the case of marine pollution and marine life and in other ways. It was only in the case of the Franklin Dam, prior to this case, that this power was invoked to circumvent the Australian Constitution. That is what happened in the case of the Franklin Dam and that is what is happening here. The Government is using the foreign affairs power to circumvent the Australian Constitution. Senator Coates —That is not what the High Court says. Senator SHORT —It is using it to override the right of State governments to decide on land usage in their States. The Opposition has stood firm on its commitment against invocation of the foreign affairs power with regard to land use. Land use is a matter for the respective States to decide. If the Hawke Government wants to alter the existing arrangement it should take the matter to the people; it should hold a referendum. Instead, why is it trying to bludgeon through legislation in this Parliament which is absolutely contrary to everything it has said in the past in relation to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas? Why, if it really believes the strength and rightness of its cause, does it not take the matter to the Australian people in the form of a referendum rather than try to prostitute the Australian Constitution? By going down the track of appealing to the foreign affairs powers in the Constitution this Government is embarking on a very dangerous course. Circumvention of the Constitution can never be condoned and for the Government to continue in a shameless way to do so is worth the greatest criticism and the very greatest concern one could have about this Government. The Opposition's criticism of the current legislation is not simply that it seeks to discover whether these two forests can be properly classified as either of cultural or natural heritage, in which case they would be protected under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. On the contrary, we believe that this issue has already been decided by the nine previous inquiries and the Tasmanian Forestry Commission's management plan. Our concern about this legislation is that it is really the outcome of a group of individuals who cannot come to terms with the views and decisions that have been arrived at after lengthy and often open public discussion. Rather than reflect a balanced and considered view regarding conservation, this Bill reflects this Government's appalling record of setting out to appease radical minorities. When one looks at the history of the legislation it becomes clear who has been influential in getting it this far. It is groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Tasmanian Wilderness Society which were instrumental in having the two forests nominated for inclusion on the Register of the National Estate and, in turn, the Heritage Commission which is responsible for evaluating such things. It employed members of the Wilderness Society and the ACF to carry out the evaluations. What objectivity can one possibly see in that? It was a rigged deal right from day one. This legislation is the very thin edge of the wedge. Its passage-it will be passed because the ill-considered, ill-thinking and gutless Australian Democrats will support it in the Senate-will be a signal that anyone, typically those who lean in a Luddite direction, who cares to go through the hassle of hammering away at the Heritage Commission, holding picket lines, organising to form political pressure groups and extracting public funds from weak governments, regardless of the merits of the particular case, will be successful. That is what the passage of this legislation will show. It will demonstrate that no part of Australia is sacred and that no part is free from the ravages of politically active minority groups who are against a fair and democratic private enterprise political system. The passage of this legislation will give the green light to those in the small minority to pursue their crazy programs of freeing Australia from what they perceive to be the dehumanising activities of foresters. Looking at the history of forestry in this nation of ours, particularly in Tasmania, I think it is undeniable that the foresters of this nation have done great and responsible service to the development of our living standards and to the preservation of the environment in a very balanced way. Turning to another aspect of this subject, the Senate should not lose sight of the views put to it in the last day or so by our very important Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. That Committee has looked at various aspects of this legislation-I will go into all the details of the legislation; that can come up in debate at the Committee stage-but there are two particular parts of the Bill to which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has drawn particular attention. They are clause 13, on self-incrimination, and clause 14 (c) on entry and inspection. I would like to read into the Senate record some of the things that that Committee has said and the response that the Minister has given to the Committee's condemnations in the last 24 hours or so. On clause 13, on self-incrimination the Committee states: . . . provides for the application of the Royal Commissions Act of 1902 in relation to the inquiry with certain specified modifications. One section of that Act so applied, and not modified, is section 6a, which 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 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. The Committee has been critical of such provisions which remove the right to refuse to answer questions or produce documents on the grounds of self incrimination- but which, at the same time- . . . confer protection in subsequent proceedings only in respect of the use of the actual answer given or document produced. In the view of the 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 Scrutiny of Bills Committee therefore drew clause 13 to the attention of the Senate by pointing out that: . . . by so applying sections 6a and 6dd of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 without modification it might be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. That matter has been drawn to the attention of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), and he has responded in the following terms: Rather than create a completely new set of machinery provisions for the Commission, the approach adopted in the Bill is to apply the provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 with only those changes which are necessary to enable the Commission to operate satisfactorily. It is likely that there may be provisions of the Royal Commissions Act, as applied, which will not be used by the Commission of Inquiry, e.g. sections 6p, 7a, 7b and 7c. It is considered that, although possible, it is unlikely that any question of self-incrimination would arise, given the terms of reference of the Commission, (i.e. an inquiry into the existence of world heritage areas and alternatives to forestry operations in those areas). The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has looked at that response and it has, I think too politely, thanked the Minister for his response. It has then gone on to comment in the most pertinent and telling way on that response. The Committee said: However, if it is considered unlikely that the question of self incrimination will arise, given the nature of the Commission's inquiry, then in the Committee's view the protection from self incrimination available at common law should not be removed at all. It then makes the very important point that: The right to refuse to give answers to questions where this may result in a person being required to incriminate himself or herself is one of the most important protections available at common law and it should not be removed lightly. It goes on to say: The Committee has reluctantly recognised the need for its removal in certain circumstances and has, as indicated above, sought the broadest possible protection for those required to give answers which may be self-incriminating. The Minister's response suggests, however, that the present Bill has been thrown together in a hasty and slipshod fashion with more concern for ensuring that the Commission is able to operate `satisfactorily' than for the consequences of applying, in a blanket fashion, provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 which may be wholly inappropriate to the nature of the Commission's inquiry. Senator Newman —It is hasty and it is slipshod. Senator SHORT —That is absolutely correct, Senator Newman. The Committee concluded: The Committee therefore continues to draw clause 13 to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i)- that is, principle 1 (a) (i) of its terms of reference, which is to examine whether any legislation brought into this Parliament trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties- in that by applying sections of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 removing the privilege against self incrimination to the inquiry it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. That is a damning indictment by our own Scrutiny of Bills Committee on that clause of the legislation we are now considering. Clause 14 (c) of the Bill, which deals with entry and inspection, provides that: . . . for the purposes of performing his or her functions under the Act a member of the Commission of Inquiry or a person authorised in writing for the purpose by a member may, with such assistance, and by such force, as is necessary and reasonable, enter and inspect . . . This is followed by the various areas nominated in the clause. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee said that this paragraph 14 (c) therefore: . . . confers on the member or authorised person a broad power to enter upon private land based upon nothing more than the personal opinion of the person exercising the power. It therefore again drew the attention of the Senate to principle 1 (a) (i) of the Committee's terms of reference to which I have already referred. The Committee draws our attention to that matter in the following terms: . . . in that by providing such a broad power of entry upon land it might be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, the responsible Minister, has responded to this criticism as well. He said: There are important qualifications on the power given in paragraph 14 (c). First, the person entering the area must be doing so for the purpose of exercising his or her powers or functions under the Act. I can only say to that: So what?. He said further: Secondly, it is only those areas which contain forestry resources which are able to be entered under paragraph 14 (c) i.e. for the purposes of examining those resources-the trees. I am not too sure whether that is too correct. He goes on to say: It does not enable entry into premises and it is not a comprehensive power of `search'. Therefore, it is not comparable to the search warrant provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902. In my opinion, the power is necessary to enable the Commission of Inquiry to examine forestry resources which may be alternative to those in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas and report within the one year inquiry period. Senator Newman —That is on private land. Senator SHORT —On private land. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has looked at the Minister's response. It very politely thanked the Minister for his response, and then stated: Although the power is not a power of search it is undeniably a power to enter on private land and whereas an ordinary Royal Commission may only exercise such a power with the consent of the occupier or pursuant to a warrant, the members of the present Commission may do so on the basis of their personal belief that the land in question may be part of a qualifying area or may contain forestry resources. They are not required to have reasonable grounds for this belief and they are not required to notify the owners of private land before entering it in pursuance of this power. Therefore, the view of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee remains that this was a very damaging and very dangerous clause of the legislation in relation to personal liberties. You may think, Mr Acting Deputy President, listening to that damning indictment of this legislation, that it is an Opposition ploy. Let me tell you who the members of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee are. The Chairman is Senator Crowley and the other members of the Committee include Senator Haines, Senator Cooney and Senator McKiernan. So there are three members of the Australian Labor Party and one Australian Democrat. There are only two Liberal senators on that Committee. It is a damning indictment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.11) —In concluding the debate on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, I would like to acknowledge the very many constructive comments made by my colleagues and by Australian Democrat senators. The matter, of course, has excited some public debate. However, the matter of environmental protection of the world heritage area and the adjoining National Estate area in Tasmania is of great public concern and should be the concern of the national Parliament, and indeed is. I regret to say, however, that the debate has also brought out several misunderstandings about the purpose of the Bill, despite its essentially simple purpose. I have to say, in respect of the last contribution, that it was obviously short on logic and long on rhetorical nonsense. It is clear that the simplicity of the Bill was not understood by many of the Opposition senators who have spoken. Much of the comment from Opposition senators ignored the fact that the purpose of the Bill is simply to establish an objective and well informed inquiry, and therefore it should be supported by the Parliament. It will provide the basis for resolving the long-standing and contentious issue that the Government accepts, and the community accepts, exists in achieving a responsible balance between forestry operations and the protection of the world heritage values in western Tasmania. Opposition senators, almost without exception, have quite improperly ignored the facts that the inquiry will take only a short period, that only small areas will be directly affected, and that reasonable arrangements will be made for compensation should genuine losses occur. So the Government is aware of its responsibilities in this matter. The results of the inquiry will be considered on their merits by the Government in due course. No one can anticipate the outcome of the inquiry at this time. It is quite improper to imply, as some Opposition senators have, that the results will be in any way predetermined. Senator Messner —It is window dressing. Senator GIETZELT —Opposition senators can have their prejudices and their views, but there is no question that there are differences that need to be resolved and circumstances and interests to be examined. The Government makes no apology for going down that track. It has been suggested that this legislation is an unwarranted intrusion into Tasmania's affairs. That is an absurd proposition. The Commonwealth Government has areas of responsibility and is prepared to invoke powers in relation to them. Clearly, there would have been no need for the Commonwealth's involvement if the Tasmanian Government had fully and openly explored options for reconciling forestry and heritage interests and had gained public acceptance for suitable arrangements. I need hardly say that this has not been the case. It has therefore become necessary for the national Parliament to legislate in the national interest. It makes no apologies for accepting that responsibility. This Government has the responsibility to honour Australia's international commitments under the World Heritage Convention to identify and, if necessary, protect areas of outstanding universal value. That is the purpose of the Bill. I find it very difficult to comprehend the Opposition stand. Would the Opposition have a different attitude in respect of any attempts to interfere with the natural heritage of the Great Barrier Reef? Of course, it would have a different attitude. It would, therefore, apply different values to different areas instead of having a universal principled position. Many Opposition speakers have completely overstated the possible effects of this Bill on industry and employment. I must stress, and the Government must stress, that current operations outside the protected area will continue during the inquiry. The employment effects, therefore, will be small and localised. If there is a need for temporary adjustments in the industry while the inquiry is in progress, compensation will be made available. What could be fairer than that approach that the Government is prepared to take? The arrangements between the Commonwealth and Tasmania in the memorandum of understanding on woodchip exports have been misrepresented. One must almost come to the conclusion that there may have been a deliberate attempt to do so. Contrary to what has been implied by some speakers, the State management plan for the Lemonthyme which was prepared in 1983 without Commonwealth involvement has not been formally approved by the Commonwealth. The memorandum of understanding did not give carte blanche for logging in the Lemonthyme without further reference to the Commonwealth. Indeed, the memorandum of understanding requires consultation in respect of all logging in National Estate areas. More specifically, clauses 23 to 27 provide for varying forms of consultation prior to the commencement of logging. Therefore, it is essential for us to look at the national position as well as the local one, and we are seeking to do precisely that. Senator Newman raised that two clauses in the Bill were commented on by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Indeed, in the last 10 minutes or so, Senator Short also commented on these clauses. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has already written to the Chairman of the Committee on those two issues. The first of these issues relates to section 6a and 6dd of the Royal Commissions Act as applied to clause 13 of the Bill. These sections relate to self-incrimination of a witness appearing before the inquiry. Rather than create a completely new set of machinery provisions for the inquiry, the approach that has been adopted in this Bill is to apply the provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and make only those changes which are necessary to enable the commission to operate satisfactorily. It is highly unlikely that any question of self-incrimination would arise, given the terms of reference of the commission. It should be remembered that this is an inquiry into the existence of world heritage areas and alternatives to forestry operations in those areas. It is not an inquiry that is designed or likely to lead to criminal prosecution. That is not the objective. The objective is to find what common ground, if possible, can be achieved arising out of the inquiry. The second issue which was raised by other Opposition senators concerns the power of entry on to land given by clause 14 (c) of the Bill. There are important qualifications on this power. Firstly, a person entering the area must be doing so for the purpose of exercising his or her po-wers or functions under the Act. Secondly, it is only those areas which contain forestry resources which are able to be entered, and then only for the purposes of inspecting those resources. Senator Watson —Draconian powers. Senator GIETZELT —I say to the honourable senator that the provision does not enable entry into premises. It is not a comprehensive power of search. I do not know what further assurances the Government can give in order to get some sort of understanding from some senators whose minds are clearly filled with prejudice and are still not able to comprehend the Government's intentions in these matters. This power of entry is necessary to enable a commission of inquiry to examine forestry resources which may be an alternative to those in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas and to report within the one year inquiry period. Honourable senators will be aware that the Tasmanian Government may ban access to forest areas as they have done recently in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. We understand the differences that exist and that is accepted. Some speakers have referred to the important natural and cultural values of western Tasmania. The inquiry will have an important function, therefore, in establishing the facts about world heritage values in that protected area. I trust that these explanations will have made it clear to the Senate that the Bill will go a long way towards ending the longstanding and divisive conflict between conservation and timber industry interests in Tasmania. To that extent the inquiry should be supported, and I know that it will be because the Government has taken a sensible and responsible position on the issues involved. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Collard's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Short, J. R. Collard, S. J. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. West, S. M. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Grimes, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Ryan, S. M. Sheil, G. Robertson, E. A. Durack, P. D. Richardson, G. F. Puplick, C. J. G. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Do honourable senators wish the Bill to be taken as a whole? Senator Collard-No. Senator Walters-I would like the Bill to be taken clause by clause, please. The CHAIRMAN —Very well. The question is that clause 1 stand as printed. Senator Sanders-This will be difficult, Mr Chairman. I have a number of amendments which I would like to seek leave to move together. The CHAIRMAN —At the request of the Committee, I have decided to take the Bill clause by clause. The honourable senator will have to move his amendments separately. However, if they are consequential they can be dealt with as we come to the clause concerned without their having to be moved. Senator Walters-I do not wish to move an amendment but to ask questions on clause 3. The CHAIRMAN —If the Bill is taken as a whole, Senator Walters can ask questions on any clause she likes. I am in the hands of the Committee on this matter. If anyone wants the Bill to be taken clause by clause, it will be. Clause 1 (Short title). Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.29) —I seek leave to move my amendments as circulated, Nos 1 to 13 and 15, as a group. The CHAIRMAN —I am sorry, Senator Sanders, you cannot do that if we are taking the Bill clause by clause. The only relevant amendment at this point is the amendment to clause 1. Senator SANDERS —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I move amendment No. 1: Page 1, clause 1, line 5, leave out ``Lemonthyme and Southern'', insert ``Tasmanian''. The reason I am moving this amendment is that this relates to my subsequent amendments which would amend the Bill to include the Douglas-Apsley area and the Quamby Bluff-Jackeys Marsh area. Senator Walters —What about the whole of Tasmania? Don't leave any of it out. Senator SANDERS —We have some comments about the whole of Tasmania but in fact the woodchippers and the loggers in general have concessions in over two-thirds of Tasmania at present and, frankly, they want the whole State. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my amendments. The CHAIRMAN —If you wish, Senator Sanders, we could defer consideration of clause 1, as it is consequential on other amendments being passed, and come back to it later. It would be perfectly in order for you to move your amendment No. 1 and speak to all the others. Then I will put the question on clause 1 and you can decide whether you wish to move all the other amendments subsequently. Senator Gietzelt —I suggest that we take amendments Nos 1 to 12 together. The CHAIRMAN —That cannot be done unless we take the Bill as a whole. As one senator has objected, I am obliged to take it clause by clause. Senator Vigor —Mr Chairman, all that Senator Sanders was trying to do was incorporate his amendments in Hansard at this stage. He can then move them at a later stage. The CHAIRMAN —He can certainly incorporate them if leave is given, but he cannot move them. Senator SANDERS —I seek leave to incorporate my amendments. Leave not granted. Senator SANDERS —To save the time of the Committee I will indicate my position. I have moved my first amendment, which is a test for the rest of the amendments in any case. If the response is favourable we can go into the details of this matter. If it is not, we will then abandon it. I will also foreshadow another amendment further down the line. The reason I move this amendment is to include two areas in Tasmania which are also threatened at present. These are the Douglas River-Apsley area and the Quamby Bluff-Jackeys Marsh area. The Douglas River area is very significant. It probably would have been considered in this legislation had the Gray Government's move into the area been foreshadowed at that time. The Gray Government has now announced that it will move into the Douglas-Apsley area. The Federal Government is concerned about this issue and I would like to give it the opportunity to include the Douglas-Apsley area in the inquiry and in the legislation. The Douglas River area is the largest remaining area in Tasmania of dry sclerophyll vegetation and is the most significant area in the State where dry sclerophyll communities are associated with dolerite rock types. The area contains a high diversity of vegetation types, including 10 communities representative of eastern Tasmanian dry sclerophyll vegetation. I must point out that the reason this area is so valuable is that almost the entire east coast of Tasmania has already been destroyed by logging interests, particularly woodchipping. Only the Douglas-Apsley area still remains in a relatively untouched state. Of these representative plant communities, the following six are unreserved or poorly reserved in the State: Eucalyptus rodwayi, eucalyptus sieberi, eucalyptus tenuiramis, eucalyptus pauciflora, eucalyptus pulchella and riverine vegetation. Old-growth stands of the remaining four representative communities are also poorly reserved elsewhere, but are present within the area. These are: Eucalyptus obliqua open forest, eucalyptus delegatensis, eucalyptus amygdalina and eucalyptus ovata woodland and low open woodland. The area is relatively undisturbed with the result that the diversity of the shrub layer in its communities is much higher than in comparable communities elsewhere and the area supports a very high diversity of birds which are representative of the east coast dry sclerophyll bird fauna. A total of 45 endemic plant species occur in the area. Five of these endemics are eucalypts, of which two species are rare or locally uncommon and not reserved elsewhere in the State. A further 10 of the endemics are rare shrub or herbacious species, seven of which are poorly reserved and five of which-including four confined to the central coast region-are absent from any reserves. Five plant species of possible biogeographic significance occur in the area, which is also a major site of occurrence of the Australian grayling, a fish species rare over most of its range in eastern Australia. Within the area the catchments of the Douglas River and the Denison Rivulet are thought to be the last largemy unmodified catchments in eastern coastal Tasmania and thus are important reference areas of hydrological research. Similarly, the undisturbed nature of the plant communities in the area make them important reference sites for the research into forestry production and the ecology of the native plants and animals. The Quamby Bluff-Jackeys Marsh area and surrounding areas are important as we have already heard in the fight for this area. The Quamby Bluff-Jackeys Marsh area is significant for the high diversity of vegetation communities which include dry sclerophyll forest, wet sclerophyll forest, various rainforest types, alpine and sub-alpine communities and boulderfield vegetation. Within each broad vegetation type there is a large amount of variation in altitude, aspect, drainage, shelter, topography and geology. We have seen the local residents fight for this area over and over again in the face of insensitive depredations of the Forestry Commission, the forest companies-the loggers themselves-and the Gray Government. This area has been recognised around the country as one of worth. It is an area of importance to all Australia and it should be protected. My batch of amendments are framed in such a way as to include both the areas I have mentioned, Douglas-Apsley and Quamby-Jackeys Marsh, in the Bill. It is important to recognise that the people of Australia are very concerned about what is happening in Tasmania and they applaud the Federal Government's stand on this issue. They would be very appreciative if the Federal Government would allow the legislation to be amended to include these two areas. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.37) —This is absolute rubbish from the Australian Democrats. It is rubbish for them to say that all Tasmanian forests should be included. What on earth are they on about? As I said in my second reading stage speech, Tasmania already has 12 1/2 per cent of its area locked away in national parks. Under this legislation another 5 per cent could be added to that figure. That means that 17 1/2 per cent would be locked away. Senator Sanders is asking for the same thing as the conservationists-that 33 per cent of our State should be made a wilderness. As I have said, 12 1/2 per cent of our State is already locked away in national parks under State legislation, and that is before this legislation comes into effect. Let me tell the Committee what the other States have locked away. New South Wales has the next largest amount in national parks under State legislation but the figure there is 3.6 per cent. In Victoria the figure is 3.3 per cent; in Queensland it is 2.3 per cent; Western Australia, 1.8 per cent; South Australia, less than one per cent. Those are the latest figures that the Parliamentary Library could give us. That is what the rest of the States contribute for people to walk freely in. This area cannot be developed. As I have said, New South Wales has handed over 3.6 per cent, Victoria 3.3 per cent, Queensland 2.3 per cent, Western Australia 1.8 per cent, and South Australia less than one per cent. Senator Sanders wants to make Tasmania nothing but a wilderness. We in Tasmania will not go back to weaving and living an alternative lifestyle. We have a right to develop our State the same as the people of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia have the right to develop their States. There is no way that we will go back to the stupid nonsense that Senator Sanders talked about when putting forward his amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.41) —I raise with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) a very fundamental question that relates to Senator Sanders's amendment and the Bill itself. Upon what head of power in the Constitution is the Government seeking to rely for the efficacy of this measure? I think the Minister should advise the Committee on this matter. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.42) —As I understand it, we are acting under the foreign affairs power for the basis of this legislation. Speaking to the amendment, the Government, of course, appreciates the keen interest shown by the Australian Democrats in the protection of the environmentally sensitive areas in Tasmania. It also appreciates the initiatives that the Democrats senators have taken in bringing forward amendments with the idea of improving this Bill. Having said that, there is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, Tasmanians should be proud of the fact that so much of their State is so beautiful, so sensitive and has so much of a wilderness character that it has the best record in Australia in terms of area set aside for national park purposes. Such areas should be protected by this generation as well as future generations. It is not a question of making comparisons with such areas in other States. The fact is that the natural beauty in Tasmania needs to be protected. Senator Walters and her Senate colleagues should be proud of the fact that people in this country desire to protect and maintain that beauty, as does the Commonwealth. Of course, it is not a matter of whether a State has a lesser or greater amount of wilderness area; it is a matter of recognising the uniqueness of Tasmania, so that future generations will be able to say how wise were governments, communities, political parties, members of parliament and citizens for taking decisions back in 1987, and in the years prior to that, to bring about these circumstances. But that said, there are reasons why the Government is unable to support the amendment which has been moved by the Democrats. We accept that there is some logic, not only in the Democrats' position but also in the position that has been expressed by other honourable senators. I will deal now with the general principles involved in the Democrats' amendments 1 to 13 rather than prolonging the debate by repeating them when we deal with subsequent clauses. I point out that the protection that will be provided by the legislation is directed precisely to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas which are adjacent to the World Heritage area and which are immediately threatened by the current forestry operations. The forestry resources of the Douglas River, Quamby Bluff and Jackeys Marsh will be reviewed by the inquiry when it examines prudent and feasible alternatives to forestry operations in any qualifying areas found in the precise Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas. I say to Democrats senators, if logging operations appear likely to commence in the Douglas River, Quamby Bluff or Jackeys Marsh areas during the course of the inquiry, the Government will further examine the options available to protect those areas. The Government takes cognisance of the views that have been expressed. It cannot support the extensive proposals which would flow from the amendments. We therefore expect that when the Committee votes on these issues we will have the support of Opposition senators. The more concise and precise proposals embodied in the Bill will protect the view that exists even if that view is not accepted by the Opposition. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.47) —Does the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) acknowledge, from the remarks he has just made, that the Government is going to use this inquiry as a basis for extending its options to hold a subsequent inquiry and have subsequent bans similar to those proposed in this legislation apply to the other areas which have not been specifically referred to-the Douglas-Apsley, Quamby Bluff, Jackeys Marsh and other areas of Tasmania? If so, such an admission opens up this debate to the much wider ramifications of closing up permanently vast areas of forest land to the State and forestry development. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.48) —I cannot give the honourable senator any assurance. Governments are elected to govern and should circumstances eventuate or develop, options, of course, are available. These matters will be kept under review. Other options are available to government should the inquiry reach certain conclusions. Clearly, these would be matters that would have to be brought back to the Parliament for its consideration. I am giving no assurances; I am not making any threat. I am merely indicating that options are always available to government. What happens will depend on what the inquiry finally decides and recommends to government. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.49) —There is a subtle difference between what the Minister has just said and what he said earlier. I draw a distinction between what might arise during the course of the inquiry-including options which might be extended during the course of the inquiry-and what might arise subsequent to the inquiry as a result of the inquiry. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.49) —There is no point in the Minister saying that there is no implied threat. Of course there is an implied threat. Senator Watson —Let him answer my question. Senator WALTERS —The Minister will be answering both the honourable senator's question and my question. Senator Sanders has already indicated that the Australian Democrats want to go a lot further. The Minister said that the Democrats were making an effort to improve the Bill. As Senator Watson has said, the Minister referred to what would happen during the course of the inquiry. Senator Watson has made that point perfectly clear. But of course there is a threat. I would be most interested to hear why the Minister believes that the Democrats' amendments would improve the Bill and what his reply is to what Senator Watson said. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.50) —The Australian Democrats' amendments are, from their standpoint, designed to improve the Bill. That is their philosophical position and that is their objective, but it is not acceptable to the Government. Senator Walters —That is not what you said earlier. Senator GIETZELT —I just happen to have the notes in front of me, so I know what I said. The Government means exactly what I said, and that is that we will explore the options available if and when the circumstances arise following the inquiry. The precise words that I used were: The forestry resources of the Douglas River, Quamby Bluff and Jackeys Marsh will be reviewed by the inquiry when it examines prudent and feasible alternatives to forestry operations in any qualifying areas found in the . . . Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas. So if the inquiry comes to a certain conclusion, there are other options available to the Government, both from the point of view of the forestry operations and from the point of view of the environment. The Government is not going to close off its options; it is going to leave them on the table. That is also the reason why it is not prepared to accept the amendments of the Democrats. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.51) —While the Government says it is not going to accept the Australian Democrats' amendments, in effect it will pick them up indirectly because the Minister has acknowledged them as options that will be undertaken as part of the inquiry under the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. Therefore the Bill has far wider ramifications than have been put so far to this chamber today. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.52) —The Bill does not have those wider implications. Options are available to the Government to bring down legislation on any subject matter that it requires or desires from time to time. I have just indicated to the chamber that the reason we are not accepting the Democrats' amendments is that they are too far reaching. But if other options and alternatives arise during the inquiry or from the inquiry, they will clearly be open to the Government. Heavens above, Senator Walters and Senator Watson have been in this place long enough to know that governments can bring in any legislation, although it requires the consent of both Houses of Parliament to become law. Therefore if, in the evolution of this inquiry, we find that changes are essential, it will be a matter for the Government to make decisions based upon the inquiry and based upon the options available to it and to bring them here in legislation. The short answer is that there is no hidden agenda in respect of the Government's proposals on this current inquiry and on this piece of legislation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.53) —The Minister did start out by saying that the Dem- ocrats' amendments are an effort to improve the Bill-and Hansard has recorded that. This is exactly what is going to happen, bit by bit, until the Government has got 33 per cent of our State. I am delighted that a journalist from Tasmania is in the Press gallery listening to this debate, because he has the opportunity of repeating just what the Minister has said. I am delighted he is up there because it is important that Tasmanians get a direct feedback of the words from the Minister's mouth that the eventual opportunities and-to use the Minister's own words-`an improvement to the Bill' would make it 33 per cent-- Senator Watson —And a further option. Senator WALTERS —And a further option, as Senator Watson said, to the Government to bring it up to 33 per cent. I am delighted that the journalist is here; otherwise that point could be missed and perhaps the Tasmanian people would be completely unaware of what plans the Government and the Democrats have for my State. The Minister has said that we ought to be proud of our State. By gee, we are proud of our State. Senator Gietzelt —I am proud of it too. Senator WALTERS —The Minister has not been down there and walked in that 12.5 per cent of our State. When did he last go down and walk through the wilderness area? Senator Gietzelt —Last time we went to an election. Senator WALTERS —Oh, come on! He did not even go down and look at what his Government is taking from us. That is how much he cares. He is very generous with the amount he is wanting us to give up, another 5 per cent, to make it 17.5 per cent of our State. That is very generous from someone coming from New South Wales, which gives up only 3.6 per cent. New South Wales has the whole of Sydney Harbour. We could say: `Why deface any of that beautiful harbour?' Ye gods, what on earth is Sydney on about? It is the most beautiful harbour in the world, we are told. What would happen if the Government stepped in and said: `Wipe out all the development on Sydney Harbour. You must not deface it. It is the most beautiful harbour in Australia. Let us keep it for our future generations to see in its unspoiled beauty'? Wake up! We are not going back to basket weaving and alternative lifestyles in our State. We need development. We have already set aside 12 1/2 per cent, which Senator Gietzelt can walk through. If the Government wants more it can take it out of the Minister's State. Do not take it out of our State. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.57) —As usual, Senator Walters distorts the position to suit her prejudged views. The suggestion that this Bill is about taking anything from Tasmania and putting any further areas under a wilderness, national park or World Heritage designation is fallacious and has no substance. The Bill is about setting up an inquiry. It seeks to establish how we can reconcile the differences and the different interests that have to be accommodated in Tasmania. I can assure Senator Walters that I have done my utmost in this. For example, if she flies to Sydney, as the plane comes in to land at Mascot she will see 650 acres of land which I was responsible for being declared a wilderness area because of its unique aspects for future generations. Fortunately the Whitlam Government agreed to do that and fortunately the honourable senator's Government, when in power, agreed to hand it back to the State so that it is now protected for all time as a unique wilderness area. So we ought not to have any qualms about our commitments to maintaining what areas should be kept for future generations. However, having said that, I want to refute the suggestion that the honourable senator has made that this legislation is about increasing the Tasmanian wilderness or world heritage areas from 12 1/2 to 33 per cent. That is untrue, and she knows it to be untrue. She is only headline chasing. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.59) —I was interested in the Minister giving himself a pat on the back. He was responsible for setting aside 600 acres in New South Wales! I ask the Minister: What is the area that Tasmania has set aside? Senator Gietzelt —I beg your pardon. Senator WALTERS —The Minister indulges in conversation and does not hear the questions. I suggest it would be better if he paid attention to the debate. The Minister has said that he is very proud of the fact that in Gough Whitlam's time he had 600 acres set aside in Sydney as a wilderness area. That is wonderful. I ask the Minister: How many acres is he asking to be set aside in Tasmania? The Minister shakes his head. He does not know. The Minister has just said that he does not know and he is the Minister in charge of this Bill. Senator Gietzelt —On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I want that remark withdrawn. I am not prepared to get into a debate. The issue that is before the Chair is a piece of legislation establishing an inquiry. I will not go down the track of what this or that person might say or what this or that State might do with respect to wilderness areas. I indicated that we are debating legislation to set up an inquiry. We are not debating whether Tasmania will have 12.5 per cent, 33 per cent or 100 per cent declared as a wilderness area. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I will rule on the question of relevance. I do not think that anything Senator Walters said needs to be withdrawn. I call Senator Archer. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.02) —I would like to ask the Minister what the prudent and feasible alternatives are that have been referred to. As I mentioned in my speech, this is a general question covering the whole of the Bill. To the best of my knowledge no document that I have seen covers these prudent and feasible alternatives. If the Minister could provide this information for us at this juncture, it would probably save a lot of trouble. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.02) —I give an assurance that the legislation is about establishing an inquiry to find out what are the interests that have to be protected in Tasmania. In respect of the attitude that exists between the Tasmanian Government and the Commonwealth Government, the purpose of the inquiry is to find out how we can determine those interests to everybody's satisfaction. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.03) —Reference was made to the fact that there were prudent and feasible alternatives. I want to know what those prudent and feasible alternatives are. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.03) —It will be the task of the inquiry to establish that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.03) —I do not think that the memorandum of understanding is referred to anywhere in the Bill. But I heard Senator Gietzelt refer to the fact that, under the memorandum of understanding, considerations on the Lemonthyme area have to be referred to the Minister. I will just read from the appendix attached to the memorandum because if that is what the Minister said, it is not true. The memorandum says: Export licences will include a condition that . . . Forest Operations in the Lemonthyme will be in accordance with the Management Plan for the Lemonthyme State Forest 1983. That has nothing to do with needing the agreement of the Minister; so the Minister's brief is wrong. What is said, for instance, about the Mole Creek area-and let me distinguish between the two areas-is this: Forest operations will be in accordance with special management guidelines prepared taking account of the recommendations of the Kiernan Karst studies, and the views of the Minister for Primary Industry on protection of the National Estate values. That concerns the Mole Creek area, not the Lemonthyme Valley. The views of the Minister for Primary Industry have to be sought on that area. Things concerning the Lemonthyme Valley do not have to be so referred. On export licences, the memorandum just says that it has to be in accordance with the management plan for the Lemonthyme Valley. There was great acknowledgment that that management plan was being undertaken because page 2 of the memorandum that was signed by Mr Kerin-honourable senators should remember that-for the Government says: 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. It acknowledges that the Forestry Commission is acting in accordance with the memorandum. It rules out any interference with the Lemonthyme. It does not rule it out for Mole Creek. That is one of the areas on which matters must be referred back to the Minister for his views, but on the Lemonthyme they do not. The Lemonthyme was specifically set apart and export licences were able to be used in that area by a memorandum signed by the Federal Government and the State Tasmanian Government. Now the Minister has said in his speech that it is necessary to get his view. That is not correct. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(12.07) —This debate has ranged far and wide. I just point out that I am disappointed that the Government will not support our amendment. It will be under increasing pressure to do something about the Douglas-Apsley area when the Gray Government and forestry activities proceed in that area because a number of people in Tasmania are concerned. Over and over again we hear from the troglodyte Tasmanian senators that, for example, the Federal Government is stepping on the toes of 430,000 Tasmanians. But the point is that more than half of the Tasmanians are appalled at the stand on forestry. They are appalled at what the Tasmanian Forestry Commission and the forest industry are doing to Tasmania. So there are nowhere near 430,000 people. It may be 100,000 or so, who would back the right wing push by the Opposition, but probably not much more than that. What is the Opposition representing? Is it representing people? No, it is not. It is representing the mainland controlled logging industry in Tasmania. The Opposition is doing the industry's bidding. Those opposite are not representing the people of Tasmania; they are turning their backs on them. Frankly, I am very happy that the Federal Government exists and is willing to interfere, as it did in the case of the Franklin Dam. The troglodytes in the Opposition are very quiet about the Franklin Dam because when the Hawke Government stopped that dam it saved Tasmania a very big headache. The Hydro Electric Commission now says that we do not need the power. The dam would have been a financial disaster. It would have tied Tasmania to a financial dead horse for a great number of years. The Federal Government stopped the dam to save Tasmania-not to interfere willy-nilly in the affairs of Tasmanians, but to save them from themselves. This is the same type of legislation. Senator Walters constantly says-or constantly brays-that the Tasmanian Government or the Tasmanian people will have to give up this area. The loggers may have to give up this area but the Tasmanian people will have this area in perpetuity, hopefully. If in future times our sons and daughters decide they need that timber, it will still be there. But if the area is logged and in the future our sons and daughters say they do not want logging, the timber has already gone. The problem is that we make decisions now for the future. If we save something now it is there and people in the future can make the decisions. If we destroy it now, that is it. It is gone forever. We must err constantly on the side of prudent conservatism in these areas. Conservatism means that we preserve as much of the existing environment as possible. Again, I urge the Government to consider favourably our amendment. It has not indicated that it will do so. I am sorry. In the future this issue will be considered by the Government and at that time I hope it takes a more positive stance. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.10) —I ask the Minister to respond to the matters raised by Senator Walters, that is, that the forest operations in the Lemonthyme will be subject to a management plan rather than, as the Minister inferred, reference back to a Minister, which applies to other areas of the State. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.10) —Senator Walters and, to some extent, Senator Watson are distorting what I actually said. Fortunately, I have my written notes in front of me. I will say it again so that we lay to rest the distortion and the headline chasing that are clearly in the mind of Senator Walters. I said that, contrary to what had been implied by some speakers, who still are making the point, the State management plan for the Lemonthyme, which was prepared in 1983 without Commonwealth involvement, has not been formally approved by the Commonwealth. The memorandum of understanding did not give carte blanche for logging in the Lemonthyme without further reference to the Commonwealth. That is what I said. Indeed, the memorandum of understanding requires consultation with respect to all logging in National Estate areas. More specifically, clauses 23 to 27 provide for varying forms of consultation prior to the logging. Bear in mind what that means. That is what we are seeking to do-consult, inquire and then have the Parliament make its decision in the future. To support what Senator Sanders has just said, our obligation is to conserve-once we move down the track we cannot undo what has been done-but that has to be done sensibly, judiciously and properly. To do that we need the inquiry, and that is what the legislation is about. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.12) —The Minister says that the management plan was never approved by the Government. That is a lot of rot. I can only repeat the words of this memorandum: Export licences will include a condition that: Forest Operations in the Lemonthyme will be in accordance with the Management Plan for the Lemonthyme State Forest 1983. I do not know how the Minister can say that the Commonwealth never agreed to that in 1983. All I know is that when it was signed by Mr Kerin the Government agreed with it and said that that had to be abided by. Indeed, there has been no suggestion that that has not been abided by. There is no reference-perhaps the Minister can show me-to where it says that regarding the Lemonthyme the Minister has to seek approval. Mole Creek, yes; Lemonthyme, no. The Minister is really just trying to get around the situation. He was talking of the great need for a protection area-let us be right; let us call it a buffer zone-and the great need for this extra inquiry to say whether a buffer zone is needed. Let me read from the proposal for world heritage listing when the Commonwealth put up the south-west, the proposed dam area. Let us see what the Commonwealth said about that area which the Minister now says needs protecting. In confirming the western Tasmanian wilderness parks listing, the Commonwealth said: It is large enough to survive as a wilderness and to maintain genetic diversity despite influences from surrounding areas and to permit experience of solitude. The nominated region is an outstanding example of one of the few remaining temperate areas which is of sufficient size for the natural process 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 setting that area aside, the Commonwealth said it did not need a buffer zone; it was large enough to survive as a wilderness and give that experience of solitude. It did not need a buffer zone; it says that very clearly, and the Government agreed with that. Now, because the Government lost 20 per cent in Keating's area in the by-election, it is now saying: `We need some votes. We will forget all that. We will tear up the memorandum of understanding that we signed. We have to get the conservation votes'. So it is out to do a cynical exercise in relation to the Northern Territory and Tasmania. That is all it is about, let us be quite clear. The Government agreed earlier that this area did not need a buffer zone; it agreed in the memorandum of understanding that we could log Lemonthyme and have an export licence without referring back to the Minister. The whole thing is a cynical sham, and it is a disgraceful way to behave in a government. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.16) —I should have taken a point of order when Senator Walters spoke because she was not speaking at all to the amendment. I have allowed a great deal of licence to her to pursue what is really a matter for the second reading debate. Fair enough; she is entitled to have that. But it is not related to the amendments that are before the Committee. I know that whatever I say will not convince her but, in the hope that enlightenment finally dawns on some people, let me quote to her the last sentence of clause 27 of the memorandum of understanding. It says: For those areas which are subject to current operational plans, the Forestry Commission will advise ways in which registered matters have been taken into account and, if planning so allows, will take account of comments from the DPI. That is consultation; that is what it means. The Government believes this legislation is part of that consultation process. The CHAIRMAN —On the question of relevance, which Senator Gietzelt raised, I should make it clear that, because the Committee decided not to take the Bill as a whole but to take it clause by clause, clause 1 which is the short title covers the general issues that are being canvassed now. The scope of the particular piece of legislation is relevant. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.18) —So that we maintain the relevance, may I direct the Minister to clause 25 of the memorandum of understanding: In respect of domestic timber operations, i.e., extractive timber operations which are not Forest Operations, the MPI acknowledges that it will be for the State to decide the extent to which it would implement Commonwealth views on the protection of National Estate values. Does the Minister's copy from which he reads have that clause in it? Does he understand what domestic logging is and that the purpose of the exercise in Tasmania is domestic logging? Senator Gietzelt —Yes, I do. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.19) —In response to the question that I posed to the Minister as to what head of power the Government relies upon for the effective implementation of this measure, the Minister indicated the foreign affairs power. I assume that he was referring to section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution which enables the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth in respect of external affairs. I ask the Minister: What part of the Convention imposes an obligation on the Commonwealth to undertake the measures that are proposed in this legislation? I am talking about obligations, not about what is said in the Convention as to the rights of individual states party to the Convention. I am sure the Minister will be aware of the reason why I am asking these questions, bearing in mind that any court, in its interpretation of legislation, will need means which will assist it to come to a decision or a judgment in respect of the matter before it. These means include a consideration of what is said, particularly by the Minister, during the debates and these are known as external aids for the interpretation of the law. I am sure that the Minister, having been forewarned, will now be armed with a response. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.22) —Clause 4, on page 3 of the legislation, states: The object of this Act is to provide for measures that will enable effect to be given, in relation to the Lemonthyme area and the Southern Forests area, to Australia's obligations under the Convention, in particular the obligations to: (a) identify and delineate the natural heritage and cultural heritage; and (b) take appropriate measures to protect and conserve that heritage. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.23) —That was a most revealing comment because it stuck strictly to what is stated in the material before us. However, I am asking the Minister to go back to the Convention and tell the Committee what exact part of it puts an obligation on the state parties to impose restrictions on, for example, domestic logging in Australia prior to the identification of areas under the Convention. What part of the Convention enables a state party to it to take action as is proposed in this Bill? The action proposed in this Bill is not to protect already declared areas but to identify areas. The point I am raising with the Minister is: Given the preamble to the Convention and given the recognition within the Convention of federalist states such as Australia, what part of that Convention is the relevant part which imposes, according to the Government, an obligation such that the Government has decided to introduce this measure? Senator Gietzelt —We do not have a copy of the Convention upon which the Government is operating. Senator HARRADINE —We might need it in the future. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I have allowed fairly wide latitude to the discussion of clause 1. The subject you have raised would be more appropriately brought up when we consider clause 4, which will come on a little later in the debate. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.25) —I draw the Minister's attention to Hansard of 18 February 1986. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), responded to a question raised by Senator Sanders. His comments support the argument that has been put forward by Senator Walters and me. That answer acknowledges that the Government has agreed to the management plan. Senator Walsh stated: 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. I quote further sections of Hansard: I am advised that operations planned and being undertaken in the normal management process by the State Forestry Commission do not compromise the proposed arrangements. The Minister further stated in relation to these two proposed areas: These areas are two parts of some 37 National Estate areas considered by the Government in its decision of 16 December. Consistent with the decision and the documents that were circulated publicly by the Minister for Primary Industry, there are a large number of areas where management planning for the period has not been completed. The Commonwealth will be ensuring that its views will be taken into account in respect of any operations. I put to the Committee that those are the other areas which have not been subject to a management plan and to which the Minister incorrectly referred, but, at the same time, tried to draw in the Lemonthyme with the other areas that have not been considered. Senator Gietzelt —I have no comment. Senator Walters —He will not answer. The CHAIRMAN —The Minister is not obliged to answer. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.27) —I refer to the amendment that has been moved by Senator Sanders. What I shall say is not meant to be a reflection on him personally; far from it. I simply observe the irony of the situation in which Senator Sanders is able to be present in this chamber and to move an amendment which would have widespread ramifications for workers in the forestry industry in Tasmania. Senator Sanders's presence in this place relies on the fact that voters in the-- Senator Sanders —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I ask you to take a look at the relevancy of Senator Harradine's contribution to the debate on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN —I am watching it. Senator Harradine is entitled to put a preamble to his point, but it should be relevant. Senator Sanders —Can he tell us what the meaning of life is? Senator HARRADINE —I would be very happy to tell the honourable senator what the meaning of life is, but I think that may well be against the Standing Orders at present. I think it is relevant to note that it was the workers in the forestry industry who put Senator Sanders in this chamber. They did it unwittingly by virtue of the operations-- Senator Sanders —Are you saying that the Tasmanians are not with me? Senator HARRADINE —I am saying that the Commonwealth electoral laws are just simply a farce when it comes to Senate voting; that is to say, as far as the ticket vote is concerned. As the honourable senator knows-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The subject before the Chair is the change in the title of the Bill. I have accepted much debate on the broad scope of the Bill and the desirability of certain measures, but I think that a prolonged discussion of the Commonwealth Electoral Act is certainly out of order. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Chairman, I assure you I am not going to engage in a long discussion. Let that come when the amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act come up. But I am surely entitled to go to the amendment moved by Senator Sanders and to say that the irony of that is that those people working in the forestry industry who put a number 1 in the box for the Australian Labor Party on the Senate ballot paper actually elected Senator Sanders unwittingly. I have spoken to a quite large number of those people. I have said to them: `How did you vote?'. They have said: `We put a number 1 in the Labor Party box on the ticket'. I said `Congratulations, you have elected Senator Sanders', because what happened was that the Labor Party Executive-- Senator Gietzelt —Mr Chairman, your ruling is being defied. The CHAIRMAN —Yes. Senator Harradine, have you finished on that line? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, Mr Chairman. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.32) —We now have a clear contradiction between an earlier statement by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in this place and the Minister who is taking this debate through the Senate chamber. I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who is at the table: Who is right-him or the Minister for Primary Industry? Senator Gietzelt —No comment. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.33) —When the Minister for Veterans' Affairs says `no comment' it is very obvious that he has been caught-caught thoroughly by the desperate efforts of himself and his departmental advisers. They are passing him little bits of paper every now and again trying to get him out of the situation that the Government has got itself into over this memorandum of understanding, because-- Senator Gietzelt —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Walters is not dealing with the matter before the Chair. Senator WALTERS —I am, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The matter before the Chair is the change to the title of the Bill. Senator Walters is entitled to discuss it but she must relate her remarks to that subject. Senator WALTERS —I am relating my remarks to the memorandum of understanding, Mr Chairman, which is the basis of the title of the Bill, because the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests are in this memorandum of understanding. Let me again quote to the Minister the relevant sections. Under the heading `Areas listed on the Register of the National Estate' it is stated: Present National Estate areas have been categorised and will be dealt with according to the Appendix to this Memorandum. As Senator Archer pointed out, one area deals with domestic stuff and one area deals with the need for export licences. The memorandum says very clearly, as Senator Archer said: In respect of domestic timber operations, i.e. extractive timber operations which are not Forest Operations, MPI- that is, the Minister for Primary Industry- acknowledges that it will be for the State to decide the extent to which it would implement Commonwealth views on the protection of National Estate values. It says that it will be for the State to decide. Further on in the memorandum we come to the appendix covering the areas dealt with. It says that export licences include the condition that: Forestry Operations in the Lemonthyme will be in accordance with the Management Plan for the Lemonthyme State Forest 1983. The Minister has just been passed another little bit of paper to try perhaps to get him out of his next jam. We have the three areas. We have the acknowledgment that the National Estate areas are to be dealt with according to the appendix. We have a statement to show that the Minister has no worry about the Lemonthyme Valley and that we can use it if we issue export licences for woodchips or whatever, so long as it is in accordance with the management plan. But as far as logging is concerned, which we are doing now, the memorandum says very clearly that it is nothing to do with the Commonwealth. Senator Archer rightly pointed out a couple of minutes ago that the memorandum of understanding that that lot opposite signed referred only to the decisions of the State. It even says that the Minister for Primary Industry acknowledges that `it will be for the State to decide' on domestic logging. What little bit of paper is the Minister being passed to try to get out of that one, I would be very interested to hear. Senator McIntosh —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. This business about passing pieces of paper is getting to be tedious repetition. It is common practice in this place, and everyone knows it. Former Ministers from the other side were in the same position. It is getting tedious listening to this garbage. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator McIntosh should not take points of order in those terms. There is no point of order. Senator Newman —Is the Minister going to answer Senator Walters's question or is he not? Will he stand condemned by his silence? The CHAIRMAN —Order! I call honourable senators as they stand. If they do not choose to stand they do not get called. Senator WALTERS —The Minister, as I said, has obviously got a bit of advice from his advisers, and yet he is not even going to make an attempt to give any answer to the questions we have put. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.38) —I will not be party to a filibuster by Senator Walters. However, I will say this: The memorandum of understanding that she is constantly referring to did not deal with world heritage values, which is the basis upon which the Government is operating in respect of this legislation. It is not relevant to this piece of legislation. The legislation is about an inquiry. That is the object of the Bill, and I do not intend, therefore, to assist Senator Walters in a filibuster which will get us absolutely nowhere. She knows it, I know it, the Committee knows it, and I do not intend to respond any longer. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.38) —The Minister has certain powers in this place, but he certainly does not have the power of gagging us on this side. He just does not have that power. So I will talk as long as I like. Senator Gietzelt —I am not asking for that power. You have not even indicated whether you are supporting the amendment or not. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Walters has the floor. Senator WALTERS —I will talk as long as I want to in this place. Senator Walsh on 18 February last year, in answer to Senator Sanders, said: In respect of the Lemonthyme to which Senator Sanders has attributed wilderness value, I am advised this is not specifically a registered value . . . It is not. The Minister said it very clearly. He said: . . . this is not specifically a registered value for this area . . . He said that it was a buffer zone for the area. He said further: Senator Sanders will be aware that the Tasmanian Forestry Commission in 1983 published a management plan which took into account the then established values of the Lemonthyme, namely, that it is the view field of the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park. That is all. Senator Walsh says that it is not a world heritage area. The Minister is now saying that the memorandum has nothing to do with world heritage areas. He is completely at loggerheads with Senator Walsh. I do not doubt that the Government will now have a very hard time trying to bust up the memorandum in order to convey to the Tasmanian people that it is trying to be legitimate when all that is involved is a grab for votes following its 20 per cent drop in votes in the by-election in New South Wales. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Sanders's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Sanders, N. K. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Powell, J. F. Alston, R. K. R. Jessop, D. S. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. McKiernan, J. P. Carrick, Sir John Maguire, G. R. Childs. B. K. Newman, J. M. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R. Devlin, R. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Teague, B. C. Evans, Gareth Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walters, M. S. Giles, P. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. West, S. M. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Progress reported. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes and provided further that should a division be called for, such a division shall be forthwith postponed till a later hour of the day not being earlier than 2 p.m. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.50) —I rise on a matter which is of considerable concern to the fishermen of Western Australia, particularly those that fish in the area of Kalbarri. Kalbarri is a fishing port that is most noted for its landing of fine crayfish and the Kalbarri crayfishing industry has a bright future, if properly managed. Kalbarri is a holiday resort and fishing area on the coast of Western Australia, a beautiful place which is growing and prospering for those two reasons. Last year $11m worth of crays was landed, $2m worth being exported. In addition, there are fishermen in the area who are keen to develop an export market for fish to Japan. As I have said, if the fishing grounds around Kalbarri are properly managed, the area faces a bright future. Recently, this future has been placed in some jeopardy. A number of fishing boats from Queensland have been licensed to trawl outside 100 fathoms but there have been local reports that they trawl inside 100 fathoms. To do so would, of course, be in breach of their licence. The further occurrence of such breaches could be prevented under the law as it presently exists. Another and more serious threat has been posed by Western Australian boats trawling inside 100 fathoms. These boats are licensed to trawl and are only prevented from landing crayfish. The threat which they pose to the Kalbarri grounds is not so much from the actual landing of crayfish as, more particularly, the damage that trawling does to the ocean floor. Trawling operations involve dragging along the sea bed. This disturbs the delicate but vitally important environment of the crayfish breeding grounds. Continued trawling will jeopardise the long term prospects for the crayfish industry in the area. The damage that trawling can do has been tragically demonstrated in the Eden area of New South Wales. In 1981 fishing in the Eden area was thought to be a boom industry. Operations first took place over the end of the continental shelf. Boats from New South Wales down to Tasmania fished the grounds intensely. Soon the size of the catches dropped. Operations were moved closer to the shore and many boats came back into waters of around 50 fathoms. The sea bottom in the area is flat. It contained coral, sponges and other marine life. Initially trawling operations could take place for only short periods of time before the net had to be emptied, not merely of fish but of all the other things that it had picked up. Continued trawling would have meant that coral and other miscellaneous sea life would have torn the net to pieces. The problem of regularly hauling in the net was overcome when the fishermen began to use rubber buffers on nets to prevent their being destroyed on the shallow bottom. Needless to say, this development only destroyed the sea bottom all the more quickly. The growth on the sea bottom was in time ploughed down. As a result of this abuse, prospects of a fishing boom taking place in Eden ended. I know of some fishermen who have actually left Eden to come to the better managed fishing grounds in Western Australia. Western Australia and Kalbarri must not suffer the same fate as was suffered in Eden in New South Wales. The Commonwealth and State Ministers must act to prevent trawling operations inside 100 fathoms, the crayfish breeding grounds, and must act quickly. In saying this I am not in any way suggesting that fishing and crayfish operations are incompatible, but in order to prevent damage to the ocean bottom, and a threat being posed to crays, conventional fishing operations must take place by the use of wet line techniques and not trawling. Line fishing and cray fishing have existed together harmoniously for 60 years. The current legal position, briefly summarised, is that the State Government has jurisdiction to a distance of three miles out; the Commonwealth has jurisdiction thereafter. This situation is to change, hopefully in the near future. The Commonwealth will be given jurisdiction over certain fishing operations, such as for bluefin tuna, to the high water mark and the State will be given jurisdiction to the continental shelf over trawling operations such as prawning. Undoubtedly, such an arrangement will provide for more speedy remedies when a threat such as the one which I have outlined is posed. However, this constitutional settlement has not yet taken place and the crayfish grounds around Kalbarri ought not be left vulnerable until such time as it does occur-whenever that may be. Present law requires that a prohibition be issued by the State Minister. The Minister then makes a recommendation to the Commonwealth Minister that he do the same for Commonwealth waters. The Western Australian Minister for Fisheries has requested the Commonwealth to issue a notice prohibiting all trawling, except by boats holding a trawling endorsement, on the continental shelf south of 21 degrees latitude. The aim of permitting this exception is to allow continued trawling for scallops around the Abrolhis Islands. I would urge the Federal Minister to act quickly on this matter and the State Minister to do the same. I would hope that each Minister would at the very least be prepared to issue notices for temporary moratoriums so that the effect of trawling operations in the areas that I have described can be examined. I cannot emphasise too much the need for each Minister to act quickly. I am well aware, of course, that the wheels of government are not accustomed to turning at any great pace. It is just that in this case every day lost is another day of potential damage to the Kalbarri fishing industry. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(12.55) —I wish very briefly to make reference to a matter which I think should be of concern to the Parliament. It relates to a recent trip overseas by the Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania, Mr John Bennett, in relation to a visit to Geneva and other places. It was necessary for him to leave Australia on the week ending 22 February last. In the course of so doing it was necessary for him to make certain arrangements and to advise certain people of his departure. As a result, the matter became known to the media. But the aspect that is of particular concern to me and, I believe, the Parliament is that according to Mr Bennett, whose remarks are recorded in Tasmanian Hansard of 26 March of this year, as he was leaving on the Friday to go home to collect his wife prior to attending a function at Government House which started at 5 p.m. that day, a reporter from the Hobart Mercury rang his office to advise that the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra had rung the newspaper to inform it that Mr Bennett and a Mr Julian Green, who I understand is a legal counsel, were travelling to Switzerland and possibly Paris. A matter of very great concern, I believe, is the allegation that the Department of Foreign Affairs took it upon itself to inform the media of the trip on official business of a Minister of State. It would seem to me that on the face of it there can be no explanation other than that the Department was being partisan in its actions. There would not appear to be justification for any official of a Commonwealth department keeping the media advised of such matters and I would certainly urge that inquiries be made into it; that Senator Gareth Evans, who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this place, should in particular investigate it and report back to the Senate. On the face of it I believe that such an occurrence would constitute a very serious breach of the responsibilities of a Federal Government department. I am not aware that any refutation or statement has been made on the matter. That may well be because the remarks of Mr Bennett have not been reported in the media, either in Tasmania or on the mainland. But I serve notice now that it is a matter for concern; that it does warrant investigation and that the department certainly should put its position on the record. I would have thought that the most appropriate way of doing that would be for the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this place to conduct inquiries and advise the Senate as to the accuracy of Mr Bennett's complaints on the subject. Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that Senator Ryan will be absent from Question Time today. Any questions that might normally be directed to Senator Ryan are to be directed to Senator Tate. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the dispute over who should drive a truck at the Port Kembla steelworks. The dispute is preventing the export of steel to South Korea, and is threatening to bring the car industry to a standstill because no steel is being sent to the South Australian company which makes wheels for Australian vehicle manufacturers. Does the Minister agree that this sort of industrial lunacy-and it is reported that it is a fight between a trotskyite and a more moderate union faction-is a serious threat to Australian's reputation as a reliable supplier and, if it continues, poses a further blow to the motor vehicle industry? Does the Minister agree that this sort of dispute is fundamentally at odds with the industry development that Australia currently needs if it is to escape from its present economic difficulties? Does the Minister believe that the Business Council of Australia's proposal to move away from craft unions to industry or enterprise unions would help reduce this sort of debilitating confrontation? What steps, if any, will the Government take to bring this about? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the dispute at Port Kembla. I do not necessarily accept the explanation of the origins of that dispute which Senator Chaney has given in his question. I do not think that matters much. I agree entirely that it is an absurd dispute, that it is a threat to Australia's reputation as a supplier of raw materials and manufactured goods, and that it is at odds with the best endeavours that this country should be making in industrial relations. I agree that over time the best solution to some of these problems is to try to move away from the craft structure of Australian unions, which we inherited from Great Britain, and towards industry based union structures. This problem has emerged on a number of occasions in other industries. We are in a political forum here, and I remind the Senate that over several decades these sorts of instances were much more usual than they are today. In fact, one of the dramatic things about an industrial disruption such as this is that everybody instantly becomes aware of it because it is dramatically different from the norm. That does not in any sense excuse it. I agree that the situation which has emerged at Port Kembla is intolerable. The company has been in discussion with my office, and I in turn will be talking to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations about the matter, but governments of any political persuasion have no mechanism for instantly solving these disputes, which are largely irrational from the point of view of the best interests of both industry and the work force. In regard to changes in union structures, this problem has emerged in other industries, most notably in the car industry last year with the dispute at Borg Warner, which was occasioned by 12 employees. This had a very adverse effect on the whole of the motor vehicle industry and resulted in the laying off of a large number of employees. I have had discussions with the unions in both the car manufacturing industry and the car component industries about this issue. There is a very strong recognition among those unions that these things cannot happen in the future. Discussions are going on about co-operation between various unions to try to prevent these disputes in the motor vehicle industry. I think those things will be successful because there is a strong awareness of their importance. As for this particular dispute, I can offer no pat solution, but the Government will be trying to assist in reconciling the problem as best it can. I emphasise that these problems are not matters, in my view, susceptible to dramatic solutions imposed from on high. They are best solved in the longer term by creating an environment in which attitudinal changes take place. I think that is important not only in this dispute but in the general structure of Australian industry. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his very full reply and I seek clarification on one point. Bearing in mind the Minister's concession that these are very real problems, has the Government any proposals for institutional change which would facilitate the formation of industry or enterprise unions? Senator BUTTON —I am not able to answer that question in precise detail. I know that discussions have been going on between the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and major union organisations about reconciling some of these difficulties. Again, it will be a matter which requires lengthy discussion and some time. I remember, however, that this Government sought at an earlier stage to enhance the prospects of amalgamation between unions by legislation, which was opposed by the Opposition; and when suggested by the Labor Opposition when the Liberal Party was in government, suggestions for improving or facilitating union amalgamations were seen as anathema to conservative parties. To answer the question, I think that discussions are going on between the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and union bodies about this issue. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Has the committee inquiring into the fire at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Lucas Heights Research Establishment on 18 March reported on that incident? If so, what are the findings and can the Minister inform the Senate of any progress towards remedying the problems in disseminating information to the public which were made apparent by the accident? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have now received the report of the committee which comprised representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the New South Wales Department of Health, the Sutherland Shire Council and the Commission's union staff association representative. For the information of honourable senators, I table that report. In addition, the Commission has prepared a separate report concerning public information, which I shall mention again in a moment, and I table that document as well. The committee concluded that the fire was caused, as I indicated the other day, by spontaneous combustion in the charcoal filter used to trap radioactive gases released by operations in the hot cell in question. The precise reason for that combustion may never be clearly established. However, the committee ruled out operator error. The committee has recommended, among other things, the installation of temperature indicating devices in all in-cell charcoal filters used in radioisotope production to give early warning of unusual or unexpected rises in temperature and avoid a similar incident occurring recurring. The committee believes that no member of the Commission's staff, the New South Wales Emergency Services personnel or the general public suffered or will suffer any adverse health effects from radioactivity as a result of the accident. In fact, the report indicates that had a person at the Atomic Energy Commission boundary been able to locate himself in the middle of the plume of noble gases released as a result of the accident-perhaps by sitting in a helicopter with the door open, or something of that kind-he would have been exposed to a smaller level of radioactivity than he would have incurred had he stayed at home in a brick house for the same period. The committee was highly complimentary in its assessment of the responses by the New South Wales Emergency Services and the Atomic Energy Commission's staff to the fire. Indeed, the only real criticism that can be levelled as a result of the incident-and the committee's report is consistent with this-arises from the failure in communication about the size of the fire and the consequent alarmist reaction on the part of the media and certain sections of the public. Because of this, I asked the Commission to look at this question and the possibility of establishing a special communications line to handle public inquiries in relation to such incidents. The Commission has now made a thorough examination of this problem of dissemination of public information and is implementing a number of measures designed to improve communications. These include the establishment of a public information facility located adjacent to the emergency operations control centre with multiple dedicated PABX extensions, television and radio facilities for monitoring media reporting, and a word processing capability. These measures and those recommended by the committee of inquiry should ensure that the overreaction which resulted on 18 March will not recur. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry to a recent request from the Western Australian Minister for Fisheries to the Minister for Primary Industry-namely, that all trawling on the continental shelf south of latitude 21 degrees be prohibited, except, of course, to boats holding trawling endorsements so as not to inhibit scallop trawling in the Abrolhos Islands area. In view of the damage which trawling does to the ocean floor and the threat which it represents to, amongst other things, crayfish grounds, can the Minister tell the Senate whether the Federal Government intends to act on the request and, if so, by what date can we expect the regulations to become operative so as to protect the cray grounds? Senator WALSH —I have a note from Mr Kerin on this matter. The Government is acting on the request from the Western Australian Minister for Fisheries because the Commonwealth Government has jurisdiction beyond Western Australian coastal waters to the limit of the exclusive economic zone and an obligation under the Fisheries Act to manage and conserve fishery resources in waters where Commonwealth jurisdiction applies. The Australian Fisheries Service has already had discussions with the Western Australian Department of Fisheries to determine the action that the Commonwealth might take to regulate trawling in the in-shore waters south of latitude 21 degrees off the Western Australian coast with particular emphasis on protection of the valuable rock lobster fishery. Action to implement the appropriate regulatory measures is expected within two or three weeks. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in yesterday's West Australian newspaper headed `Stone in new job'? The article reports on the appointment of former Treasury Secretary, John Stone, to the position of spokesman on industrial relations for the H. R. Nicholls Society. The appointment is reported to be an attempt by the society to overcome concern `about growing public acceptance that it is an extremist right wing organisation aimed at abolishing the rights of workers'. Has the Government ever received submissions or other evidence that would encourage it to accept the description of the H. R. Nicholls Society set out in the article? Have the Government, any of its Ministers or their representatives ever been asked to participate in any of the Society's public forums on the subject of industrial relations or economic matters? Senator WALSH —Senator Button has just supplied me with a bit of information in an aside which may be useful in answering this question. That information is that Senator Button has been asked to address the H.R. Nicholls Society, but has refused. Senator Button —No-participate. Senator WALSH —Perhaps you should make a personal explanation. To my knowledge no member of the Government has received an invitation to address the H.R. Nicholls Society, although I once received-I think from an official of the Society-an H.R. Nicholls tie with an accompanying note saying that David Clark had suggested that it should be sent to me. David Clark is a financial journalist who is noted for having a perverse sense of humour. As to the description which Senator McKiernan quoted about the organisation-that is, the ever-growing public acceptance that it is an extremist right wing organisation aimed at abolishing the rights of workers-I think that that is probably a fair description of the organisation as a whole, although, in my view, it is not a fair description of every member. I am not aware of any official submissions from the Society on industrial relations or on general economic matters, although there may have been some. Therefore, I am not able to comment on whether there would have been anything of that nature which would have encouraged the Government to accept the view set out in the article about the H.R. Nicholls Society and Mr Stone's appointment as mouthpiece on industrial relations. However, I think that the appointment could reasonably be taken as evidence of how detached that organisation is from industrial relations reality that it would appoint a person such as Mr Stone, who not only has no experience in the area, or indeed, in recent times, any intellectual consistency, but also has plenty of dogmatic views. I assume that the H. R. Nicholls Society is more interested in having Mr Stone's dogmatic views stated on behalf of the Society in the forlorn hope that his one time reputation as a competent Treasury Secretary or Treasury official still lingers in the community. I do not think it does linger very much in the community and if anyone wonders why, I suggest he or she should have a look at the intellectual honesty and quality of many of the things Mr Stone has been writing since he retired as Treasury Secretary. Senator MACKLIN —I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and refer to clashes between Aborigines and police which occurred on 27 September last year when Aborigines were attending an end of season football dance at the RSL hall at Rosalie. I raised the matter in an adjournment debate on 7 October last year, seeking an assurance from the Government that it would have an inquiry into the matter. The Leader of the Government in the Senate assured me that he would refer the matter to the appropriate Minister very quickly. What has been the result of that action? Has the Government decided to have an inquiry and, if so, will the Minister advise when such an inquiry will begin? Senator BUTTON —I apologise to Senator Macklin for not having an entirely satisfactory answer on this matter. It was referred to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, for consideration. I have now been advised that the Minister has received evidence compiled by the Aboriginal Legal Service and current consideration is being given to whether there is sufficient justification on the basis of that material for a Federal inquiry. Senator Macklin is aware that the call for a public inquiry was rejected by the Queensland Government and since then the Aboriginal Legal Service has taken statements from witnesses to this incident but no final decision has yet been made on the basis of that material. Senator ELSTOB —My question, to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, relates to assurances given by the Government that after the next election it will continue with separate departments of Veterans' Affairs and Social Security. The Minister will be aware of recent Press speculation about the May mini-Budget, leaked Opposition policy statements and statements from the Returned Services League about the maintenance of a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs being again under threat. Will the Minister confirm yet again that this Government intends to maintain a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs? Senator GIETZELT —From time to time over the last year or so I have been asked a number of questions in respect of the future viability of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. These questions have arisen mainly because of the changing attitudes that have been expressed from time to time by the conservative parties or the forces of the New Right who, in various ways, have published documents and made statements that there ought to be drastic reductions in the number of departments and in the role of the Public Service-some have gone so far as to suggest the abolition of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. As a consequence, a deputation from the Returned Services League of Australia met with Mr Howard shortly before Christmas. According to the national newsletter of the RSL, Mr Howard refused to give a commitment that the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be retained. When there is disarray in the ranks of the conservative parties, documents seem to have the capacity to fall off the back of trucks with greater rapidity than in normal times. A document published in the Australian Financial Review suggested that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be amalgamated with the Department of Social Security and will operate under a senior Minister-the Minister for Community Services-with the other Ministers being junior Ministers. All of that has not been denied by the Opposition parties. For that matter, I am not sure who are the leaders of the Opposition parties, whether it be the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia. There are so many different groups and factions that one does not know whom to look to for some response on these matters. All I can say is that the proposals which are coming from the conservative side of politics create a great deal of confusion and concern in the ranks of veterans' organisations. I am the recipient of hundreds of letters from people who believe that such changes will drastically affect their benefits and rights. I can certainly say to Senator Elstob, in confirming what I have said in response to the many letters that I have received: The Prime Minister has given a firm assurance not only to me personally but also to the Parliamentary Labor Party that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be retained. Senator KILGARIFF —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to a report in yesterday's Northern Territory News in which it is stated that minutes of a meeting of the Northern Land Council indicate that the Council has refused to allow a group of traditional owners to proceed with a tentative agreement with Queensland Mines Ltd under which that company would explore on traditional Aboriginal land. Is the Minister aware that the Kunwinjku Association apparently wishes to proceed with the agreement with Queensland Mines, which was reached after extensive negotiations and consultations with the traditional owners? If the traditional owners are satisfied with the deal they have reached with the mining company, does the Minister believe that the Northern Land Council should be permitted to ride roughshod over their express wishes in this way? What action will the Minister take to ensure that the wishes of the traditional owners of the mining company are not frustrated by this, or further, interference of the Northern Land Council? Senator TATE —It is true that for the next 35 minutes I will be the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. But I am doubly removed from a familiarity with the portfolio as I am only in that capacity representing Senator Ryan. So I am afraid to say that in the brief that I have before me I do not have sufficient information to give Senator Kilgariff an adequate answer. I will attempt to find an answer for him as soon as possible. Senator JONES —I draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to the many Press reports of the proposed division of the Opposition into four parties-Liberal, official National, unofficial National and Democrats. What additional costs would the Government face in regard to any increase in the number of Opposition parties in this place or the other place? Senator WALSH —At present the Opposition leaders-that is, Mr Howard, Mr Brown and Senator Chaney-receive additional salary because of the positions they hold as Opposition leaders, as do Mr Sinclair as the leader of the third party in the House of Representatives and Senator Haines as the leader of a party that is recognised as a party but is not an Opposition party. Of course, Opposition front benchers are also entitled to some additional use of government cars, including the use of a car in their own capital city, and travelling allowance. I do not know what that additional car use costs but it is probably less than Neil Brown's car bill in total. The major cost of additional facilities provided to Opposition members comes from the substantial number of staff who are allocated to the Opposition parties. At present 51 staff are allocated to the Opposition parties-that is the Liberal Party and the National Party. If, as now appears possible, there are four parties instead of two, the arrangements would depend, to some extent, I expect, on which of those parties designated themselves as being Opposition parties. Should that happen, my own attitude would be that the existing number of staff-that is, 51-would have to be divided up among the same number of parliamentarians regardless of how they chose to group themselves. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, there are 38 members of the Howard Liberal Party, 29 members of the Peacock Liberal Party and six who are undecided, against 12 Petersen Nationals and 14 Sinclair Nationals. I am not in administrative control of this matter-I think Senator Tate is the Minister responsible for staffing levels. But my attitude certainly would be that, however the Opposition fragmented and regrouped itself, it would have to manage within the same staff and financial limits that currently apply for budgetary reasons, although I expect that that would not stop it complaining and demanding more staff notwithstanding its simultaneous demands that both the number of Commonwealth employees and the amount of Commonwealth expenditure be reduced. Senator REID —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. Is it a fact that no plumbing work has been done on the new Parliament House site for approximately five weeks? Is it a fact that completion of the building has now been extended by some weeks? In the event that the plumbers' strike continues for a further three weeks, will the cost of the strike have equalled the cost of the deferred landscaping? Is it correct that it costs $350,000 to open the gates of the new Parliament House site on a working day? Senator GIETZELT —I have some information in respect of industrial disputes and the landscaping at the new Parliament House site. The quite extensive brief indicates that an industrial dispute of some consequence is taking place. I am advised by ministerial brief not to respond particularly to the difficult negotiations that are taking place in respect of that dispute. I think that is a very sensible approach for a Minister in this place who represents a Minister in the other place. The campaign involves a shorter-- Senator Walsh —What about the doctors union's pay grab? Senator GIETZELT —The campaign involves a claim for a shorter working week and an increase in pay of some $70 a week. Of course that is considerably less, as my colleague the Minister for Finance points out, than what is being demanded by those who conduct medical services in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government is, of course, one of the parties concerned. As the Senate would be aware, the employer is not strictly the Federal Government itself. Negotiations therefore between the employers and the employees are matters which are the concern of the Government but not the responsibility of the Government. Therefore statements that may be expected from either me or, say, the Minister for Territories, Mr Scholes, would be only of an advisory nature and we would not be expected to make any decisions in respect of the current dispute. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Special Minister of State. Has the Minister seen the 5 March edition of a financial newsletter entitled Your Money Weekly which contains an advertisement inviting persons to donate to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's Canberra campaign fund through a company called Kaldeal Pty Ltd? What status would the company hold under the terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act? Could this company be used to hide the identity of those persons donating to the Queensland Premier's campaign fund? Senator TATE —I have seen a copy of what is claimed to be Australia's leading financial newsletter, entitled Your Money Weekly, dated 5 March 1987 which contains a paragraph that reads as follows: John Howard, like a frontline soldier shooting his comrade in the foot, rather than shooting the enemy, is showing more fire Vs Joh than Vs Bob Hawke. Should subscribers wish to make campaign donations, as I do, (and I don't wear white shoes!) to Joh the address is:- Kaldeal Pty Ltd, Attn: P Anemaat C/- Premier's Department, F115, PO Box 185, Brisbane Qld 4000. I understand that the person P. Anemaat is in fact the Premier's Secretary. There have been several occasions already in the last several weeks when I have found it necessary to get up in this chamber and make it very clear that this chamber, and I believe this Parliament, will resist the attempts of the Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia to subvert those provisions of the Electoral Act which underpin our democratic electoral system. We have had a very clear attempt here, I believe, to use the corporate veil to mask the identity of those donors to this particular company for the `Joh for PM' campaign. I have pointed out many times over the last few weeks that there are provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act which potential candidates, their political organisations and potential donors need to keep in mind, because those provisions are directed at identifying donors and the quantum of donations, and will require some disclosure by a candidate within 15 weeks of polling day. The fact is that we have already had from Sir Robert Sparkes a clear indication that if he were in a position to do so, he would repeal those provisions of the Electoral Act which require those disclosures. He would attempt to get this Parliament to collaborate with the Queensland National Party in an attempt to flout the provisions of the Act which this chamber has said ought to be in operation as a safeguard for our electoral process. It is a fact that the legislation he has in mind would need to be retrospective, and that itself, I think, would be quite a remarkable thing for this chamber to endorse. But quite apart from that, the fact is that as far as major donors to political parties are concerned, their identity ought to be known so that the public can make a judgment as to whether the political party which may gain office might be unduly influenced by those who have made substantial donations. Quite apart from the terms of the legislation, I have also pointed to the fact that this Parliament is possessed, through its committee system, of a very effective tool for unmasking any corrupt, untoward or undue influence being brought to bear within our electoral process. Since I made those comments in the chamber a week or so ago, I have had occasion to refresh my memory and look at the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which on page 172 states: Such a committee- that is, a committee of the Parliament- would be well positioned to investigate suspected abuses and would have undoubted powers to do so. These powers derive from the powers of investigation that both Houses of the Parliament have under section 49 of the Constitution and would operate as both complementary and supplementary to those specifically conferred on the AEC- the Australian Electoral Commission- by the Electoral Act. It can be anticipated that such a committee would not hesitate to exercise these powers where it suspects the aims of the legislation are being subverted. We have there I think a fair indication that that Committee, if it should continue in existence either as a select committee or as a standing committee of this Parliament, will be well endowed with those plenary powers to call witnesses before it, to call for papers and documents and discover whether in fact undue influence has been purchased by those who would make donations, apparently under a cloak of anonymity, to a political organisation seeking to put a member into this Parliament. That corporate veil or cloak of anonymity cannot be guaranteed to those donors, and they should realise that. The report itself makes several specific suggestions and recommendations, particularly so that the identity of those who make donations in a period before the writs are issued may be disclosed. The Government has taken very careful note of that particular recommendation and may well be bringing that into the Parliament during this Autumn session in its package in response to that report of the electoral reform Committee. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the Minister knows, when the Fraser Government was in power it not only increased the family allowance by 50 per cent but also increased the dependent spouse rebate from a maximum of $400 to a maximum of $1,030 per annum. What excuse does the Government give this time for the fact that it has not increased the dependent spouse rebate or the family allowance since it came to power in 1983? Senator BUTTON —I am not offering any excuses. I am just telling the honourable senator that we cannot afford it, and no government could afford it at the present time. There are a number of things which this Government cannot afford. The honourable senator heard about them in the last Budget and she will hear about them again in the May statement, which will be brought down in five or six weeks time. We live in a society in which a great variety of sections of the community still live in old aspirations of some future El Dorado in respect of their own particular interests. I will just go back to two decisions which were made in the last Budget, one of which has been held up in the Senate. I make this point again: Firstly, the Government proposed the amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. Senator Chaney —There was no saving in it. Senator BUTTON —Just a minute. I would remind the honourable senator that Australia is one of three countries in the world that support one national broadcasting service out of taxpayers' money. People in this community want two. It is very glib to say that there are no savings. There are enormous savings down the track in terms of shared technology and hardware-a whole range of savings. Secondly, if I, as a politician, go to a university there will be a demonstration about the $250 administration charge. This is one of the few countries in the world which purport to support a free tertiary education system. Australia cannot afford a free tertiary education system. It is exactly the same position with family allowances and it is exactly the same with the dependent spouse rebate. We cannot afford those things. Senator Durack —Have you told Senator Ryan that? Senator BUTTON —The Government made its decision about these matters last year, and at that time they were the subject of vast dismay and concern from an Opposition which says that living standards in this country are being lowered, and which at the same time says that there should be a freeze on all lower wage earners' incomes. Members of the Opposition indulge in that sort of thing and criticise this Government for fiscal restraint in the areas to which I have referred. They have to sort those issues out. But if I were the honourable senator, I would not tell people in Tasmania that the Liberals would increase the dependent spouse rebate and double family allowances-or whatever other fantasy she has in her head-if the Liberals happen to be elected to government. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question. Do we take it from that that the family allowance, the dependent spouse rebate and free education will be abolished in the May mini-Budget? Senator BUTTON —No, it does not indicate anything of the sort. I will tell the honourable senator one thing-although perhaps I should not discuss private views. I know that when it was put to a very senior Minister in the previous Government that some of the things that were done in the time of the honourable senator's previous Government were an obscenity in terms of what the country could afford, that very senior Minister agreed totally, because he is capable of recognising that times have changed. Senator VALLENTINE —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence relates to possible nuclear accidents on board visiting warships in Australian ports. Is it true that the United States defence representative would assume command in an emergency? If this is so, would it not constitute an abrogation of Australian sovereignty? What would be the working relationship between the United States defence representative and the person in charge of Australian emergency services? Whether it is true or not, will the Minister detail exactly the chain of command and emergency procedures to allay the concerns of an increasingly nervous public? Finally, are there any warships heading for rest and recreation in Fremantle within the next two weeks? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, it is not true that the United States defence representative would assume command in an emergency. The responsibility for the initial response to a nuclear accident in an Australian port rests with the State or Territory port authority concerned. Precise command arrangements would vary according to the procedures for each port. It may be that if Senator Vallentine wants further details the Minister for Defence would be able to supply them if she puts the question on notice. I do not know, but I will refer that to him. Australia has not received a request for a United States warship visit to Fremantle in the next two weeks. While I am answering this question, it might be a useful opportunity to follow up a question that Senator Vallentine asked on 26 February, inevitably on the same topic, relating to liability in the case of a possible United States nuclear warship accident in an Australian port. I can now confirm that under United States Public Law 93-513 it is the policy of the United States that any nuclear damage claim involving the reactor of a nuclear-powered warship be settled by the United States on an absolute liability basis. With respect to nuclear weapons accidents, compensation would be sought under the well-established legal principles which govern the liability of states for acts which cause damage or loss of life. Furthermore, in the case of the United States, the 1983 agreement between Australia and the United States concerning the status of United States forces in Australia contains provisions regarding claims arising from the activities of United States forces in Australia. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. The Minister will be aware that flag of convenience vessels have been banned by unions from entry to New South Wales ports for the past four years-for about as long as the Government has been in power. The Minister will also be aware that these bans preclude the export of New South Wales coal to Brazil and possibly to a few other countries. As I understand it, the Minister for Transport was requested quite some time ago to fix this problem. Will the Minister advise what action, if any, has been taken and when can this market restriction on exports of New South Wales coal expect to be lifted? Senator GARETH EVANS —We are a little bit more sensitive to the feelings of our ministerial colleagues on this side of the Parliament than are those on the other side. I would not contemplate trespassing in an area which unquestionably is Mr Peter Morris's. We are all well aware of the implications of the flag of convenience issue for coal exports, along with a number of other things. It is a sensitive and delicate issue which Mr Morris has been handling with his usual, admirable competence. I will seek from him an appropriate reply to the question, but I suggest that if the honourable senator wants to pursue the matter further he should do it through the appropriate Minister responsible for representing the Minister for Transport. Senator CHILDS —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation and it follows on from an approach made by Air New Zealand to be allowed to operate on domestic airline routes in Australia. In view of the Opposition's stated policy of total deregulation in the airline industry, will the Minister outline this Government's response to the New Zealand approach? Senator GIETZELT —The closer economic relations agreement that exists between Australia and New Zealand does not extend to such issues as the question raised by Senator Childs; that is, whether Australia would permit Air New Zealand to operate a domestic air service in Australia. The answer to that question is no. The Opposition, of course, is in favour of total deregulation of the airline industry. In those circumstances, if that policy were endorsed by a future government of the conservatives, those opposite would permit-I gather from their attitude to total deregulation of the air industry-countries and companies like Air New Zealand to operate in competition with our existing airlines in Australia which are governed by the two-airline agreement. However, the attitude of our Government is that we are not prepared to allow Air New Zealand to operate domestic air services in Australia. If we had to, we would use controls over the import of aircraft to achieve those ends. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce: Is it a fact that in the 1986 calendar year the aggregate level of Australian company profits, as revealed by recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, fell by 13 per cent over the previous year and that for manufacturing, in particular, the supposed benefits of the depreciation of the Australian dollar are nowhere to be seen as rising costs, including wage costs, interest repayments and the cost of imported components have driven profitability in manufacturing down by around 8.1 per cent in current dollar terms? After adjustments for inflation, this represents a real decline of around 16.83 per cent over 1985. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator asks questions like a cobra. He mesmerises me with figures. I cannot reply to all those figures and I suggest that he put his question on notice. Senator GILES —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. What is the cost to revenue of the present system of tax concessions for superannuation? What would be the effect of abolishing the 1983 lump sum tax and abolishing the pension assets test on the rationale justifying the superannuation tax concessions? Senator WALSH —The costs to revenue of the superannuation tax concessions, which appear in various forms, were estimated for the 1985-86 financial year to be $3,140m. They were published in the October 1986 tax expenditure statement from Treasury. The prime reason for providing those concessions, which have a high revenue cost, is to encourage Australians to make genuine provision-and this has been the prime reason or rationale for the concessions for as long as they have existed-for their post-retirement years on the grounds that if that genuine provision is made, there will be an off-setting-a significant if not total offsetting-saving in future age pension expenditures, provided that such age pensions are properly means tested. The second part of Senator Giles's question concerned the effect of abolishing the 1983 lump sum superannuation tax and abolishing the pension assets test as the rationale for justifying the tax concessions. The effect of abolishing the tax on lump sum superannuation would be to encourage Australians to use superannuation as a device for deferring wages and receiving wages tax free instead of a device to provide income for themselves in their post-retirement years. The effect of abolishing the assets test would be to encourage people to put their wealth into assets, such as collectables and perhaps real estate, which yield a capital gain rather than income, and draw a pension at the same time. The cost of doing that is, I believe, a good deal more than the official estimates of the Department of Social Security and, I believe, for these reasons: In the eight years to 1983, the people in receipt of pensions as a proportion of the total population of pensionable age remained pretty constant, but since 1983 that proportion has fallen from 84.5 to 78.5 per cent. If the 84.5 figure had been maintained, an extra 123,000 people would be in receipt of pensions, which would have cost the Budget $580m. Returning to the rationale for the existence of those very generous concessions, I note with considerable interest that the Australian Mutual Provident Society has recently circulated a discussion paper on this question. I quote two extracts from it. It states: Any move to relax means testing on pensions, or to introduce a universal age pension, would weaken the arguments in favour of tax concessions for superannuation. In the final sentence, it says: It also follows that those who seek to retain the concessions should in their own interests give strong support to all legislative changes which are aimed at preventing double dipping of any kind. In other words, the AMP Society is saying that those who seek to retain the tax concessions should give strong support to preventing double dipping, that is, making sure that a tax on superannuation payments taken as a lump sum remains in place and, more importantly, that there be an assets test on pensions. I welcome the AMP's support of government policy on that question and its implicit repudiation of the irresponsible and inequitable undertakings being given by the present Leader of the Opposition to open up the system for widespread avoidance of tax on wages through disguising wages as superannuation and, likewise, opening up the welfare system to double dipping by abolishing the assets test. Senator WATSON —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health: Is he aware of the severe financial hardship caused to some pensioners by the Federal Government's new hospital charges and benefits which were introduced on 1 March this year? The recategorisation has meant that patients whose only source of income is an age pension have to find in some circumstances an extra $70 per week above their pension to cover their hospital costs. What steps does the Minister intend to take to rectify the situation? Senator TATE —Senator Watson was kind enough to indicate some moments before Question Time that he wanted to ask a question in this general area, but I have been unable to obtain an answer in the meantime from the office of the Minister for Health. Therefore, I will have to take it on notice and provide an answer as soon as possible. Senator ZAKHAROV —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate of the progress which has been made towards the signing and ratification by the Pacific nations of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, known as the Treaty of Rarotonga, and the signing of its protocols by the nuclear powers? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Treaty of Rarotonga entered into force when Australia deposited its instrument of ratification in Suva on 11 December 1986. Eight countries-Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, New Zealand, Niue, Tuvalu and Western Samoa-have now ratified the Treaty. Two countries-Papua New Guinea and Nauru-have signed but not yet ratified the Treaty. The Soviet Union and China have signed protocols 2 and 3 to the Treaty. The Government, however, is seeking to clarify aspects of the Soviet Union's statement at the time of its signature of the protocols. The other nuclear weapon states-Britain, the United States and France-have declined to sign the protocols to the Treaty. Britain, however, has indicated that it will abide by the requirements of the Treaty. The US and British decisions diminish neither the strength, in the Government's view, of South Pacific countries' concerns on nuclear issues nor the force of the mutual obligations assumed by parties to the Treaty. Australia certainly hopes that the remaining members of the South Pacific Forum will, in due course, become parties to the Treaty. Senator SHORT —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs recall advising me on 15 April 1986 in response to a question that the three Libyan officials who were ordered to leave Australia earlier in 1986 were leaving either on that day or within a week? Is the Minister aware that five months later in the Victorian Parliament, on 9 September 1986, the Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Race Mathews, said that one of the three officials, Mansour Shokry, the former Director of the Libyan Arab Cultural Centre in Melbourne, was the subject of investigations by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, that his whereabouts were not known and that he was considered a persona non grata at that time? I ask the Minister: Has Mansour Shokry yet been found? Has he left Australia? If he did leave Australia, has he returned at any time? Can the Minister also assure the Senate that the other two Libyan officials who were to have left Australia in April 1986 have done so and have not returned? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that matters reported in the Press article on this matter-I think the particular one that has laid it all out, and I am not sure whether Senator Short mentioned it, was the Australian of today, 26 March-are misleading. Although details relating to the movements of people into and out of Australia are normally not released, Mr Mansour, who is also known as el-Shokry, left Australia in April last year, and there is no record of his return. As to the other officials whom Senator Short mentioned, I have no specific information on them, and I will seek a further response from the Minister concerned. Senator SHORT —I wish to ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer. I assume from that answer that it, therefore, must mean that the response of the Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services on 9 September 1986 was incorrect. Can the Minister confirm that? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know the circumstances or the content of the Victorian Minister's reply on that date. I will seek further information before acceding to the suggestion in Senator Short's supplementary question. Senator CHANEY —I remind the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce that, on 5 December last year, I asked when he would provide details of the various assistance and adjustment programs proposed under the new textile, clothing and footwear package. In his reply, the Minister said: I hope to have all of those matters finalised before Parliament resumes, and make a statement to Parliament about the whole textile, clothing and footwear package early in the autumn session. He went on to say: That statement will embrace not only the additional details which have been sought but also some attempt at outlining the philosophical assumptions under the textile, clothing and footwear plan. As we are now in the fourth week of sitting of the new session, I ask the Minister: Can he, in the interest of business and investor confidence, say to the Senate when can we expect his statement to be tabled or made? Senator BUTTON —I thank Senator Chaney for reminding me of December last year, which I concede seems an awfully long time ago. I am quite clear about the philosophical assumptions; I am less clear about the money. I think I will be in a position to make a statement within the next two weeks. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and relates to the alarming findings of a recent Commonwealth nutrition task force. The task force's report `Towards Better Nutrition for Australia' shows that almost 60 per cent of deaths in this country were from diet-related diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease and that nearly 25 per cent of these deaths involved people aged under 65. The task force also reported that lifestyle-related diseases had emerged as a serious problem among adult Aborigines. Will the Minister state what plans the Government has to redress these findings and better educate Australians on the importance of good nutrition? Senator TATE —The Government shares the concern of Senator Foreman with regard to diet-related deaths and diseases as revealed by the nutrition task force. The initial response of the Government-I stress that it is only in its early stages-includes the following elements: The provision of nutrition education for all Australians to enable them to make healthy food choices to be developed in conjunction with States, Territories and community organisations; an urgent update of the recommended dietary intakes of nutrients for all Australians for all age groups; and the further development of a nation nutrient databank. Dietary surveys have already been undertaken with adults 25 to 64 years old and of school children aged between 10 and 15 years. Plans for surveys of other age groups and community groups considered to be at special risk are being urgently considered. Methods of providing comprehensive health care programs for Aboriginal people-I notice Senator Foreman especially mentioned the findings of the task force in this regard-are already the subject of close study and activity by several departments. The nutrition task force blamed the transition from traditional lifestyle to a largely sedentary lifestyle for the increase in diet-related disease in Aboriginal people. The Government gives high priority to the nutrition of all Australians because of the impact bad nutrition has on health, including cardiovascular disease, which the Better Health Commission identified as accounting for half of all the deaths in this nation. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. Yesterday in the debate on the urgency motion moved by the Opposition, Senator Brownhill attributed remarks to me which I wish to repudiate utterly. He said that Senator Maguire and the Australian Labor Party said that it was only bad farmers who were in debt in the present circumstances in Australia. Senator Peter Baume then fanned those flames by interjecting: Why don't we circulate Senator Maguire's words around the bush? I utterly repudiate those words. I wish Senator Brownhill had listened carefully to what I said in that debate yesterday. On no occasion did I refer to either good or bad farmers being in debt in Australia. At page 1309 of Hansard, available this morning, it is quite clear that I expressed great concern about the impact of interest rates on the farming community at the present time. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.04) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The first annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Radiation Council covers the period from May 1984 to June 1986. It is not clear from the report just why it has taken so long for the Council to comply with the reporting requirements set out in the Radiation Ordinance (1983). It is certainly not clear why the Department of Territories failed to prod the Radiation Council into some earlier action and to make the necessary resources available for the first annual report to be printed on time. It is clear, though, that the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) is in breach of the Ordinance because he is required to lay a copy of the report before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it. This has not happened on this occasion as the Minister had the report delivered to him in December and approved it on 5 January. Whoever was responsible for its tabling did not get it before the Senate on time; it was tabled late. This is indicative of this Government's lack of interest in the welfare of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. There is no urgency about the reform or administrative alertness-- Senator Tate —You won't even let us have an advisory council. Senator VIGOR —I am coming to that. Apparently the Australian Capital Territory does not really matter to this Government. Australian Capital Territory seats are regarded as safe and the Australian Capital Territory people are expendable politically. This has shown through all the proceedings lately with the Territory, particularly those over the self-government proposals for an Australian Capital Territory council and the attempts to fool the people of the Australian Capital Territory with an advisory council. The whole self-government proposal had been designed to turn a minority Labor vote into a substantial Labor majority in the council. Only yesterday the Minister pulled completely out of having an advisory council because he realised that to have it would be futile. Senator Tate —But you wouldn't fund it. Senator VIGOR —We did a lot of good for the people of Australia. We saved them $300,000 which otherwise would have been wasted on useless meetings. As far as we could see, the Minister could not justify a council. The people of the Australian Capital Territory have indeed ended up with no say in local decision making and that is roughly what has been offered all along. The Government was not prepared to offer financial guarantees and it was not willing to clean up the ordinances. That brings me to the point I want to make on the Radiation Council's report. This is another area in which the Government has failed; it has failed to update the Radiation Ordinance quickly. According to the report, the Radiation Ordinance had a number of flaws which have taken an inordinate amount of time to rectify. Part III of the ordinance dealing with radiation safety was not proclaimed until September 1986. One of the problems was the attitude of the Attorney-General's Department. The report states: Written reasons for the need for these amendments were several times required by officers of the Attorney-General's Department. Written explanations of the unsatisfactory nature of their counter proposals were also given. This farce went on for at least a year until some changes in staff occurred. At one point in the self-government reorganisation the drafting people were to be transferred to the Department of Territories. This has never happened. The people of the Australian Capital Territory will continue to find themselves at the fag-end of legislative activity unless the Government is willing to grasp the nettle and handle all these important areas, including the Radiation Council, in an effective way through an elected body. It is ridiculous for this Senate to be continually troubled by small material details. In the remaining minute in which I am allowed to speak, I just bring to the notice of the Senate that we have still not seen the Australian Capital Territory Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Ordinance which was passed by the House of Assembly in 1984. It has not come before this chamber for debate or ratification. Obviously the Government is not prepared to take seriously the nuclear dangers and radiation problems of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. This report illustrates that point well. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I present the 267th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator MAGUIRE —This report presented the Government's response to the Committee's 243rd report on the management of major capital equipment acquisitions by the Department of Defence. Last year the Committee examined and reported in detail on 16 current or recent major defence equipment projects. Eleven of these projects failed or were not expected to be completed on time, completed to budget or to technical requirements. The Committee found that, in large part, this poor record was the result of ineffective project management and inefficient decision making procedures and resources management within the Department of Defence. Against this background the Committee made 68 recommendations for action to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of defence project management and related departmental systems. The Committee report I have just tabled details the Government's response to those recommendations. In general the Committee welcomes this reponse. Fifty of the Committee's 68 recommendations have been accepted by the Government. I seek leave to have the balance of my remarks incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- These recommendations relate to a broad range of project management issues including: improvements to the operation of the Defence Department's Capital Procurement Organisation, enhancement of the role, authority, and operation of project directors, the development of professional project management skills in the Department, and the strengthening of contract administration and improvement of general relations with Australian suppliers of Defence equipment. However, the Committee is concerned that a number of important recommendations have not been accepted or only partially accepted. These relate to- the scrutiny of major defence equipment proposals, contracting matters, the selection of senior project management personnel and reporting to Parliament on the Defence capital equipment program. The Committee believes the reasons advanced for the rejection or qualified acceptance of these recommendations are unsatisfactory. It strongly urges that the recommendations be re-considered. In particular the Committee does not agree with the inference in the response that the Committee was proposing to adopt and executive role in the management of the Department of Defence. Reading the Committee's 243rd Report and the evidence given to the Committee by the Department of Defence indicates that this is not the case. The duties of the Committee and its power to take evidence are clearly defined by its Act. The Committee is still seeking progress reports on two measures taking by the Department: first, on action take to reduce the unacceptably long recruitment lead times for civilian project managers and staff in the Department, and secondly, on the results of the Department's proposed investigation of the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive resource costing system. A comprehensive costing system, the Committee believes, should allow the costs of departmental management resources to be allocated to individual projects and help minimise time-consuming management procedures. The Committee awaits the Defence response to these important recommendations. Because of the important of the issues raised in this inquiry the Committee intends to maintain its interest in Defence project management. I commend the report to honourable senators. Debate resumed from 20 February 1986, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Missen had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert ``debate on this Bill be deferred to enable consideration of the reference to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, or such other standing or select committee that is able to handle the inquiry, of the provisions of the Bill and other proposals already made or subsequently brought forward to provide a scheme for the effective assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance payments (whether by order of a court, agreement or otherwise), so that both parents and spouses will pay adequate maintenance from their own resources before reliance is made on pensions or other payments by the Government'. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.12) —We are debating the Family Law Amendment Bill 1985 which was last discussed in the Senate on 20 February 1986. It is a private member's Bill introduced by Senator Durack through which he seeks to amend some aspects of the Family Law Act. The Family Law Act that we are discussing came into force, as everybody will know, at the beginning of 1976, having been passed in 1975. Many substantial changes were made to the way dissolution of marriage would thereafter proceed. I will not deal with the substantial changes to the grounds and such matters, because this Bill which is now before us relates specifically to the question of maintenance and the support of children. It is particularly appropriate that we should come back to look at this Bill today because the Government has this week made a statement in the chamber arising from its paper on child support. The paper was available to the community for only quite a short time. I think about seven weeks was allowed for response to that paper. But, in fact, a number of submissions were received by the Government because there were so many people in the community well aware of the problems which have arisen as a result of an increasing incidence of both parents not supporting the children of their marriage. The Family Law Act dealt with the question of maintenance of spouses. There were changes. But today I want to address specifically the question of maintenance of children. Section 73 of that Act indicated that both parents, according to their financial ability, should support children up to the age of 18 years and, in some cases, beyond. The court, in assessing the payment of maintenance, was to take into account a number of matters which were set out in sections 75 and 76 of the Act. In particular, under sub-section 75 2 (d), the financial obligations and needs of each of the parties was to be considered. Under sub-section 2 (e) the liability of a party to support another person was to be taken into account. Under sub-section 2 (m) the financial circumstances of a spouse cohabiting with another was to be considered; and, of course, in particular, sub-section 2 (f) indicated that any entitlement to a pension or other allowance was also to be taken into account. I think it is a fact that over the years these sections have been interpreted in a way which was quite different from what was perhaps intended at the time that the Act was passed. That applies particularly to sub-section 2 (f). It is this sub-section that this Bill seeks to amend. I do not think anyone would query that a child has a right to be supported by both parents. But at the same time as the Family Law Act was introduced there was another change-the introduction of the supporting parent benefit. I do not think that anybody who supported the introduction of that benefit could possibly have envisaged what happened subsequently and the way that it would affect the interpretation of that sub-section of the Family Law Act that I mentioned, sub-section 75 2 (f). The sub- section provides that the Court will take into account: the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under any law of Australia or of a State or Territory or under any superannuation fund or scheme, or the rate of any pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party. Most of us, I think, would understand what in fact was meant by that section. But, as I said, the introduction of the supporting parent benefit has put it into a totally different category. That benefit was immediately included in the consideration of this section. I do not think there can be any doubt that the section has been abused. Anybody who has been involved with the operation of the Family Court and maintenance would know that there are many orders for maintenance which have been based upon working out what the custodial parent could receive while still getting the full pension. The parent would then obtain the minimum amount to prevent any interference with the receipt of the full pension. It used to be that a wife with two children could receive a total of $32 a week and get the full pension and all the benefits that went with it. So more often than not we would find that an order would be made for each of two children in the sum of $16 each per week. The wife then went away with the full pension, the husband paid the $32 per week-or in the reverse situation the wife might have paid that to a husband who had custody of the children-and this was done irrespective of the ability of the other spouse to contribute towards the support of the children of the marriage. It was mostly done by agreements that were filed in the court. There may have been cases where courts have made orders similar to that, but mostly it occurred by agreements made under section 86 of the Act. Frequently, in addition, there was a side agreement whereby other moneys were paid by the non-custodial spouse; agreements whereby he paid the medical and dental accounts, school fees-in some instances private school fees-holidays for children and clothing for children. In addition, he may have contributed to the payment of the mortgage on the house in which they lived. But this practice maximised the use of the supporting parent benefit by seeing that the actual agreement, which was open to scrutiny, gave the minimum amount under that agreement, allowing the full amount of the pension and the benefits which flowed from it. One of the problems, of course, has been that the provisions for enforcement of maintenance orders since the introduction of this Act of 1975 have been virtually non-existent. It really meant that maintenance was an option; one paid if one wanted to and did not pay if one did not want to. Many women found that they were much better off on the full pension and benefits which at least gave them some certainty in their budgeting. The amount was not lavish and it did not provide well-we know there are many children of single parents living in poverty-but at least it meant that a woman had a certain amount of money and she was able to attempt to budget within that amount. I can understand that as being a fairly significant factor in a person's not wanting to bother to pursue maintenance, because maintenance would come so irregularly that nobody could run a budget or a household. If one got $100 one month, nothing the next and $300 the one after, one could not run one's life and one's children's lives. To settle for a situation whereby one could ignore the maintenance that ought to be paid for the benefit of the children and stick to the full pension and benefits was a better way in which to live. The lack of enforcement proceedings in the 1975 Act meant that that has occurred to a substantial degree. I think it is that fact that has led to a lot of the problems that exist today. Those who wanted to try to enforce maintenance orders have had enormous difficulties. There are no sanctions in the 1975 Act. It was possible for a person against whom an order had been made to allow the arrears of maintenance to run up to quite substantial amounts. If a woman wanted to enforce the order, she had to initiate action. She had to go to the court and provide the address at which the former spouse was living or the place where he was working. Frequently she did not know it, because people do move around. If she could not give this information, there was no provision for giving her any support or assistance, and she certainly would not have had the money to employ somebody to find out the information. If by chance she had all the right information, a process was issued and served and a man was to come before the courts to answer why he had not paid his maintenance, he could use the quite simple device, on the eve of the proceedings, of paying some of that money-perhaps not even a substantial amount. There did not seem to be any provision for a collector of maintenance to reject a part payment. As it turned out, that was another serious flaw. I am not saying that all of these things could have been or should have been perceived at the time. But the operation of the Act meant that on the eve of proceedings, if a payment was made, that virtually wiped out the proceedings. The next day, the woman was left with some money and then she had to start all over again. If the maintenance was being paid intermittently, she would have been constantly in a hassle as to whether she had been overpaid by the Department of Social Security. She had to disclose the money she had received, and rightly so, but she would have been constantly having these hassles as to whether she owed Social Security some money or whether it owed her an amount. It is my view that no person should be able to obtain social security for a child of whom he or she has custody unless there is in existence a maintenance order concerning payment towards the support of the children from the other parent. We have to stop this private arrangement which means there is access into the social security barrel, irrespective of the circumstances. We need to be sure that those who want to make private arrangements and stick to them are not interfered with under the proposals which are to be brought in. I have read the statement of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) quite carefully. I am not confident that it will not apply across the board. If that were the case, I think it would be expensive and a pity. I think that parents ought to be encouraged to make proper arrangements between themselves for the support of children. If, as I said, a custodial parent seeks support from other taxpayers-which is what it amounts to; they probably have children of their own and are supporting them-by way of the social security system, it must be quite clear that proper steps have been taken to get a proper amount of money towards the support of children from the non-custodial parent. The section 86 agreements to which I have referred must not be allowed to be used as a means of avoiding this procedure. If an agreement such as that is in existence and social security is applied for, the Department of Social Security, or somebody, must have the capacity to look behind that agreement at the actual financial situation of both parties. The other area in which maintenance has been disposed of, in a sense, or the obligation to pay, is under the section 87 agreements, whereby sometimes maintenance has been sacrificed within a property settlement. Again, that is something that parties may wish to do. They may have good reasons for doing so. But if, in addition, there is an application for social security payments, I think the nature of the section 87 agreement must be somewhat different so that it cannot be used as a device to get into the social security system and avoid the proper obligations. An amendment was moved previously by the late Senator Missen-I do not have it before me-to the effect that there should be an inquiry into these matters. It is my view that this has been overtaken by the actions that the Government has taken in putting out the child support paper for discussion, and by the Government's response. My assessment of the reaction of the community to what has occurred leads me to conclude that there is no longer any necessity to investigate the matters in a way in which a committee would investigate them, because the issues are clearly before us. It is the remedies that need to be worked out. As I say, it would be my view that that is no longer a matter which ought to be supported by the Senate. I hope that the Government will support Senator Durack's Bill. A couple of amendments will be moved to it. The Government had the opportunity to support the proposals contained in it in 1983 when the Family Law Act was amended and similar amendments were put forward. That is in the past. Let us not worry about it; let us look at what we now have before us-a means of putting into effect as soon as possible some of the matters which the Government now says it supports. The figures as to the number of parents and children involved have been discussed this week in the response to the Government's statement. I do not think it is necessary for me to go through them in any detail today. A substantial number of children are affected by the situation we are discussing, and they have an entitlement to support from both of their parents. I think all of us need to use every effort to see that that is restored and that those who ought to be receiving maintenance do receive it. But let us not proceed in a way that interferes with the arrangements of those who have made satisfactory settlements between themselves, which is the ideal situation. I note that the Government proposes to proceed in two stages. I suggest that that is better than waiting too long, until the formula is settled. The formula will be quite difficult to settle. A number of factors have to be taken into account and it will not be easy to get a formula which is fair. As is said in regard to education, we want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. In this case we do not just want equality of outcome from the formula. The formula needs to have built within it such flexibility as will take into account the matters that are relevant to each family. Some are better able to support children than others. Many of the complexities have been dealt with in the paper that was presented to the Government by the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia. I have no doubt, of course, that the Government will look at those matters in working out what the formula will be. The other aspect, of course, is the collection by an agency `of all maintenance orders'. I have dealt with that. I hope it does not really mean all maintenance orders. If there is a dispute, of course, the court, or whoever operates the formula, will look at it and deal with it. In cases where there is a registered agreement for maintenance, no social security component, and a payment has been missed, the agency should step in. Let parents work out these arrangements for themselves in the first instance, but let not the burden of enforcement rest with the person who is entitled to receive the money. When it comes to enforcement by the agency, I suggest to the Government that, rather than set up a cumbersome and large bureaucracy to work with the agency, it should give consideration to the use of private mercantile agents who have the expertise to enforce orders, serve documents and take the necessary steps. That is an aside to what we are specifically discussing at present. This country is covered from end to end by such mercantile agents. Apart from the Australian Capital Territory or States in which they are not registered, it may well be that the cost to the taxpayer of enforcement could be less if such agents were employed. I wish to refer to one other matter in the Government's statement which occurred on page 7. It reads: There was also a view that, in some circumstances, the legislative formula should take into account the income of the custodial parent. I found that sentence strange and cannot believe that it means what it says. I cannot think of any circumstances where the formula would not take into account the income of the custodial parent. It may be that the custodial parent has no income or little, but in any event, whatever it is, that should be taken into account when assessing what each party will be contributing. Maybe I have misunderstood what was intended but both parents must be contributing towards the support of their children. I commend the Bill brought in by Senator Durack and support the amendments contained in it. I hope that all honourable senators will do so because the question of the rights of children to be supported by both parents is very important. We should take this early opportunity to get on with establishing some of the amendments to the Family Law Act, which will make a difference and go a substantial way towards achieving the aims the Government says it wants to achieve. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.31) —The Senate is debating as an item of General Business a private member's Bill, namely, the Family Law Amendment Bill, which was introduced in 1985 by Senator Durack, the Opposition's spokesperson on matters relating to the Attorney-General. Senator Archer —Spokesman. Senator COATES —He would probably prefer to be called shadow Minister or something higher-sounding than that, but I acknowledge the Opposition's wish not to do anything about language as a further example of its conservative attitudes. We are dealing with this private member's Bill which was introduced in 1985. It was debated on a couple of occasions in February 1986. Now, suddenly, the Opposition has brought on the matter again, more than a year later, obviously as a result of the statement made by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) earlier this week about the Government's child support plans. It is rather strange that the Opposition, which now tries to suggest that this Bill should have some priority, has done nothing about the matter in the intervening period. The point is that the Government is dealing with this matter. It has a clear plan and there is no need to deal with Senator Durack's private members Bill. In fact, it is now largely irrelevant, given the Minister's statement on maintenance or, as we would now prefer to call it, child support earlier this week. That statement was debated earlier this week. It seems that the Opposition wants this second bite at the cherry to put a few other things on the record, but in some ways I welcome it because it gives me an opportunity to talk further about the Government's well-researched, thoroughly dealt with plans in this area. We all acknowledge that this is a very difficult area. There are great sensitivities that affect all those involved, particularly because the matter involves children, personal relationships, perhaps painful incidents that have affected people at key points in their lives. Perhaps it is not surprising that these things lead to a great deal of feeling on all sides and great problems. I was pleased that Senator Peter Baume, in his response in this chamber to the Minister's statement, which was tabled by Senator Tate on the Minister's behalf, was quite supportive of the Government proposals. Mr Blunt, the Opposition member who is responsible for social security matters, was much less supportive. That is regrettable. Perhaps it is one of the further things that led to the resignation today of Senator Peter Baume from his responsibilities if he feels that the Opposition in its official position does not represent the sort of direction he would like to see it taking. The Bill introduced by Senator Durack is an attempt, as is part of the Government's plan, to shift the burden of child support away from the state and more on to the shoulders of non-custodial parents. One of the main points is that when a court makes a maintenance order it should not take into account the eligibility of a custodial parent for a supporting parent benefit but should make the maintenance order accord with the non-custodial parent's financial resources. The basic intention of the original Family Law Act was to take into account the ability of each parent to pay. One also has to acknowledge that the custodial parent is making a great contribution because of the very custody of the children. It is reasonable to take the view that the financial contribution should be more on the shoulders of the non-custodial parent. As a side issue, I regret that there is more often than not a great distinction between custodial and non-custodial parents. I would very much like to see a position develop where joint custody happened much more frequently and the financial details were sorted out accordingly. I think not enough people are even aware that joint custody is a simple and legal possibility. It happens, and it should happen more. Perhaps if people realised that it was possible and there did not have to be an all or nothing decision about where children or a particular child went there would be less aggressiveness about the whole matter. The Opposition is trying to make some running on this issue, though it is going about it in a clumsy way. Senator Durack is pretending that he took some important initiative on this matter, which suggests that the Government is just following it. I think that was the tenor of the remarks in the debate earlier this week when the Minister's statement was tabled. I can understand Senator Durack wanting to feel that he has some influence on the Government, but the Opposition's Bill was irrelevant to the Government's considerations in the past couple of years which have been dealt with in a very thorough way. Just before Christmas last year a discussion paper on this matter was published in order to try to get more public involvement in and a high level of public response to the sorts of things that the Government was planning. Especially in an area as sensitive as this, it is very important to get public responses so that those involved are consulted and feel as though they have been consulted. The Government's processes have continued. People have complained about the lack of time given for a public response to that discussion paper. At the same time there has been criticism that we are not moving fast enough on this matter. There is certainly an argument that it should proceed much more quickly. The very reasonable position taken by the Government is that this matter must be dealt with in two parts. I will come back to the Government's plans in a moment. I wish to deal with the Bill a little further. The amendment to which Senator Reid referred and which the late Senator Missen moved early in 1986 was that the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Obviously there is now no need for that amendment to be pursued because the matter is so obviously in hand. I was pleased to hear Senator Reid also make that point. Therefore I guess that I do not need to deal with this matter at any greater length. It would be a different matter if the Government had done nothing about this, but it has. I presume that Senator Reid was stating the Opposition's position and was giving its attitude to the amendment. She acknowledges that that is so. Of course, we can be confused about the Opposition's position on this matter. I refer to the debate on page 301 of Hansard on 13 February 1986. Senator Tate, speaking for the Government at the time, said: . . . I would be interested to hear whether it- that is, the Bill we are now debating- has the status of a Bill endorsed in its entirety by the joint party room of the coalition parties. Senator Walters then interjected: Of course it is. It is our policy. Then Senator Missen interjected: No, it is not. Then Senator Durack interjected: That does not matter. Even though that occurred a year ago, once again it is an example of the problems which the Opposition has, and which have led to the turmoil that it is in at present. The main fault with Senator Durack's Bill is that it relies on court based compliance and enforcement measures-that is, unashamedly from Senator Durack's point of view, imprisoning defaulters. Senator Durack —Haven't you seen the amendments? Don't you read amendments when they are circulated? Senator COATES —I have not seen any amendments. Senator Durack —It is proposed to delete that provision. Senator COATES —So there has been a further change of mind by the Opposition. That is encouraging. It will not imprison people after all. Since I am speaking in the second reading debate on this Bill without having seen the proposed changes, I can only deal with it as I see it. Senator Durack —They have been circulating all day. Senator COATES —I am sorry, but somehow or other I have not managed to see those proposed amendments. The fact is that that sort of draconian proposal was in the Opposition's Bill and it has been there since that Bill was introduced more than a year ago. This is a very late change of mind. That sort of imprisonment proposal, whether it is in the Bill or not, needs to be put down once and for all. The whole question of marriage breakdown is traumatic and emotional enough anyhow, but to involve the Family Court in the heavy-handed operation of throwing people into prison will certainly not solve the problem or improve people's attitude. It will certainly not make defaulters fulfil their maintenance obligations. One of the main reasons that Senator Missen and others at the time were against the Bill and wanted to refer it to the Senate Committee was the inclusion of that provision. The Government firmly believes that no one should be imprisoned just because he is poor. The Government's proposal is to use administrative procedures for the collection and distribution of child maintenance and that proposal is far superior to that of the Opposition. I point out that a gallup poll showed that about two-thirds of Australians approved of the concept of the Government collecting child maintenance and paying it directly to the custodial parent. We are all aware of the problems, the fact that something must be done about this matter, and that is why the Government has announced its plans, having had its child support discussion paper placed in the public arena and having got some very valuable feedback from both the public and concerned organisations. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said in his statement earlier this week: When fully developed it will be one of the most effective systems of child support in the world . . . Let me remind the Senate what it involves and why we support this plan. It involves administrative assessment of the amount which should be paid by a non-custodial parent to a custodial parent for the maintenance of children. It also provides for judicial discretion in disputed cases. We all acknowledge that there is a wide variety of circumstances in which people find themselves and, while the Government has plans to develop a formula to cover most situations, it also acknowledges that there must be discretion to cover those less than usual or less than normal situations. The third aspect of the Government's plan is automatic income withholding, using a child support agency set up in the Australian Taxation Office which would then pass funds to the Department of Social Security for passing on to the custodial parent. The main point that must be emphasised is that we must ensure that we are benefiting the children involved, the children who are not cared for by both parents. There is great community concern about this, both about the aspect of caring for the children-people fulfilling their responsibilities-and about ensuring that taxpayers' funds are not used excessively or unnecessarily if the custodial parent has the ability to pay for the support of his or her children who are living elsewhere. There has been objection-and I think I have heard objections from the Opposition-to the automatic nature of the Government's plan. It has been suggested that automatic withholding should be introduced only if there has been some form of default. However, it cannot be denied that more than 70 per cent of parents no longer living with their children simply do not pay regular maintenance. With that sort of percentage involved, it seems rather silly to say that we should wait for default in all cases before insisting on automatic withholding. Automatic withholding can be carried out with an arrangement similar to the pay as you earn taxation system or an equivalent arrangement can apply to the self-employed. The Government wants to ensure that those who have a responsibility to pay do so. In this way we will be able to reduce the degree of effect that this problem is having on the social security system. I think we have to acknowledge that changes in Australian society have led to a large increase in the number of sole parent families. There is a community demand that the Government acknowledge the need to do something about that problem. I must say that I think it is an exaggeration to point to the figures of sole parent families in 1974 and 1985 and say that there has been an increase of 73 per cent. Honourable senators may recall that 1974 was either the first year or the second year-certainly no more than the first whole year-of the operation of what was then the new supporting mother's benefit, which has since become available to either partner and is called the supporting parent benefit. One would not expect that all of those involved or all of those who were likely to be eligible would be picked up in the first year. I think one has to acknowledge that using 1974 as a base and comparing it with 1985 exaggerates the relative position quite substantially. But this does not detract from the actual numbers involved, which are quite large. There is no point people, either in the community or in the Opposition, decrying this fact and saying that it is a terrible situation and that the solution is that people ought to stay together no matter how bad a relationship is. I hope that we are well past that sort of attitude. The whole concept of the Family Law Act should continue to be supported. The point is that the proportion of sole parents on benefit has increased. Currently there are more than 250,000 lone parents on benefits caring for something like 450,000 children. We have to realise that for most of these households the pension or benefit is the only source of income. This means that most of these people live in poverty. The priority of the Government's program, as distinct from the Opposition's Bill, is to reduce the number of children in poverty. Social security savings will also be made as a result of this measure. However, it is a matter of making sure that the children concerned are cared for properly and that those who have the ability to pay should face up to their responsibilities to their children. The first stage of the Government's proposal will involve legislation which will be introduced this year to establish the Child Support Agency to collect child maintenance from those who are obliged to pay it; to amend the Family Law Act to assert the priority of child maintenance by making sure that court orders put the financial position of children ahead of everything else, except the essential commitments of the parents involved; and to remove reference to social security eligibility to make it clear that child support should not be treated as a top-up to social security pensions and benefits. The social security system has had to bear the burden of too many non-compliant non-custodial parents for too long. Stage 2 of the Government's plan will involve introducing legislation next year for a formula to calculate maintenance as part of the Child Support Agency's administrative process under the Commissioner of Taxation. So, this year we will introduce legislation to establish the Child Support Agency. The Agency will come into operation as soon as the necessary administrative arrangements can be implemented. It will be able to collect all maintenance orders issued to couples who separate after the date of its establishment. So, it is not going to attempt to deal with all the problems of the past. Unfortunately, that in many ways would be too massive a job. It will also be able to collect orders made in respect of children born after the date it is established when parents have not cohabited. Pensioners who already have an order will be able to go to the Agency to have that order collected. It will be up to them whether they wish to do so but they will have that ability. The Agency will also be able to collect orders made 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. We are going to investigate the feasibility of also 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. I think it needs to be acknowledged that there has been some quite amazing co-operation by State governments in this matter. The maintenance of step-children will be able to be dealt with under the same laws as the maintenance of their step-brothers and step-sisters. There has been agreement by most of the States so far to refer constitutional powers on this question to the Commonwealth. There will be consultation with the States on the future of the present arrangements in respect of the collection of child support by State bodies where that happens. Consultative arrangements will be implemented to ensure that the Government is fully advised on the introduction of a legislative formula to ensure that this measure is dealt with thoroughly. I guess we would have liked to have this measure implemented sooner rather than later. The Australian Council of Social Service for one is disappointed that we are going to stage the introduction of this formula and not introduce it straight off. But I guess our attitude is that we do not want to make mistakes by being too hurried. We want to ensure that there is full community consultation in respect of the various options involved. Of course, there are such questions as whether or not to take into account the income of the custodial parent or whether to take into account the new family of a non-custodial parent who has repartnered. We then have the further complication of such a repartnered non-custodial parent whose new partner also has children of which he or she has custody. So it is not as simple as that. The Government is dealing with this matter very thoroughly and sensitively. Senator Durack —After four years. Senator COATES —There is no need for us to deal with Senator Durack's Bill at this stage. The matter is being properly dealt with. I oppose his Bill and I very thoroughly support the Government's proposals. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.01) —I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1985, which was introduced in that year by Senator Durack, who has just pointed out to the previous speaker, Senator Coates, that after four years of this Government we now have before us the relatively immediate prospect, at least, of some legislation on this matter. It is interesting to note that in 1985 it had been 10 years since the election of a coalition government in 1975, during which time there had not been any action either. I for one welcome what seems to be a flurry of activity lately on this issue. Senator Durack, through his Bill, can take some credit for having been a burr under the saddle, in more recent years at least, on the issue of child support and in particular how to ensure the discharge of responsibility by parents for their children. As I have said, this same week we have also had a statement from the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) foreshadowing government action. There has been reaction in the community to that ministerial statement. I for one would want to go again on the record to say that I believe it is important and valuable that at last we are addressing this issue very seriously, and that we will have comprehensive legislation on it, because there are 800,000 children living in poverty in Australia. Most of those children are in single parent families. Most of those families are headed by women. The reasons for those people living in poverty vary, but substantially, and particularly in the single parent family group, the very low level of government benefits is one reason. Another reason is that unemployment levels are high and that the women heading those single parent families often have great difficulty in securing employment-firstly, because of the high unemployment level; and secondly, simply because they are women with responsibilities for children and with added problems, such as what to do with those children in terms of child care, how to pay for that care if they can find it, and indeed how to find employment which will bring in for them sufficient money, because women, in these enlightened times, are still largely clustered in the low income, low status levels in the work force. Another factor in the poverty of these 800,000 children and their parents-mainly women-is that some 60 per cent of maintenance orders in the case of family breakdowns are not complied with. In these instances the vast majority of people concerned are, of course, men. The main issue of concern is the lack of continuing parental responsibility for children in the event of family breakdown. I am extremely happy about the activities taking place on this issue, particularly if the reason for so much activity is that we are genuinely concerned for the large numbers of children living in poverty, and that we are genuinely concerned that some adults are not accepting and carrying out their parental responsibilities. When we talk about parental responsibility, we are not talking just about responsibility to pay the costs of having children, to contribute financially to their well-being, but also about contributing to their care, their nurturing and their upbringing by maintaining contact wherever possible with them in spite of the breakdown of the relationship between the parents. If the issues are the concern for the poverty of so many children and the concern about parental responsibility, I am very happy. However, I have a concern, which is shared by a number of people in the community, that the reason we are finally getting some action in this area is the stringent economic circumstances in which we find ourselves as a nation-to be quite blunt, the desire to get the welfare bill down, to reduce the deficit. I note the comments of a spokesperson from the Women's Electoral Lobby, Eva Cox, which were published in today's Canberra Times. She expressed concern: that the Government was approaching the reform as a cost cutting exercise rather than as a comprehensive program aimed at solving the problems of sole parents. I would add the words `their children'. The Council of Social Service in South Australia, through its spokesperson, Ms Helen Spurling, while welcoming the move, as I do, said: . . . the Government would save $100 million through the reforms and that this should be redirected to low-income families. Unfortunately, we do not have any guarantee about that. I believe we should approach this issue from the two aspects that I have stressed: From the need and the desire to improve the lives of so many children who are members of single parent families, who are suffering in many ways, but particularly financially, from the breakdown of families. Just to underline the enormity of this problem I remind the Senate that in the 11 years from 1974 to 1985 the number of sole parent families increased by 73 per cent, from 183,000 to 316,000. So we are dealing with a very large problem. As I have said, I have concern that if the motive for this exercise is simply to save costs we will run the risk that, even though we might quite successfully tackle the problem of parental responsibility, and although we might through new legislation achieve a situation where a far higher proportion of maintenance payments are actually paid to the custodial parent and to the children, we in fact will still have a very large number of children living in poverty. However successful we might be in establishing a new maintenance system, we must face the fact that there will always be problems. If we are going to see this totally as a cost cutting exercise, then a great many people will still suffer. In May we will have the mini-Budget, and there is a lot of concern in the community about what is or is not going to be cut. It is in this environment that I express that concern. There is great pressure out there for quite large cuts. The Business Council of Australia put in its bid for a $4,000m cut in that context. It has listed all sorts of areas where those cuts could take place. They include the area of social security payments, which is the area which largely we will address in this legislation. The Business Council of Australia has proposed an enormous cut-well over $1,000m-in a section of the Budget which is one of the largest outlays that the Government has to meet. Just today I received with some concern a letter from yet another representative body of the business sector, the Confederation of Australian Industry-not a body which I think would take quite as tough a stance in some of these areas as the Business Council of Australia. This letter was a copy of a letter sent to the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, as a comment on the discussion paper. It concerns me because it expresses very strong resistance to the establishment of a maintenance collection agency and, in particular, to any proposals for employers to deduct maintenance payments from the wages of employees. It concerns me because of what I believe it represents. Let me share with the Senate some of the concerns expressed in the letter from the Confederation of Australian Industry. It begins by welcoming the consultative process and expressing willingness to continue to participate in further consultations. I confess that because of the content of the letter I have some concern about a voice such as the Confederation's having any considerable weight in ongoing consultations. An initial concern in the letter appears to be that if employers are asked to collect maintenance payments from the wages of employees this will put inordinate pressure on the relationship between the employee and the employer. The Confederation points out that the experience of employers with garnishee orders has not been happy and it believes that a permanent garnishee system for maintenance payments would result in a considerably greater degree of defiance and more attempts at non-compliance. I must say that I hardly see how non-compliance could really be increased beyond what it currently is. Perhaps this demonstrates a little lack of understanding by the Confederation of the enormity of the problem and the need for its member organisations to co-operate in such a system. The Confederation acknowledges the pressure on government revenues of the cost of child support. Again, a significant body in the community has what I believe is the wrong motivation in addressing this issue. The pressure on government should be coming from its concern for the poverty of children and for the lack of responsibility in parenting. The Confederation is concerned about the cost to employers of any garnishee system for the collection of maintenance. In a second attached letter in which it goes into more detail it suggests that there ought to be some kind of payment to employers to recompense them for this service. It seems a bit odd to me that employers who customarily withhold taxation payments, union dues and a number of other payments from employees' pay packets should suddenly come up with what is such a considerable and considered response to a government discussion paper which is concerned for the lives of families and children and that this system should be seen by employers to be such an imposition when they are in a position to facilitate the justice of this issue. They point to administrative problems and their concern that they might be seen as a tool of the family law system. They are concerned that it will be an encouragement for people to use false identities and that employers might lose workers. They also say that people in small communities might be embarrassed by or resent their employer knowing their personal position and that some employees might have their desire to work diminished by the fact that they have to pay for their families. Looking at the wider issue, they also question the cost of establishing such an agency. Senator Durack —I take a point of order. I have been listening for some five minutes or more to Senator Powell's disposition on some letter she has had from the CAI and its objections to a scheme which is unrelated to the Bill. I suggest that there is no relevance whatever to the Bill in what she is saying. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I have been listening too, and I remind Senator Powell that she has to relate her discussion as closely as possible to the Bill. Some latitude is permitted but I would be grateful if she would get closer to the Bill. Senator POWELL —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. At the beginning of my remarks I pointed out that Senator Durack made a considerable contribution through his putting forward of this Bill several years ago and his pursuit of it now, on the issue of the collection of payments from non-custodial parents for their children. I am bringing before the Senate concerns which other people in the community have for this whole process. I do that because unless we recognise why we are attempting to do these things we might make errors of judgment in the approach we take to the specific proposals before us. In that context I turn to some of the provisions in Senator Durack's Bill. I am extremely pleased to note that there is to be an amendment which will remove one of the provisions which was of most concern to the Australian Democrats at the time the Bill was presented. That is the very punitive provision for imprisonment for failure to comply. I am pleased that it is proposed to remove that provision. I suggest that it is that kind of approach to the issue which is unhelpful as, I believe, was the approach taken by the Confederation of Australian Industry. To be helpful in this issue we have to not just address the problems before us, which are the result of the very large increase in numbers of family breakdowns, but as a parliament and as a society look also at the causes. When we talk about family breakdown and family responsibility, which I take to be the motivation behind Senator Durack's legislation, often we do not realise that this responsibility is the responsibility of both partners in child rearing. Often this matter is seen totally as a matter of concern for women. The matter I was particularly raising in spending so much time on the letter I received today was that the influence in this issue will come very much from men in the community who, for a very long time, have been able to escape their responsibilities. I would much prefer not to have an approach of resistance, such as the one to which I drew the Senate's attention, but one which looks at the issue, says `Well, why do we have this very large increase in family breakdown?' and recognises that there are problems for the male parent in a great many cases. The approach should also recognise that very often in these sorts of circumstances men feel threatened-and hence perhaps the sort of response which has been received from at least one business organisation. I wonder how much input that response had from women members and indeed how many women members in that organisation are expressing their views. If we are trying to make efforts-I believe certainly Senator Durack with his legislation is trying to make efforts-not just to collect money but also to improve the way in which family breakdowns are handled and to ensure the smoothest possible means of having families meet their responsibilities, it would also be useful for us to say to ourselves that perhaps we could be doing some things which would reduce the incidence of family breakdown. We could look at our attitude to parenting-in particular to the role that we often ascribe to male parents. We should certainly not look at just punitive measures. I am not suggesting for a minute that this Parliament should not pass legislation of one kind or another which will include them, but I do not think we should take a punitive attitude. We should encourage fathers' involvement with their children, whether or not the marriage has remained intact. If we were to encourage fathers' involvement with their children from the beginning, many more marriages would stay intact and we would have less of a problem to address. As I said earlier, we have had quite a big week in this area, and we have other amendments from Senator Durack which bring the aspects of his legislation closer to those of the proposed legislation which the ministerial statement outlined earlier this week. I would point out that Senator Durack's Bill, in common with the Government's proposals, is not totally comprehensive. As far as the Government's proposals are concerned, some time will pass before they will be able to be implemented. The two-stage system is understandable in that the second stage will be a very delicate one, with the establishment of some kind of a formula which, one stresses, would need to be flexible so that we are not being punitive, which we are at risk of being if we pursue some aspects of the proposed legislation. I am happy to see that the tremendously punitive imprisonment provision of Senator Durack's Bill has been removed. The other aspect of Senator Durack's Bill to which I would like to refer is the prevention of court-approved maintenance agreements being used as a mechanism to evade the obligation to pay maintenance for children of a marriage. We have all heard of numerous occasions on which these sorts of agreements have been made. When we talk about the need for flexibility we must bear in mind that, in the case of marriage breakdown, it will not necessarily always be a fact that people will not always be unable to communicate and come to agreements which are amicable. I underline the fact that we have advanced in this area. As Senator Durack said, we have had four years of this Government and, as I have said, it was 10 years after the Family Law Act was introduced in 1975 that we saw Senator Durack's Bill. I hope we will have some more rational system but one which is based on an humane approach and one which is backed up by support for preventive mechanisms in the community in order to reduce the incidence of marriage breakdowns. We have been told this week of statistical evidence that money worries are the largest cause of marriage breakdown in the community. We should think about that when we are looking at the comments of business groups, for instance, in relation to this area of legislation on things such as a wages policy and social security payments because, what in some people's eyes might be seen as economic responsibility, to other people is simply the straw which breaks the camel's back and which breaks up a family and causes the need for some kind of draconian exercise being legislated for. When I was addressing the ministerial proposal earlier in the week I suggested that some programs in the community aim to keep families together and to help them make proper and amicable decisions, even if they cannot stay together, and that such organisations should be supported. I mentioned the Family Conciliation Centre in Victoria. I point out that, of the 557 cases which came before that Centre in its last financial year, the issue of management of family finances was involved in 220. If the operation of a centre such as that, which is minimally funded by government and whose funding is to be reviewed at 30 June this year, can prevent family breakdown of the sort that we have seen in the last decade, I would suggest that, while paying attention to the issues raised by Senator Durack's legislation and by the Minister in his statement, we should also be looking at this sort of process because of its preventative ability-not just in terms of human damage and a better lifestyle for families and their members but also in terms of financial saving in the community where families which are able to stay together are less of a cost to the public purse. I stress that it is absolutely essential that in any decisions that we make on the issue of child support we must be very, very careful that our motivation is the correct one and that we do not attack this issue from the point of view of total cost saving. The Australian Institute of Family Studies warns against a too-easy expectation that a proposed child support system would save millions and that a formula should not be chosen on the basis that it will reduce public expenditure. It states that it may not, but that that is less important than establishing in the public mind that marriage and parenthood carry with them clear responsibilities for and obligations to children which cannot be avoided. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.28) —The Senate is debating the Family Law Amendment Bill 1985, the private member's Bill which was introduced by Senator Durack in 1985, proposing amendments to the Family Law Act along the lines of amendments put forward in 1983 in a Bill that also was introduced by Senator Durack. In debating this Bill I would like to say a couple of things. The first is that I do not intend to make a long speech because we would like to bring the Bill to a vote this afternoon but, with the length of speeches that have preceded mine and the possible length of those that will follow, we may not meet that objective. In any event, I would prefer not to contribute to our not being able to bring it to a vote. I would like to say a couple of things in response to what was said by Senator Powell. She made the point that this should not be an isolated matter and regarded as the be-all and end-all in terms of our treatment of these family difficulties. In bringing forward this Bill there is no suggestion by the Opposition that this is the sole thing that is required. I refer the Senate to the policy overview on families which was published by the Opposition in December last year. That policy overview directly refers to the need to amend the Family Law Act. If I may quote from it, we said: We will amend the Family Law Act to restore the primary obligation of parents to maintain their children, while confirming that support will continue to be provided for families in need. In the same section of the policy, which is the section headed `Family Law', there is also reference to the encouragement of reconciliation counselling to improve the chances of harmony being re-established within troubled marriages. Perhaps it is also important to acknowledge that, whilst we are concerned about the fact that many Australians are abdicating their responsibilities towards their dependants and shifting the burden of family financial support from themselves on to taxpayers, we understand that for many families in Australia today there are very great difficulties under the policies of this Government. We believe-this is expressed in the policy-that governments have a direct interest in the social and economic value of people meeting and maintaining their family responsibilities. We want to see support for families in a whole series of ways which are referred to in the policy, including the tax system. I note the enthusiasm with which middle class welfare is being attacked at the moment and the views being expressed that the family allowance should be cut and tax allowances for dependent spouses should be removed. I can only say that I hope that the very good arguments that have been put forward by people such as Bettina Cass are being considered very carefully. People with family responsibilities have seen a reduction in their circumstances under this Government. In my view burdens have been unfairly focused on families with dependants and I will be watching the May mini-Budget with great interest to see whether those burdens on people who are maintaining dependants are further increased. It would be socially regressive if that were done. I hope that Government back bench senators will be urging their front bench colleagues to watch that aspect of the matter, to look to the interests of families. It was suggested that little has been done about this matter or that little interest has been taken in it and I want to touch on that matter also. This Bill is important because, over the last 10 years or more, there has been a very substantial shift in the burden of looking after children in particular from private people to the taxpayer. The Government's discussion paper made that clear. As a proportion of all families in Australia, the number of sole parent families rose from 9 per cent in the mid-1970s to 14 per cent in 1986. Between 1974 and 1986 the number of sole parent families increased by 73 per cent, from 183,000 to 316,000, and the proportion of sole parents on a pension or benefit went from 65 per cent to 85 per cent over the last decade. About a quarter of a million people are receiving the supporting parent benefit, with 450,000 children in their care. Less than 30 per cent of those parents have any additional source of income. Government expenditure on supporting parents has risen by 245 per cent in real terms since 1973-74, from $160m to $1,757m in 1985-86. Less than 30 per cent of custodial parents are receiving regular cash payments from non-custodial parents. This legislation is one of the things-I stress that it is only one of the things-that can be done to alleviate that sort of problem. We support the idea of a national maintenance collection agency, an idea that we have been asserting for some years and which is now firm government policy, although we have yet to see some of the detail on it. This is one of the contributions which can be made to the relief of poverty. There are a substantial number of sole parent families where children and, indeed, custodial parents are in circumstances of great want. Also, it is an opportunity to shift some of that massive burden from the taxpayer back to those whose responsibilities truly are involved. The statistics I have mentioned are not statistics which materialised in the last year; they are statistics which, of course, have accumulated over the past decade or more. I remind the Senate that in the Budget of 1982-the last Fraser Budget-that problem was acknowledged and the need to encourage greater individual responsibility was mentioned and dealt with in part in it, with the restoration of the requirement that individuals who are being supported by the taxpayer should have an obligation to take reasonable steps to obtain a contribution from the non-resident spouse. That old provision was discounted, I think, by the Whitlam Government and its return to the social security area was not welcomed by the then Opposition-the Australian Labor Party. Indeed, it discontinued the requirement when it took office. I mention that matter because it has been fairly typical of the very negative response that the Opposition-the Liberal and National parties-has had from the Government when these matters have been raised. Indeed, back bench supporters of the Government have been even further behind the game than their Ministers. In September 1985 I drew attention in a speech at Queanbeyan to the need to change the law to put greater obligation back on to non-custodial parents. I referred to the efforts we have made in the past, the efforts made by Senator Durack as Attorney-General and later as shadow Attorney-General. When I referred to that matter, Senator Reynolds came bustling into the chamber and suggested that a reactionary policy had been advocated by me. It was a fascinating suggestion because on the previous day the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, had acknowledged in a speech in Sydney the need to take action to improve the private contribution in these areas. In the silly, time wasting and very grudging speech that was Senator Coates's contribution to this debate one had the same sense of reluctance that attempts should be made to lift the private contribution, to take some of the burden off taxpayers and a real horror that there might be the sort of emphasis that I thought Senator Powell very properly put in the debate towards making some effort at reconciliation and preserving marriages rather than simply regarding family law as a matter which should facilitate the termination of marriage and family arrangements. The Bill which is before us is to be the subject of some amendment. Senator Durack has circulated amendments which will remove in particular the suggestion that was contained in the original Bill that there should be restoration of the capacity of the courts to imprison people for the non-payment of maintenance. There is a very great difficulty in ensuring that maintenance orders can be enforced and that is why the Opposition has had for a number of years now-going back to the policy that was prepared by Senator Durack as the shadow Attorney-General in 1983-84-a consistent policy that there should be a maintenance collection agency of the sort to which the Government is now committed. The Opposition regards this matter as one that cannot just be allowed to roll on and that is why it would like to see this Bill dealt with with more urgency than apparently the Government wants. This Government is to be condemned for its failure to act over the nearly four years that it has been in office on an area of real community concern, an area in which a substantial burden is placed on taxpayers which could, in part, be relieved to the benefit of both taxpayers and those who will receive the additional maintenance. The national maintenance inquiry produced a report of some 40 pages on the courses that could be taken by the Government and it was brought down in February 1984. It took the Government a year and a half before a Cabinet sub-committee was established to examine options for reforming current child maintenance arrangements. That has finally resulted in a discussion paper and the paper which was put down by the Minister just a few days ago. The reality is that there has been an alarmingly lackadaisical approach by the Government to this matter. There is a real need for this Bill, which principally would make the change which would restore the primacy of personal responsibility for children, now to be treated as a matter of some urgency. The important point to note is that since this Bill was introduced there has been a substantial movement by the Government in the direction which has been urged by the Opposition. Mr Howe is now certainly agreeing that the private maintenance should not be simply regarded as something which tops up the responsibility of individuals. The Government now seems to concur and has agreed that there is a need for legislation which would-I quote Mr Howe's statement: . . . 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. That is totally in line with what has been said by this Opposition since 1983. It has taken this Government four years to catch-- Senator Walsh —It is not in line with what Blunt said a couple of days ago. Senator CHANEY —The critical point on which Mr Blunt was concerned was the issue of whether one had to have a system which was obligatory, as in covering every non-resident parent. The concern that was expressed by Mr Blunt was that there should be room for private arrangements to continue, provided those private arrangements are reasonable for the parties. That is a matter which I think the Government's own-- Senator Walsh —That is one of the big problems, because they make a capital settlement and then come back on to the welfare system. Senator CHANEY —I think I will leave some of this detail to Senator Durack, but in fact there is a clear need for the whole of the family law side of this matter to be dealt with in an appropriate way, and there is certainly no wish on the part of the Opposition to see any room at all left for agreements which put additional burdens on the taxpayers in circumstances where families in fact have adequate means to look after their dependants and where the social security system is simply being used as icing on an already rather rich cake. The important thing that I wanted to note, though, was that the view which is being put forward by the Government now contradicts the arguments that were put forward by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, in February of 1986. It is good to see that, after a great deal of time and effort on the part of the Opposition, there is some movement of the Government in this important area. We would like to see some sign of good faith on the part of the Government by its helping to bring this legislation to a vote and seeing it passed into law as soon as possible for both the benign social effects that can be achieved and for the relief to taxpayers which could also be achieved. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(4.43) —I would like first to say something about the timing of this debate. I find it interesting that, although this Family Law Amendment Bill was introduced well over a year ago and there have been many opportunities at this time on a Thursday in General Business time for it to be brought forward, the Opposition waited until the Government produced its proposals and then tried to show that really such reforms were its idea all along, as Senator Peter Baume did in debate the other day. If it was the Opposition's idea all along, I would be interested to know why this Bill was not proceeded with at any stage in the last 15 months or so. I quote from Hansard of 24 March what Senator Baume said the other day: 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 . . . That is grossly simplistic, to put the kindest complexion on it, because in fact-and I can speak as someone who has been involved in these discussions all along-the Government has been working on this matter for over three years. It is a matter which was debated in the community long before that. Before I became a member of this Parliament I was involved in discussions of this very matter. It is certainly not true to say that suddenly the Government acted after Senator Durack introduced his private member's Bill. Our involvement has been not only long but also wide. It has involved a great deal of community debate. I am very well aware of the time that that has taken, because I know of the individual representations I have had made to me. Probably because I am the only woman Government senator from Victoria, I tend to get a lot of representations from women in the community, particularly from rural areas. This has been a matter of considerable concern but it has also been a matter of knowledge among those people that the Government is intending to do something. That is because many of them have been involved in the debate or else were invited to take part in the debate and the various community consultations but were not always able, for reasons of family responsibilities or distance or whatever, to take part in them. In fact, I have been pleasantly surprised at the degree of involvement and knowledge, particularly of women. Of course, most of the custodial parents are women, although not all by any means. When we talk about custodial parents there is a tendency to think of them as being women; but in fact some are men, and some male custodial parents are in just the same sort of need, and these provisions which the Government is proposing to make will benefit them also. All these discussions were well in train before Senator Durack's Bill was introduced and certainly they have proceeded according to plan over the intervening period. But I point out that this is something that one does not rush into, because it is a very sensitive area. I believe the Government has approached it sensitively. It is not nearly as easy as Senator Durack's proposed amendments to the Family Law Act suggest. We have to look not only at the question of the ability to pay, of both partners-whether they be male or female-but also at the question of the formation of second families. That can be a very complex issue. It may not be only a second family; it may be a third family; it may be a blended family from two previous families. I know from my own experience working as a school counsellor of the sort of problems that come up-not just financial problems but psychological problems and so on as well-because of this increasing tendency to re-establish families. In many ways it is a good thing; it gives stability to children. But it is a difficult process, with the possibility of economic problems, and if we rush into some simplistic solution we will add to those problems. I think Senator Powell referred to the difficulty sometimes of enforcement in a small town. This is something that has been discussed at some length on the Government's side. There are questions of confidentiality and privacy. If we proceed by acting through the Australian Taxation Office, we have problems of the employer knowing, perhaps for the first time, that the non-custodial parent has left a family without support, and so on. But progress is being made in these matters, and progress is also being made in the process of counselling at the time of marriage breakdown and after marriage breakdown. This Government has greatly increased the resources given to the counselling sections of the Family Court of Australia, and I would remind honourable senators that the 1983 amendments to the Family Law Act were the work of this Government also. They made a great deal of difference in that regard because they allowed for counselling before the point of breakdown as well as afterwards, and they allowed direct access by the public to the counselling services of the court. Those services are being used. This Government has also set up conciliation centres. These are pilots at the moment; but, from what I hear, the conciliation centre in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne has been able to do a great deal before and after breakdown and in the mending and grieving process which often follows. I would like to refer now briefly to the foreshadowed amendments. I am very pleased that the punitive provision is being dropped from the foreshadowed amendments. I do not need to refer to that one. But in regard to the other amendments, as I read it, the first amendment to section 75 of the principal Act-clause 3 (1) in the amending Bill-seeks to delete the words `but shall determine the proceedings as if there were no such eligibility'. I do not see that that really adds a great deal. Maybe Senator Durack can elucidate that further. I think it is unnecessary. I would like to refer to what Senator Gareth Evans said in this place on 20 February 1986, when he recorded the response of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to Senator Durack's Bill. I quote from the Hansard of that date: Sub-clause 3 (1) of the Bill proposes to add two new sub-sections to section 75 of the Family Law Act. The intended effect of proposed sub-section 75 (3) seems to be to require the court awarding maintenance to disregard the existence of possible social security benefits. The Government is firmly of the view expressed by other speakers that primary responsibility for the support of children should rest with parents of the children. Nevertheless, it believes that the approach taken by proposed sub-section 75 (3) is too simplistic and may create great hardships where there are not the financial resources to allow total support of two family units. Decisions of the Family Court of Australia already hold that only where financial resources are inadequate should social security be considered. We all know that that has been variously interpreted by Family Court judges. Senator Evans continued: The Bill also proposes to add sub-section 75 (4) which purports to deal with priorities as between the needs of the party to or a child of a marriage, on the one hand, and responsibilities assumed since that marriage, on the other. The court is directed to give `such priority as is just and reasonable in all the circumstances'. This may amount to none at all or to a negative priority. No guidelines are given to determine the priority. Anything that could be encompassed by the new sub-section will already be considered under other provisions of sub-section 75 (2), including paragraph (a) which reads: . . . any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 87 of the Act by excluding arrangements for child maintenance from court-approved maintenance agreements. It would, in the Government's view be a very drastic step to remove these arrangements from the scope of section 87 agreements. These agreements are a useful means for parties to finalise their affairs on marital breakdown without the trauma of continuing court proceedings. It is conceded that some of these agreements may have been structured to maximise social security receipt. Nevertheless, the Family Court- he cited the case- held that, in considering whether a maintenance agreement is proper, the Court should also consider the interests of the community at large. I think that that has become more relevant in the time since that was said. I was referring before to the community consultations that took place-very wide consultations-in the period leading up to the presentation of the statement by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in both Houses earlier this week. I would like to read the list of organisations-it is probably not an exhaustive list; it contains the names of the ones we have been able to assemble-which have taken part in those consultations. In the main, they are the very large organisations-- Senator Durack —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. A Bill that deals with fairly specific matters is before the Senate, which Senator Zakharov has been addressing. Now she wants to read out-obviously to waste time, because that is what the Government's tactic is-a list of organisations which made representations to the Government about some scheme the Government is contemplating. It is not of relevance to the actual terms of this Bill. Senator Zakharov —On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: A number of statements have been made today and before this time about the lack of work that the Government has done in the meantime, the lack of consultation, and so on. I am merely trying to substantiate that the Government has consulted extensively and to give some idea of the scope of that consultation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Zakharov, you may proceed, but do not spend too long in that direction. Senator ZAKHAROV —No, I will try to read the list quickly. It is a lengthy list. I think it is important that it be read, because it shows the breadth of consultation. It reads: The Australian Council of Social Service; the Australian Council of Trade Unions; the Australian Law Reform Commission; the Australian Taxpayers Association, which one would think would be very concerned; the Brotherhood of St Laurence-and I had the pleasure of taking part in some of those consultations; business organisations such as the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and the Council of Small Business; the Catholic Social Welfare Commission; the Council for the Single Mother and Her Child; Family Court judges, registrars and counsellors organisations; the Income Security and Taxation Advocacy Project; the Institute of Family Studies; the Social Welfare Research Centre; the Law Council of Australia; men's organisations, including the Lone Fathers Organisation and Fathers of Australia; the Mission of St James and St John; the National Consultative Council on Social Welfare; the National Women's Consultative Council, and numerous women's organisations which are represented by it; the South Australian Maintenance Agency, which of course is the agency to which people are looking as a possible model; national women's organisations, such as the Women's Electoral Lobby, the National Council of Women, and Parents Without Partners; State governments; family conciliation centres; and 312 other written submissions and letters were received in this consultation. So there has been no barrier at any time to any group taking part in this process. I add that some of the people with whom I have taken part in discussion have been State members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party who have also been supportive of what we have been doing and have recognised what we are doing. I would like to refer to some of the other aspects that have been mentioned by previous speakers. I refer to a number of aspects of Senator Durack's second reading speech, because I think part of it at least illuminates an attitude which is unfortunately current in the community and has, I believe, impeded the pursuit of justice and equity in this area. Senator Durack said: The availability of a meagre but steady income under the supporting parents benefit is an important factor which gives the supporting parent a reliable income and relieves the recipient of the hassle of chasing a bad payer. He is referring here to the number of maintenance orders which are disregarded. Receivers of the supporting parents benefit may regard it as a reliable income, but they would hardly regard it as an adequate income. Many of those people would much rather be getting proper maintenance for their children from the non-custodial parent who ought to be responsible for them. Senator Durack continued: There has also no doubt been an erosion of moral and social values whereby many people have decided to repudiate such responsibility. I do not know what evidence, if any, he has for saying that. To my knowledge there have always been non-custodial parents who have rejected their responsibilities. In fact, I have worked in areas of Australia where large numbers of the work force-and I am going back 40 years now, so it is not a recent matter or anything to do with the Family Law Act-were in those isolated areas simply to escape their responsibilities of this sort. So I do not think it is anything new and I do not think we can recognise any sudden moral decline, for whatever reason that Senator Durack may think that that is taking place. He also said: The present Government is particularly delinquent because although the problem was identified several years ago it has taken no steps to rectify it. I believe I have answered that point, in spite of Senator Durack's attempt to stop me reading the list of organisations which had been involved. Senator Durack continued: Soon after he became Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans set up an inquiry into this question and obtained a departmental report but since then nothing has transpired. I realise that this speech was made a year ago, but certainly a great deal had transpired by that stage. Senator Durack referred to agreements under section 87 as being the ones favoured by the better off sections of the community for maintenance avoidance purposes. I imagine that he was referring to settlements about property and so on. The quotation I read from Senator Evans's remarks earlier recognised that that often has been the case, but particularly in the case of the family home it is often very important that that settlement takes place because it allows some stability to the children. I have seen, in my work in schools, families in which children not only have been uprooted from their houses, having lost one of their parents, but have had to move, change schools and lose their friends because the family cannot afford another house in the same area. This has a deleterious effect upon those children. I trust that when the final decisions are made provisions will be made by the court for an arrangement or part arrangement relating to the family home. I wish to deal with some of the statements that have been made in this debate and earlier. Senator Reid implied that alternative arrangements cannot be made-in other words, that a non-custodial parent cannot arrange to make a transfer of money or of property in some other way as part of the maintenance arrangements. I have been heavily involved in all the discussions that have taken place in developing the Government's scheme, and I do not believe that this is so. We must remember that we are now at stage one in a staged process with community discussions continuing between stages, so a great deal is not fixed, but there is no basis for saying that alternative arrangements cannot be made, as they are made now. Senator Reid —I did not say that they could not be made. I said that they cannot be made as a means of getting into social security. Senator ZAKHAROV —That point is taken. There were several interjections about the Government doing something after four years. As I have already said, we have done a great deal in those four years, including making major amendments to the Family Law Act. In the same vein, I do not know whether Senator Durack heard or would be pleased by Senator Powell's reference to him as a burr under the saddle of the Government. Again, I do not think it is realistic and it certainly is not an accurate description of Senator Durack. I reiterate that the discussion was well advanced before Senator Durack introduced his Bill, and the last four years have been well spent. Senator Durack —I introduced the same amendment in 1983 and you voted against it then. Do you remember that? Senator ZAKHAROV —Yes, in that context. I am sure that Senator Durack does not want to be diverted into another argument, and I am certainly not prepared to be so diverted. There have also been some suggestions that the main purpose of the Government move is to get down the welfare bill as a priority. The Government's priority is to meet the needs of children in poverty. Certainly no one would object to getting that bill down if the money is to be redistributed to other people in need at times of economic stringency, but that is not the purpose of the Government's moves. I am disappointed in some of the community groups which are making that allegation. They should know better because they have been involved in this process for a number of years. I refer with approbation to the contribution to the debate when the matter was before the chamber on a previous occasion by Senator Giles who said that the amendments in Senator Durack's Bill introduced an unacceptable rigidity into the decision making process of the Family Court. I agree wholeheartedly with that. The Government's present proposals, on the other hand, are flexible. Some people see it as punitive to make a non-custodial parent responsible for their share of the child's upkeep. I do not regard it that way, but some groups are saying `I am not prepared to pay' or, worse still, wanting some trade-off for access, which is an entirely separate question and which is being addressed separately by the Government. Senator Chaney said that we cannot let this matter roll on, and he repeated the four-year claim. Well, it has not rolled on and I hope that I have dealt with that point. We have not let it roll on; we have rolled it on. We have been the impetus. We have made use of the maintenance report that is mentioned and all the other material which has been produced, including reports which have come from non-government organisations, government agencies such as the Family Law Institute, as well as the magnificent work which has been done by the social security review team. I do not have a great deal of time left but I want to stress some of the points made by the Minister in his statement on the reform of child support. He pointed out: 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- And on the Budget. I would like to comment there because I wonder how many people in this chamber now, or when the chamber is full even, really understand the meaning of poverty; I wonder whether they understand what it means to see one's children go without things that other children have. I wonder whether they have seen children suffering from, not starvation, but marginal malnutrition; children whose teeth cannot be attended to, children who are not taken to the doctor perhaps because the doctor charges more than the Medicare rebate and the parents cannot afford to pay the bill. I wonder whether members are aware that some children do not know what it is to have new clothes and, even more commonly, parents who go without. I am not just referring to parents who find themselves in this situation, as other people are living in poverty as well, but a large number of people living in poverty are single parents. There are parents who go without and who suffer the consequences themselves so that their children may be adequately clothed, fed and housed. Many live in situations where there is no money for basic requisites, let alone things that most people take for granted, such as outings. A trip on the train has to be planned for and saved for in advance, even a trip into the city. Holidays and the purchase of new clothes become impossible dreams. I myself have had some experience, but not to this extent, of knowing what it is like to live on credit, to have to ask the grocer if one can pay the bill at the end of the week and to have to clothe one's children solely out of op-shops. I am pleased that the punitive aspects, which were originally in Senator Durack's Bill, are the subject of foreshadowed amendments. Experience has shown that the punitive approach has not been effective anyway and has often been counter-productive. It has led to the non-custodial parent absconding or to great reluctance by custodial parents to take the matter to court. A husband in jail is providing nothing towards the maintenance of the family, whereas if he is out of jail there is at least a chance that he might pay something, if he can be found. I strongly believe that it is the responsibility of those who produce children to contribute to their upkeep. I think probably that we differ only as to how this should be done. This needs to be impressed on young people before they take part in the activity which may produce children. Certainly that is something I tried to do in my work as a teacher before I came to this place. I sought to make girls and boys aware of their responsibilities if their actions result in children. I repeat that the Government's motivation is not primarily to reduce government expenditure, although that is a concern. It is primarily about making sure that children do not suffer so badly economically when they clearly often suffer socially and psychologically when their parents separate, when a marriage breaks down or when a de facto relationship ends. I regard this private member's Bill and its amendments as a very simplistic approach to a very complex and sensitive area and I ask the Senate to reject it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.10) —We are dealing this afternoon with the Family Law Amendment Bill 1985, a private member's Bill introduced by Senator Durack in December 1985. This Bill was debated fairly extensively in February last year when there were many speakers on it. As an amendment to the Family Law Act, this Bill deals with one of the intractable areas of law in Australia. In recent years we have seen very graphic illustrations, particularly relating to judges in the Family Court, of the major problems with which the Family Law Act has to deal and the enormous amounts of tension, disharmony and hatred, finally leading to murder, that have arisen out of problems associated with this area of the law. Hence, it is with some trepidation that we look at any amendment to the Family Law Act. We must try to think of the ramifications that may flow from an amendment such as the one in Senator Durack's Bill. As other speakers have indicated, Senator Durack has circulated a number of proposed amendments to be moved at the Committee stage of this Bill. These amendments essentially deal with the elimination of a section that would require imprisonment for non-custodial parents who default on child maintenance payments to custodial parents. I am pleased to see that Senator Durack has withdrawn that aspect of this Bill because it seems to me that it merely adds to, rather than detracts from the area of tension and the likely ramifications that could occur at later stages. Senator Durack —That was the burr under the saddle that your colleague identified. Senator MACKLIN —The burr under the saddle seems to have worked not only on other people, but also on the honourable senator himself. I am glad to see that that burr has been removed. The essential guts of this Bill are contained in clause 3 (2). In his second reading speech, Senator Durack was candid to the point of saying that unfortunately these amendments on their own would not be entirely effective. Indeed, that would probably be accepted by everybody. That is one of the difficulties that I have with this Bill-the fact that the amendments on their own will not be entirely effective. I am not at all sure that piecemeal amendments to the Family Law Act are required at the moment. Certainly, the representations that are made to me and, I am sure, to Senator Durack and other honourable senators, are for far more extensive amendments to that Act. Those representations tend to come from two quite diverse areas. In the main, they come from women who usually have the task of raising the children of those marriages that have been dissolved. The other major set of representations come from men, by and large the non-custodial parents, who wish, as Senator Zakharov has said, to link custody with maintenance. I agree entirely with her that those are two quite separate and distinct issues which should not be linked. The reason I see them as separate and distinct is that the maintenance provided by the non-custodial parent is provided for the children. Quite frankly, in terms of the children's welfare, the question of whether there is access is immaterial. The children still have to be fed, clothed, housed and educated. Of course one would hope that both parents would abide by the Court's determination. One would hope that those parents who have not engaged in any maintenance of children would abide by the determination and that the custodial parent would provide access. But trading one for the other is almost getting down to the operation of a horse market. While I receive a large number of representations along these lines, I have not been able to evince any support or any sympathy for that type of proposition. I sympathise greatly with those who are denied access which is provided by the courts, but I do not sympathise with those who would seek to deny their children the maintenance which is their due because the parents are being denied access. In this most difficult of areas of law the Court is trying to make a judgment which is in the best interests of the children. When we look at amendments to this Act, such as the one contained in this Bill, we must take a stance for the interests of the children. That may seem harsh in many ways as parents suffer greatly in these circumstances, but as there is often a conflict of interest, one must ask to whom one will give priority. Under our system of law we tend to give priority to those who are least able to look after themselves. The law tends to protect those people against those who are able to look after themselves. I am not saying that in every circumstance either one or other of the custodial or non-custodial parents is correct in either denying or permitting access, but I know that that causes enormous concern, particularly to the largely male non-custodial parents who come to see me. Among members of the other group-that is, basically the female custodial parents; and it is interesting that that pattern still persists although it seems to be shifting a bit according to the statistics-the concern is totally different. In this case the concern is about the enormous difficulty of actually enforcing maintenance law. By and large in most cases-not all, but most-there has been a fair amount of acrimony upon the break-up of the marriage, particularly where there has been a court-enforced judgment and that judgment is often seen as unjust by one partner or the other, and sometimes by both. The partner who sees the Court judgment as being unjust is often not in the mood to abide by it. Indeed, in 30 per cent of the cases, as we know from the research of the Institute of Family Studies, that partner never attempts to fulfil one iota of the judgment. That is an extraordinary figure when one thinks about it. I urge some caution in respect of the figures brought out by the Institute of Family Studies, particularly because the data base it has used extends over many years. It goes way beyond 1983 and well back into the early Fraser years. It must do so as one sees when one looks at the nature of the conclusions being drawn. One must have a reasonable time over which to work out the numbers who have defaulted after a period of years. For example, one cannot have a figure for the number of people who have defaulted after five years if the study has not run for five years. That means that the data we are talking about did not arise under this Government, nor, I suggest, did it arise under the previous Government. Indeed, we are talking about behaviour which, for one reason or another, has grown out of the changing social context. We would expect an increase. The reason for that is obvious and is found in other studies on the breakup of marriages. In particular, we would expect it to increase in terms of the very large number of those first marriages which break up and which result in second marriages, often with children. I say that the second group is likely to grow because in tight economic circumstances where a person has a second family to care for, support for the first family often becomes very problematic. That is an understandable human reaction. I will not sit in judgment on people in those circumstances because obviously everyone is different. Senator Durack —What about the obligation on them? Senator MACKLIN —If Senator Durack listens, he might learn something. In those circumstances, people are attempting to provide for those who are closest to them at any particular time. I would suggest that that is a human reaction. That does not necessarily mean that we condone or support such action. What I am trying to do is interpret the type of figures that we are confronted with in terms of the studies. It is not good enough simply to read the figures themselves. We have to read the data behind them to try to work out what we might wish to do about it. Senator Durack has made one suggestion, based upon an interpretation of those figures, of where we might go. I am suggesting that the type of human reaction we are confronting is not going to go away-it is not going to go away regardless of what type of law we pass. We are confronted with that reality. I agree with Senator Zakharov's sentiments, doubtless the result of her work, to which she alluded, that there is an education task for the entire community and not just for the schools. God help us, every time we have a suggestion about what needs to be done, the schools somehow get dragged into it. We have the task of educating society to the view that the offspring of any family is the responsibility of both parents and that that responsibility continues while that child remains a minor. Let us assume that a person who has two children from his first marriage goes into a second marriage where he also has two children. There are plenty of first marriages which result in four children. But one still has to support those children whether they are in the first marriage or the second marriage. My view, very clearly, is that it is no longer possible for us to take the view that the general taxpayer should support the children of first marriages, regardless of what the parent is doing in the second marriage and regardless of what his responsibilities and financial obligations are. However, there is obviously no way of dealing with this matter except on an individual basis. I do not see any way of dealing with this matter except ultimately through a court determination which is able to take all items into consideration. I express again, as an aside to that point, my strong support for the Family Court of Australia and I hope that it continues. However, I must admit that I am disturbed about the current discussions that seem to be emanating from the Attorney-General's Department about the possible collapse of the Family Court into other jurisdictions or court structures. I believe that the Family Court, as it is presently constituted, with a number of amendments, really ought to continue to carry out its present task. I can see that there are problems in terms of judges and so on, but that basically would be my view. We need to look at how best to secure reasonable support for the children of a marriage which has been dissolved. Senator Durack's suggestion basically boils down to a proposition that a court in making a determination should disregard the possible effects of social security payments at any later stage and base its judgment by and large on the economic capacity of the individuals who come before it. I must admit that I am attracted to that proposition. It seems to me somewhat anomalous that when one is seeking to determine the possible contributions that an individual might be able to make one can say: `In lieu of the contributions that one might be able to make, there is a social security net that will pick up those types of problems if in fact there is a defaulting'. So probably I would ultimately find myself in support of the principle that Senator Durack has enunciated. However, I am not at all sure that supporting the amendment will achieve very much. I am rather inclined to support the suggestions in Senator Durack's second reading speech where he says that amendments will not be entirely effective. Senator Durack says that they will not be entirely effective because the Government needs to look at the whole area. As we have heard from Government senators, the Government is looking at the area. Senator Durack went on to say in his second reading speech: None of these matters can be properly addressed by a private member's Bill but it is my earnest hope that the passage of this Bill by the Parliament will prove a catalyst towards solving a problem of growing magnitude towards which the present Government has adopted a thoroughly cavalier attitude. In other words, the Bill, which was introduced in 1985 and debated in February 1986, provides a catalyst to the problem that could not be solved by a private member's Bill. This is the reason why Senator Durack introduced the Bill himself. I would have thought that, as a result of that type of proposition, this debate was somewhat out of place. The Government has started to move. However, it has not necessarily moved in the areas I would like or in the areas that my Party would like, which it has foreshadowed for a number of years. Basically, our propositions relate to the use of the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security as the two major departments operating in the area. We believe that the Taxation Office is the mechanism best able to keep track of any Australians, whether they change their name or not, whether they stay in the same State or not. The collection of maintenance under any order provided by the courts ought to be carried out as a matter of course. There are avenues under the Family Law Act for review of any such maintenance orders, so that when in fact circumstances change some of those orders are automatically reviewed or a review can be sought. There is no possibility that the person who is having a particular maintenance order enforced would necessarily feel more disadvantaged than he already feels by the initial declaration of the court. I believe that that is ultimately the best way to go. Since the Department of Social Security is the department which is currently paying out, it would be the appropriate department to continue that type of support mechanism to the custodial parent for the benefit of the children. The reason that I feel this matter should be handled somewhat at arm's length from the people who are involved, is that I have met many people in my electorate office who have had the most terrifying experiences when it comes merely to attempting to enforce maintenance. I really cannot bring myself to support a system which would continue that imposition on the custodial parent. Women have in fact suffered almost terrorism at the hands of their previous partner when they have sought to get the money which the court had said ought to be given for the maintenance of the children involved. I believe that a more neutral system needs to be devised. The Government is moving slowly. I suppose that while one might be critical, as Senator Durack has been, of the almost snail's pace at which this particular item has been going in the last few years, I am also mindful that the area is one into which one steps with a great deal of trepidation. For every solution that one poses, there is ultimately a very large body of people on the doorstep to suggest why one should do something quite the opposite. I imagine that a government, which has to respond to an electorate, would find itself in some difficulties in this area. Nevertheless, I believe there is now fairly wide community consensus that both parents have a responsibility for the upkeep of the children of a marriage, and that where we have a court determination that court determination should be carried out. That being the case, I would reiterate the point that Senator Haines made when she spoke on 13 February: . . . the Bill seeks to prevent court-approved maintenance agreements being used as a mechanism to evade the obligation to pay maintenance . . . We would believe that, in general, the point that Senator Durack has made in that one item is well taken. But it is one item which, sitting on its own, I do not feel would necessarily contribute all that much to what is needed to be done in the general area of maintenance enforcement. Likewise, if a non-custodial parent is responsible for a second family, something which I talked about earlier, that is actually taken into account with regard to that person's possibilities of payment. This is a much more difficult problem, but I have already expressed some views which I think would suggest that I might lean to the point that ultimately the person has a responsibility for all of those children and that the children of the first marriage should not be expected to suffer because of a subsequent decision made by the parents, and certainly that the taxpayer should not be expected to pick up the tab for something that that person decides that he or she does not want to do any longer. It is one of the obligations of the marriage contract, where that marriage produces children, that a person actually undertake that responsibility. I find myself in support of a number of things that Senator Zakharov said, including the point she made that that actually has other ramifications in terms of what we ought to do to make sure that when people have children they have those children voluntarily and that they know what they are doing. In other words, it does suggest that those people who, for example, in my State say that we should not have any sex education for kids are in fact contributing directly to the problems that we are having in the Family Court area. They are the very people who wander around wringing their hands and waving their placards and saying: `How dare these people get support for their kids'. They cannot have it both ways, and to blame the victims, as it were, the children, whether they be from a marriage, from a de facto situation, or from a single parent family as a result of a death or separation or the fact that there was never any other parent in the set-up, other than in terms of the conception of the children, seems to me to be a hypocrisy that ought to be exposed on every possible occasion. There are further ramifications of this. There are other areas that have to be considered and taken into account. I would suggest that those other areas have equal importance with the type of proposition that Senator Durack has raised. They have importance because this situation ultimately will be solved only if enforcement of those maintenance orders is done in some arm's length way. With the enforcement of those orders, the proposition as to what the court may or may not take into consideration will cease to be of major concern. What will be of major concern is not whether the person is in fact able to have a social security payment but what are the financial resources that are available to that person that can be adequately taken and used in the support of children. That ultimately is the question, and how we arrange that is something that I hope will not become too polarised in a party political sense. I know that these matters are grist for the political mill. I am not so naive as to suggest otherwise. I think everybody in this chamber is already aware of the difficulty of dealing with this area. I think we should be very careful not to contribute to those difficulties by trying to score brownie points, one against the other on these issues, because ultimately it is the taxpayer who is footing the bill. The arrangements that we are going to have to come to are ones whereby the responsible parents have to foot the bill. I do not want that to be taken to mean that I do not support the continuation of payments to anybody who in fact is not currently being supported by the non-custodial parent-I do. I support those payments in the whole range of areas where they are currently being paid, whether they be to single mothers or not. The reason I support those is, very clearly, that I believe that anything else is simply an attempt to blame the victim. What we are attempting to do in this debate, and hopefully in other debates which we will have on this matter, is to see how best the children can be supported and protected. The fact that those children are the children of a single mother seems to me to be neither here nor there. Those children still have to be looked after, and if there are no other mechanisms by which they are able to be looked after, it is undoubtedly the responsibility of the taxpayer to make sure that they are cared for. I do not want any of the remarks that I have made today about the need for parents to bear that responsibility to be taken to mean that I do not favour the continuation of the support which is currently given until such time as we can have a better mechanism in place which takes resources from those who are able to pay and provides those by a sensible mechanism to children of a particular marriage that has been dissolved. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.38) —I understand that the Family Law Amendment Bill 1985 before the Senate was originally brought into the Senate in December 1975 by Senator Durack. I must confess that I am not quite sure how the proposed new sub-section (3) of section 75 is going to dovetail with section 75 (f). We have there a requirement in the Family Law Act for the Court to take into account: the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under- (i) any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or Territory or of another country; or (ii) any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the fund or scheme was established, or operates, within or outside Australia, and the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party; In the Bill put forward by Senator Durack I see no attempt to repeal that particular paragraph. If that paragraph is not repealed I do not see how it can fit easily with his proposed sub-section (3), which reads: The Court shall not take into account . . . the eligibility of a party to a marriage claiming maintenance . . . for a pension, allowance or benefit under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Repatriation Act 1920 . . . If a person gets, say, a totally and permanently incapacitated pension or an entitlement under repatriation legislation for disabilities as a result of war service, why should it not be taken into account in assessment? If there is an eligibility, who should it not be taken into account? I can understand an Act which would read that the courts should not so arrange things as to attract pensions. As this is written, it seems to me to a certain extent that it misses the point. If the amending legislation read that, `The Court shall not so arrange the maintenance of a spouse or of the children of that marriage so as to attract social security or pensions under the Repatriation Act' I could understand it. Senator Gietzelt —There is no spouse clause in the Repatriation Act. Senator COONEY —Yes, a spouse is not mentioned in the Repatriation Act, as the Minister for Repatriation so properly says. But why the eligibility of the pension, which as that reads means an eligibility apart from any separation and arrangements that have been made, should not be taken into account, I cannot quite understand. Perhaps Senator Durack will answer that at a later date. The next thing the Bill says is: . . . the Court shall give such priority to the needs of a party to the marriage or of a child of the marriage over responsibilities or commitments assumed since the marriage as is just and reasonable in all the circumstances. Again, I am not sure exactly what is meant by that. Does it mean that a person who marries again and has children must provide for those children at a lesser level, at a lower quality, than would be provided for the children of his first marriage, given the proposition that in either case it is the children who are in contention? It is not the responsibility for the break-up of the marriage that is in contention, although that might be a question that people could look at in terms of maintenance of the spouse. Indeed, that used to be the sort of thing that was looked at before the 1975 Act was brought in. But in my view, at any event, that should not be looked at when considering the children. The great difficulty that one finds with this matter is that it again seems to confuse-and I say this with great respect-the position of the spouses with that of the children. Perhaps Senator Durack could clear this up at a later stage. If he means, by the proposed sub-section (4)- Senator Durack —If you do not vote for it, I will not be able to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for the consideration of General Business has expired. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I table the explanatory notes of certain departments relating to the additional estimates of expenditure for 1986-87. Copies of these explanatory notes have been distributed to members of the Senate Estimates committees. Other honourable senators may obtain copies from the Senate Table Office if required. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the time for presentation of the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on a Briefing Note on Interest Rates be varied to provide that the Committee report on 7 May 1987. The original proposal was that the report be made on 1 April. The Committee decided to make that date as early as possible but since then the matter has been negotiated to be 7 May 1987. I commend the motion to the Senate. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.45) —The Opposition supports this motion moved by Senator Coates. As he said, the time limit that was set for the original reporting date of 1 April is very difficult for the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to meet. The Committee agreed that it is not practicable to meet that date and the Opposition agrees with that. As Senator Coates said, there had been some suggestion that the date might be changed and made open-ended. I am very pleased to see that wise counsel has prevailed in relation to this matter and we now have a firm reporting date. The Senate will therefore have on or by 7 May a report from the Finance and Government Operations Committee in relation to the interest rate paper and matters surrounding that which it has been requested to investigate. It is an important piece of work that has been given to the Committee. As a member of that Committee, I look forward to participating in the preparation of what I hope will be a useful report for the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. Clause 1 (Short Title). The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering the Bill clause by clause. Because it was being dealt with clause by clause when we previously considered it, I allowed some latitude on the debate on clause 1, which is the short title. Now that that has been disposed of, the rules of relevance will be firmly enforced. Clause agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.46) —I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the definition of `Convention'. The legislation describes the Convention as being `the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage', a copy of which is set out in the schedule to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. I would like to ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) whether the use of the word `Convention' in this clause means that Article 34 of the Convention will be upheld. I draw the Minister's attention to Article 34 which states: With regard to the provisions of this convention, the implementation of which comes under the legal jurisdiction of individual constituent States . . . that are not obliged by the constitutional system of the federation to take legislative measures, the federal government shall inform the competent authorities of such States . . . of the said provisions, with its recommendation for their adoption. Does the Government recognise that Article 34 demonstrates quite clearly that the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill relates to domestic logging which is a State responsibility? The Convention requires under the Article the implementation by the State of any necessary action, not by the Federal body which has the entitlement only to recommend the adoption of protective measures. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.48) —In response to Senator Newman, the position as I understand it is that the High Court of Australia in the Tasmanian dams case found that the part of the so-called Federal clause in the World Heritage Convention which is relevant to Australia is Article 34 (a) because the Federal Government has the constitutional power to give effect to the Convention. I think that that is the response that Senator Newman is seeking. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.49) —I wonder whether the Minister could tell me what clause 3, page 3, line 28 means. It is very difficult wording. It says: `as is not a nominated world heritage area'. As I read it, it states: ``qualifying area'' means so much of any area that is- I think it then goes down to- as is not a nominated world heritage area. Could the Minister just explain that wording? It seems dreadful. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.50) —I suspect that Senator Walters is not asking a serious question but, just in case she is, it refers to so much of any area that is (a) and (b) as is not a nominated world heritage area. There are areas outside of nominated world heritage areas which satisfy (a) and (b). It is quite clear. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.50) —I find it rather fascinating. I thought the Minister rather than one of the back benchers was handling this debate. If the back bencher thinks he knows more than the Minister, perhaps he would like to come down to the front. The Minister is getting advice from his advisers, and I think it might be a good idea for us to hear from him. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.50) —I apologise to the Committee. There was a transition between the two Ministers on duty. If the honourable senator read `as is not a nominated world heritage area' she would understand what the draftsman has tried to convey in nineteenth century pedantic English. It simply means that, if an area is already a nominated world heritage area, it will not fall within the geography denoted by the term `qualifying area'. It is as simple as that. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.51) —I ask the Minister: As this legislation is not relating to items which are nominated world heritage areas, how can the Government justify the requirement to act under the World Heritage Convention in respect of property which is not on the World Heritage List? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.51) —As I understand it, the inquiry is also concerned to discover whether within the qualifying areas parts may, on examination, be found to satisfy what might become a world heritage area nomination. Further than that, as I understand, because some of these areas are near boundaries of existing nominated world heritage areas it may be a question of looking at them in order to see whether they help preserve world heritage areas which already qualify. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.52) —Am I right in thinking that the Minister is claiming that the World Heritage Convention requires the Government to take this action, even though this land is not on the World Heritage List and even though there is a buffer zone in the adjoining world heritage area which conforms with the requirements for such a listing? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.52) —I am saying that in establishing the inquiry the Bill conforms with the expectations of the World Heritage Convention that all steps will be taken to safeguard those world heritage areas. Insofar as this inquiry is directed to that end, buffer zones and adjacent areas become relevant. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.53) —I direct the Minister's attention once again to `qualifying areas'-where the area is wholly or partly within the Lemonthyme area or the Southern Forests area. Is there no intention to be more specific with regard to `partly'? That could mean one square foot and still bring in quite a lot of land under the terms of the Bill. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.53) —I suppose it is a fact that some small areas of a forest area may not be able to be designated successfully as the absolute limit of what may be in need of some sort of protection in order to preserve a world heritage value merely by looking at a line on a map. There may be a slight spillover just outside the boundaries that might be laid down in the schedule. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.54) —The Minister just referred to some slight spillover. That is a big difference from perhaps some slight spillover the other way. Senator Newman just said that it could be just a foot of the Lemonthyme. There is a big difference between that and hundreds of thousands of acres outside that. A slight spillover would not be the other way round. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.54) —I do not think I can add much more. It may work the other way, of course. Large areas within the boundary may not be found to contribute to the preservation of world heritage values. Indeed, the inquiry is going ahead on the basis that that may turn out to be the case. It is not prejudiced in the sense of necessarily at the end of the day coming to the conclusion that the areas within the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests qualify as world heritage areas or that their preservation is necessary to protect world heritage values. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 (Object). Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.55) —I have a concern that clause 4 in effect could pre-empt clause 7, the establishment of the commission, because, as I read clause 4, the object of the Bill is to provide for measures that will enable effect to be given under the World Heritage Convention in relation to its obligations and to take appropriate measures to protect and conserve the area. With the mere passage of this Bill, the Government could take action, irrespective of the outcome or the need for a commission of inquiry. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.56) —I do not quite understand that. The Bill's effective substance is to set up an inquiry, but it is necessary to set out clearly what the Parliament has in mind as the object of this legislation. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.56) —What concerns me about clause 4 is that the whole Bill is relative to the argument over the memorandum of understanding. I cannot find the words `memorandum of understanding' listed in any one place in the whole of the Bill. I believe that, if the basis of this matter is the fact that there is some disagreement whereby the Federal Government wishes to override the memorandum of understanding, as it has already, it needs to mention in the Bill at least that the memorandum of understanding is seen to be of no consequence. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.57) —Senator Archer will be aware, as I am, that the memorandum of understanding, which I think is an important foundational document governing the relationships between the Commonwealth and the Government of Tasmania in relation to the development of forest resources in Tasmania, had within it certain elements which suggested a co-operative, collaborative, and consultative approach which is still the aim of this Government in relation to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. If those elements of the memorandum of understanding which encourage that co-operation also encouraged delay in some preferred forestry operation to allow an inquiry to be undertaken by consent of both Governments, this Bill need not even be passed through the Parliament. We have said that this Bill is a measure consequent upon a breakdown in that consensual relationship which I think the memorandum of understanding so well symbolised. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.58) —I refer the Minister to the earlier question that I raised, that is, that technically it would be possible by virtue of passing clause 4 in its present form for the Government to take measures outside the commission of inquiry which would enable effect to be given to protect and conserve the heritage. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.59) —I still do not really see the difficulty. All this objects clause does is state the general object of the Parliament in dealing with this Bill. Any operative effective measures depend on subsequent clauses to which certain- Senator Watson —That is the point. They do not depend on subsequent clauses. Senator TATE —An objects clause without subsequent clauses setting up an inquiry remains as nothing more than a notice of motion in this chamber. One needs something much more specific, concrete and practicable, and that is what follows. The objects clause merely sets the general reason or rationale for the whole legislation. In itself, it does not do anything. Senator NEWMAN(Victoria)(6.00) —I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer to that question. Having regard to the title of the Bill, I would have thought that it was absolutely essential to say that the object of the Act is to set up an inquiry to do X, Y or Z. I think it is another example of the very hasty drafting that we know has gone into this legislation and it is most unsatisfactory. The object clause has been drafted far too widely. The neanderthal senator from Tasmania, the Australian Democrats senator on my left, is mumbling. It is a pity that he is not a little quieter and that he does not try to learn, because this afternoon we have been subjected to his inaccuracies and I feel he has a lot to learn. The answer that has been given in relation to clause 4 is quite unsatisfactory. I am hoping that the Minister will be able to produce an amendment which will make this object clause much more limited in its scope. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.01) —We could go on endlessly. The object clause indicates that certain measures are to be undertaken. Senator Watson —Far too wide. Senator TATE —No, the legislation qualifies it somewhat. Measures are to be undertaken. In particular, the obligation is to identify and to delineate the natural heritage and cultural heritage and take appropriate measures to protect and conserve that heritage. Those measures are set down as the particular objective of this legislation and the measures which follow by way of setting up an inquiry are the natural filling out to that objects clause, giving practical effects to it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.02) —I ask the Minister: Is it possible that under that clause a ban could be put on all logging and then a ministerial decree could be made, because there is no indication in that clause that a commission is to be set up, that there is to be any inquiry at all? Nothing in that clause states that there should be an inquiry. In other words, could not the Government just declare that all logging must stop and could not the Minister make a decree about certain areas and draw lines, as he has already drawn lines on the map of Tasmania? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.03) —I think we are moving away from the usual understanding of the structure of legislation, which is to set up a Bill with an objects clause which sets out the general purpose for bringing that Bill before the Parliament. Senator Newman —A fishing net. Senator TATE —No. But the actual effective parts of the Bill are always set out in subsequent clauses, and they follow very readily to read from clause 7 onwards. I would have thought that this measure so much follows the ordinary pattern that any honourable senator who has been a member of this place for as many years as Senator Walters has would be aware that this is the normal structure of legislation. There is no way that one could derive a power to act in a way which could be resisted by somebody, a power to act which would be upheld in a court, simply from the wording of clause 4. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 agreed to. Clause 6 agreed to. Clause 7 (Establishment of Commission). Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.04) —Can we be assured that a Tasmanian will be appointed to the Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests? Can the Committee also be assured that the inquiry will represent a balance of views in relation to this issue, representing the developers, the conservationists and the Tasmanian Government? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.05) —I cannot give an assurance to Senator Watson that a Tasmanian will be amongst those sitting on this inquiry. Senator Sanders —A Liberal Tasmanian. Senator TATE —I thought Senator Watson asked whether a Tasmanian would sit on this inquiry. I cannot give him such an assurance. Of course there will be a balance on the Commission. It is essential to the credibility of this whole exercise that the composition of the panel conducting the inquiry not initially raise such an appearance of prejudice as to affect people's readiness to accept the conclusion that the inquiry comes to. It will be very much in the mind of the Government that those who are appointed to this inquiry ought to be acceptable as a team-I take it that is what the honourable senator means by `balance'-to those who will be affected by the results, including all my fellow Tasmanians. Senator Watson —And appropriately qualified. Senator TATE —Of course, part of the setting up of a balanced team will be to have people who are qualified in a way which enables them to assess the evidence. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.06) —I ask the Minister whether a representative of the Heritage Commission or the Tasmanian Wilderness Society will be considered eligible to be on the Commission. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.07) —Given my previous statement about the need for credibility in the outcome of the result, it is probably unlikely that a person well known in the Tasmanian Wilderness Society would get a guernsey. I am not privy to any list of those who are being considered by government nor will I play any part in the selection process. It is very important that nobody be disabled from being a member of this panel of inquiry merely because of his association with conservation movements. Senator Walters —That is having two bob each way. Senator TATE —No, it is not. I am simply saying that part of the qualifications to which Senator Watson referred may involve an appreciation, a knowledge and an intimate understanding of some conservation values. So a person could not be dismissed simply because he had been a member of an organisation which has that particular emphasis. Membership of a particular organisation would need to be taken into account by government in ensuring not only for Tasmanians but also all those who are interested in the outcome of the inquiry, that no undue prejudice was brought to bear right from the beginning of the inquiry. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.08) —I ask the Minister: Will anybody be disabled from appointment to the Commission by virtue of his association with the Tasmanian Government, the Forestry Commission or the forestry industry? Senator Tate —The simple answer to that question is no. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.09) —The Minister knows that there have been nine reports which have all done what this additional inquiry is meant to do. I remind the Minister of the economic assessment of the proposed enlarged Western Tasmanian National Park by Peter Bennett and Associates Pty Ltd. I am sure the Minister remembers that report and that he would say that it is a very credible body, and that there would be no doubt that in June last year it came up with a proper economic assessment of the implications of enlarging the Western Tasmanian National Park area. The report covered similar areas to those proposed for locking up under this Bill, areas which the conservation movement has been pushing with the Government. I remind the Minister of the conclusions of that report and I will read some of them. Senator Coates —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. We are dealing with clause 7, which deals with the actual establishment of the Commission of Inquiry. I think that Senator Walters is going rather wide of that to try to bring in the result of some other report. The CHAIRMAN —We are not yet dealing with the functions of the Commission of Inquiry, just the establishment of it; so Senator Walters should direct her remarks on clause 7 to that matter. Senator WALTERS —Well, I will make them when we deal with clause 8. The CHAIRMAN —I think clause 8 would be more appropriate. Clause agreed to. Clause 8 (Functions). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.10) —I will not repeat what I have already said, but I remind the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) of the conclusions that the report of Peter Bennet and Associates Pty Ltd came to. It said of the proposal to enlarge the Western Tasmania National Park: The proposal has serious economic and social consequences for the Tasmanian economy which would lead to job losses, declines in export earnings and major implications for service sectors of the Tasmanian economy. In summary, it was estimated that over a 20-year period approximately 11,727 direct and indirect jobs would either be lost or not replaced in forestry, mining and hydro-electric development, if the extended park became a reality. No tourist based alternative widely mooted by the conservation movement would offset such losses. Such alternatives would never offset the anticipated loss of foreign export earnings. An export earnings decline of some $309m in forestry and mining was predicted by the study. Can the Minister tell me why, with that conclusion by a very eminent group, the Government would want any more inquiries? We have, as the Minister knows, had nine inquiries. This one was conducted as late as last year. Can the Minister explain why any more inquiries are necessary? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.12) —It is not the aim of this Government, nor do we intend it to be the consequence of the inquiry-indeed, the inquiry has specific elements built into its terms of reference to ensure that such a result does not occur-that economic activity in Tasmania should be unduly jeopardised by this particular inquiry and anything that it may recommend. Indeed, there are many alternatives built in right throughout clause 8 to try to ensure that forestry operations in particular can continue to sustain a forest based industry in Tasmania, although perhaps not always from exactly the same areas as presently contemplated. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.13) —I was very interested to hear the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) say `not unduly jeopardise' the Tasmanian industry. We have had assurance after assurance from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that no jobs will be lost. Those are words that the Prime Minister has used-`no jobs will be lost'. The Minister comes and tells us that the result of this Bill will not unduly jeopardise the Tasmanian forestry industry. We are told in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill that what the Government will do will have the `least detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry' and on jobs. I ask the Minister whether that means that the Prime Minister's original statement that no jobs will be lost has now succumbed to the Minister's `unduly jeopardise' and the Bill's `least detriment'. Are we no longer supposed to rely on the promise by the Prime Minister that no jobs will be lost? Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(6.14) —It would be useful at this time to point out that no jobs will be lost if in fact logging just went on in other areas as it would have anyway. This whole operation of the Robin Gray Government in the Lemonthyme and the Southern Forests is merely to force an issue. The loggers need not go into these areas anyway. There is no need at this time to log these areas. The only reason they are logging in these areas is to force the Federal Government to take action and thus raise an election issue in Tasmania. There is no need to log these areas. Therefore there is no potential loss of jobs. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.15) —Sub-clause 8 (5), of the Bill states: The Commission shall: (a) in the performance of its functions . . . give priority to identifying any part or parts of the Lemonthyme . . . that are definitely not qualifying areas; (b) and as soon as practicable, report . . . the identification of any such part or parts . . . I submit that that sub-clause is somewhat farcical. Given that 60 per cent of the Lemonthyme will not be logged at all, according to the environmental impact statement and the management plan, I believe it is something of a farce. It is merely an attempt by this Labor Government to impose its powers over a sovereign State. It is an excuse for abrogating its responsibility, for walking away from the environmental impact statement. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, on behalf of the Commonwealth, agreed to that management plan which has specified those areas which will not be logged and which have not to date been logged. Those areas, according to the plan, will not be logged. Surely this Bill is just a duplication of what has already been done, what has already been agreed to by the Minister for Primary Industry, and what has been included in a signed memorandum of understanding. Yet the Government is asking this inquiry to repeat this work by identifying those areas that will not qualify and will therefore not be subject to logging. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.17) —I think Senator Walters will find when she reads the Hansard that, in using the term `unduly jeopardise', I was taking into account the actual time and duration of the conduct of the inquiry. I had in mind when I used those terms that, of course, compensation provisions are built into the Bill to deal with the fact that during the inquiry, when there are certain moratoriums in operation, there may be individual cases where forestry workers will need compensation because their particular employment in that region or area is jeopardised because they cannot in fact work in the area in which they had intended to work. Of course, the ultimate guideline for the inquiry is to come up with a solution, which means, as Senator Walters has quoted, `the least detriment' is done to the forestry operations that are envisaged. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, employment is a very important aspect and we are very conscious of the fact that the inquiry has to come up with a solution which does not, through the variation of the areas which may be logged, affect employment opportunities for Tasmanians. That is quite apart, of course, from the fact that, with different technologies being introduced all the time, employment prospects may be affected even over the course of the next 12 months simply due to the new technology that is constantly being introduced into the forestry products industry. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.19) —Senator Sanders suggests that no jobs will be lost because there are areas outside. He keeps on talking about these areas outside. He does not understand the Bill at all. I am talking about the Bill. The Bill says that where no alternative measures outside are available the least detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry will occur. The Minister did not answer my question: Does it mean that, inevitably, if no outside sources of the correct make of timber are found, jobs will be lost? Has the Government given up all hope of no jobs being lost, if that situation arises? Senator COATES(Tasmania)(6.20) —I would like to deal with the matter that Senator Watson raised. He started to complain about sub-clause 8 (5), but I would have thought that he ought to be pleased about the presence of sub-clause (5), which states: (5) The Commission shall: (a) in the performance of its functions under this section, give priority to identifying any parts of the Lemonthyme area and the Southern Forests area that are definitely not qualifying areas; and (b) as soon as practicable, report to the Minister the identification of any such part or parts, specifying the area concerned. That is a priority which would allow the Minister to give consent under proposed section 16, if it is justifiable. I would have thought that Senator Watson ought to be pleased about that sub-clause. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.21) —The point I was making is that these areas have already been identified by the environmental impact statement and have been agreed to by the Federal Government and signed as such. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.21) —To take the most extreme case advanced by Senator Walters, if it were, remarkably, the case that the inquiry came to the conclusion that absolutely no alternatives could be found to the present operations within the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests-and I will qualify that in a moment by foreshadowing our response to the amendment No. 14 put forward by the Australian Democrats-that, in itself, would not determine anything. The Government must then make a decision as to whether, nevertheless, logging should take place within the qualifying area. In that situation, as has already been referred to, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has given an assurance that the job opportunities for Tasmanians in the forests-on the log trucks, in the saw mills, making the veneer, et cetera-will be a very prime consideration. The decision of the inquiry is merely an element-a very important element, obviously-in the decision-making process of the Government. The Bill establishes an inquiry in place of the consensual inquiry that we have been looking for over the last few months. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.23) —If there are no alternative forests available, can we do away with that clause? The Minister has assured me that no jobs will be lost, that the Government will stick by the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and that the priority will be given to all of those people in the timber industry and their jobs. Can we get rid of that clause altogether? Will the Minister agree to get rid of that clause that even suggests that, in the end, there will be some detriment to the Tasmanian timber industry? I refer the Minister to clause 8 (2), which reads: (2) For the purposes of paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the exploitation of forestry resources shall be taken to cause detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry if that exploitation would, having regard to long-term trends in forestry operations in Tasmania as a whole and in the employment of persons in those operations, cause a diminution of those operations or that employment. I feel that we cannot run the risk of that occurring in Tasmania, following the Prime Minister's assurances that it would not occur. So can we take out reference to the fact that there would be a lease detriment or a diminution? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.24) —I think that clause 8 (2), which sets out the functions of the Commission, is a very great protection to those who are employed in the Tasmanian forest industry. I certainly would not want to see clause 8 (2) not proceeded with as part of this Bill, because it makes it clear that the employment of persons in forest operations in Tasmania is something which must be taken into account by the Commission in its decisions as to whether there could be a detriment to the Tasmanian forest industry. It is not merely a question of looking at profit bases for companies situated in Melbourne, exploiting Tasmanian forest resources. It is not merely a question of looking at taxation prospects for governments which receive royalties or other taxation revenue from the conduct of this industry. It must have regard, in particular, to the employment of persons in those operations. I think it is a very important clause. In relation to the previous point raised by Senator Walters-I must say I forgot to say this when I foreshadowed the Government's response to Senator Sanders's amendment No. 14-the Government is so concerned even with current employment in certain areas where there is currently logging-in particular, in the Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd area between the Gordon River and the Florentine River-that it will not go along with the idea that logging there should cease immediately or during the course of the inquiry. I can assure honourable senators that that is yet another token of the good faith of the Commonwealth Government in trying as much as possible, in a way that is compatible with the inquiry, to preserve and conserve employment opportunities for Tasmanians in the qualifying areas. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.26) —I would like to ask the Minister a few questions, but first I draw attention to the fact that he did say that this inquiry was merely an element in the decision-making process. I wonder, in view of that remark, what this element will cost the Australian taxpayer. What money is being allocated for it? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.26) —I am unable to answer that question. No doubt the cost will be some hundreds of thousands of dollars. No doubt the estimates are being prepared and will be available during the Estimates committee hearings next week. But I do not have that information at hand. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.26) —Is that why the estimates are so late? Is there a reason for the fact that they are so late in being presented this time? In whose budget will they appear? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.27) —I never comment in the course of a debate on a Bill about something that is already on the Notice Paper. So we will leave that to one side. I perhaps led myself into that situation by remarking that I would hope that during the Estimates committee hearings we can indicate more clearly what the expected expenditure will be. In this case the money will be provided by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment-Mr Cohen's Department. In general, it is very hard to estimate with certainty the costs of commissions of inquiry. Nevertheless, as I say, some indication will be given at the Estimates committee hearings. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.28) —I would like the Minister to obtain that information, if possible. This debate will obviously be adjourned shortly. I think that that information should be available do the Committee during this debate, and I would ask that it be obtained. Further, as the Minister indicated, no matter what the cost, it will be large. Could he advise why the Government has acknowledged the fact that it is merely an element in the decision-making process and has not simply grasped the nettle, made the decision and worn the consequences? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.28) —I suppose because this Government does not want to appear to be acting in an unduly prejudiced way and is looking to an inquiry to provide it with the sound basis for its decision-making and to try to resolve a conflict. Particularly, it wants to examine assertions by those in the conservation movement who claim that alternative resources are available to forestry operations in Tasmania. That particular claim needs to be analysed and dealt with finally by a panel which, in Senator Watson's words, is so well balanced that the results of that inquiry can have such credibility that this claim can be assessed and understood by the Australian community and by governments once and for all. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(6.29) —I note that there is only 30 seconds remaining. What we have been hearing is nothing but a filibuster. Very few matters of substance have been raised. Either these Tasmanian troglodytic senators are completely dense or they are running a shameless filibuster. I think that this is an important issue and it should be consummated quickly. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.29) — Another troglodyte wishes to speak on this matter. I ask the Minister: In view of the fact that there have been so many inquiries into this matter previously and the Government persistently refuses to accept the judgment of the umpires, will the Government accept the decision of this commission of inquiry? The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —I wish to inform honourable senators about progress made in information systems developments for the Senate in the new Parliament House. These developments have been undertaken in accordance with the information systems plan approved by the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. For some time, the Department of the Senate, in conjunction with the other parliamentary departments, has been evaluating tenders for new Parliament House information systems. The selection process has been divided into two distinct stages. The first stage involved the identification of preferred suppliers from among the numerous organisations which have tendered for the business. The second stage will involve the testing of solutions proposed by preferred tenderers in a final evaluation trial which will last some months. It will be conducted using a network similar to that in the new Parliament House which has been installed in the East Block Parliamentary Annexe. A pilot group of senators has been invited to participate in the final evaluation trial. Contracts will be entered into following this evaluation and only when the preferred tenderers have proven that they are able to meet the requirements of the Parliament. I can now inform the Senate that at this stage the preferred tenderers are the Australian owned and controlled companies Computer Power, as prime contractor, and Computer Corporation of Australia, together with the Australian subsidiary of Digital Equipment Corporation. Preferred tenderers have been identified by an evaluation committee comprising representatives of each parliamentary department. The solutions proposed are likely to have applications in each parliamentary department, and their implementation will ensure compatibility. This will allow senators, members and other users ready access to all information systems services through the one terminal. Furthermore, substantial savings in support costs should be achievable from such standardisation in equipment and software. It should be noted that some categories of equipment and services cannot be fully assessed until they are connected to the evaluation trial network in East Block. As a result of such assessments, suppliers in addition to those that I have mentioned may be selected. The Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing will be reviewing departmental proposals and funding implications in this area at its next meeting. I shall keep honourable senators informed of progress in the selection process. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to move a motion to take note of your statement, Mr President. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Although I do not wish to make a speech about the matter now, I would like to acknowledge the very careful work which has been done in the Senate Department to try to ensure that we are given the most appropriate computer assistance and information systems. I wish on behalf of the Opposition to acknowledge that. I could also perhaps give notice that there might be some interest in following up this matter in the Estimates committee hearings. Some detailed questions could then be raised that could not appropriately be dealt now. It may well be that, following the Estimates committee hearings and any questioning that is undertaken, we might wish to bring this up as a matter of general business and look at this statement which you have put down. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.33) —There are a couple of matters that I wish to raise which concern constituents of mine. The matters are different in nature, and I start by dealing with the very difficult circumstances, and indeed the personal tragedy, of my constituent Mr Van Quang Nguyen. Mr Van Quang Nguyen is a recently naturalised Australian and has been in Australia for about four years. He came to this country from Vietnam. His personal tragedy is that his wife and daughter are still in Vietnam. He has written to me explaining that he has now had 11 years separation from them. He had seven years apart from them in a camp, and has now had a further four years separation since his arrival in Australia. I understand that this man's family is eligible to come to Australia under the programs of this Government. I am not raising any complaint about the eligibility of his family to join him. Rather I am raising the matter in the hope that the Australian Government, or perhaps more the Vietnamese Government, might be able to do something to bring to an end this very long period of separation about which he has written to me. He writes of the difficulties of his family, of their despair, and indeed his own despair, at the thought that they may never see each other again. Knowing that there would be no one in this Government or, I hope and believe, in the Vietnamese Government who would wish to prolong that sort of personal tragedy, I wish to raise the matter in this forum. I took up the matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, and asked him whether he could tell me what, if anything, could be done by the Government to assist the family. He wrote back to me by letter dated 24 February expressing his sympathy with the plight of the family and expressed regret that there are many similar cases under the Vietnam family migration program. He pointed out that that program was the responsibility of Mr Young, and indicated that there was little Australia could do in this and similar cases to expedite the reunion of divided families. He said that discussions on the Vietnam family migration program are held with the Vietnamese authorities on an ongoing basis in an attempt to facilitate the operation of the program, but Australian immigration officials are unable to interview applicants until they hold exit permits issued by the Vietnamese authorities. In this parliamentary forum I address my remarks as much to the Government of Vietnam as I do to the Government of Australia. I express the hope that action might be taken by that Government to facilitate those cases of family reunion of which this is one example. I speak with particular concern about my constituent, who has put his case so clearly and in a way which arouses my sympathy and concern for him. It is my request that the Australian Government should do everything that it possibly can to work with the Vietnamese Government to facilitate the processing of this case and the reunion of this family. I express the hope that the Government will show considerable energy and enthusiasm in doing that. At a time when government is difficult because many of the things it wishes to do are beyond its economic capacity, perhaps there is an additional reason for devoting the resources of government to doing things which of themselves are not expensive but which would substantially assist one Australian citizen, and indeed those other Australian citizens who are caught in the same position. The other matter raised with me, again by a constituent, relates to an approach which was made to both the State and the Federal governments about the Melville Rehabilitation Centre which is being disposed of by the Commonwealth Government. The Head Injured Society of Western Australia wrote to Mr Burke a quite detailed letter dated 19 January 1986-I think that date must be 1987. It was dated 1986, but I suspect it was this year; it was the usual January carry-over. The point made by the Society is that there is a need in Western Australia for a better long term arrangement for the head injured in that State. Reference has been made to the great pressures on families from the continuous care required by many head injury patients, to the tremendous expenses which are incurred and to the history of the Head Injured Society of Western Australia (Incorporated), which was established in 1980. This society very courageously obtained a bank loan to purchase a headquarters at Alfred Cove and, with the help of the Lotteries Commission, it established a hydrotherapy pool and a hydrotherapy workshop. It also established a day care facility. The society has retained professional assistance, and now it is looking to providing something better than the present option, which is for many head injured people to be put into nursing homes which are substantially designed for the aged and infirm. Under a proposal put forward by Mr George Margetts, of the Midland Nursing Home, the Head Injured Society was prepared to pay $3m for the Melville Rehabilitation Centre. It was prepared to update and build further accommodation units and make it an A-class hospital for the young disabled. Mr Margetts has had 10 head injured patients in the Midland Nursing Home since 1972. After studying overseas facilities he believes that a quite different approach is required. I am not in a position to assess for the Minister or for the Government whether the Head Injured Society's proposal is the best option for the head injured. But I note that the society was offering to buy a Commonwealth facility which was for sale for the price of $3m. Having made representations on this matter to the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) on 18 March, I noted with some concern that subsequently the sale of the rehabilitation centre to the Murdoch University for the price of $2.7m was reported on 24 March. On the face of it that is worrying. I understand that Mr Hurford may have made some claim on the radio-I did not hear him, but I heard some comment on it-that the offer was made too late. However, it appears that there was a genuine offer of $3m for this facility for a purpose that seems to me to be utterly compatible with the existing purpose of the building. That purpose was aimed at the long term interests of people with severe injuries who are resident in Western Australia. But for some reason the sale has been made at a lower price to another public institution, the Murdoch University. I do not begrudge the university that facility, of course, but I ask the Government to explain why the proposal for the sale at $3m could not have been given further and better consideration. I note that Mr Margetts, the businessman who is involved in this, has indicated today that he wants to talk to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and ask him to reconsider what has been done. I suspect that Mr Hawke might prefer us to deal with it here. I imagine he would think that the matter could be satisfactorily dealt with by his Minister, because I am sure he feels that he has a lot of other things on his plate. I ask the Government to respond to both the matters I have raised on the adjournment tonight. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.45) —By way of interjection on Monday of this week, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) raised the question of the Australian Industry Development Corporation when I was speaking on the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill. I responded by suggesting that perhaps the Government could do the Senate the courtesy of explaining the extraordinary investment made by AIDC in what I described as `an extraordinary venture' in Melbourne. That extraordinary venture was Figgins Diorama Ltd, and in today's newspapers an advertisement appears announcing an auction to be held on 6 May of `one of the most prestigious retail complexes in Australia'-the freehold of Figgins Diorama. This company went into voluntary receivership on 10 December 1986 and I understand that one of the reasons for its failure was the fact that the cost of rebuilding this shopping centre, or major retail commercial property, located in Melbourne, had doubled to about $22m. I raise this matter because of a Press release issued by the AIDC on 11 December 1986 which said: As has been reported in this morning's press, Figgins Diorama have placed themselves in voluntary receivership and have appointed Deloitte Haskins and Sells as Receivers and Managers. The Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) has assisted the development of the Diorama store by providing part of the finance for the building. It does not say how much that part is, nor does it say how much is at risk. There are some suggestions that it is $19m and others that it is $12.5m. The Press release continues: AIDC decided to assist the Figgins group for several reasons: Don Figgins is an Australian entrepreneur who has established a successful retail chain selling locally manufactured and imported goods. In particular, he has given a great deal of impetus to the Australian shoe industry by encouraging local shoe manufacturing. Figgins Diorama is a unique development which has introduced many new and important skills both during the construction phase and now in its operational phase. Assistance to the building industry that flows from such projects. The benefits to Melbourne from the tourist interest created by such a well known, world class store. The Diorama business problems stem from an initial delay of six months in opening. The building costs by this stage had doubled, making the total project cost in excess of $22m- that is an extraordinary increase- As a result of the delayed opening the first summer and winter seasons' trading was missed, but advanced buying meant that further merchandise was already in transit. An additional problem was that the Australian dollar had fallen by some 40 per cent between the time when orders were placed and merchandise arrived. AIDC is continuing to work with Don Figgins to resolve the store's short-term difficulties, and believes there are good prospects that this can be achieved. Behind those bald statements there seems to lie an extraordinary situation. The AIDC has gone right away from its basic stated objectives. As the Senate is well aware, these are to concentrate on the advancement of Australian industry. I underline the word `Australian'. The AIDC's corporate objectives are to actively seek out opportunities to encourage and assist the establishment and growth of viable, internationally competitive Australian industries, particularly Australian owned industries, with prime emphasis being given to industries in the priority areas set out in the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act. I do not know where in the Act or in this set of priorities there exists a suggestion that the AIDC should use Australian taxpayers' money to create building largely made from imported items-very expensive imported items-and committed to the sale of imported goods. As I understand it, there was very little interest at Figgins in selling Australian goods. Senator Chaney —Perhaps it is where the Treasurer buys his suits. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate says, perhaps it is where the Treasurer (Mr Keating) get his imported suits. This place has been described in the Australian Financial Review as `selling a range of expensive designer fashions in super opulent surroundings'. In his column in the Sydney Morning Herald Leo Schofield said-- Senator Tate —I have understood your point, Senator, and I will pass it on to the Minister. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am glad you will, because I have some other points that you might also pass on which are part of the same matter. As I was saying, Leo Schofield said: Richard Marcus, the Dallas-based retailer, thought it one of the most impressive stores he'd seen anywhere in the world but doubted its long-term survival. So do many Melburnians. Stories that the business (the freehold to the Collins Street property has already been sold) has been acquired by Japanese interests are rife. The point I want to make is that behind all this is the serious question of why on earth AIDC got involved in this in the first place. The Age reported back in December 1986 that in fact the AIDC was not advised that Figgins Diorama was going into voluntary receivership. In fact, the AIDC found out when an Age reporter rang it up and told it. That strikes me as another extraordinary matter. At that stage the Age described Figgins Diorama as `Australia's most expensive and exclusive shop' and that it was going into voluntary receivership 19 months after opening. To underline the point that I am making, the AIDC backed the building because it was going to be something special. The Age reported: Not only does it stock the most exclusive fashion labels in the world, but every fitting was custom-made. Pink marble was imported from France, a revolving door made to exacting specifications was shipped from the US and a custom-built Rolls-Royce Phantom Six was purchased to ferry clients to and from the store. This is the sort of thing that the AIDC has been involved in funding. A letter to me from Mr John Hunt of Hunt Leather makes these points about what he describes as `the controversial loan to the failed Figgins Diorama in Melbourne': This loan of a reported nineteen million dollars was made to establish a new, untried retail outlet for ultra-luxury non-essential imports, on what appears to be dubious security. As such it has been made without regard either to the national interest or to commercial prudence. I believe the Figgins loan warrants not only an investigation into the circumstances of the loan itself, but also a complete re-examination by Government, Opposition and the media of the reasons for the continued existence of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. . . . If the AIDC is not restricted to making loans and investments only in the national interest, as the Figgins loan clearly demonstrates it is not, surely its functions would be better performed by the myriad of private financial institutions now established in this country. On the other hand, if the Corporation is to be obliged to make loans only according to non-commercial, national interest criteria, this will lead to discretionary subsidisation of industry which all our economic advisers tell us we should abandon. The workings and control of the two billion dollar pork barrel of our money is something I think will concern all taxpayers. Another interesting point that emerges from this is that the latest annual report of AIDC reveals its overseas borrowings-in other words, its overseas exposure, which is one of the major problems the Government tells us we are facing at the moment as our foreign debt has reached $101 billion. In the last financial year the AIDC alone has doubled its foreign currency borrowings to almost $900m. It seems to me that in these circumstances the points that were made by Mr Hunt are totally valid. I certainly will not keep the Senate longer by describing the extraordinary nature of this building which is being funded by taxpayers. Perhaps a release from the Waste Watch Committee could dilate on the excitement of taking oneself to Pandora's box, a mirrored and marble lined perfumery which has been funded in part by the AIDC. I am glad that the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) has given me an assurance already that the Government will look into this matter and I hope to receive an early explanation. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.54) —I rise tonight to give my total approval to the Australian Vietnam Forces Welcome Home Parade '87 which is to take place in Sydney on Saturday, 3 October of this year. The Australian forces that served in Vietnam were a combination of volunteers plus those selected by a birthday ballot. The fact that servicemen were selected by way of a birthday ballot is very interesting because I understand that twice as many people as were required attended the medical selection board on the basis of birth date. The doctors who examined those young Australian men were able to choose the cream of Australian youth. As a result, the force that we sent to Vietnam was a crackerjack professional force. Honourable senators would understand precisely what I am talking about if they had had the opportunity of seeing any of these young men on parade. Their turnout was absolutely incredible. As I said, they were a crackerjack professional force, every bit as good as the volunteers who served in the First World War and the Second World War. However, on their return to Australia in 1973 they were not treated in the same way as we had treated the forces that we sent overseas previously. Instead of proudly marching these people through the streets of our capital cities saying `These are the nation's finest; we sent them to Vietnam and they were marvellous over there; we can be proud of these young Australians', instead of giving them a warm welcome back and a ticker tape parade through every capital city and regional areas around the nation, the Whitlam Government brought them back into this country as though somehow or other they had done something wrong, that these young Australians were not worthy of our praise and thanks. They were never treated properly by the Whitlam Government because of the problems that the Whitlam Government had had with those of its supporters who were totally opposed to the war in Vietnam. This is the only war that Australians have been in when our troops have not been acknowledged as heroes when they came back home. Now there is at last an opportunity to redress that shabby treatment. Under the patronage of that distinguished soldier Major General C.M.I. Pearson AO, DSO, OBE, MC, and the sponsorship of the New South Wales Branch of the Returned Services League, a group of Vietnam veterans have organised a Welcome Home Parade '87 to be held in Sydney. The parade has been approved by the Sydney City Council. I would like to read some extracts of a letter from Mr P. E. Curtis, the Assistant Secretary of Australian Vietnam Forces, which is organising this welcome home parade. The letter states: The Parade is to take place in Sydney on the 3rd October, 1987 and we anticipate that approximately 30,000 Veterans will be attending, including contingents from our overseas allies. The Parade will be run on the same lines as one recently held in Chicago and which was one of the largest gatherings of reunion ever to be held in the United States, and one that we hope will be the largest reunion ever staged in Australia. Many of these Veterans have not seen each other from the time when they returned to Australia until they meet for this Parade. Later the letter states: As a further activity of celebration of the weekend, there is to be a public concert in the Domain on Sunday 4th October, put on by many of the performers who entertained the troops in South Vietnam, often in deplorable conditions. The majority of these artists will be donating their time and talent free of charge, just as they did long ago. I call on the people of Australia to acknowledge the achievements of these fine Australians by supporting this Welcome Home Parade '87. I ask the Hawke Government to endorse it and to give its support to this reunion in acknowledgment of the shabby treatment that these people have had dished out to them in the past. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.59) —As duty Minister I do not have any particular expertise in any of the matters that have been raised by honourable senators who have spoken on the adjournment tonight. As a matter of courtesy, may I deal with the matters briefly. Senator Chaney raised the question of the forced separation of families. This is always a tragedy. I think there is a special sense of frustration when part of a family is in Australia and another part is back in the family's former homeland of Vietnam. In some cases. many years have elapsed since family members have come to Australia. Of course, the sense of dislocation and anguish between the various members of families is very real. I know of these problems from representations that have been made to my office in Tasmania. Indeed, I have visited the Vietnamese Embassy in the company of a Vietnamese woman and her Australian husband to make a plea on behalf of members of her family who are still in Vietnam. Senator Chaney, in a very restrained way, made a similar plea for a particular constituent tonight. I must say that that particular restrained plea that he made should, I believe, fall on fertile ground because we have found, over the last several months even, that the relationship between the Vietnamese authorities in Vietnam and the Australian authorities in relation to the exit from Vietnam of those with families in Australia, has improved and new arrangements are in place. For example, for many years Australia was able to interview only persons holding exit permits issued by the Vietnamese authorities. Now I believe we are able to interview persons appearing on a Vietnamese list of what they term `Eligible Proposed Departees'. These are persons eligible, in principle, to leave Vietnam but to whom the Vietnamese authorities will not issue exit permits until such time as a formal approval to migrate is obtained from the Australian Government. I believe this innovation will help break many of the deadlocks which have prevented this bringing together of families which is causing such heartache. It should be noted that already in the period of the latter part of last year-July to December-some 1,447 persons were visaed. The program is quite large and I hope that the Vietnamese authorities will take into account Senator Chaney's special plea on behalf of a particular family which of course wants to come together as a family here in Australia. I turn to the disability services in Western Australia, particularly for those who suffer a severe disability by reason of brain injury or stroke, and the way in which their needs might be addressed. The fact is that there are discussions proceeding between the Western Australian Government and Commonwealth Ministers, particularly with Mr Chris Hurford, the Minister for Community Services, in order to achieve a network of rehabilitation units which will serve the purposes of a wide range of clients and reinforce the social and vocational focus of the Commonwealth's rehabilitation program in Western Australia. I think those discussions are essential. I have no particular brief on the Melville Rehabilitation Centre and its sale. But I do believe that `the actual location of the facilities needed to deal with the sorts of persons who are the special concern of the Head Injured Society of Western Australia (Inc.) is something which needs to be addressed by both governments and community organisations. Whether the particular proposal to purchase the Melville Rehabilitation Centre by the Head Injured Society of Western Australia was of the attractive type which Senator Chaney relayed to the Senate, is a matter on which I am sure the Minister will be able to give more detail. Senator Michael Baume raised the question, I think in the end, of the very necessity for the existence of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. He did so by pointing to an example where the AIDC invested in Figgins Diorama. He pointed to the fact that that particular business enterprise engaged in a form of business-indeed, he included the very building itself from which it continued its business-which had elements predominantly from overseas. As I say, both the construction of the building and the type of merchandise that was on sale included elements predominantly from overseas. I think he has raised a very fair question of the possible disparity between that particular enterprise and the objectives of the AIDC. He also raised the simple question of the surveillance of that investment by the AIDC, insofar as he suggested that it was even taken by surprise when that particular enterprise collapsed. The details of the AIDC's investment, how much was advanced and how much is at risk I will have to seek from the Minister. Senator Lewis raised the prospect of the support by all Australians of the Welcome Home Parade '87 to be accorded to those Australians who served in Vietnam as a result of the decision of an elected Australian government. May I say on my own behalf that of course I support whole-heartedly-and I am sure Senator Gietzelt, as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, would also give his whole-hearted support-that particular welcome home parade. The fact is that, as a senator for Tasmania, I have very close links with the Vietnam veterans. Every year I attend a very pleasant dinner in Launceston organised by the Vietnam veterans of northern Tasmania. Indeed, we conduct that dinner in a highly convivial atmosphere. I have noticed, particularly over the last couple of years, a sense of pride and acceptance by the rest of the Australian community amongst those young men and their spouses-because their spouses always attend-which was not present in previous years. This has no doubt been due largely to the psychological factors which greeted them on their return home. But as I say, we conduct those dinners in a very bipartisan spirit. Mr Kevin Newman always attends, as patron of that particular organisation. I am sorry that Senator Lewis for a moment strayed from that good principle to give a serve to the Whitlam Government, which of course did bring to an end that particular engagement in which Australians served. For my part, I have seen school mates and contemporaries killed and injured in that conflict. Having returned from England to lecture in the law faculty at the University of Tasmania, I also found my students similarly being conscripted. I was thus very pleased that the Whit- lam Government brought our involvement in Vietnam to an end. But I do not think it is entirely fair to say that the Whitlam Government was responsible for the lack of the patriotic fervour, as was exhibited on the return of troops from the First or Second World Wars, when the Vietnam soldiers came home. I believe there was a general dislocation and questioning in Australian society which was mirrored, if one recalls, in American society, where a completely different political regime governed that country. The Vietnam veterans in the United States of America suffered a similar humiliating sense of not being cared for by their society upon their return. Senator Lewis —We are in agreement on that, that is for sure. Senator TATE —Yes. I believe it is not quite right to point a finger at a particular government or administration. The fact is that both the United States and Australia suffered terrible traumas during the conduct of that war and could not find the psychological resources to greet these soldiers as they returned, although we certainly should have, and to give them the support which they required. As a society we have matured since then. Time has passed. It has been a great healing process. Only two years ago I played a very large role in getting bronze lettering put on the Hobart cenotaph acknowledging the fact that the Vietnam War actually occurred. That in itself was a very important symbol for Vietnam veterans in Tasmania. In short, I certainly support the Welcome Home Parade concept. I hope it will be as successful and as helpful to those Vietnam veterans as Senator Lewis would wish it to be. I am sure the Australian Government wishes the organisers every success on that particular day. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.09 p.m.