Tuesday, 28 April 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, I seek leave to advise the Senate on Opposition arrangements with respect to the shadow Ministry. Leave granted. Senator Button —How long is this going on? Senator Gareth Evans —It could be tomorrow, too, and next week, again. Senator CHANEY —With six weeks out of the next seven being sitting weeks, if Government senators are as excitable as this on day one I tremble to think what they will be like in the seventh week. For the information of honourable senators I wish to advise the Senate that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has appointed Senator Michael Baume and Senator Short to the shadow Ministry. Senator Michael Baume will have responsibility for health matters and Senator Short is the new shadow Minister for Finance. As a result of other recently announced changes, I have responsibility for employment and industrial relations-- Senator Button —Chicken! Senator CHANEY —It was thought that the Leader of the Government in the Senate needed a rest. Senator Durack continues with resources and energy; Senator Messner has responsibility for industry, technology and commerce; Senator Lewis is the shadow Minister in charge of local government and Territories; and Senator Archer remains shadow Special Minister of State and shadow Minister for Science. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: If, there is to be legal process against alleged war criminals resident in Australia, the foundations of justice should be clear and equitable. 1. Let the term, ``war crime'', be first clearly defined. 2. Let specific prosecutions be swiftly launched against those individuals alleged to have committed them, thus releasing the rest of their co-nationals from unwarranted slur and suspicion. 3. Let an Australian tribunal hear the charges. Nobody should be deported to face the ``tender mercies'' of any foreign government. 4. Let the presumption of innocence until proved guilty be clearly established. 5. Let all evidence obtained from the Soviet or any other communist government be set aside and totally disregarded. 6. Let all the costs of any person charged and found not guilty be paid by the Commonwealth Government so that innocent people are not financially ruined in the course of establishing their innocence. As your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray: by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 11 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 12 citizens) and Gietzelt (from 12 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 October 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 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 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 Gietzelt (from 91 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (1) That the Government's proposed Identity Card is the greatest threat to civil liberties in the history of this country; (2) That the I.D. Card will be a costly and ineffective method of attacking tax evasion and social security fraud; and (3) That the proposal will impose yet another bureaucratic burden on the business sector. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject the Government's legislation to introduce the Australia Card or any other identity card system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from four citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: (a) Aboriginal and Islander languages, which numbered approximately 260 when Europeans first arrived, are even more seriously endangered-already 145 have become extinct. (b) English-speaking population expansion and English-speaking mass media expansion threatens the survival of the remaining languages of Australia. (c) Aboriginal languages reflect an ethos that is truly Australian and unless steps are taken to implement language maintenance, this ethos will be lost not only to Aborigines but to non-Aboriginal Australians, and to the world. We humbly pray the Government to: 1. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide $300,000 per annum for a guaranteed period of ten years to enable the Aboriginal community of Australia to establish a co-ordinating body to implement steps to prevent the extinction of the remaining languages, and to introduce programmes which will enable these languages to continue into the future for the sake of all Australians. This body will enable us to maximise existing financial, material and human resources, and is the least expensive way of implementing urgently needed maintenance programmes. 2. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide finance for the establishment of Regional Language Centres-ten are urgently needed-cost $200,000 each. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purposes for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. 2. Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 196 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependent Spouse Rebate to $1,851 per annum and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income earning spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Crowley (from 932 citizens), McKiernan (from 66 citizens) and Robert Ray (from 4,290 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given on the last day of sitting, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 3 standing in my name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of the Student Assistance Regulations (Amendment) and the Fisheries Levy (Northern Prawn Fishery) Regulations (Amendment). Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate request the Queensland New National Party senators to inform the President and the Special Minister of State of their changed political alliance so that a thorough re-assessment can be made to determine appropriate party status, seating arrangements and entitlements which reflect the senators' independence from the Federal National Party of Australia and coalition. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives, after 1 June 1987, and a motion is moved for the Second Reading of the Bill, debate on that motion shall be taken to be adjourned upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an Order of the Day for the first day of sitting in August 1987, without any Question being put. (2) That immediately after debate on a motion for the Second Reading of a Bill is adjourned in accordance with paragraph (1), or following the giving of notices on a subsequent day, a motion may be moved without notice to refer that Bill to a standing committee for inquiry and report by a day not later than the first day of sitting in August 1987. (3) That this Order cease to have effect at the commencement of the first day of sitting in August 1987. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, nine sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Credit (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 4 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. That the Electricity (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 5 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. That Public Service Board Determination No. 4 of 1987 made under section 82d of the Public Service Act 1922, be disallowed. That Australian Meat and Live-stock Order No. MS 11/87, made on 27 February 1987 under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977, be disallowed. That the Postal (Staff) By-laws, being Amendment No. 1 of 1987 made on 16 April 1987 under the Postal Services Act 1975, be disallowed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the instruments which the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has been examining, along with a short explanation of the Committee's concerns. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE A.C.T. ORDINANCE NO. 5 OF 1987 The Committee has written to the Minister for Territories requesting his explanation for some very significant increases in the level of penalties for offences provided for under this Ordinance. In some cases the penalties are of the order of 20 times higher than those prescribed when the offences were first created in 1985. The Committee, under its Principles, will examine the criteria used in raising the penalties to determine whether the increases are so excessive as to call for reconsideration. AMENDMENT NO. 1 OF 1987 TO THE POSTAL (STAFF) BY-LAWS The Committee has written to the Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission about these by-laws which provide for internal avenues of redress for employee grievances. The Committee has sought clarification of a number of points arising from the way the legislation is drafted. These points concern the provision of reasons for certain decisions, some duplication of procedures and the practical scope of one particular avenue of appeal. CREDIT (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE 1987 This Ordinance enables the Minister for Territories to exempt certain kinds of credit providers or credit transactions from the scope of certain provisions of the Principal Credit Ordinance. The instruments of exemption are legislative in character. It was originally provided that they be made by means of A.C.T. Regulations. It is now proposed that the exemptions be made by means of ministerial declaration. However, parliamentary oversight through the mechanisms of tabling and disallowance will remain. Nevertheless, the Committee has a long standing concern about differing standards of presentation and clarity as between regulations and other forms of disallowable delegated legislation like declarations, notices, determinations, principles, guidelines, etc. It is sometimes the case that when these instruments are subject to disallowance, they are presented to Parliament without any explanatory note to assist parliamentarians in general and the Committee in particular quickly to appraise their legislative authority and general impact. Sometimes too, these instruments are not sequentially numbered for ease of identification and citation nor is the legislative history of previous instruments annotated in amending instruments to facilitate access to the completed legislative provisions. The provision of explanatory notes, and numerical citations and annotations would not, in the Committee's view, be a costly innovation but it would very significantly enhance the presentational quality and clarity of instruments for the Parliament, the public and the professionals who make use of them. Citation and annotation are elementary improvements and often, with very slight amendment, the submission that accompanies an instrument to a Minister for approval and signature could become a useful explanatory note. The Committee perceives a need for uniform standards of presentation in regard to all delegated legislative instruments which are not statutory rules. The Committee has written to the Minister for Territories in regard to his proposed use of declarations, inviting his comments and co-operation in this matter. The Committee has also written to a number of other Ministers along similar lines and significant progress is possible to provide for consistency in presentation and clarity of instruments. PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD DETERMINATION NO. 4 OF 1987 The Committee has written to the Chairman of the Public Service Board seeking his advice on the implications of certain apparently subjective discretionary powers conferred by this Determination on Secretaries of Departments. To assist the processes of fair and unbiased administration the Committee favours objective drafting and reference to objective criteria when powers are conferred. AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK ORDER NO. MS 11/87 The Committee has written to the Minister for Primary Industry seeking his assistance in ensuring that, in future, these important Orders are tabled in Parliament with Explanatory Notes describing their legislative authority and general impact. A brief explanatory document is an important aid to Parliament, the Committee, the public and professionals who make use of the delegated legislation. (See also the comments made under the heading Credit (Amendment) Ordinance, above). The Committee has also sought the Minister's advice regarding the drafting of certain clauses of this instrument which are somewhat unclear. The Committee is very hopeful that all of the issues referred to above will be resolved in its discussions with Ministers. Senator COONEY —I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Committee has scrutinised the instruments of delegated legislation included in this list. It has written to Ministers about them and to ensure that adequate time is available to address and resolve the issues I have moved these protective notices of motion. 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 that list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Thirteenth International Trade Conference, Canberra, 1-3 November 1986-Report. 2. Australia's Role in Achieving World Agricultural Trade Reform-Text of a statement tabled in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Trade on 2 April 1987. 3. Parliament House Construction Authority-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 38 of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979. 4. Australian Heritage Commission-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Subsection 43 (8) of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. 5. Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements-February 1987-Report. 6. Pulp, Paper, Paper Products and Printing Industries-Industries Assistance Commission Report. 7. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Expenditure for March 1987. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to threatened long term strike action by coal industry unions. Does the Minister agree that coal mining has a long history of industrial disputation out of all proportion to other mining activity and to the level of disputes in industry generally? Is it a fact that in 1986, in terms of days lost per 1,000 employees, the coal industry's record was more than four times worse than that of other mining activity and 45 times worse than that of Australian industry generally? What action will the Government take, beyond attacking the Queensland Government's efforts to do something about this unsatisfactory situation, to prevent this further disruption of Australia's major export industry which would seriously worsen our major and continuing balance of payments problems? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that the record of disputation within the coal industry has almost rivalled that within the Liberal and National parties in recent months. As such, it is a cause for national concern, certainly a cause for governmental concern-I am talking now about the coal industry-and in fact we have done a lot about it, not least in the continuing deliberations of the Australian Coal Consultative Council, which brings all bodies in the industry together periodically for constructive discussions and which has, I think, served to dampen down a lot of other controversies which would have flared up over this period. If one can stand back from it, I think the problem is largely a product of the anxieties and concerns within the coal industry about the industry's future in the context of the recent downturn in prices, the falling away of demand and the massive oversupply which is evident in many other countries now. Against that background, it is no wonder that further anxiety within the coal industry should be generated by what I have described, and will describe again, as obnoxious, unnecessary and provocative legislation now passed through the Queensland Parliament by the Queensland Premier, who seems hell bent on creating industrial confrontation for manifestly purely political purposes. There is no conceivable rationale for that in terms of what the legislation is likely to accomplish in industrial relations. As a result, the Commonwealth Government is considering very closely what action it might be able to take in this respect to ward off some of the worst and latest lunatic manifestations of the desire of the Queensland Premier to cause national economic destruction. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister agree that the disruption in the coal industry last year was of the order I indicated and that it has continued into this year? Will the Government, for example, abolish the Coal Industry Tribunal as recommended by the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not have to hand the precise figures of the level of disputation, but it has been extremely high and out of all proportion to the prevailing level of industrial disputation elsewhere in the community. Whether the amalgamation of the Coal Industry Tribunal into the conciliation and arbitration machinery would do other than accelerate that level of disputation is a matter of judgment. The Government is considering this issue at the moment and its decision will be made clear when the industrial relations legislation which has been long foreshadowed is brought down within the next few days. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Will the Minister amplify his recent Press comments on the effect of an increasing value of the Australian dollar on the competitiveness of Australian industry? Senator BUTTON —I have said publicly and during discussions with a number of industrial interests that the value of the Australian dollar at US72c was lowering the competitive position of many Australian exporting industries as against when the dollar stood at US65c or US60c earlier in the year. It is very difficult to generalise as it depends very much on the situation of each industry as to the effects of the exchange rate on it. Last week or the week before the Reserve Bank of Australia made some utterance about the value of the dollar, suggesting that in its view it might be marginally higher than was realistic. There are many differences of opinion within the financial community on that question. For example, there is a respectable view emanating from a number of financial institutions that the value of the dollar at US65c was too low. What it settles at-- Senator Chaney —You recommended in the Senate that manufacturers should expect a level of about US65c. Senator BUTTON —I have already answered that part of the question. I said that it depended very much on different industries. Everybody can pick his own dollar figure and say: `It will suit me, thanks'. Unfortunately, it does not always work that way with a floating dollar. At its present level, it makes it a little harder for some of our exporting companies, but not to an alarming extent at this stage. We will watch developments closely during the next few weeks. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister aware that Mr Michael Mansell of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Legal Service has given the Government and Australia an ultimatum that, if certain things are not done, such as doubling spending on Aboriginal affairs in the next Budget and cancellation of the Bicentennial celebrations, he will return to Libya to negotiate funding from the terrorist supported Government of Colonel Gaddafi? Can the Minister give an assurance that Mr Mansell's recent visit to Libya was in no way financed directly or indirectly by the Australian taxpayers' funds made available to the legal service? Is the Government aware of who paid for the trip? Will the Minister give a guarantee that, should Mr Mansell carry out his threat to obtain money from the notorious Gaddafi regime, Mr Mansell or any organisation employing him will not be supported by taxpayers' funds? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, has provided me with the following information on Mr Mansell's activities and claims: It is now a matter of record that Mr Mansell, a legal adviser to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, addressed a conference in Libya sponsored by the World Centre Against Racism, Zionism and Imperialism. Mr Holding has informed the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre that, if it receives funds from Libyan sources, he will stop Commonwealth funding to the Centre. Similarly, his Department will withdraw funding from any Aboriginal organisation that receives or solicits funds from those sources. The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre has assured Mr Holding that it has no intention of soliciting funds from Libyan sources. Mr Holding has made it clear that Mr Mansell has a right as a private individual to talk to whomever he wants. However, it is unacceptable for him to purport to be representative of the Government, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or indeed, broadly speaking, the Aboriginal people of Australia in his associations with Colonel Gaddafi or any groups connected with Colonel Gaddafi. It is clear that Mr Mansell did not consult with either Tasmanian or mainland Aboriginal organisations prior to leaving for Libya. His comments are totally unrepresentative of the feelings of Aboriginal people. Aboriginal groups across Australia have condemned Mr Mansell's attempt to gain Libyan support. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has not answered the part of my question which asks the Minister to give an assurance that Mr Mansell's recent visit to Libya was in no way financed, directly or indirectly, by Australian taxpayers' funds made available to the Legal Service. Is the Government aware of who financed the trip? Senator RYAN —Insofar as my answer did not cover that aspect of Senator Walters's question I will refer it to Mr Holding. Senator ROBERTSON —I refer the Minister for Education to the report entitled `In the National Interest'. I ask: Can the Minister indicate her response to the proposal by the Commonwealth Schools Commission that external examinations be terminated? Does the Government support the abolition of all external examinations? Will the Government be urging the States and non-government school systems to follow this course? I also ask: Is the Minister able to advise of the effects on schools where external examinations have been eliminated? Senator RYAN —The Schools Commission report, recently published, called `In the National Interest', discusses a number of ways in which school systems could become more responsive to the needs of the economy, could work more closely with business and industry groups and could better prepare teenage students for the world of work. In that report there is some discussion about the role of external examinations. However, I should make it clear that the Commonwealth Government has never supported the abolition of external examinations, nor do I propose that it ought to do so. Two systems, the Queensland government system and the Australian Capital Territory government system, have not had external examinations for many years now. They have had school-based assessment. Queensland has a very high retention rate of students to the end of year 12. The Australian Capital Territory has a very much higher participation rate to the end of year 12 than any other system and also has a very favourable record of performance by its graduates in Australian universities. Nonetheless, the question of whether students are to be assessed by school-based reports, by external examinations or by some combination of both methods is very clearly a matter for the States. It is not a matter for the Commonwealth. As I said, I have never advocated the abolition of exams, nor do I propose to do so. Although the Government has yet to make a detailed response to the report `In the National Interest', I certainly will not be advocating any action with respect to external examinations. The Schools Commission report acknowledges that it is a matter for the State systems to make these decisions. As I recall, when giving its views on external examinations it also points out that any change in assessment methods, such as from external examinations to school-based methods, should be done only with the complete support of the community. I am quite surprised that some media commentators and Opposition spokespersons have chosen to leap upon this quite minor aspect of the report, since it is not the Commonwealth's prerogative to move in this direction. As I said, I do not intend to do so. However, it is a good thing that the report is receiving attention because it undoubtedly responds to many of the demands made by business, employers and industry leaders for a more relevant school curriculum which gives more opportunity for input from the business community and which, as I said, will better prepare young students for the world of work. When the Government and Government committees have properly considered the report I will be making a full statement in response to it. Senator ROBERTSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for her answer. However, I draw her attention to the fact that I asked a third question. Will she comment on the effects on schools where external examinations have been eliminated? Senator RYAN —I did mention the Queensland and Australian Capital Territory systems. There has been no measurable decline in standards as a result of those systems having school-based assessment methods. But, of course, Queensland, relative to other States, has a high participation rate to the end of year 12. The Australian Capital Territory government school system has an extremely high participation rate-towards 80 per cent to the end of year 12-and the performance of students coming into universities from the Australian Capital Territory government school system is at least as good as that of students coming from other systems. As I have said, it is not for the Commonwealth to make policy on these matters but, naturally, it is interested in observing the different patterns of performance of students from different schools, and those matters I have just related to the Senate are matters of fact, to which Senator Reid, for example, can attest. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister for Health aware of an article in the Bulletin magazine of 28 April claiming that the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia affects one in 20 of the sexually active women in Australia? Is it true that this disease is responsible for many cases of pelvic inflammatory disease and for consequent infertility in women? If it is, can the Mininster say what Federal Government programs are being undertaken to address this widespread but little known threat to women's health? Given the estimated cost of $30m annually to treat known cases of chlamydia and the huge cost to the health system of dealing with infertility, such as through in vitro fertilisation programs, will the Minister for Health put into practice his much espoused commitment to preventive health care by directing resources into reducing the incidence of a problem which touches the lives of so many Australians? Senator TATE —The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, is aware of the article in the Bulletin of 28 April concerning chlamydia. In regard to that part of Senator Haines's question which suggested that this particular sexually transmitted disease might affect one in 20 of the sexually active women in Australia, limited surveys have been undertaken which indicate an infection rate of between 3 and 5 per cent for Australian women in that category. Of course, at the highest level this would come to about one in 20 of the sexually active women in Australia. The significance of the chlamydia organism has been realised only in the last 10 years or so. It is the most common sexually transmitted micro-organism but infection is not apparent or causes few symptoms. Infection in women can lead, as Senator Haines suggested in her question, to pelvic inflammatory disease-PID-and a single episode of chlamydia PID results in a 20 per cent risk of tubal scarring and infertility. Insofar as Senator Haines linked her question to the question of women's health, when one is talking of infertility one is talking perhaps of the wider tragedy of infertility within marriage or at least a household; so, of course, the health problem of the woman becomes a problem of infertility within that arrangement. In regard to that part of the question which suggested that resources should be put into prevention rather than cure, the Minister agrees with that as a general proposition-- Senator Haines —I did not say that you should not continue to put money into curing the problem. Senator TATE —Of course not; I am talking about the proportions of funds which are spent in that regard. The Minister has indicated that the Department of Health, in conjunction with the National Health and Medical Research Council, is preparing an information letter to doctors on STDs with particular reference to chlamydia. Under the 1986-87 national health promotion program, the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has received a grant for an attitudinal survey amongst young people on pelvic inflammatory diseases and to develop resource materials for doctors. The Health Care Committee of the NHMRC has established a working party to develop a protocol for prevention, investigation and management of PID, with the National Venereology Council being represented on that working party. In this brief answer, I think I have indicated that the Minister does try to give concrete and practical expression to the general intention that it is more appropriate to take steps to ensure that the incidence of a disease is reduced in the community rather than simply to treat the disease once it is contracted. Insofar as it lies within the power of government to influence behaviour in this area, that is being undertaken, as the answer indicates. Clearly it is in the interests of the couple involved in problems which may result in infertility and the taxpayer in general that this course be followed. Senator McKIERNAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer and the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the Minister's answer to a question on 1 April regarding the possible effects on inflation if the National Farmers Federation proposal to abolish excise on all fuels were implemented, and to a statement made last Thursday by the Deputy Leader of the National Party-or should that be a national party-Ralph Hunt, aligning himself with that proposition, at least insofar as it relates to farmers, by promising farmers a full rebate on their fuel excise, including on-road use, reported in the Australian Financial Review on Friday last. Has any further investigation been done into the proposal of the National Farmers Federation? Is the Government in any way attracted to the proposition? Further, what would be the costs to revenue if the proposals were implemented, and would there be any wider economic effects? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report in question. At the outset I point out the fact that all distillate used on farms-which comprises the great majority of fuel used by farmers-is excise free already. For the first time ever in 1985 this Government entirely reduced excise on fuel. Senator Messner —That is not so. Senator WALSH —It is so. It entirely removed excise for distillate used on farms. When Mr Howard was Treasurer there was an excise levy on distillate used on farms of something over 2c a litre. Having sorted that fact out-that is, that the excise that Mr Howard had imposed on distillate used on farms has already been removed by this Government-there is absolutely no justification for removing the excise on fuel used on roads by farmers while everybody else is paying excise on fuel used on roads. As to the more important part of the question, I have seen the report-indeed, reports crop up with disappointing regularity-and the assertions that if the excise on all refined petroleum products was abolished the consumer price index, and consequently interest rates, would fall by 6 per cent or, it is sometimes said, by 5 to 6 per cent. The total revenue from these excises is of the order of $5.6 billion. If they were to be removed, the first round effect of the removal on the consumer price index would be a 2 per cent fall in the CPI; not a 6 per cent fall in the CPI as has been asserted by Mr McLachlan and echoed by Mr Hunt. There would be second round effects which, over a long period, could ultimately conceivably reduce the CPI by between 3 and 4 per cent. The first round figure is 2 per cent, not 6 per cent. I just wish that there were as many journalists around eager to publish that correct piece of information as there seems to be journalists eager to publish the misinformation or disinformation coming out of the mouths of Mr McLachlan and Mr Hunt. Senator McKiernan asked what the wider economic effects would be. Something between 5c and 6c a litre of that excise is presently hypothecated for road funding. In this Budget the Commonwealth has provided some $1,250m for road funding from that hypothecated revenue. If the tax itself were to be abolished the hypothecated revenue would be abolished with it and Commonwealth expenditure on road construction and maintenance would fall by $1,250m. I do not know whether Mr McLachlan wants that or whether Mr Hunt wants that, but that would be one of the consequences of the policy that they are advocating. Senator KILGARIFF —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs concerns the ultimatum given by Mr Michael Mansell about obtaining money from Libya. Is the Minister aware that this morning on radio the national co-ordinator of the Federation of Land Councils, Mr Pat Dodson, supported Mr Mansell's threat? What view does the Minister take of Mr Dodson's actions? As regards the specific complaints of Messrs Mansell and Dodson-that is, that more needs to be done to assist Aboriginal people-would the Minister agree that there is something seriously wrong with the way in which Commonwealth funding of some $600m a year for Aboriginal people is being spent when one considers the very poor standard of living of thousands of Aboriginal people who get to see very little of this money which is largely consumed by the multitude of Aboriginal organisations and the individual bureaucracies which they have developed? Senator Zakharov —Was that a question or a speech? Senator RYAN —As one of my colleagues said by way of interjection, Senator Kilgariff's question was more like a speech. He made many claims about the conduct of Aboriginal organisations and the way in which they use funds which I do not think it would be appropriate for me to answer by way of a question without notice. I will direct the particular claims and inferences that one could draw from Senator Kilgariff's question to Mr Holding for a thorough reply. I did not hear what Pat Dodson said, nor do I have any briefing material from Mr Holding to that effect. However, I think that Mr Holding has made it as clear as possible, and I have now reiterated it in the Senate on his behalf, that any Aboriginal organisation which takes any funds from Libya will lose its Federal funding. I do not think that Mr Holding could have put it any more clearly than he has. It is very much to his credit that he put that position immediately upon hearing the news of Mr Mansell's trip and what came out of that trip. Regardless of what Mr Dodson may have said, the policy is the same: Any Aboriginal organisation which takes funds from Libya will lose its Federal funding. It was also Mr Holding's view at the time that he prepared a brief for me that no Aboriginal organisation had indicated that it would take funds from Libya. That policy would apply no matter what comments were made by any Aboriginal spokesperson. In conclusion, I simply say that Australia is a democracy. Although people express views with which the Government has no agreement whatsoever or to which the Government is hostile, we would not seek to prevent people from expressing those views. I hope that Senator Kilgariff would not do so either. No Aboriginal organisations in Australia are to receive funds from Libya. If they do so, they will lose their own Federal funding. I think that the general questions of management of funds for Aboriginal purposes by Aboriginal organisations should be dealt with in some detail by Mr Holding. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to an article on the front page of this morning's Canberra Times headlined `Scholes rejects AMA compromise offer'. I ask: What is the basis of the Australian Medical Association's compromise offer? Can the Minister provide a costing of it? Why is the offer unacceptable to the Government? Senator WALSH —The Government had offered Australian Capital Territory doctors who treat Medicare patients in public hospitals a pay increase equal to 21 per cent of what they were previously getting. The doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory demanded a set of conditions that would have equalled a pay increase of more than 85 per cent. To translate that into dollars per week, the doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory demanded a pay increase of $430 a week for a part time job and sought to pursue that outrageous pay grab by imposing work bans; that is, by refusing to treat Medicare patients in Australian Capital Territory public hospitals. The militant doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory is making an outrageous pay claim-a $430 a week increase for a part time job-and is seeking to pursue that by the imposition of work bans. At the same time, it is making it perfectly clear that it intends that outrageous pay grab to spread throughout Australia if it is allowed to get away with it in the Australian Capital Territory. The doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory has now put up another proposition which works out, in round figures, at a bid for a pay increase for a part time job of $350 a week-scarcely a modest claim-tied, moreover, to the AMA fee schedule, which the doctors themselves could change at will; in other words, an interim pay increase for a part time job of $350 a week which at any time in the future the doctors union could change by changing the AMA schedule-an invitation to the Commonwealth Government to sign a blank cheque. This is the set of arrangements which Senator Lewis described as quite reasonable and he criticised the Government. I eagerly anticipate the new spokesman on employment and industrial relations in the Opposition coming out and denouncing the doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Button —`Tough but fair', the Financial Review said. Senator WALSH —Tough but fair; that is right. I do not think there would be one person in Australia-even Senator Lewis, if he understood the proposition properly-outside the militant, irresponsible, greedy doctors union of the Australian Capital Territory who would regard a pay claim for an interim increase of $350 a week for a part time job as responsible and fair. I look forward to Senator Chaney denouncing the Australian Capital Territory branch of the doctors union for pursuing that claim in the way that it is. In closing, may I just say that for wage demands made by other unions such as the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia and the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia-- Senator Parer —They go on strike all the time. Senator WALSH —Are work bans better, Senator Parer? Senator Parer does not believe in unions affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions going on strike, but apparently it is all right for the doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory to impose work bans while doctors pursue their greedy claims for a $350 a week pay increase for a part time job. This Government has denounced and opposed the attempts by blue collar unions to achieve, through industrial action, wage increases which the Government believes are excessive and contrary to the national interest. We have also opposed and denounced the much more outrageous claims of a white collar union-the doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory-to get pay increases for a part time job of four times the magnitude of those sought by some blue collar unions for full time jobs. I think it is about time that the Opposition adopted an equally even-handed approach and condemned the doctors union more vehemently than it has condemned the blue collar unions which have sought excessive wage increases through industrial action. Senator MESSNER —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen the very perceptive comments by Mr Joe Thompson, his former colleague and the former Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia, about the impact of industrial disputes on the car industry crisis? Does he agree with Mr Thompson's estimate that industrial disputation is adding between 30 and 35 per cent to the cost of locally-produced cars? Is it a fact, as claimed by Mr Thompson, that most disputes affecting the car industry have occurred in areas such as component supply and paint making where unions with no direct stake in the industry use their power to bring it to a halt? Finally, do not Mr Thompson's constructive comments underline the critical need for action on a broad front if Australian industry generally is to survive and become more competitive? In other words, does he agree that next month's spending cuts will, by themselves, not be enough and that other action is urgently required, particularly to reform the industrial relations systems and the taxation system? Senator BUTTON — Different face, same old questions. First of all, let me say that Senator Messner described the comments made by Mr Joe Thompson as perceptive. If that is a correct description, in my experience it will be the first time that Mr Thompson has made perceptive comments about the motor vehicle industry. I am very pleased to see it. There is always room for improvement in all of us. The general point of Senator Messner's question is whether industrial disputation has been detrimental to the car industry. My answer to that question is yes. Industrial disputation is detrimental to the welfare of any industry. I am not in a position to agree or disagree about the allegation that industrial disputation has added 35 per cent to the cost of local cars in terms of a statistic. I think it is an absurdly high figure. All sorts of things have added to the cost of local cars. The biggest of them has been the devaluation, of course, and what has gone with it. However, the suggestion that industrial disputation in this industry has added anything like 35 per cent to the cost of local cars, I think borders on a touch of hyperbole, if I might put it in those terms. Mr Thompson is quite right when he says that the impact of any industrial disputation is detrimental to the car industry. I suppose the assumption in the question is that any industrial dispute is the fault of the unions. Let me say, however, that industrial disputation in the car industry-if it has occurred-has, as Mr Thompson suggests, been in the components sector. That has been the most difficult sector in respect of industrial disputes. That is so because by and large vehicle manufacturers in Australia have now introduced just-in-time systems for their manufacturing processes. A just-in-time system is totally dependent on the arrival of componentry, et cetera at a particular time, and can be held up by industrial disputation. Senator Puplick —Did you say `jest-in-time' or `just-in-time'? Senator BUTTON —Just-in-time. Well done, Senator Puplick. If I may say so, I am not given to unnecessary generosity in this chamber, but I think the honourable senator's interjection is more to the point than any I have had so far. I do not know whether we can carry this matter any further. I have given my observations about the question asked by Senator Messner. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The other point that needs to be addressed by the Minister is the question of the forthcoming expenditure statement which, apparently, is going to solve all our economic problems. I would like the Minister to address the question of whether he is going to take action in other areas, such as those identified by Mr Thompson. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator should not make a goof of himself on his first day as shadow Minister. For goodness sake, this Government has never claimed for a moment that the expenditure cuts to be made in May will correct all the economic problems of this country. We have a legacy going back many years because of Liberal governments, because of the total intellectual inactivity of such people as Senator Messner in Liberal governments which did nothing about any of these things. We have never claimed that the May statement will be the solution to all the problems. If the honourable senator spends a bit of time in his room doing a bit of reading, he will know that this Government has done an enormous amount to increase the competitiveness of Australian industry. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the results of a survey of Australian-based financial market dealers published in the Australian Financial Review of 14 April? What are the indications in that survey regarding business confidence in the Hawke Government's economic policies? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report in question. Indeed, I have a copy of it before me. It is headed `Financial Dealers Give Thumbs up to Government Policies.' While I would not like it to be thought that I believe that the financial dealers are infallible or even the most knowledgeable group of people or the group best qualified to make judgments about the economic competence of the Government, it is nevertheless very significant that such a group of people whom, given their background and occupation one would expect to be hostile to Labor governments, should have given this Government a stamp of approval in the way that it has. According to the survey, 90 per cent of respondents described the Federal Government's economic management as excellent or satisfactory, and therefore only 10 per cent described it as poor. When asked `Do you think a coalition Government would make better economic managers?' 77 1/2 per cent of the respondents said no. Notwithstanding my earlier reservations about the infallibility or otherwise of this particular group of people, 77 1/2 per cent are certainly spot on when they say there is no chance that a coalition government would provide a team to manage the economy better than the Labor Government. The final point I wish to make is that this demonstrates very convincingly-again leaving aside the question of fallibility or infallibility-that the high profile comments of the Elliotts, McLachlans and Hays of this world have not impressed at all a group of people that under more normal circumstances one might expect right wing views to impress. The business sector is not at all impressed by the opinions given so frequently and forcefully by McLachlan, Elliott, Hay and company. Indeed, it is fair to conclude that the statements made by that trio are geared to their personal political party ambitions rather than to anything else. Senator MACKLIN —I refer the Acting Attorney-General to a story in the Times on Sunday newspaper which reported that the Attorney-General was considering introducing national companies legislation. What constitutional powers does the Commonwealth have with respect to controlling the trading activities of trading corporations, and have these Commonwealth powers to control such activities been seen to have been widened by High Court of Australia decisions in recent times? Senator GARETH EVANS —As much as I would like to wax lyrical and eloquent on that subject, I think it does call for a legal opinion which it is probably inappropriate for me to give at Question Time. Suffice it to say the Government is confident that it has wide-ranging powers available to it under section 51 (xx) of the Constitution, as recently expansively interpreted by the High Court. I am sure that when we see the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs-it has been dealing with this issue-which comes down today and for which we are all waiting with bated breath, the Government will be in a much better position to give a quick response to the subject matter of Senator Macklin's question. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Will the Government advise the media industry on the proposed ownership rules to accompany the Broadcasting Act and so allay the fears of regional television stations with regard to ownership levels? Given that the unfolding drama at HSV7 in Melbourne is making regional television stations very jumpy because they see themselves as being in a worse position to combat networking, especially if the 75 per cent ownership rule is accepted by the Government, when will the Government advise the percentage of ownership level it intends to bring in? Senator WALSH —I am not able to give a definitive answer to the question-- Senator Button —Mr Duffy is to make a statement this week. Senator WALSH —Senator Button has just reminded me, but I was about to say it anyway, that Mr Duffy will be making a statement in the near future; Senator Button tells me probably this week. Whether it will cover all of that detail I do not know but I suggest that Senator Siddons wait until the statement is made. If it does not cover the detail that he seeks, I will try to obtain if from Mr Duffy. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government appointing the Queensland State Labor politician Tom Burns as ambassador to Greece? How does the Government justify this blatant abuse of power in making such an appointment, transparently to resolve an internal Australian Labor Party factional brawl? Will this be a precedent for a Government decision to politicise the foreign service, as outlined in an article by Geoff Kitney in last Sunday's Times on Sunday, and is the Government aware of the disillusionment of dedicated professional foreign service officers, the low morale and record high levels of resignation in the Department of Foreign Affairs flowing from such abuses of Government responsibility? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know whether the Government is contemplating such an appointment, and if I did I would not tell Senator Hill-not least because it would, of course, pre-empt the normal diplomatic processes that are involved in any appointment in terms of accreditation to the host country and so on. It might be said that there is a long-standing tradition on both sides of politics-innumerable examples come readily to mind, among them most recently Sir Robert Cotton in the United States of America and Dame Annabelle Rankin in New Zealand and so on-of distinguished former politicians being appointed to senior ambassadorial posts. I have no doubt that that tradition will continue on both sides of politics into the future. I have no doubt at the same time that periodically that will generate some rumbles of disaffection from career public servants in the Foreign Affairs Department who feel for one reason or another that it is more appropriate that they get the plums. This is a judgment, as I have said, that all governments have made in the past and no doubt will go on making according to the particular circum- stances confronting them, the particular array of talent that is available and the particular demands and circumstances of certain diplomatic posts. Senator CROWLEY —I remind the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce of the Government's expressed policy of referring all major policy proposals to the Business Regulation Review Unit. Has this policy been extended to the Government's reforms in equal opportunity policy? Can the Minister report on policy matters on legislation in the area of equal opportunity policy which have been referred to the Business Regulation Review Unit? Can he provide instances of the BRRU being involved in these matters? Senator BUTTON —The Business Regulation Review Unit is provided with the opportunity to consider, I think, the vast majority of matters which come before Government, and does so on many occasions. The Business Regulation Review Unit was given the opportunity to comment on the new regulations involved in the Government's equal opportunity reforms as drafted in the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. I understand that the Business Regulation Review Unit was also given the opportunity to be involved in discussions on this and other policies the Government has introduced in the equal opportunity policy area. I am not certain of the comments made by the Business Regulation Review Unit in this instance as it is its usual practice not to make extensive comments in areas which affect mainly public sector management. The Business Regulation Review Unit prefers to concentrate its activities on matters which have an immediate and significant regulatory impact on the private sector. Senator SHORT —I ask the Minister for Fiance: Is it a fact that government spending in the first nine months of 1986-87 has increased by 9.5 per cent compared with the 6.9 per cent estimated in the 1986 Budget as the increase for 1986-87 as a whole? By how much does the Minister now expect the full year expenditure out-turn and Budget deficit to exceed the Budget estimates? Does the Minister agree that these overruns will force interest rates and inflation, already at record high levels relative to the rest of the world, to levels even higher than they would otherwise be? If not, why not? Senator WALSH —I would have thought that there would have been enough residual knowledge from Senator Short's experience in the Treasury, even though it was many years ago, for him to understand that levels of expenditure in any particular month do not provide any reliable formula for what they might be at the end of a financial year. Nor does the level of expenditure or the size of the deficit in the first nine months of a financial year, even compared with the same period in the previous year, provide a very reliable guide. I would have thought that Senator Short would understand that although, given the matter that I am about to raise, perhaps it is less surprising that he does not. Senator Short asked what the final deficit outcome would be. Even a week before the end of a financial year that cannot be predicted with any precision. However, it has been freely acknowledged in the monthly statements of financial transactions that outlays are likely to be somewhat higher than forecast at Budget time, principally because of higher public debt interest payments, and also that the deficit might be somewhat higher. I have an expectation about how it might turn out; but, as I have said, that is within a fairly significant speculative range. One thing that I can say with certainty is that, if Senator Short thinks that the nation's finances and Budget are in a mess now, they would be in a vastly greater mess if he had anything to do with them. I was astounded to find that he put out a Press statement last Sunday, 26 April-thinking, I suppose, that that would be his first opportunity to get his name in the newspapers as shadow Finance Minister-which contained this extraordinary sentence: The cost of the Hawke Government's interest bill is now $66.50 per week for every Australian. There are 16 million Australians-if not slightly more. If they were paying $66.50 per week in interest on Commonwealth Government debt, that would be $1,068m per week, or slightly more than $55 billion per year. Some fairly simple arithmetic shows that Senator Short is asserting that interest payments on public debt by the Commonwealth Government are in excess of $55 billion per year. To put that in some sort of context, that is somewhat more than two-thirds of total Commonwealth Government outlays and about seven times the actual figure. I can understand now why the honourable senator got out of the Treasury; there was not much future in the Treasury for someone as innumerate as Senator Short. On two occasions during the past year or so I have given the Press the three qualifications that I believe to be mandatory for a Finance Minister. The first is to be numerate, the second is to have no unfulfilled personal political ambitions, and the third is to have a thick hide. Well, Senator Short has a thick hide, but he is certainly not numerate and I doubt whether he has not any unfulfilled personal political ambitions. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Special Minister of State. Has the Australian Electoral Commission received an application for registration of the Queensland Premier's new political party? Is the Minister able to report whether the chosen name, `New Nationals', would be eligible for registration under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, section 129 (d)? Does the Minister have any information that suggests that there would be objections to the official registration of the `New Nationals', and would the new party be eligible for public funding? Senator TATE —The Australian Electoral Commission has not received any application for registration of a political party under the aegis of the Queensland Premier. I cannot say whether any such party under the title `New Nationals' would be registered as it is not for me to make that decision. The registration of political parties under the Commonwealth Electoral Act is delegated to the Australian Electoral Commissioner and subject to an advertising process and an appeal process that could go on for some time. Senator Reynolds will be aware that when such advertisement occurs-for example, putting forward the chosen name `New Nationals'-any party could object. That would probably be on the ground that such a new name would unfairly impact on an existing political party-obviously, the National Party of Australia-by engendering some confusion in the electorate. The new name would be so similar to that of an existing party that it could create confusion. That would probably be the ground on which an objection would be taken to the name `New Nationals'. As for the question of public funding of such a party, I would have to look at that in a little more detail rather than give an opinion off the cuff. Senator JESSOP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Firstly, what is the Government's general position with respect to organisations in Australia which contribute funds either to terrorist groups or to groups assisting terrorists overseas? Secondly, and more particularly, what is the Government's attitude to the Australian Council of Churches which, according to its 1985 annual report, has sent almost $50,000 of Christmas Bowl money to two Tamil groups in southern India which, it is claimed, support the Tamil terrorists responsible for the recent atrocities in Sri Lanka? Will the Government investigate this allegation and give a report to the Senate? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will take the question on notice and respond in due course. Senator ZAKHAROV —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health inform the Senate of the reason for the Government's decision not to increase the pharmaceutical benefit for dilantin when the price rises in June, when many sufferers from epilepsy are dependent on it for life support? Senator TATE —Senator Zakharov and other honourable senators may know that dilantin is a unique drug used in the treatment of epilepsy. I am informed by the Minister for Health that a dispute between the Government and the manufacturer, Parke-Davis Pty Ltd, has arisen over the price of the drug and has resulted in a special patient contribution being imposed since 1 April last year. Parke-Davis has wanted the Government to agree to a price for dilantin which simply has not been justified, according to the evidence given to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Bureau. In March this year Parke-Davis announced a further 6 per cent price increase, but once again the Pricing Bureau, which reviewed the data submitted by the company, considered that only a 5 per cent increase was justified. As a result, the special patient contribution has been increased by 10c to, I think, $1.30. The special patient contribution, it may be noted, goes directly to the company, Parke-Davis. The Government subsidy being available means that patients do not have to meet the full dispensed price, which could be up to $16.80 at private dispensing rates. If the Government were to give in to demands to increase prices for drugs simply to increase company profitability, and where it could not be justified, as in this instance, the system of pricing drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme would fall apart. Over the past 12 months Parke-Davis has been approached on a number of occasions both by the Department of Health and by the Minister for Health, who is anxious to resolve the dispute, but the company has persisted in its attitude on the issue. The Minister suggests that people affected by the dispute should write to Parke-Davis expressing their concern at the company's attitude. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. In view of the announcement that the merger between the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service will not proceed and that the ABC and SBS budgets will be reduced by $2m, can the Minister give any indication of the effect this will have on proposals to extend SBS coverage into major regional areas? What plans, if any, have been made for provision of an SBS service to the Pilbara region of Western Australia? Senator WALSH —I will check this out, but to the best of my knowledge there are no plans for an SBS service for the Pilbara region. I find it incongruous, to say the least, that one of the most trenchant advocates of curtailing government spending that the Opposition can produce is in favour of extending the SBS throughout the country. Australia is already one of the very few countries with one national broadcasting network. Senator Knowles, one of the pseudo-dries, the pseudo-rationalists, of this ratty and tatty Opposition, wants to have two national broadcasting networks fully funded by the taxpayers. That is absolutely incompatible with the rhetoric which Senator Knowles's leader preaches and which she is so fond of echoing, perhaps in the hope of catching his attention so that she might finish up on the front bench as a replacement for the latest and newest failed member of the front bench. Senator MAGUIRE —My question, which is also on the subject of public debt interest, is also directed to the Minister for Finance. With reference to grossly inflated Opposition claims about public debt interest, can the Minister confirm that a substantial part of the public debt interest paid through the Commonwealth's Budget is in fact interest in respect of State government debt, including the debts incurred by conservative governments in Queensland and Tasmania? Can the Minister say whether this State government interest paid through the Commonwealth Budget is currently in the vicinity of $2,000m every year? Senator WALSH —It is true, as Senator Maguire said, that a substantial proportion-I do not know whether what he said is correct but a figure of about $2 billion sounds right to me-of the public debt interest that is paid by the Commonwealth, which of course is nothing like the $55 billion that Senator Short says it is, is in fact interest on previous Commonwealth borrowings which have then been passed on to the States in the form of capital grants. I suppose one could add to that, if one wished, concessional finance provided to the States. But yes, it is as Senator Maguire says it is, and I believe the figure is in the vicinity of the $2 billion that he mentioned. Senator ARCHER —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to the findings of the recent joint task force into Customs inadequacies which found that checking procedures at most wharves and container terminals are virtually non-existent, and pointed to the Melbourne waterfront as a particular example of lax security. I also refer the Minister to a report prepared by the Senior Inspector of Shipping Control on the Melbourne waterfront, which was made public 16 months ago. In that report the officer warned that the criminal element had little to fear through its own carelessness and that the waterfront was virtually wide open. I ask the Minister: Why did the Government not act on the first report and thus save Australians tens of millions of dollars in lost customs duty, and slow the virtual uninhibited movement of drugs through the waterfront? Senator BUTTON —As one might imagine, the world is much more complex than Senator Archer sees it as being. If we had acted on the first report we would have required an army of Customs officers to inspect containers to the extent which was suggested by implication. There are two parts to the question. The first relates to a task force which was set up following a comment by the former Special Minister of State, Mr Young, relating to evasion of Commonwealth revenue. That task force reported last week and I am quite happy to make available a copy of its findings to Senator Archer. It is a very detailed document. Secondly, quite independently of the task force, the Government has been examining these matters and it has acted on them. Legislation will be introduced in this session of the Parliament to tighten a whole range of valuation and other procedures, and further legislation will be introduced in the Budget session. That will be very stringent legislation, particularly in relation to penalties for evasion of duty and for other defalcations in respect of the Customs legislation. I do not think a lot of people will like it; nonetheless we believe it to be important. I think the general points in the question are dealt with in the context of that overall remark which I have made. If the honourable senator looks at the task force report I think he will find that many of the issues which the task force raised have already been dealt with or will be dealt with in this legislation which is to be introduced. Senator GIETZELT —On 26 March 1987 Senator Parer asked the Minister for Resources and Energy a question without notice concerning the union bans on flag of convenience vessels entering New South Wales ports to load coal. As this question falls within the responsibilities of the Minister for Transport, whom I represent in this place, he has provided an answer, and I seek leave to incorporate the response in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The union bans on flag of convenience (FOC) ships in the NSW coal export trades were imposed in 1981. Longstanding and complex industrial issues are involved. Analysis has indicated that the bans have, to date, not had a significant impact on the relative competitiveness of the NSW coal industry. The Government has recognised, however, that the FOC bans could possibly have implications for future trade opportunities, including additional Australian coal sales to Brazil which requires the use of FOC vessels. Although this is primarily a matter for the industry itself to resolve commercially, the Minister for Transport has initiated and supported consultation among all parties within the industry, directed at achieving a satisfactory solution without disruption. Recent Government initiatives, pursuant to the recommendations of the Maritime Industry Development Committee, to improve the competitiveness and efficiency of Australian flag shipping have increased the possibilities for resolution through the increased involvement of efficient Australian shipping in carrying export coal on a commercial basis. I understand that industry representatives are shortly to visit Brazil to continue discussions on possible coal sales, and that shipping arrangements will also be discussed. A further meeting between coal producers and seagoing unions in late April is expected to review progress following these commercial discussions. Senator GIETZELT —I refer also to a question without notice asked by Senator Collard on 20 November 1986 concerning capital civil works at Brisbane and Rockhampton airports. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate a response in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The funds for the $1.5m upgrading of the Brisbane International Terminal have been obtained by deferring projects of commensurate value on the current program. The project has therefore been contained within the budget appropriation for this year. The improvements I announced on 9 November 1986 will improve the efficiency of passenger processing facilities by reducing queue lengths and waiting time. As I have advised in my response to Senator Bjelke-Petersen's Question without Notice, independent legal advice is that the tender proposing the combined international terminal/hotel was non conforming and therefore could not be accepted. Negotiations have therefore proceeded with the organisation submitting the conforming tender. A proposal to extend the Rockhampton terminal has been included on Design List A for 1986/87 and will therefore be considered for the 1987/88 Capital Civil Works program. The work is considered necessary to overcome peak hour congestion in the terminal and car park. However, as part of ALOP negotiations the Rockhampton City Council has recently proposed a new terminal to be jointly funded by the Council and my Department. Discussions of this matter are continuing. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The paper put down by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) on 2 April covers many aspects of the problems that exist in the freeing up of trade particularly in agricultural products. The deterioration in trade relations between the United States and Japan brought this matter of concern to our attention. It should present considerable difficulty to Australians because of the effect that it will have on us for quite a long time to come. It is symptomatic of the wider disease which is seen as a shift towards even greater protectionism by some countries, and of export standardisation by many other major industrialised nations. The shift towards protectionism has particularly disadvantaged Australia because Australian agricultural products represent more than one-third of our total exports of goods and services. Moreover, our agricultural trade is strongly market oriented and it is dependent on export. Therefore, developments in the international market prices and market access have a great influence on the viability of our domestic farm sector. The corruption of international agricultural trade also adversely affects our local primary industries because Australian governments have correctly pursued a basically non-interventionist role in agriculture. As a result, Australian agriculture has undergone structural adjustment leaving it efficient and productive. Such adjustment has not occurred in many industrial nations. The resultant oversupply on world markets of a wide range of commodities has had a particularly adverse effect on Australia's national income. For example, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated that the policies of the European Economic Community alone have resulted in Australia forgoing almost $1 billion for our six major agricultural exports. It is in this context that the Government's proposal for international agricultural reform, as stated by the Minister for Trade in a number of forums, are twofold: Firstly, to establish a basis from which to freeze and then to reduce subsidies, especially in the major industrial nations. Secondly, to reduce the gap between excessive domestic support prices and world prices with the ultimate aim of breaking the link between subsidisation and overproduction. The Opposition has supported and will continue to support this initiative in a bipartisan fashion. As is often the case in trade negotiations, there is broad agreement in principle, but when it comes to meaningful and lasting trade reform many countries want to be second into the market. The difficulty Australia obviously faces when it promotes moves towards freer and fairer trade, particularly with the United States and Japan, is domestic political reality. This short-sighted attitude ignores the fact that approximately 60 per cent of the value added by EEC agriculture came from consumers and taxpayers through transfers and subsidies costing around $39 billion in 1984 prices. So it is difficult to be optimistic about the prospects for genuine and lasting reform of agricultural trade in the near future. This should not deter Australia from pursuing relentlessly the course of fairer and freer trade in international commodities. As a low protection, low export subsidy country, our views should hold greater currency than that of most countries in international trade reforms. Furthermore, we must continue to promote multilateralism in agricultural trade. The punitive steps taken by the US against Japan 10 days ago exemplify the dangers inherent in bilateral negotiations conducted in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion and antagonism. On behalf of the Opposition I welcome the Trade Minister's statement. I support the thrust of the Government's initiative in a campaign for agricultural trade reform which will be a long and painful one. It is essential not only for Australia's economic future, but also for the long term well-being of the international economy. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.15) —I commend the report to the Senate. Unfortunately, Australia is slipping further and further into debt. Tax deductible overseas borrowing to finance unproductive takeovers and property speculation continues to increase our loan repayments, tax and interest burden. Our foreign debt burden relative to our gross domestic product now exceeds that of Brazil and the Philippines. Investment in productive manufacturing is now at an all time low. Our terms of trade continue to deteriorate. Our devaluation with respect to countries supplying our imports makes imports expensive. On the other hand, our dollar remains strong compared with the currencies of our competitors on export markets, which cuts our export markets to shreds and makes it very difficult for our exporters to compete. In addition, world trade is in turmoil. Trade wars between the United States of America and Japan and between the United States and the European Economic Community threaten to destabilise completely our export markets. The huge debt burden of developing nations such as Mexico, Peru, Brazil and the Philippines threatens the imminent breakdown of our current banking system. In Australia, our exporters, and in particular our agricultural producers, almost alone carry the burden of the collapse in world commodity trade. Farmers are being forced off their land with huge debt burdens looming over them. They are unable to meet the high interest payments as their incomes slump further and further. The Government, the Public Service and urban Australia stand by while rural people suffer for the Government's failure to take control of our economic situation. Last October in this place I once again brought this situation to the Government's attention, and once again pointed out the need for action. In particular, I pointed out that Australia would have much more influence and strength if we joined the developing countries in world trade negotiations. I said that the time was, and is, ripe as never before to pressure for a new world economic order, for reform of the international currency market, and for reform of standards for international justice, particularly in corporate accounting and trade. Within a few days, the Government took up my proposal-I commend it for that-and announced the meeting in Cairns of the developing trading nations which is mentioned in the paper. I commend the Government for at last responding to the need for realistic trade negotiations rather than hanging on the coat tails of the previous and present colonial powers such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America which are bent on exploiting their former colonies to the bitter end. In the meantime I urge the Government to take action domestically to manage the crisis. Interest rates must come down. Exporters, and particularly farmers, need support to maintain our export industries until world trade can be stabilised. Australia must take steps to isolate our internal economy from the exploitative and destabilising world trade situation. We have opened up our markets to chaos by having a free for all, and that is not acceptable. Foreign capital inflows and outflows must not be allowed to destabilise our exchange rate, nor to buy our resources on the cheap. Australia must face the realities of the world financial market and introduce sensible measures to protect and encourage investment in our productive industries. That is just not happening. It is quite unacceptable that we should have a free for all currently for bankers and foreign financial institutions when that is being paid for by the farmers of our country. Although the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) states in the paper that Australia is doing something about it, it is not doing enough. It is doing too little, too late. We must get on with the task of solving our own economic problems and also making certain that we face our bicentennial year with a determination to try to introduce a new world economic order. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.19) —The Government's efforts as outlined by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) in the paper to keep Australian initiatives for world agricultural trade reform on the agenda at the international meetings are commendable. However, I believe that the optimistic tone of the document is somewhat overstated given the current widespread support for protectionist policies in many countries. Consensus at international meetings on the value of multilateral negotiations to ease trade problems is relatively easily achieved. The fact is that, when it comes down to the realities and practicalities of trade relationships, this agreement soon dissipates and is replaced by hard-headed self-interest. Agriculture is almost universally protected on a vast scale. Let us look at three of the major trading blocs: Over $20 billion this year through the European Community budget; the United States of America, $21 billion; and Japan $12 billion, a third of the value of Japanese agricultural produce. Many countries are merely paying lip-service to the need for multinational negotiations as pressing domestic issues take precedence over the international situation, however critical that might be. Let us look at the United States. We are told that the export enhancement program, worth $1 billion per year, is here to stay. This highly protectionist omnibus trades Bill appears likely to pass into law soon. The mood of the Democrat-dominated US Congress is visibly protectionist. On 9 April this year proposals to introduce restrictions on the importation of Australian products-principally beef, lamb, veal, wool and wool products-were discussed and views prejudicial to Australian interests were clearly expressed. The restriction on imports of Australian lamb and wool products will be seen by the quote from the US Congress: `Not as a protectionist measure, but as a safeguard for the very security of our nation'. The congressman went on to argue that Australia and New Zealand's unclear commitment to ANZUS denied us the privilege of free trade with the United States. He stated: I could not justify placing obstacles to free trade in the way of allied countries that have committed themselves to defending the freedom of the American marketplace. However, in the case of New Zealand, and to a lesser extent Australia, that commitment has not been clear. That is a quote from the Congress. Although the accuracy of the report of Australia's commitment to ANZUS I believe is questionable, the sentiment that has given rise to it is very clear. Domestic issues have and will continue to strongly influence decisions on trade. The Minister for Trade was reported last month as saying that there was little prospect of Australia's agricultural trade problems with the United States being eased before the next presidential election in 1988. Perhaps it is time to adopt a more direct approach to countering such protectionist feeling. I would like to make the following suggestion to the Senate: That it should appoint representatives in Washington to lobby relevant groups and put forward the Australian point of view before these ideas are enshrined in legislation. As many will know, the National Farmers Federation has already taken steps in this direction. While the representations at international meetings have their value and will no doubt contribute in the long run to a reduction of protectionist activity, there is little hard evidence that they are actually succeeding at present. Australian farmers cannot afford to wait until the traditionally slow international decision-making process is able to gain some practical results. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.23) —I wish to move: That the Parliament House Construction Authority annual report 1985-86 be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for consideration and report. I wish to do so-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Lewis, the only motion you can move is that the Senate take note of the paper. If you wish to move for a reference to a Senate standing committee, you will have to seek leave or give notice. Senator LEWIS —At this stage I simply move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I will give notice later for consideration tomorrow. The reason I wanted to move what I had indicated before is, quite frankly, that this report which has been tabled by the Parliament House Construction Authority is a trick. This Authority has dealt shamefully with the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the New Parliament House. We are not going to allow this Authority to deal with the Parliament shamefully. I draw honourable senators' attention to page 47, which contains the Auditor-General's report. This report is quite clearly only part of a report, because the last paragraph states: I shall be reporting to you separately about the audit of the Authority's accounts and records. Completion of that audit awaits receipt of certain additional information expected soon from the Authority. At the date the Auditor-General wrote this letter to the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), the audit was not complete. He was awaiting additional information-expected soon-from the Authority. This report contains what appears to be a report by the Auditor-General, but it is defective. It is not a report at all because, as the Auditor-General says, it does not contain an audit of the Authority's accounts and records. So once again a statutory authority has tried to trick this Parliament by tabling a report which is incomplete, thinking that it will be able to get away with it. Quite frankly, the Senate is sick of this sort of thing happening repeatedly with statutory authorities. Once again, I call on members of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I do not know where we would be without that Committee, which is constantly trying to chase up statutory authorities of this Parliament to make sure that they fulfil their obligations. Frankly, this constant attempt by statutory authorities to mislead Parliament through this sort of device is no longer acceptable. As I say, this Authority has treated the Joint Parliamentary Committee shamefully. It has not co-operated with it in the way that it should. We will not allow it to get away with this. The Authority has an appalling record in relation to industrial blackmail being used by the union movement. Strikes have repeatedly delayed construction of the new Parliament House. I draw the Minister's attention to the appendix to the report where, on page 63, a summary of the impact of industrial disputes is set out. According to the Authority, 38.9 working days have been lost in the period of the report, from July 1985 to June 1986, due to inclement weather. Can one believe that that massive structure up there, which has had its roof on for so long, has-according to the report-seen 38.9 working days lost out of a total of only 230 working days in a full year due to inclement weather? Further, 80.9 working days have been lost due to industrial disputes. Of course, the reference to inclement weather is included because the industrial disputes kept the roof off the project for a while. Therefore, in effect, as a result of industrial disputation the Authority has lost 52 per cent of the working days available in one year. What has been happening with the union movement is quite disgraceful. I hope that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations will in due course examine this report and report to the Senate about the attempt by the Parliament House Construction Authority to mislead us. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.27) —I would like to add to some of the remarks made by my colleague and, in particular, to pursue the question of the industrial relations record. Only last month in this chamber Senator Gietzelt made the extraordinary statement that honourable senators should note that, with the exception of the 14-week closure in 1984, the new Parliament House project has a remarkably good industrial record-better in fact than most comparable projects. Senator Watson —Fifty-two per cent. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Yes, as my friend from Tasmania says, 52 per cent is remarkable-but not remarkably good. Last night in a Senate Estimates committee hearing I asked representatives of the Parliament House Construction Authority whether they could compare their record with other similar bodies. They said that they could not do that because the trade union movement in Canberra has basically tended to use the Parliament House Construction Authority and the new building as a sort of trial horse for many of its activities. So Senator Gietzelt clearly misled the Senate when he said quite wrongly last month, first, that the Authority has a remarkably good industrial record-and that is clearly bunkum, as evidenced by the Authority's annual report-and, secondly, that it is better than most comparable projects, while the organisation itself says that that comparison cannot be made. Let us proceed on this question of the audit report, a matter raised by Senator Lewis. In addition to the fact that this is an inadequate audit report, it is intriguing that when asked about this last night the representatives of the Parliament House Construction Authority said that the information requested in a letter from the Acting First Assistant Auditor-General, dated 13 February and included in this report, was provided to the Auditor-General one week later. If that took place, I wonder why this Government had the impertinence to present to this chamber an annual report incomplete in terms of its audit. Yet we are told by the authority involved that the information was provided to the Auditor-General, presumably in such a state that it could be dealt with promptly; but by the end of March a document of this order was presented to us, and it has been tabled for debate today, without that additional and vital information. This is obviously another element of the need to refer this question to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Of the other matters I want to raise, I am concerned in particular that the Waste Watch Committee has exposed details of extraordinary and disgraceful waste, including some contracts that had trebled in size and involving multi- millions of dollars. We had evidence that 47 major contracts had exceeded their tender price by more than 25 per cent; that is, after adjustments for escalations due to inflation and other acceptable reasons and any increases in scope, 47 contracts exceeded their tender price without any explanation whatsoever either in this incomplete document, this annual report, or in any other material presented to the Senate Estimates committees. This is clearly inadequate. All I did get last night was an admission that the Parliament House Construction Authority had written to an informant-someone with whom I discussed this matter, a former consultant-and in fact asked him whether he had dared to speak to me. This kind of terrorising of people who dare to tell anything or speak at all to their elected representatives is to my mind totally disgraceful. I should say that the man in question told me nothing in respect of the cost control crisis outlined in the McCain report, which is essential to the matter I was discussing. He did not know the contents of that report and he revealed nothing whatsoever to me that could be described as improper. To suggest he did is disgraceful in itself. I have asked the Parliament House Construction Authority to outline where in matters of fact the Waste Watch Committee has been inaccurate in detailing this extraordinary and indefensible waste of government money, and I look forward to its reply. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In speaking to the Australian Heritage Commission report 1985-86, I would like to address my remarks to one specific aspect of this report relating to the activities of the Commission and its work with the World Heritage Committee. I note that on page 22 of the report, the Heritage Commission expresses disappointment at its lack of formal responsibilities in world heritage matters. Indeed the Heritage Commission indicates just how much it wants to extend its sphere of interest, and in the next sentence we learn that it wants to be able to nominate areas for the World Heritage List without the support of the relevant State and Territory governments. Australia should, according to this report, make nominations to the World Heritage List without the support of State and Territory governments. This is a quite incredible statement for the Heritage Commission to include in its annual report. It indicates the lack of regard this organisation has for the rights of State and Territory governments to determine the future of their own resources. We have already seen that the Federal Labor Government is far more interested in grandstanding for the benefit of conservationists than protecting the legitimate interests of those involved in the power, mining and tourism industries and, most recently, the logging industry in Tasmania. State and Territory governments have been left out in the cold by the present Federal Government. Consultation on nominations for the World Heritage List has been virtually non-existent. In the case of Kakadu this led to a very public clash between Federal Government representatives and Northern Territory Government representatives before the World Heritage Committee in Paris late last year. It is just possible that this might have been avoided had consultation taken place and had the Northern Territory been given an adequate opportunity to have an input into the submission the Commonwealth had put to the Heritage Committee. Given the poor record of the present Government where consultation with State governments is concerned, it should come as no surprise that I would be appalled by any suggestion that the Commonwealth should be able to nominate areas for the World Heritage List without State government support. Presumably the Heritage Commission would take this one step further and suggest that any nominations made contrary to the wishes of the relevant State would not be subject to appeal from the relevant State to the World Heritage Committee. Certainly the present Federal Government has shown no inclination to see that the views of State or Territory governments which might oppose the Commonwealth nomination of a particular area are represented before the World Heritage Committee. I believe the Heritage Commission has raised a very serious proposal in this report and one which should be rejected. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.37) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Australian governments play a significant role in the possibility of developing industry and export opportunities in the high technology area. Unless we act to get greater value added returns coming back to this country, we will indeed become a banana republic. There is no excuse for cutting our own throats by turning ourselves into an assembly plant for overseas technologies. If we do, the real wealth will flow back to the originators of the ideas and the processes and we will be just a `branch office'. It is significant that on page 80 of this report on government high technology purchasing arrangements the problem of the attitudes of purchasing officers is mentioned. We need clear statements from the Government that departments will not be allowed to continue the practice of writing specifications centred upon overseas products or including purchasing clauses which totally preclude the purchasing of an Australian product. One of the difficulties is that the departments sometimes feel that they do not have the money to pour into Australian research and development. Maybe if the Government were willing to push more money into these areas, the departments might look more happily on purchasing Australian products. These departments look for ready-made solutions off the shelf from overseas. Senator Button —No overseas trips, though, and that would be the problem-though you realise that. Senator VIGOR —Indeed. I have been looking at these types of rorts in Estimates committees and I believe that the Government itself should be pursuing them through the Minister's prerogative of investigating what is happening in his Department. Time after time thousands of dollars are spent on consultants to get systems working, or departments simply do not make full use of the equipment which has been purchased. This tendency to play safe and to go for a proven overseas product gets us on to a treadmill which leads us to national impoverishment. We have got to stop this type of process. We need greater vigilance and reporting so that purchasing officers take the view that they will always buy Australian unless it is absolutely impossible to do so. There must be an onus on the departments to establish that buying Australian is impossible before overseas inquiries are made. A purchasing decision should not be looked upon as an excuse for overseas trips, as Senator Button has so ably pointed out. Industrial supplies officers operate very effectively in most States now. The staff in these offices do sterling work in matching the capabilities of Australian industry to tenders that have been let. Quite often, however, Australian small business is beaten because of the lack of information that is available to it about opportunities for applying products to the Public Service. The Government must improve this situation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of Government Papers has expired. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks on Thursday under General Business. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs I present the report on the role of Parliament in relation to the national companies scheme, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BOLKUS —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As a background to the inquiry, on 17 April 1986 the Senate resolved that the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs should examine the role of the Parliament in relation to the Ministerial Council for the Companies and Securities Commission and in relation to the operation and effectiveness of companies and securities legislation. At the time the so-called `co-operative scheme' was the object of extensive criticism by members and senators of all political persuasions and by business organisations such as the Confederation of Australian Industry. The reference of this matter to this Standing Committee of the Senate reflected the Senate's collective concern, and the desire that this dissatisfaction with the co-operative scheme should be investigated. During May 1986 the Committee advertised the reference nationally. In addition, we wrote to all the relevant Federal, State and Territory Ministers, business groups and organisations, academics and other individuals who were known to have an interest in the problems of companies and securities regulation. The Committee received 37 submissions. One of the submissions came from the Commonwealth Attorney- General's Department, one came from each of the governments of South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, one from the Western Australia Corporate Affairs Commission with endorsement of the Western Australian Attorney-General, and one from each of the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commissions and one from the Northern Territory Corporate Affairs Office. Further, the Committee also received a submission from the New South Wales Legislative Council's Committee on Subordinate Legislation. The Committee then embarked upon a course of public hearings. We held six public hearings; three in Melbourne, and one each in Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney. The Attorneys-General of South Australia and Victoria appeared at these hearings, and I would like to place on record the Committee's appreciation for their appearance to assist the Committee in its deliberations. In addition to the anticipated criticism of the co-operative scheme, the Committee received some evidence that, under difficult circumstances, the scheme had performed exceptionally well. I now turn to the Committee's conclusion. The Committee has concluded that the co-operative scheme has outlived its usefulness. Accordingly, the Committee has unanimously recommended that the Commonwealth Parliament should enact comprehensive legislation covering the field currently regulated by the co-operative scheme. The Committee was particularly concerned by the inability of the co-operative scheme to respond to parliamentary criticism or to accommodate suggestions for reform moved on the floor of the Parliament. In addition, the Committee received evidence from a number of organisations indicating that there is some dissatisfaction about the diffuse decision-making structure which characterises the scheme. Evidence suggested that practitioners and business representatives are uncertain about who, or which government, should be approached when problems arise. In addition, there is a tendency for the scheme to produce what the Chairman of the Ministerial Council, Mr Terry Sheahan, Attorney-General of New South Wales, referred to as `lowest common denominator decisions'. For reasons which are discussed in some detail in chapter 4 of the report, the Committee rejects the `split scheme' alternative which was proposed by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department. According to that proposal, some of the matters currently regulated under the co-operative scheme would be removed from the scheme, and placed under the sole jurisdiction of the Commonwealth's Parliament. The Committee is of the view that the Attorney-General's Department's proposal fails to address the inherent defects in the co-operative scheme. It would leave the remaining areas under the co-operative scheme and would not solve the problems that currently exist. The Committee therefore considers that the Commonwealth Parliament should assume total responsibility for all of the matters covered by the co-operative scheme. It was evident from much of the evidence received by the Committee that a number of business groups and individuals regard the enactment of comprehensive Commonwealth legislation as the next step in a natural progression. I turn to the scope of constitutional power. The Committee received an opinion from the former Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers, QC. Sir Maurice concludes that the Commonwealth Parliament possesses the necessary constitutional power to regulate all except a relatively small number of non-trading, non-financial companies. I finally turn to the Committee's recommendation. The Committee has unanimously recommended that the Commonwealth Parliament should enact comprehensive legislation covering the field currently regulated by the co-operative scheme. I commend this report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the 263rd report, volume 2, of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —This report, volume 2 of the Committee's 263rd report, completes the Committee's inquiry into two aspects of defence equipment support. Volume 1 of report 263, tabled late last year, examined the supply of spares and ammunition. This volume presents the Committee's findings on the provision of technical documentation for equipment operators and maintenance personnel. It contains several recommendations, additional to the 29 recommendations of volume 1, related to the timeliness of supply of technical documentation, the adequacy of documentation, and the revision and updating of technical documentation. It also contains reports on a toxic gas accident on HMAS Stalwart, and Navy shipboard fire and gas control systems. These documents, together with responses from the Department of Defence, have been included in the Committee's report because of public concern about accidents on HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Stalwart. The recommendations of four recent reports of the Committee, and the findings in this report, have been directed towards improving the operation and efficiency of the Department of Defence. The Committee hopes that one of the outcomes of this process will be the avoidance of any recurrence of accidents similar to those experienced on HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Stalwart. I commend the report to honourable senators. Motion (by Senator Vigor) agreed to: That Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 3 of 1987, relating to Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council fees and allowances and made under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, be disapproved. Assent to the following Bills reported: Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill 1987. Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987. 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 Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes a variety of amendments to Acts dealing with defence matters. Some of the amendments made by the Bill are of a minor nature. Details of these amendments will be found in the explanatory memorandum being distributed to honourable senators. There are, however, more important amendments which fall into 6 groups. These are: Provision of peacetime call out of the Reserve Forces Introduction of long term enlistments for sailors, soldiers and airmen Extension of the circumstances in which an accused member undergoing trial may have the option of being punished by a court martial or a Defence Force magistrate Amendments designed to clarify the operation of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits legislation Provision to enable transfer of employees from the Government Aircraft Factories to Aerospace Technologies of Australia Termination of the Services Canteens Trust Fund Provision for peacetime call out of the reserve forces A significant feature of the Bill is its changed provisions governing the call out for continuous full time service of the Reserve Forces. Existing legislation provides for Reserve Forces to be called out, but only in circumstances of time of war or proclaimed defence emergency. This provision was introduced in 1964 and had regard to the then strategic circumstances, in the view of the Government of the day. Within the Bill before the Senate there is provision for Reserve Forces to be called upon to render continuous full time service in situations short of a time of defence emergency. Honourable senators will be aware of the significant, far-reaching initiatives that this Government has identified as being essential to the formulation of a realistic defence policy for Australia. It has been under the Hawke Government that there has been a fundamental change in our conception of the role of the Reserves, reflected in such measures in recent years as integration and affiliation in the Army of regular and reserve Units, creation of Regional Surveillance Units in remote areas, and proposals for greater involvement of Reserves in a range of tasks including Northern Defence, mine countermeasures, and tank warfare and artillery. The utility of Reserve Forces in a wider role has been made clear. This development is of course bound up with the notion of Defence self-reliance for Australia. There is, I believe, general agreement on the role of the Reserves in an era of self-reliance. It comes, I think, from an appreciation of the need to draw on all the resources available in the community if we are to provide effectively for our own defence. This means, for example, co-ordination of Defence and civilian resources in transport, telecommunications, and engineering, and encouragement of civilian industries relevant to the Defence effort. It also means a greater role for the Defence Force Reserves, not just as a base for expansion, but in the more immediate Defence tasks this nation faces. The legislation makes this possible. While the Reserves will continue to be an expansion base for a force designed to meet major threats, they will also be a major part of our capability to counter the more credible yet demanding lower level threats. This is essentially the approach adopted by the Dibb Review. The Commonwealth's Defence Policy Statement has endorsed that approach. It made clear the future role of the Reserves, and in particular the Army reserve. The Reserves will play a challenging and exciting role in meeting Australia's Defence needs. The future holds very challenging prospects for the Army Reserve. A role of real responsibility in defence of the North, a major part in maintaining expansion capabilities in tank warfare and artillery, and continued emphasis on integration and affiliation of Reserve and Regular Units to enable the development of skills and knowledge-the future shape of the Army Reserve will, I believe, give its members an abiding sense of purpose. For the Army Reserve, this Government has identified a much more relevant and responsible role in preparing for the most credible threats this country could face. These are most likely to be located in the remote North or North-West of Australia. The Army Reserve will have a critical role in the early assumption of the protection of key areas, releasing regular units to conduct more offensive operations. Such key areas would include protection of the Darwin/Tindal Region, and the Learmonth, Derby and Cape York Airfields. Specific regional wartime tasks will be identified and allocated to particular Reserve units for their peacetime training. This will greatly facilitate their effective use in time of war and, as an important bonus, give them an increased sense of purpose which will foster morale. It is proposed that individual Reserve units in Southern States will be allocated specific towns and installations in the North which they would be deployed to defend in an emergency. In recent years increasing emphasis has been given to Regional Surveillance Units in the North and North-West with a substantial Reserve element. Access to local knowledge and skills in remote areas of Australia could well prove vital for the early detection and countering of a military threat. The establishment of Regional Surveillance Forces such as Norforce, the Pilbara Regiment and the Far North Queensland Regiment are important initiatives. The Government will encourage their further development, including the acquisition of specialised equipment for mobility and surveillance. The identification of exciting and challenging new roles for the Army Reserve will help overcome in a most material way what has been a repeated and well publicised difficulty in recruitment. For the Navy Reserve, the Government has endorsed a significant role in mine countermeasures. Australia is especially vulnerable with our heavy dependence on shipping for internal movements of Australian goods and our large number of ports through which high value cargoes are exported. A role for Naval Reserves in this activity establishes them at the centre of a critical area of our security. Turning to the Air Force Reserve, this Government will encourage commercial pilots to augment the Air Transport Force. There will also be recruitment into the Air Force Reserve of additional maintenance personnel to provide sufficient back up should higher rates of flying be required from the RAAF. If the value of the Reserve Forces is to be exploited fully in providing an effective Defence capability for Australia, then there is a clear case for legislative provision permitting limited call-out of Reserves short of the declaration of a Defence emergency. If the concept of a ``Total Force'' is to have any meaning, and if integration is to be effective, the Defence Force must be able to plan on the employment of any component of the Force, including the Reserves, in situations which fall short of a declared emergency. I think it is clear that in low level contingencies Governments would be understandably reluctant to take the seemingly escalatory if not reactive step of declaring a Defence emergency. Yet it is precisely during a period of tension potentially leading to low level conflict that some elements of the Reserve Forces would most likely be required. There are some other points I wish to make. Firstly, the Bill provides only the legislation within which the Reserves may be required to render continuous full time service at some future and indeterminable date, and in presently unidentifiable circumstances. It should not be seen as intent to call out the Reserves. The Bill contains safeguards and provision for Parliamentary scrutiny comparable to those currently provided for call out in time of war or time of defence emergency. Importantly, the Reserves will be employed only in tasks of direct national defence in responding to an external threat to Australia's security. It is not relevant to call-out in aid of the civil power. Such assistance would be effected under section 51 of the Defence Act which contains a prohibition against call-out or use of the Reserve Forces in connection with an industrial dispute. I should also say that existing provisions contained in the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 regarding protection in civil employment would be applicable to service under the new provisions. This call out provision being introduced today will be seen by Reservists to be directly related to their national role in our Defence. Along with the assumption of more relevant and immediate tasks, it will provide the Reserves with a real sense of purpose, a lack of which has led to problems of organisation, recruitment and training. The introduction of this legislation will do much to increase the value and flexibility of the Reserves as an integral part of the Australian Defence Force. I turn now to the other provisions of the Bill. Long term enlistments for sailors, soldiers and airmen It has been the practice, for many years, for a sailor, soldier or airman, on enlistment, to be engaged to serve for a period prescribed in regulations and, on or before the expiration of an engagement, to re-engage for a further prescribed period. There are advantages for Service administrators in this arrangement. It is at the discretion of the Service administrator whether or not to offer a member a further period of service. A steady turnover or personnel in the lower ranks is desirable, particularly in infantry units and ships. However, there are disadvantages for both Service administrators and members. The Services cannot offer a guarantee of permanency to the more highly skilled members. Indeed the re-engagement system requires the member to formally consider and decide, every few years, whether he wishes to bind himself for another period. There is also considerable administrative effort devoted to re-engaging members. The Bill proposes to amend the Defence Act 1903 and the Naval Defence Act 1910 to allow the Service administrators to offer members enlistment for a period to retiring age, or extension of service to retiring age, as an alternative to affixed term. Corresponding amendments in respect of the Air Force have been effected by amendments of the Air Force Regulations. The degree to which each Service avails itself of the new scheme of long-term enlistments in either the Permanent Forces or the Reserve Forces will be for the administration of that Service to decide, according to the perceived needs of that Service. It will be open to a member to elect early discharge by giving appropriate notice. Defence Force discipline Under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the more severe of the punishments that may be imposed on a convicted accused by a superior summary authority or a commanding officer are called elective punishments. The Act sets out the circumstances in which these punishments are imposed. Generally this is where the summary authority has given the accused an opportunity to elect to be tried or punished by court martial or Defence Force magistrate. The original policy on which the Act was based made provision for an accused who pleaded guilty before a summary authority to be given the option of trial by court martial or Defence Force magistrate. This was omitted from the Act on the ground that a person who pleaded guilty before one tribunal could not properly be referred to another tribunal for trial. This omission has been found to leave a hiatus. The Bill proposes to include this procedure in the Act but to vary it by providing that the accused is to be given the option of being punished (but not tried) by court martial etc. Operation of the Defence Force retirement and death benefits legislation The proposed amendments of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits legislation either flow on from other legislation or are designed to ensure that particular provisions give effect to the original policy intention. Non-effective service Under the existing legislation, certain periods of service, such as absence without leave, when exceeding 21 days, are treated as non-effective service. When the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 commenced on 3 July 1985, new regulations under section 119 of the Defence Act 1903 regarding forfeiture of salary were also brought into force. The Bill proposes to amend the DFRDB legislation so that periods of non-effective service are largely determined by reference to periods exceeding 21 days in which salary is forfeited. Such periods typically comprise absence without leave or time in custody. Purchase of prior service On the introduction of the present DFRDB Scheme, contributory service under the old scheme that was continuous with service under the new scheme was automatically counted as service under the new scheme, subject to some conditions. Provision was also made for members to purchase certain other periods of prior service for the purposes of the new scheme. The Bill proposes to amend the provisions relating to the counting or purchase of prior service in order to ensure that they correctly reflect the original policy intention. Counting of service for deferred benefits A member who leaves the Defence Force before qualifying for a pension may elect to receive a deferred benefit payable as a pension on the date on which he would have qualified for pension had he remained in the Defence Force. Certain periods of eligible service which occurred before or after the person's Defence service may be added to the Defence service for this purpose. The Bill proposes to amend the provision relating to the counting of this service in order to clarify its operation. Amendments of the Supply and Development Act On 3 December 1986, a government-owned company-Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd-was incorporated with the intention of transferring to it on 1 July 1987 the operations of the Government Aircraft Factories. It is intended that the company have the authority to choose, on commercial grounds, which employees of the aircraft factories the company will hire. Public Service Act employees selected by the company will be transferred under section 81c of the Public Service Act. The Bill proposes to include in the Supply and Development Act a provision based on part of section 81c. This will enable employees under the Supply and Development Act to be transferred and avoid the need to retrench them, with associated retrenchment payments, and then have the company re-employ them. The opportunity has been taken to propose changes to the employment provisions of the Supply and Development Act. The terms of the Act require the making of regulations that are unsuitable in some respects. The Bill proposes to substitute more suitable provisions in the Act. The regulations will subsequently be amended. Termination of the Services Canteens Trust Fund The Services Canteens Trust Fund was set up in 1947 and was mainly derived from profits and assets of the Navy, Army and Air Force Canteens Services accumulated during World War 2 and funds of disbanded wartime units. As previously announced in their annual reports tabled in the Parliament, the trustees have been disbursing capital as well as income with a view to the fund eventually terminating. This point has now been reached and the Bill proposes to repeal Part III of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947 thus terminating the legal existence of the fund. Financial impact statement The introduction of the scheme of enlistments and extensions of service of servicemen to retiring age is expected to result in some savings from the reduction of administrative effort but no figure can reasonably be estimated. In the case of the amendments proposed to the DFRDB legislation with regard to purchase of prior service, there are no additional costs. If the amendments were not made there could be a requirement to refund to members a once only payment totalling $1.73m and a further $0.36m could be foregone to revenue. The other amendments are not expected to have any significant financial impact. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.52) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. I also table the revised explanatory memorandum to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 to prevent exploration and mining for minerals, and related operations, in Kakadu National Park. The Bill applies to all mineral interests, including those interests which existed prior to the proclamation of the park. The Bill makes it clear that the definition of `operations for the recovery of minerals' in the Act does not include some essential activities by park authorities, the transportation of minerals, goods and people through Kakadu National Park and other prescribed activities in the park relating to mining operations outside the park. Regulations prescribing routes and activities will be made by the time the Bill comes into effect. The Bill also provides that no compensation will be payable by the Commonwealth to any person, body politic or body corporate by reason of the enactment of this legislation. I commend this Bill to the Senate. NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 The background to this legislation is the landmark decision made by the Government in the latter part of last year, concerning Kakadu National Park and the adjoining Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. Essentially the decision involved prohibiting mining in the park, incorporating about 65 per cent of the lease areas into the park as soon as possible, and establishing a conservation zone over the remainder of the lease areas so that a carefully controlled program of mineral exploration and resource assessment can be undertaken. The package of legislative amendments before the Senate will provide the basis for implementing the Government's decisions. More particularly, it will enable the conservation and heritage values of this beautiful and rich area to be fully protected. The amendments relate to four different acts: The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975; the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978; the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976; and the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 will enable some 4,000 square kilometres of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases to be included in Kakadu National Park, and a conservation zone to be declared over the remainder of the lease areas. The Bill will provide the basis for managing mineral activities in the conservation zone in accordance with sound conservation principles. Also to be considered with this package of legislative amendments is the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987. The purpose of this Bill is to prevent exploration and mining in Kakadu National Park. The Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill 1987 will enable the role of the Supervising Scientist to be extended to include the provision of advice to the Government on environmental aspects of exploration and mining in respect of all minerals in the conservation zone. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1987 will ensure that the Gimbat and Goodparla areas are available for Aboriginal land claim. Any part of Gimbat and Goodparla which is successfully claimed and required for park purposes will be the subject of a lease back arrangement with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987 will enable exploration and mining rights to be granted in the conservation zone after lodgment of a land claim, and allow such interests to be granted if that land should become Aboriginal land. As all senators will be well aware, this package of legislative amendments is concerned with an important region, an area of outstanding beauty and grandeur, of great significance to Australians and to the world, because of its aesthetic, social, cultural, biological and archaeological values. The establishment of Kakadu National Park began with the 1977 Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, which recommended that a major national park be established in the Alligator Rivers region. Stage 1 was proclaimed by the Fraser Government in April 1979. Stage 2 was proclaimed by the Hawke Government in February 1984. Both areas were proclaimed as a single park, for administrative convenience, in December 1985. The establishment of Kakadu National Park has not been a precipitous action, but has involved careful government considerations based on detailed investigations, inquiry and public comment over many years. In December last year, the Government announced its intention to further extend the park to include 65 per cent of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. These Bills before the Senate will enable the extension to be made and achieve related objectives announced by the Government. Let me summarise the Government's position. There will be no exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park. Mineral exploration will only be allowed in the highly prospective conservation zone, and then only under strict conditions. National parks in this country deserve the best protection and management that we can provide. Kakadu is undoubtedly a major park and this Government is determined to see its natural and cultural values permanently protected. The Aboriginal cultural heritage is a most important value of Kakadu. This heritage permeates the area and must be conserved. At the same time the Government will ensure that land claims for all parts of Gimbat and Goodparla have every opportunity to be considered. At the moment, except where specifically provided for in legislation, Aboriginal land claims may not be made over land in a national park declared under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. The legislative amendments will allow the new part of Kakadu National Park to be claimed. Land in the park successfully claimed will be leased to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife by the relevant Aboriginal Land Trust, so that the land may continue to be managed as a national park. Honourable senators will be aware that experience with stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park, and with Uluru National Park, demonstrates that Aboriginal ownership of the land can enhance the value of a national park. The Government also recognises the importance of fully assessing the mineral resources of the proposed conservation zone, which is a largely unexplored area and highly prospective, particularly for gold and platinum. Accordingly, a five-year exploration and resource assessment program is planned for the zone. Following the assessment, the Government will be in a better position to take further decisions on its long term future. In recognition of the legal rights of existing lease holders, mineral related activities at Coronation Hill and on other existing mineral titles will continue, but be subject to the same environmental assessment procedures as new applicants for exploration rights, and will be brought under the same management regime when environmental assessment has been completed. The new management regime will take effect at the time that exploration licences are granted in respect of new interests in the conservation zone. The regulation-making power in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to prohibit operations on existing interests will only be used as a last resort, if a company does not accept additional terms and conditions which may be required as a result of an environmental assessment. Environmental and cultural values will be protected during the exploration program by conditions attached to each granted title and in regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill will enable adequate regulations to be made for this purpose. The Government recognises that the proposed treatment of existing interests in the conservation zone may alter the rights of companies with such interests. However I give an assurance, on behalf of the Government, that this is not to be taken as a precedent for the treatment of existing mining rights on Commonwealth land generally. Coronation Hill is the most advanced mining project in the conservation zone and promises to be a major development. The Government places particular importance on the fact that Coronation Hill is rich not only in gold but in strategically important platinum group elements, the supply of which is currently dominated by South Africa and the USSR. Any mining at Coronation Hill will proceed only under strict arrangements for the protection of environmental and Aboriginal heritage values. If any part of the conservation zone becomes Aboriginal land, the issue of subsequent mineral titles for those areas would be subject to an agreement between the relevant land council and the miners, as is the situation elsewhere on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. During the exploration program the Director of National Parks and Wildlife will be responsible for the environmental management of the conservation zone, under the guidance of an advisory committee comprising representatives of the Ministers for Resources and Energy and Arts, Heritage and Environment. This committee will co-opt representatives of other relevant departments and authorities to assist in providing advice as required. The representatives will include the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, who has been responsible for monitoring and assessing the effects on the environment of uranium mining operations in the Alligator Rivers region for the past eight years. The legislative amendments will enable the Supervising Scientist to advise on the adequacy of environmental controls in the conservation zone, including those for the Coronation Hill project. I would stress that, although the Supervising Scientist has hitherto been concerned with uranium mining, there will be no uranium mining in the conservation zone. The Government's policy is unchanged-no uranium mines other than Nabarlek, Ranger and Roxby Downs will be allowed to proceed. Although not related to the Government's uranium policy, it may be of interest to note that the conservation zone has only a moderate prospectivity for uranium. The Northern Territory Government will be invited to assist in the conduct of the exploration program. To this end it is intended that the terms and conditions for exploration will correspond as closely as possible to those attached to exploration licences granted elsewhere under Northern Territory mining law. The Government will be responsible for capital and recurrent costs associated with the expanded role of the Supervising Scientist, management of the area by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, and mineral research and resource assessment by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Economic benefits are expected to accrue through the maintenance of environmental and tourism values. Tourist use of the park has been developing remarkably, increasing at around 30 per cent each year. The number of visitors increased from 58,000 in 1983 to 75,000 in 1984, 100,000 in 1985 and 130,000 in 1986. This year more than 170,000 visitors are expected. The Government is ensuring that the development of tourist facilities is keeping pace with this increase, including the development of roads, caravan parks, camping grounds, motel accommodation and interpretive facilities. As a result of these developments Kakadu has become an even more attractive tourist destination. The Hawke Government has both a proper concern for resource development and sound economic management, and an unsurpassed record of conserving our natural and cultural heritage. We are not `locking up' Australia's resources in this area as some have misleadingly claimed. The Government intends to make a careful assessment of the mineral resources of the most prospective parts of Gimbat and Goodparla, which will be contained in the conservation zone. The Government will also take full account of the other valuable resources upon which it is so difficult to put a dollar value-the Aboriginal rock art which has existed for thousands of years; the great diversity of birds, plants and animals; and the spectacular views of the Arnhem Land escarpment, its outliers and adjoining lowlands. The rapidly growing tourism industry in the region shows that the cultural and natural values translate, in many cases, into tangible economic benefits that are both substantial and long lasting. The package of legislative amendments before this House provides a practical way to achieve a proper balance between the conservation and development of all the varied resources of the unique Kakadu region, for the benefit of Australians, now and in the future. I commend this Bill to the Senate. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (ALLIGATOR RIVERS REGION) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 This Bill will enable the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region to provide the Government with advice on the environmental aspects of exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone. I commend this Bill to the Senate. ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 This Bill will allow the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral lease areas to be available for Aboriginal land claim. It will also provide for certain land successfully claimed, which is required by the Director of National Parks and Wildlife for park purposes, to be the subject of a lease back arrangement with the relevant Aboriginal land trust. As a national park the land will be available for the enjoyment of all Australians and for visitors from overseas. If the land in the conservation zone becomes Aboriginal land, the Bill also provides for arrangements in relation to the operation of exploration and mining rights issued under the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. I commend this Bill to the Senate. LANDS ACQUISITION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 This Bill will enable exploration and mining rights to be granted in the conservation zone after lodgment of a land claim, and allow such interests to be granted if that land should become Aboriginal land. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.53) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. I also table the revised explanatory memoranda. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1987 This Bill is the first in a package of four Bills that will give effect to the Government's decision to introduce a petroleum resource rent tax on profits from certain off-shore petroleum projects. The proposed tax regime was announced in detail in June 1984, after extensive consultation with the industry and the States. Petroleum resources are, in their most basic sense, community property and the Government believes that the community as a whole should share in the potentially high returns from the exploitation of these scarce, non-renewable resources. At the same time it is recognised that participants in petroleum projects who do not earn high profits in relation to the amount invested and the risk involved, particularly when oil prices decline, should be able to operate secure in the knowledge that excise and royalties which are based on production will not apply. The Government believes that a resource rent tax related to achieved profits is a more efficient and equitable secondary taxation regime than the excise and royalty system that it is to replace. I emphasise that the proposed tax replaces the existing system-it is not in addition to it. In contrast to production-based secondary tax regimes, the petroleum resource rent tax will be payable only in respect of projects earning a high rate of return on outlays. Particularly in light of the current volatility of world oil prices, the resource rent tax system thus offers considerable benefits to the petroleum industry. It strikes a reasonable balance between the objectives of satisfying the right of the community as a whole to share in the benefits of profitable off-shore petroleum projects, and of providing the participants with adequate returns for the risks they accept in undertaking off-shore exploration and development activities. The Bill incorporates amendments made in another place after government consideration of representations made by the petroleum industry. The provisions of the Bill nevertheless follow closely the proposal as announced in June 1984, while accommodating the retention lease system recently introduced in relation to off-shore petroleum exploration. Mr President, I now turn to outline the more significant features of the tax. General Application The tax is to apply to a person's taxable profits from the recovery of petroleum in off-shore areas where the Commonwealth's Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 applies, other than in areas covered by production licences granted on or before 1 July 1984 and the permit areas from which those production licences were drawn. The tax will therefore not apply to the North West shelf permit areas or Esso's and BHP's Bass Strait permit area-excise and royalty arrangements will continue to apply in those areas. As the petroleum resource rent tax is profit-based, rather than production-based, it will apply only where there is an excess of project-related receipts for a financial year over both project-related expenditure for the year and undeducted expenditure of previous years brought forward at a compound rate. This compounding of expenditure ensures that the investment represented by the expenditure obtains an appropriate rate of return free of secondary tax. The rate of compounding for expenditure that remains undeducted at the end of a financial year will be determined according to when it was expended. Expenditure-generally exploration expenditure-more than five years before the coming into force of the first production licence in a permit area will attract compounding at a rate equal to the GDP deflator rate-currently around 7 per cent. More recent expenditure in respect of the project will be carried forward at a rate equal to the prevailing long-term bond rate increased by 15 percentage points-currently this produces a rate of about 29 per cent. In broad terms, a petroleum project incorporates the production licence area, and such treatment and other facilities and operations outside that area as are integral to the production and initial on-site storage of marketable petroleum commodities such as stabilised crude oil, condensate and liquefied petroleum gas. As a practical matter, two or more projects will be treated as a single project for tax purposes where the Minister for Resources and Energy, having regard to relevant factors, considers that they should be so treated and issues a certificate to that effect. The boundaries of a petroleum project will not extend beyond the point at which a marketable petroleum commodity is initially stored after production-that is, the project boundaries will not extend to `downstream activities' such as refineries and facilities for the transport of marketable products from initial storage. Assessable Receipts Liability for petroleum resource rent tax is to be assessed on the accruals basis that generally applies in determining income tax liability. Assessable receipts from the project will, therefore, be taken into account in the financial year in which they are receivable. Assessable project receipts will include amounts receivable from the sale of petroleum or of a marketable petroleum commodity. In the event that a marketable petroleum commodity is not sold after the point of initial on-site storage, the market value-or a fair and reasonable value-of the commodity will be treated as an assessable receipt of the project. The need to attribute a value could arise, for example, in the case of an integrated producer who both extracts crude oil and refines it. Deductible Expenditure Expenditure of either a capital or a revenue nature which is directly related to a petroleum project will be deductible in the year in which it is incurred against any assessable receipts for the year. Any excess of deductible expenditure-other than closing-down expenditure-over assessable receipts at the end of a year will be compounded forward for deduction against receipts in future years. Deductible expenditure comprises exploration expenditure, general project expenditure and closing-down expenditure, subject to the exclusion of certain specific items of expenditure. Exploration expenditure consists, broadly, of expenditure-other than excluded expenditure-in an exploration permit area that is directly related to exploration for petroleum and will include expenditure on the recovery of petroleum and the production of a marketable commodity prior to the coming into force of a production licence. Exploration expenditure includes related expenditure on storage and processing facilities and on employee amenities. Exploration expenditure will be deductible against assessable receipts of any project established within the exploration permit area. Where there are two or more projects in a permit area, exploration expenditure deductible in a particular year is to be set off against the project that relates to the production licence which first came into force, then against subsequent projects producing assessable receipts in that year. Special rules apply where a production licence from one permit area is combined with a production licence from another permit area to form a single project. I mentioned earlier that the provisions of this Bill take into account the recently introduced retention lease system. Retention leases are of considerable benefit to the industry. They allow title to be held over a promising discovery for a number of years without insisting on any major ongoing exploration or development program in the area. To prevent potentially significant revenue losses arising from compounding of deductible amounts, exploration expenditure related to a retention lease area will be able to be offset only against projects in that area. Exploration expenditure in the rest of the permit area will not be deductible against a retention lease project. That expenditure, if incurred more than five years before the coming into force of a production licence in the retention lease area, will attract compounding at the GDP deflator rate. General project expenditure comprises expenditure in a production licence area-or combined production licence areas-on the establishment of a project, on recovering and producing a marketable petroleum commodity and on storing that commodity adjacent to the production site. It includes relevant expenditure on storage and processing facilities and employee amenities. Closing-down expenditure is made up of expenditure in closing down a petroleum project and specifically includes expenditure on environmental restoration of a project site. If, at the end of a project's life, there are insufficient assessable receipts for a year against which to offset closing-down expenditure for the year, a tax credit of 40 per cent of the excess expenditure is provided. Of course, closing-down credits in respect of a project will not be permitted to exceed the petroleum resource rent tax previously paid in respect of the project. Certain expenditure is specifically excluded from petroleum resource rent tax deductibility. Examples are interest payments and payments made under a cash bidding system. As petroleum resource rent tax is to be a deductible expense for income tax purposes, income tax payments are not to be made deductible for resource rent tax purposes. Fringe benefits tax payments are also excluded. Instalments The practical operation of the Bill will require the payment of petroleum resource rent tax by instalments in any year in which a person's assessable receipts from a project exceed the deductible expenditure, including any compounded expenditure of previous years. Three instalments of tax will be payable-determined on the basis of assessable receipts and deductible expenditure in the instalment period and an appropriate proportion of compounded expenditure from previous years. The liability for tax assessed at the year's end will be reduced by earlier paid instalments for the year. The Bill also contains the usual machinery provisions of a tax law-dealing with such things as collection and recovery procedures-and provides objection and appeal rights for taxpayers dissatisfied with decisions under the proposed petroleum resource rent tax regime. Full details of the provisions of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable senators. Mr President, the Bill in its present form deals with projects that might straddle both a petroleum resource rent tax area and an area under Commonwealth or State jurisdiction and subject to excise and/or royalties. It does this by apportioning a quantity of petroleum from a project to be subject to petroleum resource rent tax. This issue raises a number of complex questions-some requiring resolution in Commonwealth-State discussions. Nevertheless, it is the Government's intention that, for reasons of both administration and industry certainty, the petroleum resource rent tax should apply to the total project where it extends beyond the resource rent tax area. The Government intends to initiate discussions with the States on the question of treatment of projects which straddle resource rent tax areas and State excise/royalty areas. Once these questions have been resolved, any necessary amendments will be introduced. Mr President, on the basis of current world oil prices, it is unlikely that any petroleum resource rent tax revenue will be received before the 1989-90 financial year. Due to the continuing fluctuations in world oil prices and the uncertainties inherent in predicting success in offshore petroleum exploration and subsequent production, the amount of revenue to be obtained in any year cannot be projected. I commend the Bill to the Senate. PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX BILL 1987 The assessment Bill I have just introduced provides the legislative framework for determining the offshore petroleum projects to be subject to petroleum resource rent tax, and the taxable profit of a participant in such a project. This Bill now before the Senate will formally impose and declare the rate of that tax as 40 per cent. The explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators also explains the provisions of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX (INTEREST ON UNDERPAYMENTS) BILL 1987 This Bill will formally impose the interest charge payable under section 65 of the proposed Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987, the Bill for which I have just introduced. Honourable senators will be aware that under section 55 of the Australian Constitution laws imposing taxation may deal only with the imposition of taxation and may not contain any extraneous matters. Because interest payable under section 65 of the assessment Act might technically be regarded as a tax, this Bill is designed to ensure that constitutional requirements are met. Its provisions are also explained in the memorandum that has been circulated. I commend the Bill to the Senate. PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1987 The new profit-based taxing regime for off-shore petroleum projects is, in respect of those projects, to replace the existing production-based excise and royalty arrangements. This Bill will amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Act 1967 to effect that replacement. The Bill will also amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to provide income tax deductibility for petroleum resource rent tax paid other than by way of instalments. Conversely, refunds and certain credits of petroleum resource rent tax are to be made subject to income tax. Decisions under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 will assume greater importance for the Commonwealth with the introduction of petroleum resource rent tax. That Act is therefore being amended by this Bill to provide for decisions relating to the development of petroleum pools straddling production licence areas, including pools which straddle the outer boundary of the territorial sea, to be taken jointly by the Minister for Resources and Energy and the relevant State or Northern Territory Minister. The scope of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980 is also being extended by the Bill, so that offences against that Act will cover schemes for the fraudulent evasion of petroleum resource rent tax in the same way as they deal with other taxes of the Commonwealth. Mr President, details of this Bill are also set out in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Robertson)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Harradine be granted leave of absence for the period 28 April 1987 to 1 May 1987, inclusive, on account of ill health. Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.55) —The Senate is now about to commence debating two Bills-the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986-which back in December last year the Senate referred to a select committee. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 purports to give country viewers in eastern Australia a better deal, but it does not. Some of those viewers will be worse off as they will lose services that they are currently able to obtain through the use of special or very high aerials. Once the schemes are implemented, they will lose those services, so some viewers will be worse off. Admittedly, under this legislation others will receive two additional services in due course-`in due course' ranging from some time in 1989 for those in southern New South Wales to periods up to 1996 if the multi-channel service path is adopted. I shall come to what that means in due course. Between 1989 and 1996 some viewers will obtain two additional services but will have lost out on much better opportunities that could have been made available to them, in particular by introducing some element of free market forces into the system. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 deals only with the broadcast of commercial television programs-not the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Special Broadcasting Service-to regional areas of eastern Australia, not South Australia, not the Northern Territory and not Western Australia. Nor does it deal with the broadcast of commercial television programs to metropolitan or remote areas. Currently, regional areas in eastern Australia are serviced commercially by one monopoly licence holder. For example, in the area of the Australian Capital Territory we have CTC7 as the monopoly commercial television service. The Bill implements the Government's equalisation objective, by which it means the provision of three commercial television channel services to eastern regional Australia, so that regional services obtain what the Government calls equal-and I would put that word in quotation marks-services to the metropolitan areas. The method adopted is to create service areas called approved markets, those being aggregations of existing monopoly areas, and allowing three of the monopoly licensees in the approved market to service it. In other words, we get an oligopoly of the existing licensees serving a larger approved market instead of their existing areas. The Government purports to allow two paths to that so-called equalisation. The first is the direct aggregation path, which sets a timetable for aggregation starting in 1989 in southern New South Wales and moving through other areas of eastern Australia. The second is what is called the multi-channel service path, whereby each of the three licensees in the approved market would provide one or two additional services to their current area until 1996, when they would be required to aggregate. I do not know whether people are able to follow what that means. There is a lot of jargon in this area. It is not simple. In effect, the multi-channel service path means that, taking the example of the Australian Capital Territory, CTC7 would be given a permit to supply a second service to the area and, perhaps before 1996, to supply a third service to the area. But it would be servicing only the area it currently services with three different viewing channels. The majority of the regional television services said: `That would be a much better system because we would be able to determine what service we would be providing. We might have sport on one of our channels, a movie on a second channel and ballet or opera on a third channel'. That is all a bit airy-fairy. The services might end up running movies on their two channels and a network program on their major channel. But that is what they were putting. This option, which the Government claims it is providing, is an illusion because the legislation includes the one-in, all-in rule whereby if any one of the licensees in the approved market opts for aggregation the others must accept. In Queensland there are five commercial television channels, but let us take Victoria because it is easy, Victoria having three channels in the approved market. If any one of those three channels opts for aggregation the other two channels are obligated to go along with that decision. The one-in, all-in rule was severely criticised by all the regional television services as being in effect the minority determining what the majority has to do. It was severely criticised by all members of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation-Government senators as well as the other senators on the Committee-nevertheless, the Government has decided to go ahead with the procedure. I might also add that the Acting Deputy Secretary to the Department of Communications admitted in evidence that in an approved market there was one trigger licensee, one company which had much to gain by opting immediately for aggregation. So the one-in, all-in rule, in effect, means that aggregation will become compulsory, although the Government claims that an option is given. In fact, as I said, the option is an illusion. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) claimed that because of the one-in, all-in rule the move to equalisation would be `market- driven', but the evidence made it clear that the Department expected that all licensees would have no choice but to move directly to aggregation, so it is nonsense for the Minister to be talking about this decision being market-driven. Under aggregation some licensees will gain windfalls at the expense of licensees whose reach will be economically marginal in their traditional outlets. The majority will be forced to adopt a course which is dictated by a minority. Clearly, there will be winners and losers in the aggregation process. The multi-channel service path would, in my view, have provided alternative commercial programs to most regional viewers much earlier than by direct aggregation, but that would have entrenched the monopoly licensees in their areas. In addition, it would have involved them in substantial further expense. The MCS path to aggregation which, as I have mentioned, was sought by most of the regional television stations, also included some penalties which the Government put in again to try to get them to go to direct aggregation just in case the Acting Deputy Secretary to the Department had made a mistake when he said that there was a trigger in each approved market. The penalties were that anyone who adopted the MCS path to aggregation would be limited to the two-station ownership rule and the MCS permits would be granted only annually with strict conditions over their operation. There was no suggestion that after 1996, when stations moved to aggregation under that path, the two-station ownership rule would then be lifted for them. I do not know whether that was the Government's intention or not. In any event, as I have said, I do not think there is any doubt that if this legislation is passed regional stations will be required to move to aggregation without delay and in accordance with the timetable which the Government has set. The Government senators on the Committee recommended that the Government abandon the one-in, all-in rule and simply set down a timetable, but again the Government refused to accept the recommendation. As to the question of equalisation, on the surface it might appear that regional television viewers would gain in some way by ultimately getting two additional services in their area. The Government has certainly been out in the market-place trying to sell that idea to regional areas, talking about equalisation so that regional areas get the same television services as are provided in the metropolitan areas. I point out that no surveys have been conducted as to what regional viewers want. I have no doubt that they want a better service. Everyone wants a better service, whether he is in a regional, metropolitan or remote television area, but this may not mean that he wishes services to be networked, which will be the ultimate result of the passage of this legislation. For regional services to be networked with the metropolitan stations it would mean in effect that they would be locked into showing practically the same program on their commercial networks throughout Australia as is being shown in metropolitan areas at the same time. One might ask: What is wrong with that? But at present regional television stations have the opportunity to cherry pick, as it is called. There are three networks available. Each regional station can, therefore, look at any one of the network programs and offer to purchase one of them. Because they are able to cherry pick they are also able, through their own business association, to purchase directly overseas. In general they are able to provide what certainly should be and probably usually is a better service to country viewers than is provided by any one metropolitan station. Regional stations gave evidence to the Committee in effect that, if they could continue to cherry pick, two commercial stations in any regional area would be able to provide practically the whole of the service currently provided by the networks. They pointed out that in metropolitan areas there are many replays and reruns of former programs and films and that all in all, if they had the opportunity to continue to cherry pick, two stations servicing a regional area would probably be able to provide a service which was equivalent to the whole of the programs being shown on commercial metropolitan television. The people of regional Australia have not been given that information by the Government. They have simply been told that they will be given an equalisation service. I appreciate that the regional television stations may not always choose according to quality. They may choose according to price and may not always choose what the majority of viewers want to see. We know that because of cost regional stations do not always show sporting programs which the majority of viewers in a particular area wish to see. So the provision of two regional stations would not necessarily provide the sort of service that everyone in the region would want. I might say that neither would the provision of three services provide all the services that regional viewers want. Any time that we listen to a talkback program we can hear metropolitan viewers ringing up and complaining about the sort of service they are receiving on metropolitan television. So, even if the whole of Australia were networked to the three networks currently serving Sydney and Melbourne viewers, the viewers of Australia would still want a better service and they would not necessarily be satisfied with the commercial service. On the question of networking I might just mention what Senator Grimes admitted during the debate in the Senate in December when these Bills were about to be referred to the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation. I recall an interjection from Senator Vigor, to which Senator Grimes replied along the lines: `What do you want? Do you want a number of Mickey Mouse stations providing services for the whole of Australia or do you want three decent networks servicing the whole of Australia?'. So there is not the slightest doubt that within Cabinet and the Ministry there is a clear understanding that the result of this legislation would be to network Australia. I point out that networking would substantially reduce localism, although I hasten to add that programs of local news, weather and events are top rating and therefore are not likely to be completely eliminated. One might ask why it is that the Government is keen on having three networks servicing the whole of Australia. Has the legislation been introduced simply at the behest of the major network operators who, as the major Australian content producers and the major Australian importers of programs, need to expand their markets in order better to amortise their costs, the costs which they have been unable fully to apportion to regional operators because the regional operators cherry pick? Is that one of the reasons why we have this legislation? Another question we might ask is whether the objective is to ensure the financial viability of Aussat Pty Ltd by ensuring that network operators will fully utilise it. If one could conject about the discussions which might have taken place in the confidence of certain offices in this building, one might imagine that the network operators were asked to give some assurance that they would fully utilise Aussat and they said: `We will do that if you lock the regional television stations into networking with us. Then we will be able fully to utilise Aussat and, because we will be able fully to sell our programs to the regional networks, they will have no alternative'. I come to what I believe to be a major criticism of the proposal, perhaps the most important criticism of the proposal, and that is that there are no plans or arrangements whereby there is any opportunity for any new players to enter the field. All that happens under this legislation is that existing monopolies are converted into an oligopoly of the existing monopoly players servicing a larger market. Those players are then entrenched firmly into their approved markets and there is no opportunity for a new player to get into this field, except by way of a takeover. Of course, not all the shares are listed on the stock exchange and there may not even be opportunities for new players to get in by way of a takeover. Certain companies have been touched by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. They have been told by the Tribunal that their owners will become millionaires. Those companies will become wealthier. They became wealthy under the previous system and they will become stronger and more entrenched under this system and the opportunities for any form of reasonable business competition are being eliminated. Further, the legislation in effect locks out regional viewers from the benefits of future technology for at least the next decade. The decision to lock out direct broadcasting services, except in remote regions, and cable television is purely political. It is quite clear that that is a political decision made by the Government because of the current arrangements which it has for certain services to be provided in hotels and clubs. The other services will not be allowed to be provided around Australia. Once this legislation has been passed it will be impossible to untangle. The licensees who are first on the timetable, those in southern New South Wales, are concerned that it may prove to be a very expensive folly which will lock them into huge capital outlays-we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars overall, not necessarily for any particular company-for a plan that may be rendered obsolete by rapid technological change. I am not necessarily referring to satellites. Developments are taking place in fibre optics. The evidence clearly demonstrated that there are major problems with regard to the band 2 clearance. The Committee unanimously reported that there ought to be some re-examination of that. I also add that the transfer of all new television transmissions to the ultra-high frequency range was not necessarily good management of scarce spectrum resources. Both direct broadcasting services and cable television have advantages in the use of these scarce resources. On careful examination, in my view the Broadcasting Amendment Bill has turned out to be a real bucket of worms. It heaps more regulation on top of the bureaucratic control which already surrounds this industry and provides no opportunity for new entrants. When the Australian economy is in the condition it is currently in, how does the Government justify the huge costs to the taxpayers, including the massive overseas expenditure, and the huge costs to the shareholders, all being incurred not because of market forces but at Government direction, especially when the equipment will not be manufactured locally? We were advised that tooling-up under licence would not be a viable option due to the short runs involved. Japan is so far in front in this field that the sources of other nations have withdrawn from the field and are awaiting newer technological developments. Regional licensees are being forced into an expanded service area whether they wish to do so or not. In Queensland they are being forced to sell or consolidate licences with their competitors who have been chosen by the Minister for Communications because the legislation restricts ownership to one station in any one approved market. The plan simply ignores those players who do not readily fit into it. I am referring here to Mildura and Griffith which are being left to stand alone. Tasmania, with one licensee owning stations at both Hobart and Launceston, creates a special case under the one station one market rule so that the existing licensee must either sell off one station with windfall profits or, alternatively, the existing licensee's licence must be consolidated and tenders called for a second licence with the money going to the existing licensee. There was an overwhelming case made for Geelong to have its own regional station, but the Government is not prepared to do anything for Geelong, not even to adopt the proposal recommended by the Government members of the Committee. In my view, the whole equalisation plan is flawed. It is a highly regulatory plan which appears to support the major networks at the expense of regional stations and to prop up the underutilised Aussat satellite. It will lead to greater networking and reduction in localism and, in some cases, diminished services or no services at all to some of our country viewers. Here we see bureaucratic judgments being imposed, not the commercial judgments of licensees whose perceptions of audience size, area and community of interest are essential to their success. The Opposition parties strongly endorse the need for better and more services to regional viewers, but we believe that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill underestimates the benefits which could have been achieved by greater competition in a freer market. A more flexible approach which permitted a greater freedom with respect to entrance into the market and geographical limits on approved markets could achieve the aims of the present legislation without the high degree of regulation proposed by this Bill. The Opposition parties have no objection to the passage of the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986, but we will be voting against the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(4.24) —I begin by congratulating Senator Lewis for his survival on the front bench. It must have been a little like being an official in the days of Stalin. Over Easter he was wondering whether he would survive. He has. I congratulate him and I hope he serves as a shadow Minister for many years to come. I do not really have much to say about Senator Lewis's contribution today. It was very high on description and fairly short on analysis, but two or three points he made bear some reply. He made a great play of how it is of benefit to rural stations to be able to cherry pick. At least he had the decency later on to admit that possibly they cherry pick on the basis of price rather than on quality of program. I think that too often has been the case. He went on to say that at some stage maybe two services would provide all the necessary quality programming to rural viewers. I would prefer to leave that to rural viewers to make up their minds as to what they regard as quality or otherwise. I do not see anything wrong in television stations occasionally repeating shows because quite often many viewers miss them the first time around. Senator Lewis raised two points. He made great play of how the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has made certain stations rich. I cannot contradict that. All I can say is that it was the Liberal Government that set up that series of proposals, to have the Tribunal allocate licences and to thrust windfall gains on particular proprietors. So if anybody is to blame Senator Lewis had better look to his own Party and his own prior Ministers for that. Finally, Senator Lewis made a fairly bold assertion that the Government has rejected any possibility of a television station in Geelong. It simply has not done that, but it has reserved the right to give that longer consideration. It certainly does not have to relate to this particular legislation when making a decision to provide a television service in Geelong now or at a later time. I think Senator Lewis would be very much aware that much depends on whether VHF or UHF wavebands are used to transmit that. Since band 2 clearance is not complete and that whole area is under some doubt, one would hesitate at this stage to make an absolute decision now as to whether Geelong should or should not have another television service. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986 have been debated before in this chamber, but, of course, the legislation was sent to the Joint Select Committee on Television Equalisation for consideration. If anyone is wondering why, there is a very simple explanation. The Australian Democrats opposed the legislation, and that was seen as a way of reinforcing its opposition. The Liberal Party simply did not have a policy and that came out very clearly in the debate. What did it do? It could not make up its mind. The issues were too complex, so the legislation was sent off to a committee in the hope that it would disappear forever or that the Committee could be used as a device to try to block a Bill that the Liberal Party did not understand. In the end, the Committee came back, not with one view, not with two views, not with three views, but with four separate views as to what this legislation should be about and what rural television should be about. It came back with four distinct views. It was not just a majority-minority report but a majority report and three dissenting reports. When one looks for an element of commonality in the dissenting reports one will see that it is virtually absent. They recommend three different systems. The Government's response to the Joint Select Committee report was tabled in Question Time. I was not here at the time, but I have to add my criticism to that made by others to the tabling of that response in Question Time. It was most inappropriate and I regard it as most appropriate that a separate debate occurred at a later time that day. I am sorry that I was not here to join in that debate. I certainly do not endorse the tabling of a response to a major committee report, into which all members put a lot of work, by an offhand statement made during Question Time. However, there have been further criticisms from the Opposition on the speed of the response to the Joint Select Committee report. I must say that this is a first. I have sat in this chamber on many occasions and listened to the Opposition complain that governments have taken too long to respond to reports. But there, for the first time, I have heard criticisms that the Government has responded too quickly. There is no conspiracy about the quickness of the response to the report because when one reads it one will see that the recommendations section is very small. It did not take the Government much time to make up its mind on 13 recommendations. It is much different from another committee that I happened to chair, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that has 150-odd recommendations-obviously, that takes time. The Government is to be congratulated for responding so quickly to the report. I do not agree with the Opposition criticism therein. The Opposition has also made a big point about this majority report being carried on the casting vote of the Chairman. Of course it was. That is in the front of the report. No one on this side has claimed that our views have any more validity than anyone else's because this was a majority report, and any majority report that relies on the casting vote of the chairman is slightly devalued-of course it is. Because the four Government members brought out a majority report, we do not claim necessarily that the majority status of that report gives it any better view than that of the Opposition. I also noted in both the dissenting report of Senator Puplick and the remarks he made here on another occasion that he is complaining about the lack of time to hear evidence. I do not know how much more evidence we could have got. We had several yards deep of evidence. We gave up much time to public hearings into this matter. I point out that it was not the Labor Party which set the timetable for reporting back to this Parliament; it was the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Democrats which, by majority, referred it to the Committee with a close-off date saying when we had to report back to this Parliament. Even so, we could not meet that timetable and Government senators quite readily agreed to an extension of time. The Committee has been criticised for not hearing all the evidence and for reporting to the Parliament when it did, but the criticism goes back to the Opposition and the Democrats for their setting up of the original Committee with that sort of timetable. Senator Puplick is very generous, of course, with his criticism of Government members, although if one reads his dissenting report and then his remarks later one will see an enormous dichotomy. In his dissenting report he said that he did not want in any way to impugn the motives of the Government members of the Committee and when he came into this chamber he did exactly that. He clearly implied at one stage that Government members-and I assume that he means me-are just at the beck and call of the media proprietors and that we in some ways are looking after our mates. I am not at the beck and call of any media proprietor. In fact, I have never met one. I have never had a discussion with one. I will probably go through the rest of my life never having done so. Senator Puplick's imputation is a disgrace. Senator Puplick's espoused views on this subject remind me very much of the old Sherlock Holmes case which really revolves around the key question of the dog that did not bark. That is very much Senator Puplick's attitude, because at no stage has he commented on the other two dissenting reports that are totally different from his dissenting report. He is quite happy to criticise the Government, the legislation and Government members of the Committee, but he says absolutely nothing about the other two dissenting reports. There is total silence. For instance, two of Senator Puplick's close colleagues support the 75 per cent audience reach. Senator Puplick does not, but he is totally silent on what his colleagues have said. Two of his close colleagues oppose any action on cross-media ownership. Senator Puplick supports strong action on cross-media ownership. What does he say about his colleagues? There is absolute silence. Two of his colleagues argue in an entirely different course on where rural television should go. What does Senator Puplick say? There is total silence. He does not utter one word either of criticism or praise of the Democrats' proposals. There is total silence again. It is clear to me that the man of principle is really a man of straw when it requires the courage to criticise his own colleagues. Senator Puplick and his colleagues criticise the Australian Labor Party for espousing one view on this issue. Apparently, there is some crime in four Labor Party members agreeing on something. We happen to agree that the Government's proposal and the Government's Bill should go through. What happens to a person in the Liberal Party who puts a different point of view from the rest of his Opposition colleagues? If he is ambitious he is not promoted to the front bench. If he is on the front bench he is demoted. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) went from being the rooster of communications to just a feather duster on the back bench. The Opposition should not come into this chamber and preach to us about diversity of view and how wonderful it is, because the moment someone in the Opposition goes into a diversity of view, he gets the bullet; he gets put back on the back bench as Mr Macphee has been. The Liberals totally lack a coherent policy on the media. They have no commitment to rural viewers. On the other hand, the National Party of Australia has a commitment to rural viewers, but it does not seem quite sure how that should be best achieved. I do not intend today to canvass the merits of the 75 per cent audience reach rule or the cross-media ownership provisions. However, I acknowledge that they impinge on television equalisation for rural areas. They do have some influence on it, but that will be subject to a later debate in later legislation. The first question we should ask is: Why should we have equalisation? The fact is that in Australia we try to give, as much as possible, equal provision of services to city and rural people alike. However, we all know that people living in rural areas do not, have the same choice and the same privileges as many people in the cities. That comes down to the price of goods, the provision of telephone services and the cost of petrol, and it manifests itself in many ways. One of the clearest manifestations at the moment is that people living in metropolitan areas have the choice of three commercial television stations and, generally, they have the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. People in rural areas get the ABC and, at best, one commercial television station. That means that, more often than not, they cannot view many of the programs they would like to see. For instance, in the peak of summer, half the people in a rural area might like to watch the Davis Cup or the Australian Open, whilst the other half wants to watch the one-day internationals and the test cricket. As sure as anything, when the station puts on one event it gets a massive amount of criticism from the other half who want to view the other program. That sort of thing is replicated time and again. Some people enjoy the soaps such as Dynasty and Dallas; yet others would prefer to see movies or situation comedies. Those in rural areas do not get a choice. They have to go out of the room for two or three hours on end because they do not like the program. What we are saying is that we want three commercial services in country areas, free to air, in which people can make their own choice as to which programs they watch. There are three routes towards equalisation. The first is by way of supplementary licences, which is something that the Government and the Opposition have dabbled with. In many cases, that will impinge on viability. If we go into an area-for instance, Mildura-and issue a supplementary licence, or if someone else takes a licence in that area, there is no way in which the two television stations could compete successfully and survive from the point of view of viability. They would go down the drain. I do not think that any Opposition member would contest that. The second way we could go would be through the multi-channel service. That has an advantage whereby we could easily get two and then three channel services to an area. However, we must remember that when we go down the multi-channel service route we are entrenching a major monopoly in the area. There is nothing to tell those proprietors that they must run quality programs or anything else. There will be no competition. I have read in some of the minority reports that there is a great deal of stress by market-driven forces to actually entrench monopolies, and I would have thought that that was anathema to many members of the Opposition. The third route along which we can go is that of aggregation. What is proposed in the indicative plan is for four areas-one in Queensland, two in New South Wales and one in Victoria-to aggregate; to provide three competing services. It means that a proprietor in Bendigo can compete in the Ballarat and Wodonga areas against two other stations and they, in turn, can compete in his area. Through that competition, and through a desire to maximise the audience, a wide provision of services would ensue. There are some objections to aggregation. The first and obvious objection is that a rural proprietor with a monopoly in the area would not want competition. If I owned a rural television station I would be hardly likely to invite two competitors in who may in some way reduce my profits. The stations have made it quite clear that they are not happy with the one-in all-in rule because, as Senator Lewis indicated, they regard that as a minority dictating to a majority. I am happy enough with the one-in all-in rule. I was also happy to say directly that we must aggregate in those areas by a certain date because I think that the result will be the same. There are technical problems which have been alluded to by Senator Lewis and no doubt other speakers. They do not relate to this Bill but to another proposal for band 2 clearance which will require many stations to go to the UHF alternative. That will not be resolved whether the Bill is passed or not. It will be resolved in another area at another time. Another objection to aggregation concerns profitability-whether we will just reduce the profits of the television stations and make them paupers. It is very interesting that the price of shares of those which have been listed on the stock exchange since the Government first announced its aggregation plans has gone through the roof. Obviously someone else out there thinks that the stations will continue to be profitable under aggregation, or there are many idiots out there who are investing a lot of money in rural television who have got it awfully wrong. Someone has to be wrong somewhere. We know that currently rural television stations are extremely profitable. For a start, they have a monopoly position. They can cherry pick programs and get them virtually for nothing. They have absolutely no competition and they have had to invest very little money in capital equipment over the past few years. It has almost been a licence to print money. It may be true that under aggregation their profitability will be reduced, but I have a belief that they will still be able to operate profitably in those areas, certainly more profitably than any of the metropolitan stations. The final criticism of aggregation is one that concerns us all, and it is whether localism in those areas would be reduced. I think that in some ways the Committee was fed a bit of a line on localism. It was indicated to us that there was a lot more localism in rural television than there actually is at the moment. I think that many of the programs that are supposed to be local simply are not. We would not countenance a situation where rural areas lost their local news programs, because everyone concedes that that is a key element of rural television and if it was removed it would be to the detriment of all country viewers. It is very unlikely, as I think Senator Lewis conceded, that programs such as the local news would go by the board. They rate very well and it would be mad to dump them. Looking at what the other various groupings opposite seem to recommend, it is very hard to know what their cohesive media policy is. Senator Lewis and, I suspect, Senator Puplick have been very good at criticising the Government position, but when it comes to those on the other side putting a coherent policy that they think will actually work two things are indicated to me: One is that they will certainly not get back into government in the near future, otherwise they would have produced more detailed plans, and the second is that they have not thought one up. Let us deal, first of all, with Senator Lewis and Senator Sheil. I do not know how to term them, but let us call them the dries. Firstly, they make the very strong point that they want free enterprise; they want this thing to be market driven. As I have said once before-and I still have not heard the definition-what is `market driven'? What do those opposite mean by that? Senator Lewis spent half an hour on his speech today and I still have not heard an adequate definition of what `market driven' is. Secondly, they say: `We can have pay television and we can use Aussat'. That presumes a lot about Aussat 2 and how it is designed. There will have to be an awful lot of transponders up there to enable us to introduce pay television. As well as that, what they are again saying is: `Look, for rural areas we will not give you a free-to-air service; we will give you a pay television service, so you can pay a lot more to watch television directly than the people in the city'. Again, it is nowhere near achieving a position of equalisation. They also advocate-without having heard much evidence before the Joint Select Committee on Television Equalisation, so I do not know what they base their views on-that they should have cable television. I have pointed out once before that cable television-if one is worried about balance of payments, et cetera-is an extremely expensive process. I think the 1982 figures indicated that the cost of putting cable television into a major metropolitan area was $500m. If that is multiplied around Australia in the capital cities, we are looking at a couple of billion dollars. But the real crunch comes when considering putting cable television into rural areas: It is massively expensive. We already know the expense of putting in rural telephones. We know there has to be a massive cross-subsidisation to be able to justify putting telephones in rural areas. If there was not a cross-subsidisation and if, for instance, Telecom Australia were privatised, it would be a massive expense. Just multiply that several times and consider how much cable television is going to cost. It will cost an immense amount and will put immense strain on our balance of payments. In the end it would be extremely unpopular in country areas. The final point made by Senators Lewis and Sheil is that we should tender for licences. In some ways that overcomes one of Senator Lewis's biggest problems and maybe one of mine; that is, once the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal or anyone else gives someone a licence, it can be a licence to make money. It can be a massive windfall gain. But we also put conditions on the licence. I do not know how we are going to be able to maintain the local content conditions, plus send the licences to tender. It is going to be extremely difficult to do. By getting this windfall gain, television stations will also have to provide a fair degree of Australian drama content, et cetera. I cannot see how that would occur under tendering for licences. So that is the dries. Let us move on to the wets. I hope no one takes offence at that term. Senator Puplick seems to be more concerned in his dissenting report with the 75 per cent rule and the cross-media ownership. I do not criticise him for that, but that is not directly what is under consideration here today. As I have said before, it does impinge on it, but it is not of a direct responsibility here today; we will have that debate at another time. Senator Puplick is very strong on criticism of the Government's policies, but is very weak on providing alternatives. I have read his dissenting report-it is a long one-two or three times to find what the alternatives are. There are a couple of stingy, mingy little paragraphs that sort of put the fingers and the toes into the water; he dabbles around for a while and then escapes without really letting us know what in fact his policy is. Senator Puplick dabbles with pay television and Aussat without expanding on it at all. He also advocates this great national survey of viewer needs. If it worked, I would be with him, but I doubt it will. I doubt that we can run a survey that accurately tells us what viewer needs are. One of the best ways to survey is to put up a lot of services and see which ones the public watch. I could draw the analogy that the differences between what those opposite are suggesting and what I am suggesting is that they could run the country by opinion polls but I would prefer to do it by elections. Opinion polls give an indication of what the people want, but an election tells one exactly what they want. It is the same with this national survey. Senator Puplick also goes on to advocate looking at what I think is called narrow band viewing, the Channel 4 concept in England. I have a lot of sympathy towards that proposal, but Senator Puplick would also know that that grant concept has been somewhat fuzzy around the edges in England. It is in a classic dilemma again: Does it provide programs of a sometimes iconoclastic nature to a narrow audience or does it also try to chase ratings at the same time? Channel 4 in England seems to have fallen between two stools. That is a pity because Channel 4 was a great concept. If that sort of concept can get off the ground in Australia, I for one would be a major supporter of it. Coming to the last of the dissenting reports, Senator Powell seems to suggest early in her recommendations that she wants multi-channel services prior to aggregation. I can understand that, but I would have thought that all the evidence that was given to the Committee suggested that there was no way that people would really want to go to multi-channel service prior to aggregation; it is too expensive. The Government leaves that option in the Bill, but I think it is very unlikely that it would be taken up and even more unlikely that we could compel people to take it up because, once one goes to aggregation, the equipment one had for multi-channel services is basically useless. I just do not see it as an economically viable alternative. Secondly, if that point be accepted, Senator Powell says that there should be no aggregation by 1992. I think that is too late. It is the latest by which, under the Government's plan, in reality all those services will be provided. Senator Powell is saying that none will be provided until then. I certainly do not agree with that. Senator Powell also takes up the question of a nationwide survey of viewer preferences. That again worries me. If I thought that it would work, I would be a supporter of it; but I do not think that people always respond to those sorts of surveys. What they say they want there is not always necessarily what they want. Some people take those surveys as an ego trip. They might put down that they want chamber music and four hours of news a day; and as soon as it is provided they would really rather be watching Dallas, Dynasty or something else. I really cannot see how we can construct a national survey that would tell us enough in that area. The final point in Senator Powell's dissenting report stresses diversity of choice. That is a good concept. Who is going to determine the diversity of choice-the viewer, some government board or someone else? I would need that point to be expanded before I could be convinced on it. What does `diversity of choice' mean? Does it mean saying we want more chamber music on television, or that we want the tiddlywinks competition televised? Exactly how do we do it? The only way I can see that it can be done is as it is done at the moment-by putting the programs on. And the networks and the television stations tend to respond to the most popular programs. In conclusion, I am a supporter of this legislation for rural people. That is really what we have to get down to. Forgetting all the pernickety criticisms, we have got to go down to our assessment of what rural viewers would like. The clear message I get from country Labor Party members whenever I go to country areas is that they want a wider viewing choice. It is very frustrating to be living in Bendigo, Cairns or anywhere else where there is only one commercial service. On a Sunday afternoon, for instance, a football buff can watch only rugby league and cannot watch Australian rules, or vice versa. That causes immense difficulties for viewers in those areas. I commend the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage, but I am not sure whether it will be given one. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.48) —The Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986, one of two Bills which we are debating cognately, provides the machinery for implementing the Government's equalisation policy which, according to a letter from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to the Deputy Managing Director of Telecom Australia, basically means `the provision of three commercial television services for regional Australia'. I stress that at this early stage of my contribution in this debate because it is really that fundamental fact, and all that is consequent upon that, which has led to the position which the Australian Democrats took when this Bill was first introduced into the Senate and still take subsequent to the Select Committee on Television Equalisation inquiry in that we will not be supporting this Bill. Senator Robert Ray, in the final stage of his comments, referred to a dissenting report which I brought down as a member of the Select Committee. I will first address a couple of Senator Ray's criticisms of my report and, in particular, his questioning of the issue of diversity of choice-the fact that I stressed in my dissenting report that I believed that that was a fundamental issue and that the question of provision of services to regional Australians ought to be para-mount. Senator Ray seemed to suggest that that was some kind of esoteric consideration which was really beyond his comprehension. I quote from the second reading speech by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), representing the Minister for Communications, when the Bill was introduced in the Senate last year: The Government places primary emphasis upon the need to extend regional services and to maximise diversity of choice. Obviously I am not the only one who has believed, at least at some stage, that maximisation of diversity of choice should be a paramount issue in the consideration of the provision of television services to regional Australians. In addition, Senator Ray has been somewhat critical of the proposals of both Senator Puplick and myself that we need a proper survey of regional Australians to see what they require from additional television services. No one is questioning that country people need, deserve and want additional television services. Having lived for most of my life in regional Australia and having suffered the restriction of having only one commercial service along with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation service, I certainly have sympathy with that view. However, for Senator Ray to suggest that if regional Australians were surveyed they would come up with some kind of rinky-dink conclusion is, I think, an insult to people who live in country Australia. If country Australians were surveyed on the issue of what they want in the form of additional television services, they would be asked a question about something which they consider to be terribly important. I for one believe that they would not give ridiculous answers such as those suggested by Senator Ray. I have a great deal more confidence in the good sense of people from regional areas in this country: They are people who have definite opinions, who have needs and who have understanding quite beyond that credited to them by Senator Ray. The Australian Democrats support a greater diversity of program choice for regional Australians. However, we do not believe that this Bill, if passed, would provide that diversity of choice. This Bill, together with the Government's proposed changes to media ownership rules, will usher in a concentration of ownership within the Australian media under which three or four owners will control the electronic media and a further one or two will control the nationwide print media. Concentration of ownership in the media and increased cross-media ownership ranging from book publishing, through news-papers, television and video promotion houses is not simply an Australian phenomenon. A recent publication by the Parliamentary Library points out: The combined outcome of these trends [overseas] is a gradual shift from the traditional- I refer to the American context- American media conglomerate . . . towards a new kind of vertically integrated monopoly; such monopolies aim to achieve market saturation by controlling not only a full range of potentially competing delivery systems, (print, broadcast, cable), but also the original sources of programming and information and the means of distributing those resources to the various outlets. There are overseas examples from which we as a country should take some instruction. Because of our concern in this area, the Australian Democrats sought to extend the terms of the Senate inquiry set up on these two Bills to include a complete investigation of the concentration of media ownership in Australia. Of course, that failed because neither the Opposition nor the Government would support us in that effort. The Opposition cannot find a place for Mr Macphee on the front bench and also, evidently, cannot recall the words of one of Sir Robert Menzies' Ministers in 1956, Mr Davidson, the then Postmaster-General. On the introduction of the Broadcasting and Television Act in 1956 Mr Davidson said, in the fine Menzies tradition: The Government is firmly of the opinion that the ownership of commercial television stations should be in as many hands as practicable and that it should not be possible for any one organisation to obtain control of any substantial number of stations. He said further: Television stations are in a position to exercise a constant and cumulative effect on public taste and standards of conduct, and, because of the influence they can bring to bear on the community, the business interests of licensees must at all times be subordinated to the overriding principle that the possession of a licence is, indeed, as the Royal Commission said, a public trust for the benefit of all members of our society. I think it is a great pity that the Australian Democrats were not supported by the Opposition in that tradition in attempting to have at the very least a full and in-depth inquiry into this whole issue by virtue of an extension of the terms of reference and an extension of the time of the Select Committee of which I and other speakers in this debate were members. As I have said, we believe that the inevitable consequences of this legislation would be to consolidate the domination of our nationwide electronic media by three or four ownership groups. I believe it is embodied in the Minister's comment, which is at the base of the whole thrust of this legislation, that somehow or other the magic number three is just not negotiable and that there must be three commercial services. The fact that that coincides directly with the number of major networks already established in the major metropolitan areas is in our view by no means any kind of a coincidence. The cost of aggregation, which will be well over $200m, the short period in which aggregation is scheduled to occur-only two years away in some cases-and the proposed 75 per cent ownership rule would result in three tightly controlled national networks programming entertainment, news and current affairs out of Sydney to all Australians. We believe that independent regional television stations will be a thing of the past if this legislation is passed. It is interesting to me as a Victorian and a Melburnian that, just after the publication of the report of the Senate Select Committee inquiring into the Bills we are now debating, some of the predictions which some of us-and I in particular-had been making in relation to this kind of process were actually seen to impact on Melbourne television stations as a result of the very turbulent process of changing and concentrating ownership which had been taking place in the media since the Government's announcement in November of its proposed changes in this area. While we were concerned about the small regional television channels being taken over losing their autonomy, television channels in the second largest city in Australia had that happen to them. Television channels in the city of Melbourne found it impossible to retain localism in the face of the power of the very tightly controlled media barons. Looking at that example, how could we possibly expect cities such as Bendigo, Shepparton, Mildura and Ballarat to retain their ability to provide local content? I was interested to hear both Senator Lewis and Senator Ray say that because local news broadcasts are very popular in country areas, even if there were a concentration or centralisation of ownership out of the hands of regional operators and into the hands of city based or Sydney based owners, no one would be taking the local news off the television; it is just too important. Tell that to the Melbourne people who have lost their local sports programs, who have lost their local current affairs programs; tell it to the people in Queensland who have lost their A State Affair program. People in those major capital cities have already lost localism, and I do not think the arguments will wash any more with people in small provincial centres, who of course are sharing the loss as many of them received Channel 7 programs throughout Victoria on a good many of the regional networks. So I believe that those predictions I made in my dissenting report, those assertions of mine, are borne out by the evidence. If the Government were prepared to introduce an ownership limit, say with a maximum of 35 per cent, so preventing common ownership of both Melbourne and Sydney, its equalisation policy would not have such disastrous consequences. A 75 per cent limit, with three commercial stations in each region, will guarantee the three major metropolitan networks' domination of regional television either through outright purchase or by their control over program distribution and national advertising revenue. It will be imperative under those circumstances for each regional to affiliate with one of the major networks, and once affiliated there will be no opportunity to go elsewhere and none of the bargaining power which currently exists in relation to the major network partner. One of the things we are asking, by virtue of this legislation and the aggregation proposals, is that regional operators give up that ability, which has already been mentioned in this debate, to cherry pick amongst the available programming. The recommendations I have made for two services to be provided virtually immediately through the provision of supplementary licences to current licence holders would continue to provide the ability to cherry pick but it would provide a far broader service, close to 100 per cent of the commercial programming which is currently shown on the three networks in metropolitan areas. As I stated in my dissent from the report of the Senate Select Committee, this policy is being forced on the industry and on the population on the basis of no more than anecdotal evidence that this is what the Australian population wants. No evidence came before the Committee during the inquiry to support the contention that regional Australians would prefer three commercial television stations to a program choice which might be different in nature-for example, two commercial channels and SBS immediately, two commercial stations and a narrow cast station, or just two stations with a good local program content. That is the reason I suggested, as did Senator Puplick, that the Government has a responsibility to survey regional Australians to find out what it is that they really want. The only real evidence we have in this area is that which resulted from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's licence inquiry in Perth. It is interesting that that information, which is the only survey work of any consequence and validity, actually showed a far more discriminating preference. Given that guidance, it is important that we find out what people want before launching into something as crucial as the sort of program which the Government is proposing for regional television. We must do nothing to inhibit the potential for diversity of choice. There are, of course, other options which arise out of the expansion and development of technology. Many of those areas will be expanded on on behalf of the Australian Democrats by my colleague Senator Vigor. Again, there is overseas experience to show that there are ways to provide very different services, many of which are locally based. If we do know one thing, we know that people in regional areas and even people in metropolitan areas would be very grateful and consider it very important to have that sort of local community element in their media, no less in their television than in others. I recently discussed this issue on a network program on regional radio which was also a talkback program. I was interested that callers contributed from a fairly wide area-from New South Wales, all over Victoria and into South Australia-and several emphasised their feeling of deprivation because, for example, they do not receive SBS transmissions. They seemed to feel-and I sympathise with them-that people who live outside the metropolitan area are all too often not considered by governments to be taxpayers, like all the rest of us. They feel that they have a right, as taxpayers, to the provision of that service. It would provide further diversity of choice for people living outside metropolitan areas. The question is sometimes asked: `Will not Australian television be dominated by three networks whatever the Government does?' After all there are only three networks in the United States of America and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has said that networking is inevitable and a good thing. The Australian Democrats say that the sort of three-network system which operates in our metropolitan areas is not inevitable. We have to realise that there are different kinds of networking. It is not necessary, in order to provide the broadest range of programming through a network process, that ownership also be in the hands of the people providing the programming. It is not necessary at all. Already in many parts of regional Australia there is a co-operative process in which the broadcasters co-operate with each other and that sort of networking, which is based on independent and separate ownership, is the way in which the system operates in the United States-not the sort of system we have already in metropolitan Australia and which this legislation is bound to impact on to regional Australia as well. It is not necessary that we should go that route. As far as we are concerned it is not aggregation that is the problem; it is the connection between an aggregation policy, such as this legislation is designed to introduce, and the proposal for a 75 per cent ownership rule which would concentrate ownership into too few hands. If we had an ownership environment, the kinds of ownership rules here, which would allow and encourage the independence that we see in the United States to continue, aggregation would make sense. That is the reason why the Australian Democrats have proposed for regional Australians a wider choice of commercial television services. In the first instance, the Government should provide supplementary licences for current licence holders for a set period so that they can prepare for aggregation and so that preparation can take place in an environment in which there is the possibility and much more likely the probability that ownership will not concentrate itself into a very few hands. We believe that a simple amendment to current broadcasting legislation will make this possible. We are not suggesting, and we have not favoured, the use of the current supplementary licence system. That system has suffered a great deal of criticism, on the Committee and subsequently, and with perhaps some justification. The legislation to provide for supplementary licensing has had a beleaguered history since its introduction in 1980. Its provisions were extended in 1982, then restricted again in 1983 without any supplementary licences having been granted. In various debates the supplementary licence system has been criticised. The proposal which is abroad that this system should be done away with is a little unfair because it really has not had a chance to operate. On the other hand, Regional Television Australia Pty Ltd has reported that many regional licensees are convinced that the supplementary licence concept is a good means of bringing about additional television choice to regional areas. What we are suggesting is a refinement which we believe would speed up the process. We understand that the current operators have a monopoly in what is currently a fairly small market and, therefore, we suggest that aggregation should take place at a set time because there are concerns about markets being aggregated next door to other markets at different times, which could provide the possibility of neighbouring service providers having an unfair advantage. Given that we do not expect this legislation to be successful, we hope that the Government will not run around the country bleating and beating its breast and saying: `Well, we tried, but we were not able to get you more television'. If this legislation were to pass, while on the surface it might appear that regional people would be getting more television and more choice, they would not. They would be plugged into a system of commercial networking which currently is becoming a networking out of Sydney because of connections and business decisions based purely on business imperatives and not on the need for diversity, choice, localism or anything else. Already it is quite nauseating sometimes watching network television, in particular news programs, containing a high content from other countries, in particular the United States. We might find ourselves struggling not just for localism for Bendigo, Ballarat or even Melbourne, but for localism for Australia as a whole as we are swallowed up by the media moguls and become just a network outpost for Los Angeles. This is a major concern and a possibility which must be avoided at all costs. Our major concern with this aggregation legislation, with the insistence that the only option for country people is three commercial networks, is that in the context of a 75 per cent ownership rule we are looking in fact at a restriction of localism, a restriction of choice, more of the same-which is the very thing that city people complain about so much. I will touch briefly on other factors which have been mentioned already in this discussion. When I was looking at the evidence on the Committee, I was concerned at the cost to Australia of the necessary technological developments to provide three commercial channels under the proposals of this legislation. Billions of dollars worth of technical equipment would have to be imported to move to UHF transmission. The equipment is not available from Australia; it would all have to be imported. In our current economic situation, it seems to me and to the Australian Democrats to be absolutely ludicrous and somewhat suicidal. Alongside that is the question whether the stations could meet the deadlines set by the Government, because to provide all of the equipment necessary to bring UHF services to the vast expanses of regional Australia is a very large project and one which seems to me to have an enormous number of constraints, in addition to the financial issue that I have mentioned. Evidence demonstrated that the process of setting up the two new UHF services meant that in many country areas there would be a loss of program choice for a substantial time while transmitters, translators and so forth were being set up. Those are some of the other areas in which we have concerns. Although we were opposed to this legislation before the Senate inquiry, more facts which were brought before us have caused us simply to harden our opposition, as has the experience of the proposed 75 per cent ownership rule. Although the Liberal Party opposes the passage of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, I am concerned that its opposition is obviously not based on the same concern that the Australian Democrats have about the 75 per cent ownership rule and its impact in this whole area. The strongest evidence of that is the demotion of Ian Macphee from the front bench. The Opposition apparently has no quarrel with that 75 per cent ownership rule and appears prepared, along with the Government, to turn the Australian electronic media over to the hands of a very few, very powerful media operators, and that is a matter of great concern. The Australian Democrats also oppose passage of the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill, and I cannot understand for the life of me why the Opposition does not since the Bill is simply consequent on the passage of the first Bill. However, I suppose that simply demonstrates the points which I made about the confusion of the Opposition's position on many aspects of this legislation and other legislation on communications and media ownership particularly. This is to the detriment of the Australian community as a whole, as are the Government's proposals. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.19) —I rise to support Senator Lewis and the Opposition in my remarks on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986. Together they form half of the Government's package of media proposals. The remainder of those proposals is still on the way, although we have been given a pretty clear indication of what it will contain. In supporting Senator Lewis's remarks, I extend my congratulations to him and to Senator Puplick for the work that they did on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia-and also to Senator Sheil on behalf of the National Party of Australia-in the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation inquiry that was set up at the end of last year to investigate the very complex and technical issues contained in the two Bills. I shall come back to that a little later. At the outset, I wanted to put on the public record my congratulations to those persons and, indeed, to the other members of the Joint Select Committee on Television Equalisation. The sad thing is that, despite the very considerable work on such a complex issue that was done by all members of the Senate Committee, the Government saw fit, virtually without any detailed consideration of the Committee's report, to reject most of its major findings. Having received such an excellent report on such a complex issue, the Government stands condemned for producing its response within a ludicrously short period of seven days, whereas normally the Government, in responses to Senate committees considering technical issues and important matters, would do the Senate the courtesy of giving a report the attention it deserved. In this case, that practice was breached almost totally. Senator Tate —That is not so; you can be fast and thorough. Senator SHORT —Yes, one can be fast and thorough, but on an issue of such complexity, and with such a diversity of views presented through a majority report and two minority reports, it is impossible to be that thorough in such a short space of time. I think that Senator Tate would accept that point on this occasion. The legislation purports to give country viewers a better deal. It relates essentially to commercial television services in eastern Australia. It gives country viewers less choice, it means a much faster introduction of networking than would otherwise have been the case, and it imposes considerable costs on industry-and on the taxpayer through additional costs to government-and the almost certain severe result will be to destroy employment in the television industry in local areas. Indeed, the legislation will remove the whole concept of localism that has been such an important part of regional television throughout country Australia over decades. The Government has a difficult decision to make because it is accepted that the width of range of choice for television services in country Australia is often not as great as viewers there would wish-nor, indeed, as anyone else would wish. However, there are balancing considerations to be taken into account. The Government, through this legislation, has opted to say to regional television in Australia: `You have had it, here come the networks, move over in a very short space of time'. And by that is meant, quite literally, four to five years. The legislation deals only with the broadcasting of commercial television channels, and only to the regional areas of eastern Australia. The Government has stated that the legislative framework provided by these Bills will meet the following objectives: First, to provide three commercial television services in most of regional Australia; secondly, to ensure that the television services provided in the regional areas are comparable with those in the capital cities; thirdly, to create larger and more viable television markets, which are known in the terminology as approved markets; and, fourthly, to encourage competition between the regional television station operators. The slogan adopted by the Government to meet those objectives-certainly the first two for the provision of three commercial television services in most of regional Australia and to ensure that they are comparable with those in the capital cities-is the word `equalisation'. The method by which that is to be achieved is called `aggregation'. The technique that the Government has adopted to implement the goal of equalisation and its proposals to introduce new limitations on the ownership of television stations-which is not at issue in this legislation, but is the subject of separate legislation-have caused so much controversy and concern within the industry among viewers and their parliamentary representatives that towards the end of 1986 the Senate, in its wisdom, established a Senate inquiry to consider the legislation. The inquiry received hundreds of written and verbal submissions from individuals and organisations throughout Australia. I have commented on the haste of the Government's response to the excellent report of the Senate Committee, which itself was produced in an admirably short period. It had only about three months in which to do its work, and that included the Christmas-January period. A great deal of work was put in by some dedicated senators over a concentrated period. It is lamentable, and a great indictment of the Government, that the report was not given the consideration that it deserved. Among other things, that makes a mockery of the requests by the people of Australia for their parliamentary representatives, in the form of the committees of the House and of the Senate, thoroughly to investigate legislative proposals by government on their behalf. Indeed, they expect governments to give full consideration to the reviews by the chambers. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Senate Committee makes it clear that it basically rejected the majority views of the honourable senators concerned. There was a majority report and two minority reports, but there were common threads running between those differing reports. The key thread related to the Government's proposal that equalisation be achieved through aggregation, adopting a rule that has come to be known as the `one-in-all-in' rule. The Government having proposed that rule in its legislation, the Senate Committee rejected it as a desirable method of approach. In its response, the Government said: On balance, the government is not attracted to this recommendation. The one-in-all-in rule basically means that, if there is the potential for three television stations in a viewing area, the decision by one to go for direct aggregation means that, because of the legislation, it binds all three to go for aggregation. Therefore, one in, all in. Despite that, the Government purports to allow two paths to equalisation. The first is direct aggregation, whereby three licensees would set up the service in accordance with the approved market and the timetable. The second option said to exist by the Government is multi-channel servicing, whereby each of the three licensees initially would provide one or two additional services to its current area until 1996, when it would be required to aggregate. The first option, the direct aggregation path, brings the aggregation to fruition five years earlier. The latter option, in fact, is not an option. There is no option with the MCS proposal while there is the one-in-all-in rule. The option is merely an illusion because the rule means that, if one of the three licensees opts for aggregation, the others must follow suit. Because that provides the scope for direction to the majority by a minority of licensees, it was understandably criticised in the Senate Committee and in other places as restraining the market forces and market choice that the Government claims exist. Not only did the senators criticise the proposal but also the Acting Deputy Secretary of the Department of Communications, Mr Westerway, admitted in evidence to the Committee that in each approved market there was one trigger licensee who had much to gain by opting immediately for aggregation. In other words, some licensees will receive major windfall gains at the expense of licensees whose reach will be economically marginal in their two additional outlets. That trigger mechanism, stubbornly supported by the Government despite rejection not only by Opposition senators and Democrat senators but also by ALP senators-the Government senators themselves-is a subterfuge designed to create an illusion of free market choice when no such choice exists. As I said, by going down the path of the one-in-all-in rule, the Government is endorsing a situation where a minority will be able to dictate the course of action for the majority. The Government has been touting this legislation as providing an opportunity for market-driven change to enable a wider choice for regional television viewers and to maintain localism and the survival of regional television in Australia. But the overwhelming evidence submitted to the Senate Select Committee was to the contrary. The overwhelming evidence argued that the Government's proposals would not initially give wider choice for regional television viewers, would not maintain localism-on the contrary-and would not ensure the survival of regional television in Australia. Most of the regional operators believe that they should be given the opportunity to take the more gradual MCS path to aggregation to give them the opportunity to offset the enormous costs of aggregation over a longer period and to take advantage of technical change. It is worth making the point that, as I understand it, no one from the regional television industry is arguing that we should not have progress down the route towards eventual, in effect, aggregation. The debate, to a very important degree, is about the length of time that path should take, whether it should be five years or 10 years, and the costs associated with it. As David Astley, the Chairman of the Regional Television Association, said: This decision- that is, the one-in-all-in rule- by minority is undemocratic-it is against all the principles of natural justice. But it is not just the technique by which aggregation is to be achieved which is unjust. Its inevitable consequences will be the destruction of regional television and localism, which is equally unjust, particularly when foisted on the industry and on viewers at such short notice. As to the question of whether viewers want equalisation, the point has already been made by Senator Lewis and others that no surveys were conducted as to what regional viewers want. The Government says that regional viewers want equalisation, but the regional viewers have not, to my knowledge, been asked. Currently, the regionals cherry pick-again, as has been mentioned-the programs they want from the national network. That is, they may choose the programs they wish to purchase the showing rights to on the grounds of price and/or quality. Some will choose on the basis of one or the other. It is not just a matter of price. I think we would all accept that fact. Speedy aggregation, which is what this legislation will ensure-in other words, direct aggregation-means that the three regionals in each approved market will inevitably be networked in a short period. Currently, the top rating shows provided by regional television stations are those that cover local issues. As I understand it, shows covering local issues on regional television are very heavily rated by local viewers. The problem I see, which is seen by many others, with the rapid route towards direct aggregation is that the choice available to viewers will be reduced. If we took the other route, a slower process towards aggregation, there would be scope for the channels to work on a complementary basis, one to the other, therefore providing a greater range of single or combined channel viewing for the viewing audience. The costs of this legislation are also very significant. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), in his second reading speech, said: . . . we always have to be constrained by consideration of cost and good management. The proposed legislation involves very substantial costs not only to the Government but also to the industry. So far as costs to the Commonwealth are concerned, licensees who proceed to aggregation-exempt from sales tax on UHF transmitters purchased prior to 1991-will face a cost of $30m at 1986 prices. Why has not the Government exempted all material and items that will be required, including feeder lines and antennae? I would like a response to that question from the Minister when he sums up. The rebate offered on licence fees to those who aggregate will involve a cost of $22m in forgone revenue. Another $16m will be involved in the project of planned capital works to upgrade Commonwealth transmitting stations. The total cost to the Government, when one adds it all up, either in direct costs or in revenue forgone, will be $60m to $70m. Those costs will start to be incurred when we are still in the gravest economic situation we have faced in this nation for decades. We have an overwhelming requirement on the part of government to restrain its expenditure. Government members are running around like headless chooks at the moment, beating their breasts in an effort to save money under their so-called expenditure review for the famous upcoming May mini-Budget. Yet the Government brings this legislation into the Parliament, rejects the views of its own senators and Opposition senators and blithely goes along with proposals that will cost a minimum of $60m to $70m of taxpayers' money alone. That is not the end of the story. The other major costs will be borne by the industry itself. These costs to industry again will come at a time when everything should be done in terms of government policies to reduce costs to industry generally, not to increase them. The costs to the industry will be enormous because television stations will have to move from the UHF band to the VHF band, which will require a host of new translating and transmitting equipment, virtually all of it having to be purchased from overseas, particularly from Japan. UHF signals require more power than VHF. As a general rule of thumb, I understand that they require twice the number of translators for a given distance. In my own State of Victoria, the three existing regional operators have said in evidence to the Senate Select Committee that they will need to spend a total of $55m over four years to meet the new aggregation arrangement. That compares with normal annual capital spending for the three operators combined, totalling nowadays about $4m. In other words, over the next four years they are going to have to increase their capital expenditure from the present $4m to something like $12m to $14m a year-an enormous increase-and, once in place, these capital assets will have to be serviced. Assuming a servicing rate of 15 per cent per annum, the total servicing cost for each of the three Victorian operators will be in the order of $8 1/4m. Additional operating costs are projected by the operators to total a further $21.6m per annum. If those additional cost burdens, which relate only to the regional stations in Victoria, are extended to eastern Australia as a whole, it can be seen that we are talking about very large sums of money indeed. Because of the speedy aggregation that this legislation will inevitably result in, those additional cost burdens on the industry will equally inevitably cause major financing problems for those stations. Tooling up will not be a viable option for local industry because of economies of scale. It is not going to be economical for Australian manufacturers to tool up for such a relatively small market and there will be time factors involved as well because there will be lags in the system. The equipment will therefore inevitably be imported at, as has already been said, a not inconsiderable cost to the balance of payments at a time when we have the largest balance of payments deficit in our history and when our standard of living is rapidly dropping down the scale when compared to other countries. Apart from the costs to the industry and to the Commonwealth there is also the cost to the five million regional viewers in Australia. As I understand it, regional viewers will be required to install new antennas, at a cost of something like $100 each, in order to pick up the UHF transmissions. Also, regional viewers will pay dearly as national networking proceeds and localism is pushed into the background. Regional areas will also suffer through the inevitable losses in employment in the regional television industries. In my own State of Victoria we have seen an example of that at a State capital city level with Channel 7 at the moment. Channel 7 is being turned into part of a network which is based out of Sydney. The cost to employment in the television industry in Melbourne is already running into hundreds through the Channel 7 operation alone. It is no wonder that people in the television industry, particularly in regional Australia, are very concerned about the employment and economic aspects of the decisions that will inevitably flow from this legislation. It is not just the economic factors that should be taken into account. A very real social cost is involved as well. There is a social cost involved in increasing unemployment in regional areas and there is also a very big social cost involved in a centre losing the localism that goes with its local television station. I have had a lot of experience of this with the television stations at Ballarat, Bendigo, Mildura and down in the Gippsland area. Regional television services play a very important part in local communities. People identify with their local television stations. The scope to advertise locally will be much reduced under the aggregation proposal. Also, as the aggregation proposal moves towards full networking, it is almost certain that the era of local television news services will be gone and there will be no incentive for the production of local television programs in country areas, as has been done so admirably for many years by stations such as BTV6 in Ballarat. So as well as the economic cost there is the very real social loss and cost. Indeed, Geelong, which is the only major regional city in Australia that does not have its own television channel, has objected very strongly to that over many years. It has had a very significant detrimental effect on business in Geelong because Geelong is served by the Melbourne channels. Therefore, there is no scope for local advertising by Geelong advertisers unless they pay the exorbitantly high rates of the major Melbourne channels. Much of that cost would be wasted because only a small proportion of the audience of those major channels is in the Geelong area. I was very saddened to hear in the Government's response to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation that any consideration of an additional channel to cater specifically for the Geelong area appears to have been given very short shrift. The people of Geelong, very sadly, should not be holding their breath as they wait for developments there if we can take the Government's response at its face value. I will briefly mention a couple of other points in relation to the Government's response in this whole area. The first is the fact that the Government has placed a moratorium of four years on pay TV services. That will be the subject of separate legislation to be introduced shortly. I think it is an appalling decision, for a government that says it wants to provide greater freedom of choice and greater competition in the television industry and to enable innovation and new thoughts and developments, to place a four-year moratorium on any exercise of that choice. I find that absolutely unbelievable. The second thing that has emerged from the Government's response to the Senate Select Committee's report that I find deplorable is that there is no change at all in the Government's view that the introduction of cable and subscription television services into Australia is not appropriate or feasible in the present circumstances. Again the Government has put a major stumbling block in the way of further innovation and development in the industry. In summary, we believe that the legislation before us today is flawed. It is highly regulatory. It disadvantages the regional stations very much relative to the networks. It will cause great cost to the industry, to viewers and to the taxpayers. Whilst we on this side of the Senate very much endorse the need for better services in country areas, this in not the way to go. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.49) —This debate in which we are now engaged is basically part of a larger debate about the use of media power and about how the cake is to be cut up amongst some very influential, wealthy and powerful people. All of us here know that. It is in this context that I enter the debate to say that, whatever way this struggle for major media ownership in Australia is determined, it will be essential for effective counter- vailing forces to be put into place, and quickly. It is not good enough that there should be competition between media giants. There are important issues on which they are only too likely to speak with a single voice, and important community considerations which ought to be put could well not be heard. The very debate we are engaged in is just such an example because very rarely do we hear voices raised, on the media or in the Parliaments, for the urgent need in this country of a really effective dispersion of media power, of devolution. One way this has been done in other countries, and the way it should effectively proceed in Australia, has been by the provision of community television and radio services which provide virtually automatic public access. Honourable senators who have seen public access television in the United States will know what a useful purpose it serves and what a refreshingly different attitude towards life, affairs and events it gives those communities. It is vitally important that that kind of small is beautiful approach be introduced into the larger aggregation of media ownership and control which this country is experiencing. It could be one of the most important things that a government could do. Public access television in other countries gives a good service to what we would call parish pump events; things which are not without their own importance in the community. These stories may be vitally important to a community, but they are just not big enough stories for the major media groups such as we find in Australia. They would be excluded purely on the grounds that they are not big enough or good enough news; therefore, they are not commercially viable and cannot be used. Of course, the tendency towards aggregation of television and media power will increasingly exclude those local issues in spite of the protestations made to the contrary. It is tragic that those who seek to introduce community television in Australia-the enthusiastic local groups which would like to see it happen do exist-face formidable hurdles. While it is perfectly well known that the television broadcasting equipment that provides adequate results for such purposes is available at quite modest prices, Australian governments maintain an insistence on very high and expensive technical standards which virtually make it impossible for there ever to be any public access television in this country. It must be known to the Government that that is the case. Getting those services off the ground would not be viable if they were forced to meet the enormously high technical standards required. In this regard the Government is doing the Australian community a very serious disservice. Somewhere in the course of this debate or in the Government's consideration of this whole question of electronic media control, a great deal more attention ought to be given to this, and it ought to ensure that the means of providing the community with public access television is streamlined. Not only that, but it should alleviate the disgraceful situation which occurs now with the granting of licences for community radio stations. Of course, we have some community FM radio stations which fill a most useful social role, as everybody here would know. When the issue was brought to my attention by a representation from the Blue Mountains Public Broadcasting Society Inc., which has applied for a licence which if granted would allow it to operate the only VHF-FM radio station in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales-a community very well suited to that and which needs it greatly-to my horror I found that these decisions, and even consideration of these licences, are delayed for years. One would think in this age of computers and general streamlining of administrative procedures that the granting of an application of this kind should be a fairly simple procedure. After all, the community itself is required to do what has to be done, to provide adequate standards, to provide the necessary equipment, to meet those standards, and to provide staff. No real work, no real effort, one might say, is required from government at a level which would justify these enormous delays. In fact, when one thinks about this one finds that we are living in a quite strange and unrealistic world which is as far away from reality as Alice's Wonderland. I had some inquiries made with the Department of Communications in Canberra and I understand that there are two reasons for these delays. The first is that the Government has announced particular priorities for the development of media services in this country. These priorities include the television equalisation scheme, the band 2 clearances. These ought not, of course, delay such objectives as granting community radio licences in the Blue Mountains, but they do, and that is the problem. The second reason for this delay, as I understand it, is really disturbing, and that is that at the moment there are only four senior engineers employed to oversee the development of media services in Australia. This is a case of clearly just too few people trying to do too many jobs. We are entering an area of confusion, delay and disappointment for very large groups of people, whole communities, simply because of this. Apparently, in spite of an advertising campaign, the Commonwealth Government cannot attract such qualified people because it cannot match the employment conditions currently being offered by the private sector. One would have thought that some way could be found around that. I gather that the Government has employed a number of recent graduates who need to be trained by those four senior engineers. So these four senior engineers not only perform a training function and are responsible the overseeing of FM radio licences, but they are also involved in the development of a third commercial television service for Perth, the only mainland capital which currently has only two commercial television stations. They also have other day to day functions to perform including an involvement in the development of AM-FM radio services and UHF-VHF television services. If that is not a truly Kafkaesque situation, I do not know what can be. What is even worse is the fact that, given these priorities, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) announced in May 1986 that no new licences would be granted other than to those people who had already applied for a licence or who had lodged an application of interest. So we now have a virtual cut-off of any community which wants to help itself by having a useful radio service. It is told that whatever it does, whatever its aspirations, whatever its enthusiasm, whatever the money it has raised, whatever the degree or value of the service it will provide, it is simply not going to be considered. I would have thought that fairly simple procedures could overcome that kind of nonsense. Given the fact that since May 1986 no new licence applications have even been considered, one could well ask how long have the delays been for those groups which lodged an application or indicated an interest prior to May 1986. There again, the situation is truly appalling. For example, I understand that over the last year only six applications have been processed, leaving another 30 on the books. At that rate all present applications will not be finalised-remember, this excludes new applications-for another five years. I suggest that that situation is simply not good enough when we consider the enormous importance of the devolution of media control, the value that proper community radio and television services could have in a situation where everybody is concerned about media monopolies, about there being too much power exerted in the community, about there not being a safety valve for this dissent, for smaller local issues that are important. In that context, I would have thought that the Government would have looked at this. I hope that the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) who is on duty at the moment will listen to this plea, which has come to me from a community group from my constituency, which obviously affects many other such community groups. The Government should look at this as a matter of urgency if for no other reason than the fact that community based FM radio stations can provide a localised service for their listeners which could be crucial in the kind of media ownership which we foresee in the future. It is an area of policy as far as the Democrats are concerned that the more of these services there are and the sooner they are allowed to establish themselves the better for the community. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.58) —I believe that most people these days in times of rapid technological change would accept that there is a need for a reworking of the existing broadcasting legislation. I believe that the way in which this Labor Government has approached this need for change leaves something to be desired. We have seen yet another example of the system-if one can call it a system-of Government by Press release. This is a practice with which we have become rather familiar under this Labor Government, especially regarding taxation matters. It is unacceptable in that it creates situations where businesses are required to pursue their operations on the strength of a ministerial statement alone, which is not always supported in timely fashion by legislation. I remind the Government that it is the function of the full Parliament to pass legislation. It is not a responsibility that should be passed on to individual Ministers. The result of Government by Press release is a system where businesses are required to operate under uncertain and ambiguous conditions. In the case of the legislation which is now before the Senate, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) announced on 27 November last year that the Federal Government had approved major changes to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. That involved, firstly, the scrapping of the two-station rule that prohibited any individual or group from owning more than two television stations in the country and, secondly, the Minister also indicated that cross-media ownership rules would be introduced. However, as there is no reference to that in the legislation at hand, we can only assume that the Government intends to extend the period of uncertainty regarding broadcasting legislation in Australia, and that is deplorable. It could easily be the end of this year before we finally know what the laws governing this important industry will be. So in the interim we have speculation on how the dice will fall. Currently, a number of groups, if it were not for the grace of a six monthly transitional period, would be in breach of the law. The Bond Corporation, for example, is technically breaching the existing two-station rule in controlling stations in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. So too, is Fairfax with its control of stations in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. There has been a major restructuring of the industry prior to new legislation passing the Senate. I would suggest that that is not the way to deal with important legislation, whether it be broadcasting or even taxation legislation. Nevertheless, attempts to reorganise the industry are welcome. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, in its 1985-86 annual report, made note of the need for a revision of the existing system. It said that the current legislation: . . . does not deal properly with converging technology at a time when the distinction between broadcasting, radiocommunications and telecommunications as a whole is becoming increasingly irrelevant. There is a general consensus that while the two-station rule has served a useful purpose it has now outlived its valuable life. That is so for three reasons: Firstly, it ignores the varying financial strengths of licences; secondly, the introduction of satellite technology significantly increases access to viewer markets and, thirdly, it has restricted the expansion of regional operators which may have control over two stations but which have a very small viewing public compared with operators controlling two stations in, say, Sydney or Melbourne. The principle of increased competition that underlies this legislation is a valuable one that could well flow on to other markets. Increased competition creates greater efficiency, service and responsiveness to consumer demand. Through the opening up of this industry to greater competition, particularly in regional areas, viewers will have greater choice and access to television services. There are few people who would argue that access to two or three services is not an improvement on one. Those of us who live outside the major population centres have as equal a right to receive a range of television services as those who live in, say, Sydney or Melbourne. The concept that underlies this legislation is, therefore, an important one-greater choice for more Australians. The media occupy an important place in the community and an important role in the lives of many. I feel sure that it escapes no one's notice that the media also plays a very powerful and influential role-perhaps too powerful, in political terms. It is therefore necessary that the framing of legislation relating to this industry should be carried out with meticulous attention to detail. It is here that the legislation before us falls short. A number of the implications of the Bill have been left unresolved. As we have already noted, the freeing up of the market is welcome. However, it would be naive to suggest, given the potential power that broadcasters can wield, that their operations should go uncontrolled. The existence of a body such as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal bears testimony to the need to maintain some direction. If the legislation should pass, the opportunity for the networking of television services will be vastly expanded. Changes of ownership that have already occurred give a clear indication of this. Yet, no consideration is given in the Bill to the possible need for regulations to oversee financial arrangements between the stronger networks and their affiliated stations, or to the management of disputation between these parties with regard to programming. In the United Kingdom and the United States of America, where networking is commonplace, quite stringent controls operate in these areas, but in Australia we have none. The Bill liberalises ownership controls in the broadcasting industry without giving adequate thought to the full implications of its provisions. Arrangements that exist overseas suggest, however, that consideration should be given to the need for mechanisms to control aspects of networking. Such rules must, however, tread the fine line between adequate guidance and excessive governmental regulation. Currently, under the Broadcasting and Television Act, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is the regulatory body appointed to monitor the operation of the industry. While the Bill at hand gives some minor extension to the responsibilities of the Tribunal in Part II, clause 6, it does not appear to make adequate amendments to deal with the changing circumstances that will flow on from the legislation. There will be many more licences and the tasks of the Tribunal will be considerably multiplied. Already we have a situation where the Broadcasting Tribunal in its annual report for 1985-86 has reported that its resources `cannot adequately review the performance of over 200 licences over the required three year period'. That is a confession. Therefore, I would recommend that a review of the Tribunal's responsibilities should take place. This would be a judicious step towards ensuring that the public is not unintentionally harmed by the implications of the Bill. I now wish to devote some time to the Tasmanian situation. The very fact that the Government has at last given some recognition to Tasmania is to be welcomed. All too often the Hawke Government has demonstrated that it views our State as little more than a thorn in its side and scant consideration has been given to the wishes and opinions of Tasmanians. Senator Tate —Oh! Senator WATSON —I must acknowledge, in response to the Special Minister of State, that in this matter the Government has recognised that Tasmania has a special case that is worthy of separate consideration, and for that it should be commended. The circumstances are unique with regard to broadcasting in Tasmania for the reason that its two licences are held by the one organisation-ENT. This situation arose in 1982 when ENT, the owner of TNT9 in the north of the State, purchased the southern station TVT6. The aims of the amalgamation were threefold: firstly, to achieve economies of scale; secondly, to enable better quality local productions; and, thirdly, to facilitate the development of outside broadcasting units to allow better coverage of sporting and other events. While all these improvements have been welcome, the fact that Tasmania has only one commercial licence holder means that there is still room for some improvement. In line with the stated objectives of this Bill to expand commercial television services to regional Australia, the Government plans to introduce an additional commercial licence in Tasmania by 1993. To achieve this, firstly, ENT has been given the option to sell one of its existing licences to an independent purchaser by a date set by the Minister. Secondly, both licensees would then operate an expanded service area to cover that of the other. Currently, TVT6 covers southern Tasmania and TNT9 the north with a minimum of overlap. However, some opposition has been voiced to this sort of proposal. For example, the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation majority report considered that this proposal would allow ENT to select its own competitors. In opposition to this possibility the Committee recommended that ENT should be required to sell its licence to the highest bidder and that the transfer of the licence should be subject to the approval of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. In dissenting reports Senators Powell and Puplick considered that ENT's licences should be consolidated into State-wide licences and applications opened for a second licence to serve Tasmania in competition. The dissenting reports of Senators Lewis and Sheil call for tenders for a second licence and the consolidation of the existing licences held by ENT, the implications of this being that the financial benefit of the issue of the second licence would go to the Government. Thereby, ENT is arbitrarily being denied an asset, worth a considerable sum, that it has built up over a number of years. There are some very basic and sound reasons, however, why I believe that both of these approaches should be rejected in favour of a plan to allow ENT to sell one of its licences. They are as follows: Firstly, the basis upon which equalisation will take place in other States is through the formation of approved market areas in which existing and additional licence holders will operate. Existing licence holders will, in effect, gain access to an expanded viewing market in compensation for the loss of market they will suffer by the impact of the Government's decision to grant more licences. The Tasmanian situation, as I have mentioned before, is unique, however, in that the existing licence holder already has access to the only practicable market area-that which covers the whole State. The impact of the Government's proposed legislation would result in ENT losing 50 per cent of its market. Given that all other licence holders in Australia will obtain a greater access to market areas as a result of the implementation of this Bill, it would seem only equitable that ENT could expect the same treatment or, alternatively, be given some other consideration. In the sale of one of its licences, ENT is not gaining a disproportionate benefit; rather, it has the opportunity to enter a purely commercial transaction and stands to gain only what that market will bear-nothing more and nothing less. As a commercial transaction, the sale will be subject to all the regulations which would normally apply-the Trade Practices Act, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and existing provisions of the principal Broadcasting Act. There has been speculation from a number of quarters that ENT will be able to sell to a friendly competitor. However, I would suggest that the responsibility of ENT to keep the best interests of its shareholders in mind and its existing legal constraints would prevent this from happening. Under the provisions of the Bill we are now discussing, division 6, section 94zc, sub-section 8 provides that purchasers of licences must satisfy the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal that they are suitable to hold a licence. They must undertake to: (a) comply with the conditions of the licence; (b) provide an adequate and comprehensive service pursuant to the licence; and (c) encourage the provision of programs wholly or substantially produced in Australia and use, and encourage the use of, Australian creative resources in and in connection with the provision of programs. Section 89a (1) of the principal Act dealing with the transfer of licences states that such transfers must have the prior approval of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Following this, and according to section 89a (1d), the Tribunal may refuse to give consent under a number of circumstances. These circumstances apply, for example, where there is a need to avoid undue concentration of influence, whether direct or indirect, on the person or on the company or companies holding the other licence. One would expect that such provisions and others contained in the principal Act would be adequate to prevent the sale of the licence to a friendly competitor. I therefore believe that that argument is a nonsense. The transaction must also comply with section 45 of the Trade Practices Act, which covers contracts, arrangements or understandings restricting dealings or affecting competition. If the contract, arrangement or understanding has the purpose, or likely purpose, to substantially lessen competition, the provisions of this section of the Act can apply. To impose further regulations on this sale, as has been suggested, would I believe set an inappropriate precedent of government interference in the market-place. It will be subject to all the usual regulations, and to impose any more could be construed, I believe, as quite discriminatory. I emphasise that I do not support any disproportionate benefit to anybody, merely an equitable solution for those who are the players. It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that the sale will take place at the Government's behest to facilitate the introduction of the new licence and greater competition in Tasmania. The best interests of all will be served by introducing this competition as soon as possible. Under existing licensing procedures the issue of a second licence may take as long as four years, whereas the sale of one of the existing licences could achieve the desired result very much more quickly. Surely it is in line with the whole thrust of the legislation to negotiate the introduction of expanded broadcasting services at the earliest possible time. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(6.18) —I suppose it has been for about 10 years now that the television industry has been waltzing in a tango of administrative wilderness and discussing, having inquiries, consulting and negotiating with the Department of Communications. I think it has more or less reached exhaustion point. I happened to be on the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation. It was a big inquiry and an interesting one. I think the aims of the Government's legislation are laudable; that is, to give a better service to the regional areas and eventually to reduce centralisation in ownership and control. I think it is important to realise that the legislation does apply only to regional television, there being four main sections to the television industry: The city networks, the regional services, the remote commercial services and-over arching them all-the satellite. The effects of this re-organisation of the regional services was going to have a spin-off to all the other areas. For example, the regional services are being asked to pay for and implement the entire new network of equalised and aggregated services. By doing so they will reach some form of financial stringency, will therefore be less able to help provide the remote commercial television services and, in addition, will put themselves under the hegemony of the city networks. I can remember that when the Government's response to the report was brought in I said that the legislation was virtually asking the regional services to buy a gun to shoot themselves in both feet, putting themselves under the influence of the networks and reducing services to the remote areas. This was a pretty dangerous situation to become involved in. Senator Lewis and I came up with a dissenting report because we saw the dangers facing the regional services. However, since the Press release of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), I think in November last year, we have seen the introduction of the Bill and its referral to the Senate Select Committee which had the big inquiry to which I have referred. The Bill was then returned to the Senate and the Government quickly responded to the Select Committee's report, which I think shows the degree of urgency it applies to the Bill and probably the degree of lobbying that is coming from the television industry. I think it was one of the quickest responses to a report that I can remember. Senator Puplick —They tried to sneak it in at Question Time. Senator SHEIL —That was a cagey little move which I might mention. I thank Senator Puplick for reminding me. A dorothy dix question was asked of Senator Walsh and he said quite casually: `Yes, here is a response to the Select Committee's report'. Senator Walsh was going to table the report and have it incorporated in Hansard in reply to a question, thereby precluding any debate on the report. Fortunately, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) was awake to this ploy. We had quite a little ruckus in the Senate and eventually were able to have the Government's response brought in and debated as it should have been, that is, as a proper ministerial statement. At that time many of us spoke about the inequities that would be caused by the legislation. Now, of course, the Bill has been restored to the Notice Paper and reintroduced. During this long process the industry has tried to outguess the Government, wondering which way the Government would jump and what alterations would be made. I think the industry is sick and tired of operating in a vacuum. People will be well aware of the major buying and selling of various interests that has taken place in the meantime. Now, in spite of the three dissenting reports and the warnings they contain, the regional stations appear to be lobbying for acceptance of the Government's Bill. I think that is because they want to know what the rules are. The position they are taking is completely understandable. Over the past few weeks I have been lobbied quite considerably. The regional stations realise that what the Government proposes will be difficult and that it will cost a lot of money. All business needs to have a stable atmosphere in which to operate. I think that is what the industry is now starting to clamour for. I do not want to go into the whole structure and texture of the legislation: I did that before when the report came in. The mechanism by which the Government has chosen to implement its plan to reorganise regional television is what it calls equalisation and aggregation. The Government has given people a choice of either aggregating straight away or proceeding to aggregation by a process of multi-channel services. In order to force along the legislation the Government has introduced two poison pills into the package so that within a certain amount of time the regional stations will have to aggregate. To make the legislation more acceptable the Government may consider removing at least the first poison pill, that is, the one in, all in rule. In other words, we have three stations servicing an aggregated market and, if one of them wants to aggregate, under the Government's proposal all of them must aggregate. If one little station and two larger ones service an area, the little station would have a financial windfall because the two larger stations would be forced to pay a lot more than the little station in order to gain a small market, whereas the little station for a smaller outlay than the bigger stations would gain a much larger market. If that poison pill were removed and the one in, all in rule were altered to make it a majority decision, I think the legislation would be a lot more acceptable, particularly in the current climate in which nearly all the regional stations in Australia seem to be prepared to accept the legislation in spite of all the evidence pointing to the problems that it will cause, and not just to them. Heavy imports will be necessary and an enormous network of pylons will have to be erected throughout Australia. Most of this equipment will have to be imported into Australia, and that will cost a lot of money. The regional stations rightly point out that the advent of new technology will have a major effect on the industry. They feel that many of the new services, particularly satellite services, will not be available until around the year 2000. That may or may not be so. Technology seems to be exploding at an enormous rate at the moment. Cable television was mentioned by Senator Robert Ray, who was also a member of the Select Committee. He pointed to the enormous cost of introducing that into Australia. I do not think that the introduction of cable television into Australia was ever contemplated, although some small networks may be profitable in the cities. I think the advance of technology will result in cable television in Australia being bypassed rather quickly. Fibre optics was also mentioned. Again, that would be expensive and its implementation is in the distant future. The advent of new satellites, particularly with pencil beams for specialised areas, is still a fair way off. I think these are the reasons why the industry is now saying that it needs time to recoup the great capital costs that will be required for implementation. I think that is why we are hearing the cry from the industry at least to get some rules under which it can operate in a stable climate. I point out that this whole aggregation and equalisation system applies only to regional television services and only in eastern Australia. Vast areas of the country are left outside its effects. South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia are not touched, and they contain a large proportion of the remote areas of Australia. The Bill attempts to reorganise the regional services. The Select Committee has come up with dissenting reports that provide warnings. I have noticed an enormous change in the industry's attitude to the introduction of the Bill since all this has happened. I think that, if the Government were willing to have another look at the legislation, particularly in the area of the first poison pill-that is, the one in, all in rule-agreement could be reached in regard to the future administration of the television industry in Australia. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.00) —The Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986 are a clear indication of what is wrong with the Government and the Department of Communications when it comes to proposing media policy. The Government seems to be more interested in looking after a few of its perceived mates in the large media networks and in the large media consortia than in looking after the people of Australia. The Bills purport to offer equalisation and more services to the people of regional Australia. In fact, these Bills would probably, if they pass this Parliament, do the opposite in that they would narrow down the options available for people and hand over more of our media to exactly the same people who control the large Sydney and capital city based networks. What we need is a policy that will promote variety, that will promote localism and that will meet the information and entertainment needs of all Australians in a stimulating and satisfactory way. I believe the Department of Communications would prefer to do things behind closed doors with a handful of predictable `clients' who require only periodic appeasement rather than deal with the real requirements of Australians out in the country, out in the regions and even out in our cities. The way that the Department collapsed underneath the pressure of perhaps having to consider pay television applications shows that we stand little chance of being able to get any type of new technology in place before the 1990s. The Department has not been putting forward 1990 solutions for 1990 problems. In the case of pay television the Department persuaded Cabinet to impose a four-year moratorium-Senator Short has already mentioned this-and the amending legislation is shortly to come before us. This is typical of the methods of the Department-if the problem exists, define it out of existence; if doing nothing seems to get nowhere, one can continue doing nothing. This approach appears before us in two forms tonight: In relation to supplementary licences, and also in relation to the definition of gross earnings for the purpose of television licence fees. It has taken the Department about two years to deal with the question of gross earnings, after the courts indicated that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal could not examine all the documents it needed in order to be satisfied that the correct amounts were being paid. At least the matter is now being tidied up, and we have the possibility of rebates. These rebates will be rebates of fees payable under certain circumstances. If the trend towards networking continues, as it has recently, we will get more and more dumping of local content and of local employees. We have seen an example of this in the last break of Parliament, in the case of Channel 7 in Melbourne. As we get concentration and centralisation of ownership, we get concentration and centralisation of operations. This means that people will not get their local programs. Currently this is happening to our cities as the various networks centralise in Sydney. We must do something to contain this problem. The Government has the responsibility for providing a sensible and equitable system for controlling the air waves in this country and providing a service to individual Australians which they can rely on and enjoy. If we go into the type of proposal which the Government is putting forward in another Bill later, of 75 per cent audience reach as a criterion for ownership limitation rather than the limitation which is applicable in the United States, of 25 per cent of audience reach, we will find more and more that the production facilities, the distribution facilities and the news gathering facilities will become centralised in major cities, particularly in Sydney. This particular legislation deals with regional television and the aggregation proposal, which on surface perusal may look reasonable. It is in fact the second try to solve the problems of these regional areas. We have had a previous proposal using supplementary licences. The Department is, I believe, trying to cover up its abject failure to administer the supplementary licence scheme properly by a variety of excuses. Some of its excuses sound quite good, but people who are good at making excuses are, unfortunately, seldom any good at doing anything else! The Department keeps on telling us how unwieldy and cumbersome the Fraser legislation was, and yet it was the Department's legislation then as it is now. It fails to mention its refusal to put forward fast track licence hearings as a possible improvement to this legislation, and it certainly neglects to mention is own failure to submit notices to the Broadcasting Tribunal. In the time since the Hawke Government announced that it would proceed with a supplementary licence scheme only one television proposal-that was for Canberra-has been submitted to the Tribunal. Only three radio proposals, two for Canberra and one for Mildura, have been put before the Tribunal, and three new services can be expected in the next few months. In the case of Canberra's supplementary television licence we had the shameful attempt by the Minister last year to browbeat the Tribunal into breaking the law. The upshot has been that these hearings have remained stalled for months and there are no plans to resume them in the near future. I asked about this at Estimates committee hearings only recently and people looked at me blankly. People's money is involved, if we want to look at it from that point of view, and people's viewing is involved-the viewing of the people of Canberra. What is more, the Government has failed abjectly to face up to the responsibility with which it has been charged-the responsibility to properly manage the air waves. This is, indeed, government by Press release at its worst. Millions of dollars have been spent in good faith by current licensees and independent applicants because they believed that the Government and the Department would in fact be properly implementing the legislation. This Government should publicly apologise to each of them, to all of them. Instead the Government has tried to piece together an arrangement which suits the current licensees or at least is not objectionable to the most influential of them. The Government has completely ignored the needs and wishes of the people of regional Australia. It has not really consulted them. The Forward Development Unit has in fact operated with network television lobbies at its shoulder at every stage, telling it what to do. This is a Yes Minister operation of the highest order. When the Forward Development Unit was set to work within the Department, it was supposed to come up with medium and long term radio and television options for Australia. Within a couple of months the Unit had persuaded the Minister that it needed to deal exclusively with the short term options only and, surprise, surprise, that is exactly what happened. The first public input-where assertions and assumptions were tested-happened only recently during the hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation. The total unsuitability of the Government's proposal become quite obvious at that stage and even Government senators on the Committee detected flaws in the legislation. I must commend them for putting forward improvements. They, unfortunately have been loftily dismissed by the Minister and the Cabinet. What is the purpose of the Senate? What is the purpose of these inquiries if they are going to be totally ignored by the Government? Are we standing here wasting our time? Maybe we are. Maybe the Parliament is being taken for a fool by the Government. I believe the Government has something else coming to it because this Senate is not going to accept the Government's shoddy legislation. The Government senators on the Committee wrote in their report that networking will not necessarily interfere with localism. I quote: If the demand for local programming is as strong as regional licensees claim, the introduction of competitive services may even increase the degree of local programming. This is the greatest amount of hogwash I have ever seen. That is illustrated very well by the recent sackings in Melbourne of HSV7 staff and the strike action which has followed-250 people on the staff at that station have objected to the rationalisation. We are told that rationalisation has been carried out with regret. A number of long-running and popular programs of local interest to the people of Melbourne have been given the axe. World of Sport and Day by Day fell by the wayside quite quickly and senior newsroom staff and presenters were also shoved out. Last week 78 more employees, mainly technicians and camera operators, were sacked. Some 250 production staff have gone on strike as a result. If the Department ever got around to the implementation of the aggregation program would it result in the same type of disruption of regional television stations? I would uphold that there is a fair chance that this would happen. Indeed, this is the almost inevitable outcome of centralised operation in which management just decides that its objectives would be met better by squeezing out most of the locally originated programs or producing them completely centrally. Staff in the outlaying stations are sacked under the euphemism of rationalisation and programs are then networked. The original costs of production are recouped by dropping programs previously produced locally and replacing them with material from the heart of the empire. I believe that that is exactly what would happen in this three-way aggregation program because unfortunately this Government seems to be able to count up to three. It has trilogies, triumvirates, troikas and options A, B and C and I do not know what else but everything seems to go in threes. Considering that there are three transmitting organisations in each aggregated area, it is significant that there are three major networks to which the Government wants to hand these regional stations. I have referred to last year's purchases in Melbourne, which still have to be ratified by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and which probably could be considered to be beyond the current law. The same removal of local content, I believe, is inevitable if there is to be a service for all regional Queensland or if regional New South Wales is to be carved up into two areas. The identity and input of places such as New England, the Darling Downs and Cairns will be lost. The result will be the fairly rapid removal of all local content and a fairly direct handover of operations to Sydney-to the empires. These groups have absolutely no local heart. The people of regional Australia need more services and they deserve these services which take their particular needs into account. They do not need to be subjected to the tyranny of the bottom line, which is all that Sydney considers. It should not be beyond the Government and the Department of Communications to find solutions which address the wishes of the people in regional Australia. Those wishes will vary from place to place; Australia is a diverse country. There is no reason why a sensible broadcasting policy cannot take account of this. For instance, in isolated areas one additional service run by the current licensee and a community input facility would go a long way towards meeting the requirements of the people. As Senator Puplick said in his very commendable dissenting report-- Senator Puplick —Excellent. Senator VIGOR —`Excellent', says Senator Puplick so modestly! Fortunately, I agree with him totally; it is an excellent report. As Senator Puplick said, it is important to give people choice, diversity and local content; to give them what they want and to allow them to participate in their own television systems. The Government has not gone any way towards this. In places such as Canberra, Wollongong and Newcastle, there are natural surrounding regions and a fast track licensing process could establish whether independent licences are warranted in these areas. Similar examinations of other regions will turn up collections of communities with real interests in common where it would be possible to produce a coherent local program which would serve that community. A second independent service may be useful in these areas. In some bigger areas we may want a third service but this has to depend on the area. These matters have to be thrashed out in the open, not behind closed doors. They have to be thrashed out at public hearings with a reasonable opportunity for all views to be put forward, and cutting out the opportunity for deliberate delaying tactics which seem to have been the hallmark of communications legislation over the last few years. The Senate Select Committee identified a clear need for a service which covers the Geelong area and the possibility of one covering the Cairns region. This was done in a matter of weeks, I must point out, on the basis of evidence submitted and tested in public. I believe that that type of process can be carried out in each part of Australia if we do not have a Communications Department which hides itself in a building in Canberra and does not go out and talk to other people but the large media owners. Some exciting opportunities are left open to us. I believe that if we are going to deliver diversity to the people of regional Australia we can do that essentially by cherry picking-I have heard this said here before today-from each of the networks for two stations in each area. We would then get a much better program than the type of program which can be individually delivered from each network separately. We should then bring in a third service which has a charter complementary to those of the other stations to provide real diversity in those areas. Such a suggestion was put forward in submissions by Huw Evans, a notable broadcaster. This suggestion was canvassed in Senator Puplick's dissenting report. The fact is that a channel 4-type proposal in the country would give more diversity, especially if it also had the type of community windows and local public television facilities that Senator Mason mentioned in his contribution to the debate. I believe that Australia deserves media that is two-way, not just one way; not just feeding us American ideas through the current network channels. The Department is giving a direct line from the American networks to our people in regional Australia. It is allowing us to be culturally indoctrinated and enslaved by that process. We need something very different-the ability for each community to determine what it wants. What is more, we need to consider what type of television we will have in the next 10 years. We must actually look at the problems properly and realise that the types of channels that we will need will be high definition television, not just the normal VHF-UHF PAL systems that we are currently using. We must think about integrated services in which we can provide a general service of distribution, perhaps of long term current affairs on videotape or compact disc, built to fit in with the same instruments that we watch on a day-to-day basis. High definition television will also offer us a large number of opportunities. The advent of optic fibres in small, local, optical fibre regions with satellite dishes and with locally delivered programs on video cassettes that can be shown over a local regional cable or country town based radio frequency broadcasting system is an exciting option, but it is not being considered. The type of diversity that we can develop for country people would be the envy of every city person. It is not a matter of equalisation-of crushing everybody down to the same unimaginative grade of service; it is a matter of showing the imagination that is necessary to use the new types of technologies that are now available. The fact is that people will want to talk to people. We will need community, educational and public access television to run in parallel with the commercial stations. The Government is taking a piecemeal approach. It is considering the national broadcasters such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service-which it recently failed to destroy totally, through merger, because of the action of the Australian Democrats and the Opposition generally-in isolation from the commercial stations. It is considering not the service to people but the interests of the networks. That is exactly what we are fighting against, and that is why we are saying: `Gentlemen from the Communications Department, go back and think again. Do the job that we are paying you to do and advise your Minister in the way in which you have responsibilities to advise him, with an eye to the opportunities that are coming forward because of the advent of computers, which will allow switching of programs out of hours through satellites, the setting up of program databanks in regional areas and the merging of local contributions from local service clubs. Do that rather than try to hand this over to the monopolies that have been dominating our media to date'. I want to say something about the cities. They need extra services through low-powered UHF transmitters or by cables. Those local services should be financed by a levy on the commercial channel in those cities which currently make an enormous killing at our expense. We are providing our air waves-and they are ours; they belong to the people of Australia-for those people to use in a restricted way. We are giving all that to them on a plate and we are also protecting their interests. We are taking very little money from them in areas such as video and audio entertainment and information services-VAEIS-through satellites. In fact, we are handing it to them pretty well free of charge. In the United States of America, ways have been developed to claw back public revenue from that process, and we should look at that system and impose similar levies on VAEIS and on our commercial television outlets. We should place limitations on those corporations. We should not worry whether they will go broke or will make a buck. We are giving them the privilege of being able to control our media and communicate with the population of Australia. They will pay for that and pay well if we ask. Why are we trying to protect those networks when they are quite big enough to protect themselves? Is it that the Government is afraid to disturb them lest they will not support us at the next election? We must look now at more innovative models, which is why we are sending this Bill back to the Department. We are saying: `It is not good enough; consider things such as licensing two commercial stations, or maybe three in the most populous areas, with one further complementary charter service'. We are suggesting various things such as allowing spare capacity-a down time on complementary channels-to be available for educational programs such as the Open University in the United Kingdom or technical and further education courses. We must grasp the opportunities that are offered by satellite and by the various communications means to produce viable, local and locally answerable television. We must also think about integrating, in some way or another, the national broadcasting services into this system. We have to provide a medium for public television in the long term at each level, irrespective of the fact that we are dealing with small communities. There are people at Yuendumu and Ernabella who are actually running public television on a shoestring; they are showing us what to do. Yet we are not prepared to look at the examples that have been put before us by the Aboriginal communities in those areas. Admittedly, they are small and isolated, but we have many small and isolated non-Aboriginal communities that could be capable of picking up those models and working with them effectively. We are not looking for more American model television, with more soap opera and selling soap opera values. We are looking for local television with local values, with real values, with real ethics, directed towards the family, towards the community in which we live and towards survival in the world that we all understand. We should not try to get viewers to buy more and more wares from America or wherever else the network programs originated. The Australian Democrats will be opposing the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986. In so doing we will be opposing the model that has been put forward by the Department. We will, however, be voting for the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill because it contains some long overdue reforms, some of which I have mentioned during my speech. I commend the latter Bill to the Senate and ask the Department: Why could it not have come two years earlier? Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.30) —We come now to the conclusion of what has been a very long debate on television equalisation, on the Government's Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986. We have come, I am glad to say, to a position in which the Broadcasting Amendment Bill will be rejected, defeated, on the basis of the evidence which has been put before the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation and on the basis of evidence gathered and weighed carefully by those who are concerned that the media in Australia remains one of the most significant forces shaping our political and social lives and who are determined not to see it wantonly handed over to people who should not be placed, in any democracy, in a position of control such as would occur in the case of this Bill in conjunction with the rest of the Government's legislative package as far as the communications industry is concerned. I will return to the absolute centrality of that point shortly. I want to say only two things arising from the debate earlier this evening. Firstly, Senator Robert Ray in the course of his contribution criticised my dissenting report in the Senate Select Committee document in relation to what I had had to say about cable television. The thrust of Senator Ray's argument was essentially that cable television is too expensive. The response to that is that Senator Ray was talking about the cost of a technology in 1982 terms, drawing as he did upon the evidence put to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry on cable television. He was attempting to say that 1982 technology and its cost can simply be projected into 1986, 1987, 1988 and the 1990s. If one looks, for instance, at a fairly recent article by Richard Corrigan which appeared in the magazine Dialogue earlier this year under the heading `Fibre Optics-The New Wave' one sees this written: The cables- he is talking about fibre optic cables- are also undercutting the high-flying status of communications satellites, which seem likely to lose a major share of future long-distance domestic and international telephone traffic to these new competitors. Acknowledging that satellites will incur big losses in a battle that has just begun, Alan L. Parker, chairman of Ford Motor Company's Ford Aerospace Satellite Services Corporation, says: `Between now and the end of the century, you're talking about fibre optics taking over the role of terrestrial microwave [radio] and satellites in essentially all heavy-route point-to-point communications. I think it will be the handsdown winner. That is absolutely correct. In the long run the cost of the communications technology which I have been advocating in my minority report and which Senator Vigor has spoken about today will undercut a great deal of the comment made by Senator Ray about the projected costs of the alternatives. I do not intend to develop at any great length the argument which I have put forward for the use of supplementary licences. I have wearied this chamber on two previous occasions when this report and the Government's response were debated, putting forward the alternative about supplementary licences. It is still a system in which I believe. My views have been made known in this chamber and in the minority report, and I do not intend to canvass them further. However, I intend to come to the issue of networking. I said earlier that this question and the ownership and control of the media were absolutely central to what I believe as a Liberal about the nature and shape of Australian society. I know that the Australian media barons today exercise what in the last century was described as power without responsibility-the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. That is precisely what is being done by people who think that because they have access to a billion dollars they have the capacity to buy and sell Australians as consumers of media services and feed to them any sort of rubbish, any sort of political point, without control or qualification which they think from their offices, be they located in Sydney, Perth or Los Angeles, the Australian people ought to have served up to them. Some years ago, talking about media concentration in this country, Mr Murdoch was asked for his opinion on the matter and, in particular, his opinion on the development of newspaper networks. He said: I think it would be a pity if I grew any bigger in Australia. There are now basically three groups in Australia and that is too few already. If I were to grow bigger and to take over one of the other groups that would be against the public interest. I would like there to be six groups. The fewer there are the worse it is. Mr Murdoch said that in an interview he gave to an American magazine back in 1977. The important thing is that that is a clear indication that, speaking outside Australia, interestingly enough, Mr Murdoch was prepared to come to the conclusion that he should not be allowed to grow and develop any further. Although this legislation does not deal specifically with the ownership and control of newspapers, it nevertheless provides part of the Government's overall package in dealing with the media which we will have the chance to debate when the cross-media ownership rules come before us. Networking has been put by Senator Vigor and others as a potential danger for small markets, for small operators. But it needs to be understood that networking is a danger for everybody. Nobody need look further than the city of Melbourne to determine what networking means. The National Times, as it then was, on 7 December 1986 ran a story entitled `Herald and Weekly Times Takeover Could Spark Massive News Networking'. In other words, it warned that there could be a networking, a centralisation, of news if that takeover took place. Everybody pooh-poohed that. But what happened? As soon as the HSV7 channel in Melbourne fell into the hands of the network operators of the Channel 7 operation nationally the Melbourne television station was turned into a slave station for relay from Sydney. Local programs went. Victorian programs went. Sackings have occurred-rationalisation, so-called. The Sydney Morning Herald on the 25th of this month ran a story entitled `HSV7 Sackings Confirm Networking on the Way'. So it is not just the small communities, the small regional operators, who have to be concerned about networking. The Melbourne station has already been made a slave station out of Sydney. Given the vertical integration of the broadcasting and communications industry, which starts primarily with the question of who owns the programs, decisions will be in fact removed from Australia, because the program libraries are owned in the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the programming is owned and controlled outside Australia and brought into Australia. I predict that if this model is allowed to succeed it will not be just a matter of stations being slaves to Sydney-Sydney will eventually become a slave station of Los Angeles. There is absolutely no way that we will be discussing localism. We will be discussing the death of Australianism in broadcasting in this country if this Government's preferred model, based as it is upon a set of sleazy deals done with friends in the media industry, is allowed to succeed. Let me give honourable senators a couple of examples. One concerns the market in the area of sports broadcasting. What do we find? We find that deals are entered into for the exclusive control of sports broadcasting. For instance, we find that the Power Play organisation now has special rights over winter sports in Australia which are much the same as those the Bond media group holds over cricket in the summer. What happens? We have the Australian Broadcasting Corporation making an arrangement to broadcast the Victorian Football League matches and all of a sudden, at no more than a click of the fingers or a throwing of a switch, because somebody has acquired in monopolistic fashion access to that broadcast, the VFL matches go off the ABC and it has to put on Big Bird and other children's programs. That happens all because somebody pulls the plug on it. That is what networking and concentration mean. Do not think that people are not prepared to use this for their own political advantage. Mr Bond had a disagreement with the Fairfax newspaper group, which wrote something he did not like. Like some local President Suharto, because the Sydney Morning Herald published something he did not like, what did he do? He took hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of classified advertising away from a particular newspaper chain. He said to the local newspaper chain: `I have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of advertising but, if you write stories about me that I do not like, you can forget about it'. Where is the concern of the Government front bench? Where are the civil libertarians on the Government front bench and where are the people concerned about free speech in Australia when things like this happen? They are silent. They know what the deal is, they know what the price is and they are prepared to pay it. Honourable senators should ask Dick Smith about the difficulties he has in getting anti-smoking advertisements carried because there are all sorts of network arrangements now integrated with tobacco companies, brewing companies, and other companies that have absolutely no interest in promoting better health or public health concerns in Australia. We now see the attempt to carve up the Queensland market. We see Mr Bond and Mr Skase attempting to get, within the framework of this Government's legislation, into a situation in which what is called rationalisation of broadcasting services in Queensland means in fact the extension of State-wide monopolies in Queensland. That is not healthy. I would have thought that at the very least Queensland Labor senators would have been alert to the dangers which exist in having a situation where they do not even have a free and critical Press in order to complement the problems that they believe they have in other parts of the political system in the State of Queensland. We see all sorts of deals, all sorts of backhanded and underhanded deals. Everybody thought Mr Murdoch was going to pull out of Australian broadcasting operations and then, all of a sudden, what did we find? We found that there was some sort of covert deal done with the Northern Star company, which became a principal of the Channel 10 network, and all of a sudden there was a small shareholding bought by one of Mr Murdoch's associated companies and Northern Star issued an invitation to Mr Ken Cowley of the Murdoch operation to become a director of that particular company. If it were not for the vigilance of the Trade Practices Commission that would have occurred. But the Trade Practices Commission was alert. It knew that this was potentially a conflict of interest and that invitation has been withdrawn. Again, the silence on the Government's front bench, in defence of this wretched deal, is absolutely overwhelming. We have the sorts of arguments presented to the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation as the argument that was presented by the Department of Communications about revenue projections. It was said: `Oh, there is going to be no difficulty, no financial problem, for the small regional operators. Advertising will grow by at least 4 per cent'. Indeed, when Mr Westerway was explaining all the virtues of why the Department of Communications knew more about anything than anybody ever had or ever would know, he said: `Oh, it might be 10 per cent, but let us be conservative and say 4 per cent'. Let us look at what has happened to the gold mine in radio. Radio used to be a gold mine. Radio station 2DAY FM was sold for $70m. Seventy million dollars was the asking price and the price paid for 2DAY FM. Anybody who got into radio in the past couple of years could hear nothing except the clinking of cash registers. It was like a permanent playing of The Goon Show. Every five minutes up went the ring of the cash register. What has happened to advertising revenue? We see for the first time in the Times on Sunday of 29 March 1987 an article headed: `Radio Stations hit by Static Advertising'. We see the headline in the Time magazine of 27 April 1987: `Is Radio Running Out of Steam?'. We see an article in the Business Review Weekly of 3 April 1987 indicating that in 1985-86 one-third of Australia's regional radio stations were in the red and the total operating profit of all stations fell by 33 per cent. That Time magazine article to which I referred indicated that a Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters survey showed that in 1985-86, 43 stations out of a total of 135 recorded a loss-the highest number since 1940. Fourteen of those that flunked were metropolitan stations and included some in the big Sydney and Melbourne markets. The revenue base of advertising which the Department of Communications was so glib at telling us was going to grow by at least 4 per cent and which would finance anything that needed to be financed has dried up in radio. It is drying up and will continue to dry up in television. I will not go into the specific details of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986. One could have some problems with clause 94l (3) about the power of the Minister on the issuing of implementation plans and with clause 94n (4) in relation to the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to impose decisions and the amendments giving the power in certain circumstances of ministerial direction, which perhaps ought to be more carefully examined. I want to come back to the issue of networking, to the issue of concentration of media ownership. I put it to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that nothing will be more subversive of the system of parliamentary democracy and of democracy in the broad than the continued concentration of media control and ownership in Australia. No country in the world has the degree of media ownership concentration that Australia has. We have people who own newspapers which have a penetration of almost 60 per cent of the country. They do not hesitate to use the power given to them by money and by indolent governments to put forward their particular points of view, and indeed from time to time to regret that they did not use their power more effectively. Mr Murdoch in the same interview to which I referred earlier expressed his regret at not supporting the Australian Labor Party in the Federal election of 1961. He said: . . . a crucial, desperately close election when we might have made the difference. We might have made another party the government of Australia, and I regret that I did not use the power which I had on that occasion. Implicit in that is: `You can make sure and take it from me that I won't let such an opportunity pass again'. If we are to see this Bill simply as a question of regional television stations, we will mistake what is being done to this Parliament. This Bill is part of an integrated package put to the Parliament piecemeal, so that we do not get the opportunity to see the whole picture. It goes with all of the other little bits and pieces. It goes with the communications amendment legislation, which I believe has already been introduced into the House of Representatives, which deals with the position of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and which deals with the attempt to impose a moratorium on pay television, because that represents a genuinely competitive alternative that this Government is determined not to allow the people of Australia to have. It goes to the integration of the ownership and control rules-5 per cent, 15 per cent. Who knows? There is the question of 75 per cent coverage or six market coverage. Who knows? It is all part of this Government being prepared to trade off in the short term the support of the media proprietors for its own re-election against the long term well-being of Australian democracy, least of all to be taken into account the interests of people in regional television services. Senator Vigor —Shame. Senator PUPLICK —As Senator Vigor says, shame. It is more than a shame; it is a scandal. I know that if one looks through the report of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation one will find that Senator Lewis, Senator Sheil, Senator Powell and I all sought in our dissenting reports to say: `How can we genuinely provide additional regional tele- vision services', something to which the people of regional Australia are absolutely entitled without trading them off against the concentration of media ownership which is implicit in this Bill and in the package of Bills of which this is part. We put up a number of alternatives. It took this Government less than seven days to bring into this chamber a report which it tried to sneak in at Question Time as the Government's response. Senator Vigor —Pre-prepared. Senator PUPLICK —Pre-prepared, as Senator Vigor says; and pre-prepared because the Government never had the slightest intention of allowing, if it could avoid it, any deviation from the master plan laid down. It was prepared to reject the Committee, whether the Committee had recommended 8:0, let alone 4:4 on Senator Richardson's casting vote. If it were 8:0 the response would have been the same because promises have been given. Give the Government its due, it is prepared at least to try to deliver on its promises. The people to whom the promises have been given are not the viewers in regional Australia; they are, as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Trade (Senator Button) said in that famous Cabinet meeting, `Mates of the Prime Minister'. `What do your mates want?' are the words that Senator Button used in a Cabinet meeting when trying to find out what the Government policy on broadcasting was going to be. `What do your mates want?' We know what they want. At least the Government deserves passing credit for having attempted to deliver. What will happen now? This Bill will be defeated. We have not seen the last of it, mark my words. The Government, when the major omnibus piece of legislation dealing with ownership and control, cross-media ownership rules, is brought out-75 per cent or six markets, 5 per cent prescribed interest or 15 per cent prescribed interest, whatever it happens to be-and its attempt to get the moratorium on pay television, is, I hope, subsequently also thrown out by the Senate, will wrap it all up in one omnibus piece of legislation and wheel it back in here and say `Here it is on a take it or leave it basis'. It will be so integrated, so tied up, that it will take an extraordinary feat to untangle the whole thing and we will be presented with a take it or leave it package. As Senator Vigor rightly said, we are in this mess because the Department of Communications has allowed broadcasting legislation to get into the mess that it is in. There is no reason for the Broadcasting Act to start looking like the Income Tax Assessment Act for which one needs a university degree in order to be able to read past the first page of it. But that is what it looks like. When the Government cannot fiddle the Broadcasting Act it slips it in under the Radiocommunications Act. That is the Government's other great trick-shove it under the Radiocommunications Act and there is no need for a public inquiry or hearing. It can do it all. It can deliver on its promises made in secret and delivered in secret. I have not had the opportunity to develop the argument and nor indeed should it be developed on this particular Bill as far as cross-media ownership is concerned, but I recommend to honourable senators that they look very carefully at the paper produced by Dr Rosaleen Smyth from the Education and Welfare Group, Legislative Research Service of the Department of the Parliamentary Library entitled `Concentration of Media Ownership in Selected Overseas Countries'. Honourable senators will see in that excellent paper mention of whether it happens to be in France to contain Monsieur Hersant of Le Figaro, whether it happens to be in Germany to contain Mr Springer of the Bild-Zeitung newspaper chain, whether it happens to contain the owners of the major Italian newspapers such as Corriere Della Sera and L'Unita, whether it happens to be in response to the Canadian inquiries by Davey, by Bryce, and by Kent, whether it happens to be the Federal Communications Commission model, or whether it happens to be the operation of the Media and Monopolies Commission in the United Kingdom. I had the great pleasure of talking to the Chairman, Sir Godfray le Quesne, when I was in London in February about the way in which the most rampant free market economies-the West German economy, the American economy, the British economy, the Austrian economy, the Swiss economy, and now increasingly the Italian economy-all have careful, constructive rules to provide that the integrated ownership and control of those countries' media should not fall into the hands of too few people. If there is anything that this Parliament, in discharging its responsibility to the people of Australia, ought to be addressing it is the question of who it is who will be given access to the public resource of the Australian airwaves in order to get the particular message across to Australians, whatever its political bias, whatever its economic bias, whatever political party or whatever social philosophy it wants to support. The Opposition senators on this Joint Select Committee looked very carefully at this matter. Senator Lewis, Senator Sheil, Senator Powell and I have looked at all of those issues and have concluded that in the long run the interests of all Australians, whether they happen to be regional Australians, metropolitan Australians, or future Australians will best be served by the rejection of this shabby piece of legislation. I am delighted to be in the position of knowing that that view is supported not only by the Liberal Party, but also by the National Party, the Australians Democrats and I hope the Unite Australia Party and other people in this chamber. There are people elected to this Parliament who will discharge their responsibilities to the electors of Australia by rejecting this legislation and putting those responsibilities ahead of honouring the shabby deal which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Treasurer (Mr Keating) have entered into to sell out the people of Australia. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(9.00) —I listened with great fascination to Senator Puplick. His great oratory was most inspiring and I agree with most of his comments. The dangers of networking, the concentration of the media and the problems of the cross-ownership of the media are all very real and critical problems facing this country. Unless parliamentarians are prepared to stand up and do something about it there is no doubt that shortly this country will be run by media barons, and very few of them. However, I am bound to say that most of the concerns raised by Senator Puplick and other speakers in this debate about the concentration of the media, cross-ownership and so forth and the way in which takeovers have gone ahead are not specifically related to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986. The Bill is specifically designed to give better and more competitive television coverage to regional television viewers. I believe that the concerns that have been expressed relate to legislation on media ownership that has yet to come before the Senate. The thing that we must watch very carefully is what percentage of media concentration is allowed in this country. That has yet to be debated. The Government has yet to declare its hand in that area. It is not before time that the millions of Australians who choose not to live in the capital cities should expect to have roughly the same television services as those who live in the major cities of this country. The proposals before us plan to improve the services that are available to country viewers. Those plans have been floated for no fewer than eight years. It is true that the regional television stations are not overly enthusiastic about the planned aggregation as is proposed in the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, but they are prepared to accept it as the best alternative under all the circumstances. To put not too fine a point on it, many of the regional television stations, especially those in Queensland, have already gone ahead and have started to buy into each other's companies. They are planning to rationalise on the basis of this piece of legislation. Many licence holders are currently in breach of the two-station policy. They have already geared up for aggregation. I do not know how one can unscramble the eggs. Regional television stations would be faced with a very difficult problem if the legislation did not go ahead. I stress that that has nothing to do with the degree of concentration of ownership. The Bill relates purely to an attempt to regionalise television in country areas and it does not of itself have anything to do with the concentration of media ownership. If the subsequent legislation is carefully drafted, there is no reason why roughly one million viewers in the regions as proposed should not be provided with real competition among three television licence operators in their areas. Surely in principle it is not a bad approach that a region of one million viewers or thereabouts should have three genuinely competitive operators. I have looked at the regions carefully. They are not perfect, but it is impossible to get perfect regionalisation. I think that under all the circumstances a genuine attempt has been made to divide the whole of our great nation into reasonable regions of about one million viewers. Why should not regional viewers who previously have had access only to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and one other channel get current affairs programs and have wider access to current opinion that is available to city viewers? I have long been a supporter of regionalisation for Australia. I believe that the States as they presently exist are purely a hangover of our colonial past-our British colonial days-and it is necessary to try to get some regional association among the peoples of this country. This seems to be a first step in that direction. If we can get reasonable regions with competitive viewing on our airways that would be a good start. The majority of regional television operators are now keen for the equalisation plan to go ahead. They are also keen to keep the timetable that the Government has set up. Despite some doubts that the Department of Communications can install the necessary hardware in time, regionals believe that by supplying some of their own equipment there is no problem in meeting the 1992 deadline. As far as I can ascertain, regional operators are keen to get their equipment up and running as soon as possible. It is expensive equipment and they do not want to see it remain idle for any longer than is necessary. Terrestrial operators do not see that the satellite competition will be a real threat to their operations providing they have time to get established before satellite television becomes a reality. The chief concern of regional operators is the proposal of a 75 per cent limit of ownership of the nation's television services. That, I believe, is the target to which Senator Puplick's rhetoric was directed, and that is the debate that should take place in this chamber when other legislation comes before us. If the Government comes up with a 75 per cent ownership rule there is no doubt there will be an enormous degree of networking in this country and that the small operators will not survive. They will have no hope of surviving. We have only to see what has happened to HSV7 in Melbourne to get an idea of what is likely to happen to regional television stations if the 75 per cent rule is passed by this Parliament. HSV7 is now very largely a satellite of Sydney. It is a relay station for Sydney programming. If this process of networking is allowed to continue and is allowed to apply in our regional television, there is no doubt that editorial opinion will be in the hands of a very powerful, and a very few, elite operators of television in this country. The Government has a responsibility to ensure the independence of the few remaining independent operators in this country. Senator Vigor —This is the Bill. Senator SIDDONS —I am sorry, Senator Vigor; I do not believe this Bill is related to this particular problem. We are talking about equalisation and dividing up the audience into regions; that is what this Bill is related to. On that basis I believe the Bill is worthy of consideration and support. The HSV7 dilemma raises an issue on which I believe the Government must take a very strong stand; that is, the cross-ownership laws relating to television and newspapers in one catchment area. This is exactly the problem that is confronting the Government and the people in Victoria, where the Fairfax family, it appears, will have control of television station HSV7 and the Age newspaper. That is in absolute conflict to the principles put forward by the Government. I suggest it is very much the responsibility of the Government to ensure that that does not occur. Newspaper ownership in this country is already concentrated in too few hands. The Government has an opportunity to stop the same thing happening with television broadcasting. In summary, I support moves to equalisation, but I cannot support figures such as the 75 per cent ownership rule. I was told in answer to a question I asked at Question Time today that the Government intends to make a statement on the level of ownership that it will allow. It is my very fervent hope that it thinks again about the possibilities that have been bandied around that it will support a 75 per cent ownership rule. That would undoubtedly have the effect of concentrating all media in this country in the hands of two or three very powerful organisations. In the interests of fair communications to all Australians, this Parliament has a very grave responsibility to ensure that that does not happen under any circumstances. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.13) —The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) said in his second reading speech on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives last year that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill is an historic one because it provides the legislative framework for a major expansion of the Australian broadcasting system. I think it ought to be appreciated that this legislation reflects the Government's continuing determination to give five million Australians who live in country areas access to the same television choice which has been available to most metropolitan viewers for 20 years. The Government is not prepared to accept that 35 per cent of Australians should have access to only one commercial television service and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It is both unnecessary and inequitable, with today's technology, that this situation be allowed to continue. Regional Australia is entitled to a level of commercial television services commensurate with that enjoyed in the mainland capital cities. They are the objectives that the Government had in mind in bringing forward this legislation and those are the objectives that we persist with in now bringing the Broadcasting Amendment Bill to a vote. I have not heard the course of the debate today, being out of Canberra, and under those circumstances it would be even more difficult than usual to give a comprehensive second reading reply. In winding up the debate, I simply want to restate the priority the Government attaches to these Bills and refer again to the interdependency of them with the proposed legislation to be introduced in the House of Representatives later this week to abolish the so-called two-station rule and replace it with a 75 per cent population reach rule with appropriate cross-media ownership restrictions. The policy objectives contained in the legislation now before the Senate are inherently linked with and complementary to these proposed amendments on ownership and control. Such is the nature of the equalisation legislation that the Government has predicated certain aspects of the ownership and control changes on passage of this legislation. I repeat that a major objective of the equalisation legislation is the creation of large competitive markets to address the perceived imbalance between the smaller regional licensees and the larger capital city-based networks. It also has the objective of creating an opportunity for other operators to have a greater capacity to influence programming and local production. If the two-station rule is to be lifted, and the structural imbalance addressed, a necessary corollary is access to larger markets in a competitive environment. This legislation creates such markets. Regional licensees, to avail themselves of changes in the ownership and control provisions, must have access to larger competitive markets. I note that the Opposition shares with the Government the view that the two-station rule should be lifted although, as has been evident from the dissenting reports in the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation report before us now and in keeping with, I suppose one might say, the general state of the parties opposite, there are several competing views on this issue. As the Senate is aware, certain commercial transactions have taken place since the date of the Minister's announcement on 27 November. That is something of an understatement, I suppose, but the reality is that the television industry itself has commenced the process of change and realignment. Not to pass the equalisation legislation in its present form is not only to deny additional competitive services in regional Australia, which is the objective that I have obviously been focusing on so far, but also to introduce considerable commercial and legal uncertainties into the commercial television industry, which is already adjusting to wider commercial realities. Therefore, the Government regards as really quite critical the intrinsic nexus between this legislation and the proposed ownership and control legislation. Senator Vigor —So do we; that is why we are not voting for it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I urge all honourable senators opposite, including the more recently vocal of them, to carefully consider not only the objectives entailed in this legislation, which focuses on more commercial services for regional Australia, but also the wider strategic proposals affecting the future development and structure of commercial television in Australia. The Government has made several decisions that have been long overdue, and they require legislation that this chamber must properly consider in the national interest. I commend these Bills to the Senate. Senator Lewis —I ask that the questions for the second reading of these Bills be put separately, although the Bills themselves have been debated cognately. Question put: That the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 be read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Siddons, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Macklin, M. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Vigor, D. B. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. Black, J. R. Alston, R. K. R. Colston, M. A. Chaney, F. M. Richardson, G. F. Townley, M. Walsh, P. A. Mason, C. V. J. (Senator Jessop did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986 be read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.27) —The Senate now has before it for consideration what is known as the Kakadu package of Bills, that is, five pieces of legislation which have been introduced by the Government to give effect to a statement made by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in about the middle of September last year. The Government's decision on that day marked a major change in its attitude to the future development of Kakadu National Park. It is certainly a decision of very great significance for a whole range of interests in this country. In the first place, it was a decision to prevent any mining or indeed any exploration for minerals in what has become known as stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. Until that decision was made and the new plan of management was formulated, although it was a national park and although stage 1 had been listed on the World Heritage List, the plan of management for the area contemplated that, in certain circumstances and by a decision of the Governor-General in Council, mining and exploration for mining could take place in some parts of the area, bearing in mind that there is something like 13,000 square kilometres of country involved in stages 1 and 2. In addition to ruling out any mining or exploration for mining in that vast area of the Northern Territory, the plan announced by the Government and now sought to be implemented through this legislation today extends the park beyond the area known as stages 1 and 2, and the Government decided that stage 3, except for some portion of it which was then unspecified, would also be included in the Kakadu National Park. That area contains another 7,000 square kilometres approximately. Subsequent to that decision and as part of the legislative package, the Government has decided to create, under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, a conservation zone of about 35 per cent of that 7,000 square kilometres which is known as stage 3. The purpose of that conservation zone is simply to enable some mineral assessment to be made under the rules and regulations-some of which have not yet been spelt out in detail-to determine the mineral potential of that area. The end result is that we now have by this legislation a proposal that something over 17,000 square kilometres of the Northern Territory be included here and now in the Kakadu National Park and in which area all mineral activity, including exploration for minerals, will be prohibited. All existing mineral rights that are being legally held and on which in some instances considerable sums of money have been spent for exploration, will not be allowed to be further explored or even developed. There is remaining, I think, about 2,500 square kilometres of the 20,000 square kilometres which is to be part of the conservation zone and the subject of assessment of mineral potential under a scheme the details of which, as I have said, have not yet been finalised. But it is very clear from the attitudes of the Government since the middle of September last year that every impediment possible will be placed in the way of the mining industry ever being able to obtain any mining lease or conduct any mining in this area, with the exception of one particular area which is known as Coronation Hill. In this area there has been already considerable exploration by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and some associated companies for gold and platinum. That area is subject again to very strict conditions, which the companies may never be able to comply with and so not be able to proceed-at least this is what the Government's statement of intention is at the moment. The result of this is that we have an area-virtually one-third the size of Tasmania-excised from the Northern Territory, devoted solely to a national park and ruled out completely from any further mineral assessment whatever, much less any mineral development. This particular area of Australia happens to be one of the most highly prospective mineralised areas. Certainly stages 1 and 2 of the Kakadu National Park are highly prospective for uranium, and the major uranium mines that have been discovered so far in Australia, other than Roxby Downs in South Australia, occur in that region. That, of course, involves another major policy decision of the Government: To prevent the development of a number of those mines which have already been discovered and which would have proceeded but for that decision of this Government. In fact, under this policy mining is already taking place at the Ranger mine, which is excised from the Kakadu National Park. Of course, the Ranger mine is only one of a number of the mines that have been discovered. We have the Pancontinental prospect, which is a major uranium deposit near Ranger at Jabiru. Koongarra has also been excised from the park but exploration is not allowed to proceed. We have already some other prospective areas as a result of the exploration for uranium which has been carried out in the past but because of the history in this region of mineral exploration and of the constant interference by Commonwealth governments since about 1973, we have a situation where mineral exploration for uranium or any other mineral has more or less been ruled out for a period of many years. So there has never been a full assessment made for any mineral at all in the whole of this 20,000 square kilometre area, an area one-third the size of Tasmania, in the Northern Territory. It is a very sorry state of affairs that by decision of this Government, if this legislation is passed and so long as this Government is in power, there will not be an opportunity for proper assessment of the mineral potential of this vast area. I will deal later in my speech with the impediments that this Government has placed upon development in this very small portion of the park, in stage 3. This legislation will in fact really choke off any interest by the private mining sector, other than in the area of Coronation Hill. The Government itself is allowing exploration in this area to proceed, again subject to very strict conditions. It is impossible really to assess the loss to Australia, and it is a loss of export earnings desperately needed by Australia. That is recognised by this Government continually in the economic rhetoric that we hear from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other members of the Government about the problems of Australia's terms of trade and our need to build up export earnings. Yet, at the same time this Government is ruling out the development of mineral wealth of enormous proportion. It is impossible to assess it fully because the area has not been fully explored by any means. The estimates of this wealth, for uranium alone, range from as low as $32 billion up to $100 billion or even more. But that is only an indicative range of the sort of wealth that is being denied Australia. It does not include the jobs that Australians are being denied by this Government because this area has not been fully developed. It is not just uranium that is in this area. Gold, platinum and a range of other minerals are there and could be developed had this Government not made these decisions to deny even the full assessment of this area. This is the enormity of Australia's loss imposed by a total and sudden cave-in, and even change of course, in mid-September last year by this Government in order to curry favour with the extreme environmentalists who seem to have simply captured the Hawke Government. It is very interesting, and the Senate should be reminded-the Senate may not need to be reminded-that on the very day of this Government's decision in September last year, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment had written and signed a letter to the Minister for Mines and Energy in the Northern Territory indicating that the Government was giving consideration to a multiple land use plan for this great area. Indeed, the former plan of management was a multiple land use plan despite the fact that parts of the area would never be mined or even be the subject of exploration because of their environmental significance and their world heritage listing. Even a week before this decision there was a series of letters written by Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Resources and Energy, in which he talked about the Government's plans for multiple land use in this area. But suddenly all that rational approach which was being pursued by the Government at the time was reversed, and reversed by a Cabinet that was not even prepared to stand up for its own better judgment because it was about to face a rebellious Caucus which had been totally taken over by the extreme environmentalists and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who was so desperate for votes-and is still desperate for votes-that he was prepared to deny Australians the benefits that could be achieved by a sensible and rational multi-land use for such an area. It is ridiculous that this vast area of 20,000 square kilometres should be locked away. Maybe one-third or even a half may be considered of such significance because of its environment, Aboriginal art and so on, that it should not be mined or damaged by mining. But a vast amount of this area-probably two-thirds of it-was assessed by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, as `clapped out buffalo country'. That is his phrase, not mine. He rightly assessed it as country which could be useful in providing a buffer zone for the areas that certainly should be preserved because of their great environmental significance. Nobody in the mining industry and certainly nobody in the Opposition has suggested that those areas should be mined. Indeed, in some parts of them no exploration should be carried out. No one would agree to mining some of the wetland or escarpment areas or doing anything which would threaten the Aboriginal rock art of great significance, but it is simply absurd, even being very generous in the degree of protection and buffer zones given to those places, to rule out an area one third the size of Tasmania from any mineral activity whatever, even mineral exploration. The Opposition is opposed to the decision of the Government. Since it was first announced we have consistently opposed it. We have opposed the Government's new plan of management and sought to disallow it in this chamber. We are now opposed to this package of legislation for the same reason. The legislation has a number of technical difficulties and deficiencies, some of which I shall explore on behalf of the Opposition in the Committee stage of the Bills but in the second reading debate I do not propose to go into those difficulties. I wish to mention some of the major objections of principle. I have already dealt with the major objection; namely, the locking up of this large area. Mr Cohen denies that there is any locking up of Australia's resources. He used the words `as some have misleadingly claimed'. What on earth is it other than locking up when over 17,000 square kilometres of the Northern Territory are ruled out from any mineral exploration, much less mining, and when existing mineral rights cannot be exercised by their owners? The rights have not been resumed. Millions of dollars has been spent in assessment already and the owners of those rights are simply not allowed to proceed under this legislation. They are not entitled to and have not been offered compensation in any way. Here is a classic case of an expropriation of people's property rights by this Government without compensation. If we are talking about the Government's desire to observe international agreements, I would have thought that failure to pay compensation would be a pretty fundamental breach of any basic rights that we observe in this country. Indeed, if the area were not in the Northern Territory, where the constitutional guarantee does not apply, this would be unconstitutional because it would fly in the face of the prohibition in the Constitution of acquisition of property without just compensation. This legislation will have a serious effect on the mining industry. The industry creates enormous wealth for all Australians, not just for a few shareholders in companies. The history of mining in this country indicates that in modern times the greatest beneficiaries from mining activity have been not so much the shareholders of companies as employees of the companies and those who get benefits from the vast activities of the mining industry. Large numbers of individual Australians as well as Australia as a whole will be the losers because of this legislation. I turn to the sop that the Government has given to the mining industry in this legislation. A good deal of it deals with the establishment of the conservation zone in stage 3 of Kakadu National Park. The stage 3 area comprises two pastoral leases which are to be resumed by the Government and to be thrown open for claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The conservation zone is to be created in this area under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The area will be the subject of mineral assessment. It is clear that ultimately there will not be much mineral activity in this area even though it will be assessed as having mining potential. The Government has said that there has to be all sorts of care and protection of this area, not under ordinary exploration conditions but under very special exploration conditions. There will be no guarantee that any particular deposit which may be discovered will be mined because the Government has set out very definitely in a statement that was made by its Ministers on 16 December 1986 that the Government's intention is that ultimately as much of the conservation zone as possible will be incorporated in the park and that only mining projects of major economic significance, not merely economic viability, will be excluded from the park. This was said in relation to the Coronation Hill area. Any proposal to mine a new area will have to run the gauntlet of that restriction; namely, that the project is of major significance not merely economic viability. Such projects will be subject to an as yet very uncertain mining regime, the details of which, as I have said, have not been spelt out. Maybe in the Committee stage we will be able to find out more about it. The Government is allowing only five years for this program of mineral assessment. This is quite inadequate bearing in mind the wet season in the Northern Territory. It is not clear under whose jurisdiction these mining rights will be given, whether they will be under Commonwealth legislation or Northern Territory legislation. All we know is that the system will be administered by the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, a man who may be a very well-qualified director of parks but a man who, on his past record, certainly has no sympathy whatever for the mining industry. He is not likely to be sympathetic or encouraging to the mining industry to proceed properly with that assessment. He has been given added powers. The Government has made it clear that it wants a very strict regime with environmental controls observed in this area. Yet it is not even clear from the legislation just what is the relative position of those who are seeking to carry out mineral exploration in respect of Aboriginal land right claims. We know from the history of the Aboriginal land rights regime in the Northern Territory that there has been, I think, only one exploration licence agreed to so far, despite the fact that the legislation has been in force for about 10 years. The difficulties of obtaining any agreement for exploration on what has become Aboriginal land are great. Indeed, this whole area of land is now said to be thrown open for Aboriginal land claims, and the legislation provides for that. We have here a thoroughly gimcrack scheme set up by the Government for exploration only, with a vague possibility of mining in some extreme cases. That is a further cave-in by the Government to the extreme environmentalists, who have obviously captured the Caucus of the Australian Labor Party and, at this stage, the heart of the Prime Minister. The chance of any effective mineral assessment being made of this area is highly remote. Many other questions arise about the way in which the scheme of assessment will work, and I propose to ask a number of them during the Committee stage of the Bills. The chance of its ever working, and the Government's intention that it should work, are highly suspicious. This Government seems to be carried away by the importance of what it thinks is the environmental vote. It is very interesting to note the results of recent polls on the attitude of Australians to the very question of mining in the Kakadu region. A Newspoll survey last year asked the question: Provided areas of scenic and other significance were not disturbed, would you be in favour or against the mining under stringent environmental conditions of any large deposits of gold, platinum or other minerals found in Kakadu National Park? The answer showed that those in favour were 59.5 per cent, and those against 33.1 per cent. Another Newspoll survey conducted this year asked: How do you feel about the mining of uranium, if its use is restricted to peaceful community purposes such as power generation? The response was 56 per cent in favour and 20.6 per cent inclined to favour it, although with a few reservations, giving a total of 76.6 per cent of Australians favouring the mining of uranium for peaceful community purposes. A few people, only 12.9 per cent, were against it. The Government should be thinking seriously about its one and only motive for this legislation-that clearly being to curry favour with, and recapture what it thought were lost votes from, the extreme environmentalists. In relation to both the mining of uranium for peaceful community purposes, such as nuclear power generation, and the specific question of mining in Kakadu National Park, the views of Australians were overwhelmingly against the environmentalists whose support the Government is seeking through this series of Bills. The consequences of this legislation for Australia as a whole, for our economic interests, for the interests of large numbers of Australians who are being deprived of job opportunities because of restrictions on mining in this area, and for the national interest of Australia as a whole make it highly desirable that this legislation should be defeated and that the Government should return to what it was proposing until the middle of September last year, which was to establish a sensible multi-land use regime in this area. The Government has made a very grave mistake in changing the sensible course that it was then following to curry favour with what is a very small minority of Australians. The Government is being very foolish in making that judgment and this legislation should be defeated. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.57) —I wish to speak to this group of cognate Bills relating to Kakadu National Park-the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill. The package of Bills before the Senate consists of the Bill introduced last year to prevent mining in stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park and the four Bills relating to stage 3. The potential impact of this legislation is quite monumental, not only for the people of the Northern Territory, whom I represent, but for the people of Australia. The decision that this Federal Government has taken in relation to the future of Kakadu is one that could see Australia throw away rights of access to billions of dollars worth of resources. That the Federal Government could even contemplate what is proposed in this legislation, at a time when Australia's balance of payments exceeds $100 billion and the nation is looking for every export dollar that it can earn, gives one very legitimate cause to doubt the motivation for that decision. It is clearly not being done in the national interest, so we must ask ourselves in whose interests it is being done. The answer, as all honourable senators know, is that this package of Kakadu Bills is purely and simply for the benefit of the Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, born-again greenie, and his Australian Labor Party colleagues, although I must admit that I believe that very many of his colleagues disagree with him about this matter. By no stretch of the imagination could one justify the proposed limitations on mining and tourism development in Kakadu National Park on the basis that they are necessary to protect areas of significant environmental and/or cultural significance. Certainly, I accept that government must take responsibility for the protection of such elements of our national heritage and the National and Liberal parties in Federal government do have a very good record on conservation issues. However, we on this side of the chamber have also recognised the requirement to meet the respective needs of competing interests and are of the view that, before any decision that will significantly affect such interests is taken, there needs to be an adequate assessment of potential benefits or losses to those interests as a result of such a decision. In the case of Kakadu, no such assessment, especially in relation to the mineral wealth of the area, has been made-yet the Federal Government is ready to lock up thousands of square kilometres of land, substantial areas of which are highly mineralised. Nowhere is the Federal Government's blatant disregard for the mineral potential of the area more evident than in the proposed stage 3, which incorporates the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. It is worth noting that this area is considered highly prospective for copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, uranium, tin and tungsten. It includes the richest combined gold, platinum and palladium deposit in the world, which is very considerable. The inclusion of this area, which will in the future add a further 6,726 square kilometres to the park, must be queried in view of the failure of the Commonwealth to identify clearly the conservation value of each square kilometre. As I have already said, not only has the Federal Government failed adequately to justify the inclusion of this area in the park but also it has neglected to examine the prospectivity of the area. With the enactment of this legislation a vast proportion of the Kakadu region will never be able to be explored and its mineral potential assessed, to the detriment of Australia and its future. A mineral resource inventory for the Kakadu region is something which I would regard as essential before there can be any question of locking up the area for eternity. Surely it is not only essential but also common sense. There should be a stocktaking of the value of minerals in the region so that we know what is there and what could be used for the benefit of Australia. But no, the area is to be locked up. Senator Jessop —Isn't the Government interested in export income? Senator KILGARIFF —I have mentioned that. One wonders why the Government is not at this moment at least carrying out an inventory in the light of our very difficult economic situation and the potential which exists to get us out of it. As I have said, with the enactment of this legislation a vast proportion of the Kakadu region will never be able to be explored and its mineral potential assessed. A mineral resource inventory for the Kakadu region is something that I would regard as essential. Yet no such inventory exists, nor will it ever exist if this Government has its way. This is a most peculiar approach not only to the development of the north but also to the inventory of minerals in Australia. As one of the submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources pointed out, the present ignorance of existing resources could be a national embarrassment in the future. At present there has been very little testing for gold. Good potential exists for copper, lead, zinc, silver, cobalt, bismuth and antimony. At least 75 per cent of the favourable rocks in the area are untested. The mineral exploration industry in the Northern Territory has declined in actual terms from $32m in 1981-82 to $9.6m in 1984-85 and from 9.86 per cent of Australia's exploration in 1978-79 to 2.84 per cent in 1983-84, an extremely poor situation. This is in spite of the Territory's attractiveness, due to its high prospectivity relative to most areas of Australia and its largely unexplored status. The Territory's dramatic decline in relation to the rest of Australia is a most telling statistic. It has little to do with world commodity markets and prices and everything to do with the discriminatory effects of Federal Government policies in the Northern Territory. A peculiar situation exists in regard to the development of uranium, on which the present Government has a three-mine policy. In the Northern Territory the Ranger uranium mine is being developed. Queensland Mines Ltd at Nabarlek is also being developed for uranium. The latest to be added to the list is Roxby Downs in South Australia, which is rich not just in uranium but in very many minerals, including gold. One wonders what the Government's policy is all about. One can conclude only that the policy emanates from political reasons. Tremendous interest persists amongst mining interests to explore the region, but stable terms and conditions need to be set down before the industry will invest large sums of risk capital on ventures in the National Park. The mining industry is extremely wary of coming to any agreement in regard to the exploration of minerals when it considers the policies of the present Government. Far too much risk is associated with them. What is proposed in this legislation, far from providing stable terms and conditions, is a positive discouragement for mineral exploration and development. In stages 1 and 2 mining is out altogether. In stage 3 a conservation zone is proposed by this legislation where some mining activity would be permitted under certain very limited circumstances. To begin with, the Federal Government plans only a five-year exploration and resource assessment program for this area, with a vague promise that at the end of this period further decisions will be taken on the area's long term future-not a very persuasive way to bring about exploration. The conservation zone will occupy about 35 per cent of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. However, the remaining 65 per cent of the area is equally highly prospective and is to be locked away, as Senator Durack has said, as stage 3 of Kakadu National Park with no opportunity for resource assessment or development. Overall responsibility for monitoring the regime within the conservation zone will be assumed by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, yet when one reads the annual reports of the Service over the past few years one finds that every year the Service indicates that it has insufficient resources to manage its existing tasks. One can only wonder how it will carry out the additional tasks and responsibilities imposed by this legislation. But that is not the end of the sad story. Alongside the Service is its country cousin, the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. That organisation has an excellent name which has been difficult to match, yet it is hunted from its own country by the ANPWS, the Federal Government's organisation. So at present we are seeing big government once again assuming the role of responsibility for this land when very clearly it is a State role, a Northern Territory Government role, which should rightly be carried out by the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. With the expertise it has it can carry out that role very adequately. I doubt whether the ANPWS could match the expertise of this Territory organisation. Although the Northern Territory Government is apparently to be invited to assist in the conduct of an exploration program there appears to be no mention of the Territory being involved in the mining program at Coronation Hill. In this legislation there is absolutely no recognition of the rights of the Territory Government to be involved in the assessment and development of resources within its borders. The regime proposed by the Commonwealth in these Bills is cumbersome, bureaucratic and expensive. The Federal Government is, however, proceeding in spite of the fact that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) recognises the adequacy of Territory legislation. The terms and conditions attaching to exploration titles correspond very largely with those attaching to exploration titles under Territory legislation. Senator Jessop —How many jobs would be involved up there? Senator KILGARIFF —The honourable senator mentions a very sore point. Obviously, we are looking for northern development, for northern employment. The Aboriginal people are looking for employment. Yet this is locking away these minerals and bringing about a situation where the development is going to be retarded and job opportunities are going to be far less. Getting away from these impediments to mining and development stemming from the changes to national parks and wildlife legislation, there is another piece of legislation in this package which has great potential to impact upon mining in the area. I refer to the amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act which will permit a land claim to be lodged over the Gimbat-Goodparla area. Presently Commonwealth public purpose land is not claimable. If a land claim to this area is successful the land is to be leased back to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Federal organisation. Whilst this may preserve the area as a park, it flies in the face of the Commonwealth's often repeated assurances of Aboriginal self-determination. Veto provisions under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act will of course apply to this area so, given past experience of attempting to reach mining agreements under the land rights Act, it is quite possible, indeed more than likely, that no exploration or mining will occur. I repeat that that is going on past experience. Senator Jessop —What effect would that have on the Aboriginal community, Senator? Senator KILGARIFF —The effect on Aboriginal communities, as has been indicated before, is that very many of them now wish to have joint ventures; they wish to get out of the pocket of the Commonwealth Government. They wish to have self-determination and not live on handouts. As I was saying, the inadequacy of the number of agreements for exploration and mining development reached under the Aboriginal land rights Act is a testament to its failure to provide a means of reconciling competing interests in land. It is not necessarily a reflection of any lack of willingness on the part of the traditional owners to enter into exploration or mining agreements; far from it. As I have said, many traditional owners are keen to exploit the resources of their land. The bugbears in the system have largely been the main land councils, and I do not refer to the Tiwi Land Council. Of course, this Federal Government will not countenance the prospect of traditional owners entering into agreements with mining companies in relation to the development of uranium mining on Aboriginal land. These impediments will now stand in the way of exploration and development in the Kakadu stage 3 region. I return again to the motivation of this Federal Government in this matter. One can only assume that the aim of this entire exercise is window dressing-very expensive window dressing if I may say so, but window dressing nonetheless. This package of Bills is a sop to the left of the Australian Labor Party and a cynical attempt by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to grab the greenie vote. It could well go down as the most expensive vote grabbing exercise in this country's political history, as Senator Durack mentioned earlier. Coming from a Prime Minister who so prides himself on his electoral credibility makes it all the more hypocritical. If this whole issue had been properly investigated, the area in question surveyed and found to be far less valuable than it is believed to be, this might not be such a bitter pill for Territorians to have to swallow, but we know, as most of the rest of Australia does, that the Federal Government has not even bothered with the pretence of investigating the area. All we have is the supposedly expert opinion of our Prime Minister who spent a few days in Kakadu, posing against dramatic backdrops, shaking the hands of the local Aboriginal population for the benefit of the media entourage and generally demonstrating his oneness with the land. Yet again the Territory suffers, and of course the nation suffers. We see billions of dollars worth of resources written off to buy the traditional conservation vote, despite the fact that the Federal Government says that the Northern Territory is wanting in financial self-help. Indeed, the Federal Government is effectively tying the hands of Territorians behind their backs. I believe that the bad news for the Government is that the conservationist vote will not be enough to counter the vote of millions of Australians who regard the national economy, particularly at this stage, as a more critical issue and who will take the opportunity to express that view at the ballot box in the coming election. Senator Jessop —The conservationists are prohibitionists. Senator KILGARIFF —The honourable senators brings up a very interesting point because there are very many examples now in the Northern Territory of where mining can occur and where the terrain can be adequately protected. As I say, this can be seen in many areas today in the Northern Territory. One instance is the old uranium town of Rum Jungle near Batchelor. The rehabilitation of the country there is something to be seen. Anyone who sees the rehabilitation that has taken place there can be proud of it. The terrain affected by the mining that has taken place at Nhulunbuy, the development of the bauxite deposits, is adequately protected. The mining at Groote Eylandt is another instance. It is a pity that we have this legislation before us today. It does not take into consideration the necessity for the development of mining. As I have said before, the most disappointing thing is that the Government is going to lock up this country without any real investigation. I certainly do not support this legislation. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.16) —Tonight we are debating a series of Bills-the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987 and subsidiary Bills-one of which, as Senator Kilgariff has already mentioned, affects the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and another which affects and requires changes to the Lands Acquisition Act. The main Bill that we are looking at tonight is the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill which, as other speakers have already pointed out, essentially prevents the exploration and mining of land proclaimed as the Kakadu National Park. This involves the mining interests which were there prior to proclamation. The legislation connected with this does not provide for any compensation to be payable by the Commonwealth as a result of the amendments made to this Act and other Acts. The debate about the Kakadu National Park and mining is often put in a particular way. I think Senator Kilgariff put it clearly throughout his speech when he linked the words `mining' and `development'. That seeks to paint a picture which suggests that the only view of development in fact has to incorporate mining. It is interesting to note the changes in the economic structure of various countries, and I refer in particular to the fact that a little over two years ago the United States of America, as an example, moved to the point where tourism became its number one money earner, superseding all other industries. I think that is interesting because it shows in a very stark way the movement that has been going on in economic terms since the Second World War. Unfortunately not too many Australians seem to realise that Australia is very much in the forefront of that movement. It has moved away very rapidly in terms of employment from the agricultural based industries and manufacturing industry. It moved very rapidly in the early 1950s to having a majority of the population employed in the tertiary sector-that is, in the service sector. What is now known as the information sector, as a development of the services sector, is the fastest growing sector in the Australian economy in terms of employment. I raise these elements because I believe that more and more of the debates about the use of our resources have to be put in that economic framework. It is not all or nothing. It is a debate about alternative economic scenarios which are available to us. Obviously, there can be a very wide range of disputes when it comes to these items. The reason for that is fairly obvious. We are looking at putting into place plans, the fruition of which we probably will not see, but of which our children will be inheritors. I suppose in this place we are constantly reminded, whether we like it or not, that the types of decisions we make will affect subsequent generations and will provide jobs and a stable economic environment if we get the thing right, or they could cause considerable damage. The difficulty is that when we look back from times of high unemployment it is often very difficult to pinpoint the decisions that were made which led to that unemployment and which were in the way of being critical. When looking at the information which was available to certain people in the 1950s and 1960s it is a bit hard to be critical although now, for example, we can see that many of the decisions made at that time subsequently led to structural operations within the Australian economy which were detrimental to employment and detrimental to development. I am not claiming in any way that the types of propositions we are debating in these Bills tonight are necessarily infallible. It is a matter of dispute, it is a matter of projecting forward, it is a matter of suggesting with all the available evidence that the way to go is down this avenue rather than down some other avenue. The opting here, I believe, is, in a very stark way, illustrated in these Bills. Probably very few areas of Australia are as well known in the tourist sense as the Kakadu National Park. It is interesting that today there was an announcement made about an all-party delegation returning to Washington to discuss our agricultural products. I was a member of the all-party delegation last year. When there I took the opportunity on every occasion I had, when we were not discussing agriculture, to ask people why they would come to Australia as tourists. The previous year I was a member of a parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe and to the German Democratic Republic. There I took the same opportunity. Interestingly enough, the responses from Europe and the United States were identical. With everybody I asked the first reason given-not the only reason-was that they would want to visit one or other of our major natural attractions, whether it be the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park, or Uluru National Park, more commonly known around the world as Ayers Rock. It was only after these attractions were mentioned that other elements came in. In other words, our attraction in a tourist sense is based very firmly in the minds of people around the world on our natural attractions. There is no doubt that it will remain so for quite a number of years. The reason for that is fairly obvious. The development of man-made tourist attractions such as the well known Disneyland involves massive capital investment, which we are not likely to have for a long period. It makes eminent economic sense to put whatever resources we have available for tourist development into those natural attractions. Senator Jessop —In other words, not to mine but to leave it there to attract tourists. How many jobs would that provide? Senator MACKLIN —Yes, as an attraction. Senator Jessop quietly raises the point about jobs. If I can use an illustration from another issue in my own State of Queensland which has been a very contentious one, the Shelburne Bay silicon mining, again an extraordinary area in terms of natural attraction. It is an extraordinarily important natural mineral resource. Again, that argument raged as to what was the economically desirable use. It was very interesting that all of the reliable studies showed that the number of jobs to be generated, the return to be generated, to the public purse was less than that which would be generated by putting a bus company in Cairns and driving people up there and back again. We often do not consider that tourism, unlike mining in terms of new mining techniques, is a massive labour intensive industry. It generates a far higher percentage of tertiary employment than does mining. It is an area in which Australia has already established itself well on the international scene. It is rather interesting to note that when I was asking people about these matters, one thing they did raise constantly was the fact that Australia was a stable political environment and that one could drink the water here. When one thinks of our massive natural attractions plus those added attractions there is probably nowhere else in the world that has those qualities, given that Kakadu has to present to us an alternative economic scenario to mining. How one deals with those two issues is, as I said at the beginning, a matter of weighing up where we are going, of knowing what type of development we need, of knowing what types of returns we can have. Until now I have argued purely in the economic sense. The reason for that is that too often the argument put is in terms of conservation, in terms of the natural beauty against economics. I believe that to be a false dichotomy. It is the beauties of the natural environment, the preservation of the environment, and the economic values against other types of economic values. I refuse to be drawn into an either/or argument. It is not an either/or argument. We are now very clear about the economic role of tourism within our society and within our political structure. The Northern Territory and the north of my State-I know the Northern Territory relatively well but obviously not as well as the north of my own State-have similar types of problems. The Northern Territory has an enormous land mass and a dispersed population. One has to ask: What type of development would best serve those communities? I reject the view that mining always has to be the one which best serves those communities. There are many other viable economic options now open to us and opening up to us which can provide a far better quality of life, a far better standard of living, and a far longer stable return to those citizens and to their children. It is in this type of framework that we ought to be discussing these issues and not in the rather simplistic notion of either mining or no development, as has been suggested by some speakers in this debate. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, I formally put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence and Statement relating to extension of specified period for presentation of the Christmas Island Services Corporation Annual Report 1985-86. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 49. Banking Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 52. Bankruptcy Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 51, 54. Bounty (Ship Repair) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 53. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 45. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal- Determinations 1987 Nos 3, 4 and reasons dated 31 March 1987. Determinations 1987- No. 23-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 24-Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 25-Recreation Leave. No. 26-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 27-Temporary Rental Allowance and others. No. 28-Allowances for Applicants for Entry Into the Defence Force. No. 29-Gratuities. No. 30-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 31-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 32-Post Allowance. No. 33-District Allowance. No. 34-Temporary Accommodation Allowance. Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notices- No. 177-Prohibition on the taking of black cod, dated 30 March 1987. No. 178-Revocation of Fisheries Notice No. 176-Prohibition on the taking of decapod crustaceans off North-Western Australia, dated 30 March 1987. No. 179-Prohibition on the taking of decapod crustaceans off North-Western Australia, dated 30 March 1987. No. 180-Prohibition of trawling in waters west of Australia, dated 13 April 1987. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of a Ministerial Determination authorised under section 106aa, dated 26 March 1987. Judiciary Act-Rule of Court-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 46. Lands Acquisition Act-Land, etc, acquired for Defence purposes-Port Wakefield, South Australia. National Health Act- Determination and Schedules (5) made by the delegate of the Minister under section 85 of the Act, dated 18 March 1987. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 47, 50. Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987-Declaration under sub-section 4 (1), dated 31 March 1987. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1987-Postal Amendment No. 1. Public Service Act- Determinations 1987 Nos 10, 13, 14, 16, 17. Parliamentary Presiding Officers Determination 1987 No. 1. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1987-No. 5-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-The Chairman of the Stevedoring Industry Review Committee and others, dated 6 March 1987. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Notice of Variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs (89th Series), dated 28th April 1987. Ordinances 1987- No. 7-Co-operative Societies (Amendment). No. 8-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 9-Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) (Amendment). No. 10-Workmen's Compensation (Amendment). No. 11-Sale of Goods (Vienna Convention). No. 12-Dangerous Goods (Amendment). Securities Industry Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 48. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment to the Schedules to the subsidy scheme in relation to the States, dated 2 April 1987. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Directions-Nos 19-20, dated 2 April 1987. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 44. Telecommunications Act-By Laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) No. 76. Telecommunications (Community Calls) No. 47. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS AND SECTIONS OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984-Section 3, sub-section 4 (2), sections 7, 22, 33 and 34 and section 37-1 May 1987 (Gazette No. S68, 24 April 1987) Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987-27 April 1987 (Gazette No. S68, 24 April 1987) Copyright Amendment Act 1986-Provisions other than sections 14 to 19 (inclusive)-30 April 1987 (Gazette No. S68, 24 April 1987) Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Sections 16, 17, 21, 34, 35 and 37-1 May 1987 (Gazette No. S68, 24 April 1987) Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1986-Sections 20, 22 and 32, sub-section 33 (3), section 35 and sub-sections 67 (2) and 75 (3)-1 May 1987 (Gazette No. S68, 24 April 1987) Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Act 1986-30 April 1987 (Gazette No. S68, 24 April 1987). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No 1613) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Were defence force helicopters used in a police raid in Queensland on 3 February 1987; if so, how many helicopters and defence service personnel were involved. (2) How many police personnel were transported in each helicopter and what arms were these persons carrying. (3) Were the helicopters or the service personnel armed and, if so, what are the details. (4) Were regular or reserve military or other service police involved in any way, including pre-raid planning. (5) Who made the request for defence force assistance and what was the nature of the request. (6) Who approved the request. (7) Was the Queensland Government or the Queensland Police Department charged for the Commonwealth equipment used and if so, what was charged. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Defence Force helicopters, from RAAF Amberley, were used in a police raid on a drug farm in the Coomera area of Queensland on 3 February 1987. Five RAAF Iroquois helicopters and 13 service personnel were involved in the operation. (2) A total of 23 police personnel were transported in the helicopters (two helicopters each carried six police, two carried five in each and one policeman was in the final aircraft); the police were armed with shotguns, M16 semi-automatic rifles, sub-machine guns and pistols. (3) Neither the helicopters nor any service personnel were armed. (4) No regular, reserve or other service police were involved in any way, including pre-raid planning. (5) The request for the Defence Force assistance was made in writing by the Coordinator-General of the Queensland Premiers Department to the Officer Commanding RAAF Base Amberley. The text of the request was as follows: `The Commissioner of Police is desirous of obtaining the assistance of the Defence Force in a crime investigation currently in progress. The assistance sought is the provision of helicopters to transport about 25 personnel to a provincial centre near Brisbane in connection with the cultivation of marijuana at a known location. The Police Department is unable to undertake this activity with the limited resources available from within the Department or from civilian organizations. An undertaking is given that Defence Force personnel will not be put into a situation whereby they will be required to use force. The operation, if approval is given, will take place on Tuesday, 3 February 1987 and will be code named Operation Colours. The Queensland Government strongly supports the request by the Commissioner of Police and I am therefore writing to request that approval be sought from the Commonwealth Minister for Defence for the use by the Queensland Police Department of Defence Force helicopters.' (6) The request was approved by the Chief of the Defence Force. (7) Neither the Queensland Government or the Queensland Police Departments were charged for the Commonwealth equipment used. (Question No. 1616) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on l8 February 1987: (1) Which countries have been invited to send warships to take part in the Bicentennial celebrations in Australia in 1988. (2) Which ports will they be visiting around Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Nations invited to send a warship, or warships, to Australia to participate in the Bicentennial International Naval Review to be held in Sydney on 1 October 1988 are Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, People's Republic of China, Fiji, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, The Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Yugoslavia. To date, the following nations have accepted- Belgium, India, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, United States of America. To date, the following nations have indicated they are unable to attend- Brunei, Canada, Federal Republic of Germany, The Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, Turkey, Yugoslavia. Apart from the International Naval Review, invitations have not been extended for warship participation in other Bicentennial celebrations. (2) The invitation has been issued to visiting nations for participation in the International Naval Review only. Other ports to be visited will depend upon the requirements decided by the invited nations. As yet no indications have been received from any nation concerning their intentions. (Question No. 1638) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 February 1987: (1) Is the report in `Aviation Week and Space Technology' of 22 December 1986 (p. 28) that an Australian officer is on the staff of the Third Fleet command ship, the USS Coronado, correct; if so, what are the duties of the Australian officer, and do those duties include operations planning for the United States Navy? Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As part of the RAN/USN exchange programme, a Royal Australian Naval officer serves on the staff of the Commander Third Fleet and a United States officer serves in the RAN Tactical School. The Australian officer is currently embarked in the USS Coronado as a member of COMTHIRDFLT embarked staff. The officer's duties consist of assisting in the planning development and conduct of Third Fleet exercises. He assists in the writing of reports and operations orders and in monitoring progress of units working up to operational readiness. He functions as the co-ordinator of training requirements and associated logistics for Third Fleet and allied Naval units visiting the mid-Pacific area, and in this role carries much of the responsibility for planning the biennial RIMPAC exercise. Finally, he maintains liaison with Australian commands on matters of mutual interest. From the description of the officer's duties it can be seen that he does become involved in operational planning for the United States Navy, but primarily in the training role. As an embarked member of the staff of USS Coronado he is involved in day to day operations associated with maintaining the operational efficiency of units in company. (Question No. 1643) Senator Sheil asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 February 1987: Does the Department of Aviation have authority to produce complete single volume study manuals covering all theory requirements for each pilot licence currently in use in Australia today; if so, why not produce it, given that such guides have been produced by the Department for other aviation related areas; if not, why is Australia out of line in this regard with the US Federal Aviation Administration, which Australia has been following closely in recent times. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No specific authority exists as such. However the Department does provide syllabuses and study guides covering the training and theoretical knowledge requirements for each pilot licence and rating. Students then obtain their knowledge from commercial training courses, publications, and those operational documents produced by the Department. The Department also produces some manuals covering areas not addressed in commercial publications. For example, the Agricultural Pilot Manual which is used both as a reference for pilots studying to obtain an agricultural pilot rating and as a guide for the conduct of aerial agricultural operations. In addition some publications on airworthiness subjects are issued where suitable publications are not available from commercial sources. I believe that the FAA publishes booklets of its examination questions and alternative answers. However I understand this practice is not favoured in Australia as it encourages candidates to learn answers by rote, without the need for a clear understanding of the concepts involved. There are no plans at present for the Department to become more involved in the teaching aspects of candidates' preparation for licence qualification as the current arrangements seem to provide a satisfactory study basis for licence candidates. (Question No. 1651) Senator Sheil asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 24 February 1987: (1) Will the Minister for Aviation supply a complete breakdown of all statistics and causes of all accidents and incidents involving aircraft operated by the Department of Aviation and its predecessor organisations since the end of the second World War. (2) How does the accident rate for departmentally operated aircraft compare with the Australian regular public transport airlines. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation computer records of accidents and incidents go back to the beginning of 1969. The Department does not have the resources to carry out a detailed manual search of records prior to 1969. The computer records show the Department of Aviation or its predecessors was the aircraft operator in 8 accidents in the years 1969 to 1986. Details are as follows: 15 April 1970 Swearingen SA-26A, VH-CAH Parafield, South Australia Non-commercial, DoT Survey flight Nose-wheel tyre deflated on landing roll and nose landing gear leg collapsed Nil injuries, substantial damage 11 October 1974 Cessna 182J, VH-MJH Warragul, Victoria Non-commercial, aerial-work flight Pilot attempted go-around when unable to stop on an unsuitable strip. Aircraft became airborne at low speed, control was lost and the aircraft struck the ground. Serious injuries to one, substantial damage 4 December 1975 Beech 95-B55 VH-AJM Brisbane, Queensland Flying training, dual instruction flight On the landing roll, main landing-gear tyre deflated and right-hand leg collapsed. Nil injuries, substantial damage 21 January 1976 Swearingen SA 26-AT VH-CAJ Goondiwindi, Queensland Flying training, dual instruction flight Student pilot inadvertently moved landing gear selector out of down detent on take-off run. Nil injuries, substantial damage 11 June 1979 Beech 36, VH-CAQ Latrobe Valley, Victoria Non-commercial, DoT survey flight Engine failure on cruise, approach to runway at Latrobe Valley was misjudged, aircraft landed across the runway, wheels up. Nil injuries, substantial damage 15 April 1980 Beech 58, VH-SBS Oakey, Queensland Non-commercial, continuation-training flight Pilot inadvertently selected gear up instead of flaps, on the landing roll. Nil injuries, substantial damage 5 September 1983 Gulfstream 695A, VH-LTJ Launceston, Tasmania Non-commercial DoT survey Nose landing gear malfunction on landing roll. Cause undetermined. Nil injuries, substantial damage. 20 November 1986 Grumman G159-B, VH-LTM Mangalore, Victoria Flying training, dual instructional flight Crew failed to extend landing gear prior to landing Nil injuries, substantial damage. In five of these accidents pilot factors were present: 11 October 1974, 21 January 1976, 11 June 1979, 15 April 1980, 20 November 1986 In 2 accidents landing gear tyres were factors: 15 April 1970, 4 December 1975 One accident involved weather factors (11 October 1974), one had a runway factor (21 January 1976), one had an aircraft design factor (15 April 1980) and in one accident the factors involved could not be determined (5 September 1983). With regard to incidents involving aircraft operated by the Department, the Bureau computer data-base is not compiled in a manner which facilitates reliable extraction of operator identity. The Department does not have the resources to identify all incidents where the Department was the operator. However, information in respect of incidents involving Departmental aircraft is contained in the computer printout entitled `Department of Aviation Aircraft Incidents 1969-1986' held in the Bills and Papers Office. (2) The accident rate for departmentally operated aircraft 1969 to 1986 is 4.75 accidents per 100 000 hours. The accident rate for Australian regular public transport operations 1969 to 1986 (activity data is not yet available for 1985 or 1986) is 0.6 accidents per 100 000 hours. The comparison between departmental operations and regular, multi-crew, scheduled airline operations is inappropriate. Departmental flying activity is more closely related to General Aviation operations where the accident rate (1969-1984) is 16.6 accidents per 100 000 hours. (Question No. 1652) Senator Sheil asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 26 February 1987: When can the Australian aviation industry expect a more complete alignment with the International Council of Aviation Organisations (ICAO) pilot licensing practices-specifically across the board licensing interchange between signatory countries, given that the Minister for Aviation regularly refers to ICAO conventions. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Australia's flight crew licence requirements are based on Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). They are therefore already broadly aligned with the practices of other signatory countries. There is for instance reciprocal recognition of private pilot licences, subject to a satisfactory medical check and other basic requirements. However many countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom are more cautious when considering recognition of foreign qualifications for the issue of commercial pilot and higher licences. At this level Australia requires applicants to demonstrate that they have an equivalent level of aeronautical knowledge and skill before being granted the Australian licence and recent reports indicate that the U.S. is also moving towards a similar policy. There are no plans to vary the Australian practice at this stage. However I am advised that ICAO has recently conducted a review of licensing standards and procedures. The changed procedures and practices addressed in the ICAO review have been studied in some detail by my Department and are being taken into consideration in a recently initiated review of the Australian flight crew licensing system. The Australian review has just entered the consultative stage with the aviation industry through the medium of a discussion paper. This paper has been sent to over 500 representative organisations, operators and interested individuals. One announced objective in the paper is to maintain the recognition of Australian flight crew licences by overseas authorities. (Question No. 1707) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 March 1987: (1) Does the Federal Government accept the recommendations of the Cameron Inquiry into Federal Road Grants. (2) Does the Federal Government accept the 4 indicator formula which the Inquiry recommends be used to determine funding grants. (3) Does the Minister for Transport accept that the cost of road construction, maintenance and upgrading is higher in remote areas, where material, freight and wage costs are higher; if so, does the Minister agree that any road funding formula should take account of those higher than average costs. (4) How does the Minister believe the Cameron Inquiry's recommendations meet this requirement. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Yes. (3) and (4) The Cameron Report specifically addressed the issue of cost disabilities in developing indicators of road funding requirements. However it was unable to find an acceptable means of measuring average State costs that are comparable from State to State nor distinguish the effect of each of the various factors producing cost differences. Almost every State and the Northern Territory maintained that its costs were higher or rising faster than in other States. Senator Button —On 23 February 1987 (Hansard, page 412) Senator Chaney asked me, in my capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate, a supplementary question without notice concerning the change in the relative position of poor families with dependent children as a result of the Government's policies. I undertook to provide Senator Chaney with a reply on this matter. I now supply the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In the context of economic circumstances which require significant adjustment to the living standards of all Australians, Government policies have sought to ensure the maximum possible protection of the position of low income families. The Government has focused significant increases in assistance on social security recipients with dependent children. For example, the Government has increased the additional pension/benefit for children by 33% in real terms from $10 to $17 per week per child. Between March 1983 and December 1986 the real disposable income of a sole parent pensioner with two children (renting privately) increased by 10%. For a married pensioner couple with two children (renting privately), the Government has increased their real disposable income by 7%. As well as increasing the level of benefits available to pensioner families with dependent children, the Government has taken action to address poverty traps for families making the transition to the workforce. In July this year the income-test free threshold for married couples will be raised from $50 to $70 per week, and the additional income-test free area for a dependent child will be doubled from $6 to $12 per child per week. As well the separate income test for rent assistance will be abolished, giving about 300 000 people up to $15 extra a week. The Government has also taken measures to increase assistance to low income families in the workforce. Like the additional pension/benefit for children, the Family Income Supplement has been increased from $10 to $17 per child per week. The scope for further Government action to protect and improve the position of low income families will be determined in the context of the framing of the 1987-88 Budget. However, as part of the Social Security Review a major issues paper concerning options for improving family assistance (with increased emphasis on low income families) has been released for community discussion. A Cabinet Sub-Committee has been established to develop proposals for reform which draw on the work of the Social Security Review. Senator Button —On 23 March 1987 (Hansard, page 1117) Senator Michael Baume asked me, as Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs, a question without notice concerning newspaper reports that $67m out of $103m allocated in Federal funding for job creation programs in New South Wales had not yet been spent. I undertook to provide him with an answer to the question as soon as possible. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No, the report is not correct. Of the $103.6 million mentioned in the report $63 million has been provided by the Commonwealth under the Community Employment Program (CEP). Despite the late start to CEP in 1986-87 in N.S.W., I understand that this allocation will be fully spent. The remaining $40.6 million has been provided by the N.S.W. State Government and is not Commonwealth funds. Responsibility for its allocation and spending falls within the portfolio of Mr Pat Hills (N.S.W. Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment) and, as such, it would not be appropriate for me to comment. (Question No. 1104) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) What was the estimated, or proven, level of research by the Australian manufacturing industry in the financial years 1983-84, and 1984-85 in the following areas-(a) new technology, and (b) export marketing techniques. (2) What is the projected level of research by private manufacturing industry in the current financial year and the next one. (3) What positive encouragement and help in the field of private enterprise research is available to the Australian manufacturing industry from the Federal Government. (4) What positive steps have been taken, or are being contemplated, by the Federal Government to establish viable new manufacturing industries with export potential. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has estimated that expenditure on research and experimental development (R & D) carried out in Australia by business enterprises, in both private and public sectors, amounted to $721m in 1984-85. This represents an increase of 90% over 1981-82 ($380m). For the manufacturing sector, the figure was $439m, an increase of 84.5% over 1981-82 ($238m). In 1983-84, total business enterprise expenditure on R & D was estimated by the ABS at $402m; and the manufacturing sector at $228m. However, these 1983-84 figures, based on a sample survey only and subject to a margin of error of about 5% in either direction, are not strictly comparable to the 1984-85 and 1981-82 figures quoted above. Current ABS data do not provide sufficient details to enable identification or estimation of R & D expenditure on new technology ((1) (a)), and export marketing techniques ((1) (b)). Following the introduction of the Government's 150% taxation concession for eligible R & D expenditure, it is expected that statistical information on R & D expenditures in Australia will improve. (2) Some preliminary estimates of increases in the level of business enterprises' expenditure on R & D have been made. These are based on ABS statistics and registrations by companies of intended plans to take advantage of the 150% tax concession scheme for eligible R & D expenditure. These estimates show that businesses R & D performance for 1985-86 was about $1,000m, 40% higher in current terms than in the previous year, with a further increase of about 25% (to $1,250) in 1986-87. (3) The Government's major program to support private sector R & D is the 150% tax concession for research and development expenditure. The tax concession has been set at a level which should provide a substantial stimulus to private sector research and development. It is designed to encourage companies to view technology as part of their overall strategic business and investment strategies, rather than an activity to be regarded as expendable in times of economic downturn. The revenue forgone by the concession has been estimated at around $150m in 1986-87 resulting from eligible expenditure in 1985-86. Recognising that many small, innovative, start-up companies typically do not have a tax liability, the Government has complemented the 150% tax concession with the Grants for Industrial Research and Development (GIRD) Scheme. Grants are also available for emerging technologies of fundamental importance to industry competitiveness such as biotechnology, new materials and microelectronics, and to support industrial research projects with significant national benefits. The Scheme will run for five years from 1 July 1986 and will cost $12.5m in 1986-87. In the course of developing both the 150% tax concession and the supporting GIRD Scheme, attention was also paid to encouraging Australia's public sector research institutions to undertake more research in areas of relevance to the longer term competitiveness of Australian industry. The Government has made changes to the institutions themselves, such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and to research funding arrangements in the higher education sector. (4) Encouraging the establishment of viable new manufacturing industries with export potential is an integral part of the Government's overall industry policy objective of making all Australian industry more internationally competitive, export oriented and innovative. The substantial depreciation of the Australian dollar has given existing and potential manufacturing and service industries a major opportunity to compete more successfully internationally. The Government regards the international competitiveness of industry as an important objective to which a wide range of Government programs can contribute. For example, to capitalise on the present opportunity the Government has aimed to maintain supportive macro-economic policies. However, developing competitive new industries and expanding manufacturing activity requires active and comprehensive industry and technology policies in addition to the right macroeconomic conditions. Aspects of these policies which are particularly relevant to the creation of viable new industries, include: support for innovation, including research and development, and the development of generic technologies; the introduction of sectoral policies to hasten the emergence of new industries with export potential; and facilitation of international co-operation between Australian firms and potential overseas business partners. Support for Innovation The Government considers innovation to be a driving force of future competitive advantage. Product innovation gives Australian firms the commercial initiative in world markets, opening the prospect of new manufacturing industries with export potential. Process innovation typically allows production cost reductions, quality improvements, and earlier or more assured delivery. Sales volumes can thus increase and export income, jobs and growth prospects for the innovating firm can improve. The Government's key programs to support private enterprise research and development were outlined in the answer to Question (3) above. However, the Government's approach to encouraging innovation has been designed to extend well beyond R & D activities in isolation to ensure that each link in the chain of innovation receives integrated Government support. Incentives for R & D activity, such as the 150% taxation concession for R & D expenditure and the Grants for Industry Research and Development Scheme are complemented by programs to assist the diffusion throughout industry of new technologies. Special assistance is provided to foster the emergence in Australia of `generic' technologies-technologies which offer the keys to international competitive success across a range of Australian industries in the future. Examples are new materials, biotechnology and information technologies. To build on its assistance to R & D efforts, the Government has made venture and development finance available through the Management and Investment Companies Scheme and the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Making such finance available ensures that firms have the opportunity to commercialise the results of R & D investments. For the production stage of the innovation chain, comprehensive assistance is available through the National Industry Extension Service to encourage improved production techniques and modern business practice. For the marketing stage, particularly export marketing, relevant Government programs include the revised Offsets Program, Government purchasing policies, the Buy Australian Campaign and the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. Sectoral Policies Special sectoral policies have been introduced to hasten the emergence in Australia of new industries with export potential. Sectoral policies of this type include, or are being developed for, the communications equipment industry and the information industries. Such sectoral policies typically seek to utilise mutually supportive contributions by firms, industry associations, unions, Government agencies and research institutions to facilitate exports and growth in the sector concerned. The Government's role is primarily catalytic. International Co-operation Increasing attention is being given to facilitating international co-operation between Australian firms and potential business partners overseas. The aim is to ensure that Australian firms can participate in the rapid technological developments now occurring globally, and are in a position to utilise the technological, investment and marketing potential which international commercial linkages among firms can offer. The recent exchange of investment missions with Japan is an example. (Question No. 1341) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What are the gross and net savings (after taking into account costs of servicing the Illawarra region from Sydney) involved in closing the Wollongong office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, as announced in the Budget, in 1986-87 and in a full year. (2) Is this office ``cost efficient'' according to the Department's criteria and would it have run at a ``profit'' in 1986-87 if costs and charges for its services to the public were applied against its expenses. (3) How many permanent and temporary staff positions will be cut as a result of its closure and what will these savings be. (4) How long is the lease on the Department's present office Wollongong and what is its annual costs, and will that lease be terminated and at what cost. (5) How much space has been allocated for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the proposed $17m Commonwealth office building in Wollongong, construction of which appears to have been deferred in the Budget, and how will this space now be occupied if the building proceeds. (6) What is the average delay time in dealing with immigration enquiries in the Sydney office compared to the Wollongong office of the department. (7) What is the ratio of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Department personnel in the Wollongong office to the migrant population of the Illawarra region and what are the similar ratios for Newcastle and the Sydney office (related to the remainder of New South Wales). (8) What is the ratio of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Department personnel on the same basis to new arrivals into each of these 3 regions in 1985. (9) What is the ratio of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Department personnel on the same basis to-(a) counter enquiries; and (b) telephone enquiries in each of these 3 regions. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (3) The Wollongong Office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIEA) is to remain open with reduced staffing and functions. The average staffing level has been reduced to 3.5 from that achieved in 1985-86 of 10.8. The number of positions in the office establishment has been reduced from 16 in 1985-86, of which 10 were filled, to 3 following the recent decision. Savings which will result are estimated at: Nil in 1986-87 and $258,000 in a full year. These figures relate to savings in respect of salary, salary-related and administrative costs arising from the reduction in staffing numbers. The figures now take account of redeployment/redundancy costs, which, until decisions had been made by individual staff members affected, could not be precisely determined. (2) It is not feasible to set charges for service at a level which would recoup the direct costs of most activities, much less the full cost. The departmental assessment of unit production costs for Wollongong Area office indicates that they do not compare favourable with the same costs for larger offices. (4) The lease terminates on 14 August 1988. The annual rental costs is $30,300. The future of the lease is being reviewed. (5) Based on the previous DIEA staff numbers in Wollongong, space allocated for the Department in the proposed new Commonwealth Office building was 398 square metres. Following the decision to retain a smaller DIEA presence in Wollongong the space has been reduced. The balance of the space formerly allocated for the Department will cater for the current and future increased needs of other Commonwealth Departments and agencies. (6) Reliable statistics concerning the time taken to deal with enquiries are available on a state by state basis only. (7) The ratio of DIEA staff to migrant population (defined as those people, permanently resident in Australia, who were born overseas) in New South Wales in 1:2356. New South Wales is serviced by the Sydney Regional Office, the ACT Regional Office, and the Newcastle, Wollongong and Parramatta Area Offices. It is not possible to identify accurately catchment areas serviced by individual regional or area offices. In the event that such a ratio could be calculated any conclusions to be drawn from it would be immaterial. It does not take into account such critical factors as length of time the migrant has been in Australia; whether the migrant is of an English speaking background; which migration category they fall into ie refugee or Business Migration Program. Such a ratio would also fail to acknowledge funds provided to external bodies (such as to Migrant Resource Centres) to service migrants' needs and resources required to service needs of non-residents. (8) Reliable information on location of new arrivals within States and Territories is not available. (9) Reliable statistics on counter enquiries are not available before 1986/87. Current statistics are produced on a state by state basis only. The Department does not collect statistics on the number of telephone enquiries received by regional or area offices. (Question No. 1538) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to a call from the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations for the banning of the herbicide ``Dinoseb''. (2) Is it a fact this particular herbicide is widely used in Queensland, particularly in the peanut industry. (3) What measures are being taken by the Federal Government in (a) investigating the effects of the herbicide Dinoseb; and (b) if those investigations confirm the United States concern will any action be taken by the Commonwealth or in conjunction with the States to prevent, or control its further use, as the herbicide ``Dinoseb'' has been banned in the United States by its Environmental Protection Agency on the grounds that during, or shortly after, field application it poses a very serious threat to pregnant women and could also pose a risk of sterility for male workers. Senator Tate —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Dinoseb has been used in the peanut industry in Queensland. (3) (a) A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) of the data available on Dinoseb confirmed the findings of carcinogenicity and teratogenicity in animals. (3) (b) In December 1986, the NH & MRC issued a recommendation that Dinoseb be restricted to Schedule 7 of the NH & MRC standard for Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons, and that it should be available for ``approved research purposes only''. In addition, it was recommended that the sale of Dinoseb should cease immediately. All appropriate State and Federal bodies have been notified of these recommendations. (Question No. 1595) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What is the total amount of fees raised by student unions at Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education or by Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education on behalf of student unions throughout Australia. (2) What are the fees for each University for full-time first year and full-time re-enrolling students and part-time first and part-time re-enrolling students which make up the figure supplied for Question 1. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) A precise figure is not available. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education do not collect this information as part of their regular statistical collections. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has estimated on the basis of information from a sample of institutions that the student union fee for a full-time re-enrolling student in 1986 averaged approximately $170 at universities and about $115 at colleges of advanced education. Full-time commencing students paid between $5 and $45 more than re-enrolling students. The estimated total amount of student union fees for full-time students at universities would be approximately $19m and for those at colleges of advanced education the figure would be about $12m. This estimate is based on the assumption that commencing students paid $5 more than re-enrolling students. Student union fees for part-time and external students are charged on a pro-rata basis but the range is so wide that it is not possible to produce a total estimated amount with any degree of certainty. (Question No. 1603) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Can the Minister for Trade advise the Senate of the status of discussions between Australia and the US on that country's decision to impose a 0.227 percent across-the-board customs levy on all imports. (2) How does the Government intend to resolve this matter and what are the Government's options under GATT for dealing with this matter. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Customs User Fee of 0.22 percent ad valorem imposed by the US from 1 December 1986 will cost Australian exporters about $A7m per annum. Australia has made strong representations to the United States Administration, through the Australian Embassy in Washington, pointing out that the fee is disproportionate to any service provided by the US and impacts unduly on bulk commodity exporters such as Australia. (2) The Australian Government joined with the Governments of Canada, the European Community, Japan and other countries in GATT consultations with the United States in December 1986. The Australian submission stated that we consider the fee inconsistent with US obligations under Article VIII.1 (A) and Article II.2 (C) of the GATT and noted that the fee impairs tariff bindings previously entered into by the United States. As the consultations proved inconclusive, it is expected that a panel will be formed to examine the issue. Australia will support the establishment of such a panel. (Question No. 1617) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) What are (a) the vessels names (b) the type and class designation; (c) whether or not the vessel was nuclear powered; (d) the port visited; and (e) the dates and length of the visit, in respect of the United States Navy submarines and warships which visited Australia in 1986. (2) What are (a) the vessels names (b) the type and class designation; (c) whether or not the vessel was nuclear powered; (d) the port visited; and (e) the dates and length of the visit, in respect of the Royal Navy warships which visited Australia in 1986. (3) What are (a) the vessels names (b) the type and class designation; (c) whether or not the vessel was nuclear powered; (d) the port visited; and (e) the dates and length of the visit, in respect of the French warships which visited Australia in 1986. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Ship Port Dates Type/Class (1) UNITED STATES NAVY USS Chandler Townsville 4-8 Feb. 1986 Destroyer/DD USCGC Polar Star Sydney 3-9 Mar. 1986 Ice Breaker/WAGB USS Whipple Brisbane 14-15 Aug. 1986 Frigate/FF USS Whipple Cairns 8-11 Aug. 1986 Frigate/FF USS Whipple Darwin 31 July-4 Aug. 1986 Frigate/FF USS Chandler Brisbane 10-15 Aug. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Leahy Fremantle 19-27 Apr. 1986 Cruiser/CG USS Paul F. Foster Sydney 29 Sept.-7 Oct. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Oldendorf Sydney 29 Sep.-7 Oct. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Blue Ridge Sydney 29 Sep.-7 Oct. 1986 Amphibious Command/LC USS White Plains Fremantle 18-22 July 1986 Combat Store Ship/ASF USS Tarawa Fremantle 9-10 Sept. 1986 Carrier/LHA USS Juneau Fremantle 9-10 Sept. 1986 Amphibious Assault/LPO USS Fresno Fremantle 9-10 Sept. 1986 Tank Landing Ship/LST USS Oldendorf Darwin 20-21 Sept. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Juneau Fremantle 16-22 Sept. 1986 Amphibious Transport/LPO USS Tuscaloosa Fremantle 9-10 Sept. 1986 Tank Landing Ship/LST *USS Tautog Stirling 29 Jan.-4 Feb. 1986 Submarine/SSN USS Paul F. Foster Newcastle 19-22 Sept. 1986 Destroyer/DD USNS Navasota Fremantle 16-22 Sept. 1986 Oiler/AO *USS Enterprise Fremantle (Gage Rds) 18-22 July 1986 Aircraft Carrier/CVN USNS Navasota Fremantle 9-10 Sept. 1986 Oiler/AO *USS Truxtun Stirling 18-22 July 1986 Cruiser/CGN *USS Arkansas Stirling 18-22 July 1986 Cruiser/CGN USNS Hassayampa Fremantle 18-22 July 1986 Oiler/AO USS Tuscaloosa Fremantle 16-22 Sept. 1986 Tank Landing Ship/LST USS Paul F. Foster Port Kembla 22-25 Sept. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Paul F. Foster Brisbane 16-18 Sept. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Fresno Fremantle 16-22 Sept. 1986 Tank Landing Ship/LST USS Joseph Strauss Fremantle 2 June 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Joseph Strauss Kangaroo Island 7-8 June 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Joseph Strauss Adelaide 8-11 June 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Joseph Strauss Sydney 14-17 June 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Rathburne Melbourne 8-10 June 1986 Frigate/FF USS Rathburne Sydney 13-17 June 1986 Frigate/FF USS Cimarron Melbourne 2-10 June 1986 Oiler/AO USS Cimarron Sydney 13-17 June 1986 Oiler/AO USS Blue Ridge Melbourne 9-14 Oct. 1986 Amphibious Command/LC USS Copeland Fremantle 9-13 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF USS Missouri Sydney 1-6 Oct. 1986 Battleship/BB USS Missouri Hobart 8-11 Oct. 1986 Battleship/BB USS Towers Cairns 3 Oct. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Towers Sydney 7-13 Oct. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Missouri Fremantle 16-19 Oct. 1986 Battleship/BB USS Blue Ridge Fremantle 19-25 Oct. 1986 Amphibious Command/LC USS Copeland Melbourne 18-21 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF USS Paul F. Foster Adelaide 22-24 Oct. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Missouri Albany 15 Oct. 1986 Battleship/BB USS Towers Adelaide 22-24 Oct. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Towers Brisbane 28 Oct.-1 Nov. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Towers Cairns 3-4 Nov. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Paul F. Foster Melbourne 9-13 Oct. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Blue Ridge Darwin 30 Oct.-2 Nov. 1986 Amphibious Command/LC USS Paul F. Foster Fremantle 28-31 Oct. 1986 Destroyer/DD *USS Carl Vinson Fremantle 19-27 Dec. 1986 Aircraft Carrier/CVN USS Vincennes Fremantle 19-27 Dec. 1986 Cruiser/CG USS San Jose Fremantle 19-27 Dec. 1986 Combat Store Ship/AFS USS Roanoke Cockburn Sound 19-27 Dec. 1986 Oiler/AO USS Flint Cockburn Sound 19-27 Dec. 1986 Ammunition Ship/AE/T USS Paul F. Foster Fremantle 19-27 Dec. 1986 Destroyer/DD USS Jouett Albany 19-27 Dec. 1986 Cruiser/CG USS Marvin Shields Albany 19-27 Dec. 1986 Frigate/FF USS Brewton Geraldton 19-27 Dec. 1986 Frigate/FF USS Gary Bunbury 19-27 Dec. 1986 Frigate/FF USS Leahy Bunbury 19-27 Dec. 1986 Cruiser/CG USNS Mispillion Fremantle 19-27 Dec. 1986 Oiler/AO * Denotes nuclear powered vessel (2) ROYAL NAVY HMS Beaver Sydney 29 Sept.-13 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF HMS Illustrious Sydney 29 Sept.-13 Oct. 1986 Carrier/CV HMS Illustrious Brisbane 19-24 Sept. 1986 Aircraft Carrier/CV HMS Amazon Cairns 16-18 Sept. 1986 Frigate/FF HMS Beaver Newcastle 22-25 Sept. 1986 Frigate/FF HMS Manchester Darwin 30 Aug.-2 Sept. 1986 Destroyer/DD HMS Manchester Sydney 29 Sept.-13 Oct. 1986 Destroyer/DD HMS Amazon Sydney 29 Sept.-7 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF HMS Illustrious Cairns 16 Sept. 1986 Carrier/CV HMS Beaver Darwin 12-14 Sept. 1986 Frigate/FF HMS Amazon Darwin 12-14 Sept. 1986 Frigate/FF HMS Amazon Geelong 9-13 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF HMS Amazon Encounter Bay 18-19 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF HMS Beaver Adelaide 22-27 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF HMS Amazon Adelaide 22-27 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF HMS Illustrious Fremantle 25-30 Oct. 1986 Carrier/CV HMS Manchester Fremantle 25-30 Oct. 1986 Destroyer/DD RFA Olmeda Sydney 29 Sept.-14 Oct. 1986 Tanker/AOF(F) RFA Fort Grange Sydney 29 Sept.-13 Oct. 1986 Fleet Oiler/AEFS RFA Bayleaf Darwin 30 Aug.-2 Sept. 1986 Tanker/AOS RFA Bayleaf Sydney 29 Sept.-6 Oct. 1986 Tanker/AOS RFA Olmeda Newcastle 22-25 Sept. 1986 Tanker/AOF(F) RFA Olmeda Townsville 16-18 Sept. 1986 Tanker/AOF(F) RFA Fort Grange Mackay 18-23 Sept. 1986 Replenishment Ship/AEFS RFA Olmeda Darwin 11-12 Sept. 1986 Tanker/AOF(F) RFA Bayleaf Melbourne 9-15 Oct. 1986 Tanker/AOS RFA Olmeda Adelaide 22-27 Oct. 1986 Tanker/AOF(F) RFA Bayleaf Fremantle 25-30 Oct. 1986 Tanker/AOS RFA Fort Grange Fremantle 25-30 Oct. 1986 Replenishment Ship/AEFS (3) FRENCH NAVY FNS Jean Moulin Darwin 19-22 Sept. 1986 Frigate/FF FNS Commandant Blaison Sydney 1-7 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF FNS Commandant Blaison Hobart 10-14 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF FNS Commandant Blaison Adelaide 21-27 Oct. 1986 Frigate/FF * Denotes nuclear powered vessel (Question No. 1625) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) What progress has been made in the case involving the 2 people apprehended in a bird smuggling attempt. (2) Is it a fact that the case is now before the Director, Public Prosecutions; if so, when are charges to be formally laid; if no charges are laid, why not. (See answer to Question on Notice No. 1446, Hansard, 9 December 1986 p. 3655) Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) A prosecution brief has been prepared by the Australian Customs Service and after consideration by the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, has been forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of certain alleged offences under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. Consideration by the Quarantine Service of offences alleged in the prosecution brief against the Quarantine Act 1908 is not yet complete. (Question No. 1635) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) How many films have been shown by Qantas on its international services in the last 3 financial years. (2) How many of these films were made in Australia. (3) Is there any policy to give preference to Australian-made films on Qantas; if so, when was it introduced; if not, will one be introduced. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: See answer to Question No. 1493 which appeared in Hansard of 26 February 1987, page 746. (Question No. 1656) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 February 1987: (1) Could the Prime Minister provide details of the Government-funded Bicentennial tour of the Australian Dance Theatre, the Sydney Dance Company, the Queensland Ballet Company and the Western Australian Ballet scheduled for the first 5 months of 1988. (2) Could the Prime Minister particularly provide information as to the material being performed and the Australian content of their repertoire. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentenary has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The proposed tour in 1988 by the Australian Dance Theatre, Sydney Dance Company, Queensland Ballet Company and Western Australian Ballet-the ``National Dance Event''-will be part of the National Performing Arts Program of the Arts Australia Program planned by the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The national tour will include Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Sydney between February and April 1988. A detailed itinerary has yet to be confirmed. (2) The core of the National Dance Event will be a specially created work involving dancers of all four companies, choreographed by Graeme Murphy to a score by Barry Conyngham, conducted by John Hopkins. Set design will be by Andrew Carter; and the Tasmanian and Queensland Symphony Orchestras will provide live orchestral accompaniment for the performances. In addition, a second program will be presented as a quadruple bill with each company presenting a ``signature work''. The quadruple bill program has yet to be finalised, but it is expected that the majority of these works will also be by Australian choreographers. It will be presented as a free `parks' performance in each capital city, using recorded music. (Question No. 1670) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Trade aware of reports that an Austrade survey of potential Australian exporters showed that over 75 per cent of those surveyed believed that their products could be competitive overseas, that most did not believe that they had all the expertise necessary to sell abroad and that less than 20 per cent had applied for export development grants. (2) What further steps does the Minister believe can be taken to encourage the growth of exports, in view of the apparent lack of willingness of many Australian companies to take advantage of competitive economic conditions. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am aware of the AUSTRADE survey referred to. The survey was based on questionnaires distributed at seminars for new exporters held in all Australian capitals during February 1987. The seminars were conducted by the Australian Trade Commission. (2) The Commission advises that it could not be inferred from responses to the questionnaire that there is a lack of willingness among seminar participants to engage in export. Indeed their very attendance at the seminars indicates that the companies concerned want to seriously address the possibility of exporting and some 45% of attendees have already begun exporting. The Honourable Senator is of course correct in suggesting that the Government ought to do all within its power to encourage more companies into export. This is a major objective of the National Export Drive which the Prime Minister announced in June 1986. Accordingly, the Australian Trade Commission, which is responsible for administering the Drive, has in recent months carried out an extensive program of individual contacts with senior private sector management. It is also running a major seminar program both for new and established exporters. The aim of these and other programs is to ensure that all Australian companies are alive to the urgent need for increased export and that for a variety of reasons, including increased price competitiveness, they are well placed to achieve this objective. (Question No. 1716) Senator Hill asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 3 April 1987: (1) Is the Government currently considering substantial changes to the customs clearance procedures of the Australian Customs Service; if so, what will be the implications for the scale of customs activity in the state of South Australia. (2) What would be the magnitude of any job losses in the state of South Australia within the customs service. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Customs Service (ACS) is developing an implementation strategy for a system to improve the cargo clearance process. As well as upgrading the ACS's ability to identify risk cargo this integrated cargo control and clearance system (ICCCS) aims to reduce costs by greatly improving communications among all parties involved in the import process and minimising the level of intrusion by way of paperwork and physical control. The ACS had been involved in extensive negotiations with parties throughout Australia who are involved in existing cargo clearance procedures including freight handlers and storage companies, importers, shipping and airline companies, and unions. It has published and distributed extensively an options paper for change and is now analysing responses. A firm of management consultants is assisting with the analysis, and will assist with the next round of consultation. The ACS is not proposing to centralise clearance arrangements at the major clearance arrangements at the major gateway ports of Sydney and Melbourne but rather to have most of the current documentary processes carried out before the cargo arrives in Australia. On this basis there should be minimal effect on the scale of customs activity in South Australia. (2) The Comptroller-General of Customs has assured staff about the security of employment for Customs officers in South Australia. So far as general employment in South Australia is concerned, this is one of the matters under study. The South Australian Government has made submissions on this matter. (Question No. 1551) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Education aware of complaints from tutors employed under contract under the Aboriginal Education Scheme, that they are owed wages in arrears for over 3 months. (2) Is the Minister aware that these tutors, who live in the Alice Springs area, have been in financial hardship as a result of the delays in payments of wages by the Commonwealth Department of Education. (3) On what basis, i.e., weekly, fortnightly, monthly, should tutors employed on a contract basis be paid. (4) Does the Minister believe that these payments are being made on time, or is she aware of a problem in the payment system. (5) Is the Minister aware that a problem with late payment of wages has existed for 2 years, and the tutors involved have approached the Northern Territory Ombudsman to attempt to resolve their difficulties. (6) Is the Minister aware that at least one of the tutors who approached the Department of Education received an acknowledgment that there are difficulties with the pay system, which also included a comment that the employment of the tutor could be terminated without notice, leaving the recipient of the advice with the impression that if he/she queried pay difficulties he/she could end up fired. (7) Does the Minister agree that this response was quite improper; if so, will she see that further legitimate inquiries concerning late payment for work performed are not met with a similar response. (8) What efforts are being made by the Department of Education to rectify the problems in the payment system. (9) When is it expected that these problems will be overcome. (10) Is the Minister aware of an investigation being conducted into the behaviour of a public servant, in the Department of Education in Alice Springs, in relation to information he or she may have provided a Northern Territory MLA. (11) Would the public servant under investigation be in breach of any confidentiality provisions if he/she provided basic information, on dates of payments, amounts of payments, etc., which was sought with the knowledge and authority of the person who was entitled to receive payments. (12) Will the Minister take action to ensure that public servants who may have provided such information are not victimised. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Under the Aboriginal Secondary Assistance Scheme (Absec) and the Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (Abstudy), assistance is available for students to receive additional tutorials to help overcome specific weaknesses or difficulties encountered in their course. This assistance is supplementary to and separate from tuition provided within the student's course. The tutors involved in the supplementary assistance are not employees of the Commonwealth Department of Education, but are engaged on a contract basis to undertake a specific task over a specific period of time. The program of students receiving tutorials is monitored and the need for tutorials is subject to regular review. Consequently the contracts of tutors are also subject to regular review. As tutors are not employed on a permanent basis, it is regular practice for officers of the Department to inform tutors that they should not regard income from tutoring as a permanent or major source of income. (1) and (2) I am aware that there were delays in payments during 1986, due to problems associated with the transfer from a manual to a computer based system for processing tutor's claims and because of staffing difficulties in the Darwin and Alice Springs Offices. However, I understand payments are now up to date for claims which have been submitted correctly. As noted above, tutors are advised that they should not regard income from tutoring as a permanent or major source or income. (3) Payments are made in the fortnight following receipt of claims from tutors. (While there remain some problems associated with the introduction of the new computer system, it has enabled payments to be made fortnightly rather than monthly and in general throughout Australia this has led to a significant reduction in turnaround time for claims). The Department encourages tutors to submit claims each fortnight to ensure there is not a long gap between when the services are provided and when payments are made, but it is not unusual for tutors to submit claims covering six weeks or more. (4) See response (1) and (2). (5) In 1985 and 1986, a total of 589 tutors were engaged by the NT Office of the Department of Education. The following complaints were received from the Northern Territory Ombudsman's Office concerning late payments: 10.10.85 from two tutors working at the Community College of Central Australia 26.9.86 from two tutors working at the Darwin Institute of Technology. (6) and (7) I am aware that a circular letter was sent to a number of tutors in order to clarify the objectives of tutorials and the basis on which they are approved (as I have outlined above). The reference to termination of contracts was a direct extract from the contract signed by tutors and was designed to emphasise the essentially temporary nature of income from this source. There was no suggestion that termination could occur for querying pay difficulties. (8) A number of steps are being taken to rectify problems: A senior ADP programmer has been engaged full-time to redesign aspects of the system (software) which have created difficulties. A review of procedures associated with the system has been undertaken by the NT Office. New procedures have been developed and are currently being trialled. A staff member in the NT Office has been engaged to co-ordinate and monitor arrangements including provision of advice to both tutors and departmental officers of correct procedures to be followed. (9) The revision of the software is almost completed and it is expected that the difficulties will be overcome early in 1987. (10), (11), (12) I am aware that the Department is enquiring into the alleged actions of an officer who at the time was temporarily located in Alice Springs. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment at this stage, but I understand that the allegations do not relate to tutor payments or to information provided to a Northern Territory MLA. (Question No. 1641) Senator Hamer asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: (1) How many publications has the Centre for Policy Studies, Faculty of Economics and Politics, Monash University, produced since its inception in October 1979, and what are the titles of these publications. (2) How many of these publications were written for the Government, i.e. for the Economic Planning Advisory Council and for the Department of the Treasury. (3) How many external seminars have been held by the Centre since its inception, and what were the topics under investigation. (4) How many visitors have accepted invitations to the Centre, what are their names and credentials, and which were from within Australia and which from overseas. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (4) The Centre for Policy Studies was approved for Commonwealth Special Research Centre funding in 1982 and since then has submitted an Annual Report to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The information requested by the honourable senator on the publications and activities of the Centre is published in these Annual Reports. I have arranged to send to the honourable senator, under separate cover, copies of the 1983, 1984 and 1985 Annual Reports. (Question No. 1673) Senator Morris asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of reports that an Australian company, Information Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd, has won a $20 million contract for support services and software for the United States Navy. (2) What research and development grants have been made by the Government to this company and what other Government assistance has it received. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that Information Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd gained a $20 million contract with the United States Navy. I wrote to Mr Jonathan Farrell, Managing Director, on 13 March of this year offering congratulations on the company's significant achievement, and how this company was in line with Government policy to re-focus on international markets. (2) (a) The company received a research and development grant under the former Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme. The company was allocated a total grant of $545,400 of which it has received $528,100. The project was completed on 31 March 1987-three months ahead of the completion date of 30 June 1987. The grant was used to develop expert system generator software which together with consulting and education services form the basis of the United States contract. (2) (b) I am not aware of any other Government assistance that the company has received. (Question No. 1677) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) What opportunity exists for general aviation operators to be charged on a `user pays' basis under the present system of air navigation charges. (2) Is it the case that general aviation operators must pay charges on the basis of the services provided at airports, even if the operators do not use and do not wish to use those services. (3) Will the Federal Government review the air navigation charges, to allow general aviation operators who do not use facilities at certain airports exemption from all or a percentage of the charge. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) None. Under the present system of air navigation charges for general aviation aircraft, charges are payable annually in advance, based on the weight of the aircraft and its category of operations. The charge is unrelated to the level of usage of facilities, and there is no specific charge for any individual facility. (2) No, not under the present system. (3) The Government is reviewing the present system of air navigation charges for general aviation aircraft, to seek a new charging system which would be related to aircraft activity and demand on Commonwealth funded facilities. (Question No. 1678) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: Is it the case that the Federal Government is considering abandonment of the recently introduced air navigation charge cost recovery scheme, in favour of a cost recovery scheme based on a levy on aviation fuel. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A new system of landing charges for all airline aircraft was introduced on 1 July 1986. However these charges are not being applied to general aviation (GA) as the Government accepted a proposal by the general aviation associations for `dual-running' in 1986/87 of the existing system of fixed annual air navigation charges and the new system of movement charges for GA. This allowed time for further consultations between industry and the Department on developing the most appropriate cost recovery and charging arrangements for GA. As part of the consultation process the Department of Aviation has been discussing with industry representatives, an alternative charging arrangement for general aviation. This alternative incorporates the use of a fuel excise surcharge on Avgas, in conjunction with landing charges for Air Traffic Control and Rescue and Fire Fighting Services at only the major airports owned by the Federal Airports Corporation. Charges for general aviation aircraft are considered appropriate at those airports, since there are alternative airports available to general aviation aircraft at which landing charges for these services will not be levied. Those GA aircraft which use Avtur would not incur the Avgas surcharge but would pay landing charges on the same basis as the airlines. The General Aviation associations have indicated that they fully support this alternative proposal and this matter will now be considered by the Government. Senator Tate —On 27 November 1986 (Hansard, page 2883) Senator Crowley asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question without notice relating to the advertising industry's portrayal of women, with particular reference to how media images of women may contribute to illnesses such as anorexia nervosa. Senator Grimes undertook to refer the matters raised by Senator Crowley to the Minister for Health for further information regarding the Government's action on those matters. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: The status of women is a priority of the Government, and action is being taken to address the needs and concerns raised during the consultations on the National Agenda for Women. In that context, the Office of the Status of Women-in conjunction with the Secretaries Task Force on the Status of Women-is considering the matter of media portrayal of women in advertising. The Office is considering the possibility of research into this matter, and is looking into revising the new edition of `Fair Exposure' to take account of the concerns that have been expressed regarding media portrayal of women. On the specific matter of anorexia nervosa, this is a complex psychiatric and physical illness that needs to be distinguished from the more widespread chronic dieting practices adopted by some young girls. It is these latter practices that appear to be related to media portrayals of women. Medical management of anorexia nervosa is difficult and long-term, and is primarily undertaken in special units. There is some debate at present about whether there has, in fact, been an increase in the incidence of this illness. In any event, however, there is no need for the Commonwealth to take any action in regard to the illness because adequate arrangements are already in place to treat it. Nevertheless, the Department of Health will keep the situation under general review and ensure that health promotion campaigns for which it is responsible do not add to the problem by over-emphasis upon excessive slimness as a norm. Senator Walsh —On 18 March 1987 (Hansard, page 887) Senator Watson asked me a question without notice in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. His question concerned the cost of a series of pamphlets recently circulated in the New South Wales Farmers Journal detailing the Government's rural policy initiatives. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Rural Policy Action Series consists of 40,000 of each of an initial series of nine pamphlets. Five titles have so far been produced and distributed, with 23,000 of each being inserted in the NSW Farmers Journal, under an agreement between that body and my Department. Three more titles are in production. The cost for each title has been some $10,000 which includes design and typesetting, editing and printing. The material was written by officers of this Department in consultation with interested parties. The total cost of the series thus far for 200,000 pamphlets is $50,000, and represents a unit cost of 25c. Of the 200,000, 158,285 copies have been distributed. Seven thousand of No. 2 were reprinted at a cost of $2,000. The practice of advertising the Government's rural policies is a cost-effective way of advising the rural community of programs of which it may be unaware, and of informing rural Australians generally. Rural Australians suffer disadvantages that do not face other Australians: disadvantages of distance from centres of government and services, and the kinds of communication problems that Aussat is designed to remedy. This series therefore fills a gap and has been recognised as doing so by rural organisations and State bodies, which have offered favourable comment and requested further copies. No. 2, on the Rural Adjustment Scheme, had in fact to go into reprint (7,000 copies) to meet the demand from farmers. The NSW Farmers Association felt the series sufficiently important to offer its services in distributing copies to its members (who comprise a third of Australian farmers). I would therefore see these measures as entirely appropriate, and would imagine that, if new initiatives arise in the Budget or elsewhere, they will be conveyed to the rural sector in cost-effective and informative ways such as this pamphlet series.