Thursday, 30 April 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The 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 provided 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 indexations of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependant Spouse Rebate to $1851 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 Senator Giles (from 135 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray: by Senators Peter Baume (from 12 citizens) and Childs (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. (2) The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: continue the fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senator West (from 15 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 Senators Childs (from 19 citizens) and Robertson (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We feel a deep concern about Christopher Boyce's allegations of intrusions into Australia's domestic affairs by the Central Intelligence Agency of America. We feel disturbed by the knowledge that the U.S. base at Pine Gap is a C.I.A. operation. We deplore the secrecy surrounding the functions of the U.S. bases in Australia. We therefore pray that the Australian Government will authorise a full, impartial public inquiry into all and any roles the Central Intelligence Agency of America has undertaken in Australia. We pray that this inquiry will allow the Australian public to make an informed decision about the future of the U.S. bases in Australia. by Senator Sanders (from 299 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 concern by farmers and consumers, 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, 3. ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X-ray etc.), 4. ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the proposed Australia Card legislation is an infringement of privacy. 2. That the bureaucracy created by the introduction of the Australia Card will be a further burden to Australian Taxpayers-one that they can ill-afford in the present economic climate. 3. That the Australia Card will not tackle the problems of tax evasion, welfare fraud and illegal immigration successfully. Your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: Continue to reject the Australia Card Bill preventing a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of privacy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 71 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government's failure to correct the anomalies arising from the application of the assets test on pensioners, with the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill to repeal the assets test, is causing unnecessary hardship for Australia's aged, particularly those living in rural areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will itself take action to repeal its iniquitous and anomalous test. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 87 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) - I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate - (a) rejects the majority report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes and endorses the minority report of Senators Walters and Brownhill; (b) considers the majority report to be yet another ideologically-based and unsubstantiated attack on the integrity of the medical profession in Australia; (c) considers the majority report to have largely overlooked the real issues affecting users and potential users of private hospitals; (d) rejects the majority recommendation that private hospitals should be regulated to a greater extent than public hospitals; (e) endorses the minority view that the Medicare levy has been largely responsible for taking patients out of the private hospital sector, thus overloading the public hospital system as many Australians have been unable to afford both the Medicare levy and additional private hospital insurance; (f) supports the minority recommendation that patients who choose private hospital accommodation should not be forced to pay twice as at present; that is, through the Medicare levy and private hospital insurance; (g) accepts the minority recommendation that the abolition of bulk billing for all those except disadvantaged patients would overcome concerns expressed about entrepreneurial medicine; (h) acknowledges that the Committee received no substantiated evidence to suggest impropriety by medical practitioners relating to private hospitals, with the reverse being the case in the only surveys submitted to the Committee which examined this area; (i) notes that 3 members of the 6 member Committee dissented from the Committee's recommendation that medical practitioners should be prohibited from holding financial interest in private hospitals; and (j) regrets the unbalanced and misleading media coverage of this report which, in most instances, totally ignored the existence of the dissenting report and failed to note that the Chairman was obliged to use her casting vote when the Committee was deadlocked over the proposal to prohibit investment in private hospitals by medical practitioners. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to standing order 109a I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name for six sitting days after today, for disallowance of the Northern Prawn (Special Provisions) Management Plan No. 12. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has been corresponding with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) about aspects of this plan which were of interest to the Committee under its principles of scrutiny. The Committee was concerned about the following matters: Some confused drafting; the width of a particular administrative discretion; the absence of avenues of appeal against certain decisions; and the consequences to lending institutions of certain fishing certificates becoming void on a future date. Senator Archer —Go a bit slower. Senator COONEY —I am sorry; Senator Archer has a special interest in this matter, so I shall. In correspondence with the Committee, the Minister has undertaken to correct the drafting to ensure clarity in the meaning of some provisions; he has agreed to replace the particular administrative discretion to do certain things with an obligation-as distinct from a discretion-to do those things; and he has agreed to amend the plan to ensure that lending institutions are put on notice of certain fishing certificates becoming void. Having carefully examined the question of the absence of a broad avenue of appeal against decisions to reduce fishing units the Committee after consulting its legal adviser has accepted the Minister's explanation that this reduction scheme is a cornerstone of the Minister's fishery conservation policy. Just diverting for a moment, I point out that, the Minister having given an explanation as to why there is no appeal mechanism from the decision to reduce the fishing units, because, as he says, that is the cornerstone of his policy-- Senator Macklin —A buoy! That's a millstone! Senator COONEY —What has happened is that the sorts of prawns we are dealing with here are different from those that the honourable senator may have in mind. This has nothing to do with the motion, but I remember attending university with someone who made a film in England on a prawn, and he almost brought down the Government. The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has made great endeavours to see that the prawns do not bring down anyone. Senator Macklin —This is fascinating stuff. Senator COONEY —It is. Prawns are very interesting animals. Senator Archer —I'm losing track. Senator COONEY —Senator Archer wants to listen to this, so I ask honourable senators to desist. He has an interest in this. In all seriousness, he has done great work for the prawn fishery fleets in the north, and I want Senator Archer to hear this. When scrutinising legislation the Regulations and Ordinances Committee does not question ministerial policy unless that policy is patently at variance with the Committee's principles of personal rights and liberties and should therefore be considered by Parliament as a whole in a Bill. Having examined the Minister's explanation of how the fishing reduction scheme will operate in practice the Committee considers that the absence of an avenue of merits appeal does not infringe its principles. The Committee thanks the Minister for Primary Industry for the co-operative and helpful way in which he has advised us. In keeping with the Committee's usual practice of informing the Senate and others of its scrutiny, I seek leave to incorporate the Committee's correspondence in Hansard. Leave granted. The correspondence read as follows- 24 February 1987 The Hon. John Kerin, M.P. Minister for Primary Industry Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 19 February 1987 the Committee considered the Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan (being Plan of Management No. 12) which provides for the conservation of northern prawn fishery stocks and the collection of relevant levy by instalments. The Committee seeks your views on some problematic aspects of the Plan. Firstly, the committee seeks your advice on some drafting deficiencies. Paragraph 9.1 provides that a Class A unit holder may surrender Class A units which then become reduction units AND transfer Class B and C units to a Class A holder OR surrender Class B and C units. This form of drafting is ambiguous since it does not make clear what are the permissible combinations of action a unit holder may take-[(a) and (b)] or (c); or (a) and [(b) or (c)]. Secondly, paragraph 32.3 (b) in Schedule 2 produces the same defect. This paragraph is also defective in that it does not identify which of the two sub-paragraphs is being amended and it seems that the word ``and'' will remain after the insertion of ``or'' thus ``. . . replaced boat; or and . . .''. Thirdly, paragraphs 9.3 to 9.5 provide for the transfer of reduction units of fishing. Paragraph 9.4 provides that a transfer shall not be granted unless the appropriate certificate is submitted to the Department. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the Plan notes on page 4 that ``such applications will be granted''. While that may be the current policy and intention, the effect of the drafting in paragraph 9 appears to be such as to confer an unfettered and unappellable discretion on the Department to transfer reduction units. This would seem to be at variance with your intention and perhaps the drafting of the paragraph could be strengthened to remove these objectionable elements and make a transfer obligatory on submission of the appropriate certificate. Fourthly, paragraph 14.1 provides that ``as soon as possible'' after 1 March 1990, the Department shall issue certain certificates to unit holders. Paragraph 14.2 provides that a certificate issued on or before 28 February 1990 shall be ``void and of no effect'' after 1 March 1990. The Committee is uncertain whether every single replacement certificate will be issued on 1 March 1990, immediately to fill the gap created by paragraph 14.2 making all prior certificates void and of no effect. The Committee notes that paragraph 14.1 states that new certificates issued after 1 March 1990 shall be adjusted to take account of transactions occurring between 1 March 1990 and the actual date of issue of the certificate. The Committee is concerned however, that the ``void and of no effect'' provision may cause uncertainty and confusion for persons engaged in part- completed transactions or who are genuinely contemplating such transactions. There may be a troublesome and possibly prejudicial hiatus between 1 March 1990 and the day adjusted certificates are issued. The Committee would very much appreciate your comments on this matter. Fifthly, the Committee has noted that there is no appeal against cancellation of Class A units under para- graph 10.1 of the Plan, nor is there any appeal against refusals to assign Class B units. The accompanying Explanatory Statement at page 4 expressly addresses this issue indicating in both cases that affected unit holders will have sufficient time to arrange their affairs so as to avoid, or minimise the effects of the cancellation rules or pre-empt the effects of the non-assignment rules. The Committee is uncertain whether as a matter of conscious policy you have chosen to adopt a course of action which will result in the special or personal circumstances of individuals being overriden by the mandatory requirements of the Plan. It may be that you have, as a matter of policy, decided that in individual cases the possibility of hardship, which could be overcome by the provision of appeal mechanisms, is the inevitable result of taking far-reaching and important conservation measures. The Committee has noted that where appeal rights have been provided under other fisheries management schemes, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has regarded apparently open-ended discretions as subject to the special circumstances of the individuals affected. These personal circumstances have had to be weighted against the intended effect of the Plan. (See for example Re Kennedy and Secretary, Department of Primary Industry (8ALN N194), Re Aston and Secretary, Department of Primary Industry (8ALD 366) and Musgrove and Secretary, Department of Primary Industry (unreported No. N86/313). The Committee recognises the difficulties and competing interests inherent in the conservation scheme and seeks your comments and views on the points noted above. Finally, the Committee seeks your advice on whether the payment of the levy provided for in paragraph 8.3 of the Plan is in accordance with the Act and the Regulations. Sub-sections 7 (5) and 7 (6) of the Fisheries Levy Act 1984 provide that the amount of levy imposed by the Act on the allocation or renewal of allocation of a unit of fishing capacity is payable by the person to whom the unit is allocated or reallocated at the time of the allocation or reallocation of the unit. Sub-regulations 6 (2) to 6 (5) fix the levy at a flat amount. Paragraph 8.3 (a) of the Plan proposes that Class A units be allocated in respect of two periods. This being an allocation of units, it may be that legally it should attract levy for each allocation. However, it would seem from paragraph 8.3 (b) that the intention is that only one levy is payable, divided between the two fishing periods. The latest Plan and the recently made legislative package on which it rests, are highly complex and intricate and the Committee seeks your expert opinion on the question of the validity of paragraph 8.3. Following its scrutiny of the Plan the Committee has raised a number of relatively difficult issues on which it would be very grateful to have your comments and views. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman 31 March 1987 Senator B Cooney Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Cooney I refer to your letter of 24 February 1987 asking a number of questions on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances about Plan of Management No. 12-Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan, under s.7b (1) of the Fisheries Act 1952. You raise the question of the permissible combinations of the matters in paragraph 9.1. The basic thrust of the paragraph is to set out what unit holders may do with units in relation to the reduction program. If they surrender Class A units during the specified period, those units are converted to reduction units. In most cases, Class A units and a Class B unit or a Class C unit are linked in a package related to a boat. In addition, a small number of persons hold Class A and Class B units that have never been assigned to a boat. Should a unit holder surrender, under the Voluntary Adjustment Scheme in Part 8 of the principal plan (the Scheme), a number of Class A units that leaves the number of such units assigned to a boat less than the applicable number in relation to that boat, the unit holder has the options of either transferring or surrendering the Class B or Class C unit assigned to the boat. (Whether the unit holder transferred, surrendered or did nothing about the Class B or Class C unit, the boat would no longer be eligible to operate in the fishery in such a case by virtue of having fewer than the applic- able number of Class A units assigned to it.) Sub-paragraphs 9.1 (b) and (c) make these options clear. The unit holder may do any of (a), (b) or (c). It is manifestly not possible to do (b) and (c) with the same units. I consider that paragraph 9.1 clearly expresses the intention underlying it. A unit holder who transfers or surrenders a Class B or Class C unit would receive either the current market price, in the case of a transfer, or the tender or offer price, in the case of surrender. Your comments about the amendment of sub-paragraph 32.3 (b) appear not to have taken account of paragraph 7 of Plan of Management No. 10. Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4 confer a conditional but unappellable discretion to the Department to grant applications to transfer reduction units. If the certificate is submitted, the application will be granted. Otherwise, it will not. This is part of a scheme to encourage unit holders to maximise the number of Class A units that they surrender for conversion to reduction units. Knowing that there is a free market for reduction units, they will be more likely to tender lower prices for surrender of Class A units to the Scheme with the expectation of obtaining further receipts on later sale of reduction units. As well, the full package of provisions in relation to reduction units takes account of the needs of holders of Class A units who might wish to surrender all of them. Such persons, who are clearly intending to leave the fishery, should be on equal footing with those who remain in the fishery by having an equal facility to dispose of reduction units by transferring them at a price to another unit holder who will have the benefit of the reduction units on 28 February 1990 when the formula in Schedule 1 is applied to the latter's holdings. For these reasons, I consider that paragraphs 9.1 to 9.4 in their present form provide all the necessary protection to unit holders. All applications under paragraph 9.3 that do not run contrary to paragraph 9.4 will be granted. Whether or not every replacement certificate will be issued on 1 March 1990, after application of the formula in Schedule 1, or on a later day, is irrelevant. Unit holders are frequently not in possession of their certificates. They may have given them to lending institutions as security. They may have sent them to my Department in connection with transactions under the plan. Should there by any delay after 1 March 1990 in sending out the replacement certificates, no person will suffer any disadvantage. Indeed it can be said with some confidence that a person contemplating acquisition of units by transfer at that time will be protected by paragraph 14 from fraudulent practices by a transferor who represented his holdings of Class A units on the basis of what was registered before 1 March 1990. I expect that on 1 March 1990, the calculation of the number of units to be cancelled, the production of statements of cancelled units under paragraph 10.2 and the production of replacement certificates for purposes of paragraph 14.1, will all be undertaken in a single pass of the relevant data through the computer on which the unit register is maintained. It is not anticipated there will be serious delays in getting the notifications of units cancelled and the replacement certificates into the hands of unit holders. It is not intended that decisions under paragraph 10.1 or 11 should be reviewable. These paragraphs are the cornerstone of the objectives of the plan which are to reduce the number of units in the fishery. It is acknowledged that they confront every unit holder with difficult decisions and may cause hardship to some individuals. However, the time frame for making those decisions and the operation of the Scheme will alleviate those hardships to the maximum possible extent. If review mechanisms were available, they might well encourage some operators to do nothing and then appeal on hardship grounds after 1 March 1990. This would bring down the structure of the reduction program to the detriment of those operators who did participate in it. I can not perceive that your committee would wish for that kind of outcome, in its effects both on the future of the fishery and on participating unit holders, as well as in relation to the perceptions that industry would form of the process of Government regulation of the fisheries and of the resolve of the fishery managers who are drawn from both Government and industry. As to your final point, I draw your attention to paragraph 8.4 of Plan of Management No. 12, which declares how the measures in paragraphs 8.1 and 8.3 are to be implemented. Paragraphs 8.1 to 8.3 were provided in the plan as statements of the intention and the reasons for the measures in Part 3 and Part 4 of the plan, not as the specifications for giving effect to those measures as the means of achieving the objectives of the plan. I hope that the foregoing explanations have clarified the concerns of your committee. My Department assures me that Plan of Management No. 12 was drafted with the utmost care and with deep concern for all of the points you have raised. As a final comment, you will no doubt be aware that on 23 March 1987, Senator Boswell tabled a notice of motion that the Senate disallow Plan of Management No. 12. Yours fraternally John Kerin PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES The Hon. John Kerin, M.P. Minister for Primary Industry Parliament House CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 2 April 1987 the Committee considered your letter of 31 March 1987 concerning the Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan (Plan of Management No. 12). The Committee thanks you for this initial response to the issues raised by the Committee in connection with what is an important but somewhat sophisticated area of regulation. Indeed it is because the legislation is innovative and legally complex that the Committee decided it would pay special regard not only to any important issues of principle raised by its professorial legal adviser, but also to any technical or drafting flaws which could adversely affect the clarity and precision of such a far-reaching legislative initiative. Thus, the Committee would respectfully reiterate its concern about the form of paragraph 9.1 and sub-paragraph 32.3 (b). Of course, your careful exposition of the mechanisms of these provisions leaves the Committee in no doubt that you and your advisers know precisely what the structure of these paragraphs entails. It may be that in all predictable and unforeseeable contingencies a court could be persuaded to the same view. Nevertheless, the structure of the paragraphs is confusing, there is an inherent ambiguity in this form of ``and/or'' drafting and parliamentary counsel would never use it. As you know concern is occasionally expressed that, in contrast to the drafting of Bills, the drafting of delegated legislation is split between professional drafters and departmental officials. Whatever the administrative arrangements, the Committee's consistent view has been that the quality of drafting of all subordinate legislative instruments should be of the highest calibre since, in interpretation and enforcement the courts and authorities make virtually no distinction between primary and secondary law. Your reconsideration of this drafting point would be appreciated. Secondly, your comments to the Committee about paragraphs 9.3 to 9.5 were very helpful in explaining the administrative and operational background to these matters. However, they do leave unanswered the Committee's technical legal point that the paragraphs impose no legal obligation on the Department to grant applications to transfer reduction units. Undoubtedly it is your policy and intention that proper applications will automatically be granted. Undoubtedly your officials, in all of the foreseeable and unpredictable circumstances with which they will be confronted, will consider themselves bound by the obligation of implementing your policy. However, you will appreciate that the Committee is concerned with issues of principles concerning the rights of individuals. Such issues must, of necessity, transcend administrative practices which cannot be underwritten into the future. Issues of principle find their security in the fixity of law. In this case it may be preferable if the law were expressly to impose an obligation on your Department to transfer registration when the certificate is submitted. Thirdly, your letter very helpfully answers the Committee's points concerning the possible administrative delay which might have arisen when, on the operation of paragraph 14.1, all certificates issued on or before 28 February 1990 became void and of no effect. However, it unfortunately raises a further matter of concern. If, prior to 28 February 1990, certificates had been lodged with lending institutions as security, these will become void on 1 March 1990. In the absence of an obligation on the certificate holder to lodge the new certificate, the voiding of the old certificate in these circumstances may prejudice the lending institutions if, for example, the temporary nature of its value as a document of title is not disclosed on its face. The Committee would appreciate your advice on this problem and any means of overcoming it. Fourthly, the Committee thanks you for your explanation of paragraphs 8.1 and 8.3, the operation of which is declared by paragraph 8.4 to be subject to the Regulations. The Committee however, remains somewhat confused as to how two allocations of units can be made without subsections 7 (5) and (6) of the Fisheries Levy Act 1984 requiring payment of levy for each allocation. There remains an inconsistency here on which the Committee would appreciate your further comments. Fifthly, the Committee has given very careful consideration to your comments about the reviewability of decisions under paragraphs 10.1 and 11 of the Plan. In doing so the Committee has been concerned to balance its right to object to undue trespass on personal rights (including property rights), against the combined effects of the limitations of the Committee's role and the requirements of Government policy vis a vis fisheries conservation. The Committee recognises that paragraphs 10 and 11 are the legislative cornerstones which support your policy of unit reduction in the interests of fishery management. These are measures which are regulatory and reductionary. The Committee notes that hardship may be caused to individuals by the mandatory nature of the unit cancellation provisions, the lack of any avenues of merits review and the absence of any provision for compensation. The Committee also notes that the Plan is intended to apply uniformly across the fishery, that there is a long led time to implementation of mandatory cancellations of units which may enable an orderly and possibly competitive disposition of units, and that the existence of review rights could be an incentive to some operators deliberately to create potential hardship circumstances by delaying to take action under paragraph 9.1. Although the Committee under its Principles has regularly sought advice from Ministers on legal issues such as the constitutionality, or the validity of various instruments of delegated legislation, it is not an ultimate adjudicator of issues of legality. Except perhaps where questions of invalidity are manifest, or where mounting a legal challenge to clearly questionable legislation would be onerous to an individual who was prejudiced, the Committee would generally eschew such a role. The question of the ultimate legality of complex subordinate legislation is a matter for the courts. That does not mean, of course, that the Senate may not, for policy reasons, consider whether a measure is so inappropriate and legally uncertain that it should be disallowed. However, the Committee's role cannot encompass any evaluation of the merits of a Minister's policy unless that policy is so manifestly at variance with the Committee's Principles that it should be enacted, if at all, only by the Parliament passing a Bill. In these circumstances therefore, the Committee had decided that it would be inappropriate for it to seek the inclusion of review rights. As the responsible Minister however, you may wish to consider what role if any the Administrative Review Council could play in addressing any hardship question. The Committee hopes that some common view, protective of the rights of individuals, can be reached between us on the matters raised by the Committee's continued scrutiny. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman 30.4.87 Senator B. Cooney Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Cooney Thank you for your letter of 6 April 1987 setting down five aspects of the Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan under s. 7b (1) of the Fisheries Act 1952 (``the special plan''). I appreciate the close attention that your Committee has given to the plan and the useful comments the Committee has made about it. With respect to the first point your comments on the use of ``and/or'' are noted and action will be taken to amend paragraph 9.1 and sub-paragraph 32.3 (b) to rectify the problem you identified. Your second point with respect to non-specification of the legal obligation to grant a properly made application to transfer reduction units has been noted. Action will be taken to amend the plan to require these applications to be granted. With regard to your third point the issue of certificates has in fact been restricted to the certification of the details of units on which levy has been paid. Consequently these have been annual certificates terminating on the last day in February each year. The termination date is shown on the certificates and lending institutions are aware of the limited time of such certificates (for the 1987 levy year where levy is paid in two parts two certificates will be issued, one for each ``fishing period''). Your comments have however been noted and action will be taken to amend the plan to require that where certificates are issued for a finite period that this be recorded on the certificate. The issues raised in your fourth point refer to the collection of levy. Unit holders have agreed to a substantial (four-fold) increase in levies in the 1987 licensing year (this is to help fund the Voluntary Adjustment Scheme). They have requested that this be collected in two instalments. The purpose of having an initial allocation of units under sub-section 7 (5) of the Fisheries Levy Act 1984 for the period 1 March 1987 to 22 June 1987 (the first fishing period) and a renewal of this allocation under section 7 (6) for the period 23 June 1987 to 29 February 1988 is to allow collection of levy to be made in two instalments. Your Committee's interpretation is correct i.e. levy is payable on each of the two allocations of units. In your fifth point you argue that the surrender provisions represent a loss of property rights, and imply a loss in value of assets. This is unlikely. The value of units in the fishery is determined by the future stream of profits the fishery is expected to generate. The surrender provisions have the effect of proportionately reducing all unit holdings in the fishery. The proportion of total units held by each holder on 1 March 1990 will, apart from transfers, remain unchanged. If total profits generated by the fishery remain unchanged the total value of units can also be expected to remain unchanged. As the proportionate share of units held by each holder remains unchanged so should the total value of his units. In other words the reduction in the number of units held will be balanced by the increased value of each of the remaining units. Indeed there is a high expectation that the total value of the smaller number of units held after March 1990 should exceed the total value of the larger number of units held prior to the restructuring. ``Compensation'' paid to those who decided to leave the fishery, through selling units to those who remain can be expected to be substantial. The minimum allocation of Class A units to each holder was originally 375. The average Class A units held per boat is about 420. The current market value for these units is between about $500 and $600. Conscensus within industry is that this could rise to $1000 or $1500 over the next three years. This is additional to the value of the fishing boat itself. It is difficult to equate the availability of this level of ``compensation'' with the idea that the provisions will create hardship. I trust the above explanations and proposed amendments to the plan will satisfy the concerns of your Committee. Yours fraternally, JOHN KERIN Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —A paper is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Higher Education Administration Charge-Monitoring Committee Report. Motion (by Senator Reid for Senator Lewis) agreed to: That the Senate refer to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the 1985-86 Annual Report of the Parliament House Construction Authority for examination and report. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans for Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 2 April 1987, namely: (a) installation of standard high intensity lighting at the seven marked pedestrian crossings within the Parliamentary Zone; (b) construction of an additional carpark and the provision of carpark lighting at the National Library of Australia on the basis that this carpark is designated as short stay parking; (c) construction of the east west roads between Parkes Place and the proposed Mall to give access to the parking areas associated with the National Science and Technology Centre; (d) construction of a road north of King Edward Terrace adjacent to the land axis to provide additional access to the National Science and Technology Centre; and (e) installation of the proposed lighting on the land bridge between the provisional Parliament House and the new Parliament House and on the roads associated with the National Science and Technology Centre. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill is to establish the Defence Housing Authority. Creation of the Authority is a crucial part of the Government's strategies to overcome the longstanding deficiencies in the quality and standards of Defence housing. This Government has been the first to adopt a set of principles to govern housing assistance to its own employees including particularly members of the Defence Force. These principles acknowledge the obligation on the Government to provide adequate accommodation for its employees who, by reason of duty requirements, are located where there is inadequate housing, or who are required to live at the work location. The principles also acknowledge the duty on the Government as the employer to minimise the detriment to morale of both its employees and their families who suffer housing upheavals by reason of being required to re-locate frequently. As the major strategy for giving practical effect to these principles, the Defence Housing Authority is to be responsible for provision of housing for families of the Defence Force and, where essential, Defence civilian personnel. The problems of Defence housing have been the subject of several inquiries, the most recent being the Task Force on Australian Public Service and Defence Force Housing Programs. The Task Force reported that there are divided responsibilities and complexity in inter-agency arrangements governing the overall management of the Government's staff housing. The arrangements militate against effective decision making and prompt action. The Task Force was also critical of inadequate repairs and maintenance of housing and the generally run-down state of much of the stock. In essence the Task Force confirmed many of the complaints on housing expressed by Service personnel and their families. The Government believes there are three essential elements necessary to remedy the problems. There must be a guaranteed level of funds committed to Defence housing. There must be business enterprise and expertise brought to the management task. There must be a single organisation established which is dedicated to management of Defence housing and free from bureaucratic controls. The Authority will charge the Defence Department the full commercial rent for each house it controls. This will provide a guaranteed level of income, not subject to Budget vagaries. The Authority is to have experts from the private housing field appointed to its board of management. The Authority will be master of its own destiny in making arrangements for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of Defence housing. It will be able to dispose of stock no longer needed, and retain the proceeds of sale. In developing the legislation, the Government has balanced the requirement that housing management is sensitive to the needs of the Defence Force while allowing for flexibility and commercial freedom in the operation of the Authority. The Authority is to be independent of the Department of Defence. It must however ensure that its activities are fully supportive of Defence Force operational needs. Its planning must be consistent with Defence planning. For example, the Authority must ensure that its housing stock is expanded to permit the timely accommodation of the large number of families who will be relocated as a result of the Government's recent announcement of a two ocean navy, and its decision to relocate the Second Cavalry Regiment in Darwin. The membership of the Board of Management has been structured to ensure the application of the necessary skills for housing management and proper co-ordination with Defence policy and planning. It will comprise 4 part time members (including the Chairperson) selected on the basis of business expertise and wide knowledge of housing operations and social planning, and 4 members to represent each of the Services and the Defence Department. A full time Managing Director of senior status who will undertake day to day direction of the Authority's operation will also be a member of the Board. The Government is committed to an expanded De- fence housing program that over the next decade will lead to a housing stock of greatly improved quality and meeting current community standards. Within overall Budget priorities, the Government will aim to provide the Defence Housing Authority with funding, additional to its guaranteed income, needed to meet this objective. Of the 22,000 houses, the worst 6,000 will be progressively replaced and other houses of inadequate standard will be refurbished. An investment program totalling $750m over the next decade is proposed. In view of the urgency in addressing the housing problems, the Minister for Defence established an interim Defence Housing Board late last year, on an administrative basis pending passage of legislation. Mr John Graham, a former National President of the Housing Industry Association and director of the Sydney building firm of Civic Constructions, has accepted the position of Chairman of the Interim Board. Other external appointments include Dr Roy Gilbert, a former head of the Victorian Ministry of Housing, Ms Valerie Pratt, a former Personnel Manager with CSR and now head of the Government's Affirmative Action Agency, and Mr Sam Salpietro, a Western Australian property developer and real estate agent. The Minister for Defence proposes to invite these members to be considered for appointment to the Authority when it is established. Besides taking over ongoing housing programs in the Defence Department, the interim Board is doing much of the preliminary work towards setting in place operating procedures and financial arrangements appropriate for the Authority. It recently completed a tour around Australia to gain a first hand knowledge of the housing stock. At each location it met Service tenants to discuss present dissatisfactions. I now turn to the more significant details of the legislation. The stated objective of the Authority is to provide housing to meet the operational needs of the Defence Force and requirements of the Department as determined by the Minister for Defence. It will have all the powers necessary to perform its functions. As I have already indicated, arrangements for the appointment of the Chairperson and Members to the Authority will ensure that business acumen will be brought to the management task. The usual provision for such matters as remuneration, leave of absence, termination of appointment and disclosure of interests will apply. Planning and oversight arrangements will ensure a proper degree of responsibility and accountability to the Minister. They will also ensure that the Authority will remain responsible through the Minister to the Government. The Authority's activities will be guided by a Corporate Plan which will include forecasts of receipts and expenditure and financial targets for project, rate of return and dividend approved by the Minister for Defence. It will be required to earn a reasonable rate of return on its assets and maintain the Commonwealth's level of equity. The Minister will monitor the performance of the Authority at the planning level and this will be a major factor in enabling the Authority to be freed from ministerial involvement in day to day management issues. Provision is made for a specific power of direction which in some circumstances would incur reimbursement to the Authority where such a direction resulted in financial detriment. The Authority will require the approval of the Minister for Defence before entering into joint ventures, forming subsidiary companies, or establishing partnerships. Such arrangements will be subject to Commonwealth, State or Territory taxes. The Government has decided that the Authority should not be subject to Commonwealth and State government taxes, but shall continue the existing Commonwealth policy of making grants to local government in lieu of rates. There is provision for the Minister to transfer to the Authority Defence housing stock and land. The value of these assets along with money appropriated by the Parliament and any accumulated reserves will represent the capital of the Authority. The Managing Director will be appointed by the Authority and will hold office at the Authority's pleasure. The normal conditions associated with a statutory office will apply. The Authority will be staffed under the Public Service Act, and will be empowered to engage consultants. I turn now to the financial impact of the Bill. At the outset I want to emphasise that provision of housing will continue to be regarded as a condition of service. Rent levels to be charged individual Service tenants will be a matter for separate decision by the Government. I wish to assure the Senate that the announcements I am making today are not intended to have any significant effect on rents paid by ADF personnel. Rentals will continue to be developed according to a rental scheme designed to meet the specific needs of the Defence Force. The commercial rent to be charged to the Commonwealth by the Housing Authority for each house available to Defence tenants will represent a new charge to Budget outlays. In 1987-88 this is estimated at $120m. The saving by removal from Budget outlays of payments now to be the responsibility of the Authority is estimated to total $84m. These include payments to the States and Territories for housing provided under the Commonwealth-State housing agreements and related agreements, repairs and maintenance to Defence owned houses, and payments in lieu of rates to local government. The estimated net effect on recurrent Budget outlays is an additional $36m. In addition, revenue from the disposal of surplus housing will be retained by the Housing Authority and will no longer be a credit to Consolidated Revenue. In 1986-87 this is estimated at $5m. The Housing Authority will be required to use profits from operations towards capital acquisitions and improvements. Consequently the demands for capital from the Budget for investment ($65.8m in 1986-87) will be reduced. It is expected that some supplementation from annual Budgets will be required in order to meet the Government commitment of $750m over the next decade to upgrade the Defence housing stock. The requirement for supplementation will be determined in the context of the Authority's corporate and financial plans. The Authority will be required to meet its operating expenses from revenue. Some immediate offsetting reductions in staffing levels will occur in the Department of Defence. The Authority is expected to have a fairly small permanent staff as the Authority will probably engage the private sector to undertake aspects of its operations. A high degree of expectation exists in the Defence community that the Authority will come to grips with housing problems which have been endured by Service families over a long period. The Government's initiatives have been well received by senior management of the Defence Force, Service personnel and their families. I am hopeful that there will be support by all honourable senators for such an important initiative. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the 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. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.14) - I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows - EGG INDUSTRY RESEARCH (HEN QUOTA) LEVY BILL 1987 This is the first of two Bills which are being introduced to establish new research levy arrangements for the egg industry. The new arrangements will supersede the present levy mechanism whereby egg producers contribute towards research through a small component of the levy they pay under the Poultry Industry Levy Act 1965. This levy, commonly known as the Commonwealth hen levy, has been collected primarily for use by State Egg Boards in equalising the impact on individual producers of losses incurred in disposing of egg surpluses. In recent years, the States have been able to reduce surplus egg production significantly by a progressive tightening of hen quotas which limit the number of hens an egg producer is licensed to keep. Accordingly, a decision was made in 1984 to phase out the Commonwealth hen levy, and legislation was amended to end the levy on 30 June 1987. It is thus necessary to provide an alternative mechanism for securing producer contributions towards research sponsored by the egg industry with the assistance of matching Commonwealth grants. Consultations with industry, States and Territories resulted in agreement being reached last year on the introduction of a research levy to be imposed annually on a producer's licensed hen quota. This method was seen to be the most cost-effective way of raising the funds required. Unlike the present hen levy, which is applied at fortnightly intervals to hens actually kept, the proposed levy does not require physical hen counts to verify fluctuating bird numbers, and involves only two payments a year as instalments of the total levy payable. It was considered that abolition of hen quotas by a State would render the proposed levy inoperable and thus jeopardise ongoing research programs. Accordingly, the agreed proposals called for a standby levy mechanism which could be activated in such an eventuality. The proposed fall-back mechanism is a levy on chickens hatched for egg production. My original intention was to seek enactment of this alternative arrangement concurrently with the preferred hen quota mechanism. However, the large volume of legislation to be dealt with in the current sittings has necessitated a postponement of contingency measures at this stage. Nevertheless, the standby levy legislation will be submitted to the Parliament as early as practicable. Against this background, I now turn to the provisions of the Bill before the House. Under the Bill, a levy is to be imposed on the quota of hens which a producer holds under a licence issued by State or Territory authorities. This means that the amount of levy paid will reflect the number of hens specified in the licence and not necessarily the number of birds actually kept. I have already mentioned the advantage of imposing a levy on this basis, which is applicable to all States and currently also to the Australian Capital Territory. The Northern Territory does not have a quota licensing system for hens, but local egg producers have indicated they are prepared to contribute to research funding. To enable the Territory to participate, there is provision in the Bill for declaring producers, in a notice published in the Gazette, to be holders of a quota licence. Individual levels of quota will be based on advice from the Northern Territory Government. A maximum levy rate of 10c per hen is provided for in the Bill, with the operative level to be set by regulation after taking into account recommendations from the Australian Council of Egg Producers. An operative rate of 3c to 4c per hen would provide funds comparable with those currently received under the hen levy and sufficient to fund research programs at existing levels. Under clause 12, the levy will be discontinued if any State abandons the hen quota system. As I have already mentioned, it is considered that abolition of hen quotas by a State would render the levy inoperable. The general view is that such deregulation in one State would have repercussions on egg marketing which would force other States to follow suit. This would not necessarily be the case if hen quotas were abolished in the Australian Capital Territory. Accordingly, clause 6 provides that in such an event, notional quotas may be established for the Australian Capital Territory as in the case of the Northern Territory. For constitutional reasons, arrangements for the collection of the proposed levy have been provided for in a separate Bill which I will presently place before the Senate. The sole purpose of the new levy arrangements is to replace the existing mechanism for collecting egg industry contributions towards research. Accordingly, they do not involve any new financial commitments for the Commonwealth or the industry. Since the egg industry first began to sponsor research some 20 years ago, almost $3m has been contributed for this purpose by the industry and matched by the Commonwealth. The results of this research have been of benefit to egg producers and the community alike. This legislation will enable potentially valuable research work to continue. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. EGG INDUSTRY RESEARCH (HEN QUOTA) LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery for the collection of the levy which is to be imposed under the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill. A central element of the proposed machinery is a provision enabling the Commonwealth Government to make arrangements with the State governments and the Northern Territory for collection of the levy by State Egg Boards and Territory authorities on the Commonwealth's behalf. Similar arrangements with the States have operated for the collection of the existing Commonwealth hen levy. As State Boards make charges on producers for administration of marketing costs, it is provided that levy can be deducted from amounts which a Board owes the producer whose eggs pass through the Board. In the case of producers who are authorised to sell eggs direct to wholesalers or retailers on the Board's behalf, payment of levy to the Board will be required. To ease the financial impact on producers, provision has been made for the annual levy to be paid in two equal instalments in July and January of each financial year. Payments in the initial year have been deferred to September and March so that adequate time will be available for agreements with the States and Northern Territory to be drawn up and signed, and also for regulations prescribing payment arrangements to be promulgated. Among other things, it is intended to prescribe that Australian Capital Territory egg producers be required to pay the levy to the Department of Primary Industry. Whilst replacing the mechanism now used to collect industry funds for egg research, it is desired to retain the existing Trust Fund and Research Council which hold and administer the money collected. To this end clause 9 of the Bill provides that the relevant provisions in the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, which are built around the existing levy imposed by the Poultry Industry Act 1965, will continue to apply as though the new levy were the existing one. Since the new levy will be paid only twice a year instead of fortnightly as is the case with the existing egg research levy (collected as a component of the hen levy), there will be minor savings in clerical costs to the Commonwealth. Costs of collection incurred by State Egg Boards will be significantly lower than for the existing hen levy because, in addition to reduced frequency of collection, the new system will be simpler to operate. The levy collection arrangements provided for in this Bill have been agreed on with the State Ministers responsible for agriculture and endorsed by industry as the most convenient and least expensive way of collecting the proposed levy. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.15) —At the conclusion of my remarks on this matter yesterday I was drawing the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Government was claiming that the denial of applications and granted tenements was a one-off situation and not likely to happen again. Let us go through the sorry saga. I refer to the words in the second reading speech of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987. The speech makes it quite clear when it states: 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 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. In other words, retrospectively, applications and granted tenements will be taken from the proprietors by the Government without compensation. While we are on the question of compensation, perhaps we ought to look for a moment at what the Bill says and what the Australian Democrats have said. Clause 7 of the Bill reads: Notwithstanding any law of the Commonwealth or of the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth is not liable to pay compensation to any person by reason of the enactment of this Act. I remind the Senate of the private member's Bill which was introduced by Senator Haines. I refer to the Property Rights Protection Bill 1984. It was a Bill for an Act to protect private property from unjust acquisition under certain laws. We were reminded: Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the year 1948 provides, in Article 17, that everyone has the right to own property and that no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Senator Sanders —The mining companies don't own this property outright. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, they do, with respect. An application gives them right of ownership. Senator Haines made the point in her Bill-- Senator Coleman —An application does not give them anything. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, it does. We will come to that in a moment. Senator Haines said in clause 7 of her Bill: Where, before the commencement of this Act but on or after the prescribed day, there has been an acquisition of property of a person that would have been contrary to section 6 if it had occurred after commencement of this Act, that person is entitled to recover, by action in a court of competent jurisdiction, from the person (including a State or an authority of a State) by whom the property was acquired, such compensation as is just. In the second reading speech on that private member's Bill Senator Haines said: In a democracy people have a right to expect that their property will not be compulsorily acquired without adequate compensation. Arbitrary confiscation of property was a characteristic of despotic regimes which parliamentary democracy ought not to countenance. That was the view of the Democrats; that if people owned property they ought to be paid fair and just compensation in the event of its being acquired by governments. It has been put to me that the companies do not own the property in what is now Kakadu National Park. I remind all honourable senators of what Beaumont, J. said in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory when dealing with the case of Geopeko v. The Commonwealth. He made the point: The question, then, is whether the mining leases and mining lease applications approved by the Mining Warden before the acquisition of the leasehold property and subsequent acquisition of freehold interest are `interests' for the purpose of s. 70 (6) . . . . `Interest' is defined in s. 56 of the Self-Government Act to include `any right, title, estate, power, privilege, claim, demand, charge, lien or encumbrance, whether at law or in equity'. Although s. 145 of the Mining Act provides that `every mining tenement . . . shall be deemed and taken in law to be a chattel interest', it is the definition of `interest' in the Self-Government Act that is at issue here. He concluded: There can be no doubt that a mineral lease falls within the definition. An applicant for a mineral lease may take possession of and hold the land applied for pending determination of the application . . . Entry by an unauthorised person is a trespass- this relates to an application- the applicant having the right to recover damages. . . . . In my view, the rights conferred on the holder of an application for a mineral lease- never mind the granting of a mineral lease- meet the definition of `interest' in the Self-Government Act; hence, the applications are, by force of s. 70 (6). . . In other words, the application and the grant are a proprietary interest. Now we have the Australian Democrats saying that they agree with this Bill, which gives no compensation. But they have already introduced their own private member's Bill which states that anybody who owns private land ought to be given adequate and proper compensation. The Bill is quite clear and unequivocal. Let us go through this sad saga. Let us go back to the last time the Australian Labor Party was in government. What did the then Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Rex Patterson, say on 21 December 1973? He said: I am authorised by the Government to assure you- that is, the mining company- that, if your applications for renewal of licences are approved only in respect of areas outside the boundary of the proposed park, you will, upon commencement of the new legislation, be issued with fresh licences under that legislation in respect of the area within the park boundary to which your current renewal applications relate. In other words, in 1973 the company was given a clear undertaking by the Labor Government of the day that its applications would be granted. What has happened since? Has there been confirmation of that undertaking? Yes, there has been. By whom? Of course, it came from the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, no less an eminent senator in this chamber. Senator Gareth Evans —What have I confirmed, to whom and when? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —In writing to Mr Sherrington, Manager Special Projects, Geopeko, Senator Evans was frank enough to say: I refer to your letter of 15 May 1986 and enclosures concerning mineral activity in the Kakadu region. I am conscious of the concern in the mining industry over proposals for future land use in the Kakadu Region including the new Plan of Management for Kakadu National Park. My Department has provided comments on the proposed Plan to the Director, National Parks and Wildlife which seek inclusion in the Plan of provisions for operations for the recovery of minerals similar to those in the first Plan. In other words, his Department made submissions requesting exploitation of minerals within the park. Senator Evans's letter continued: Such an approach is necessary to give effect to the Plan's key management objective of developing an inventory of all renewable and non-renewable resources in the Park. The last paragraph states: You can be assured that I am following this issue carefully with the long term objective of establishing a multiple land use policy for the Region which balances the interests of the mining industry with those of other land users. What happened after that? What was Senator Evans's next statement? The next joint statement, put out in conjunction with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, states: The Government agreed today to endorse a revised Plan of Management for the Kakadu National Park which would exclude the possibility of any new mining activity taking place within the Park boundaries. The provisions in question differ from the previous Plan,- contrary to what he said in his letter to Mr Sherrington- now expired, which enabled exploration and mining to take place outside pre-existing leases with the approval of the Governor-General. In other words, the honourable senator wrote to Mr Sherrington telling him one thing, and then issued a Press statement saying something else. It was a backflip. What caused that? He knows and I know that it was political expediency. It is a sad and sorry saga. First, the honourable senator called the area `clapped out buffalo country', which is the most honest, frank and realistic observation that he has made in this chamber; then, Cabinet went cruising in a Royal Australian Navy ship and, under the influence of the balmy skies and the fresh salt air, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) became very expansive with the Cabinet and talked of the exploitation of Kakadu National Park. That frightened the pants off Mr Cohen, did it not? So what did his Department do? It promptly leaked correspondence indicating that there would be exploitation of Kakadu National Park. All hell then broke loose, right on the heels of the decision to sell uranium to France. That was more than the Australian Labor Party could carry. The Left had it by the tail, and other parts of its anatomy, no doubt. The Government backed off and left the mining industry high and dry, even though the honourable senator had made personal commitments. Frankly, I give the honourable senator marks for still holding those commitments. It is a pity that he does not have the numbers, the political fortitude, the courage or the commitment to pursue the matter. The Government beat out a deal, but what was it? It wanted to know where the uranium could be found and, as best as could be told from the superficial observation of exploration done so far, that was thought to be in stage 2. Where were gold, platinum and other base metals and minerals likely to be found? It was in stage 3. So, to placate the crazy Left of the party, the Government said: `No'. Senator Coleman —Hey, watch it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —With exceptions, Senator Coleman. Senator Durack —That is nasty. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is my be kind day today, Senator Durack. Having looked at stage 2 and discovered that that was where the uranium could be found, the Government announced that there would be no mining in stage 2. That was to stop the fringe lunatic Left from causing the Party any more heartache and pain. The Government pored over the maps and thought that it could probably live with mining in stage 3 because it was not likely that more uranium would be found there. There is now the bizarre position of selective morality, with the Western Mining Corporation mining uranium in South Australia, and having two or three projects in the Northern Territory-but no more. It is a sorry saga in which the Government has done backflip after backflip after backflip. One minute it is for it, the next minute it is against it. It is like the price of gold over the past three or four days-the Government jumps up and down like a yoyo, depending upon its political fortunes. Rod Cameron should be here on the front bench telling honourable senators what to say next because, frankly, that is clearly how their judgments are made. Of course, the great tragedy is that the Government has pursued all the courses available to it through the courts of the land to prevent Geopeko Ltd proceeding with its applications and its present granted claims-but the Government failed, and it deserved to fail. When the Government found that it could not win in the courts, it promptly said that it would legislate retrospectively to take away tenements that had already been granted or were subject to application. Beaumont J. issued an interlocutory injunction against the Commonwealth. The Government appealed against that decision in the Federal Court and lost. It sought special leave to go to the High Court, and was rolled again. So what did it do? It introduced retrospective legislation and, in the process, is likely to lock up about $70 billion to $100 billion of resources-capriciously put aside in the interests of political expediency because the Government has no courage, no commitment and no integrity. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.30) —I feel a little like a gymnast rising to my feet with my capacity for backflips, as has been alleged by Senator Crichton-Browne. But I think Senator Crichton-Browne's capacity for fiction and oratory outweighs his respect for the facts of this matter and certainly outweighs any kind of sensitivity one might expect to be vested in a senator in this place to the very great values which are being protected by this legislation. The point that has to be made and remade is that the package of Bills before the Senate, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill 1987, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987, will enable the unique natural and cultural heritage of Kakadu to be preserved for future generations. It is a tragedy that so many of the Liberal and National Party senators who have spoken on this legislation have shown so little understanding as to what constitutes an ecosystem and what is required to protect it. To the extent that they have any willingness at all to acknowledge that there are some parts of the environment, of the national heritage, which deserve protection they would like simply to put fences around individual national treasures and expect that that will be enough protection and let the bulldozers, the diggers and everybody else rip outside that area. It is disappointing to hear nothing positive from these senators about their willingness to protect our national heritage. I was amazed that Senator Kilgariff referred to Rum Jungle as an example of where mining and conservation have gone hand in hand. Mining and conservation can go hand in hand in certain areas but Rum Jungle, as we all know, was an absolute environmental disaster. After the miners left, the Government had to spend close to $20m in an effort to patch up the damage-I believe, contrary to some people, very successfully-to the river system which flowed from the mine waste. River systems are particularly vulnerable to pollution. The Government will give the South Alligator River system, which flows into those magnificent wetlands to the north, the highest possible level of protection. Mining projects simply will not be allowed to proceed if there is any likelihood that that river system will be damaged. Exploration will take place under strict environment conditions attached to licences issued by the Commonwealth. Mr Cohen has made that clear and I have made it clear in every statement we have made at all stages of this very public debate over the last few months. The Commonwealth has a responsibility to protect areas of national and international importance such as not only Kakadu but also the Great Barrier Reef, Uluru or Ayers Rock, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island and the South West Tasmanian world heritage area. All members of the Government and all members of the Australian public would be interested to hear that Senator Puplick said in his contribution that he believed that the original nomination of Kakadu National Park for world heritage listing in 1980 made a deliberate attempt to mislead people. I hardly need to remind him that that nomination was made by his own Fraser Government. But then I suppose that the Fraser era is now almost as much on the nose with the current generation of Liberal Party people as is Joh Bjelke-Petersen from the other extreme. It is a tragedy that this once great party opposite should be tearing apart its heritage of commitment to these sorts of values in the cavalier way that was demonstrated not only by the familiar redneck tones of Senator Crichton-Browne over in his cockies corner of the Senate but also by someone such as Senator Puplick who makes a periodic foray into civilised and sophisticated values. Between them they have made a pretty formidable indictment of any kind of consistency, quality of performance, or sensitivity when it comes to environmental matters. The Bills will enable the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases to be claimed by the traditional owners. Aboriginal owners support a lease-back arrangement to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The grant of title to land, successfully claimed, to Aboriginal traditional owners means that traditional ownership will be recognised under Australian law. Despite the snide remarks and the sniggers of Senator Crichton-Browne, who denigrated the grant and the lease-back arrangement from the Aboriginal people in the context of Uluru, the reality is that both Aboriginals and visitors to the park will benefit under the arrangement. Traditional owners in Kakadu, as in central Australia, will play an active role in park management in respect of the area leased back, which will enhance the value of the land as a national park and ensure the protection of both its natural and cultural aspects. Mineral interests existing at the time an area becomes Aboriginal land will not be subject to an Aboriginal veto on the continued pursuit of those interests. However, new mining ventures on Aboriginal land will require under the existing law and consistently with it a terms and conditions agreement with the relevant land council, as is the case elsewhere in the Northern Territory. Senator Kilgariff has said that Aboriginal communities wish to enter into joint ventures with developers. No doubt opportunities for such ventures will be able to be explored in negotiations over terms and conditions agreements. Land council consent will be required for new exploration licences over Aboriginal land in the conservation zone, in circumstances where Aboriginal land has been granted to Aboriginal people before the leases themselves are issued, except for the Coronation Hill project area, which is effectively being excised at an earlier stage. Private companies will be invited to apply to explore in the conservation zone on titles to be granted by the Commonwealth. Contrary again to Senator Kilgariff's assertion-he seems to have been misled on a large number of matters related to this legislation-that there was no mention of the Northern Territory being involved in mining at Coronation Hill or in the mineral assessment processes, this was in fact covered in the second reading speech. Northern Territory authorities will be invited to assist in considering exploration applications and in the day to day management of the exploration program, and discussions have already taken place to this end. I understand that already there has been much interest shown by mining companies in taking part in that exploration program. There have been a number of extravagant claims made about the value of minerals said to be locked up, in the context of the national park itself, in stages 1 and 2 and the new extension in stage 3. Figures of $32 billion, and in one instance $400 billion, are both used. However, the figures that have been provided by the Northern Territory Department of Mines-I am not relying on my own Bureau of Mineral Resources in this respect-reveal that 98 per cent of the known mineral resources of the Kakadu region do not occur inside the current park or the proposed stage 3 of the park. There have been some grotesque exaggerations-- Senator Townley —What value is there? Senator GARETH EVANS —The value is very much less than that which is suggested in terms of known resources. Senator Crichton-Browne —What did the BMR say? Senator GARETH EVANS —Very much less than that on the basis of known information, I can assure the honourable senator. The remarkable growth in tourism-- Senator Townley —You are being very vague about the whole thing. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have a very boring speech to give in reply and I am going to plough my way through it irrespective of whatever the honourable senator says. Senator Durack —Give us your own speech about the clapped out buffalo country. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will come to that in a moment. The remarkable growth in tourism is a very positive indicator of increasing public recognition of the natural and cultural values of the area. There were 101,000 visitors to Kakadu National Park in 1985 and 131,000 in 1986. If the increase in visitor numbers experienced so far this year continues, up to 200,000 may be expected in 1987. Even if the rate of increase in visitor numbers does not increase beyond the levels experienced over the last few years, nearly half a million visitors can be expected by 1991, spending over two million visitor days in the park. Even in the medium term, and certainly in the long term, employment associated with tourism in the Kakadu National Park is likely to far exceed what would be generated by mining and there would obviously be substantial economic benefits from that. Senator Townley —Rubbish! Senator GARETH EVANS —I am talking about employment. There is a reference in my notes to quite unfounded statements being made about the absence of natural values in the Gimbat and Goodparla area, which displays a lack of appreciation of the special qualities of the lease areas identified by scientific investigation. Of course a number of unfounded statements have been made by people on this subject. I have heard it said that I myself may have been guilty of a degree of insensitivity in a phrase which seems to have entered the lexicon, certainly it has been a very central part in this debate. I just want to make it clear for the record that the description of `clapped out buffalo country' was not a reference to the entire Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases but rather to one section of it down the south-west, which I think certainly does justify that description at the moment, although I readily acknowledge that, once the buffalo eradication program which is contemplated for that area proceeds, we can expect it to become unclapped out in the very near future. I am not quite sure what the reverse of that particular verb is-I hate to think. It is an area that is of particular scientific significance, quite apart from its visual attractions, which need a little bit of attention to be realised fully in their present form. But apart from that pastoral area down to the south-west of those leases, which many in this chamber have had a look at, the reality is that many parts of the Gimbat and Goodparla area are scenically very attractive indeed-the Koolpin Gorge area, the UDP Falls, the South Alligator River itself, running up through the middle of it, and most of the escarpment area. The Christmas Creek area, with its Aboriginal caves and so on, is an extremely attractive and ecologically important addition to the present Kakadu National Park. Some 60 per cent of the area is, in fact, composed of land types which are not found in, or which are poorly represented in, the present Kakadu National Park. There are extensive areas of critical habitats for rare species of animals and birds, and the Aboriginal rock art provides a significant added dimension to the rock art in the present national park. I hope that these remarks, as well as other information brought forward in this debate, will make it clear that the Government's decisions which have been put in place by these Bills do achieve a sensible balance between controlled development and the essential conservation of the magnificent Kakadu region. I commend them accordingly to the Senate. Question put: That the Bills be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Vigor, D. B. Jones, G. N. West, S. M. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Black, J. R. Alston, R. K. R. Colston, M. A. Lewis, A. W. R. Richardson, G. F. Puplick, C. J. G. Zakharov, A. O. Chaney, F. M. Walsh, P. A. Walters, M. S. (Senator Messner did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator DURACK —(Western Australia) (10.47)-The Opposition does not propose any specific amendments to the legislation because we believe that it is so bad, wrong and misguided that we should just continue to oppose it. There is nothing that we can suggest that would in any way conceivably improve it. The package of Bills before the Committee is intermeshed and that is why we agreed to the Bills being considered as a whole. That was the right approach to take. The Bills are, as a whole, giving effect to the Government's decision of September last year when it was under pressure from a rebellious back bench which in itself had caved in to the extreme environmentalists. This collection of Bills against which we have just voted, and which we will continue to oppose, gives one sop to the mining industry. The Government has sold out to the extreme environmentalists whose views, I think, were best expressed in this debate by Senator Sanders who is totally opposed to mining in any shape or form, as far as I can see. That is why the Australian Democrats appointed him their spokesman on mining. For the most sordid of political decisions that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) took last year, the Government has adopted this package of legislation to lock out any further mining assessment of the whole area of Kakadu National Park. The area comprises 20,000 square kilometres of the Northern Territory and is a third the size of Tasmania. The only exception-this is where the sop comes in-is what is called a conservation zone which represents a little over 2,000 square kilometres in stage 3 which comprise pastoral leases known as Gimbat and Goodparla. As I understand it, although the Commonwealth is the freehold owner of this land, the Government intends to resume the pastoral leases under the Lands Acquisition Act. Senator Evans should listen for a moment to the debate. I know he wants to forget about his former opposition to this approach. We know that Senator Evans, until 15 September last year, pursued attempts at multiple land use for Kakadu National Park and that he had correspondence with a number of people, including Charles Copeman, in which he advocated that and expressed the Government's interest in it. Senator Jessop —Very sensible approach. Senator DURACK —It was a very sensible approach. Senator Evans now does not want to pay any attention whatever to the Committee stage of the debate. He did not want to deliver Professor Ovington's reply to the second reading debate. His own distaste for that exercise was quite clear. It is very demeaning for him, I know, to have to just repeat the words of Professor Ovington. Repeating anybody else's words except his own is very demeaning for him, particularly those that he does not agree with. If Senator Evans would attend, I want to ask a few questions. I started off by saying that I understand it is the Government's intention to resume the pastoral leases of Gimbat and Goodparla and to then replace those interests under the Lands Acquisition Act whereby compensation and so on will be available, unlike other mining interests which will not get any compensation. In addition to the interests of pastoral leases over this area there exist under Northern Territory mining legislation a large number of mineral exploration rights and applications for such rights. This was the subject of a good deal of questioning by me at Senate Estimates committees in April and September last year. On 18 September last year at Senate Estimates Committee E, I asked a number of questions and I received this reply from Mr Ryan of Senator Evans's Department: . . . there are 46 mining tenements in the Gimbat-Goodparla region and the legal status varies quite considerably. The BHP mining tenement area, for example, has been held to be okay, but, as far as we can deduce, a number of other instances will probably have to be settled in the courts. There are 98 exploration applications still standing for the area and the legal status of those is yet to be resolved. Under Northern Territory mining law-for the benefit of Senator Coleman, who seems to misunderstand it-applications for exploration rights have legal status as such. That is very clear. I am sorry to say, Senator, that they have rights. I know it is very unfortunate for the honourable senator to have to acknowledge it, but they do have rights as applicants for exploration rights. In addition to the 98 applications there are 46 mining tenements which, even on Senator Coleman's views of mining law, would undoubtedly be recognised as rights. One of the difficulties is that Mr Ryan indicated that legal status of these 46 mining tenements is, in some cases, doubtful and may have to be settled in the courts. That was a state of affairs which had greatly concerned me, and still does. I would like Senator Evans to tell us now-he will remember, I hope, the discussions that have been held in these Estimates committees-whether this legislation is now going to simply wipe off altogether the 144 rights of some sort or other, some of which may well be dubious. Is this legislation now wiping off those rights so that the Government can start with a completely clean slate? Will it then impose upon that clean slate-this area where there will be presumably no pastoral lease and no mining rights-a new mining regime? I do not want to burden the Minister with too many questions at once. I then want to ask a number of questions about the nature of this new mining regime, but perhaps it would be better if we can get an answer from Senator Evans as to just whether I am right in that assumption-if I am not, where I am wrong-and whether that is, in broad terms, the position. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.55) —I think it is important to distinguish between existing mineral interests in the form of granted mineral leases and licences of one kind or another and those which are merely claims of rights; that is to say, applications for leases under the Northern Territory Mines Act. The Government's position is essentially one of recognising the granted leases and licence interests, but not recognising as protectable interests the mere applications. There is a lot of uncertainty about the legal status of those applications. There is a decision that Senator Crichton-Browne was talking about, which is not necessarily the last word on the matter. Talking about the allocation of exploration interests in the conservation zone, it is proposed to develop a regime, probably de novo, to allow the exploration area to be divided up between various claimants in a way that is rational in terms of our longer term resource assessment exercise. The Government is consulting right now with the Northern Territory Government to see whether we can get some agreed ground rules for the division and allocation of the presently unoccupied conservation zone area in such a way as to allow claimants a level playing field, I suppose, on which to put their claim for access to that area. As soon as we have worked out what that regime is going to be-those discussions are proceeding quite amicably, I am told, at the moment with the Northern Territory Government and quite speedily and should not take very much longer-I will of course announce precisely what the regime is. That is all with reference to what are merely licence applications, and which do not constitute granted interests. The situation so far as the 46 granted mineral leases and mineral claims in the area of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases is that 32 of those interests will fall within the proposed conservation zone and 14 will fall within the stage 3 extension of the park. In line with the Government's policy elsewhere in the park, all exploration and mining activities will be prohibited in the stage 3 extension. So the 14 interests that fall within the stage 3 extension are, for practical purposes, rendered nugatory. The existing titles in the proposed conservation zone-that is to say, the remaining 32-will be protected to the extent that they comply with the Commonwealth's environmental requirements. Exploration on existing interests will be subject to the same environmental assessment procedures as exploration in other areas of the conservation zone and will be subject to regulation under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. It would be illogical to have different regulations applying to existing as compared with new interests, but the interests themselves will be recognised and will be honoured. The particular regulations applying to exploration in the conservation zone are being considered at the moment by the advisory committee which has been established to deal with this matter and which has a formal membership of the Department of Resources and Energy and the Commonwealth Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, with participation by the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the assistance of a whole variety of bodies and groups such as the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, which is participating to this extent in the process. We believe that the regime that will flow from this will be a quite satisfactory one from everyone's point of view. I might say, finally, that it is not intended that exploration on existing leases be held up pending the finalisation of these procedures. They will be brought under the new management regime when the environmental assessments are completed and the new management regime will take effect at the time the exploration licences are granted in respect of the new interests in the conservation zone, which is the point that I made at the outset. I think that is as much information as I can possibly give the honourable senator at this stage. I hope that answers all his questions. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.59) —I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) for that answer. It is a very helpful answer as far as it goes. My attention has been focused on a passage in the second reading speech by Senator Ryan. In part, it states: The Government recognises that the proposed treatment of existing interest 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. I took that statement about the conservation zone not to be referring to the rights in stages 1 and 2 or, indeed, in the area falling outside the conservation zone in stage 3, where the rights are totally valueless as a result of this legislation. The Government is saying that they cannot proceed and that no compensation will be paid. The Minister, in her second reading speech, does not seem to be worried about what precedent this will create for this Government's treatment of existing mining rights generally in Australia, which will be nothing short of horrific. However, I have already said elsewhere and earlier in this debate what I wanted to say about that. I take it from the Minister's statement that the Government recognises that the treatment of existing interests in the conservation zone alters those rights to the same extent as the new regime will do it. Is that what the Minister is talking about, or is there something more sinister about it? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.02) —No, it is no more sinister than that. I tried to spell it out. It is a matter of being subject to the same environmental regulatory regime as the new interests will have under the conservation zone. It will not affect in any other way the capacity of those rights to be exploited as far as exploration is concerned. Of course, when we get to the stage of approving or not approving a new mining development that might be proposed following that exploration there will be applied to that the criteria that we spoke of before. That is a new decision that would be made anyway by government, and it does not bear upon the quality of the existing right. Finally, in relation to Senator Durack's opening remarks, I cheerfully say on the record that this legislation will not and is not intended to set a precedent that could be applied to existing mining rights on Commonwealth land generally. The Government's decision to establish this conservation zone and its accompanying management regime to control exploration is very much something that has been designed specifically for the particular circumstances of this area to ensure protection of the adjacent Kakadu National Park and the river system and the world heritage status of that area. It is not to be regarded as having any applicability at all anywhere else in the country. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.03) —I have one last question on this point. The status of the Coronation Hill lease, the associated leases or whatever, is not really spelled out in the second reading speech. I had understood from the statement of 16 September last year that the Government's proposal was that the Coronation Hill leases or rights-or whatever status they have-would be excised from the park; in other words, that they would be treated in the same way as Ranger or Koongara have been treated. This has not been made clear by the Government in the second reading speech or in the current debate. Is that still going to be done or will some special rules apply to Coronation Hill? What is happening about Coronation Hill? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.04) —That will become clearer when the regime to apply to the conservation zone is announced in all its detail, which I hope will be quite soon. Coronation Hill is within the geographical area of the conservation zone at the moment rather than within any of the area identified as part of the national park. It is intended in due course that Coronation Hill be excised, if you like, and a mining interest there created which will be, I suppose, analogous with that of Ranger to the north, provided that-this is a very important proviso-all the necessary approvals are granted, based on the environmental impact statement and a very full evaluation of the impact of this particular project on the region. The Coronation Hill people are still engaged in finalising their exploration program, in appraisal of the scope and extent of the resource and in general development planning. I do not think that there has yet been a formal application made for a mining licence as such. That is yet to come. It is in the process of preparation at the moment. Its status at the moment is essentially that of an existing exploration interest, but we have foreshadowed a willingness to give it that sort of excised status if it satisfies all the criteria that have been identified publicly. Senator Durack —Including that of national economic significance? Senator GARETH EVANS —We are working on the assumption, on the basis of information now to hand, that it would seem to satisfy that description, that the scale and the size of the resource is of a character to satisfy that description. That is the premise on which the exercise has been proceeding so far. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.06) —We have had a lot of crocodile tears shed by the flat-earthers on my right about the loss of this area to the mining industry, the deplorable effect that this has had on the export earnings of the country of Australia, and so on. In fact, the mining industry has done very well indeed out of this. The mining industry should not have anything to do with stages 1, 2 or 3 of Kakadu-nothing at all. It should be truly a national park run by an enlightened Federal government and without any difficulties with local pressure groups. The mining industry will get absolutely what it wants through its wholly owned subsidiary, the Northern Territory Government. I refer to clause 4 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2.). Clause 4 deals with procedures for regulating and monitoring exploration activities within the conservation zone of stage 3 of Kakadu to safeguard the environmental values of the zone as much as possible-or that is its avowed intention. I have obtained documents on this subject which were drafted by the Department of Resources and Energy. They came to me from the producers of the excellent national public radio environment program Watching Brief, and are dated 7 April this year. They deal with the arrangements made between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government and reveal glaring weaknesses in the proposed procedures for the environmental monitoring and control of exploration projects. On the surface of it, the arrangements seem satisfactory, and certainly in the legislation they seem satisfactory. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 gives the Director of National Parks and Wildlife responsibility for administering, managing and controlling conservation zones under the direction of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. So far, so good-that is fine. This clause does not change that arrangement. However, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife will be able to carry out his functions properly only if he has some of his own people on the ground at the exploration sites. That is the only way he can be assured of getting objective information about what is going on at the sites, and whether his directives are being carried out. Is this the case? No, it is not. In reality, it looks as though the Director will not have any officers constantly monitoring exploration projects. According to a document entitled `Administrative Terms and Conditions for Exploration Licences in the Conservation Zone': The Northern Territory Director of Mines will be responsible for the day-to-day exploration program and monitoring and compliance with licence terms and conditions. The person responsible will be not anyone from the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service but the Northern Territory Director of Mines, and the Northern Territory Director of Mines has as his sole occupation the benefit of the mining industry in that area. There is no mention of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service being involved in day to day monitoring. It is entirely in the hands of the Northern Territory Government. It is well known that the Northern Territory Government is not interested in the environment. It is interested in mining, the more the merrier. It is farcical and dangerous to expect its officials to give the Director of National Parks and Wildlife adequate information on exploration activities to enable him to fulfil his duties to the environment. Another document, entitled `Kakadu Conservation Zone Advisory Committee', states: Any problems regarding the day-to-day administration of the exploration scheme and related monitoring would be identified by the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, or the Department of Resources and Energy. This cannot be done properly without a commitment of Commonwealth officers to day to day monitoring. I call on the Government to provide extra funds to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service to ensure that it can have officers monitoring exploration projects continually. My other misgiving relating to this clause concerns the Conservation Zone Advisory Committee, or COZAC as it is becoming known. COZAC comprises representatives of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and the Department of Resources and Energy and a representative of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It exists supposedly to provide advice to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The document `Kakadu Conservation Zone Advisory Committee' states: As far as possible advice would be conveyed to the Director in Committee, although formal requests would need to be transmitted through the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. This recognises the reality that COZAC has no legal power to direct the Director; only the Arts, Heritage and Environment Minister has that power. However, according to my sources there is a tacit understanding that the Director of National Parks and Wildlife will be expected to take the advice of COZAC as orders. In other words, COZAC will give directives to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. This represents an unprecedented intrusion into the work of the Director and his commendable Service. Normally, he works fairly autonomously without direct political control. Now he has two government Ministers breathing down his neck just in case his enthusiasm for protecting the conservation zone inhibits the noble cause of exploring for minerals. The Australian Democrats and the environment movement will be monitoring this situation very closely. We may have to explore legal avenues to get COZAC off the Director's back should the Government's representatives on COZAC overstep their terms of reference. The Australian Democrats consider the decision to allow any mining in the conservation zone to be shortsighted and destructive. If it must happen, we demand that the maximum possible protection be given to the environment. To the great discredit of the Hawke Government, the arrangements proposed in these documents are shaping up as a sellout to the mining industry. I ask the Minister to assure the Senate that this situation will be rectified to give the Kakadu environment the protection it deserves. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.12) —I am very happy to give the Committee an assurance that the environmental monitoring of the exploration activity in the conservation zone will be absolutely stringent and directed squarely at preserving the values of the Kakadu National Park and in particular the South Alligator River system that is so integral to it. That is the whole point of declaring the extension of stage 3 and going through this elaborate conservation zone mechanism, to ensure that environmental interests are so protected. I do not concede that there is anything in the proposed arrangements which would put those objectives in any way at risk. The reality is that the Commonwealth will retain complete control over exploration and mining in the conservation zone. The day to day management of the zone will be undertaken by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service acting in accordance with the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and regulations made under it. The exploration will be governed by a combination of regulations of the kind that I have just mentioned made under that Act and also terms and conditions attached to exploration titles. Of course, far more extensive terms and conditions, much wider in their subject matter, will be attached to any subsequent mining development that is approved after further environmental assessment. Northern Territory authorities will be invited to assist in the consideration of the exploration applications and in the day to day management of the exploration program we will be calling on, among other things, the resources of the environmental monitoring group which is attached to the Northern Territory Department of Mines and which has a large body of experience in these matters. There has been an allocation of additional numbers to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. That was accomplished a few weeks ago under the Additional Estimates which are presently before the Parliament to enable the National Parks and Wildlife Service to discharge its additional responsibilities in this area. It will be a co-operative exercise in which the resources of a variety of bodies will be pooled and co-operatively managed. The Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service will have the formal controlling authority that follows from the language of the Act, which provides for a declaration to be made under a conservation zone arrangement. The functions of the Director are also set out in that statute and have application once such a declaration is made. Because of the sensitive balance we are trying to achieve between the conservation interests on the one hand and the resources assessment exercise on the other, an arrangement has been worked out whereby the area will be controlled in accordance with basic policy parameters that are set by the Conservation Zone Advisory Committee. That body is equally composed of representatives of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and the Department of Resources and Energy and it will reach decisions essentially on a consensual basis. We fully anticipate that it will not be a matter of anybody superimposing his will on the Director, who will in fact be physically present sitting in as part of the deliberation of that body; it will be a matter of sensible decisions being reached in that kind of atmosphere. I have not mentioned the applicability of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, that separate piece of very important Commonwealth environmental legislation that will also have some application in this situation, to the extent that the Minister is capable at any time of requiring that a full environmental impact statement be made under that Act. The basic expectation is that at the exploration stage it is likely that the conditions set out in the regulations and attached to the licence, provided they are effectively monitored, will be a sufficient sort of controlling regime but of course it is necessary to make an assessment of each particular exploration program as it is submitted by a licence applicant in order to make a judgment as to how it is likely to operate on the ground. If there is any doubt at all in the Minister's mind about the scope and nature of the proposal, any doubt at all that it might be more extensive than the normal run of the mill exploration program such as to justify special additional conditions being imposed that are not already satisfactorily there in the existing standard conditions, I have no doubt that the Minister under those circumstances will call for a full environmental impact statement and the full procedures of the Act will be put in train. But in the normal course of events we anticipate that the combination of controls, arrangements and regulations that I have mentioned, which are designed to facilitate the resource assessment exercise and not to stand impossibly in its way, will be a perfectly adequate body of arrangements to ensure the full protection of the area. I conclude as I started by saying that the Commonwealth is unequivocally committed to the full and complete protection of the environmental values of this area. There is no question of our allowing anything to happen which will put those values at risk in any way. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.19) —Does the Minister for Resources and Energy envision that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service personnel will monitor exploration activities at all? Are they enabled to do so under the arrangement and will they be doing so? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.20) —Yes, it will be part of their normal functions to do just that. There will be other people doing it as well. We envisage a pretty extensive program over that five-year period. Yes, ANPWS officers will be physically on the ground keeping track of what is going on and if there is any suggestion at all that something is not according to Hoyle I expect they will be on the ground in a very conspicuous and omnipresent way. There is certainly that intention; it is not a matter of just delegating authority to the Northern Territory Department. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.20) —I note with interest the replies that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) is giving; they are quite good. I note too that he has said that the Northern Territory Government is to be invited to assist in the conduct of the exploration program. But there is no mention in this legislation of the Territory being involved in the mining program at Coronation Hill. In fact it appears that the Northern Territory is specifically excluded by this legislation from involvement in the development of the mineral resources in Kakadu. There appears to be absolutely no recognition of the rights of the Territory Government to become involved in assessment and development of resources within its own borders. Yet the Minister has recognised the adequacy of the Territory legislation in place because it appears that the terms and conditions attaching to exploration titles under this legislation correspond largely with those attaching to Territory title. Why has it been necessary then for the Commonwealth to ignore the perfectly adequate Northern Territory legislation and impose its own legislation with almost identical provisions relating to exploration titles? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.21) —It is not a matter of ignoring the Northern Territory legislation. It is a matter of picking it up and applying it to what is essentially Commonwealth land. We had the choice of legislating an entire Commonwealth mining code and creating a new part of the bureaucracy to administer that mining code. Manifestly, that makes no sense and we have not gone down that track. What we are working out are co-operative arrangements with the Northern Territory whereby we will apply their standard rules, regulations and conditions-but add a body of our own to deal with the environmental protection side of this-with the assistance of Northern Territory Government officers, working out appropriate administrative expenses and compensation arrangements to reflect that input. That is not a preferred position so far as the Northern Territory Government is concerned. That Government would prefer to have its own legislation applied directly, not indirectly through this Commonwealth filter, and it would prefer to have its officers administering the whole area without any Commonwealth involvement. But I am sure Senator Kilgariff will be aware of the kinds of policy considerations that have led the Commonwealth to take this approach in relation to these areas. It reflects the peculiar and great significance, both nationally and internationally, of this whole area and our desire that the regime be put in place and applied with regard to national and international criteria, standards and circumstances rather than those that are normally applicable simply at the local level. I am not saying anything in criticism of the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy or of the way in which in recent years it has set conditions and monitored projects. Right around the country mines departments are much more sensitive to the necessity to balance out conservation and mining interests than has been the case in the past. These days it is inconceivable that any jurisdiction in the country could allow a Rum Jungle situation to happen again. The reasons are essentially policy ones and I repeat that we are applying the Northern Territory legislation for all practical purposes, subject to the overriding conditions that we have already discussed. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.23) —I thank the Minister for that. I note too that the overall responsibility for monitoring the regime within Kakadu stage 3 is to be vested in the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. We have seen in the annual reports of the ANPWS a recurrent theme-that there is a lack of resources sufficient to manage current tasks. The Minister has said this morning that resources are now being made available to ensure that the Service will be able to carry out its responsibilities adequately. But what about the Office of the Supervising Scientist, whose functions are to be expanded to take on additional tasks and responsibilities relating to this Bill? Does it have sufficient facilities now to adequately carry out those expanded responsibilities? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.24) —That is being resolved in the Budget context. From my recollection-I am not speaking from notes-there are presently about 76 people based physically in the Northern Territory and Sydney, and, of course, substantial physical resources in the Jabiru area. It is a matter for the Government to determine whether those resources are sufficient to enable the job to be done properly in the stage 3 area. I am inclined to think that they are sufficient, not least because the present budgetary climate makes the allocation of extra resources so difficult. But that is a matter for judgment and we will certainly not do anything that will in any way prejudice our capacity to closely monitor environmentally what goes on there, and particularly monitor what happens in the South Alligator River system. I am inclined to think that these questions will become much more real in the context of mining development rather than the exploration stage because that is where the absolutely rigorous ongoing supervision is needed. But at the same time base line studies have to be done as a prelude to that subsequent environmental monitoring. Whether that can be done within existing resources is something that we are untangling right now. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.26) —I thank the Minister for that and note his advice. On another matter, I note that in the second reading speech by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) when introducing this package of Bills, Mr Cohen acknowledges that the proposed conservation zone forms part of the most highly prospective unexplored mineral province. This fact has been pushed continuously by the Northern Territory Government, but it appears that for a long time it has been rather strenuously denied by the Commonwealth. Given that the Minister has now acknowledged the prospectivity of the area, how is this reconciled with the decision to allow a mere five-year exploration and resources assessment period? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.27) —We had to make a judgment as to whether the area could be fully assessed within that time frame. It is the advice of the Bureau of Mineral Resources that, provided there is a robust exploration campaign by a number of companies operating simultaneously, and provided the exploration lease areas are divided in such a way as to encourage that kind of activity, a pretty reasonable assessment can be made within that period. Geologists, being geologists, will not rest content unless every last possible lead has been followed up. In an ideal world, probably a longer period than that would be thought desirable. Senator Durack —In the real world, it would be. Senator GARETH EVANS —I say to Senator Durack that an ideal world is one in which compromises never have to be made and in which all objectives can be reached simultaneously without the necessity to trade one off against another. But in the world that we inhabit it is necessary not to prolong the uncertainty about the status of this area any longer than is strictly necessary. We genuinely believe that the five-year program, which will start from the time of the implementation of the regime-it is not as though months are now ticking away while we are setting up the whole thing-will be sufficient to enable full assessment to be made, bearing in mind that exploration licences are normally issued for only a six-year period, and that is without any particular pressure on licensees to embark upon the kind of exercise that we are, or will be, pressuring them to embark upon. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.28) —There is only a vague promise in this legislation that, at the end of this period, the Federal Government will make a decision regarding the area's long term future. I take it that the Minister will agree that stable terms and conditions need to be set down before any industry will invest large sums of risk capital on ventures such as in this case, that is, mineral exploration. Does the Minister seriously suggest that a five-year exploration period, with no guarantees beyond that period that access for exploration or mining will continue, provides that stable environment? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.29) —My consultations with the industry make me believe that there will be undoubtedly sufficient interest in the area to enable our aspirations to be satisfied. Of course, industry does not like restrictions of the kind imposed-that is, that not just any commercially viable mine will be allowed to proceed but that criteria of national significance will have to be satisfied as well as very stringent environmental ones. I acknowledge that the industry has an understandable concern about this. But we are not talking about just any old area of the country; we are talking about an extension of one of the most marvellous national parks in the country or the world, and that does require the imposition of special restraints, of which this is one. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.30) —I just wish to comment on the proposed amendment to the legislation on page 3 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill. Clause 6 (b) (1a) states: No operations for the recovery of minerals shall be carried on in Kakadu National Park. Senator Durack drew attention to the fact that the area of the Kakadu National Park is about one-third of the size of Tasmania, and that within it only a small section is subject to mining leases. Indeed, I think that, from memory, less than 3 per cent of the whole area is involved with either mines that have been developed or are in prospect. It seems quite incredible that the Labor Government, by amending the legislation, is turning its back upon the traditional blue collar workers-who, over the years, have supported the Government-simply to chase the green vote. Senator Durack said that the Government was chasing the radical environmentalists vote. I do not think the Government is fully aware that the typical greenie voter is not an Australian Labor Party voter-- Senator Sanders —Ha! Senator JESSOP —Of course, Senator Sanders is a prohibitionist, not a conservationist. He has no regard for the parlous state of the economy of Australia. He has no wish to redress the present $101 billion Australian debt. Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Are Senator Jessop's remarks directed towards any particular provision of the Bill in any remotely relevant way, or are they a re-run of his speech on the second reading? The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is taking all the Bills together. As there are five of them, almost any remark is relevant. However, I shall listen carefully to Senator Jessop and check that he is referring to some part of some Bill. Senator JESSOP —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am referring to the proposal that there be no operation for recovery of minerals. That can be tied in fairly well with the question of gaining export income. I was directing attention to the fact that the Australian Democrats are not interested in redressing the economic state of this country. Obviously, they are certainly not concerned with the jobs that will be threatened if the mining and forestry operations are curtailed or, in fact, stopped in many areas. The Australian Conservation Foundation carried out a survey of its members in 1984, and asked the question: Should the ACF work to support a particular party or parties? If yes, which one? Some 548 respondents said yes, and 469 said no. Of those wanting to support a political party, none wanted to support the National Party of Australia; three wanted to support the Liberal Party; 46 wanted to support the Australian Labor Party and 341 wanted to support the Nuclear Disarmament Party and the Australian Democrats. Therefore, the ALP is chasing the wrong horse in worrying about the green vote. It is obvious that the green voter is not the typical Australian voter-he would want development, in a responsible way, that would redress the very sorry state of the economy of Australia. I noted yesterday that Senator Sanders commented: Senator Jessop seems to feel that the environmental movement is highly paid by the Government. In fact, millions of people in the environmental movement have sacrificed a great deal of their time and money to make sure that something remains of the environment for the future. He said a few other things, and it might interest the honourable senator to learn that the ACF attracts about 90 per cent of its $1.6m income from government sources. That is fairly significant. I said yesterday that when, last year, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was talking about peace movements, conservationists and so on, he said that those people bite the hand that feeds them. That is quite right. The radical conservationists, the prohibitionists, such as Mr Jack Mundey, the union activist, and Professor Ted Wheelwright of Australian Consumers Association fame-and I regard them as leading prohibitionists in the ACF-are hell bent on preventing the development of our resources, even under agreed environmental safeguards. They want to destroy the Australian mining and forestry industries and cause suffering to hundreds of thousands of blue collar workers who rely on those industries for their employment. I regard that prohibitionist activity as unAustralian because it is hindering the development and productivity of our country. Therefore, I strongly oppose the Bills with which we are dealing. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.36) —I wish to clarify one or two points. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), in his outline to the Lands Acquisition Bill, maintained that economic benefits were likely to accrue through the granting of licences. I wish to put three questions to him on that matter. Firstly, does it mean that all rentals and royalty received will be payable to the Northern Territory? Secondly, as the Bill appears to make no provision for the payment of rent or royalty, what charges and royalty rates will apply to miners exploring or mining in the conservation zone? Thirdly, if the Territory Government accepts an invitation to assist in the conduct of the exploration program, will the Commonwealth reimburse any costs involved? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.37) —I am sorry, Senator Kilgariff, but your Leader was occupying my attention and I missed your questions. Could you ask them again? I thought that the honourable senator was going to rattle on for a while before reaching his questions. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.37) —I am not in a rattling mood, although I am a little rattled with the legislation that is being pushed through. I asked, firstly, whether the legislation means that all rentals and royalties received are payable to the Northern Territory. Secondly, as the Bill makes no provision for the payment of rent or royalty, what charges and royalty rates will apply to miners exploring or mining in the conservation zone? Thirdly, if the Territory Government accepts an invitation to assist in the conduct of the exploration program, will the Commonwealth reimburse any costs involved? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.38) —In answer to the third question, I have already indicated that, in principle, we accept the responsibility to reimburse any administrative costs involved. At least, I think that we do-I cannot imagine that not being so. As I am now on the record as saying that, so be it. As to royalty arrangements, that is a matter for further negotiation and I cannot say anything in public-or, for that matter, even in private-at this stage. It has been put on the back burner, although it is obviously an issue that must be addressed. It is not dealt with in the Bill, but that does not pre-empt the possibility of it being subsequently provided for by legislation. However, that is a matter for negotiation. Senator Kilgariff —What about the payment of rent or royalty? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is subsumed by the point that I have just made. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.39) —I have a few questions. The Minister's second reading speech stated: 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. That seems to be a delightfully vague statement, which I would interpret as meaning that, really, the Commonwealth Government will completely run the show, even with its own grants of mining tenements. From the answers Senator Evans has given in this Committee debate my impression, which is perhaps more consistent with what Senator Evans said at a recent Estimates committee hearing, is that the Commonwealth Government will be operating through Northern Territory mining law and the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy. This is very different from what was stated in the second reading speech. The matter as it stands now is very vague. I would like it clarified. Specifically, will the new mining titles that are issued, either for exploration only or ultimately maybe for mining, be Northern Territory legal titles or will they be issued under some Federal law which presumably will have to be passed, although some law may be available which I am unaware of? Is the Government going to have the Northern Territory acting sensibly through its laws and administration or, as a result of all the negotiations that are going on, will the Northern Territory be prevailed upon, either by sticks or carrots, to attach to its own mining titles under its own laws the various conditions the Minister has indicated in this debate? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.41) —The titles that are actually to be issued will be titles under section 51 of the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act, which talks in terms of the Governor-General authorising the grant of a lease or licence as the case may be. That section goes on to say: Subject to such exemptions or modifications as are prescribed, the laws of the State- that includes the Territory, I presume- in which the land is situated relating to mining shall, as far as applicable, apply to a lease or licence under this section and to mining carried on under the lease or licence. Senator Durack —Is that how you are getting over the need for any special Commonwealth law? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, in order that there is not a separate Commonwealth mining code. When mining or exploration takes place on Commonwealth land it is done pursuant to this picking up and application of the relevant local law by the Lands Acquisition Act. The way it will be done in each particular case is by quite elaborate conditions being attached to the grant of the licence in question. To the extent that there are any variations proposed from the local Northern Territory law, that will be picked up and made clear in terms of the actual conditions attached to the licence in question. Senator Durack asked about the extent to which there would be variations or additions to the Northern Territory law in the context of the language of the Minister's speech. All I can say about that is that there is under discussion at the moment a set of draft environmental regulations which are essentially on all fours with the sort of thing which is already in Northern Territory law but which is somewhat more detailed and perhaps a little more rigorous because of the nature of this land. Those regulatory conditions, which are to be promulgated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as regulations and which will also be attached as conditions to particular licences, are under discussion at the moment with the Northern Territory Government as well as within the Commonwealth. It is hoped that their terms will be settled and able to be announced at the same time as the full scale regime is announced for this area. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.44) —I thank the Minister for his explanation. What the legal basis of this show is to be is now quite clear. But a question now arises in relation to the 32 mining titles which have already been issued by the Northern Territory and which, Senator Evans has said, will be recognised in the conservation zone. Am I right in assuming that extra conditions will be attached to those titles so that the end result will be that those in the mining industry who are operating in this area will be operating under the same regime? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.45) —I am not completely clear whether the existing interests to be picked up in the conservation zone will retain the status of Northern Territory interests or whether they will be given a new legal character by virtue of the acquisition of the pastoral leases in question. But I do not think so. My recollection-I cannot check this on the spot, I am afraid-is that they will retain the status of Northern Territory exploration interests for the moment but with additional conditions attached of the kind I described before. The crunch will come, if you like, when we get to the stage-if it does arise-of mining development taking place, in which case the interest there granted would be squarely pursuant to the regime I have just described, under the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act. My advice is that they stay Northern Territory interests for the moment but subject to this potential override with additional conditions being imposed. I can follow that up later and give a more detailed reply, if Senator Durack wishes. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.46) —The main concern of my questions has been that rights will continue to be recognised. In part, I understand that is to be the case, although many rights will not be recognised if they are outside the zone. It would be highly desirable-almost essential from the point of view of fair play between the various mining companies involved-that everybody who is engaged in the extra assessment program in the conservation zone be subject in essence to the same regime, whether it arises under Northern Territory law or whatever. Senator Gareth Evans —No, that is definitely the case. Senator DURACK —That was my main concern. It is becoming apparent in this debate that the Government does not yet have its act together by any means in relation to the detail of the new regime which was announced in the middle of September last year. In the Estimates committee hearings Senator Evans was very sanguine about how quickly it could be done. That was back in September as well. Here we are at the end of April passing this legislation, presumably as a result of the Australian Democrats' support. Yet it is quite clear that the details of this whole exercise, which companies could study if they were available, are still down the track. I would like to know how soon the Government will have this detail in place so that companies will be in a position to know exactly where they stand. I am aware that the Government has already consulted the mining industry in relation to the new terms and conditions. However, a number of the new terms and conditions are to be pretty novel, or at least that is the proposal so far from the Government. Apparently, it will be a condition that the grant of any new titles to an applicant will depend on the applicant's demonstration of an ability to comply with environmental requirements and experience and sensitivity in consulting with Aboriginals, amongst a number of other conditions which I will not go into. Clearly, these conditions will be both novel and burdensome. I would like to know when the details are to be settled and when the five-year timetable is to commence. Presumably, public statements will be made by the Government as well as information being given to the mining industry. At this stage, so far as I am aware, there has been no public statement as to what the terms and conditions are to be. While I am on my feet, and to save me jumping up and down, I would like to pose a few other questions to Senator Evans. They concern the Aboriginal interests that are now going to arise in this area. As a result either of the resumption of the pastoral leases or, I think, of some provision in this legislation the land will be treated as hitherto unalienated Crown land and therefore subject to claim. When that occurs there will no doubt be a number of Aboriginal claims made and I guess these will be made at much the same time as the mining industry will be determining what it is going to do in this area. Who will get in first is a matter of some considerable conjecture and doubt. One thing that concerns me somewhat is whether the new mining applicants will have to run the gamut of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in obtaining their exploration titles. It has been made clear that before the mining stage can be commenced, on land that becomes Aboriginal land, agreement has to be reached with the Aborigines under that Act. There seems to be some suggestion that there is a difference between that case and the case of an application for an exploration licence during this five-year program and that in fact the Aboriginal veto will not apply in relation to exploration. I notice that in the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill there is a new section to be inserted by clause 4 which states: The Governor-General may authorise the grant by the Commonwealth of a lease or licence to a person to mine for minerals on land that: (a) is in a conservation zone within the Northern Territory . . . and (b) has, by a grant under section 12 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, become vested in an Aboriginal Land Trust, whether before or after the commencement of this subsection. I think the relevant provision here is the next one, in clause 5. If it is an exploration licence that is being granted, am I right in assuming that that will not require Aboriginal consent, even though the land has already become vested in an Aboriginal land trust? What is going to be the position of land that is subject to Aboriginal claims? The most likely situation that will occur is that some claims will probably not be resolved-certainly not in the early stages of the five-year program. They will simply be claims and they may be the subject of hearings by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner; and, as I understand it, under Northern Territory Government practice the Government has not granted exploration licences over land after a hearing has commenced by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. The bottom line of my concern is this: In putting this new exploration assessment program into place at the same time as this land is going to be subject to Aboriginal claim, is there going to be an awful lot of jostling going on between the competing parties, the Aborigines, on the one hand, and the mining industry, on the other-assuming the mining industry is going to be as interested as Senator Evans believes it is-and generally speaking is the Aboriginal veto of, or need for consent for, both exploration as well as mining de facto going to occur? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.54) —The first question is about timing. It is difficult to be precise at this stage because arrangements are still being negotiated and these consultations with the Northern Territory Government are proceeding. But a rough indication at this stage is that things can be finalised once this legislation is passed and proclaimed. The current expectation is that the leases will be acquired in July. I would hope that the rest of the regime could be put in place simultaneously with that acquisition. As to when applications will actually be called for and received and licences awarded and exploration started, presumably that is going to take some further period of months. But I would expect the whole thing to be well and truly in place and the exploration program started by the end of the year, subject then of course to the vagaries of tropical climate. That is as much as I can say about timing. It is in everyone's interests that we get moving as fast as we can. My understanding is that there has been a great deal of continual activity since the policy decision was made at the end of last year. Nobody has been dragging his feet on this. It is just an inherent complexity in all these issues. Senator Durack —Obviously much greater than you thought in September last year. Senator GARETH EVANS —No. On the contrary, I expected it to take some months, and it has taken some months but no more than that. As the honourable senator knows, the revolution always stops over Christmas in Australia; that is one of the difficulties in this country. But things have been moving very rapidly before and since. As to the complicated question of Aboriginal claims over this land, putting it as simply as possible the situation is as follows: An Aboriginal claim can be made only once the pastoral leases have been acquired, so the whole process of making a claim will not start until at least July. Obviously it will take some considerable time for those Aboriginal claims to be resolved through the present processes. I would not expect, in the normal course of events, those claims to be resolved one way or the other before the batch of exploration licences in relation to the conservation zone is granted. In other words, I would not expect the issue of an Aboriginal interest in land in the conservation zone area to arise at the time of the granting of the five-year exploration licence. Things may turn out otherwise, but I think that is a reasonably practical expectation. If after the grant of such exploration licences an Aboriginal land claim is accepted and the land becomes Aboriginal land, the existing mineral interests-there have been various of them, as we have described; the existing ones that will go on being protected and the new ones which will have thus been awarded-will not be subject to any Aboriginal veto or requirement of consent on the continuation of that particular exploration activity. If any new mining licence is sought-and I suppose it is a reasonable expectation that that may be the case-whether or not Aboriginal consent is required will depend on what the law is at that stage. At the moment the Northern Territory land rights legislation makes it clear that there has to be a terms and conditions agreement with the relevant land council at the stage of any new mining interest being required, so there is a capacity in effect to refuse consent to that and for de facto veto to be applied. That is one of the issues presently being very closely addressed by the Government as part of its consideration of amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. I hesitate to say anything with confidence in this area because of the complexity of the issues and the sensitivity of them, but it may well be that, by the time this issue becomes a practical one in the Kakadu stage 3 area, there will be a regime in place which will be different from that which applies at the moment. But that is the subject of speculation and the law at the moment is as I have described it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.59) —I come back to the actual proposed new sections in clauses 4 and 5 of the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill. As I have mentioned, clause 4 deals with the authorisation of the grant of a lease or licence to mine, and clause 5 deals with the grant of a right to explore for minerals-both in the conservation zone. In the event that that land becomes vested in an Aboriginal land trust, it appears to me that the Governor-General may still grant those licences. That may occur. Down the track, maybe within the five-year period, some of this land may become Aboriginal land. Somebody might seek to explore it as part of the five-year program. What does it mean? On the face of it, it seems that the Commonwealth will be able to grant an exploration licence, or indeed a mining licence, notwithstanding the provisions of the existing Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Is that right? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.01) —That is stretching a much longer bow that I have ever read into the clause. Senator Durack —What does it mean? Senator GARETH EVANS —It just conveys a capacity to grant an interest in what will be now Aboriginal land on the hypothesis the honourable senator has just indicated. It does not in any way suggest that the interest will be able to be granted irrespective of all the other procedures, terms and conditions and criteria that have to be satisfied. That is my understanding of it. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs people are nodding their heads over here in assent to that proposition as I have just described it. It is the intention that the normal regime of consents, and so on, be applicable. This is just a formal provision making it clear that the new Aboriginal land that may be granted here can be made subject to an exploration licence. It is to cope with the unlikely, I think, contingency that there will be an Aboriginal claim in place before the exploration licence is awarded under this new regime. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.02) —In a letter which appeared in today's Australian newspaper the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, has said that Aboriginal traditional owners do see a role for mining on Aboriginal land. That view is one I certainly support, knowing that many Aboriginal people see mining development on their land as a means of bringing an end to their present heavy reliance on government funding through social security and the like. The letter in the Australian today is very timely. I have shown a copy of it to the Minister and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard as it relates to Aborigines and mining, subjects we are discussing now. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Aborigines and mining As the people who are most affected by mining on their land, Aboriginal people have much to contribute to the debate on mining in the Northern Territory, the subject of a special report (18/4). Ninety per cent of the billion dollars a year current mineral production in the NT comes from mines on Aboriginal land. There are many traditional owners, myself among them, who do see a place for mining on Aboriginal Land. Aboriginal interest in mining is clearly apparent in statistics drawn from the Bureau of the Northern Land Council's latest review of mining negotiations in the council's area. Apart from the four major mines operating on Aboriginal lands in the NLC area (Ranger, Nabarlek, Nabalco and Gemco), we have also signed 13 agreements for exploration since the NT and Federal Governments lifted their bans on exploration on Aboriginal land in 1982. One of these agreements, in a highly prospective area of Western Arnhem Land, covers not only an exploration phase but also mineral production. In addition we have agreements for two mineral lease areas at Koongarra and Jabiluka, which have not been acted on because of the Federal Government's `three mines policy' on uranium. The traditional owners want these mines to go ahead and have in fact actively campaigned for them to go ahead. Currently the Northern Land Council, on behalf of traditional owners, is negotiating on 14 exploration licence applications with seven exploration companies. There are 200 exploration licence applications over Aboriginal land in the Northern Land Council area and of these, 91 have not been actively pursued by the exploration companies in that they have not provided proposals to the council. In another six cases the company has said they are not interested in negotiating at this time. There are 11 exploration licence areas where the traditional owners have sought, but still wait, proposals from the mining companies. While there have been 26 mining proposals which have not been accepted by traditional owners there are 44 cases where Aboriginal people have either entered into agreements, are negotiating or are awaiting proposals. Of the 26 proposals which have not been accepted, six involve rejection of only part of the areas sought in the applications. The rational development of mineral resources on Aboriginal land does not require change in legislation, nor a change in attitude by the Aboriginal people who are the owners and custodians of traditional lands. What it does require is a radical change in the attitude of mining companies and governments towards the right of Aboriginal people. GALARRWUY YUNUPINGU Chairman Northern Land Council Darwin Senator KILGARIFF —I dispute Mr Yunupingu's claim that this mining development, which so many traditional owners want, will be able to take place without any change to existing land rights legislation. History does not support this assertion. In the eleven years since the land rights legislation was enacted, only one agreement for a mining lease on Aboriginal land has eventuated. I say one agreement, although I notice that Mr Yunupingu in his letter says that 13 agreements were signed. This differentiation will have to be looked at further. Given that the area within the conservation zone will, by virtue of this legislation, become available for claim by Aboriginal people, the Minister must acknowledge that this will be a further discouragement to prospective mineral exploration and development. I cannot see mining companies, in spite of the potential of the region, feeling comfortable putting hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into a region for any future exploration, notwithstanding the uncertainty created by the limited five-year exploration period, when their work could go down the drain once a land claim is slapped on the area. The Minister can make all the reassuring noises he wants in this chamber about his Government acting responsibly in relation to multiple land use and reconciling competing interests, but he knows full well that what he and his Government are doing is condemning billions of dollars worth of resources to waste. As we have touched on land claims, can the Minister say whether the Government is aware of the extent of land claims which might be anticipated in this area? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.05) —There is one claim which covers the whole of the area from the Jawoyn people. One such claim is expected in the Gimbat-Goodparla lease area. I take on board the other points Senator Kilgariff has made. If he wants an explanation of the reference to the 13 agreements in Galarrwuy Yunupingu's letter, the answer in short, as I understand it, is that they all relate-with the exception of the Uranerz agreement-to licence applications that were made before the 1976 legislation came into force. So it relates to the pre-existing regime rather than to the one that has been in force under the Fraser Government legislation. That is the explanation for that. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.07) —As I have made very clear in this debate, the Opposition totally opposes this legislation. We registered our very strong opposition not only in the debate but also by voting against the second reading of this legislation. Nothing that has transpired at the Committee stage in any way has changed our implacable opposition to it. In view of the extent to which we have registered that opposition, I do not propose to seek to divide the Senate on this motion that the Bills be read a third time. In conclusion to this fairly lengthy debate I say that we leave it with a very heavy heart not just because of the provisions of this legislation and the way it will be applied to an area a third of the size of Tasmania but also because the Commonwealth's remaining overriding power in the Northern Territory means that that Territory, even though it is moving towards statehood, is able to be treated in this very shabby way by the Commonwealth Government. This Government is certainly proceeding along that course in a very disquieting fashion. From our point of view, what is of far more concern is the damage this legislation will do directly by locking up this vast area from proper mineral assessment. The Government is embarking on this course when it does not know-as the Minister has indicated already by criticising the estimates-the value of the minerals that may be in this area and forever lost if the Government's proposals are sustained in the future. I hope they will not be. If that occurred, we would be locking up this wealth in this national park without knowing the extent of it. It is extraordinary for the Government, for the Parliament, when making any judgments about the future economic interests of this nation and its people to turn a blind eye to what that wealth may be and what those interests may be. That is what the Government is doing here. We want to make it perfectly clear-let there be no mistake-that the Government is making these decisions about this vast area without having any clear understanding about the economic consequences of what it is doing. In addition to that, of course, this legislation for a whole series of reasons is a dreadful precedent for any government or parliament to set. Basically, it flies in the face, as I think Senator Crichton-Browne mentioned, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which this Government has sought to enshrine in legislation in Australia by its Bill of Rights. The Government is considering enshrining that principle in the constitutional guarantees by amending the Constitution. Yet, at the same time, its actions in this legislation fly totally in the face of some principles of that covenant, to which the Government seems to be so attached, which guarantee that there will not be a misappropriation of property. What the Government has done here is quite in the face of the Constitution of Australia which provides for just compensation. Because the land and the rights happen to be in the Territory, these decisions can be made by the Government without any constitutional restriction. This Government is taking away people's rights which, in some cases, have been exercised at great expense. In one case, a company has expended millions of dollars on exploration. In respect of a number of other rights in stage 3, it has now transpired that the Government intends to treat them in the same way and others will be greatly modified by the legislation. This is a dreadful precedent by any government and any parliament in this country. The Government and all those who have supported it, including the Australian Democrats, should be hanging their heads in shame at the precedent they have created. There are some nonsensical words in the second reading speech about how the Government's actions should not be seen to be a precedent for future legislation. What hollow gestures they are. Once governments and parliaments do this sort of thing, how can they expect anybody in the community to trust them again? I hope that the legislation will be seen by the Australian people for the dreadful precedent that it is and for the dreadful threat that it poses to their liberties and rights which have long been acknowledged in this country; and in this case our constitution escaped for technical reasons. I hope that the people will see and understand what a tremendous threat this Government is to their rights and liberties. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.13) —The Senate is debating the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 which was introduced by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to promote `equal employment opportunity in those areas of Australian Government employment that are not already covered by the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 or by section 22b of the Public Service Act 1922'. The second reading speech makes it clear that the Bill applies to a wide range of Commonwealth statutory authorities, including major government business enterprises such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. As I will indicate later in my speech, that means it touches on a substantial part of the Australian economy because those authorities are major influences on the Australian economy. The second reading speech went on to state: The passage of this legislation will ensure that the overwhelming majority of Australian Government employing authorities are required to develop equal employment opportunity or affirmative action programs. It is interesting to see that the second reading speech suggests that the Bill permits not just the promotion of equal employment opportunities but affirmative action. Of course, the Opposition has always clearly distinguished its attitude to affirmative action from its total support for equal employment opportunity. The second reading speech continued: The object of equal employment opportunity programs is to eliminate discrimination against women, migrants whose first language is not English and their children, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, and disabled persons. I would say unequivocally that that objective has the total support of the Opposition, and indeed all members of the Opposition. The Opposition would be less supportive about the constant reference to programs for affirmative action which are spread through the second reading speech. Later in my speech I will touch on the other concerns which we have about the legislation. I note that in the second reading speech the Minister said: I wish to emphasise the programs are not intended to, and will not, lead to positive discrimination. The Bill expressly confirms that employment matters are to be dealt with on the basis of merit . . . That is not strictly accurate as a matter of fact. What the Bill does is to permit matters to be dealt with on the basis of merit; it does not require that matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. Again, that is an important distinction as far as the Opposition is concerned. Those objects which in general command our broad support are not objects which have only latterly come to our attention. In my first year in the Senate I was faced with legislation which dealt with the question of racial discrimination. I joined with other Opposition senators in supporting that legislation in principle but I pursued substantial amendments to the legislation which was introduced by the then Labor Government. During my speech I will refer to some of the things I said in 1975. One cannot claim that the ideal of removing discrimination was born in the 1970s. Indeed, I suppose those who are old enough will remember that it became a matter of great concern in the 1960s. Although this Bill deals with a wider class of persons, I think that debate on it so far has concentrated on the issue of discrimination against women. I suppose my favourite tract on that subject can be said to have come from the sixties but indeed it was the 1860s. When John Stuart Mill wrote his essay entitled `The subjection of women', he said in the first paragraph what I think needs to be said about our attitude to the rights of women. I quote: That the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes-the legal subordination of one sex to the other-is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other. Senator Gietzelt —What year was that, Senator? Senator CHANEY —It was 1869. Senator Gietzelt —He was a bit ahead of his time. Senator CHANEY —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is at the table, says that J.S. Mill was a bit ahead of his time. I think that a number of honourable senators behind me would agree with that. Let me say that the pursuit of that ideal of a perfect equality has gone on continuously since. Australia, with our record of female franchise, and in many other ways, has much to be proud of in the changes which have been achieved in the status of women. John Stuart Mill wrote at a time when married women had virtually no rights even to their property. We have seen the great mass of laws which were oppressive of women removed over the years since Mill wrote that essay. A very interesting sidelight in all this is that feminists would argue that the essay should be largely attributed to Harriet Taylor, Mills's long time friend, confidante and, subsequently, wife. Mill very generously ascribed to Harriet Taylor the credit for much, if not most, of his work subsequent to their commencing to work together. It fascinated me that it could be a matter of argument as to whether `The subjection of women' was the work of Harriet Taylor or of John Stuart Mill, because it seems to me that if the essay was meant by Mill but was written by Harriet Taylor it would have been quite extraordinary that he would not have given her the credit when it was published in 1869. However, that is an irrelevancy in a debate which is perhaps meant to be more concerned with matters which are of moment in Australia in 1987. I note that the volume I was referring to has on its cover that wonderful painting entitled Liberty Leading the People by Delacroix. We have of course a bare-breasted Liberty leading a largely male group over the barricades and the bodies of those who stood between her and the revolution that was required. There is a very nice bit of symbolism there too, which I am sure honourable senators will enjoy. I do not think that one should enter into this debate without also acknowledging that the very real problems which exist with respect to our dealing with this legislation are not new either. Our having agreed that there is a common desire to have equality for men and for women, the real problem, I suppose, boils down to asking the question: How do we do it? That is what takes me back to the debate which we had in the Senate in 1975 when we were discussing racial discrimination. Mr Acting Deputy President, I am sure you remember that debate. You would remember the mixed feelings that there were in this chamber about the efficiency of the legislative approach of the Government. Fortunately, we were able to amend it in quite significant ways. I want to remind the Senate that, when I spoke on 22 May 1975, I referred to what Jim Killen said in the other House when he led for the then Opposition. He made the following point: . . . I am seeking to assert the thesis that it is the view of this entire Parliament that racial discrimination, one of the disfigurements of the 20th century, should be silenced. He went on to say: But how do we do it? I will now quote myself and what I said in that debate over 10 years ago. I stated: The basic difference of opinion which might give rise to argument in this chamber or in the House of Representatives relates to that last sentence that I quoted-`But how do we do it?' Again in that debate in 1975, I dissociated myself from Senator Walsh, who made a very savage attack on those who had suggested changes to the legislation, and I suggested that it was perfectly reasonable that there should be differences of opinion and that what we should be doing is seeking to have a constructive debate on the common objective that we have. I made the further point, which was a point successfully made by amendment to the Bill by the then Opposition, that we should not proceed by way of legal bludgeon, but that we should seek to proceed, and to improve our position, by way of education, by way of research, by way of conciliation, with the law being brought in only as a last resort. I take some comfort from finding that the one Liberal in the House of Representatives who crossed the floor on this subject, Mr Steele Hall-and I shall refer to his contribution to the debate now-made the point that perhaps there is a better way of going about these things than by legislating in this way. Mr Steele Hall stated: I must say to honourable members that, if I were in the position of directing this program, I would adopt a more educative attitude. I would not be forcing the pace as much as it is being forced in the Bills that have been brought to the House in these successive years. I would take a longer term view. I would have a similar aim, guided by the principles contained in the platform of my Party; but I would have a longer aim of an educative and educational program. I quote that because the principal focus of this debate will not be upon our common and shared objective; it will tend to be upon the difference of opinion which exists between the Opposition and so far one or two identified people who believe that to vote for this legislation without amendment is the more appropriate course and the course that they must follow. I make the point that even Mr Steele Hall, who chose to follow that course-as a Liberal of course he is entitled to do that-made the point that this was not his preferred option. Given that this was not his preferred option, why did he choose not to accept, in accordance with normal Liberal principles, the view of the majority of his colleagues? Why did he not accept that? He went on to explain that in the same speech a little further down the page. I am quoting from page 1563 of the Hansard. Mr Steele Hall stated: . . . I will support the Bill actively by voting for it in the House. I do so, believing that the way honourable members vote is a signal to the women in the Australian community. Whilst, as I have said, I am sceptical of programs forcing the pace beyond that which the community is willing to accept and develop, I nevertheless believe that the signal that the Parliament gives to women to help them take their rightful place in the community, free of discrimination, is extremely important. I think it is important that that should be part of the record here because I can see that one could be concerned about the signals which are sent. I want to stress on behalf of the Opposition that no signal is being sent by this Opposition other than the express signals that I will indicate in this speech; namely, we believe that in the subtle but real changes which have been made to this legislation there are some grounds for concern and that amendment is necessary. Secondly, if I may look at it broadly, there is not only a problem of discrimination in Australia which burdens some people, but another problem which some of us would see as being a more significant, overall burden; that is, we have an economy in which 25 per cent of our young Australians are unemployed. We all like to get morally outraged about things. I prefer to get morally outraged, if I may say so, about the 25 per cent of youth unemployment. I therefore find that my moral outrage is a little more directed to the economic hardship which is being inflicted upon Australian families. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who is at the table, would not be enjoying the fact that Australian families at the moment are seeing their after-tax incomes diminish, their after-tax and mortgage payments diminish, the growth in measured poverty under this Government and the rise in youth unemployment since the Government started Priority One. None of that would be a source of satisfaction to the Minister at the table, nor would it be for me if I were in the same position. I have been in the position of seeing economic deterioration under a government of which I was part. I would have to say to the Minister and to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that my moral outrage was greater over what was happening because of disemployment in 1982-83 than over the remaining oppression of Australian Aboriginals, for example, to pick something else that exercises my conscience and mind. I want to put those things in some sort of perspective. We are dealing in this legislation with, I would suggest, more marginal areas of difficulty, and there are two questions: Is the Government going down a path a little further in a way which might be damaging and where some slight drawing back of the sort that is going to be put forward in our amendments is required? Ought we to be examining this regulatory cost burden which the Government's own organ estimates at many tens of billions of dollars in this community, a very heavy cost on an economy which the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, continuously tells us is not internationally competitive and which will not succeed until it becomes internationally competitive? These are all major matters and, believe it or not, they are all relevant to where we are on this legislation and the approach that we adopt. I think it should also be acknowledged that the issues relating to this legislation, the issues of equality, are deep and complex. I find that I am using more of my time than I would wish on these matters; but for those people who believe that there are straightforward and complete answers to the problems of sexual equality and to guaranteeing an appropriate place for women in our society, I would say that they are no more simple and no more straightforward than the problem of guaranteeing equality and a reasonable place in our society for the Aboriginal community. I simply say to honourable senators that all of us should be a little sceptical of our capacity as legislators to legislate for results. The sort of complexity that exists is reflected in my favourite book by a feminist, The Second Stage by Betty Friedan, who, after 20 years, engaged in a retrospective examination. One finds in that retrospective examination the same sort of questioning that is referred to by Professor Geoffrey de Q. Walker in his study on citizens, Initiative and Referendum, when he writes of the volatility of the views of elites and how inconsistent many attitudes have been about what will achieve the common, shared objective we have. I think all of this is relevant, too, because it says to us that we should all be prepared to be a little more sceptical of our capacity as legislators to achieve the solutions that we have. The caution which the Opposition is urging here is very reasonable in that context. I commend for consideration the early views of so many feminists to that oppressive instrument of social repression, the family, with the retrospective assessment of Betty Friedan, who said: ``Family'' is not just a buzz word for reaction; for women, as for men, it is the symbol of that last area where one has any hope of individual control over one's destiny, of meeting one's most basic human needs, of nourishing that core of personhood threatened now by vast impersonal institutions and uncontrollable corporate and government bureaucracies and the bewildering, accelerating pace of change. Against these menaces, the family may be as crucial for survival as it used to be against the untamed wilderness and the raging elements, and the old, simple kinds of despotism. I totally agree with that and I think it is a very wise comment. When I look at the reversal of attitudes, the laughing at marriage and now the attempt to put the legal equivalents of marital obligations on people who cohabit, which commenced I think with litigation in California, so often the foundation of our next big move, when I look at the whole agenda as to what is going to achieve happiness, I look at Germaine Greer's original attitude to promiscuity as against her present attitude to sex and relationships generally. I simply say that we are in a very moving scene. I do not like people who suggest that they have all the answers and that they can be very simply legislated. The points that need to be made on behalf of the Opposition go beyond the general description of the philosophic point that has to be made and the difficulties that we face in these areas. I need to refer to the growing concern that properly exists in this community at the ever increasing legislative intervention in our lives and, most importantly, the extent to which it is effective. I note that Senator Peter Baume, who has done the ultimate and retired from the shadow ministry, moved a motion on behalf of the Opposition in 1986. The Labor Party has told us what he said about extending this legislation. He did say that, and he said it on our behalf. Senator Baume also moved a motion which said: . . . the Senate believes that . . . voluntary co-operation rather than additional Government regulation is the preferred method of achieving equal opportunity in employment . . . That is a statement of view which was put forward by Senator Baume on our behalf, and it represented the considered view of the Opposition at that time. That motion, moved on our behalf, went on to refer to what I have already mentioned today, that is, the growing cost burdens of business, reducing overall employment opportunities and increasing prices to consumers; the increasing level of business regulation; the establishment of yet another bureaucracy at a cost to the taxpayer; further extending interference of trade unions in the activities of private employers; and so on. Senator Baume said: `I hope that the Senate will see fit to adopt these amendments'. That still represents the considered view of this Opposition. However, on this occasion we are saying that we believe that things have moved on to the extent that, given the burden of regulation referred to in Senator Peter Baume's resolution, we should acknowledge that the Government itself has indicated through its Business Regulation Review Unit that we are not dealing with a minor problem here but with a problem which it estimates imposes a total cost on the Australian community of between $40 billion and $80 billion. It goes into great detail in its report of May 1986 as to how it arrives at that figure. We find a very welcome response to that problem by the Government, a response that we have not criticised at all because we see it as important. Senator Button released a statement on 9 January 1987, as follows: . . . Senator John Button, today announced a strengthening of the government's commitment to the reduction of unnecessary business regulation and a commitment to ensure legislation is expressed in simple English. We will never get that, but let us hope that we get a reduction of unnecessary business regulation. The statement continues: Senator Button said any new government proposal affecting business must be cleared with the Business Regulation Review Unit and if necessary the department making the proposal is required to supply a Regulation Impact Statement. Senator Button said, ``the Government is committed to a review of business regulation with a view to winding back those regulations not offering a net benefit to the community.'' My second reading amendment is the same as the amendment moved in the other place. It has not been circulated and I ask that that be done now. I move: Leave out all words after ``That'', insert ``this Bill be not further proceeded with until it has been examined by the Business Regulation Review Unit in accordance with the procedures announced by the Government on 9 January 1987 for the review of government proposals affecting business regulation, and until the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations prepares a Regulation Impact Statement on the proposals contained in the Bill''. In further support of that amendment, I point out that Senator Button went on to say-and I think this bears out the wisdom of following the course suggested by the Opposition-the following: A Regulation Impact Statement can be called for where this is considered to be necessary. The statement should canvass the costs and benefits of the proposal to government and the community and should demonstrate- I stress the following words- that the regulatory route proposed is the most efficient and practicable of the options available. I do not have time to expand on that further. I simply say that here we have a request from the Opposition to do no more than the Government has indicated that it is prepared to do in response to the need for keeping down the cost of regulation. Some confusion has developed about this because in the House of Representatives Mr Willis was quite clear about it. On 26 March in the House of Representatives Mr Willis said: It is true that this legislation does not have a Regulation Impact Statement, but this legislation has been not to the Business Regulation Review Unit but to the businesses themselves. So we have that statement from Mr Willis, but yesterday in Question Time Senator Button, in response to a question from Senator Crowley, said: 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 about the comments made by the Business Regulation Review Unit in this instance . . . I simply say to the Government that we expect it to submit this Bill to the procedures that it has outlined as being appropriate to ensure that we follow the most cost effective path. That is something that I believe the people of Australia and indeed the women of Australia should demand. I have only five minutes left to deal with our other area of concern with this Bill. There has been some debate about whether there is really any difference between this Bill and earlier Bills supported by the Opposition with respect to the imposition of numerical requirements on employers. Does the Bill go wholly or partly down the track of establishing quotas? We are right to be concerned about that, because the Equal Employment Opportunity Report 1985-86 states: Provisions for evaluating the effectiveness of Programs are often inadequate. Very few agencies set numerical targets to be used as indicators of progress. The Board will be placing greater emphasis on the development of appropriate quantitative performance indicators during the coming year. A follow-up document issued by the same body, headed `Equal Times-Issue No. 1, March 1987', refers to: . . . the more difficult and more fundamental questions related to the development, implementation and monitoring of EEO programs: the setting of targets. It states a little later: There seems to be, however, something about the word `targets' that continues to arouse suspicion, despite repeated and unequivocal emphasis of this policy. People seem to have much less trouble with the words `performance indicators' so in future, that is the terminology we will be using. I quote that publication merely to indicate that clearly this is a contentious and difficult area that we are called upon to deal with. My concern is that there are quite real differences and a movement in terms of the three pieces of legislation that we have had to consider touching on this area-the Public Service Reform Act 1984, the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 and the Bill now before us. The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 has a merit clause which, as I said, is no more than permissive. It states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. I simply point out that the Bill does not require action, but on the other hand it does not do anything to prohibit action which is incompatible with that principle. In other words, if Commonwealth authorities, pursuant to their other obligations under this legislation, start pursuing the employment of people other than on the basis of merit my clear view would be that that is not prohibited by sub-clause (4) of clause 3. I turn to the question of what quantitative elements there are in this legislation. I refer the Senate to the fact that, under the heading `Contents of program', clause 6 refers to the setting of the particular objectives to be achieved by the program and then to the `quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed'. We will seek to move an amendment simply to take us back to the form of words passed by this Parliament last year in the other equal employment legislation we dealt with. I make the point that the difference between what was passed last year and what was passed in 1984 is a difference which is quite real. The 1986 legislation refers to a forward estimate of employment being a `quantitative measure or aim which may be expressed in numerical terms'. We shall move that that wording be included because at least that is permissive of a non-quantitative approach; I cannot put it any higher than that. On the other hand, the Public Service Reform Act which was passed some years ago has very similar words to those used in this legislation but with a very significant difference: Instead of referring to `quantitative and other indicators' it refers to `quantitative or other indicators'. Once again, this is a clear indication that it was not necessary to set quantitative targets under the Public Service Reform Act 1984. I am sorry to have to conclude my speech on matters of detail but the fundamental stance which is taken by this Opposition is that in the pursuit of equality of opportunity in employment we believe that we should go as far as we went last year but no further and that in any event we should not go that far until the Government has imposed upon the legislation the test, the review which, in its statement of last January, it laid down would be followed. I speak as one who can claim to have done as much as anyone in this chamber to pursue the equal treatment of the people that I represent, including in my work as a lawyer before I became a member of this place. The Opposition stance on this Bill is in accord with principle; I believe that to say that it is not in accord with that principle is not to understand our position. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that today's release of the first official survey of business on-costs confirms largely the findings of earlier assessments conducted by private sector organisations, such as the Confederation of Australian Industry, that on-costs add significantly to the cost of employing people? Even though the first Australian Bureau of Statistics survey covers only one year, does the Minister agree that the earlier private sector surveys to which I have referred show clear evidence of a quite alarming rate of increase in on-costs? Further, is the Minister aware that the April bulletin of the Reserve Bank of Australia notes `evidence of an acceleration in earnings drift in the second half of 1986'? These factors confirm the following view of Syntec Economic Services Pty Ltd in its April `Business Outlook': We have in wages an institutionally-constructed time bomb which will eventually blow this economy back on the course of devaluation with a chronic inflation rate double that of our trading world. Given that view, what is the Government going to do to reverse this alarming trend? Senator WALSH —The first thing that has to be done to resist the trend of wage rises in excess of award wages is to beat the greedy, irresponsible doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory, which has modified its demand to a modest $350 per week wage increase claim for a part time job. It is seeking an extra $350 a week for a part time job, and pursuing it with work bans as a form of industrial action. There has been not a word of concern from any member of the Opposition about the greedy, irresponsible-- Senator Reid —That is not true. Senator WALSH —If Senator Reid has condemned the doctors, I am very pleased to hear that. I just wish that some of her front bench colleagues had as much courage-and the Australian Capital Territory does not even fall within their electorate. But, apart from Senator Reid, there has been not a word from anybody in the Opposition about the greedy, irresponsible doctors union which is trying to get a $350 a week pay increase for a part time job and is using work bans in an attempt to do that. So the first thing that has to be done is that the doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory has to be beaten, and it will be. As to the other question that Senator Chaney asked, it is correct that the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of labour on-costs is generally supportive of earlier surveys done by the Confederation of Australian Industry. If I may say so, I note on behalf of the Government with some pleasure that the Confederation of Australian Industry has by and large adopted a responsible attitude to questions such as this and has conducted serious and objective research into it-a fact which is, of course, confirmed by the high degree of corroboration by the ABS of the CAI's earlier surveys. Of course, the behaviour of the CAI stands in marked contrast to that of the Australian Small Business Association and people such as Andrew Hay. I am afraid I do not know whether the rate of increase has accelerated, but I will find out for Senator Chaney if he wants me to. Finally, it should be noted that in the 15 countries for which data is available from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development sources-those 15 countries, incidentally, do not include Australia-the OECD estimated on-costs to average 35 per cent of total labour costs, which is significantly higher than the figure for Australia. So, although it is true that on-costs in Australia are a significant addition to wages-I think we all knew that, although we may not have known precisely how much-it is not correct that wage on-costs, compared with those of other major OECD countries, have made Australia non-competitive. In most of those major OECD countries on-costs represent a higher proportion of wages than is the case here. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I note the Minister's concern that the Opposition should solve the Government's problems. I ask him: What is the Government going to do to reverse the trends that are confirmed, for example, by the Reserve Bank of Australia with respect to earnings drift? Since he introduced OECD country on-costs, I ask him whether the 35 per cent figure mentioned is comparable, or whether that includes the additional payroll charges relating to unemployment and retirement benefits that are usually a feature of European employment systems. Senator WALSH —In relation to the last part of the question, I believe the figures are comparable, but I have not had a chance to read the documentary material thoroughly. I will have that checked out. On the first part of the question, relating to what the Government is doing to defeat the wages claim by the greedy doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory, the attitude of the Opposition is important because, if the Opposition had the courage, decency and concern for the future of Australia to come out and denounce the Australian Capital Territory doctors union in the way that it should be denouncing it, it would be apparent to the doctors union that it has no support on either side of politics for the pursuit of its greedy $350 a week wage increase claim, supported by work bans and industrial action. What the Opposition does in this instance is important because denunciation by the Opposition would very quickly demonstrate to the doctors union that it has no support and, therefore, no hope, even under an alternative government, of getting away with its greedy, irresponsible claims. I note from reading today's paper that Mr Willis made it very clear in the House of Representatives yesterday that the Government will not nod or wink at any sweetheart deal done by anyone outside the guidelines and the proper processes. But it makes it extremely difficult for a government to discipline unions or contain wage claims that are made by some unions when a union such as the doctors union is pursuing a wage claim that is absolutely outrageous-and apparently with the full support of members of the Opposition, with the exception of Senator Reid. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to a segment on the Sunday television program shown on Channel 9 on 12 April this year, exposing the activities of a private agency called the Economic League which operates in the United Kingdom. The prime function of the Economic League appears to be to provide information which enables employers to screen workers and others whose political or trade union activities may be deemed to be undesirable. The information collected has proved to be inaccurate in many instances, but those blacklisted from employment were unaware that the data was being collected and held against them. Is the Minister aware of any organisations similar to the Economic League operating in Australia, and what safeguards exist to protect ordinary Australians from such infringements against their civil rights? Senator WALSH —In regard to the first part of the question and the allegation that an organisation called the Economic League is operating within Australia, I have no knowledge about that and nor has Mr Willis. But, I hasten to add, that does not necessarily mean that it does not exist or is not active. In regard to safeguards, under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of 1986, there are provisions which apply in both the public and private sector and which enable inquiries to be conducted into any act of discrimination against an employee or prospective employee on the grounds of political opinion and so on. In accordance with the Act, under such circumstances the Commission would endeavour to obtain a settlement. Within the public sector, further proposed provisions are currently before the Senate in the Privacy Bill, which would prohibit the collection by Commonwealth agencies of information about an individual where the purpose of collecting it is not directly related to the functions of the agency. Where it is permissible for Commonwealth agencies to collect such information from individuals, the rules would require that the individual about whom the information had been collected was notified at the time of that collection. The Bill would also require Commonwealth agencies to keep personal information held by them secure, to take reasonable steps to ensure its accuracy before use and to use it only for the purpose to which it was relevant. Senator SHORT —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. I preface it by saying that I had proposed to ask about the prospects for a significant reduction in the national rate of inflation-which is, of course, now made more difficult than usual because today's figures for the March quarter are incomplete, extraordinarily, because collection of data has been disrupted by an industrial dispute. However, working on what is available, is it a fact that the March quarter consumer price index result of 9.3 per cent to 9.4 per cent means that to achieve even the unsatisfactory Budget forecast of about 8 per cent for 1986-87 as a whole will require an outcome of about 0.4 per cent CPI for the current June quarter? In view of the great concern about the possibility of excessive wage rises under the new two-tiered wages system, and noting that representatives of the Business Council of Australia are meeting with the Government today to discuss that very issue, does the Minister agree that, in the near future, there is no real prospect of the dramatic fall in Australia's rate of inflation that would be necessary to bring it down to anywhere near the average of our major trading partners of well under 2 per cent? Senator WALSH —It is, of course, correct to say that the March quarter CPI data is incomplete because the Sydney figures have not been factored in. My advice is that it is highly unlikely that the factoring in of the Sydney figures would change the figure for the other seven capitals by more than 0.1 per cent, and the change could be in either direction. That applies to both the provisional March quarter figure of 1.8 per cent and to the figure for the year ending March of 9.3 per cent. The 9.3 per cent figure is higher than the Government or any other sensible person would like it to be, but it is a significant reduction on the 9.8 per cent annual figure for the year ending December 1986. Senator Messner —There was a March quarter in it. Senator WALSH —There was a March quarter in the other figure as well, Senator Messner. By definition, the March quarter figure for 1986 was in the figure for the year ending December 1986. Senator Messner —No, it was not. That is not right. Senator WALSH —Senator Messner is telling me that there was no March quarter figure in the annual figure for the year ending December 1986. I do not understand how there could not have been a March figure in the figure for the whole of 1986. However, that is not really important. There was a great deal of wages drift, which the Government is concerned about, in the second half of calendar year 1986, some of it probably attributable to cashing out of fringe benefits. The indications are that the drift is high enough to be a matter of some concern. Senator Short asked what the Government is doing about it. The Government is using moral pressure and other processes available to it to resist claims for wage increases that the Government regards as excessive on equity grounds and dangerous on macroeconomic grounds. However, it becomes extremely difficult for the Government successfully to pursue a campaign of moral suasion against unions whose members are paid, on average, $400 or $500 a week-and, in many cases, less-when there is another militant, irresponsible union imposing work bans in an attempt to secure a wage increase of $350 a week for a part time job. That is exactly what the doctors union in Canberra is doing-with, I repeat, the apparent support of all members of the Opposition, except Senator Reid. Senator SHORT —I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Minister has not in any way addressed the question that I asked, so I ask it again. Does he agree that, given the results to date in this financial year, there is no prospect of the dramatic fall in Australia's rate of inflation that would be needed to bring it down to anywhere near the average of our major trading partners, which is well below an annual rate of 2 per cent? Senator WALSH —If the militant, irresponsible, greedy Australian Capital Territory doctors union got away with its wage claim, there would certainly be no prospect of that. If the dispute spreads throughout Australia-and the doctors have announced their intention to make it so spread-there would certainly be no prospect of getting down to a very much lower inflation rate, either in the short or the long term. Senator Michael Baume —What if the plumbers' arrangements spread throughout Australia? Senator WALSH —Precisely, Senator Baume. The demands of the plumbers were resisted stoutly by the Government. The actions of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Union were denounced by Mr Willis, probably by the Prime Minister, by Mr Keating, by me and by a number of other people. Senator Short —On a point of order, Mr President: Senator Walsh's comments bear no relation to the question and do not give me the answer that I was seeking. I ask you, Mr President, to bring him back to the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order and I have no powers to direct the Minister on how to answer the question. He can answer in his own way. Senator WALSH —In fact, I was answering an interjection from Senator Short's bench mate, or whatever he should be called, who is concerned about the wages claim pursued unsuccessfully by the plumbers union for $92 a week but is not at all concerned about the wages claim for an extra $350 a week for a part time job being pursued by the doctors union. I do not know how the honourable senator can reconcile such inconsistency. He is obviously frightened of the doctors union but not of the plumbers union. For a variety of reasons, inflation has gone up during the past 18 months, and we all know that. Indeed, it has gone up so much that it got to within a little over 1 percentage point of its rate when John Howard was Treasurer. Everybody is concerned about it. However, the movement is downward and there is sound reason to believe that, on an annual basis, it will continue to move downward from its current level of 9.3 per cent by-and I will not make any precise predictions-several percentage points over the next year or so. Senator BOLKUS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen the allegations of the Sri Lankan High Commissioner to Australia in the Australian newspaper of Friday, 24 April that the Australian Council of Churches is funding the Tamil Tigers, and the Press release of Senator Jessop of the same date, where he repeats the allegations and adds that the Australian Council of Churches is also funding the Communist Party in the Philippines and its military wing, the New People's Army? Does the Government have any evidence to support the guilt-by-association claims of Senator Jessop against that highly respected overseas aid organisation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am able now to say that no evidence which has come to the attention of the Government justifies the allegations made by Senator Jessop both in the Press release to which Senator Bolkus referred and in the question which Senator Jessop asked me a couple of days ago. I now reply to him as well as to Senator Bolkus: The Australian Council of Churches is a highly reputable Australian non-governmental aid organisation, as we all know, which provides relief to thousands of victims of natural disasters, poverty and conflict. Churches affiliated with the ACC include the Anglican Church, the Uniting Church, Churches of Christ and the Salvation Army. The Council of Churches advises that it has indeed supported church-based organisations in southern India which offer relief and rehabilitation services to Tamil people from Sri Lanka who have fled their country because of the situation there. The Organisation for Eelam Refugees Rehabilitation, known as OFFER, and the People Education for Action and Liberation, known as PEAL, provide emergency relief for refugees, including shelter and loans for the setting up of a small business and/or continuing education. It might interest Senator Jessop to know that the Australian Council of Churches reports regularly to the Government on these activities. I readily acknowledge as a general matter that it is inevitable that relief organisations and militants, including terrorists in pursuit of recruits, will on occasion find themselves in physical proximity as they pursue their very different objectives among the victims of violence in refugee camps in many parts of the world. But the needs of the hungry, the sick and the homeless cannot be held hostage to ethnic antagonisms, nor to the ideological climate prevailing, or which is believed to prevail, in the refugee camps. It would be quite unreasonable to expect non-government organisations to tailor their assistance to such considerations. The Government's views on the use of violence to achieve political ends are very well known. We give no encouragement to terrorist groups and would naturally be deeply concerned at any evidence of such groups receiving assistance from Australia. I repeat, as I said at the outset, that no such evidence has been forthcoming regarding the Australian Council of Churches' activities in South Asia, the Philippines or anywhere else. Under these circumstances we can only condemn the allegations that have been made by Senator Jessop about not only the ACC but also Community Aid Abroad and, for that matter, the Catholic Church as well. It would be a tragedy if the vital work of these organisations, which rely on public confidence and support, were to be affected by these allegations, which I can describe only as being both irresponsible and malicious. Senator MASON —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of several recent accidents in French nuclear powerhouses which, among other things, have resulted in the injury of seven people from a uranium hexafluoride leak in one reactor and a leak of sodium from the Superphenix fast breeder reactor into the Rhone River? Is it a fact that the right wing National Front Party in France and major elements of the French trade union movement have called for Superphenix to be closed down and that the latest opinion polls show that a third of the French population now oppose nuclear power on safety and economic grounds? Will the Government now re-examine the morality of its policy of supplying uranium to France? If the Government decides to continue such exports, will the Minister make an early statement to this House giving its reasons? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the French incident, a news release by the French Atomic Energy Commission stated that an accident resulting in the leakage of uranium hexafluoride at the Comurhex plant at Pierrelatte occurred on 11 April this year. The accident was of a chemical nature and took place in a plant which converts uranium tetrafluoride into uranium hexafluoride. The accident resulted in minor injury to seven people, who returned to work except for one person who received minor surgery to an injured finger. Reports in the technical Press indicate that leakage of liquid sodium from the fuel storage drum of the Superphenix fast breeder reactor began on 8 March this year. The fuel storage drum is a subsidiary tank to the main cooling tank where fuel rods are stored temporarily during their removal from the core of the reactor. The leaked sodium, which is not radioactive, is confined within the reactor building. I understand that the plant's management is having some difficulty in isolating the leak and expects the repair job to be quite lengthy. The Government is well aware-I certainly am-that there have been calls for closure of the Superphenix reactor from the union movement and opposition political parties. I have also seen references to opinion polls in France on the nuclear question, but I am unable to comment on the degree to which the reported polls can be regarded as expressing French public opinion. As to the last parts of Senator Mason's question, the Government's decision to resume exports of Australian uranium to France was announced in the 1986 Budget and was the subject of a full ministerial Press release at that time. The reasons given then for the resumption of exports still hold firm in general terms today and are not altered by any of the incidents which have been mentioned. France has a large and steadily growing nuclear power industry. There is absolutely no reason for Australia, as a low cost reliable supplier of uranium, to forgo the economic benefits of concluding further sales contracts to supply that industry. Senator MAGUIRE —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Has the Government been monitoring interest rate trends in recent times? If so, does the Minister have up to date information on interest rate movements in the community? Have there been any significant reductions in interest rates recently? Senator WALSH —The 90-day bill rate on 29 April-I have rounded off the figures-was 14 1/2 per cent. The 90-day bill rate on 15 January-that is, just over three months ago-was 17 per cent. So there has been a fall of 2 1/2 percentage points in the 90-day bill rate in that period of 3 1/2 months. The 10-year bond figures, which not surprisingly have fallen by a very much smaller amount because they are long term securities, have fallen from 13.63 per cent to 12.97 per cent. They are presently below 13 per cent. This fall in interest rates, at both the short and long term ends of the securities period, has been reflected throughout the intermediate range. Of course, interest rates are higher than the Government would like them to be. The Government welcomes the continuing indication that interest rates are trending downwards. Perhaps in closing I might cite one other figure by way of comparison against which present levels of interest rates can be measured-for 90-day notes, anyway. As I said before, the present rate is 14 1/2 per cent. In April 1982, when Mr Howard was Treasurer, it was 22 per cent. Senator DURACK —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that at an Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy seminar in Canberra yesterday the General-Manager for Exploration at Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Mr Bryan Griffith, expressed deep concern about the impact of the Government's resource rent tax on the off-shore exploration industry? I ask whether the Minister is aware that Mr Griffith said: Certainly BHP will now seriously reconsider its attitude to higher risk ventures in the Australian off-shore, given the increasingly stringent criteria controlling exploration investment. The leakage of BHP funds overseas could well increase as a consequence. I ask the Minister: In view of these very serious statements by one of Australia's major off-shore explorers for petroleum, will the Government reconsider its attitude to this tax, particularly in regard to the deductibility of exploration expenses? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am always a little amused by the fulminations of BHP, in particular, on the subject of a resource rent tax as it is only as a result of this profit-based regime being introduced that it was possible for it to proceed with the Jabiru development off the north-west coast of Australia. The reality is that all expectations are that the -- Senator Chaney —That is a totally different issue. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not the case that it is a totally different issue. It is exceedingly relevant. The whole utility of a profit based tax is that it makes possible the development of fields which in many instances would otherwise be quite uneconomical. The only point about it is that it means that great dollops of cream cannot be scooped off from the big bonanza windfall projects, which resource companies have regarded as their right to collect, notwithstanding that they whinge their heads off in times of low prices and low profitability and demand the reduction of production based taxes as a result. I am not impressed by the sorts of arguments that I hear from Mr Griffith or anybody else on this subject. We will be debating the resource rent tax legislation-as a result, it is quite out of order for me to be referring to it, let alone for questions to be asked about it-early next month and I will then put the Government's position in detail. On the particular question that Senator Durack asks me about roping in wider deductibility for exploration activity in the existing regime, let me say this: The Government has given very close consideration to a proposal to allow exploration expenditure anywhere within the area covered by the RRT to be deductible against it. The principal argument in favour of it is the boost that may be given to exploration should such a change of policy be made. I am familiar with those arguments. I understand them very well. Wider deductibility was, however, discussed when the RRT policy was formulated in consultation with industry from 1983 to 1985, and my predecessor Senator Walsh and Mr Keating were very actively involved in those negotiations. A variety of options was proposed, but industry preferred a narrower scope for exploration deductions in return for the relatively generous threshold rate and the low substantive tax rates which now apply. In confirming current policy the Government was concerned to ensure the absolute certainty and stability of the new regime. Major investment arrangements, including in particular the Jabiru 1, have already been made in reliance on the existing announced RRT ground rules. We believe that it is in everyone's interest that the rules are not subject to change with changing circumstances. The trade off for stability and predictability on the threshold and the tax rates, which the companies yell and scream for, is stability and predictability elsewhere. That is the essential basis for the decision which the Government has made, and that is why we will not be changing it. Senator WEST —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. A recent decision by the Department of Veterans' Affairs which appears to withdraw the rights of veterans and war widows on the central coast of New South Wales to the services of private hospitals has caused some concern among veterans groups. A number of representations have been received by members of the Parliament. Has the Minister more details on the changes, and are veterans to be adversely affected? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that there has been some change in the procedures by which veterans are able to receive medical treatment on the central coast of New South Wales. However, the problem has arisen over a long period and I think it is now admitted even by Opposition people that the economic decline that began in the early 1980s showed that governments had limited power in respect of increases in charges and in the way in which the economy declined in that period. Since we came to office there has been a tendency on the part of private hospitals, as far as the area of my Department is concerned, to take advantage of the economic circumstances to increase dramatically their charges in a period in which the Government has called for a degree of economic restraint. Late last year the private hospitals operating in the central coast area increased their charges by between 25 and 30 per cent. Having regard to what governments can do in such circum- stances, and to allow the procedures that have operated for many years to continue, the Department subsequently took steps to contain the costs involved. As a result of the increased charges by the private hospitals, we required that those veterans needing medical treatment in hospitals would not be accommodated automatically in private hospitals, particularly when it was conceded that there was space available in the public hospital system in the region. The Department instituted a review and found that in general public hospitals had the capacity to accept repatriation patients, with priority based on medical need. As such, the continued unregulated use of private hospitals could not be justified on cost grounds. Local medical officers and specialists in the central coast region were notified of the Department's decision on 27 November last. These changes, referred to by Senator West, were made because the continued unregulated use of private hospitals was non-cost effective. The arrangements were terminated because of the greed of the private hospital proprietors. The Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, chaired by Senator Giles, reported to the Parliament as late as yesterday, and that report may have some influence. The procedures my Department has now initiated require a general practitioner recommending private hospital accommodation to seek the prior approval of the Department in each case. To that extent, if suitable public hospital facilities are not available, approval will be given in individual cases for private hospital accommodation. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer the Minister to a news release she issued on Tuesday, 28 April, in which she stated that the Commonwealth Government had never supported the abolition of external exams, and further commented that the Commonwealth fully endorsed the desire, expressed particularly by business and industry groups, for an easily understood and readily applicable credential at the end of secondary school. In view of these comments, will the Minister be recommending to the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority the reintroduction of external exams? Senator RYAN —It is not the role of the Commonwealth Minister, be it me or anybody else, to direct independent education systems as to how they should conduct their assessment procedures. It certainly would not be my role as Commonwealth Minister to recommend to Mr Scholes or to the Schools Authority, which has the responsibility for these matters, along those lines. Nor would I see any reason to do so, since the assessment procedures that have been worked out and been in practice in the Australian Capital Territory for some time have proved to be satisfactory. By saying that they have proved to be satisfactory, I mean that they provide students with a credential which is acceptable and understandable to employers and provide students who qualify with ready access to Australia's universities and colleges. Indeed, when one tracks the performance of students from the Australian Capital Territory government school system in universities, one finds that they do extremely well. It would seem to me that, regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth is not in a position to make recommendations along these lines, the assessment procedures in the Australian Capital Territory are generally satisfactory and I can see no reason for recommending their change. Senator CHILDS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. What proportion of the retail cost of diesel can be attributed to Commonwealth excise? Senator WALSH —The precise figure for diesel used for on-road purposes is 18.72c a litre, and for most off-road purposes it is zero. Senator PETER BAUME —I address my question to the Special Minister of State. On the basis of information from some of my colleagues who are receiving word processors in their electorate offices, and on information I have had from journalists, I have become concerned lest there be a substitution racket operating with respect to the computers. I therefore ask the Minister: Is it correct that the word processing workstations being installed in electorate offices are not produced by the Time office equipment firm but in fact by a firm called Osborne? Further, is it correct that these workstations have a `Made in Taiwan' label attached to them? If so, why has the substitution taken place? Does the equipment supplied conform in all respects to the requirements of the tender? If so, could the Minister explain how? What is the Australian content of the workstations? Given that the Government has spent more than $3m to promote a Buy Australian campaign, what responsibility does the Minister and his Department accept to buy Australian in this matter? Can the Minister explain how it is possible for equipment from Taiwan to be provided in the tendering and contractual process undertaken by his Department? Senator TATE —I do not have the information available to me to confirm whether the so-called substitution, which is the key element in the question asked, is the case. Therefore, I certainly do not accept the suggestion in the last part of Senator Baume's question which requires that such substitution from Taiwan be an element authenticated by my answer. I will have to take some advice on that and I will provide the honourable senator with an answer as soon as possible. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister for Finance ask his Department to investigate whether there is any conflict of interest in Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen attending the forthcoming Premiers Conference when he has publicly indicated that he will be fully committed to his Canberra election campaign as the de facto Federal National Party leader? Would it be possible for the Deputy Premier, Mr Gunn, to represent Queensland's interests as obviously the Premier's thoughts will be focused elsewhere? Senator WALSH —I would have thought that the conflict of interest was self-evident. The Premier, wearing the Premier's hat, will be coming down here trying to screw as much out of the Commonwealth taxpayer as he possibly can to construct the Bradfield scheme or another dam on the McKenzie River for the family irrigation scheme, or something like that, and when he puts on his other hat he will be saying that there should be $20 billion knocked off Commonwealth expenditure. I do not think that there is anything the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, or anybody in the Commonwealth Government, can do to stop the Premier coming to the Conference ostensibly representing Queensland if he wishes. Likewise, I believe it would be quite acceptable if Mr Gunn, the Deputy Premier, were to come along as the representative of the Queensland Government. All things considered, I suppose it would be more appropriate if that were done. Senator TEAGUE —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, concerns the Government's long awaited response to the national language policy report brought down by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in December 1984. When I ask for the fourth time at six-month intervals, will the Government bring down its response? Tomorrow? Is it true that some weeks ago the Minister had 3,000 copies of the national language policy, written for the Government by Mr Lo Bianco, printed but not distributed-that is, this Government's consultant's recommended comprehensive response to the Senate Committee? Why has it been withheld when the Prime Minister on Sunday in Melbourne commended it to ethnic communities so very generously? Finally, has the Minister seen the Australian Financial Review article of 16 April titled `Language Plan Loser in Spending Squeeze'? Are the allegations of defeat and, in particular, that the Government has no remedy for its own cuts to English as a second language program substantially correct? Senator RYAN —I was going to begin by commending Senator Teague for being so patient in this matter because I know he has had a long-standing interest. However, the last part of his rather lengthy question is one that I will have to dismiss because as the Senate knows it is the practice of Ministers not to comment on any speculation about budgetary matters. However, no doubt Senator Teague took heart from this statement made by the Prime Minister on Sunday in which he said not only that the Government endorses the general thrust of the Lo Bianco report but also that there would be an appropriate budgetary decision in relation to it. As the Prime Minister has made that statement I have immediately taken steps to have the report tabled. I hope that that will be possible tomorrow. The only thing I am waiting on is the assurance that there are adequate copies for all the many people who will be interested. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I have had brought to my attention over a number of years many complaints regarding the Family Court of Australia, apart from the decisions of the court, going in particular to delays and difficulties regarding the machinery and the administration of the Family Court. Can the Minister say what steps the Government proposes to take to address these difficulties? Senator EVANS —On 25 March the Attorney-General announced a series of measures that he has set in train-the process of consultation, and so on-to improve the situation to which Senator Crowley referred. The first proposal was for increased powers to registrars of the Family Court to handle some contested custody, access, guardianship, property and maintenance matters, and undefended divorces; secondly, making provision for the appointment of Masters of the Family Court to deal with some of the less complex contested and other matters now handled by the judges-it will be appreciated that Masters in the State Supreme Courts now do quite a large amount of the straightforward work of Supreme Court justices-and, thirdly, possible wider jurisdiction for State magistrates in family law matters. All of these, if able to be implemented, as the Attorney hopes, should lead to a dramatic reduction in the work load of Family Court judges, which should mean in turn that they will be available quickly to handle the difficult and complex cases that arise and, of course, also enable the rather large backlog currently in the court to be tackled. State authorities would be involved in discussions about increased powers for State magistrates. At the same time, in relation to essentially the internal Commonwealth aspect of this, there will be discussions, as Mr Bowen indicated, with Federal Court of Australia and Family Court judges about the possibility of wider jurisdiction for the Family Court not only in the matters to which I have referred but also in areas additional to family law. This would broaden the work of Family Court judges and would help to enhance the standing of the court. All of those matters have been put on the public record by Mr Bowen in recent weeks. They are all important initiatives, and the Government very much hopes and expects that they will result in a quite substantial and very dramatic improvement in the situation that we all acknowledge needs improvement. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry to the recent meetings of the Australian Soil Conservation Council and the Australian Agricultural Council which were both held in Queenstown on the south island of New Zealand. Why were the meetings both held in New Zealand, given that the councils were made up of 27 Australians, four secretariat staff, and two observers from New Zealand? Senator WALSH —I have been asked why the meetings were held in New Zealand. It has been the custom for a very long time-I am not sure how long, but certainly well back into the time of the previous Government-for the Agricultural Council and the Australian Minerals and Energy Council, with which Senator Evans's Department is associated, to rotate meetings between the Australian States, I think the Northern Territory, and New Zealand. Senator Gareth Evans —And others as well. Senator WALSH —All the Australian States, New Zealand, and so on. Senator Gareth Evans —And other councils. Senator WALSH —And some other councils as Senator Gareth Evans tells me. Senator Tate —The Health Ministers have that type of arrangement. Senator WALSH —Interjections are coming from all over the place. Senator Tate tells me that the Health Ministers have the same sort of arrangement, but that is not quite what I was asked. I was asked why they were both held in New Zealand. There might be several different answers to that question since there are several different councils, Ministers and departments involved. My guess is that the belief is that, given Australia's close association with New Zealand in a number of ways, there are advantages in having New Zealand involved in discussions. Under those circumstances it seems to me to be quite reasonable that the location of the meeting should be rotated around the governments which are members of the councils. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I wish to ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister: Is it an expenditure of which he approves? Senator WALSH —Let me put in this way: I certainly approve of it more than I would approve of the $3m to $4m which it would cost if the greedy, irresponsible pay demand of the Australian Capital Territory doctors union were successful. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to a report in the Age on 28 April that the Leader of the Liberal Opposition, Mr Howard, had indicated that he would include a promise to restore negative gearing tax concessions on rental housing. Has the Government calculated an estimate of the cost to revenue if such a proposal were implemented? Would the benefits of such a tax concession necessarily flow through to people seeking rental housing? Senator WALSH —Yes, I did read-with some astonishment, if I may say so-the report in the Age of last Tuesday that Mr Howard had promised to reopen the negative gearing tax rort for residential property, thereby adding a further $100m to his credibility gap. Perhaps he is working on the assumption that if he already has a credibility gap of $14 billion to $16 billion, another $100m is neither here nor there and, therefore, he is not at all worried about it. I have been asked what the cost of implementing the proposal would be. Based on previous experience, the short term cost would be about $100m a year, as I have indicated. However, it could be confidently predicted that that cost would grow rapidly because whatever inhibitions may once have existed about the exploitation of the negative gearing tax loophole would no longer exist once the Government had legislated to open up such a loophole, thereby giving the exploitation of the loophole its explicit blessing. There would be a massive escalation in the cost of that loophole if it were to be explicitly reopened in the way Mr Howard has promised to do. I was also asked what benefits would necessarily flow on to people seeking rental housing. The answer is that no benefits would necessarily flow on. What Mr Howard proposes to do is to restore the old situation, albeit with the important difference that it would have the explicit blessing of the Government, under which it was not necessary to construct new rental accommodation to exploit the loophole. Indeed, round robins were operated between a group of high income people negatively gearing-- Senator Elstob —Like those greedy doctors. Senator WALSH —I will come to that in a minute, Senator-and thereby wiping out a good deal of their personal tax liabilities. At the time, because of repayments and inflation, when the project ceased to be negatively geared to the extent thought desirable, they just swapped them around; they bought each other's blocks of flats, houses or whatever. Therefore, there was no increase in the available stock of residential accommodation. As Senator Elstob indicated a moment ago, if the loophole were to be reopened, right up there at the front of the queue-if they were successful in getting their greedy $350 a week increase for a part time job-would be the Australian Capital Territory doctors union. That draws attention, I think, to the extraordinary influence which the Australian Capital Territory doctors union seems to have over the Opposition in that, on the one hand, the Opposition is eager to give the doctors a $350 a week pay increase for a part time job and, on the other, it would set up a tax shelter so they can avoid paying tax on it. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does Chairman Arafat's reconciliation with the most extreme elements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which according to Arab sources quoted by the British Sunday Times is likely to result in a `summer of violence' in the Middle East, affect the Australian Government's call for an international conference on the Middle East and for participation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in such a conference? Senator GARETH EVANS —I cannot imagine that it would, but I will seek a comment from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, if he chooses to make one. Senator BOLKUS —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen reports that some companies are obtaining tax deductibility by designing a security which appears to be a convertible note but which has the substance of deferred equity carrying a fixed dividend? Is this a contrived scheme which provides a massive taxation deduction windfall to the perpetrators of the scheme? What action will the Government take to stop this leakage of government revenue? Senator WALSH —I am not aware of a scheme such as that outlined by Senator Bolkus existing, but if he has any information about it I am sure that the Treasurer would be very grateful to receive it. Since I am not aware of a specific scheme, I cannot respond. However, I would like to make a few general comments. A convertible note is, before conversion, treated as a debt for tax purposes, which means that whilst the interest payments are tax deductible to the issuer they are also taxable in the hands of the lender. Preference shares, and even converted preference shares, which normally carry fixed dividends, are taxed as equity. This means that dividend payments are not tax deductible to the company and, under imputation, they will not generally be taxed in the hands of the shareholder. If the suggestion in Senator Bolkus's question was that some instrument exists which is, on the one hand, receiving the tax deductibility accorded debt-that is, deductibility to the borrower-and, on the other, the benefits of imputation accorded equity, that is a matter which should be drawn to the attention of the Australian Commissioner for Taxation, the Treasurer would certainly welcome any information about it. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is to the Minister for Finance, refers to the answer he gave to Senator McKiernan on 28 April. He said that the distillate used on farms was excise free. He continued: For the first time ever in 1985 this Government entirely reduced excise on fuel. I remind the Minister that when he was challenged by Senator Messner, who said `that is not so', he claimed that it was. Has the Minister had a chance to check the matter again? Will he now admit that the 1985 decision was taken more than two years after the Hawke Government imposed extra costs on farmers by increasing the excise on diesel and freezing the rebate at the 1983 level? Will he also admit that, until 1983, the rebate was the same amount per litre as the excise collected? In other words, does he now concede that the Hawke Government's action in 1985 did nothing other than restore the level of rebate to that which had applied before the 1983 Budget decision imposed an added burden on farmers? Senator WALSH —The level of rebate in 1985 was higher than the level the rebate had been previously for at least two different reasons. Yesterday, I quoted from the 1982 Budget Papers which said that the exemption from excise of diesel fuel for all off-road use would be abolished. I also said that I believed-I said that I would check it out-that the legal mechanisms for the completion of the rebate had not been put through by the previous Government. A check has revealed that they had been put through by the previous Government; I was wrong about that. As to subsequent changes, when this Government came to office it was appalled to discover, on receipt of Treasury advice, that the country was facing a $9.6 billion prospective deficit in 1983-84. Senator Chaney —Mr President, on a point of order: It is quite clear that the Minister, having just admitted that he misled the Senate on 28 April, is now proceeding to debate an entirely different subject on which there has been considerable debate in this place and where the Minister has been shown to have also misled the Senate. One has only to examine the Forward Estimates, look at the number of cuts made and at the discretionary increases to expenditure in 1983, to see that the Minister's claim that he is about to debate is absolute rubbish. Mr President, I ask you to call the Minister to order. If he had any decency at all he would apologise to the Senate for his inaccuracies over the past few days. The PRESIDENT —On an earlier occasion I had the opportunity of requesting honourable senators, when they ask a question, and Ministers, when they reply, to make their questions and answers brief. I think the Minister is tending to debate this issue outside the area that he was asked about. I ask him to return to the question. Senator WALSH —I submit that I was on the question because Senator Chaney referred to subsequent changes, and there were some subsequent changes. The reasons for that is that when we got into government we discovered that we were facing a prospective Budget deficit of $9.6 billion which had been calculated by the Treasury in the week before the 1983 election. The Treasury Secretary, who at the time was John Stone, went along to the then Government and said: `Are we going to publish this figure? The electorate, I suppose, is entitled to know this'. What was John Stone told? He said: `No, give the electorate the mushroom treatment. Sit on it, suppress it, go out and tell the mugs that the $9 1/2 billion is $6 billion'. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on the same point of order-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is debating the question. I ask the Minister to return to the question that he was asked. Senator WALSH —I have finished. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 2 April, Senator Crichton-Browne asked me a question about security in the Australian Embassy in Moscow. The answer is as follows: It is not a fact that the Soviet Government has refused to allow the Australian Embassy in Moscow to develop its premises to alleviate an acute accommodation shortage. The Government is interested in obtaining a new site in Moscow for the construction of a chancery, some staff accommodation and additional facilities. There have been some discussions with the relevant authorities in Moscow. Some sites have been identified and discussions are continuing. Redevelopment of the Australian Embassy in Moscow has not been possible because of the historical value of the building. This inability to redevelop the site, however, has not impaired security. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.03) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report before the Senate at the moment really confirms the fears which many of us have had and which have been outlined to the Government with regard to the higher education administration charge. I would like to quote to the Senate from page 5 of the report, where it states: It is clear . . . that the charge has had a substantial impact on the pattern of enrolments in higher education. I and a number of my colleagues, including Senator Teague, drew attention to this shortly after the announcement of this charge. While overall enrolments in universities and advanced colleges have not been markedly affected, there has been a significant impact on the number of part time students engaged in tertiary education. This was the area which I and my colleagues directed to the attention of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). Universities have registered an estimated fall of 8.7 per cent in the number of part time students enrolled, while external student enrolments have dropped by some 10.9 per cent. Similar figures were registered in institutions of advanced education. Part time enrolments are down by approximately 10.3 per cent and external students by some 6.5 per cent. Despite the Minister for Education's prior claims in response to a question from me that part time students were actually well-heeled public servants who could well afford the administration fee, the report indicates otherwise. So we were misled by the Minister for Education. The report states that the following groups have been most adversely affected by the charge: Mature-age students-particularly married women who are dependent on spouse support to meet their costs; students with dependent children; students with household incomes just above Austudy thresholds; external rural students; families with more than one higher education student; and postgraduate students. It is a deplorable state of affairs that members of such a large group may well be inhibited in their efforts to pursue further education and thus improve their employment prospects by the implication of this charge. Those with incentive to pursue further study alongside other commitments are, in many cases, being prevented from doing so as a result of the iniquitous charge put on by this Government. We are told that the introduction of the charge is to enable the funding of an additional 1,000 new places in higher education in 1987, yet the statistics included in this report show that there has been a decrease in enrolment at the tertiary level-a minimal one, but a decrease not an increase, and as was projected and as was required. Despite the Government's attempt to minimise the impact on students who could not afford to pay through a number of exemptions, I submit that it is now patently clear that these measures did not go far enough. For little or no apparent gain in increasing student enrolments, the administration charge has been implemented at the cost of those who are trying to improve their lot in life, often under very adverse financial circumstances. The report has made a number of recommendations. It is to be hoped that this Labor Government will take careful note of it in order to redress the iniquities of this particular charge. A number of further recommendations have been made, including that an efficient means be devised whereby the charge is linked to the length of courses and that there be further monitoring of the impact of the charge. These suggestions are valuable and should be pursued by the Government very speedily. Many potential students currently are being affected by the implementation of the charge and prompt action should be taken to remedy an intolerable situation. I am glad that the Minister agrees with me. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.07) —This report has been called for and much awaited by the Senate. On 2 December, many months after the decision was announced that there would be an administration charge, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) announced that there would be a monitoring committee. It had to be as late as yesterday that the committee reported in order to make sensible estimates of the numbers of and changes in enrolments in our education institutions, and after four months of study, in particular three important meetings, the monitoring committee has reported and the Minister has tabled its report. I turn first to the four recommendations which are set out on pages 20 and 21 in this rather succinct report. The recommendations endorse all that the Liberal Party of Australia has said in the Senate over the period since the announcement of the $250 administration charge. The committee found that it is a direct burden on categories of students beyond those who had gained exemption from payment of the charge and, in particular, is a direct burden on part time and external students. Accordingly, the first recommendation is that categories of part time students and some others be given sympathetic consideration in the way in which this is administered. The second recommendation is the crucial one. It is the most important of the recommendations that flow from this analysis. It is that a pro rata rate be adopted in the levying of this administration charge for part time and external students. The recommendation states: The Monitoring Committee recommends that in order to achieve greater equity in its impact, an administratively efficient means be devised whereby the charge is linked to the length of courses, so that the maximum payable by an undergraduate student passing all subjects is the multiple of the charge and the full-time length of the course whereas for students who fail subjects it is the full-time length of the course plus one year. There is a similar recommendation with regard to postgraduate students. It is an eminently sensible finding and it is one that I believe should not be linked in the future to any compulsory application of this administration charge but, rather, flexibly and sensibly administered according to the decisions of the institutions involved. The principle of a pro rata fee-that is, a different fee for part time and external students-ought to be well received by all honourable senators and endorsed. I certainly trust that the Minister, given that she has already established her own commitment to a compulsory fee for higher education institutions, will adopt all of the recommendations, particularly this one. What is most significant politically in this recommendation is that it is a total rejection of the notion of an administrative charge. It is squarely facing up to the fact that this is a revenue raising measure by the Government. It is a fee and it has been introduced by a Labor government, despite all of the claims made before all of the recent elections that it would not reimpose tertiary education fees. I make this quite clear by referring to the Government's denials up to this point, often made in the Senate by the Minister for Education. She said that the Government could not introduce a pro rata charge, that it has introduced not a fee but an administrative charge which is the same in cost to an institution for each category of enrolment, whether full time, part time or external. That is patent nonsense, which was obvious even before the Minister tried to put such an argument. It is seen to be patent nonsense in this recommendation of the monitoring committee report. I remind the Senate that three Government members-indeed one of the Government members from this chamber was a member of the monitoring committee-endorsed that report. Mr Staples, Senator Zakharov and Mr Gear-the Government's own members-are saying that it is not a common administrative cost and so a common administrative charge. Financial assistance is also referred to, and I commend the other recommendations to the Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.12) —I commend to the Senate the monitoring committee's report on the higher education administration charge. In so doing, having listened to the somewhat nauseating bleatings of the Opposition thus far and probably having to suffer further in the course of the debate on this report, I point out that the report vindicates the concerns which the Australian Democrats expressed at the time of the legislation about this fee, which only the Australian Democrats backed up by a vote. We opposed the charge outright but we were not supported, so we moved amendments to deal with the particular anomalies and inequities the existence of which this report has demonstrated, such as the level of the charge being the same for part time and external students as for full time students. We moved that part time and external students should pay half the amount paid by full time students. A reduction in the fee for these groups is now recommended in this report. We were not supported by Government, Liberal or National Party senators. However, since we moved those amendments in December, Liberal and National Party senators have been extraordinarily self-righteous in condemning this and other aspects of the charge. Why did not they support our amendments in December? The big question is: If the Government goes ahead and expands this administration charge, which is quite possible, what will it do then? In December my colleague Senator Macklin pointed out in this place that about 45 per cent of student enrolment in higher education was part time and external. Senator Macklin predicted at that time that the charge would have an adverse effect on this aspect of higher education, and the report has certainly suggested that that is the case. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) replied to Senator Macklin's concern as follows: The vast majority of part time and external students are in employment and earning wages, and that as yet we have no evidence that the requirement to pay $250 will present any real obstacles to them . . . As yet we have no evidence that the minority of students who are not in paid employment will find the $250 fee an obstacle or will not be able to borrow it from the loan funds. We now see that the report before us has vindicated Senator Macklin's concern and that we now have fewer part time and external students. The report has also brought out, as has already been mentioned, other areas where the fee has had a particular impact. It has reduced participation in higher education by disadvantaged groups, despite the Government's attempt to ensure that the needy would not suffer by the fee, and its protestations to that effect. The committee says in its report that it `considers that there are clear anomalies and needy groups within the community not covered by the current exemption arrangements'. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the financial gains from the charge would appear to have been lost to institutions because of the extra costs of implementing and collecting the fees. Fees are neither an equitable nor a financially efficient way of expanding higher education. Rather, public funding, and appropriate taxation of graduates during their years of employment so that they pay back the investment the community has made in their education, is the right course. This report says that groups especially affected adversely by the charge are mature age students, female students and students with dependent children. Paragraphs 3.20 and 3.21 of the report make particular reference to the impact on mature age women students studying part time, in particular, married women who are not in paid employment and therefore dependent on their spouse's support to meet the costs of their education. Women students whose husbands are receiving unemployment benefits constitute another particularly disadvantaged group. The report also states that `educating Rita' is not seen as a significant priority in many households. Other identified groups include social security recipients not in the exempt categories, families with more than one higher education student, external rural students, students with disabilities and those who do not fall into the Austudy means test area. The Australian Democrats not only expressed those sorts of concerns verbally last year but actually voted in support of them. For the Opposition to continue to complain when what it proposes is that some students should be paying thousands of dollars rather than hundreds of dollars is equally as clumsy and inequitable as the Government's approach to this fee, which will probably continue since it does not have the right attitude to the way education should be funded. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.17) —I rise to support my colleague Senator Powell. Education is a national resource and a national asset. It is part of the national infrastructure. Good education is of vital importance if Australia is to graduate as an independent trading nation in the modern global economy. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiners' report stressed the need for education, particularly technical education, which they described as critical to virtually every aspect of modern life. The plea for increasing educational and skill levels has been taken up by all employer groups and unions as it has become obvious that Australia, rather than maintaining its position as one of the more educated communities in the world, has not maintained its educational advantage in any way. The OECD report stressed that the tertiary education system is the heart of Australia's scientific and technical effort. In the light of Australia's need to expand its educational effort, and to invest more heavily in tertiary education, the findings of the monitoring committee that the number of students enrolled in universities at 30 April this year has fallen by 2,000 or 1.1 per cent from last year is most disturbing. Likewise, the number of students enrolled in colleges of advanced education has fallen by some 1,600 or 0.8 per cent from last year. The student load, however, has increased, since there has been an increase in full time students and a decrease in part time students, who are most severely affected by the student charge. The Australian Democrats in fact moved an amendment to try to give these people pro rata fees, although we totally oppose those fees as well. Postgraduate students have also been more severely affected by the student charge. The other groups most affected by the charge are mature age students, female students, students with dependent children, rural students, students with disabilities and students who just fail to qualify for Austudy funding. The fact is that it is hitting at the people who are hard up, yet the Government claims that the purpose of the charge was to enable the Government to fund an additional 1,000 new intakes into higher education in 1987. The figures show that it has palpably failed to achieve that result. The Government also deducted the value of the charge from the grants made to the institutions. However, the institutions have found that in practice the cost of collecting the charge has amounted to half the revenue from that charge. This is a wasteful charge indeed when the extra stress placed on students in meeting that charge is also taken into account. It gives them real problems. As I said, education is a national resource. There is a myth that education is also a personal asset and that a charge on students is justified since education increases their earning capacity in later life. This is a myth for many students since careers in social welfare, nursing, research, engineering, teaching, the ministry and the armed services to name but a few do not pay more than could be earned by expert tradesmen, supervisors or managers, who do not need such educational training. In fact, tertiary students make considerable financial sacrifices in studying at an age when their former companions are earning a full adult wage, courting and marrying and saving for a home and other capital assets which become more and more difficult to achieve as they become older because of the growing inflation which this Government is also responsible for. Tertiary education should be considered as a form of national service or national investment in the future from which future national wealth will be derived. Cutting back on education at this time, even indirectly through fees, is really scandalous. We need to stimulate high technology and marketing and management skills and increase the overall skills of Australia in the total working population. This is another example of Treasury mismanaging things. We believe it is doing the wrong thing. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables which show participation in education and illustrate my points. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- COMMONWEALTH TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness Report of the Committee of Enquiry September 1986 Table 3.5 HIGHER EDUCATION PARTICIPATION RATES BY AGE(a) (per 1,000 of relevant population cohort) 17-19 years 20-24 years 25-29 years 30 years and over 1975 ... 110 90 36 9 1980 ... 98 90 43 15 1981 ... 94 88 43 15 1982 ... 96 86 42 15 1983 ... 100 88 41 16 1984 ... 103 89 41 16 1985(b) ... 107 90 42 17 (a) Data include overseas students (b) Basic nurse education students in advanced education in 1985 are not included. The rates for persons aged 17-19 and 20-24 years are 109 and 91 respectively if these students are included. Table 8 ELIGIBLE STUDENTS NOT RECEIVING AN OFFER FOR A PLACE BY AGE AND QUALIFICATION Category 1985 Total eligible No offer % No offer 1986 Total eligible No offer % No offer 20 and under Year 12 Home State ... 73,556 13,608 18.5 78,798 16,814 21.3 Year 12 Interstate ... 8,047 2,343 29.1 9,776 2,690 27.5 Other ... 11,669 3,138 26.9 14,395 3,460 24.0 Total ... 95,933 (a)...19,489 (a)...20.3 102,969 22,964 22.3 Over 20 Year 12 ... 9,815 2,703 27.5 7,937 2,297 28.9 Other ... 28,189 6,696 23.8 33,673 7,740 23.0 Total ... 41,525 (a)...9,865 (a)...23.8 41,610 10,037 24.1 Grand Total ... 13,8397 (b)...29,294 21.1 145,101 (c)...33,001 22.7 See footnotes to Table 1. (a) Includes data for Canberra CAE for which no further breakdown was provided. (b) Includes data for Darwin IT for which no further breakdown was provided. (c) Includes 522 eligible applicants at Darwin IT which cannot be allocated into age groups. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The tables show a lower participation in higher education between 1975 and 1985. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I table a report from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-The 227th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts represents the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the implementation of the offsets program. I know that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is at the table, has a very close and continuing interest in this and I admire the work that he has done in increasing Australian industry participation in this regard. In 1984 the Auditor-General and an independent committee chaired by Sir Brian Inglis carried out reviews of the offsets program. It was the acceptance by the Government of the majority of the recommendations in the latter report that was really the basis for the decision in January 1986 to make significant changes to the offsets program. It was really in this light that the Committee has conducted its inquiry into the program. The basic objectives were to examine progress in recent amendments to the program and to recommend whether further action or attention is necessary. The main thrust of the Committee's findings centre on four main points: First, as the offsets program impacts on only a small section of Australian industry, the Committee considers it essential that Australian participation in the program be increased, both by increasing the number of Australian firms, particularly smaller firms, participating in the program, and by ensuring that overseas firms fulfil the offset obligation fully and in the agreed period. Secondly, the issue of how technology transfer is valued when claimed as an offset is of concern to the Committee. Thirdly, a number of administrative matters were examined and the Committee has made recommendations concerning the dual administration of the program, lack of consultative mechanisms and administrative discretion. Finally, the Committee is very concerned at the inadequate record keeping of the offsets authorities and at the distinct possibility that some outstanding obligations have not been fulfilled because of those poor records. I think this problem goes back over a number of years. In an effort to increase Australian participation in the offsets program, the Committee urges the Departments of Defence, and Industry, Technology and Commerce, the two administering departments, to increase the visibility of the program's administration, formally liaise with industry, publicise actual offset arrangements and disseminate information to assist participants, including data on local and overseas industry. Technology transfer as an offset receives considerable emphasis under the new guidelines, which I think is significant. The valuation of technology is an area that the Committee considers has major potential for abuse. The Committee's recommendation is that as many valuations as possible should be based on a real work outcome for Australia from that technology transfer, rather than a resort to notional valuations. The Departments of Defence, and Industry, Technology and Commerce, have been jointly responsible for the administration of the offsets program since 1984. The uniform administration of the program is very important. However, the Committee is concerned that the overall program is seemingly being implemented as two separate programs despite joint efforts such as the publication of common guidelines for participants. The Committee believes it needs to be resolved, preferably by the two departments, whether the administrative role can reside solely within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce whilst maintaining suitable links with defence industry policy. A common concern expressed to the Committee was that the guidelines issued leave too much room for interpretation and judgment by the offsets authorities. The Committee is of the view that the current level of administrative discretion needs to be clarified and recommends a more rigorous set of guidelines, detailed and public registers of precedents, thorough and independent assessment prior to negotiations and comprehensive procedure manuals for staff. I thank the Minister for his indulgence. I invite his comments and I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —by leave-Senator Watson invited my comments and I would just like to thank him for what he said. I agree with most of it. Insofar as his speech contained suggestions, we will of course look at them because any suggestions that he has made here have always been looked at. Consideration resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Short: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Sheil: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Financial Statements 1985-86 Consideration resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Sheil: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.25) —On Tuesday I was speaking to the excellent report of the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements chaired by Sir Brian Inglis. I drew attention to the attitudinal problems of purchasing officers which is mentioned on page 80 of this report. Dozens of instances of specifications written directly for overseas products were brought to the Committee's attention within a very small time. The problem must be confronted head on. Departmental officers should know that they will need to justify purchases that are made overseas. There should be legislation to force them to do this and to force them to check with Australian industry first before they purchase or consider purchasing an overseas product. If this is not possible, we should require from those purchasing officers reasons in writing as to why they have to purchase overseas. If the industry capacity is not there in Australia that ought to be reported and a program for doing something to reverse the situation should be instituted to generate that capacity in Australia. If we use our large purchasing organisations in this way we will be able to find out where the holes are in our manufacturing capacity. If we keep the records properly in this area and maintain vigilance in trying to assess what is required we will be able to improve the industrial base and infrastructure which will allow us to become a strong exporting nation. The Inglis report indicates that 31 per cent of high technology purchases are made by Telecom Australia and that 50 per cent are made by the Department of Defence. Unfortunately, these are two of the worst offenders in buying overseas, as we have found during Estimates committee hearings. The Department of Defence seems to have a fixation about the shiniest most brand spanking new gadgets irrespective of how they fit into our operational activities. Equipment is sometimes left in mothballs and nothing is done with it. It is part of the all-singing, all-dancing gold plated syndrome, the obsession with perceived status rather than a concern to get something which will perform effectively and to maximise the benefits to Australian industry as well as provide us with an effective defence capacity. Telecom earlier this year announced the award of its electronic funds transfer point of sole network equipment contract to Honeywell-NEC, an overseas consortium. Australian developed and controlled technology which is installed and working well in some exchanges was overlooked despite its success in very competitive markets in the Asia-Pacific region just to our north. We need to ask not only why these things happen but also how they can be allowed to happen. I am pursuing the particular case of tender CS1149 through other channels and I would encourage Government Ministers, particularly the Ministers responsible in the two areas concerned, also to do so through their departments. I remind the Senate that digital radio concentrators for use in outback communications were developed in Australia but the technology was licensed overseas because apparently we had no one here capable of handling it. That is a disastrous state of affairs. Senator Button —Which was that one? Senator VIGOR —I agree with the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, who has brought out the point that this is just one amongst many, many opportunities which Australia is missing. We have the case of Australia Post forgoing Australian developed and controlled technology in its choice of electronic counter services equipment. Management in Australia Post has put its head in the sand and pretended that there is nothing to be concerned about. It is disgraceful that Australian jobs, Australian export earnings and the wealth of this country are being sacrificed. We need to maintain our capability to add value added. We need legislative action to deal with the more obstructive authorities, agencies and departments. The Inglis report provides many excellent ideas about what should be done in that legislation and I commend to the Government that it get on with it quickly. It will have the support of the Australian Democrats, and I believe it is also likely to get support from the Opposition, which is making similar noises. This is a priority for Australia. We should be implementing the recommendations of the Inglis report as fast as possible and I recommend that action to the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.36) —The report of the Industries Assistance Commission on pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries is a very important report, indeed a voluminous report, running into some hundreds of pages of discussion and some 22 attached appendices. The report recommends a cut in the top paper tariff to 15 per cent and a reduction after 31 December 1991 of the book bounty to 13.5 per cent over a two-year period. These recommendations, if implemented, are likely to help the printing industries by cutting the cost of paper imports. However, I express some concern that once again the book bounty is a matter of continuing scrutiny. Although the recommendation is that the bounty continue until 31 December 1991, some real decision has to be made about whether the ultimate objective is to phase out the bounty altogether, or whether it will simply be done by a series of moves, by winding it down a couple of percentage points every couple of years. I do not object to that but I think we need some sort of clarification of whether it is the Government's intention to discontinue it altogether. It is important to understand the dimension of the pulp and paper industry and the printing industry in Australia. In 1985-86 the revenue for the industry amounted to nearly $1.6 billion and this included a very healthy component of $46m worth of export sales. There are a number of peculiar features of the industry that need to be addressed in the long term. For instance, members of the Pulp and Paper Manufacturers Federation of Australia Ltd have estimated that they spend about $150m annually or 10 per cent of the industry turnover simply on direct transport charges. I know that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Government have taken a number of steps to look into the impact of transport charges on industry as a whole, but this is one industry that has a number of peculiar features in which the transport costs, amounting to 10 per cent of industry turnover, are clearly a matter of special concern. One of the recommendations in the report, and one that I hope the Government will be able to act upon, is that Canadian preferences should be discontinued after a two-year period. This industry in Australia is very adversely affected by dumping practices. Dumping practices from Brazil, Chile, Portugal and South Africa have had an impact on the domestic position of this industry and a number of specific subsidies have been paid in the Canadian pulp and paper industry. For instance, quite recently a new fine paper mill in Quebec was constructed at a cost of $Can1.2 billion, using interest free loans of $Can150m, together with a cash grant of more than $Can20m, provided by the Province of Quebec. The industry is right to draw attention to the fact that a number of policies on subsidies and dumping have adversely affected its domestic position. I am glad that the Canadian preference system, which I was surprised to find still in operation, is recommended for discontinuation in the Industries Assistance Commission report. Two other points in the report should be brought to the Senate's attention. The first is the need for a comprehensive review of electricity pricing policies-something that lies within the control of the States, but I do not think that they have fulfilled their proper obligations to assist in industry development in that regard. The other is the need for a far more sophisticated approach to overall forestry management policies. I know that my colleagues from Tasmania are especially concerned about that. I believe that better planning and information systems are required. As I have already said, this is a very complex and detailed report. It deserves a great deal of consideration and a great deal more discussion than we can provide in these five-minute limited speeches. I commend the report to the Government as, by and large, a very good one. It is an area of Australian industry and development which does not receive very much attention. It is an area of industry in which I have worked. It becomes too caught up with the emotional and often irrational debates about forestry logging and timber production in general. I hope that the Government will attend to the report promptly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.41) —Senator Puplick covered the subject very well in the short time that was available to him, so I shall not deal with the report in general. The introduction to the report stated: The Commission has been requested to report on the potential for development of the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries in Australia. In particular, it has been requested to identify and report on significant factors that may affect the structure, competitiveness, efficiency and growth of the industries; and to identify and evaluate options available to the Government and the industries themselves to improve structure, competitiveness, export performance and efficiency, or in other ways enhance the contribution these industries make to the economy. From that introduction, one would think that the Government was interested in encouraging the industry to be competitive, and also that it wanted the Commission to identify some areas that would assist the industry to be competitive. In point of fact, what has the Government done? It has taken political action against those industries in my State. It has taken a deliberate political decision because of a by-election held in an area represented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The Australian Labor Party lost 20 per cent of the vote in that by-election, and because of that the Government suddenly panicked and made a political decision to try to win back the conservation vote. If the Government is at all interested in the pulp and paper products industry, it would not have made the decision to interfere with the forestry reserves in my State. However, for raw political expediency alone it was prepared to interfere with the efficiency of that industry, its competitiveness, and its long term planning by taking away so many hectares of its forests. That left the industry with no way of providing long term planning. One industry was planning a pulp mill in our State, but the Government has put people and companies interested in putting money into such industries in a situation in which they have no idea of what the long term implications of the so-called inquiry for 12 months will be. The Senate sat an extra day, but at what expense? I do not know exactly, but one of my colleagues might be able to tell me what it costs the Government to have the Senate and all its trappings sit an extra day to deal with a Bill that the Government said was so important. Perhaps the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), who is at the table, could tell us the cost to the Government, and therefore to the taxpayer, of this procedure. I would be most interested to know why the Government insisted that this place sit an extra day to deal with legislation that it said was so imperative and so urgent that it could not wait until after the Easter break. It could not wait for three weeks, yet the Commission has not yet been appointed and the Government has not put anything in motion. We could have debated the Bill this week and saved the taxpayers a considerable amount of money. I do not know how much this has cost, but it is a considerable amount. The Minister may tell us just how much it has cost to keep the Senate sitting beyond its normal time. If the Government were at all interested in the efficiency and competitiveness of this industry it would not have taken such raw political action for the sake of conservation votes alone and interfered with the industry in my State to a marked degree. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.48) —I do not want the Australian Agricultural Council resolutions to pass by the Senate without some comment. The AAC is important, and not only because it, too, met in Queenstown, New Zealand. It is important because it is the area where the States and the Commonwealth get together and look at a whole range of issues in a fairly bipartisan way. Two main points emerged from reading the report. The first was the state of the agricultural industries of Australia. The principal resolutions covered many of the areas that show the problems now being faced. The Council investigated long term plans to determine how it envisages the future and the development of the long term plan for the year 2000. In particular, the AAC emphasised the urgent need for the Government to address the critical issue of interest rates and farm costs. I suppose that that is hardly surprising because, with interest rates the highest that they have been over a longish period, the farmers are in real difficulties in trying to budget to survive. The prime interest rate in Australia has increased 5 per cent for farmers since the last election, whereas it has fallen by 4.3 per cent in the United States of America, 3.2 per cent in Canada and 2.5 per cent in France. Implicit in the AAC's reference to the cost factor is the warning that the Government simply cannot continue to blame external factors. The report covers a fairly wide range of issues, and I want to mention some of those that are not regarded as major issues, but are important for a variety of reasons. One such issue is the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. It is very gratifying to find that, with all the work that has been done, the position now is as planned and that things are progressing satisfactorily. It is of concern, however, that it has now been determined that some of the deer in South Australia have tuberculosis. That will create another problem. Another issue is hormonal growth promotants, the effects they are having on markets and the actions that will have to be taken. It is just as well that this should be determined now. The grain storage, handling and transport inquiry will be very important because I believe that it will show the situation regarding handling, storage and transport not only in the grain industry but also in a whole variety of others. It is interesting to note that the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand is barely on the notice paper, although much has happened. The Lazenby report on plant breeding is also reported upon. We hope that the plant variety rights legislation will get into action very quickly. The potato cyst nematode in Western Australia is a most important issue for the whole of the Australian potato industry. I am pleased to have been advised by the Department in the last few days that investigation so far has not produced any further outbreaks beyond those which were originally determined. It is important that the situation should be kept under very close scrutiny and that there should be no movement or import of potatoes. Senator Button —Imported from where? From Western Australia or from overseas? Senator ARCHER —From overseas, in particular, but also from Western Australia to the eastern States. There was a lot of concern on the part of the honey bee industry a couple of years ago about the release and development of the leafcutter bee for the fertilisation of lucerne crops. The assurance is that it will not affect the industry, and that it will not be able to carry diseases. After our insistence that there be quite a reasonable quarantine and delay period I am pleased that we have had an assurance that there are no problems now nor are likely to be any. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.53) —It is important that the annual report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board be commented on because it marks the winding up of one system and the establishment of another. It shows that providing incentives is very difficult. No incentive scheme will suit everybody. The old scheme suited some; the new scheme will suit some. The old scheme did not suit some and neither will the new one. It is a matter of to what extent we will need to provide incentives and for what reason we provide them. The Government needs to provide sweeteners in some respect to achieve some of the common goals and aims it has with industry. To give industry, particularly small industry, a little encouragement in its formative years and in the early development stages of new products is most important. The problem I see with the new scheme is that most of the benefit will go to companies which have done their research and development anyway, on the one hand, or to those which are large enough to be able to stand on their own feet, on the other. Businesses that needed help have been precluded by various limits. I hope that, once we have seen how the first year or two of the scheme works, we may be able to patch it up or replace it with something which will be far more equitable for the people who need it most. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.54) —I rise to congratulate the Government on the way it has given attention to the need for research and development in this country. The Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board, which has been in operation for 10 years, has done a good job but there is no doubt in my mind that the 150 per cent tax deduction is a much better way of encouraging research. It is much less bureaucratic. It will benefit small companies which have been inhibited in the past by having to fill out the massive forms which were necessary as part of the AIRDB approach. By and large I believe it will have a very dramatic effect on stimulating research in this country, which we all know is very necessary. A quick look at the figures shows just how far Australia is behind the rest of the world in this vital area. For instance, in Australia we spend about one per cent of the cost of manufacture on research and development. That is directly comparable with the situation in Canada, a resource-based nation like Australia. Canada spends 2.4 per cent of the cost of manufacture on research. Sweden spends 6 per cent. The United States of America spends 7.6 per cent. So Australia's one per cent is way behind the rest of the Western world. Certainly we have to do something about it. The Government's provision of 150 per cent tax deduction is very much a step in the right direction. One may ask why Australia is so far behind the rest of the world in research and development. I suggest that there are two fundamental reasons. The first is that there is a great deal of uncertainty in industry as to whether manufacturing in this country has a future. As such, many manufacturing enterprises are uncertain as to whether they should invest large amounts of money because of the uncertainty of their future and the uncertainty of manufacturing generally. Secondly, there is no doubt that the large degree of foreign ownership of our industry is a very serious contributing factor to our lack of research. Foreign-owned companies always ensure that their research is conducted at their home offices, head offices or head manufacturing plants and not in branch plants. For instance, the Japanese car industry which operates in this country does virtually no research at all. We can look to a better future in research and development. Whilst it is encouraging to see the long lists of companies that have received assistance in research and development under the AIRDB approach, one hopes that with the 150 per cent tax deduction for research and development many small companies will now embark on investment in the future and on trying to develop new products. In this country generally there is a great misunderstanding about the amounts of money that are required to develop a new product, process or invention. Research is one part of it; development is the other, and by far the bigger part of it. There is a great need for the Government, as there is for industry, to assess future markets, to look to the long term and to be prepared to spend the money that development of an idea requires if we are to develop these ideas, inventions, projects and processes with the aim of meeting a sophisticated world market. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.59) —The tenth and final report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board marks a watershed in our approach to industrial innovation. It is fitting that the Board, to whose members and staff I pay the highest tribute for their dedication and commitment, has examined the whole 10-year period of its existence. The report is quite forthright, however, about the difficulties which confronted the Board because of all the Public Service red tape which has been applied to it and because the departments with which it was connected felt that they often knew better than the Board. This is a problem that we need to tackle with through establishing better relations between specialist statutory bodies and the departments which manage them or act as their interface with the Government. Failure to understand the process of innovation will, I believe, mean that we will continue to trek down the perilous path towards a banana republic. If we do understand it, however, I believe we can get off that track. Refusal to recognise that development and control of technology in Australian hands is indeed crucial and will, I believe, result in a much better understanding of how we can be competitive in the world. Otherwise we are in danger of becoming an assembly plant for overseas ideas. Our talented people under those circumstances will look elsewhere for opportunities and the real wealth will continue to flow overseas. This is certainly one reason why I sought, and succeeded in getting, an amendment to the grants for the industrial research and development incentives scheme, which has replaced the Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme, AIRDIS, to allow it to fund technology transfer. Without proper technology infrastructure we remain at the mercy of multinational companies and overseas entrepreneurs, who can force their own conditions on us, because they, unlike us, have access to the necessary infrastructure. To obtain that technology infrastructure we need conscious acts by government. We need to have support and intervention and not just the mindless cutbacks, such as the abolition of the information distribution section of the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office, which occurred in the last Budget. When we look at the funding provided by the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board we notice that more and more of the grants are going to small companies, especially under the commencement grant component. This is a good thing. There is a problem however, with the middle-sized firms which do not have the technical backup to push their ideas on world markets, nor the ability or size to set up their own research organisations. The ability to contract out research, providing we can get the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and private enterprise to take a lively interest, is indeed a very important option, but again there is a need for many more sources of venture capital. Without that willingness to invest we will miss out on many opportunities. We will miss out also because of the unfortunate tendency to look at the process of innovation from the origin of an idea to the availability of a product or service as a linear process. It may be possible to construct a linear process from a product back to the research, but the process of actually getting a product on to the market from research is never a linear process. The research starts in a general, searching way, out of one of the limbs of the search comes development and out of one of the limbs of development comes a product. We have to recognise this. Research requires management techniques quite different from conventional bureaucracy, and the processes are diffuse and not linear. They are not hierarchical and they are not necessarily predictable. Australia needs to train itself to get and keep some of these entrepreneurial skills. If we are going to put more value-added into our products we must master the technique of managing research. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report of the Australian Soil Conservation Council concerns the resolutions of the second meeting of that Council. It is worth while noting in introduction a very interesting parallel between the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, of which I am now a member, on land use policy in Australia in 1984, and the contents of the report of the Australian Soil Conservation Council. The Senate report outlined the findings of the Lake Pedder inquiry. These include consideration of multi-resource development projects and of a range of feasible alternative schemes for regional development. It also included management of social well-being and other natural resources. The Lake Pedder issue and its ramifications were forerunners of the present highly controversial environmental issues. It is encouraging to see that the Australian Soil Conservation Council has developed similar policies to those which were proposed by the Senate Committee. The deterioration of soil quality in many parts of Australia since European settlement is, I believe, one of the most serious long term problems facing Australia's primary industries. The report noted that some States, to prevent soil erosion, had also embarked on the development of a State soil conservation strategy, incorporating elements of a national strategy. I believe this is a very positive move. I share the Council's affirmation that it would be valuable if plans were developed outlining how strategies are to be implemented, given the variations between States, regions and particular farms, and given the whole diversity and range of areas that we have in Australia. The report recommends that priority be given to completion of a joint national soil conservation program in conjunction with a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation project of national assessment of land degradation and research priorities. This would involve a database to provide valuable material for policy formulation in this area. I think that such a database would be most helpful in implementing such a national strategy, and I would recommend that the Government quickly provide the funds for it. A concern that I have for long term conservation emerges in the section on the taxation of soil conservation activities. The report indeed expressed concern that landholders involved in soil conservation advisory activities may be liable for fringe benefits tax. The Council noted that taxation authorities had offered differing advice as to the taxation status of expenditure incurred by landholders in voluntarily attending meetings, workshops and field days organised by soil conservation groups. It was not able to obtain from the Australian Taxation Office any reasonable advice on whether such expenditure was deductible from income tax and, where grants were made for employees to attend, whether that was considered to be a fringe benefit. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been advised that the voluntary involvement of landholders is directly related to both increasing the income of farmers and protecting their own and the national resource of soil. As a result of an Australian Democrats' intervention in the debate the Government eventually gave up trying to make soil conservation measures claimable over five years. We also managed to decrease the time for claiming a deduction for water conservation resources to three years. Australia is the driest continent in the world and we should be assisting as much as possible to ensure the protection of our resources. The Australian Soil Conservation Council is right to seek clarification from the Treasurer as to those supporting activities for conservation which may attract taxation liabilities. Farmers are already struggling to eke out a living from the land and to make a worthwhile contribution to this nation's prosperity, quite apart from having problems with this type of conservation measure. We should be giving landholders, farmers and concerned groups every type of assistance that is possible in this area. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.10) —I move: That the Senate- (a) notes the depressed business investment climate in this country as exemplified by a number of recent surveys published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other private sector organisations, including the Australian Chamber of Manufacturers; (b) condemns the Federal Government for this depressed investment environment which is a direct result of the high interest rate policy pursued by the Government, pushing the small business and prime interest rates to record levels; (c) notes the depressing effect which ever-increasing Government taxes and charges, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, are having on the after-tax real rate of return on business investment; and (d) deplores the lack of appreciation by the Government of the anti-business impact of the new legislation on dividend imputation and its interaction with the foreign tax credit system. The purpose of this motion is to draw attention to the disastrous investment climate in this country. This, of course, has resulted directly from the Government's policies in regard to interest rates, taxation, and inflation, all of which are way beyond the norm for the rest of the world and which make Australia internationally uncompetitive. Consequently, we find fewer and fewer people interested in investing in new markets in this country. There is no other word with which to describe the investment situation than disastrous. It is a fair measure of the concern of the Senate that this matter was allowed to be brought on today, having been given notice of this motion only yesterday. Quite clearly, the Senate feels the urgency of this matter and wants to discuss it as promptly as possible so it can force the Government to take urgent action to ensure that there is an improved balance and weight given to the issue of investment in this country. Perhaps we will see in the economic statement to be brought down on 13 May some major changes, such as the removal of the crazy fringe benefits tax, the lunatic capital gains tax and other measures which will help to improve the investment psychology. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) gives us absolutely no hope. He will clumsily bowl along with the silly measures which have destroyed business confidence in this country and which are leading us into a disastrous future. This is what investment is all about. It is not about the present; it is about the future. The future, of course, relies on the amount of investment, in cash, in know-how, in technological understanding, in sheer hard work, in brains and, if you like, in all other kinds of human effort which lead to the creation of new industries, of new jobs. It is our children and our children's children-to use that well-worn phrase-who will receive the benefit of money expended by companies in the Australian economy today in order to create new opportunities for those who will come to work in those new industries in the future. That is what investment is all about. It is about the creation of new jobs for Australians. Having recognised that, it is important to recognise that investment does not just happen. It occurs because there is a reason for it to happen, and that is that businessmen, entrepreneurs, can see opportunities to develop their businesses and industries so that they can earn more profits and, of course, employ more people. That is the basic drive of our free enterprise system. The psychology that is required to be built up in order to get people to invest requires a great deal of care on the part of government to ensure that industry is brought up with a proper psychological approach to the circumstances of the time. But today we see business down in the dumps as far as investment is concerned. That is brought home quite clearly from the latest statistics that have been published recently, particularly by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which give us a very depressed outlook for investment at present. The most recent survey of private capital expenditure indicates that zero or even negative business investment is likely to occur in the 1987-88 financial year. The January-February survey of this year indicated that the reported capital spending plans for next year would be worth only $17.4 billion. That represents a reduction in nominal terms of only 2 per cent compared with the previous year, but when we take inflation into account the reduction is more of the order of 10 per cent. The point needs to be made here that at a time when it is important for us to increase the commitment to investment in new jobs, we are seeing a reduction of investment occurring under this Government's mistaken policies. Perhaps more indicative of the nature of the psychological problem with business at the moment is the joint survey undertaken by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Westpac Banking Corporation. That survey indicates that in the first two weeks of March the companies expecting to increase capital expenditure on plant and equipment over the coming 12 months were outnumbered by those reporting lower investment plans. The gap between those two groups was 4 per cent. In other words, a very important and substantial majority of future employers were looking to reduce their total investment plans in the coming year rather than to increase them. It is a very sad state of affairs when we consider that 25 per cent of our young people are currently on the dole, unemployed, without jobs to be found for them. The net balance for manufacturing plant and equipment has been negative now for four of the past five quarterly results since the early part of 1986. Obviously, this indicates that a long term trend is developing, that investment is suffering. Who could doubt that that is so having seen the Government's introduction of the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax during 1986? To take perhaps a longer perspective on the problem, let us just look back to the years of the Fraser Government. We hear Senator Walsh in here every day attempting to castigate the former Government for what it did or did not do in the economic area, but it might surprise honourable senators to find out that during the last three years of the Fraser Government, which was supposed to be so horrendous according to Senator Walsh, the average rate of increase as a percentage of gross domestic product on new capital investment was of the order of 9.3 per cent per annum. Today, that average is down to 7.5 per cent. There has been a substantial fall, notwithstanding that in those last three years of the Fraser Government there was an international recession in 1982 of great order, and there was the great drought of 1982-83 which substantially ruined investment opportunities and profit opportunities in Australia. So, compared with those very difficult years of the Fraser Government, the Hawke Labor Government is doing worse than the Fraser Government did in its last three years. We know why this is occurring. It is because of the matters we referred to earlier. We have repressive taxes and interest rates. Those are certainly major factors and I will return to them in a few minutes. There is one other major factor-or theme if you like-in the underlying problem with investment that really is at the core of the difficulty. It is the total failure of this Government to recognise that, notwithstanding the fact that it has allowed the Australian currency to depreciate enormously in the last several months and, of course, over the last two years in order to try to attract a more competitive international market scene, it has not adjusted the situation with investment so as to ensure that investment flows automatically into new industry opportunities that are created as a result of that falling dollar. It is one of the great omissions of industry and economic policy in this country that, having sought to achieve a devalued currency to re-establish Australia's competitiveness, the Government has failed to take the opportunity at its full by ensuring that adequate incentive is given to investment so that new industries can be created to take advantage of it. The Government has failed in that respect. It is not just a failure of omission, it is not just that the Government overlooked not to do it; the Government has compounded the problem by imposing higher taxes-the highest taxes in this nation's history. The Government collects some 25 1/2 per cent of gross domestic product in taxes and has a deliberate policy to have the highest interest rates in real terms since the Great Depression. To see the extent to which this problem is becoming substantially recognised in the community-consequently it is not contributing to the welfare of the Australian people in the way it might-we should perhaps consider, in statistical terms, the share of GDP that is going to company profits. In the 1960s and the early 1970s, the share of GDP going to profits was about 16 to 17 per cent. During the period of the Whitlam Government, the battered 1970s, the rate dropped back to about 13 per cent. However, under the Hawke Government, when we would have expected that to have changed and improved-from all the rhetoric we hear from Treasurer Keating and the misstatements of fact from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) from time to time-the rate has dropped back further to 12 per cent. The amount of profits being retained by business after tax, which can be reinvested to create more jobs in the Australian community, has fallen back by more than 50 per cent compared with the rate of the 1960s and early 1970s. If the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) were here, no doubt he would argue and say: `What happened during the Fraser years? It must have been pretty horrendous'. The facts are that from the time of the worst possible situation following the period of the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, when the share of GDP going to profits was only about 13 per cent, the rate was brought up to nearer 15 per cent as a result of very conscious, deliberate and careful policies undertaken by the former Government. That is a fact. However, that position has been reversed under the Hawke Labor Government to the stage where the rate is now down to about 12 per cent. Quite clearly, if business is not able to retain profits, or make profits, and ensure that, after tax, it has enough to reinvest in its business, job creation opportunities pass it by and, consequently, there is not the same commitment to the expansion of the Australian economy by individual entrepreneurs in Australia. Interest rates are the major determining factor in any investment decision. We must recognise that it has been the deliberate policy of this Government to maintain the highest interest rates-that is, in real terms-since Federation. Even today, the prime interest rate is about four to five times the rate being charged by equivalent companies in Japan or Germany. The prime overdraft rate for business is a little more than twice the rate that is charged in New York. Quite obviously, it is far better for overseas companies which are interested in investing in new opportunities, perhaps in Australia, to invest in countries whose interest rates are low. We are in a competitive situation. We must compete against those countries which have substantially lower interest rates. Consequently, businessmen with flair, ideas and with new opportunities to create jobs go to other parts of the world where they can borrow and create business opportunities, and Australia misses out. We are totally uncompetitive in those terms. High interest rates pose a major difficulty for investment in Australia. Yet that matter is totally within the control of the Hawke Labor Government. The Government has deliberately maintained interest rates at such a high level to ensure that it keeps the value of the dollar at a reasonably high level so that the politics of the falling exchange rate do not damage its electoral credibility too much. Very closely related to the question of interest rates is the question of inflation. It has been confirmed again today that inflation in Australia is running at a rate of over 9 per cent. We cannot be certain because the statistics are not complete. However, it looks as if the rate will be 9.3 or 9.4 per cent across the Australian community. That compares with a rate of about 9.8 per cent to the end of December. It is only a very marginal drop compared with that period. It clearly indicates that inflation in this country is not under control. As we pointed out during the discussion on the Budget last year, this was likely to be so. It is only at this late stage that the Treasurer has acknowledged that the inflation rate is likely to be substantially higher than the 8 per cent that he estimated in his Budget Papers. Let me turn to the area of taxation which is, quite clearly, the area in which the Government has failed more than any other. Earlier I mentioned the very high proportion of gross domestic product which is going to the Government by way of taxation. The level of 25 1/2 per cent is the highest in this nation's history. If the Government had kept its promise that there would be no increase in the percentage of taxes from gross domestic product compared with the previous year-and this started back in 1985-Australian taxpayers would have been $400m better off in the financial year ended 1986. In this financial year, Australian taxpayers would have been $1,400m better off had the Australian Labor Party kept its promise that it would not raise taxes to a level higher than that of the previous year. However, it failed to keep that promise. That is why the Australian people are paying substantially more than they have to in taxes. The Government has said that it will introduce some tax cuts on 1 July. They have been long enough coming. All we will get back is what the Government did not give us as a result of breaking its promise. Under the Fraser Government, incentives were given to people in business and in companies to invest and that led to substantially higher investment. The rate of increase in business taxes was negative during that period. However, under the Hawke Government there has been an increase of 3 per cent in real terms each year. Plenty of new taxes have been introduced. We have seen the infamous capital gains tax-a tax on incentive, a tax on investment-which will ensure that people do not develop the right psychological attitude to investment for the future. We have seen the fringe benefits tax which destroys jobs because it takes away the profits of businesses which would otherwise have been invested to create job opportunities. The Government has introduced a higher corporate tax rate which will apply in the next financial year. Whereas every other country of the world is reducing its rate-the Americans are now down to 33 per cent and the English are about to go down to 35 per cent-this country sees fit to raise the corporate tax rate from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. One can just imagine what effect that will have in terms of the number of people who might be thinking of investing in this country when they see that tax rates have actually gone up compared with those of countries such as the United States of America. While we are on the area of corporate taxation, I think we should just note that these increases in tax in Australia compare in their net effect most unfavourably, particularly with those nations with which we most have to compete in this area of the world at the end of Asia. I will take the opportunity to compare some of these tax rates. For instance, Singapore has a corporate tax rate of 33 per cent; Hong Kong has a rate as low as 18 per cent; and, as I mentioned earlier, the United States has a tax rate of 34 per cent. In other words, in this specific region of the world Australia's corporate tax rate is about the highest. We are supposed to be trying to encourage people to invest in this country from off-shore, but we still apply the highest tax rates of any country in this particular area. It is crazy. We have seen the introduction of the foreign tax credit system and, along with that, the so-called advantage of the new dividend imputation tax system. We have only just seen the legislation on this, but it is pretty clear that overseas companies which would like to invest in this country are going to be disadvantaged because of the way in which the foreign tax credit system interacts with the dividend imputation system. I will quote from an article appearing in the Australian Financial Review yesterday which points out the disadvantage that could occur. It states: . . . an Australian company . . . which might pay 34 per cent on its US earnings, under the foreign tax credit system has to top up its US taxes with an additional 15 per cent- that is the difference between 34 per cent and 49 per cent- to bring it up to Australian domestic tax rates. But in franking dividends- that is a technical term under this new legislation- under imputation, the company would only be allowed to frank dividends to the extent of the Australian tax and would not be given any credit for US tax already paid. Consequently, companies seeking to invest here are going to be down the tube to the extent of any foreign tax paid. That means that there will be a positive disadvantage for foreign companies to invest in Australia just at a time when we are seeking to encourage them to come to this country so that they can engage in job creation activities and to bring know-how to this country so as to expand opportunities for all Australians. It seems lunatic, and it is. Among other taxes, the tax on fuel, which is an input for most businesses, adds substantially to the cost of running businesses. Since August 1985 under this Government we have seen the excise on fuel rise from 10c a litre to the figure in the August 1986 Budget of 23.8c. In other words, it has more than doubled during that period under this Government. This is an enormous impost on the running of ordinary businesses in Australia and must be a major reason why there is such a low rate of investment in this country at present. The Government is doing all it can to destroy the climate for successful investment on the part of business, which has to be encouraged if we are to increase the opportunities for Australians. Quite apart from the problems of not attracting new investment, particularly from overseas, caused by this Government's actions, we have the reverse situation, which is induced by its silly tax approach as well. We now see the opportunities for Australian businesses frittering away because of high taxes and, consequently, they start to look off-shore. They start to look at countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong and the US and start thinking about how they can move their businesses to some other part of the world in order to ensure that they maintain their competitiveness on the international scene. We have seen people refer to that already in recent times. Some might say `Well, that is unpatriotic', but clearly those companies have duties and obligations to their shareholders to ensure that they carry out their businesses and create profits in the best possible climate. Those companies are the lifeblood of Australia, yet this Government sees fit through its lackadaisical, disastrous approach to investment to allow such a thing to happen. This Government stands condemned on that basis. Consequently, I hope that all honourable senators in this place will see fit to support my motion today and condemn this Government for its neglect to encourage investment in Australia. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.35) —In his support of the motion that we are debating today, Senator Messner spent a few moments citing surveys of what employers were planning to do or said they were planning to do with regard to investment and, hence, employment opportunity provision some time down the track. Most of us in this place are very suspicious of opinion polls at the best of times since we are all aware of the fact that one can frequently get the answer one wants by wording the question correctly. I am particularly suspicious of private sector organisations asking those in the business community during a Labor government for their predictions for investment, employment, profitability and so on, because quite clearly they are going to give the sorts of answers that are likely to do least justice to the circumstances. In fact, I think one of the most amazing circumstances to occur in recent times has been the threat by John Elliott to move his company off-shore because he is unhappy with the situation here. Senator Tate —Thugs are not confined to Queensland. Senator HAINES —Senator Tate may well be right in that assessment. What we have to remember, essentially, is that the pathetic cries from the Liberal Party of Australia and the man who seems to be at least its titular head, John Elliott, about the rate of company taxation in Australia and the impact of foreign tax credits and imputation tend to obscure what is the reality; that is, these people pay a very low rate of effective company tax, whatever the nominal rate of company tax may be, and indulge in considerable abuse of off-shore tax shelters. That is a fact. There is a very large difference indeed between what is the nominal rate of company tax in Australia and what is the actual or effective rate of tax that some of the biggest companies in this country pay. Certainly Senator Messner is correct in pointing out that the nominal rate of company tax in Australia is higher than that levied by a number of our trading partners and competitors. Nobody is going to argue about that; it is there in black and white. The rate of company taxation under the Thatcher Government in the United Kingdom has indeed fallen to 35 per cent. The rate of company tax in the United States under the Reagan Administration has indeed been reduced to 34 per cent. And if we ignore France and West Germany, which have tax rates of 50 and 56 per cent respectively, we can make out a case that perhaps company tax rates in Australia are too high and that this may be a significant factor discouraging private investment. But as numerous articles, none of which were referred to by Senator Messner or, indeed, in recent times by the flat tax romantics in the National Party, have pointed out, the real comparison is not, as I have just finished saying, between nominal rates of taxation but between effective rates of taxation in one country or another. The reduction in the nominal rate of company tax in the United States, for example, was accompanied by removal of a wide range of company deductions, such as accelerated depreciation allowances. The end effect in the United States, therefore, has been the likelihood of an increase in the tax actually paid by the corporate sector of about $200 billion over the next five years. If the Liberal Party-- Senator Tate —A very good point. Senator HAINES —If we are going to look at the comparisons between countries, we should take into account all the variables and all the imposts as well as all the concessions that are allowed. We need to do that if we are to come up with a legitimate point of comparison and hence a legitimate argument something is the matter. If the Opposition and its mouthpieces such as John Elliott were to argue for a reduction in nominal taxes for which the corporate system is liable but were at the same time to accept that the effective rate of taxation should be held constant, or even increased given what it is in the case of some companies, I would certainly be among the first to agree with them. There is no difficulty in coming to terms with that sort of argument. However, as we all know, John Elliott's company, Elders IXL Ltd, a company which he claims is so highly taxed that it might be forced to move off-shore, in fact paid company tax of 10.35c in the dollar last year. I feel terribly sorry if John Elliott finds that that rate is too high, but, it is certainly a rate that many ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers would give their eye-teeth to pay. Senator Tate —I will be in the queue. Senator HAINES —I think we would all be in the queue. The fact of the matter is that, while the nominal rate of company tax last year was 46c in the dollar, the rate actually paid by Elders was less than 10.5c in the dollar. Indeed, if one believes the sorts of stories that have appeared on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald-not your average business knocking newspaper-the list of Australia's glamour companies such as the Bond Corporation Pty Ltd, Bell Resources Pty Ltd, News Ltd, Elders IXL and so on indicates that the Elders example is by no means an isolated one. News Ltd, for example, certainly paid something like 50 per cent more tax than Elders IXL, but it still paid only a little over 15c in the dollar. The Bond Corporation did not quite rack up 14c in the dollar and, according to the sorts of surveys published by papers such as the Sydney Morning Herald, the average rate of company tax paid by the 150 largest corporations was something like 28c in the dollar, which is well below the average rate of personal taxation. So minimisation of tax liability is alive and well in this country and is probably quite a sophisticated industry. A recent issue of Business Review Weekly carried a cover story outlining the 60 best tax shelters. Numbers 44 to 60 in that list are company minimisation arrangements. The first one that I will mention, No. 44, is called `Getting a proper gearing'. The article states: The attractions of negative gearing to companies are the same as for individuals. Interest expense can be offset against current income and profits can be taken out as tax-free capital gains or real capital gains subject to tax in some future period. Companies by and large have greater scope for negative gearing than individuals. This is mainly because many investments offer total income greater than the after-tax cost of borrowing without necessarily producing the income in a currently taxable form. A company can borrow under present rules and use the borrowings to subscribe for capital in a gold mining company or organise a takeover. Dividends from a takeover or from a gold mining company are exempt from tax because of the section 46 rebate. By appropriate structuring, the interest expense can be offset against other taxable income. The imputation system, announced in December, will not change this practice. The negative gearing restrictions on rental real estate apply to companies as well as to individuals. However, by appropriate structuring, the provisions can be avoided by owning real estate investments outright, and unmortgaged, and by borrowing against other non-real estate assets of the company. Senator Watson was bleating in the background while I read that, asking what we suggest or something similar. I am not complaining about the fact that companies are necessarily engaging in negative gearing. I am arguing that on the one hand companies are complaining that Australia has the highest company tax rate in the world and that they are being taxed out of existence to the point where they may have to move off-shore, and that on the other hand they are quite able legally-and do so-to take advantage of such things as negative gearing to pull down their actual tax rate in some cases to less than 11c in the dollar. Negative gearing, therefore, particularly for the purposes of takeover activity, is a matter on which we have spoken at length over the past couple of years. The cost to the taxpayer of subsidising the takeover activities of the John Elliotts, the Alan Bonds or the Robert Holmes a Courts has been massive. While the average pay as you earn taxpayer has seen his or her real income decline during the period of the Hawke Government-nobody can dispute that, although I know Senator Tate would like to-the privileged holders of shares, for example, have seen the value of stock on the Australian Stock Exchange increase by something like $80 billion. So it seems that we are effecting tax changes in this country that benefit those who already have a huge amount while hitting hardest those who have no way of exploiting the intricacies of the Australian taxation system. That is something to which we object. We fail to see why non-productive takeovers and share raids, for instance, which are financed by money borrowed from overseas should be taxpayer subsidised because the people involved can negatively gear. Not one extra percentage increase in productivity is achieved, not one extra job is achieved and in fact quite the reverse occurs in some cases. Certainly, very few increases in export opportunities result from some of the takeovers and share raids that have occurred in recent times. Of course, this has been largely due to the effect of the Hawke Government's taxation system on the people for whom the Liberal Party speaks and the people from whom the Liberal Party gets its support. Wealthy individuals and the corporate sector after the abolition of negative gearing for property, after the introduction of the capital gains tax and after fringe benefits tax have still been able to increase personal and corporate wealth at a rate rarely seen under any administration in this country since the war. Senator Tate —The capital gains tax will change that substantially, I believe. Senator HAINES —While we are on that subject, I notice in the Liberal Party's platform that it is one of the changes that it is likely to bring in should it ever get back into government. The argument is that one should not tax capital because one is taking a risk. One wonders what would happen if we extended that to the employment sector, where in a number of areas people take absolute risks with their well-being and their lives in earning income. Are we going to say that capital is so much more precious than somebody's good health or, in fact, his life, that we allow that to be tax exempt but continue to tax the incomes of miners, pilots, Defence Force personnel, people who work on oil rigs, and so on? The argument is ludicrous, and it should be recognised for that. Senator Tate —That is one of the best answers I have heard. Senator HAINES —I thank Senator Tate. The tragedy of the Government's tax reform measure is not the extent to which it has operated as a disincentive to investment in absolute terms but its inability to channel the investment which has occurred into a productive restructuring of the Australian economy. Very largely, what has occurred has been unproductive in every sense of the word. We have witnessed in Australia a massive increase in the paper value of Australian companies. While that no doubt pleases the managers of those companies, it does not do a great deal for the Australian economy. That has been the result of local and overseas investors competing for a share of the action. The bidding up of the share value of Australian companies has, I suggest, nonetheless done very little for the productive capacity of our industries. There has been an increase in investment within the manufacturing sector but it has been only minimal and far below the level needed significantly to increase our production of goods in the tradeable goods sector. The tax system has not created this situation but neither has it done anything to prevent its occurrence. Despite the desperate need for investment in the long term restructuring of Australian industry, superannuation and life insurance offices and funds are still entitled to tax free status or reduced tax despite the fact that many of them are investing increasing amounts off-shore rather than on-shore. I am not going to suggest for a minute that those funds should have tax free or tax reduced status taken away from them absolutely, but I think if we are serious about encouraging investment-productive investment at that-in Australia we should place some limits on the amount that they can invest off-shore while still retaining tax free status. The massive amount of off-shore investment-which, from the latest figures, is running at about $4 for every $1 on-shore-is encouraging speculation in the Australian dollar and is massively depleting domestic lending funds, which is pushing up interest rates as demand exceeds supply. The increasing use of debt rather than equity as a means of financing company activity has been due to a number of factors but the tax advantage of debt financing has been one of the most significant factors. The Government could, if it wanted to-it could have done it in the past if it wanted to-take action to limit the circumstances in which interest on debt would be deductible for business expense purposes. After all, the Government takes plenty of action in limiting the sorts of areas in which private individuals can claim deductions. If it is good enough for pay as you earn taxpayers it ought to be good enough for company taxpayers. To do so would mean interfering to some extent with the market and we all know that is abhorred by far too many people in the community. Yet they seem to forget that the market, market forces and deregulation have helped cause so many of our present problems. Senator Messner deplored and presumably continues to deplore the current high interest rates while ignoring that those interest rates are effectively being set by the market, partly because of the amount of money going off-shore and for other reasons. The Government may play some role in determining interest rates but the bottom line is what premium overseas investors require before they are prepared to invest in Australia. Added to the amount of money that is going out of Australia by Australian companies investing off-shore, we have a very real problem. I am not going to argue that the problem does not exist. That would be futile and rather foolish. I assume that the Liberal Party still supports the floating of the Australian dollar and I presume that in supporting that it must recognise that supporting a floating currency will have some sort of impact on interest rates. So members of the Liberal Party cannot complain-- Senator Messner —But that is not the only factor at work. Senator HAINES —Of course it is not the only factor. I have just spent some time acknowledging that there are other elements involved in interest rate rises and falls. Maybe in Senator Messner's references to the rate of government spending he could have acknowledged that there were further influences in addition to that and instead of trotting out the old argument that high levels of government expenditure necessarily force up interest rates maybe he could have canvassed the issue a little wider. Certainly we believe that the effect of an increase in government expenditure, provided the spending occurs in areas which increase productivity and demand and provide an incentive for industry restructuring, will be a decrease in interest rates as the outside world sees the necessary fundamental restructuring of the Australian economy occurring. As I said earlier, it is not just the tax system which is responsible for our present economic problem. Senator Messner is correct in pointing to the interaction of factors such as may occur with the imputation and foreign tax credits system. Senator Messner acknowledged towards the end of his speech that legislation covering this has only just been introduced and I do not yet have the same rock solid view of the legislation as Senator Messner has managed to acquire in the short time that it has been around, but it is quite possible that there will be some problems with that legislation that need rectifying. Heaven knows, the Labor Government's record of introducing impeccable legislation in recent years has been anything but attractive. The major pressures on the Australian economy and on the nature of business investment stem from the structure of the Australian economy for which political parties and governments other than those now in power must take some responsibility. They are also, of course, reflecting changes in the structure of the world economy. We are no longer living in a situation in which what happens within a country is determined by what else is happening only within that country. We must recognise that economies these days are not national but international entities and reflect far wider circumstances than those that are simply internal. Deregulation is not just an Australian phenomenon, nor is the floating of the currency. With the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement and the failure of subsequent attempts at managing exchange rates there is considerable instability and uncertainty in all currencies. The deregulation of financial systems across the world has resulted in volatility of investment which can see cash flows of billions of dollars occurring overnight as investors move funds from one country to another in search of the highest available short term profit. Share values in Australia have been forced up due to the weight of money, as has occurred elsewhere, and, as elsewhere, has shifted away from long term investment to short term profit taking. That is not restricted to this country. The change in investment behaviour has nothing to do with changes to capital gains tax, because we are not the only country which has it; or the introduction of the fringe benefits tax, because we are not the only country in the world which has one; or any other necessary reform to the tax system at which Senator Messner on behalf of the Liberal Party points his finger. It is a function of the changes in the international economy to which Australia must respond and which any Australian government, despite all the talk of deregulation, must manage. It is a fair comment from Senator Messner or anyone else to say that to date we certainly have not managed it particularly well but to date has not included just the last few years of the current administration. I suggest that throwing open the doors to foreign investors by virtue of closing down the Foreign Investment Review Board in the scramble for overseas funds is not a particularly effective response. Anyone who can remember the old arguments against selling off the farm must wonder what has led a Labor government to sell off not only the farm but also any other bit of Australian property overseas investors can pick up for whatever price they care to pay. In contrast to Australia, countries such as Japan have imposed strict limits on overseas investment without any detriment to their economic growth. The difficulty of directing overseas investment into some areas and limiting it in others should not deter this Government or a future government from undertaking what is, we believe, an essential task. Any government that pitches its investment policy to the present feverish and unstable international investment community or the bullying of certain corporate bosses within the country is hardly framing the sort of long term economic policy that this country needs. Instead, it is doing quite the reverse and allowing-indeed, encouraging-gambling with Australia's future. The motion put before us by Senator Messner does not indicate that we have any justification for expressing any confidence in what might occur under a future Liberal Administration as far as economic recovery is concerned. Senator PARER(Queensland)(5.01) —We are discussing a motion by my colleague Senator Messner which relates to the concern that I think everybody in this country has about depressed business investment, particularly in manufacturing industry, the high interest rate policies pursued by this Government and ever increasing government taxes and additional charges, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. Before I go on to that, I would like to comment very briefly on some of the remarks made by Senator Haines. Senator Haines raised an old chestnut, which showed that she had read with some interest some of the remarks made in some of the journals and which bear no relationship whatsoever to the real world of company profits. Senator Haines indicated that there are some companies paying what she said was only 10.15c in the dollar. I noted with interest that she did not reply to my interjection when I asked her what dollar she meant. All that she showed by her remarks was a total lack of understanding of what she was talking about. If she was suggesting that there are companies that pay only 10 per cent, or at this stage something less than 46 per cent in the dollar of taxable income, she is absolutely incorrect. That is not possible. I think that what she was saying was that certain deductions are allowable under the taxation legislation with which she does not agree. But she did not say that. One of those is interest. Senator Haines then referred to the large borrowings made for takeovers. The point is that as far as I can see one cannot restrict interest on capital borrowed by companies because the majority of companies-the majority of small business people-borrow money to enlarge their businesses, to buy machinery, to improve the productivity of the firm or even perhaps to take over one of their competitors. If she is suggesting that that sort of borrowing should not be tax deductible, she would throw the whole business sector into absolute turmoil. In another remark that Senator Haines made she compared Australia with Japan and said that the Japanese had certain restrictions on overseas investment in Japan. That is correct. But what the Japanese have been able to offer, which we have not been able to offer, is probably the most productive labour market the world has ever seen. Of course, Japan offered joint ventures on a restricted equity level. Money from the United States of America was put into Japan after the war. If it had not been for the American involvement by way of moneys loaned to the Japanese and partial equity involvement, Japan would never have grown to the extent that it has. Today in Australia we have an economic crisis. Last month there was some improvement in the balance of payments, but I believe it is a very sorry state of affairs when the Treasurer of this country is delighted that our current account deficit is only $800m or so for a month. This Government came in and decided to float the dollar. There is a misapprehension in the community. It is not the case that the Government had a sudden rush of deregulatory blood to the head. What happened was that its academic advisers told it that there was a quick fix available. We had seen the labour market run riot. Going back over a decade or more, we had seen wage increases at rates that were well in excess of what we could afford, and the Government said: `Let's have a quick fix'. The J-curve theory went something like this: `We will free float the dollar and get it down to something over 60c or thereabouts. What will happen is that, without necessarily a volume increase, our exports will go up because of the increase in the Australian dollar's value. The price of imports will go up. This will encourage our manufacturing industry to get into import replacement and maybe into a bit of export and, hey presto, we will have a positive current account deficit'. But that did not happen. Maybe there is a slow effect happening now. But if there is, it is simply because the disposable income of ordinary Australians has dropped to such an extent that they cannot afford to buy the imported things that they bought in the past. So it is not the case that manufacturing industry has picked itself up; it has not. More importantly, the terms of trade went against us. Of course, this Government is prone to argue that that has nothing to do with us. It says `We have no control over it, it is the world trade' and so on. What that displayed was that the collapse of the currency did not have the desired effect because of the naivete of the people who supported it. There was an oversupply of commodities, of primary industry products. What the Government neglected to recognise was that in an oversupply situation commodity purchasers will ratchet the price down so that they do not put the commodity suppliers in a country such as Australia out of business but they ensure that they get the same dollar this year as last year; hence the reduction in our terms of trade at a time of oversupply. Import replacement has not taken place. I know this is of concern to people on both sides of this chamber. We go round asking people: `Why have you not responded? Why are you not investing in the manufacturing industry?' They all give the same reply wherever one goes. The first problem is interest rates. The interest rate on small business, when government charges are included, is about 20 per cent. Maybe there are some, but I do not know of any legitimate business that can borrow money at that sort of figure and survive, particularly when one compares that figure with the interest rates applicable in other parts of the world, in our neighbouring, competing countries. Let us take, for instance, the prime lending rate in Japan. According to the recent edition of the Economist, the prime lending rate in Australia today is 18.25 per cent. I point out to honourable senators that the actual lending rate applicable to small business is some percentage points higher, over 20 per cent, but 18.25 per cent is the prime lending rate. In Japan that rate is 3.38 per cent. The rate in the United States of America is 7.75 per cent. The point that always arises in discussion is that we have now gone over the $100 billion in foreign borrowings. The remark is often made that 60 per cent of that is from the private sector. Of course it is from the private sector. If one has the choice between borrowing in Australia at a rate over 18 per cent, and possibly over 20 per cent, and borrowing in Singapore at a rate of around 6 per cent, where would one borrow if one wanted to stay in business? Therefore, we have interest rates that are the highest of all the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries by a long shot. From the Economist listing, the closest country appears to be Spain, at 14.5 per cent. Canada stands at 8.75 per cent, West Germany at 6.5 per cent, Holland at 7 per cent and so on. Something must be done about interest rates. The next point made by prospective investors is about the inflation rate. People recognise that the devaluation of the dollar-even though, because of the terms of trade, it went against us-did not have the desired effect, although it may have had the desired effect from the point of view of the hourly wage rate. However, that devaluation is being cancelled at an enormously fast rate because of inflation. How can we tolerate an inflation rate in Australia that is somewhere between 9 per cent and 10 per cent? We are unsure of the exact rate because the figures are not complete due to an industrial dispute in New South Wales. For the full year to February, the rate was 9.8 per cent. It is interesting to note the rates for other countries: West Germany minus 0.2 per cent; Holland minus 1.2 per cent; Japan minus one per cent; and the United States of America 2.1 per cent. That is our concern. I appreciate that some of our inflation was brought about by the devaluation itself, but the flow-on effects of that devaluation, which occurred some time ago, are not the excuse today. The other point made by prospective investors is uncertainty about the value of the dollar. Those who may have looked to invest a couple of months ago when the dollar was worth $US0.62 or $US0.63 because they thought that that would give them a break, whether in import replacement or export, now face a dollar at more than $US0.70. They therefore wonder whether the investment is economically viable. In fact, many export industries are not economically viable at present because of the upward movement of the exchange rates. The final point that is always made is the continuing inflexibility in the labour market in Australia. If people have a choice of investments-perhaps in manufacturing industry or in some sort of real estate, such as putting up a multi-storey building-they ask what should they do. The push is to go for the building, but that is non-productive for Australia. They know that each year the value of that building will keep up with inflation. They know that they will get some return on it, although that is immaterial when they know that it will keep up with inflation. The alternative is to go through the hassle of a manufacturing industry, not knowing where they stand, unable to afford the interest rates applicable in Australia and with an inflation rate that is many times greater than those in the countries with which we compete. Even if they want to consider investment in export, they are confronted with problems on the wharves, where restrictive trade practices have not been addressed and where the cost of moving goods, for instance, from a wharf to a ship, is great. For example, scrap steel would cost 64c per tonne to move in England, $3 per tonne in the United States of America and $15 per tonne in the ports of Australia. Evidence has been given by manufacturers that the transport costs for an item worth $120 which they want to export to New Zealand total, because of the high wharf costs and delays on turnaround time for vessels, about $140 a tonne-more than the original cost of the item. Therefore, the choice is whether to go for hassle-free investment, or investment in what they would wish to invest in in Australia-this is, manufacturing industry. If they did so invest, that would be of enormous benefit to our balance of payments problem. Their other fear is that, having made the investment and gone that far, if they are successful they will be approached by someone from one of the more militant trade unions in an effort to introduce work practices and other measures that will simply eliminate any profit that they may have envisaged. I want to support Senator Messner's motion. In closing, I want to deplore the lack of appreciation by the Government of the anti-business impact of the new legislation that it has introduced. It is worth mentioning that since this Government has been in office it has introduced 16 new taxes, the majority of which have impinged on business investment-the very thing that it talks about trying to lift. Everyone will be aware of the capital gains tax. Yet the Prime Minister of this country, prior to an election, said: I want to say it in words that even the Opposition will understand, there will be no capital gains tax. Of course, we have a capital gains tax-and 15 more new taxes. All that that indicates is that this Prime Minister and this Government cannot be trusted. The other point worth bearing in mind is that since this Government was elected in 1984 it has dishonoured almost every promise that it made to the Australian people. What sort of confidence does that give to people who want to invest, to Australians who would like to do something to get this country out of the mess that it is in? Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.17) —I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague Senator Messner on his timing and punchy address on this matter of public importance concerning the depressed business investment climate in Australia. I wish to remind you, Mr Deputy President, and the rest of our colleagues that 1986-1987 is the fourth year in succession where business investment as a proportion of gross domestic product is likely to be well down on the average level achieved during the 1960s and 1970s. The first indicators of investment activity for the year suggest improvement to be very unlikely. Why is that? It is because business simply lacks the confidence in the economic outlook to take on board substantial capital expenditure. In a nutshell, it lacks the confidence in the ability of this Government to manage the economy. Therefore, the ability of business to invest is being sapped by the highest interest rate structure in Australia since the depression. The notions that I have just put before the Senate are supported by the Economic Planning Advisory Council, which recently warned that the Federal Government's reliance on high interest rates to restrain domestic demand was threatening prospects for recovery because of the depressing effect on business investment. It is true that, during the past few days, there has been some reduction in the 90-day bill rate. However, the Government is taking that on board as a great achievement-as though an 800 metre runner had won the race after the first 50 metres. There is a long way to go yet. The position of prime interest rates since the last election is interesting. They are 17 per cent at the moment, whereas they were 13.5 per cent at the time of the election. The small overdraft rate at that time was 14.5 per cent. I do not have to remind anyone in Australia with an overdraft of the current rate. Everyone knows, and everyone is seething about it. When prime interest rates in most other Western developed countries are in decline, interest rates in Australia are still far too high. This Government has a sorry record in relation to new investment. I repeat: New investment is essential for industry restructuring. It is essential if the eventual reversal of the balance of payment situation is to be successful. But small business-the sector of the economy forgotten by this Labor Government-is suffering at the hands of government. Bankruptcies are at record levels. Figures for the first half of 1986-87 suggest that no reversal of this trend is in sight. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, small enterprises employ 1.9 million people, or 46 per cent of the private sector work force. If the Government is serious about reducing the 8 to 9 per cent unemployment rate, I suggest that it give far more consideration to its policies. We are stifling the ability to employ, particularly by small business. Let us look at some of the individual records of what is happening in the economy, in business. I hope that the Minister who is in the chamber this evening, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), is aware that 5,500 jobs have been lost in the retail sector of the motor vehicle industry because of the continuing sales slump and that the projections for 1987 indicate a further increase in unemployment in this area of 5 to 10 per cent. Much of this decline can be sheeted home to the policies of this Labor Government, policies which are resulting in increasingly high rates of unemployment and which have caused 5,500 jobs to be lost in the retail sector of the motor vehicle industry. What is this decline due to? The industry has acknowledged that one of the factors involved in the decline is the fringe benefits tax, an iniquitous tax. There have also been changes to sales tax regulations and increases in the excise on fuel, to name just a couple. The Labor Government must take full responsibility. Businesses have to contend not only with high interest rates but also with a mountain of what I might term ambiguous and excessive taxes. Some of the taxes businesses now have to pay have not even been set out and passed in legislative form. That is how indolent and sloppy this Government is in relation to tax reform. As I said, business now has to contend with a mountain of ambiguous and excessive taxes. During the Hawke Government's period in office a string of anti-business taxes have been implemented. All these taxes have had a discouraging effect on much needed investment by reducing the levels of return. People will not invest in this country-there will not be a climate for investment-until they can see an adequate return on their investment. But any form of profit is a dirty word to this Government. Let us consider some of these new taxes. I have already told honourable senators that 5,500 jobs have been lost in the retail sector of the motor vehicle industry as a result of the car slump. I have mentioned that one of the contributing factors has been the fringe benefits tax. The tax is unduly complicated and imposes onerous duties on Australian businesses. It requires them to keep excessive records and excessive declarations from the employees. The New South Wales Chamber of Commerce conducted earlier this year a survey which showed-listen to this!-that 81 per cent of firms would retrench staff this year because of the fringe benefits tax. Fifty-one per cent of firms stated that the tax had affected their viability-a very high proportion. It is about time the Government started taking note of some of this information which surely is available to it. For example, small businesses which may already be operating at a loss are still obliged to pay tax on their vehicles, despite the fact that they are already accumulating income tax losses. Then there is the iniquitous capital gains tax, the big sleeper so far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned. This tax will lose the Government many votes at the next election, but Government members close their eyes to it. The capital gains tax is the big sleeper the Government is failing to acknowledge. Those who may have been tempted to invest, despite major disincentives, are directly discouraged from doing so by the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax taxes at the highest marginal rate in the world-almost 60 per cent-of certain gains which have no capital base. Most countries which levy a capital gains tax usually levy it at a flat rate of about 25 to 30 per cent. Even they are pulling back. The tax is a severe disincentive to risk taking, to expanding existing business and to establishing new business operations. We have seen the great harm that has been done already to the investment market in relation to private rental accommodation as a result of a policy implemented by a government which is determined to impose its ideology on the community, regardless of the effect that that ideology will have on the poorest sections of the community. Senator Gietzelt knows what I am referring to. The Government is showing less and less compassion to a section of the community which traditionally has supported it. It is walking away from its traditional responsibilities to those in the community who can least afford to bear the crippling effects of many Labor Party policies. From 1 July this year company tax will be increased from 46 to 49 per cent-one of the highest rates in the world. Again, the Labor Government is pushing us in tax directions, particularly so far as company tax rates are concerned, which are contrary to those in other countries. This is deplorable. The Government is going to introduce a tax imputation system but it has not even modelled it properly on the United Kingdom system. So there is tremendous uncertainty as to the extent to which dividends can be franked. Senator Messner —They have only got half the legislation, anyway. Senator WATSON —As my colleague Senator Messner says, the Government has introduced only half the legislation. We read daily of boards of directors who are not in a position to plan their future investments because of the uncertainty surrounding the imputations system. They are unsure how to declare dividends and of the extent of the taxability of bonus shares in the future. We have a deplorable state of affairs. The Government cannot even tell people who own gold mining companies the extent to which their shares can be franked. Worst of all, the companies in Australia which are doing something about easing the balance of payments problems, which are going out and earning export income and which are setting up in overseas countries suddenly find that their full dividends may not be franked because there is an overseas component of company tax. To the extent that there are to be overseas components in company tax, these companies that are going overseas will be placed at a company tax disadvantage. Even the ANZ bank will be placed at a company tax disadvantage compared with a number of other Australian banks. Is it not deplorable that a company which is prepared to go overseas to buy out overseas operations, which will effectively bring control into Australia in the banking sphere, such as the ANZ bank, will be worse off than a number of other banks which operate in Australia? It will be worse off than a number of foreign banks which are setting up operations in Australia. I can tell Senator Gietzelt that the Government is encouraging the wrong sorts of operations in Australia. It should be supporting operations that are Australian-based and Australian-controlled, that have the incentive and initiative to go overseas and get the valuable income which is so vital to offset our chronic balance of payments problems. But what will the Government do? It will penalise them by legislation which is about to be introduced. It is shutting its eyes. We are warning the Government now but it is not prepared to do anything about it. It is not even prepared to follow the United Kingdom line. I believe this is an absolute disgrace. The Government is not going to improve investment performance in this country. It is going to continue to allow the living standards of ordinary Australians to decline. I think it is a sorry state of affairs, and the sooner the Government gets kicked out of office, the better. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(5.31) —The motion that we are debating today is, I think, one that is particularly important. I am very disappointed that the Government has completely disregarded the thrust behind this, along with the Australian Democrats, of course, who do not consider that the economy is important enough even to talk about the real tragedies that are happening in Australia today but purely and simply launch into another vitriolic attack on the Liberal Party. If they had some of their own policies to talk about it might not be so bad. This country is confronted with real, identifiable problems. Retail sales, for example, continue to stagnate with no real increases after taking into account the levels of inflation over the last year. Motor vehicle registrations for new car sales during the first eight months of the 1986-87 financial year continued to decline by an average of 22 per cent. Just imagine the effect on company profits, on staffing levels, on staffing incomes and on those associated with any form of maintenance of new motor vehicles. It stretches across such a broad spectrum that it is unthinkable. This Government has many things to answer for. Many of the problems in the motor vehicle industry are directly related to high interest rates, the fringe benefits tax, the falling dollar and economic policies generally. This Government's record is nothing short of a disaster. It is the biggest taxing government in peacetime history, it is the biggest spending government in peacetime history and it has brought about the lowest value of the Australian dollar ever, which is down 30 per cent since it took office, in what would, under normal circumstances, be only four short years but which, unfortunately, has been four long years. It has presided over the highest interest rates ever, the largest stock of foreign debt ever, the highest current account deficit ever and the worst relative inflation rate ever. The list goes on. It is a very sad and sorry story. This Government has the distinction of being the first government to lose Australia's AAA credit rating, and history shows us that any other country that has lost a AAA credit rating has never got it back. It was a very sad day for Australia when, in September last year, Moody's Investor Services Inc. reduced our credit rating, as it was a sad day in December when Standard and Poors did the same. Let us look at what has happened under this Government to dwelling approvals. In the first eight months of this financial year they have also continued to decline-a decline which in that time has averaged out to 19 per cent. That, of course, can be directly attributed to the exorbitant level of interest rates, the introduction of a capital gains tax, the abolition of negative gearing and the increased and ever-increasing cost of materials and so forth. As I say, we can also mention interest rates on housing loans, which are now at an absurd level by comparison to when this disastrous Government took office. The great Australian dream of owning one's own home is getting further and further away from so many. Of course, there are so many who have already, in their hopes, achieved that great Australian dream by purchasing their own home and who are now confronted with the problem of not being able to afford the repayments on the mortgage. That in itself is a tragedy of enormous magnitude in a country such as Australia. The effect that all this is having on businesses throughout Australia is spreading to the levels of unemployment. The current unemployment rate is 8.2 per cent, which I might add is higher than that of all but five of the full 86 months of the former coalition Government. This Government is wonderful at regurgitating what it inherited when it took office. It would be wonderful if we could return to the situation that existed when it took office. If we could, unemployment would not be so high, interest rates would not be so high, the inflation rate would not be so high and the standard of living for families would not be so bad. When we look at the business sector we see that this Government is responsible for the imposition of a crushing burden on both large and small businesses-as I mentioned before, the highest real interest rates in Australian history. Let us be quite clear what causes this. There are two major reasons, which are the direct result of the policies of a government that claims somehow to be the friend of business. The first is a deliberate policy of raising interest rates at home in order to attract foreign capital and to protect the value of the dollar. We have not had a free float of the dollar in accord with market principles, but a dirty float manipulated by this Government, which forces up interest rates and destroys business profitability. The second and even more basic reason why business suffers from interest rates and from anti-business taxes is the refusal of this Government to cut its spending. There can be no tax reform for businesses, small or large, or for anyone else for that matter, when expenditure is not reduced and indeed continues to rise. This is the big difference between a Liberal Party government and an Australian Labor Party government. We stand committed to zero real growth in expenditure as a prime tool in cutting taxes and interest rates and restoring business profitability. Had our policies been followed in the four years of the Hawke Government, $20 billion would have been saved. But, no, the Government has not followed them. I might add that that $20 billion would not have had to be paid directly by business in taxation or indirectly through interest rates. The ALP's record speaks for itself. In the three years to 1986-87, expenditure by government, other than that financed by fees and charges, rose 9.8 per cent per year. That is bad enough, but there has been a hidden increase in government spending financed from those revenue sources, linked directly to Budget outlays. Air navigation charges offset against civil aviation expenditure are a prime example, and this kind of expenditure has been rising at an annual rate of 29 per cent under this Labor Government. What makes this highly relevant to this debate is the fact that it is not only an increase in spending that is cumulatively destructive, but it is financed by greater imposition on the business sector that further damages its profitability. But, as we all know, we are faced with a government that considers profit to be a dirty word, and therefore we cannot make profits and at the same time be respectable. I believe that profits are healthy. I believe that everyone has to be given the incentive to make profits. If we want employment levels to increase in this country, businesses simply must be able to make more profits. We have seen so many situations for so long where small business operators particularly have been forced into bankruptcy. As my colleague Senator Watson said earlier, we have the highest levels of bankruptcy ever in this country, and they are forever increasing. It is very sad to see the small business sector suffering and the proprietors of small businesses suffering. It is not uncommon-and we all know it not to be uncommon-for small business proprietors actually to take home less money on a weekly basis than some of their staff. We have to look seriously at whether these people can afford to continue in that way in their personal lives-let alone the viability of their companies-when living standards are continuing to decrease. We should help them and make them survive by lowering interest rates, getting back to a position of incentive. Increased government charges that have affected business inputs in particular can be as damaging as the shirt front attacks that businesses have had over the last 12 months in particular, a la the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, and the rise to 49 per cent in corporate tax. The spending of this Government that causes the destruction of business profitability cannot all be excused as basic, popular and/or necessary. Some of it is causing further direct damage to the business community. What else are we to make of that Hawke ALP Government quango, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission? It costs the taxpayer a mere $18m. There are no draft guidelines for safe manual handling. That will be a massive imposition on business and could send many smaller businesses to the wall. It is absolutely ridiculous to limit the manual lifting weight to 16 kilos, with no unaided lifting from 16 to 34 kilos, and only mechanical lifting above 34 kilos. This will so add to labour costs and to prices, therefore pricing businesses out of business. But this is the Government's quango that is recommending these inane and insane recommendations. It is a recommendation from a body that was set up by this Government. That says it all. How many ordinary citizens, especially women, have to carry more than 16 kilos unaided? It is just absurd. This quango that consumes tax revenue and diminishes business profitability will be axed under a Liberal government along with several other bodies which were established not for the public good but for the ideological satisfaction of the supporters of this Government. A Liberal government will have only three options: Axe, tax, or print money. Australians will demand that the first of these options be followed, as the other two are the failed devices of this Labor Government. This Government talks about its rapport with the business sector and ignores the fact that the real rate of return on investment has declined from 18 per cent in 1970 to 9 per cent today. This is the statistic that matters, not the figures showing raw fluctuations in profitability. Actions, I believe, always speak louder than words. It is the fringe benefits tax that has devastated the car industry and has added to business costs right down the line. The capital gains tax is a time bomb that will kill the incentive of smaller businesses. It is so complex that its own masters are at a loss to understand it. I am proud to stand here as a Liberal and pledge yet again that these taxes will go under a future Liberal government. Massive overseas borrowings do nothing for interest rates, and therefore nothing in the long term for business profitability. The Liberal leader got it right in one hit when he said that Australia needed more overseas equity and less overseas borrowing. But what is the Hawke Government doing to encourage this? It maintains the Foreign Investment Review Board that still constitutes a bureaucratic check on investment, so much so that an ALP member of the Western Australia parliament, Mr Stephens, called for its abolition last year. Mr Stephens had better hope for a Liberal government in Canberra because it is the only Party with the courage to do that. Neither will we continue with the interaction of foreign tax credit systems with the new dividend imputation laws which can only discourage equity investment. There is not much point in this Government pointing to its one genuine tax reform, the abolition of double taxation on some dividends, if this is to result in further reduced returns from business investment. The average wage earner who I, as a Liberal would hope would be encouraged into direct investment by a proper imputation scheme, may find little incentive when Australian enterprises are paying among the highest corporate taxes in the Western world and when overseas equity is taxed out of our market place. Sometimes, it appears that we would be better off under declared enemies of business than the phoney allies of business such as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It is time that we all examined what the Government does rather than what it says because the two do not correlate. The Liberal Party knows that business profitability can only be restored in a four-point program, none of which has been effectively tackled by this Hawke Labor government. We will not only restructure taxes on business and on families, but also we will cut them. We have given that commitment time and again, yet this Government keeps on saying: `Where is your tax policy'? I thought that it was meant to be the Government. Why does it not run the country? Why does it not have its own tax policies and implement them? Why? Because it is bereft of any ideas. It has nowhere to go. It knows that it is strangling this country to death by taxes. Let it worry about its own tax policy. Let it worry about where it is going. Why does it need our tax policy? It may be very well to think that it is hilarious, Mr Acting Deputy President, but you, as a member of this Government, should be considering where this Government is taking this country instead of its saying: `It is all too hard. Let's get the Opposition's tax policy and try to implement it'. We will release out tax policy when we are good and ready. We have already committed ourselves to lowering the tax base and the tax bite generally, and we will deliver that. We will control those government charges and indirect taxes that force up the cost of business inputs that cause special damage to our export industries. Fuel excise is up from 6c to 20c a litre under this Government. That speaks for itself. Finally, we will enforce the rule of law, the basic civil law, in industrial relations. The Labor Party is not merely inadequate in this field but down right destructive. Its actions, or lack of them, play a part in reduced investment and productivity. We must always consider what is happening to the business sector because it is that sector that provides the economic viability of this country. It provides employment. It provides the future for this country. But no, at the moment housing rents are rising. In fact, people are lucky if they can get a house to rent. In my State of Western Australia housing rental properties are down to under 1 per cent. In many suburbs the number has risen in the last 12 months up to between 30 and 50 per cent. That is just exorbitant, thanks to this Government's policy. Not only are businesses affected but also families are being affected. We cannot afford to have people in a situation such as that of a young gentleman I spoke to the other day. He was earning $284 a week with a dependent spouse and one and three-quarter children. I might add that the $284 is a gross amount, not a net amount. How would anyone on the Government benches like to be earning that amount and trying to survive? But that is what this Government is doing with its new taxes on businesses. It is pushing costs right through the ceiling with its capital gains tax and the abolition of negative gearing. It is making properties impossible to rent. Australia's gross foreign debt-let us not forget about that because it has tripled under this Government-is currently increasing at a rate of around $1,300 per second. To pay off that foreign debt would cost every man, woman and child $6,000. Where has every man, woman and child of Australia got $6,000 to pay off the debt that this country is running up on their behalf? The interest bill alone on our foreign debt is almost $10 a week for every man, woman and child. Senator Vigor seems to be indicating that that is not so. Senator Vigor —It is mainly in the private sector. Senator KNOWLES —To pay it off and amortise it over the whole community, Senator, would cost every man, woman and child $6,000. The interest on it is almost $10 a week. Senator Short —It is $40 a week for an average family of four. Senator KNOWLES —Exactly, Senator. People are battling to pay their grocery bills, let alone the bills that the government is running up on their behalf. The current situation is absolutely and utterly absurd. The Government must be prepared to start reversing the trends. Prime interest rates have also gone through the roof. The Government is pushing business beyond the brink of being broke; it is pushing it right into the bankruptcy courts. The effect this has had on trading viability has been enormous and, of course, self-evident. As I have said often, the effect that it is having on employment is an absolute shame. This Government deserves to be condemned for the way it is leading this country down an economically disastrous path. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of General Business has now expired. Debate resumed. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(5.52) —I support the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill; it is an important piece of legislation. As the Senate may know, the purpose of the Bill is to promote equal employment opportunity in those areas of government employment that are not already covered by the recent Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 or by the Public Service Act 1922 and section 22b thereof. The purpose of the legislation is to cover statutory authorities which are not currently covered by previous legislation. Further, we should note that the Bill promotes employment opportunities not only for women but also for other designated groups in Australian society, in particular the handicapped, Aboriginal people, Torres Strait Islanders and non-English speaking persons. The Bill is long overdue. It is part of this Government's achievements and commitments towards social justice. The honourable member for Gellibrand and Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Ralph Willis, said when introducing the Bill: Equal employment opportunity assumes that freedom of choice of occupation is a basic social right which should not be constrained by criteria unrelated to ability to perform the job. One can see how important it is for people such as those I have mentioned to have not positive discrimination in their favour but at least equality of opportunity when applying for employment. In essence, therefore, one can sum up the Bill by saying that it gives all Australians a fair go, regardless of their gender, ethnic background, or physical and mental criteria. One would have thought that, in doing so, it would not have received the amount of opposition that it has received from the Opposition parties in this chamber and in the lower House. When one looks at the commitment of Liberal philosophy and when one goes back to the sources of the principles of the Liberal philosophy in this country, one sees that there is probably no better authority than Sir Robert Menzies. Later I will take the opportunity to quote from his partial memoirs, Afternoon Light, which were published in 1967. He has also stated very clearly that the commitment of Liberal philosophy and the party that he set up was wide ranging but its responsibilities also included: . . . by social and industrial legislation to provide a high degree of economic security and justice for all its citizens. He continued: My friends and I recognised the economic responsibilities of the State to assist in preventing the recurrence of large-scale unemployment by appropriate economic and monetary measures; to secure, through- this is the important part- social legislation, a decent and reasonable measure of economy security and well-being for all responsible citizens: Basic to those principles, therefore, is security of employment, and basic to that is equality of opportunity. One would have thought that if the current Liberal Party was honest to its traditions, it would have taken a different attitude to this legislation. It has not been missed by honourable senators and the media that there has been an inconsistent approach by the Liberal Party to the Bill compared with its approach to the 1986 equal employment opportunity legislation. That inconsistency has led to wide-ranging public debate. However, what is highlighted by the inconsistency is the fact that we now have a 1987 version of equity Liberal-style. It is not isolated; it has not happened in this instance only. We have seen, in the area of tax initiatives and legislation, the approach of liberalism to equity Liberal-style. The Opposition has a tax policy, insofar as we can see it, the basic structure of which is based upon ripping pension increases off pensioners so that it can abolish the capital gains tax and give back free lunches, cars and other fringe benefit elements to millionaires and those who are well off in our society. The second instance of equity Liberal-style 1987 is the one which we are addressing. This time the Opposition rejects a Bill which in substance, in principle, was before this chamber in 1986. It does so on the basis that it would cost too much, or that it has not been costed by the Government's Business Regulation Review Unit. One would imagine by looking at the Opposition's performance on the Bill, that its members are also officers of the Department of Finance who are out on a day-release scheme. The only attitude that members of the Opposition took when the legislation was considered in the lower House, and when it was discussed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in this chamber today, related to the cost aspect of it. There has been no recognition of those great principles of social justice and social engineering about which Sir Robert Menzies spoke in his memoirs of 1967. What they are concerned about is whether the Bill has gone to the Government's Business Regulation Review Unit and whether the cost to industry, the private sector and to government is too much. The basic line is: What will it cost? Let us consider this consultation with the business sector and the BRRU about which the Liberals are concerned. We should note that on Tuesday in Question time the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) made it very clear that the Bill had been, albeit informally, before the Government's Business Regulation Review Unit. The Unit was given an opportunity to comment on the new regulations involved in the Bill. We understand that the Unit was not concerned about the implications of them. However, that was just the end result of consultation. In 1986, regarding a similar Bill which affected industry directly, a process of consultation which extended far over and above a 12-month period took place. The Business Council of Australia and other business representative groups were involved in those consultations. At the end of the day we came up with a piece of legislation which was acceptable to the private sector. It is curious, therefore, that when a piece of legislation has a direct impact on the public sector, the government sector, we are told that it should be sent back to the Business Regulation Review Unit and the private sector should be consulted further. It is clear that that process has been undergone in respect of similar legislation. I cannot see why the Opposition has pursued such frustrating tactics in respect of this Bill. I take this opportunity also to refer to the question of costs to employers. The rather maverick Liberal member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) made this very clear in the lower House when he said that the Opposition's main quibble with the legislation was that, in his Leader's eyes, it had not been referred to the Business Regulation Review Unit and also that it cost too much. This sort of statement was pursued not only by Liberal Party members, but also by National Party members. We heard screams about the cost to business, the cost which this will impose on statutory authorities, and so on. If anyone pretends to understand the process of government in this place, he will know that a piece of legislation such as this would not be allowed to pass the eyes of those in charge of departments or statutory authorities unless those people made a very close scrutiny of the implications of such legislation on their particular organisations. Not one has complained, not one has put a position to government objecting to the implications of the Bill. so we go back to false arguments once again. We also go back to the fact that equity Liberal-style in 1987 not only means catering to millionaires in the taxation system, but also means catering to millionaires in the pursuance of social justice. Those great principles of Sir Robert Menzies have been abandoned. We are also given the argument of the current economic climate, cost efficiency and so on. Speaker after speaker in the lower House said that the Government had failed to come to grips with the real issues, that the real issue we ought to look at was cost efficiency, and that our economy cannot afford the implications of this particular legislation. Let us remember, when we address those sorts of issues, that it is legislation that was called for and was in essence demanded of the Government by the Opposition when the previous Bill, the 1986 Bill, came through this place and the House of Representatives. The cry then was that we were attacking the private sector but leaving the public sector untouched. There was no immediate consideration of cost effectiveness on the private sector at that particular stage. The other point that comes out of the whole debate so far, both in the media and in the lower House, is that when one is pursuing social justice, it seems, the dollar always comes first. The commitment to the principles of social justice is never deemed to be appropriate when there might be some sort of cost involved. But if the debate in the lower House does expose one factor, it is the fact that members of the Opposition just seem to see this particular piece of legislation and this approach to the problems of people in our society from the wrong end. They have never really had to look at it in terms of the handicapped, in terms of those who cannot speak languages adequately and in terms of women. They cannot look at it in terms of those who do not stand on equal footing in our society. They talk from a position of privilege, and the attitudes and the policies that they present to us emanate very much from that position. As I have said, this sort of attitude was not always so and last year we had support for the Government's legislation from the private sector. We have also now got legislation which the Liberal Party asked for. But it is not only the principle of the legislation about which we have criticisms from the Opposition. We also have criticisms based on spurious fallacies. We are told that this legislation represents a back-door attempt to get quotas into statutory authorities. If anyone wants to know about back-door attempts in terms of getting old fashioned pork-barrelling and obtaining privileges and indulgences, the National Party, the Queensland branch particularly, would know about that. After all, its basis in the white-shoe brigade is very much borne and fostered on that particular criterion. But if one was to have an honest look at this particular Bill, if one was to be sincere and truthful to himself in doing so, it would be very clear that this Bill is not a back-door attempt to get quotas into statutory authorities. To suggest so is grossly to misrepresent the Bill. It is clear that there are in the Bill provisions which require authorities to set quantitative and other indicators. But the provisions in this Bill do not go past the provisions of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986, which members of the Opposition supported less than 12 months ago; nor do these provisions go beyond section 22b of the Public Service Act. We are also told that this Bill acts against merit and destroys the principles of promotion in employment on the basis of merit. The fact that this argument is a lie was exposed in the lower House by the honourable member for Boothby. It was not very hard for him to find sub-clause 3 (4) of the Bill. I will quote this sub-clause particularly for the benefit of Senator Walters. It states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. That is very clear and very succinct. It is not hidden in the back of the Bill or in some interpretation clause of the Bill. At the front of the Bill there is this emphasis on the preservation of the principles of merit. That was noticed by Mr Steele Hall-- Senator Walters —It is right in the interpretation, which is a good spot for it. Senator BOLKUS —It is obvious then that even Senator Walters can see it, so let us not have any arguments from Senator Walters about this Bill destroying promotion and employment opportunity on the basis of merit. In principle, therefore, we are looking at a Bill which does not require authorities to employ women instead of men. Nor does it discriminate positively for migrants, Aboriginals or disabled people. It prevents negative discrimination against these classes of people. I will not speak much longer, but I do want to make this particular point: It is interesting that the National Party has been consistent on this legislation. Last year it opposed similar legislation; this year it does the same. It is members of the Liberal Party that have switched. It is quite obvious why they have done so; that is, to pander to the wishes of the National Party in the coalition which was then held together very loosely. In the process, they have lost one of their front benchers and they are also in danger of having their back benchers defect in this Senate either today or when this Bill comes to a vote. That is not the only area of defection. I think it has been made very clear to the Opposition in recent weeks that the electorate, and particularly women in the electorate, are not going to accept their current position on this piece of legislation. Let us face it, this is not legislation on which to go to the barricades, but it has led to a massive swing of female support from the Opposition side of this Parliament. In the Times on Sunday of 5 April in an article by Kate Legge, Spectrum Research is quoted as having conducted a poll of 1,200 people in mainland capital cities. It showed that 24 per cent of Liberal voters were less inclined to vote for the coalition because of its stand on this issue. It also showed that the strongest views of opposition to the Liberal Party on this particular issue was amongst women between 18 and 34 years of age. It is coincidental that in the week that poll was taken the standing of the Opposition in the polls decreased quite substantially-by between 3 or 4 per cent. I believe the women of Australia have made it very clear that this sort of abdication of principle by the Opposition, this sort of abdication of responsibility to them and other sectors of the community, will not be tolerated. In closing, I do not believe this Bill is about compulsory quotas; it is not about the erosion of the merit principle; it is not about positive discrimination; it is about the eradication of negative discrimination. Let me also ask members of the Opposition in voting on this matter to look very closely at those principles set out in Sir Robert Menzies' partial memoirs, Afternoon Light, those principles which committed the Opposition to a degree of social engineering in the pursuance of equality of opportunity. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.09) —The purpose of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 is as set out in the introduction to the Bill: To require certain Commonwealth authorities employing 40 or more employees to promote equal opportunities in employment for women and members of designated groups by developing equal employment opportunity programs. The explanatory memorandum in the introduction goes on at greater length but basically the purpose of the legislation is to require certain Commonwealth authorities employing 40 or more employees to promote equal opportunity in employment for women and certain other groups. The Australian Democrats emphasised last year the importance of what is probably inexactly known as affirmative action legislation covering statutory authorities. We welcome this somewhat overdue move to extend the cover of that legislation to these authorities. In fact, last year, had we not been anxious to get the affirmative action legislation into operation as quickly as possible, as everyone is aware, we would have moved for the inclusion in that piece of legislation of the authorities that cover this-- Senator Walters —Why didn't you accept our amendments, then? Senator HAINES —It would help if Senator Walters listened occasionally. I said: Had we not been concerned to get the affirmative action legislation into operation-- Senator Walters —Why wasn't it in the Bill in the beginning? Senator HAINES —Indeed, I could not agree more. Why was it not in the legislation to begin with? But that was not the point at issue in May last year when the typical ineptitude of this Government's management processes meant that the legislation did not come up for debate in this place until after the House of Representatives had risen, and that any change to the legislation, whether to strengthen it or otherwise, would not have come into effect until some months after it was intended to. As far as we were concerned it was more important to get the legislation operating as far as was possible at the time rather than press the question of these authorities. In any event, the Government has now finally got around to doing something about it. Overriding all of that-indeed, to mix a metaphor, thoroughly underpinning it-is our belief, shared by large numbers of people in the community, that freedom of choice in a person's job is a basic social right which should not be affected by criteria unrelated to that person's ability to perform the job. Apart from the basic individual right involved, equal employment opportunity benefits the entire community by enhancing the utilisation of talent and resources that are lost as a result of discrimination directed in the main against women. In other words, equal employment opportunity, by widening the field of access to talent, experience and abilities, makes good business sense. If that is the only way that it can be sold to some of the more recalcitrant members of the business community, I suppose we have to ignore the argument of basic right and sell it to them on economic and similar grounds. So, as with the earlier pieces of legislation on affirmative action, the programs to be developed under this piece of legislation will not lead, as some people suggest, to positive discrimination. It does not require statutory authorities to employ women, or any of the other designated groups, instead of men. Rather, it requires them to employ people of both sexes and in all groups on merit. It is important to stress that this is the purpose of the legislation and that its purpose is not to implement some sinister plot whereby a system in which men are employed and promoted regardless of merit is replaced by one in which women are employed and promoted regardless of merit. Anyone who has any doubt at all about that should read the Bill properly and note in particular clause 3 (4) which states quite clearly that nothing in the Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. Of course, this clause mirrors exactly the intention of the legislation before us, legislation that is an adjunct to the affirmative action legislation from last year which contained exactly the same clause, and it should receive the full support of anyone who believes that a merit based employment system is the best. In fact, a merit based employment and promotion system is the only system which should operate in a society such as ours. The fact that in the past merit has often had little to do with employment and promotion practices in either the private or public sectors is something that we ought to be deploring, rather than arguing for its prolongation. The fact that in the past government authorities both State and Federal have had some of the worst records for employing on the basis of merit is why this legislation is necessary. For evidence of this we need only look at, for example, State government employment practices in professions such as teaching and compare the number of women who are employed in the teaching profession with the number of women who achieve senior positions within that profession, much less senior positions within the government departments that administer the teaching profession. So merit indeed had little to do with employment and promotional practices in the past. To argue that this piece of legislation is social engineering is to ignore the fact that we have had social engineering practised significantly through employment practices and indeed in legislation in the past. Merit, ability, qualifications and experience often came poor lasts after consideration was given to such things as which school the applicant attended, who knew whose father, for instance, and the religion one belonged to. That was certainly an element for many years in employing practices within the South Australian Public Service, for example. Although it was never legitimated or put in writing it was there nevertheless. One's sex or marital status is something which has long stymied women's advancement in many professions in both the public and private sectors and at both State and Federal Government levels. Social engineering, for example, was evident in legislation or awards which insisted that males and females employed lifted different weights or in the argument that certain facilities were lacking and thus employment, transfer or even promotional opportunities were able to be denied to some individuals. I believe it is hardly coincidental that these restrictions, both legal and historic, affected women's opportunities in life far more than was the case with men. Most of the arguments put forward over the years to justify limiting women's participation in the labour force and in the business community are not valid and were never valid, but they were able to be put into practice because there was nothing to prevent that. They were put forward by people who supported a form of social engineering, people who wanted men and women to conform to certain convenient, socially approved patterns of behaviour-patterns of behaviour which were considered not necessarily appropriate even when they were operating but which certainly are not considered to be appropriate these days. To repeat: It is worth remembering that by law, for example, until recently women were paid less than men even if they did the same work. I can remember being outraged when I first went into the teaching profession to discover that, notwithstanding the fact that my husband and I had exactly the same qualifications, did exactly the same sort of work and taught exactly the same levels of students, my income was considerably less than his. Not only that, but when he and I married I was the one who had to resign from the permanent teaching profession and take on a temporary assistant's role. Along with that, I suffered from decreased promotional opportunities with no access to superannuation, because in the State Public Service that was available only to permanent staff, and married women teachers were not classified as permanent staff. It was not just in the teaching profession that that occurred in public employment; it extended right throughout the South Australian Public Service. Senator Peter Baume —In 1978, in local government, someone in Rockhampton got sacked for getting married. Senator HAINES —That is right. Certainly places such as Broken Hill have been less than enthusiastic about embracing the idea that women have as much right to employment, married or single, with or without children, and of whatever age, as men do. Not long ago we were paid less, we could not remain permanent employees and we had to retire at 60 years of age whether we liked it or not. This was an arrangement that I suspect had less to do with the capacity of a woman over the age of 60 than it had to do with the fact that if she was married her husband was probably a few years older than she and was going to retire, and we could not have a situation in which the women was still in the work force while her husband was home in enforced retirement. Women were required to retire and get by on whatever savings they had or whatever pension they were entitled to five years before their male counterparts were. Of course, in many professions and ordinary jobs women were prevented from enjoying the full scope of work available if weights of greater than 16 kilograms had to be lifted. I point out that 16 kilograms is about the weight of an average three- to four-year-old child. I do not know too many women who have difficulty lifting, or indeed who refuse to lift, a child of their own who is over 16 kilograms in weight. More importantly, I have not noticed too many men, who may have been party to making the awards or legislation that prevented women from getting employment in jobs where they had to lift more than 16 kilograms, rushing out of offices and shops to assist a woman walking down the street carrying a fractious three-year-old in one arm and a bag of groceries in the other on the ground that it was damaging to her health to be carrying that sort of weight. There is no doubt that those restrictions were placed in order to limit the access that women had to serve occupations and hence, as a corollary, enhance the opportunities for men, who were considered to have priority right to employment and promotion in those jobs. Despite those ill-founded matters being changed by law-and they have been slowly over the last few decades-women remain grossly unrepresented in most spheres outside the home. Many of the entrenched social attitudes with regard to women working remain. There is still a strong belief that women's choices on marriage, in particular women's choices after the couple have a family, should be restricted. That is particularly regrettable. It is especially regrettable given that it ignores and certainly underutilises the many skills and talents that women have, some of which, but not all of which, they share with men. Some of the ones they do not share with men are particularly useful. For example, because women are brought up to be less aggressive than men, they often make far better negotiators than men because they attempt to sidestep conflict rather than wait for it to break out and then heavy somebody. Senator Gareth Evans —I wish that was the way you ran your negotiations here. Senator HAINES —Perhaps it takes a particularly strong individual to break through these sorts of barriers. Having done that and having met with some of the opposition that we meet in this place, it is not only difficult but also unnecessary to go back to being coy and docile. Women are more often managers in the home since they are doing the organisation of the budget, transport arrangements, educational planning and so on; men in the main have earned the income in the past. Women have had the opportunity to develop excellent organisational and forward planning skills. Most of the skills that women attain in the home are ignored by personnel officers when women are seeking a job after their children are off their hands, so to speak. Women develop skills-forward planning skills, the capacity to perceive problems before they reach crisis point and so on-which would make them extremely skilful and useful employees. These skills have been ignored in the past. The community generally can only benefit from acknowledging the differences between men and women, some of which are biological and some of which are socially induced and making use of the general skills, intelligence and capabilities and so on that women as well as men have. Changes have to be made because no country these days can survive with only 50 per cent of its people in the work force having opportunities while the other 50 per cent have their abilities ignored. The reality is that unless everyone who chooses to go into the work force is able to develop to the fullest, Australia is not going to develop to the greatest extent possible. Given the urgent need for this legislation and the fact that it is about 12 months overdue, it is regrettable, if not extraordinary, to observe the antics of the Opposition parties in this matter over recent weeks. In the case of the National Party I suppose we could say that it is only to be expected. I suspect that the original decision made by the then coalition was made more as a sop to the National Party than because the Liberals actually believed that this piece of legislation was in some way intrinsically different, more horrendous and more dangerous than the affirmative action legislation from last year. Mr Howard and the drier members of the Liberal Party did not seem to have a massive problem with the affirmative action legislation last year, so why they abandoned their support for this legislation in what I suspect proved to be a rather futile attempt to shore up the coalition partnership is beyond my comprehension. That they are continuing to do so now that the coalition is dead, if not buried, is even more surprising. I congratulate those people of the Liberal Party who are being consistent, objective and intelligent in their attitude to this legislation. In particular-I am sure it is not going to do him a great deal of good-I congratulate Senator Peter Baume on his belief in this principle. Indeed, his principles have led to his losing his position on the front bench. As he was probably one of the few sensitive and compassionate members of the Liberal Party front bench, the Liberal Party's loss is all the more to be deplored. Those small `l' liberals, wets, or whatever it is that people tend to define members of the Liberal Party who are to the left of Attila the Hun, are to be congratulated for attempting to offset the damage that the troglodytes in the National Party and the Liberal Party are doing. It is extremely unfortunate, if not actually shameful, that the machinations of somebody such as the Premier of Queensland should have led to the loss of the bipartisan approach that generally we have had in this place towards the treatment of women in the community. The specious grounds being used by the National and by the Liberal dries are that the Bill imposes quotas. Somehow or other a quantitative analysis or assessment of how business is going to operate some time down the track is ipso facto, according to these people, the imposition of a quota. I do not believe that is the case and I do not believe that anyone who makes the same assessment of clause 3 (4) could argue that quotas could in any way result from this legislation. I urge those members of the Opposition parties who seem determined to oppose this legislation to reconsider the matter and to have another look at clause 3, and in particular sub-clause (4), and tell me and everybody else how that could possibly be ignored in such a way that quotas could be implemented. They know as well as I do that their claim is silly. I cannot imagine why they are clinging to it. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator WALTERS —(Tasmania) (8.00)-Tonight we are debating the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. I say at the outset that I am a very strong supporter of equal opportunity for women in respect of employment. This is fundamental to the philosophy of my Party. We in the Liberal Party of Australia do not believe in affirmative action but we have always believed in equal opportunity for women. Dame Enid Lyons from my home State was the first lady Minister in the Commonwealth Parliament. She was the first lady member of Cabinet. We had the first woman senator. My own State of Tasmania has the first Senate team to be headed by two women. That team will contest the next election. I am delighted to have been selected to head that team. I am equally delighted that Senator Newman has been selected as the number two candidate. As I said, this is the first time that this has happened. I am delighted that the rules of our Party, unlike those of the Australian Labor Party, do not demand that a woman be found to be included on a Senate ticket. This is a typical example of affirmative action by the Labor Party that I find so degrading for women. However, I will come back to that a bit later in my speech. We have before us legislation that purports to be the second part of the equal employment opportunity legislation introduced by the Government. The first Bill-the one which came before us some time ago and which the Opposition supported-was the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. That legislation did not relate to statutory bodies as the Bill now before us does. The Opposition put forward several amendments during debate on the affirmative action legislation. We wanted to change the name of the Bill because we believed that it was concerned more with equal employment opportunity than affirmative action. We asked that the name of the Bill be changed. Senator Peter Baume, who led for the Opposition, also asked that statutory bodies should be included in that legislation. We were given all sorts of excuses tonight by Senator Haines who said that because we needed the legislation so urgently and because the legislation had been brought before the Senate at a time when the House of Representatives was not sitting the Democrats could not delay its passage by voting with the Opposition. As a result, they voted with the Government and statutory authorities were excluded from that Bill. The Government, for some reason best known to it, refused to accept our amendments to change either the name of the Bill or to include statutory authorities. As I say, the Democrats refused to accept our amendment because they said that the Bill was urgent and they could not possibly delay its passage by being responsible for having our amendments accepted. Of course, the House of Representatives could have come back and accepted those alterations had it chosen to do so. We have been told by Senator Bolkus and by other Government members that the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill is giving us what we asked for. Of course, that is not true. It is a totally different Bill. The fact that the Government has changed the name of the Bill from affirmative action to equal employment opportunity and has made it apply to statutory authorities does not mean that only these changes have been made to the original Bill. Very much more than that has been done. There is no way that I for one would ever vote for a Bill because its name has been changed. That would involve the worst of all worlds and it is something that I cannot do. I vote for the contents of a Bill. The Government has been very clever. The Government called the first Bill, which was concerned with equal opportunity, affirmative action legislation. Everyone understands affirmative action to mean discrimination in favour of women. That is what affirmative action is. The second piece of legislation-the Bill that we are debating tonight-is called equal employment opportunity legislation. The affirmative action Bill did not really deal with affirmative action. However, I believe that the Bill now before us, which is called equal employment opportunity legislation, is concerned with affirmative action. I will go into that a little further later. We are not supporting this Bill because the two Bills are totally different. We are not, as Senator Bolkus said, being inconsistent. During the passage of the first Bill, we said that although it was not the way we would go about it, we agreed with the general thrust of what was before us. Senator Peter Baume and Mr Steele Hall-I think Senator Chaney mentioned this matter this afternoon-said that we would rather go about it in an educative manner. However, the Government has chosen to go about it in a legislative way and that, again, is typical of the Labor Party. Let me explain just why we supported the first Bill and are not supporting the second Bill. The number one difference between the two Bills is that the first Bill-the affirmative action Bill-solely related to women. The Equal Employment Opportunity Bill is not solely in regard to women. Indeed, it concerns Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders, migrants whose first language is not English and their families, the mentally and physically disabled and women. So the Bills are not the same in that regard. As I said, the first Bill related only to women; the second Bill relates to the groups I have mentioned as well as any other designated group that the Minister may subsequently think needs to be included. So that is the first difference. The second difference is the action to be taken in regard to these two pieces of legislation. The first Bill proposed that companies must make forward estimates regarding the number of women that they should employ. The following statement is made on page seven on the Bill now before us: ``forward estimate'' means a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time; It also states: ``objective'' means a qualitative measure or aim, expressed as a general principle . . . Those words are very clear. They mean that one may, but does not have to, express it in numerical terms. That is very clear. We are being told that that Bill is exactly the same as this second piece of legislation, the only difference being that this Bill applies to Commonwealth authorities. But the words are totally different. This Bill states that an authority shall provide for action to be taken to set the quantitative and-not or-other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. So numbers must be used. The previous Bill did not require numbers to be set, just the expression of an aim. This Bill states that numbers must be expressed. If the Government were genuine when it says that all it wants to do is to include Commonwealth authorities under this legislation, it would merely have amended the previous Bill, as we asked it to do. If it is the case that the Government was genuine but in too much of a hurry, as tonight Senator Haines tried to convince us was the case, the Government would have brought in amendments to that Bill tonight. If the Government was genuine in saying that it could not wait to carry out our amendments, it could have brought in the amendments that we have suggested and considered them tonight. But the Government is not genuine. I will explain another difference in the two pieces of legislation because it is pretty important. In the previous Bill there was no mention of a ministerial direction, but in this Bill there is a ministerial direction. It states: . . . Minister may, in writing, give general directions to the authority with respect to the performance of its obligations under this Act. So the responsible Minister, if he does not believe that an authority is doing well enough in the numerical terms that it put forward for the employment of Torres Strait Islanders, Aboriginals, migrants and their families, mentally and physically handicapped people and women, may direct the authority to increase its numbers. If the program, the corporate plan that the authority has worked out, does not meet the Minister's objectives or likings, it states that the Minister `shall direct the authority in writing to revise the corporate plan accordingly'. Those words were not in the previous legislation. Yet we have had members of the Government tell us that the Bills are similar and that we are being inconsistent in not supporting this legislation. But the two pieces of legislation are not similar. We are not being inconsistent. The Government is trying to pull a swiftie. It is very difficult to get across to the people of Australia why we do not support a Bill with the words `equal employment opportunity' included in its title. This is where I believe the Government has been very dishonest. The Government titled the previous legislation `Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill' when it did not involve affirmative action. The title of this Bill includes the words `equal employment opportunity' when it involves affirmative action. By doing that, the Government said to its feminist supporters: `We brought in an affirmative action Bill'. Affirmative action involves discrimination in favour of women. The Government said that to its feminist supporters, but it was not true. The previous legislation was an equal employment opportunity Bill. With this legislation the Government is saying: `We have brought in an equal employment opportunity Bill'. But it has not. It has brought in affirmative action. I know that all the Australian Labor Party senators in this place will get up one after another like a lot of sheep and say: `Ha, but there is an overriding clause'. Tonight Senator Bolkus overdid that when he said: `It is there plain and simple for anyone to see; it is not hidden'. He even said that there was no reference in the definitions section. He overdid it a bit by saying that because it is in that section. The statement is plain, it does appear early in the Bill and it is for everyone to see. But it is about the only similarity between the previous legislation and this legislation. The relevant clause states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. That sounds pretty good stuff. But let me read it again: It states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require- that is, to force- any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. That does not state that a government authority must employ on the basis of merit. It purely states that nothing in this Bill will make a government authority take action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. This is the crux of the matter. This clause is a farce. It states that an authority does not have to do something. But the situation could arise that the director of an authority, having been given a number to reach, fails to reach the number that the Minister has directed, or perhaps the Minister may have directed the number to be increased. Faced with this clause, if the director is way behind in the figures, he or she could then legally employ women, Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders, migrants or mentally or physically disabled people in greater numbers than merit would permit, purely to fill the numbers. Quite legally, the director could do that, because it does not state in that clause on merit that the director shall appoint only on the principle of merit. It states that nothing in this Bill will force directors to employ on other than merit. So that, to my thinking, proves that that particular clause is a complete farce. If we reach the position where there are so many differences between the two Bills, I defy any Government member of the Senate to try to claim that the Bills are the same and that we, as Liberals, are being inconsistent. During our debates on the previous piece of legislation, I asked the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) why she had not defined the word `merit' in the Bill. There were many other definitions. I asked what the Government meant by merit, but I was never told. Indeed, the Minister, whom I met and spoke to in the corridor, told me that she would support my amendment to define merit. Obviously, between meeting me in the corridor and when the legislation was debated, she had had a good rethink and she refused to define it. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, as its first description, defines the word merit as `quality of deserving well'. That would fit the most avid, the most radical feminist's choice of meaning. What woman would not deserve well the job for which she had applied? What Aboriginal, what Torres Strait Islander, what migrant, what mentally or physically disabled person would not deserve the job well? The next meaning is `excellence'. The next is `worth'-I am not quite sure how to take that meaning. The next is `good deeds as entitled to future rewards', and the next is `thing that entitles to reward or gratitude'. It then goes on to refer to `make a merit of', and so on, and does not give any further definition of the word itself. The Minister said that there was no need to define merit. She said that we all knew what it meant. I thought that I knew what it meant but, being suspicious by nature, I looked up what it meant in affirmative action legislation. The first definition would suit that affirmative action legislation very well-`the quality of deserving well'. What feminist and what woman would not think that they were deserving very well of the job for which they were applying? I do not ask that we do more than define merit, as was indicated in this chamber by the Government-and it really is the best person for the job. That is all that I required, but the Minister would not abide by the definition. She would not accept a definition in the interpretation section, although she went to great lengths to make other definitions. This piece of legislation even defines the word `woman'. I would have thought that everyone in this chamber would know what a woman was, but the Bill goes to great lengths to define the word as `the female sex irrespective of age'. I would have thought that, provided one said `woman', you, Mr Acting Deputy President, would have understood what was meant. You might not know the meaning of merit after looking at the Concise Oxford Dictionary because it contains so many definitions, but you would certainly know the meaning of woman. The Government has bothered to define woman, but refuses to define merit. I wonder why? It is because to define merit would really put back its legislation and make it far narrower than the Government ever intended it to be. I shall read that section again. It states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. That means the quality of deserving well, because that is the first interpretation of merit in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. I am a very strong believer in equality; I would not be here if I were not. But the Government does not have the vaguest idea of what true equality means. During my speech on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill, I said: True equality, put simply, gives every woman the right to choose the type of life she wishes to live. She may choose the traditional role of wife and mother, she may choose to follow a wonderful career, she may choose the combination of a traditional role and a career or she may choose the traditional role and just another job, either full time or part time, to earn the extra money that she believes would be of great help to her family. She may choose to do some part time work just because she likes to accomplish something but wants to fit in with her family arrangements. Of course, the emphasis is on choice. This Government has no idea of what true equality is. It believes that every woman should be in the work force. It does not believe that a dependent spouse's rebate is acceptable. Many times in this chamber the Labor feminists, the Labor sisterhood, have said that that is degrading. That is really the basis of the difference between our parties. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.29) —I rise to support this legislation, the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. It is the third of three pieces of legislation that address employment equity for people in Australia. Those three pieces of legislation, which go together, are the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, the Public Service Act 1922-especially the amendments introduced in 1984, and in particular section 22 (d)-and now this Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. The Bill will apply, as a number of honourable senators have said, to a wide range of Commonwealth statutory authorities, including major Government business enterprises such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Primary industry statutory marketing authorities which are not covered by this Bill will have their establishing legislation amended in the near future to provide for the development of equal employment opportunity programs in that sector in separate, appropriate legislation. We have had to listen to a very curious series of arguments put by Senator Walters and by other honourable senators opposite-in particular, Senator Chaney-to justify why they will oppose this legislation going to equal employment opportunity when they supported the prior legislation. Senator Walters was at pains to suggest that it is the Labor Government which wishes to say that there are minimal differences, differences of no significant substance. I refer her to the House of Representatives Hansard of 26 March 1987 where precisely that argument is spelt out very succinctly by Mr Steele Hall. I will take us through those points and quote Mr Hall, because it needs to be said that it is not only the Labor Government that appreciates minimal distinctions in these pieces of legislation. Senator Walters's arguments are grossly misrepresentative. In particular, her claim that it is this side of the chamber that wants to draw those distinctions is factually wrong. Members of her own Party want to agree that there is little or no difference between the legislation-a fact that ought to be included in Senator Walters's litany of facts. Most importantly, what we are looking at here is a very deep division in the Opposition. We have no doubt that the Nationals are at least consistent. They have opposed this legislation with the most remarkable series of arguments this time around as they did the first time. I suppose one could say that it is amusing to read the Hansards of the Nationals' arguments except that they are tragic in that they represent a very significant failure to understand the aspirations of people in this country. They also perpetuate the prejudices which continue to deny people their legitimate aspirations. But one thing can be said on behalf of the Nationals: At least they are consistent. The Liberal Opposition, however, has gone to very tedious and technical words in the legislation to try to justify a difference this time around from the time before. The Liberals are trying to mask a deep division within their own ranks about this legislation-their support for it last time, their failure to support it this time, that is officially. We already know from the debate in the other place that Mr Hall crossed the floor and voted with the Government, and we are given to understand that some Liberal senators will cross the floor to support this legislation this time around. The point that I wish to make is that the Liberals are divided. It is not me whom Senator Walters needs to convince, it is her own colleagues. That is the difficulty she is confronting. The arguments that she has given and the arguments that Senator Chaney gave when he opened this debate here today are not about convincing us. They are about trying to convince their own colleagues and, most importantly, to convince themselves. They are totally indefensible arguments. I will take them one by one. As I have said, I will largely draw on the House of Representatives Hansard, using Mr Steele Hall's speech because it endorses the point that it is the Liberals who are divided and that the differences are not as Senator Walters claims. They are not between the Liberals and the Labor Government, they are among the Liberals themselves. The first point that Senator Walters alluded to was the difference in definition under `Interpretation' of the principle of merit. That is almost word for word, exactly the same, in the two pieces of legislation. The Bill of 1986, in sub-clause 3 (4), contains the following definition to merit: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require a relevant employer to take action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. I quote further from the House of Representatives Hansard. Mr Steel Hall said: I looked to see whether the new Bill had the same major safeguard, and I found that it has. Under the heading `Interpretation', also in sub-clause 3 (4), are these words: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that these sub-clauses in both instances are in the `Interpretation' clause. They are not listed at the end of the Bills in some miscellaneous throwaway line; they are in that part of the Bill that would be examined first by the judge of a court who might be asked to decide what the meaning of this legislation is. The first thing such a learned gentleman would do would be to go to the interpretation clause. In both this Bill and last year's Bill there are identically meaning clauses; there is some alteration to words, but with identical meaning and identical importance. The difference merely goes to the requirement on employers under the affirmative action legislation and the absence of those words under the statutory authority legislation. To finish the quotation from the House of Representatives Hansard: So, overriding every consideration in this Bill is the matter that any employment will have to be dealt with on the basis of merit. That, on a sensible and proper analysis of these two pieces of legislation, is an undeniable fact. I find it very mischievous of Senator Walters to suggest that the Minister for Education, and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, did not meet her need for a definition of merit. She spelt it out very precisely in the Senate Hansard on 22 August 1986, page 383. She was sympathetic to Senator Walters's position. She also added an interpretation of merit that is the substance of this legislation and the prior legislation. I find it disappointing and distressing that Senator Walters would misrepresent the facts. The Minister actually answered her point and gave her a definition which is substantial and in passing agreed substantially with the points Senator Walters was making. I do not see why Senator Walters has to continue a program of misrepresentation of this sort. Senator Walters should find some substance and argue that if she will, but she should not argue misrepresentations. In regard to the argument about merit on which Senator Walters spent such a lot of time, I can only say from what I have read from the House of Representatives Hansard quoting Mr Steele Hall that his conclusion is certainly the conclusion of the Government. We have not had Mr Steele Hall to persuade us. We were of that opinion previously. We are appreciative of his position-which is our position-which is that there is no doubt that both these pieces of legislation are based on the principle of merit. That is very important, turning to Senator Walters's next point, which is that there is a difference between `quantitative and' and `quantitative or', a point Senator Chaney elaborated on in his contribution to this debate earlier this afternoon. I will continue quoting Mr Steele Hall from the House of Representatives Hansard. He goes on to pick up this point and to look at whether there is any way one can interpret this legislation to mean quotas. He said: I went to last year's Bill, which we approved of, and looked at that issue of quantitative attitudes in the Bill. I found that sub-clause 8 (1) (g) of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986, under the heading `Contents of Affirmative Action Program', states: (g) To set objectives and make forward estimates in the program; then in sub-clause 8 (3) there is a definition of these forward estimates. It states: `forward estimate' means a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms . . . To go back to Steel Hall: That is a fairly definite definition, if I can use that term, of what forward estimates were to be. In this Bill the reference is made somewhat differently, in these terms- this is Mr Steele Hall now referring to the current legislation- the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. Another sub-clause states: To assess the effectiveness of the program by comparing statistics and information collected and recorded under paragraph (e) with the indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. To go on with a very significant paragraph from Mr Steele Hall, he said: The reference in this Bill to quotas, which is so freely used, is `the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed'. I submit to the House that, whilst the wording is somewhat different, it has no further effect than the words that I read from last year's legislation, where forward estimates were to be a quantitative measure or aim. He goes on to say that he cannot accept that quotas have been set in any further way. Mr Steele Hall argues that there is no substantive difference in that legislation. It is certainly the Government's argument that there is no substantive difference between these two pieces of legislation at about that point. Senator Walters seemed to make milage out of suggesting that there is a difference between affirmative action and equal employment opportunity. I am delighted to discover that Senator Walters has now mastered that difference. That is precisely why the Government did not want to accept the amendment, as originally proposed by Senator Peter Baume, to the affirmative action legislation, as it would restrict those changes under the affirmative action legislation to apply to women only. So as to allow the opportunities for equal employment legislation to apply to the wider group, under so-called designated groups in this legislation of women, Aboriginal people, migrant people and disabled people, the Government preferred not to accept the amendment under affirmative action, restricting it to women, but to put in this piece of legislation-the equal employment opportunity legislation-so as to provide those equal employment opportunities to all those categories, and further to bring it into line with the equal employment opportunity amendments under the Public Service Act. That is particularly relevant because the Commonwealth statutory authorities very closely relate to the Commonwealth Public Service, and it seemed entirely proper to have comparable requirements under these sorts of legislation in both areas of public service and public sector employment. Senator Walters referred to ministerial directives. I do not know quite what was implied, but there was a hint of a threat there that ministerial directives could be evil or bad, although we allow them in all sorts of other areas of legislation applying within the portfolio areas. In this particular case the Minister would have responsibility for what happens within the statutory authorities answering to him or her in the appropriate portfolio area. To take this ministerial directive suggestion and apply it to mean some kind of dictatorial requirement is grossly to misrepresent the intent of the legislation and what I think may well be called `proper ministerial responsibility'. I agree that Mr Steele Hall's arguments are entirely in line with the Government's arguments. There is no difference of any substance between these pieces of legislation that could possibly justify the Liberal Party Opposition, or some splinter sub-set of it, agreeing to support the initial legislation and now not to support this piece of legislation. The important point that I was alluding to earlier was the argument that stemmed from Senator Peter Baume's proposed amendment under the initial affirmative action legislation. As I pointed out, that was unacceptable to the Government at the time because it was then to restrict the application of equal employment opportunity to workers in Commonwealth statutory authorities to apply to women only. The Minister did not wish to so restrict the equal employment opportunity legislation. Further I think it highlights another significant point that I wanted to pick up in rebuttal of some of the comments that Senator Chaney made. He seemed to argue a number of points that I guess would best be described as broadly philosophical. He spent some time talking about his moral outrage and some of the things that he can be rightly morally outraged about, in particular about youth unemployment in this country and attacks on the family. I would ask Senator Chaney: How does he see this legislation as an attack on the family when it provides employment opportunities and employment equity for young, middle aged and older workers in this country? The way he went on to talk about it suggested that the equal employment opportunity legislation was restricted to women only. In particular he quoted from Betty Friedan and others, to suggest that quite clearly the focus of this legislation was about women. It seems to me that Senator Chaney has quite missed the point of equal employment opportunity, going as it does to a much wider group of people who would be advantaged with employment equity under this legislation. Senator Chaney was outraged about racial discrimination and the difficulties confronting Aboriginal people. This legislation precisely addresses some of those difficulties. It seems to me curious that Senator Chaney could be outraged about racial discrimination and fail to see that this legislation goes to providing employment opportunities for Aboriginal men and women and their children. As far as I can remember, from what I heard, he was not equally outraged about the difficulties facing ethnic people in this community, but he could have been. That would have been reasonable because a number of those people have certainly suffered discrimination in times past. This legislation addresses the outrage that people might have felt about the racial discrimination of people from other countries who have come to live in Australia, precisely because equal employment opportunity addresses the needs, rights and the employment equity of ethnic men, women and children in this community. This legislation is not restricted to women. I would ask too whether Senator Chaney feels that somehow this is an attack on the family. I am not quite sure how it got in there but I can remember that it was in there. Is it that he could follow the argument that if women go to work this is somehow an attack on the family? He picks up on Senator Walters's line that somehow we are legislating everybody to require them to be in the work force. I ask Senator Chaney: Why is it then an attack on the family to employ women but not to employ men? Is it only sub-sets of this legislation that outrage him, only those bits that give employment equity to women, or was he unaware that this legislation actually covered men, women and children-young people-who would have employment equity under this legislation? By all means, he can maintain his rage, but he must understand that the legislation may in fact address some of the things that he wants to rage about. In providing employment opportunities and employment equity for young people, for men and women, for Aboriginal people, for ethnic people and for disabled people, under this legislation this Government is addressing precisely the sorts of difficulties, the attacks on the family that poverty and lack of opportunity for employment creates. I really do not follow the tenor of Senator Chaney's argument at all, and I think he somehow mistook this legislation to be restricted to women only. He went on further to say that he wanted to support a claim made by Mr Steele Hall-and selective quoting it was from Mr Steel Hall's speech, if I may say so-that somehow the Opposition would prefer a voluntary program, education rather than legislation, and in particular in the area in which this Government could be accused of using legislation to try to change attitudes. The difficulty I have with that is the suggestion that Senator Chaney had that this Government is using legislation only to change attitudes. Was he not around during the debates about sex discrimination? Would he say that that is a piece of legislation to change attitudes? Can he not see that the Government proposes to attack changes of attitude in a number of ways, but ultimately recognises that it really cannot legislate to change attitudes; it can legislate only to change behaviour and make certain behaviours illegal and as a consequence of that I hope will come the changes of attitude. As well the Government can lead by example in the thrust of its legislation, in-to quote Mr Steele Hall-the symbolic effect, I suppose, of the legislation, that goes to indicating what the Government says are the right and proper preferred ways. This Government is strongly in support of equity in employment for all those groups that we have referred to. It addresses attitudinal changes by example through the legislation, but that is not all that it is restricted to. It is necessary in dealing with complexities such as changing attitudes in a community to take a variety of paths to get there. Again, I do not follow the thrust of Senator Chaney's argument that really it would be better not to legislate at all than somehow to use legislation to change attitudes, particularly as he seems to be arguing that it would be a good idea to change those attitudes. I do not think he can have it both ways. Other people would disagree with him about the importance of legislation to change attitudes. I quote from the Catholic Church Southern Cross newspaper in South Australia of 1 October 1983: The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace strongly supported the Government's initiative in preparing legislation to eliminate discrimination against women. The Church appreciated that that goes to a very significant attitudinal change that the Catholic Commission for Peace and Justice wanted to endorse. Another quotation that I think is important in defending the value of legislation to contribute to changing the attitudes in society is from the Age in its editorial of 13 July that year which stated: At the philosophical level, there were those who wondered whether human values should be expressed in legislation, or whether the cause of anti-discrimination would be better served by strong educative campaigns. While there is some appeal in this idea, the fact remains that not every member of the community is fair-minded. Some, in fact, are brutishly intolerant. In such cases there is a real, as well as symbolic, value in having the country's chosen values spelt out in legislation. Like a Bill of Rights it establishes a code of conduct to which the community is expected to adhere. The article went on: . . . Sexual Discrimination Act is no guarantee that in every case women's rights would be respected and equality recognised . . . Nevertheless, the Government's Bill does set an ideal against which the achievements of women can be measured, as well as a mechanism for bringing complaints and resolving disputes. On those grounds it is a marked advance. I think we could replace `sexual discrimination' with `equal employment opportunity' in that quotation and still achieve exactly the same sane argument. Not everybody in this community is fair-minded. Not everybody will change under a voluntary program or an educational exhortation to behave differently. If that were the case, if we could expect those changes, we would have a more equal world, particularly in terms of opportunities in employment for the categories of people covered under this legislation. It is precisely because the absence of legislation, if you like the requirement of only voluntary change to this point, has not affected those changes that the Government sees fit and sees necessary to introduce the legislation. I would also like to take up further a point of difference in the Opposition that goes to the points that I think Senator Walters was talking about-the support in the Liberal Party for equal opportunity for women. It is not only amongst the Liberal members in the Federal Parliament that there is deep division; there is deep division within the Liberal women to the point where some women members of the Liberal Party have felt it their business to resign from the Party in opposition to the Liberal Party's failure to act on behalf of women. Curiously, failure even to support government initiatives-it is not as though Opposition members had even opposed their own legislation-has led to annoyance, disappointment and anger among some Liberal women. I quote Judith Roberts, the former South Australian Chairman of the Liberal Party, who was reported in the Advertiser of 6 October 1983 as saying: The attitude of the parliamentary wing of the Liberal Party to this proposed legislation- in that case talking about sex discrimination, but subsequent events mean that those attitudes apply just as much to equal opportunity- demonstrates a lack of conviction about equality . . . for women . . . She went on to say: This is a fundamental issue of human rights and must be supported if the Liberal Party is to have any credibility at all. It is almost tragic that there is not a united stance by the Opposition and the Government on this issue. There have been some differences in terms of amendments in the previous legislation, but there was clearly at that point a consensus of value of support from the Opposition and the Government on this very significant reform on behalf of all those covered under equal employment opportunity. The word tragic is perhaps too strong-but I think probably not. Certainly it seems that it has caused deep anguish for some honourable senators opposite, those who feel very stongly about supporting this legislation but finding themselves divided from their colleagues who seem to think that somehow equality for women drops out of the sky and that equality is set back even further by legislation of this sort. While I might buy that argument if this were the first time this legislation had been before this chamber, I cannot buy it when the prior legislation, which to all intents and purposes was of the same sort, was supported by the Opposition. The problem that the Government faces in introducing this legislation creates no difficulty on this side; it is part of a commitment to provide opportunities for women, for poorer people and for disadvantaged people in our society, in, I suggest, one of the very best ways-by providing employment equity and opportunity for people to exercise their choice within this community and participate more fully. The legislation is entirely consistent with initiatives by this Government in other areas. In particular I suppose I could refer to the proposals brought forward in legislation in the area of the Department of Community Services by the recently retired Minister, Senator Grimes, and the current Minister for Community Services, Mr Hurford. They relate to the provisions for disabled people to take their place as members of this community and to be assisted in all sorts of ways to become as fully as possible citizens. One addition to that is the opportunity they have for employment and the access to equity within employment. Senator Walters talked about the importance of equality being reflected in choice. This is entirely so, but there is a confusion about at what stage that choice goes to equality of opportunity. I will use my last minute in this debate to quote-in fact, it is quite interesting to be able to quote so often the right thinking of the Opposition-Senator Peter Baume when he spoke on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill in the Senate on 12 June 1986. He said that we were not discussing whether women make choices to go into the work force or to stay at home. The Opposition in that debate endorsed the values that the Government holds about the importance of that work. Senator Peter Baume said that the legislation was about a decision that each woman would make for herself. He said that we were discussing whether women, having made the decision to go into the work force and to take up paid employment, will find equal employment opportunity and a fair go once they get there. Senator Walters is confusing the issue when she says that this legislation opposes choice for women. It extends choice for women. It extends choice for Aboriginal men and women, for migrant people and their children, and for disabled people. I strongly endorse this legislation and urge the Senate's support. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(8.59) —I will start my contribution to this evening's debate by stating exactly what I stated on 20 August last year when debating the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. I, as both a woman and a Liberal, am totally committed to equal employment opportunity, but I am not committed to any form of discrimination against anyone in employment. I thought that it was rather interesting tonight to note, from the typical diatribe we hear so often from Senator Crowley, that she has not been able to prepare her own speech. She had to rely on a speech that was written by someone else from the other House. One of the key elements of the waffle she contributed this evening was that she continually stated how dreadful it was that some members of the Opposition may have the audacity to cross the floor and vote for the Bill. So what! She does not even have the courage to stay in the chamber and listen. That is one of the benefits of being a member of the Liberal Party: We have freedom of choice. Look at what happened to Senator Georges with the Australia Card Bill and also last year's Bill involving the late Lionel Murphy. Senator Georges is not now a member of the Australian Labor Party. He did not have the choice of crossing the floor and voting the way in which his conscience told him. He had to vote the way in which his Party told him. Look at Tasmanian senators with the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill earlier this month. They did not have the courage of their convictions either. They could not cross the floor, because they did not want to be expelled. We at least have the ability to vote the way in which our consciences tell us. I do not think that we should be criticised or penalised for an ability that the Labor Party cannot extend to its senators or members. Last year the Senate debated and passed the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill, which sought to provide equal employment opportunity. At that stage I was very concerned, and I expressed that concern, about the legislation being the thin end of the wedge making sure that we have equality of outcomes in preference to equality of opportunity. Today we are debating an equal employment opportunity Bill that has far more to do with affirmative action than did the Bill we saw last year. We have only to look at the reaction of groups such as the Women's Electoral Lobby last year which were absolutely furious that the Government had abrogated what they called its responsibility to trendy groups, such as WEL, to provide quotas-that it was going only to forward estimates and quantitative or other measures, not firm quotas. It seems to be a bit of a habit of the ALP these days to avoid calling things by their correct names. In Western Australia, the State ALP Government passed an equal opportunity Act that is, in fact, a copy of the Federal Sex Discrimination Act. It is no wonder the public becomes confused. As a Liberal who believes in genuine equality of opportunity and in giving Australian women the right to compete with men and with each other on equal terms, I supported last year's legislation, although, I might say, with grave reservations. If anyone wished to read my speech last year they would find those grave reservations contained there and the reference I made earlier to it being the thin end of the wedge. I expressed concern that, notwithstanding a declaration of belief in the merit principle, the same principle could be eroded by any stress on numerical indicators. This legislation this year goes one step further in that regard, and that is the main reason I cannot support it. It is a step towards what we have come to understand as affirmative action. We have seen it in operation in the United States of America. It has been a disaster in the United States. As with many other issues, this Government will not learn from any other country; it will not take heed of the disasters of any other country. No, we must experience it for ourselves and go down the gurgler in the same way as they have. The United States had legislation that involved numerical quotas and that achieved reverse discrimination. I do not want to see that for Australia. Senator Tate —Neither do I. Senator KNOWLES —Then it is a shame that Senator Tate and his Government have put together a Bill that will create reverse discrimination. It is a pity if Senator Tate is the only person on the Government side who does not want to see that happen. I hope that he will vote against the Bill. However, I know that he will not do so, because he cannot; he does not want to be expelled. If it were the intention of this socialist Government simply to extend last year's legislation to Commonwealth authorities, we would expect the same wording to be used in defining equal employment opportunity. However, that is not so; the wording has been changed. Section 8 (g) of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 instructed employers `to set objectives and make forward estimates' in their equal opportunity programs. The equivalent clause in the Bill before us-6 (g)-is significantly different. The relevant authority is to set `quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed'. This makes it clear that numerical targets are envisaged. How else can we explain a quantitative indicator? As my colleague Senator Walters has already said this evening, the vast difference between this year's Bill and last year's Bill is that last year there was an option; this year there is no option. This year it is not `quantitative or other measures'; it is `quantitative and other measures'. I will return to that later. Clause 8 (3) of last year's Bill explained that a forward estimate was a quantitative measure that `may be expressed in numerical terms'. This is far less specific than an instruction to set quantitative indicators that are to be the gauge of the effectiveness of the program. It is this further step that, in my judgment, makes a mockery of clause 3 (4), which disclaims the intention to require any violation of the merit principle in employment matters. A little while ago we heard Senator Crowley rabbit on about this clause. It says: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. The words are `should be dealt with on the basis of merit'-not `must be dealt with on the basis of merit'. What a whole lot of rubbish! Once we are in the business of numerical indicators, there will be great and constant pressure to achieve them by bending the merit principle. I will not bend that merit principle for anybody. The bending of the merit principle can lead us very clearly down the path of promoting unqualified people. Proponents of affirmative action in this socialist Government would argue that, if this is avoided, the merit principle has remained. That is absurd. Rather, it is to be feared that a person's sex, colour, race, relationship to another person, disability or whatever-the whole raft of explanations in the Bill-will become the determining factor if he has the formal qualifications for a position when, in fact, he may not be the best applicant. Successful business women around Australia-they need not be the managing directors of corporations, partners in legal or accounting firms and so on, but purely and simply successful women-are absolutely staggered at this Bill because they do not want their jobs if they are to get them only on the basis of their sex. They want jobs and promotion because they are capable of both, not in terms of equality of outcomes. It is my firm belief as a Liberal that once an employer is prevented from selecting the best applicant, regardless of sex or race, we have sold out on that vital merit principle. I repeat: If it were the intention of this Government only to remedy the anomaly that Commonwealth authorities were excluded from last year's Bill, we would expect to see the same wording in regard to equal opportunity programs. The only reason for significant differences in wording is the intention to move towards hard affirmative action by gradual and deliberate steps. One must hand it to this Government; this move has been consistent over the succession of Bills that we have had since 1984. Section 22b of the Public Service Reform Act 1984 states that the program must include the quantitative or other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. That is a very broad definition by anyone's language. It has a bit of a legislative leaning as well as a degree of regulation. The 1986 legislation went one stage further with a more precise definition. It had a little heavier legislative leaning and still more regulation. Section 8 (3) contained the words `a quantitative measure or aim'-expressed as a general principle-and the words `or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms'. It is all `ors' and a `maybe', but we can quite clearly see that the wedge is getting thicker and the door is opening a bit wider. Then we arrive at this year's Bill, the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987, where we find a very precise definition, very actual legislative enforcement and a far greater degree of regulation. Clause 6 (g) and 6 (g) (ii) make the intention of this Bill crystal clear to anybody. It states: . . . the program . . . shall provide for action to be taken: (g) to set: (ii) the quantitative and- not or- other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. If honourable senators are still in doubt, clause 6 (h) (ii) states: to assess the effectiveness of the program by comparing statistics . . . Then we go one stage further and, naturally enough, we get to a position where, if the Minister does not like what the statutory authority has done, he can change it. Clause 12 states: The responsible Minister . . . may . . . give general directions to the authority with respect to the . . . Act. It also states that the Minister can change the corporate plan and so on. Let us face it; we have different criteria. It is not just women; it is a far broader section. We have de facto quotas and we also have ministerial intervention. Some people believe these two Bills to be the same. What an absolute circus! The second major difference in this legislation is the fact that it does not refer to equal opportunity merely for women but for `persons in designated groups'. Such a group can be designated by simple regulation and the Government may disclaim any intention to extend the benefits of this legislation to weird and wonderful sub-groups within the community, but this Senate should realise that they will be given the power to designate whomsoever they choose through this Bill. The people of Australia do want to see a fair go in employment for women and they are opposed to discrimination against racial minorities. It was proven in a Morgan gallup poll published in the Bulletin on 28 April that Australians do believe that women get a fair go in employment. When asked the question about job opportunities for women, `Do you feel that women in Australia have equal opportunities with men or not?', 56 per cent agreed opportunities were equal. Yet this Government keeps on telling us: `No, that is not so. The majority of Australians believe that women do not get a fair go, so we have to make sure that not only women but also everybody else have equality outcomes. We have to even up the numbers'. I keep on coming back to the point that there are an awful number of women who do not want the numbers evened up for the sake of evening them up. They want to make sure that they get out there, they get trained and they have equal opportunity and promotion if they wish and not because they have to. The people of Australia do not, however, see why various racial and other minority groups should be given some kind of special consideration and why the merit principle should be bent on their behalf. Australians have to decide whether they want to have Commonwealth authorities staffed on a basis of efficiency, fairness and merit, or whether they want them to be some kind of exact mirror of the community in their staffing, to the exclusion of better qualified applicants. If this Labor Government is taking the latter path, it should be prepared to admit that there will be an ultimate cost in efficiency as well as equity. The question I would like the Minister to answer-I will probably ask this in the Committee stage-is what jobs there are in statutory authorities for those, unfortunate as they are, who are mentally handicapped. I am not down on any of the handicapped people-in fact, I have done a lot of work with handicapped people-but this Bill includes the mentally and physically handicapped. What jobs is the Government going to give those people? I am concerned that in this Bill `discrimination' is extended in the interpretation clause to include the mentally as well as the physically disabled. No matter how anxious we may be to enable mentally handicapped people to integrate in the community, the fact remains that it is difficult for people with mental impairment-far more so than for those with a physical disability-to fulfil a job in real terms. I believe, as many of them do, that it is unfair to the mentally disabled to be saying that they must have equal numbers, along with all the other groups. Let us get them good jobs and proper jobs that they can fulfil. There are plenty of jobs that both the mentally and the physically disabled can do very well-we all know that-but to be putting a little piece of tokenism into a Bill such as this I think is absurd and nasty towards those in those categories. Avoidance of discrimination on these grounds may be a pleasant sentiment, but it runs the risk of making a total mockery of the merit principle. Where there is a fundamental divergence between those of us in the Liberal Party who oppose affirmative action, and those in the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats who support this Bill because it is a step towards affirmative action, is in the fact that we believe that the most important form of justice is individual justice as opposed to group justice. Individual rights must prevail over any theories of collective entitlements. The great mistake made by those who would push us further along the road to hard affirmative action is their belief that disparities in incomes and or employment status between the sexes, between racial groups or in any other line of division occur because of discrimination in our society. Of course discrimination can occur, but so, too, it is often the case that women, for example, are underrepresented in high paid and also high pressure jobs because large numbers have made the choice that they prefer to have lower paid jobs in return for shorter hours or to spend more time at home with their families. Those women should not have Bills such as this trying to push them into positions that they do not necessarily want because we have a government that simply wants to even up the numbers, nor should it be considered racist or sexist to suggest that different aptitudes can result in different employment patterns. The other great error made by the social engineers of affirmative action is the assumption that these supposed injustices can all be set right by political activity and government intervention to which employers in the private and public sector must conform. A quarter of a century ago in the United States of America, a very proper attempt was made to eliminate discrimination against American blacks. The 1954 Supreme Court decision that struck down legally enforced segregation in education was applauded by the full spectrum of political opinion, from the Left right across to thoughtful conservatives. However, we did not have to look too far because later on President Johnson, seeking to buy popularity from the radical wing of the Democratic Party who were disaffected by his Vietnam policies, instituted the Office of Federal Contract Compliance that in practice redefined `affirmative action' in terms of racial favouritism, compelling employers towards set numbers for minorities, and women. Employers were subject to effective blackmail by threatening the loss of government contracts that affect so many firms in both the United States and Australia. They were also threatened with legal action sponsored by the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau that had redefined discrimination to include racial imbalance, going far beyond injustice to individuals. I think honourable senators should be aware that quotas in the United States came into effect not because of, but despite, democratic legislation. Enforcement was in the hands of bureaucrats bypassing legislatures, so that by the 1970s the fear of being labelled racist by opposing quotas, and the massive cost of equal opportunity litigation, ensured that 86 per cent of large firms had equal opportunity programs with quotas as a safe option. Once again, this Government has not learnt one jot from the American experience or in fact the Canadian experience. It will not learn, it will not listen and it will not change its mind. Blacks and women in the United States will carry the stigma of not achieving promotion strictly on their own merits-that is where they have got to today. They are now experiencing reverse discrimination. They have said: `Enough is enough. We want the merit principle back, and unequivocally so. We do not want equality of outcomes'. There are other aspects of this Bill which render it unacceptable in its present form. The definition of employee in clause 3 (1) includes those employed as subcontractors, and thus a threatened but essential class of small independent operators are brought within the social engineering net of this socialist government. This at the same time brings them into the closer ambit of any militant unions intent in forcing subcontractors to join them. The question should also be asked as to why the Bill will apply to relevant authorities with as few as 40 employees, whereas the legislation of last year did not apply to businesses of fewer then 100 employees. That is another dramatic difference between the two Bills in two years. But no, this Government will continue to tell us until right at the end of this debate that the two Bills are the same and it will ask why we are not supporting them. We can question the sheer practicability of applying a nine point program to a smaller number, and some interesting fractions may appear among the quantitative indicators. As a Liberal I strongly support the need to amend this Bill in order to give effect to the declared intention of this socialist Government. Senator Button stated on 9 January this year, going back a while-and they tend to change their minds every hour-that the Business Regulation Review Unit should examine any new regulations affecting business, and that the relevant departments should supply regulation impact statements. That is what Senator Button said on 9 January. However, only a couple of days ago in answer to a question in this place he said that the Business Regulation Review Unit had already looked at this; yet in the other place the Minister said that the Business Regulation Review Unit had not looked at it. So who do you believe? You do not know who to believe. Presumably the Business Regulation Review Unit has not looked at this. It was good enough in January for it to look at it but it is not good enough now. These conditions have not been fulfilled in respect of this Bill, and I would well consider that it should not proceed until such an evaluation has occurred. When for years this Government has been telling us that its statutory authorities are run on business lines, when they are supposed to operate as businesses in the market place, what excuse can there be for deciding after all that they are not businesses requiring a regulation impact statement? This Bill, with its firm step towards quotas, will not improve the overall prospects of women or of unspecified, favoured minorities in Australia. It will create injustice in the future for applicants who fall outside these definitions. It will deny women, and others, free and fair competition based on their merit and suitability. It is rather ironic, I suppose, that those in our community who demand that jobs be available on the basis of group entitlement rather than individual worth should talk about choice when this will be increasingly taken away from Australian employers, in private business and in statutory authorities. This Bill is a gradual but firm departure from last year's legislation, and would be a major move, as was last year's Bill, towards the repeat of the United States experience in Australia. It should simply not be passed in this form. Of course, we still have socialist senators saying even in this place that the Liberal Party could not care less about women, so I will cover some of those aspects now. Senator Powell —Absolutely. Senator KNOWLES —Now we have an interjection from a member of the Australian Democrats, which do not have a policy about anything. All the Democrats can talk about lately is the Liberal Party. I do not know whether they want to join us, but I hope they do not because we would not have them. Senator Walters —But they do send delegates to see Gaddafi. Senator KNOWLES —That is exactly right. The Democrats do have a policy on terrorism. That is the important aspect. That is a very good point that Senator Walters has made; I am glad that she raised that issue. Yes, the Democrats do send delegates to have a chat with Gaddafi. However, I come back to what the Liberal Party has done for women. Let us take the parliamentary scene and the political scene as one. When the Liberal Party was brought together in 1944-45, women had been guaranteed parallel status with balancing male and female representation from executive down to branch level. They have all got their parliamentary seats because of merit, unlike the Labor Party which must have a certain number of women on its ticket and a certain number of women on its executives-all by direction. In Tasmania the Liberal Party has a Senate ticket headed by two women-Senator Walters and Senator Newman. That is not by regulation of the Liberal Party. There has been guaranteed representation for women at all levels in the Liberal Party. In Western Australia there was no formal requirement to have a female Liberal vice-president, yet there has always been one. At the federal level, the Liberal Party has a female vice-president together with the input of the Federal Women's Council. Until the current decade women members of the House of Representatives on either side were a rarity. Yet the first female member was a Liberal-Dame Enid Lyons in 1943. Between 1966 and 1969 Kay Brownbill was a Liberal member of the House of Representatives for South Australia. The first female Minister was Dame Enid Lyons, a Liberal. The first Minister with full departmental responsibility was Dame Annabelle Rankin. The first Cabinet Minister was Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. All these women were Liberals. At least they achieved their positions on their own and without reserved positions. In Western Australia we can boast the first Australian woman member of parliament of all Australian parliaments. In 1974 the Liberal Party also endorsed successful women candidates for rural seats: One of them is now the Opposition Whip while the other progressed to be a Minister from 1977 to 1983. So anyone who says that the Liberal Party has not looked after women does not know his facts. It was the Liberal Party which introduced the family allowance in 1976 with recognition of the needs of the family giving greater discretion to mothers. Abolition of death duties occurred under the Fraser Government which, once again, looked after families and women. Our commitment to permanent part time work contrasts with the very slow moves made by the ALP in any area where there is a great demand from women because of the flexibility it brings. So no one can ever criticise the Liberal Party for not looking after women, because our record is clear. This Bill needs to be opposed on the basis that my colleagues and I have mentioned. It is not equality of opportunity, it is equality of outcomes. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(9.29) —Obviously Senator Knowles is somewhat sensitive about the criticism that has erupted in the community ever since the Opposition chose to back away from its commitment to Australian women in regard to this legislation. It is obvious from the last five minutes of Senator Knowles's speech that she feels extremely vulnerable about the future support that she and other Liberals in this chamber, who have abandoned their commitment and their Liberal policies, will receive to women's equality of opportunity. I suppose that it is very much because of the very fine record that she outlined that it is particularly sad that the Opposition has chosen to adopt the very opportunistic policy that it has. Australian women and the other designated groups that will benefit from this legislation will be listening very closely to this debate on the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 because the attitudes of the political parties to women's issues have been brought very closely into the spotlight by the backdown of the Opposition on this most important piece of legislation. It is not often, I am afraid, that women's issues are the focus of attention in political debate. But over the last few weeks the backdown of the Opposition on this piece of legislation has brought into focus women's policies and the differences between the political parties. This afternoon Senator Chaney made a valiant attempt to rationalise the purely opportunistic decision of his leader, John Howard, who put saving the coalition ahead of the Liberal Party's long-standing policy on the status of women. Senator Knowles outlined it. I commend the Liberal Party for what it has been prepared to do in the past in regard to women's policy. Probably because of the influence of the New Right and the National Party, the Liberal Party was prepared to abandon that very strong record and abandon Australian women solely for perceived short term benefits which, of course, are now no longer relevant. In other words, the interests of Australian women have been sacrificed to placate the reactionaries in the National Party. Now that the coalition has been ditched, the poor old Liberal Party has been left high and dry and there is absolute revolt within its ranks amongst the women members, who cannot understand what is going on. A recent newspaper article stated: The Liberal Party decision to oppose the Federal Government's latest anti-discrimination legislation has been criticised by one of the party's top women. Ms Trish Worth, the party's federal women's committee chairman, has written to Liberal MPs expressing ``deep disappointment'' at the decision to vote against it. The decision to oppose the new law, which promotes positive discrimination in Government authorities, led to the resignation of an Opposition frontbencher, Senator Baume. Ms Worth's letter, which should be received by members of parliament as they return to Canberra today, comes as several Liberal senators are likely to revolt against the party room decision and vote with the Government. I will not embarrass those Liberal Party members who are thinking along those lines. We will see how prepared they are to put their commitment ahead of the opportunism of their Party. It is very sad that the Liberals have lost a most effective spokesman on the status of women in Senator Peter Baume. He could not compromise his principled commitment to his understanding of his Party's policy so he resigned from his shadow portfolio. All the rationalisation of Senator Chaney and all the efforts of Senator Knowles and others cannot take away from that reality that the Opposition spokesperson on the status of women could not live with the Liberal Party's decision. This action, of course, has been admired by many thousands of women. Whilst it has undoubtedly created tremendous support and respect for Senator Peter Baume, it has cost the Liberal Party thousands of votes. Senator Peter Baume's vote might go up by several thousand but that will not help his colleagues in the House of Representatives. Australian women see that they have been abandoned by the Liberal Party. It is all so sad now because there was no point in it. If only John Howard could say: `We made a mistake. We will support it now that we don't have to toe the line and do what the National Party wants us to do'. I welcome this piece of legislation because it offers more equitable employment opportunities for Australian women, Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders, migrants and the disabled. I take issue with Senator Knowles's statement that mentally handicapped people cannot be employed by Commonwealth statutory authorities. I do not know how much contact Senator Knowles has with the mentally handicapped but, having been a teacher of mentally handicapped people for a number of years, I can assure her that she is wrong. If Commonwealth statutory authorities are not prepared to employ mentally handicapped people there is something radically wrong with the statutory authorities. Many people, as everybody would be aware, do have specific handicaps but that does not mean that, with the right employment opportunity, they cannot succeed and contribute to society in exactly the same way as any other person. The Hawke Government, of course, will go down in history as the most reformist government to respond to the aspirations of Australian women. Whether people such as Senator Knowles like it or not, that is recognised in a wide cross-section of the community. There are people who fondly imagine that Queensland is a most conservative place and would not expect some of the praise for the Hawke Government and its policies in regard to women to come from country areas. During the National Agenda consultations last year in Queensland I conducted approximately 36 meetings and in only one country centre was opposition expressed. So one cannot tell me that the Hawke Government is not recognised and supported by Australian women. That support and that recognition is well deserved because this Government has developed a unique infrastructure to consult, plan and develop policies to give recognition to the role of women in modern Australia. When we introduced our sex discrimination legislation there was an organised campaign against that legislation. That is always the difficulty of being part of a reformist government; there are so many troglodytes in the community that are not prepared to contemplate any form of change. When the sex discrimination legislation was proposed and debated a great many people suggested that it was going to be the end of the Australian way of life as we knew it: Women were going to be marched off into the work force, children were going to be marched down the streets into child care. We have had sex discrimination legislation for three years and everybody has accepted that it has made positive changes in Australian society. So too will they accept our equal employment opportunity legislation. This Bill is the third piece of legislation to give effect to the Government's commitment to equal employment opportunity. In 1984 the Government amended the Public Service Act 1922 to require Commonwealth Government departments and prescribed authorities to develop equal employment opportunity programs. Departments and authorities submitted their first programs to the Public Service Board during 1985-86. It is too soon to provide an overall assessment of the impact of these programs but it is apparent, however, that the development of equal employment opportunity plans has significantly strengthened the application of the merit principle in staffing and in justice in personnel practices. The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act of 1986 was proclaimed on 1 October 1986. This Act requires all higher education institutions and companies employing 100 or more staff to develop affirmative action programs and report on their progress to government. The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 builds on these two initiatives of the Hawke Labor Government. The Bill covers Commonwealth statutory authorities employing 40 or more employees which are not already covered by section 22b of the Public Service Act or section 3 of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act. The Bill does not cover the Australian Dairy Corporation, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Australian Wheat Board and the Australian Wool Corporation. These authorities will have their establishing legislation amended in the near future to provide for the development of equal employment opportunity programs. Without any particular reference to those corporations, statutory authorities, Federal government departments or tertiary institutions, I would just like to say that before preparing this speech tonight I sat down and recalled some of the women-Torres Strait Islanders, Aborigines and disabled people-who have come to my office over the last four years to complain about sex discrimination, race discrimination or discrimination on the grounds of their particular disability. They were absolutely convinced that they had not been getting equality of opportunity in the employment area. I am not going to name the particular authorities or government departments concerned, because we now know that legislation has either been implemented or will be passed tonight, but honourable senators cannot tell me that the legislation we are dealing with or the previous two pieces of legislation are not necessary. At least once a week people have told me of precisely the circumstances that indicate they are not getting a fair go, that many of the myths and prejudices still abound out there in Australian society. Of course, I suppose I am unlucky in that I am likely to see more such people in Queensland. Of course, to be honest, many of the complaints relate to Queensland Government departments. Designated authorities will be required to commence the development of equal opportunity programs on 1 July 1987 unless some other date is prescribed. Statutory authorities which subsequently come within the operation of the Bill will be required to develop equal employment opportunity programs from the date that this occurs. The Bill sets out minimum requirements for equal employment opportunity programs to be developed and implemented by the authorities concerned. Programs will be developed in consultation with employees, particularly women and members of the designated groups, and with relevant trade unions. A fundamental feature of the equal employment opportunity program is a review of policies and practices to identify any measure which discriminates against women and members of the designated groups. The review will be wide ranging and cover selection procedures, promotion and transfer of employees, training and staff development and conditions of service. I recall a recent complaint that came to me concerning a woman photographer in a particular area which I will not mention. This photographer was highly valued in her field but was not allowed to go to New Zealand because she was a woman. There were no provisions for a woman to go on this particular exercise. In saying that, I have almost identified the area, but it was impossible for her to be accepted in that particular line of work. Authorities will be required to set program objectives and quantitative indicators of effectiveness and to monitor and evaluate the success of their programs. The portfolio Minister or the Public Service Board, as the case may be, may also require the authority concerned to make special reports. Annual reports and special reports lodged by the authorities with the portfolio Minister will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The Public Service Board will exercise, under this legislation, powers comparable with its powers in regard to equal employment opportunity programs for Commonwealth departments and prescribed authorities under section 22B of the Public Service Act. It may also issue guidelines on the development, implementation and review of programs to authorities that have elected to lodge reports with it. In conclusion, I would just like to make a few comments about the way in which Australia is moving in regard to attitudes to women and the very serious influence that I believe the New Right is having on the development of policies in this area. We have seen in this regard the way in which the Liberal Party of Australia has been forced to abandon its principles. I suppose, again, I would have to comment particularly on the model that we have for the way women could be treated in my own State of Queensland. It is not generally recognised that a number of years ago National Party women tried to come to terms with the question of equal employment opportunity. In July 1981 at the forty-sixth National Party conference a resolution was passed in respect of discrimination against women. So even the National Party has recognised that there is a need for reform in this area. That resolution read as follows: That the Queensland State Government enact or amend legislation that will eliminate all forms of discrimination. In his November 1980 policy speech, the Premier of Queensland indicated that he would direct the Public Service Board to review all Government Acts and regulations to ensure that equal provision for employment, promotion and opportunity applied to men and women. So this principle has been recognised by the National Party, by the Liberal Party and, of course, by my own Party. A very sad thing is occurring in Australia today. Just when women are starting to make some headway in terms of major reforms in all of the mainland States except Queensland-there have been a number of reforms at the Federal level, especially over the last four years-and just as we are starting to make an impact on opportunities for women in Australian society, we find that the New Right marches in and wants to set us back 50 or more years. I think that is something that Australian women will not accept. It is for that reason that I know there is great dissatisfaction within the Liberal Party that it is not prepared to support this legislation. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.48) —The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 will have my support. As a philosophical liberal, I can do nothing else but support the Bill. Liberalism is not and has never been just an economic doctrine. Liberalism cannot be presented as such to an informed electorate. Philosophical liberals believe passionately in equality of opportunity and in removing barriers, wherever they may be, which prevent people from exercising that equality. The greatest achievements of philosophical liberalism have been to remove such barriers. The ending of slavery, the emancipation of Jews and Catholics in Protestant England, public education, reform of the electoral system, the vote for women-these are just some of them. This Bill continues that tradition of extending equal opportunity and liberty. There are 30 Commonwealth authorities, employing 213,847 people not otherwise covered by equal employment legislation, which will come under the provisions of this Bill. To put the need for the legislation into some context, let us consider just two Commonwealth authorities. Of almost 90,000 staff employed permanently by the Australian Telecommunications Commission in 1986, fewer than 18,000 were women. In the Australian Postal Commission, while all typists and all word processing operators were women, there were no women among 53 divisional managers, there were just three women among 105 executives and there were no women among 274 persons classified as storemen. I turn now to the specifics of the legislation. Consideration of this Bill resolves itself easily into several matters that can be taken seriatim. The first concerns the genesis of the Bill. This Bill emerged as a direct consequence of action taken by the Opposition in the Senate in August 1986 and of undertakings given then by the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, during that debate. Honourable senators will recall that the Opposition sought then to extend the cover of equal employment opportunity legislation to women employed by Commonwealth statutory authorities. Not only did we seek the extension of EEO to those quarter of a million or so employees; we moved an amendment to secure it and we pressed that amendment to a division. Despite Opposition support for the amendment, it was defeated by the combined votes of the Government and the Australian Democrats. Senator Ryan declined to accept the amendment but she had this to say in the debate: The other statutory authorities about which Senator Baume and Senator Haines have both expressed concern will be covered by separate legislation. The Bill is being drafted and will be introduced as soon as Government business permits. With this Bill, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, on behalf of Senator Ryan, has responded to our demand that a considerable extra body of women be covered by equal employment legislation. With this Bill, therefore, Senator Ryan has discharged the promise she made last August. Not only did we demand the introduction of this Bill; we also made some other demands that are now embodied in the legislation before us. We sought a title different from the title of the Bill before the Senate in August. We expressed that demand in an amendment. We pressed that amendment to a division. This Bill that we are debating tonight is named the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. That is to say, the Government has now given expression in the title of this Bill to the sentiments of the amendment we proposed in August. Senator Teague —It is a tribute to what you urged. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank Senator Teague. Senator Haines —Senator, it was May. You said August when you meant May. Senator PETER BAUME —The Committee stage of the Bill took place in the Budget session, I believe. I have the Journals of the Senate for 22 August. But that is not all. We also sought a different definition of discrimination for the purpose of the Bill debated in August. We moved an amendment to that effect, too, and we pressed that amendment to a vote. This Bill contains a definition of discrimination consistent with what we asked for in August. Another matter that has concerned some of my colleagues is the number of classes of persons whose interests are to be considered in this Bill. Honourable senators certainly have not forgotten that this Bill complements not only the affirmative action legislation of 1986, which dealt specifically with the needs of women for employment equity, but also the Public Service Reform Act of 1984, which concerned itself with the interests of wider groups of people. The Public Service Reform Act makes specific references to women and to designated groups which include Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, certain classes of migrants and people with physical or mental disability. The Opposition parties did not object to that provision in 1984. There is no objection of substance in the fact that this Bill contains reference to several classes of persons whose rights to equal opportunity should be considered. It does not constitute a ground for opposing the legislation. On the contrary, we should welcome the chance to secure equal opportunity too for these classes of persons, if it is needed. Some concern has also been expressed about the power of the Minister, pursuant to clause 12, to give directions to a relevant authority with respect to the performance of its obligations under the Act, when it is passed. It has been suggested that this power is new and sinister and that it could lead to the giving of inappropriate directions in relation to employment matters. We have heard reference to that tonight. Such concern is ill-founded. Clause 12 is a standard type of clause found in most Acts constituting statutory authorities. The clause is very similar to section 7 of the Telecommunications Act, section 20 of the Trade Practices Act, section 9 of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act, section 7 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act and section 18 of the National Crime Authority Act which allow ministerial directions to be given to Telecom Australia, the Trade Practices Commission, the Parliament House Construction Authority, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Crime Authority, respectively. The next matter to be addressed in considering this Bill is whether it contains fatal defects. Let us first consider some minor matters. Later let us look at the major question of whether this Bill leads us down the road to quotas. Clearly, the Bill before us has a number of deficiencies. For example, it contains the same objectionable definition of employee as did the Bill we considered in 1986-a definition which includes independent contractors as employees. We opposed such a definition then and we will oppose it now. It is as objectionable now as it was then. It is as unnecessary, as inappropriate and as unwanted. Second, it has been claimed by those opposing the Bill that the Government has failed to submit this Bill, as it promised recently it would do with all legislation, to the scrutiny of its Business Regulation Review Unit before submitting the matter to the Parliament. We now know that the Government did make the Bill available to that Unit. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, told the Senate on 28 April, just a day or two ago: 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. So it seems that that objection too, raised by the Opposition in another place, is without major substance. I will have no difficulty voting for amendments related to technical deficiencies in the Bill before us. But these technical deficiencies are not fatal deficiencies now, just as other deficiencies were not fatal back in August. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia were unsuccessful with some 30 or more amendments in August 1986, but we still found it possible to support both the second and the third readings of the legislation. This now leaves the question of quotas. It has been variously alleged that this Bill contains quotas, that it contains quotas manque, that it contains de facto quotas, that it implies quotas, that it gets Australia on the road to quotas, that it opens the door to quotas or that it goes further than other legislation that we have supported. If valid, these are serious concerns that could provide justifiable grounds for opposing the passage of the Bill. Many of my colleagues believe that this Bill does introduce quotas; I do not. We must determine the substance of those claims in this debate. This is best started by reading the legislation-reading the document and seeking from it the plain meaning of the words it uses. The concern of many of my colleagues is focused on words in clause 6 (g) (ii). Those words have been read to the Senate several times, and doubtless will be read to it several times more. But applying to those words their plain meaning, their normal English meaning, it is not possible to assert that they introduce quotas, impose quotas for employment in Commonwealth statutory authorities, or open the door to quotas. The words themselves have in fact been copied, with a one word change, from paragraph (c) of the definition of `program' contained in section 22b (1) of the Public Service Act. That definition was inserted by the Public Service Reform Act 1984-another Act of Parliament to which we on this side raised no objection just three years ago. The difference in the words transferred from the Public Service Reform Act to this Bill is that the word `or' in the 1984 Act has become the word `and' in this Bill. That is the only difference. We made no suggestion in 1984 that those words suggested quotas in employment, because they did not. Yet it is now being asserted, and many of my colleagues believe, that a change of that single word from `or' to `and' alters the effect of the Bill to such an extent that one can adduce the imposition, partial imposition or potential imposition of quotas in public sector employment. Really, such a proposition is unsustainable. Honourable senators will realise that, to understand the Bill before us, we are comparing its text with two Acts from which certain words have been taken. To make that comparison, we need to look at all three documents. The second Act from which words have been taken, the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, states in section 8 (g) (i): a requirement to set objectives and- I emphasise the word `and', as this is the word on which the quota argument is based- set quantitative forward estimates against which the program can be assessed. The words in the Bill that are alleged to imply employment quotas actually reflect the sentiment of that provision from the 1986 Act. We supported that Bill containing those words just eight months ago. They did not suggest quotas then, and words almost identical did not suggest quotas in the 1984 legislation. Even with the single drafting difference, they do not suggest quotas now. Unless those who claim that there are quotas in the Bill can make a compelling case out of the single word `and', the difference is insignificant. Certainly, it is not of itself sufficient to give or to sustain a ground for voting against the Bill. More than that, any words contained in that part of the Bill-the part about which all the argument has been-are subject to words contained in the interpretation section. Clause 3 (4) contains the words critical to resolving the argument that this Bill imposes or suggests quotas in employment. These words have been quoted before and I shall quote them again: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. Put precisely, this provision puts into legislation the assurance that no one can be required to act other than on merit-for example, by setting any quotas. My advice from lawyers to whom I have spoken is that the words in clause 3 (4) would, in fact, enshrine the merit principle, no matter what interpretation, however extreme and unreal, one decides to place on the words in clause 6 (g) (ii). Pearce, a leading authority in statutory interpretation, argues that each Act of Parliament must be read as a whole, so that no section is divorced from its context and so that each section is considered as part of the whole instrument. Therefore, every part of this Bill will be construed subject to the overriding merit principle enshrined in clause 3 (4). Further, honourable senators will be aware that section 15ab (2) (f) of the Acts Interpretation Amendment Act-well known to all honourable senators, I am sure-provides clearly that a court called on to determine a matter covered by this legislation is now able to go to the Hansard and read the second reading speech to be clear about the intention of the Minister who introduced the Bill. That second reading speech, given by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in another place, made it clear that the Government's intention is that there should be no quotas imposed by the Bill and, indeed, that the merit principle should continue to have overriding precedence. He said: I wish to emphasise the programs are not intended to, and will not lead to, positive discrimination. The Bill expressly confirms that employment matters are to be dealt with on the basis of merit, and the whole thrust of the legislation will strengthen the merit principle, by ensuring the review of any existing discriminatory personnel or employment procedures. Not only is that a statement of Government intent, but it is a statement that could be put before a court should the need arise. So it is not possible to argue convincingly that this Bill has anything at all to do with quotas in employment-and, on that test, the major objection to supporting the legislation falls. It is clear that valid objections to this legislation are minor in nature. There are no valid major objections. In particular, the claim that this Bill has something to do with quotas in employment is contrived and quite unsustainable. It rests with those who would continue to press such a claim to establish a more compelling and credible case than has been done so far if they expect anyone from the middle ground of Australian politics to believe them. However, that still leaves unanswered the question of why I have found it necessary to resign my position and, for the first time in 13 years in the Senate, cross the floor and oppose my Party. After all, everyone is on the losing side of a Cabinet or shadow Cabinet argument from time to time. One does not resign easily from a position of responsibility. But one should never resign from one's principles or integrity. One should never resign from one's wider duty to the Liberal Party or to its traditional commitment to issues such as this. It was just over eight months ago that I argued in this Senate, as shadow Minister and on behalf of the Opposition, for the precise measure that we are considering today. I spoke then with the authority of John Howard, and on behalf of the leader, and of the entire shadow Cabinet and the Opposition parties, to demand that women employed by Commonwealth authorities should enjoy no less right to equal opportunity in employment than women in the Commonwealth Public Service or in the private sector. We are asked now, just eight short months later, to reverse that stand, to abandon the collegial position taken then, to deny what I then demanded on behalf of the Opposition and to vote against what is fair and just and reasonable. Equal opportunity is fair and just and reasonable. It is also thoroughly Liberal. It empowers citizens to compete on an equal basis. It removes barriers which prevent them from so doing. It is my Party which has moved in that eight months from a civilised stance to a position which I find discreditable and which made my position impossible. We have heard a lot in the last week or so about loyalty and team work. They are important requirements of any shadow Minister and of any shadow Ministry. Implicit in the relationship that a Minister or shadow Minister has with his colleagues is the bond of loyalty, the collective spirit that sees the individual support the decisions of the team and the team support the individual in his advocacy of their joint cause. Loyalty and team work involve obligations, too, upon the group towards its individual members. Loyalty requires, for instance, that those who go out with the message on behalf of the party, a message endorsed by their party, and who sell that message are not then abandoned for the advantage of the moment and in the absence of compelling and credible new argument. Where a team member finds himself or herself in such a circumstance resignation becomes the only appropriate course. I will fight still for a continuing Liberal vision of a society of free and powerful individuals each able to control her or his own life. Equal employment opportunity based on merit is such an issue and this is such a Bill. In pursuit of that goal I would oppose measures to give unmerited preference to women or to take any action in employment and employment matters other than on merit. But this is not such a measure. This Bill is supported widely by women within the Liberal Party of Australia. It is supported by most of the significant women's groups within the Party, including the Federal Womens Committee, certain State women's committees, Liberal feminist and network branches and Liberal business and professional women's groups. This Bill is supported by every branch of the Women's Electoral Lobby across Australia, by many associations of women employees, by at least one State branch of the Young Women's Christian Association, by groups representing women in professions, by the feminists legal action group, by State women's advisory councils, by branches of the business and professional women's organisation and by the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia. It has support all right. Every measure to empower women has been opposed bitterly by conservative elements in Australia since Federation. This Bill is no exception. The objections raised to this measure now before us are in the tradition of that resistance and of those objections. They are based upon a false construction of the Bill and they have no merit. I will remain loyal to a vision of individuals and of the society they can create together, loyal to measures to empower individual people to participate. I will remain loyal to the collegial view I put and to the demands I made of this Government on behalf of all my colleagues here in the Senate eight short months ago which I made with their authority. I will remain loyal to the history and traditions of the Party. In summary, this is a measure which I demanded on behalf of the Opposition, containing amendments which I also demanded. Yes, it has some objectional features requiring amendment, and I will vote for the amendments. But it contains no elements at all which warrant opposition to the Bill as a whole. This Bill is the logical and necessary accompaniment to the Bill we supported in 1986 and it follows that I will vote for the Bill. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(10.15) —It is perhaps my unfortunate duty to speak in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 after such an eloquent speech by a member of the Opposition, who has delivered a tough, logical, researched and, might I say, courageous address in support of his principles, principles which I think are eternal, which reach across this chamber and which should invite the common support of all parties here. During that address a number of my colleagues asked me to say that they, as well as I, admire the stand Senator Peter Baume has taken and which I understand a number of his colleagues will take in defence of those principles. I said it was my unfortunate duty because my normal approach to debate is to take a tough and aggressive line with the Opposition on matters which I consider require that type of approach. But after hearing the speech by Senator Baume, which I regard in many respects to have been a sensitive as well as a tough speech, it is difficult to regard the Opposition as a bloc. Therefore, my remarks are directed to those who will be voting against this legislation. The first point it is necessary to make in such an address is that, quite clearly, this debate need not be held to the extent it is being held today and for the rest of the time it takes to get through the legislation were it not for the fact that in the political circumstances of Australia 1987 there is ferment and division in the parties of the Opposition coalition. Just this week we have seen the coalition formally split. Over the last few months we have witnessed the spectacle of there being two National Parties, a Queensland National Party supporting a prime ministership campaign by the Premier of Queensland and a National Party under the leadership of Ian Sinclair. We have seen posturing for policy position in order to obtain what I regard as redneck support for a more reactionary policy. We have seen a purge of the Opposition front bench in order to cover internal party difficulty and remain, in connection with the National Party, in coalition. The front bench of the Liberal Party has been rearranged to reflect a more right wing, dry attitude. Some people whom I regard as being talented and capable spokesmen for the Opposition-I cite Mr Ian Macphee-have been removed. Mr Macphee was a spokesman in the very difficult field of industrial relations. He gave a human face to the debate in what is a very controversial and contested area and to what I regarded as being conservative and, some would say, right wing policies. Nonetheless, he applied those policies in a way which was more sensitive to the needs of the more practical work force than other spokesmen were able to do. This debate need not have been held if that ferment and division were not facts of life. As we have heard, in August last year this Government gave an undertaking that it would legislate in the way it has, and that legislation we are debating tonight. It gave that undertaking to Senator Baume, who was at that time the spokesman on women's affairs for the Opposition, on the basis that that was the position which the whole Opposition took and not a position which simply Senator Baume took. Had the Opposition remained united behind its women's affairs spokesman, as he was at the time, this debate would have been a debate in which we were in torrid agreement with each other about the need for the legislation. We would not have heard the specious and ludicrous arguments that have been put by some Opposition speakers, most notably in this evenings debate by Senator Susan Knowles; arguments which are trivial, which do not apply and which are merely efforts to try to pervert or contort the meaning of the English language-to make it mean something other than it really does mean. It is perhaps sad that in the drift to find a constituency for an always right-leaning Liberal Party we have been forced into having this debate. This legislation follows up the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill brought down last year, and it follows up amendments that the Government has made to section 22b of the Public Service Act, as I recall. We believe that it is legislation that stands in its own right and on principles which are broadly recognised in the Australian community, indeed in the world community, where rights of equality and opportunity are matters of intense scrutiny and debate. It is legislation that we in the Australian Labor Party are bound to. Moreover, it is legislation that arises from widespread community consultation, because the mode of operation of this Government has not been one of saying simply that because we have a platform commitment we will unilaterally impose that via legislation. In 1983 this Government was elected on one of the principles of reconciliation, of a breakdown of the confrontationist mode of the previous Government, and we have applied the consultative approach in getting the basis of this legislation. We had a consensus report in October 1985 from a committee on which I understand Senator Peter Baume served and consultations with the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. There exists, therefore, in the field that this legislation is to be applied to in the labour market area, consensus support between the main players, the practical operators, those who have the coal face experience of real life in that particular area. Held against that support from the employment and employer community, it is idle indeed to listen to the trivial and specious arguments that have been put against this legislation by some of those who have appointed themselves to oppose it. Indeed the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) 1986 legislation established the principles that this Bill seeks to extend into the public statutory corporation sector. It established those principles and it is therefore logical that it is an inconsistent pattern with those principles that this legislation should come forward. As that original legislation in 1986 set out, the private sector is now moving to comply with the terms set down under it. On 1 February next year enterprises with over 1,000 or more workers will be moving to apply those guidelines. By 1990, approximately over 4,000 firms in Australia will be moving to apply those guidelines. Yet it is said that this legislation unnecessarily interferes with the market and is interventionist in character and therefore should be turned out. At least that is said by its opponents. I think it needs to be emphasised that this Government, the Hawke Government, has been loth in its economic policy to interfere with the market-place. I witness the legislation that we have brought down to free up the financial markets, the legislation where we have encouraged market forces to decide what happens. It is part of the record of this Government that it has been reluctant to intervene in the market. However, it has never said that that is the primary consideration. It has said often that that is the best way of achieving the best result, but if there are other principles at stake, intervention in the market becomes necessary. We intervened in the market in order to reach a steel industry plan. We intervened in the market, in consultation with employers in the automobile industry, to have an automobile industry plan and we intervened in the heavy engineering field. More latterly, we have intervened in the textile, clothing and footwear area by bringing down plans for all of those industry sectors which had arisen from consultation but where, because of our inferior market position vis a vis international competition or because of mounting unemployment or the problems of the introduction of technological change, it had become necessary for government intervention to guarantee that the market acted fairly and that there was a reasonable outcome in terms of how the market was treated and how it treated the competitive forces afflicting it. Therefore in terms of intervention we have said that we would prefer the market to find the right level, but that if it does not, we then reserve the right, in consultation with the areas affected, to intervene to achieve the outcome. I think we have been spectacularly successful in applying that approach. Our approach has not been one of command, it has been one of negotiating guidelines. When we look at the labour market and we see discrimination against the employment of women, Aborigines, migrants and categories of disabled people, we believe it entirely proper, where the market over the last decade or more has not corrected those imperfections, to provide sensitive intervention in a way in which the market can be guided by negotiation and consultation between its own internal players to an outcome which is reasonable and fair. We applied that type of approach when we set the guidelines for the community employment program. That program emphasises that applicants for grants for community employment should record on their applications what they are doing for the most discriminated sectors of the work force, how many jobs they have created for women, Aborigines, migrants or disabled workers, so that we can break down the encoding of those groups into the unemployable sectors or the areas where there is not sufficient opportunity for employment. Because those groups of people are caught in the classic bind that if they apply for work and have not had a job it follows that they do not have the experience necessary to get that job. If they are not given a job then they will have no work experience, and if they have no work experience they cannot get a job. That problem needed to be confronted and broken through. That is what our labour market programs have done in areas where we have targeted them specifically to combat unemployment. This legislation guarantees that once people are employed they have an equality of opportunity in their particular chosen field, or that in fields which discriminate against that category of individual they have an opportunity to break into those fields and to achieve an equality with those who, by tradition, are the preferred style of classic employee. There is massive public approval for community employment programs because local government authority applicants for CEP grants have been very ready to apply those conditions to themselves. Since it is necessary to do that for the unemployed, as I have said, it is also necessary to do so in this case for the employed. Since the end of the Second World War the percentage of females employed in the work force has increased massively. It now approaches the 40 per cent mark. Women have chosen to work or been forced to work, and often forced by economic necessity. More latterly, I think in times when we did not suffer from the level of unemployment that we now suffer from, women chose to work to achieve some self-fulfilment and to pursue a career. We have witnessed in Australia a change in social patterns because of that employment phenomenon. We have witnessed an increase in the amount of part time work. We have witnessed job sharing and we have witnessed a change in social and domestic roles between the men and women. Senator Powell —Not much. Senator COOK —As Senator Powell interjects, it is true that it has not changed much, but we are witnessing that trend, and that trend is a strengthening one and, I believe, an irreversible one. Nonetheless, it is not adequate to say that that trend exists if women continue to be encoded or segmented into low wage areas of the work force and are unable to break out of that encoding, or if Aborigines, migrants or disabled people find that they are relegated to the most unsatisfying and menial of tasks and do not have a chance to be regarded properly in terms of their full human abilities and thus to be given an opportunity to achieve employment outcomes for themselves that are desirable to them and, I think, desirable for the community at large. I recall vividly in 1972 that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission brought down an equal pay decision. As I recollect, that case commenced before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission under the then McMahon Government. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I formally put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.30) —At lunch time today I attended a meeting outside Parliament House at which there were some hundreds of Vietnamese and a number of other people. I attended in company with Mr Cadman, the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Senator Short, and subsequently, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Neil Brown, and Senator Kilgariff. Addresses were made to the gathering. It was to mark the day of national shame, 30 April 1987, commemorating the communist takeover in Vietnam in 1975. Speakers recalled the plight of Kampuchea and Laos as well. They recalled the tragedy of the thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese who have perished attempting to flee that country. They recounted the oppression and tyranny which exist there at the present time, the labour camps, the gaols, and the total lack of liberties which we take for granted in this country. I met the other night a Laotian woman who had been in this country since before 1972 but who, since 1972, has not directly heard of her husband. She had some brief information about him up until about 1975, but since then has not heard of him. It is hard for any of us in this country to place ourselves in her shoes or to have any comprehension of the life she has led in this country bringing up her four children, the youngest of whom cannot be said to have known his father. There are many other hundreds of thousands who have grown up in this situation. They have been refugees from their own country. They recalled some of the things that have gone on, some of the horrors that have gone on. But I was particularly pleased to see today that they were supported by other countries with similar histories. The Latvian flag was flying. We recalled the plight of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania; what occurred in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in days gone by; and particularly what is going on in Afghanistan now and what has been going on there for a number of years. Unfortunately, these stories seem to slip off the front pages of the newspapers and are recalled only intermittently. But the tragedy for the oppressed peoples goes on. I think today we should join with the Vietnamese people who came to Parliament House to recall the plight of people still living in that country and demand that our Government does all it can to see that the communist tyranny is lifted from the shoulders of the Vietnamese people. We know what has happened at Cam Ranh Bay. It was suggested that it was merely a facility for pleasure boats. That, of course, is nonsense and has been proven to be so. Everybody who has any concern about the well-being of people in these countries should be able to communicate with them in a way that is meaningful, but people are not able to do so at present. We call upon the Hanoi Government to withdraw from Kampuchea and Laos and to allow those countries to return to some dignity and their peoples to lead lives more similar to those which we believe is the right way for human beings to operate and function. I was pleased to be able to go out there and meet these people today. I was saddened that it was necessary for them to be there. The Polish flag was flying, as well as others. There are many oppressed people in the world and I think we need to spend a little time every now and again doing what we can to assist these people to get back to the countries from which they came and for those countries to be free. At the very minimum they should be allowed to have normal communication with their families who are still there. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.35) —As Senator Reid has indicated, a group of us left Parliament House at lunch time today to meet people from various parts of Australia, mainly Vietnamese people, who I suppose were demonstrating. Perhaps `demonstrating' is not the right word under the circumstances. They were indicating their sorrow that today it is 12 years since the war in Vietnam finished and Vietnam came under communist rule. I went out there because I have considerable compassion for these people from Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos. Like most honourable senators in this place, I have met these people in various parts of Australia. We have observed how they have settled in the country and have worked hard to make a new home. In making a new home they have left their families under very difficult circumstances. Many lives were lost in their endeavours to escape the communist regimes in those countries. We heard many times how the boat people did not survive. Many of them perished at sea. They perished either through hunger and lack of water or at the hands of pirates boarding their boats and slaughtering many of them. I guess hundreds of thousands have been lost. Many died in their endeavours to reach the comfort of assisting nations. At one stage I was fortunate enough to be able to go to the Thai border and meet many of the refugees who were coming across the border in those days. Many of those villages and refugee camps have now been overrun and destroyed. The people outside today presented to the Parliament their National Shame Day declarations. They handed it to a group of us who went to see them. I take the opportunity to seek leave to have this National Shame Day declaration incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The declaration read as follows- VIETNAMESE COMMUNITY IN AUSTRALIA (NEW SOUTH WALES CHAPTER) National Shame Day Declarations I. Considerations: The National Shame Day of the 30th April 1987 marks the 12th anniversary of the fall of Vietnam to Communist tyranny. It also marks an era of darkness and oppression for the entire Indochinese peninsula. The Communist regime has built a systematic structure of oppression, terrorism and forced labour. Labour camps, jails, re-education camps have sprung up the length and breath of Indochina. Over a million refugees have defied death in order to flee from tyranny. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese have perished at sea. This tragedy has shaken the conscience of the free world during the past 12 years. The 30th April 1975 has unmasked the ambitions of HA-NOI's leaders who are lackeys of Soviet expansionism, their imperialistic aspirations in Kampuchea and Laos. In order to salvage their economy due to the management failures of the Hanoi clique: (1) They have consented to sell Vietnamese slave labour to Russia and Eastern Europe. (2) They have sold Camranh bay to Russia so that the latter could build a powerful military base. Threatening world peace, especially south-east Asia and Australia. (3) They are exploiting the sweat and tears of Vietnamese overseas through their financial operations such as illegal transfers of goods, money or visit to Vietnam. II. Resolutions: (1) The Vietnamese refugees in Australia in general and in New South Wales in particular solemnly appeal to the conscience of the people of the free world to protest against the violations of human rights in Vietnam. (2) We call on Hanoi and demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of troops from Kampuchea and Laos. (3) We call on the Soviet Union and demand the total withdrawal of their war machine from Camranh bay. (4) We appeal to the Vietnamese overseas with a view to boycotting all of Hanoi's financial operations. The refugees should be aware of and monitor all of Hanoi's illegal financial operations and alert the authorities of their activities. The 30th April is the day when we lost our homeland and our freedom. We should mark this day with a renewed sense of hope and solidarity in order to fight against tyranny and oppression. Sydney, 6th April 1987 Chairman of the organizing committee TRAN THANH PHUC Senator KILGARIFF —I do not think it is necessary, when one reads this declaration, to say any more than what it says. It is a day of sorrow and remembrance for them-sorrow for what has happened to their nation and sorrow for the families that have been left behind. Despite all the endeavours, I must say, over the last 12 years-and I guess most honourable senators have endeavoured to bring about family reunions-there has not been very much success. I was interested to see in the Catholic Leader newspaper dated 5 April an article written by a Jesuit Father Brennan. He spoke of his visit to the front. The article is entitled `The Forgotten Ones of the Killing Fields'. Once again, this article indicates the present problems of these people, the refugees. We are getting into what we now call `refugee fatigue'. So many people have left Indo-China. They have found their way to many countries throughout the world, and it is to the credit of most of those countries that they have assisted refugees over the years. Because of the continuing outflow, I think it is true to say that a refugee fatigue has now developed-that is, the compassion and the desire to help those people is drying up, which is most unfortunate. It has been said that these people are no longer refugees in the true sense of the word; that they are political refugees. When one has seen and met those people in the camps across the border, as I, Father Brennan and many other people have done, one cannot call them political refugees. They are fleeing for their lives, with their families, in an endeavour to get away from being overrun by the hoards of Vietnamese soldiers who kill without compunction. It is pitiful to see, in the refugee hospitals on the border, the young people who have been maimed. On the jungle paths there are many booby-traps of different kinds. One sees young people in the hospitals-aged 13, 14, 16 years or whatever-who may have had their two legs or one leg blown off, or an ankle blown off, and so on, who have been maimed for life. Despite that and the dreadful future they face, they appear to be at least cheerful. These people are looking for a continuing compassion from the rest of the world. Unfortunately, as I have said, refugee fatigue is developing and it is now felt that these people should be held in camps and returned to Vietnam. There is no future for those people if they are returned to Vietnam. Theirs is a very tough future. Even now, many people still just disappear from the re-education camps. It is most unfortunate that we of the free world persist in saying that they must return to Vietnam. Only a short while ago I said that the refugee fatigue must be relieved. I said that recent reports concerning the possible closure of Indo-Chinese refugee camps in Thailand should stir Australia to increase its assistance to refugees. Over recent months, the future for refugees from the oppressive Vietnamese regime has begun to look even more bleak as the so-called refugee fatigue syndrome has taken hold. Refugee fatigue, which refers to the stress which has been placed on countries such as Thailand as a result of the influx of thousands of refugees, must be alleviated. It is very much the responsibility of the nations of the free world which have the means to provide support to see that this occurs. As I have said, a disturbing trend has seen Indo-Chinese refugees regarded as economic and social refugees. While it is true that they have fled economic and social persecution in their homeland, the fact remains that they are primarily political refugees who cannot realistically be expected to return to Vietnam. Australia should, therefore, continue to increase its refugee immigration programs and provide support for the Thai holding camps which house many thousands of homeless Indo-Chinese. One could go on at length. Today, as Senator Margaret Reid has said, is the twelfth anniversary of the communist takeover of Vietnam. This is the national day of shame which many hundreds of Vietnamese and their friends have come to Canberra to impress upon us. I commend people such as Father Brennan who has been to see for himself the agony in which those people live in the refugee camps, where some of them have been for many years. There is absolutely no future for them. I commend other people as well, such as Father Jefferies Foale, who is the President of the Indo-China Refugee Association. He is giving his life to endeavour to bring about a better life for those refugees. I wish to refer to another angle to the problems of Vietnam. Only in the last week we had Anzac Day. It is very good to see that at last Australia intends to have a welcome home for Vietnam veterans. It was pleasing to see that the Vietnam veterans led this year's Anzac Day parades in the cities and towns of Australia. They have had to wait for far too long for public recognition of their contribution to the nation. Even though it is very late, it is tremendous that later in the year in Sydney there will be a welcome home for the Vietnam veterans. The men who served in Vietnam had to fight two battles. They had to fight in the military conflict in Vietnam itself and, when they returned home, they faced another battle-this time against the indifference and, in some case, hostility in some elements of the community towards the Vietnam conflict. Our young Australian men were blamed for it. Their contributions and those of their comrades who had been injured or who had died for their country were largely ignored, as were their needs in trying to resume their civilian lives. The psychological damage to many veterans was just as debilitating as any physical injury, yet it is only in recent years that counselling has been made widely available and some sympathy has been given to them. It is tremendous that, in spite of the difficulties that some Vietnam veterans have faced, they have been able to take their place as valuable members of the Australian community. Public recognition is certainly their due, if it is not too late. Vietnam and other countries of Indo-China-Laos and Kampuchea-are very sad countries. I believe that it would do all of us well-in Australia we live in considerable comfort-to remember our neighbours, not so far from us, living in extreme conditions. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.48) —I rise on the adjournment because I feel it necessary to explain the reasons why I asked a question of the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) last Tuesday and why I issued a Press statement last Friday calling on the Government to investigate claims that the Australian Council of Churches was funding Tamil groups which had links with Tamil terrorists. This explanation is necessary because the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), who I understand is a member of the Socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party, accused me, in the adjournment debate in the House of Representatives last Tuesday, of making an unfounded attack on the ACC. Today in Question Time, in reply to a question from Senator Bolkus, who is also a member of the Socialist Left, Senator Evans condemned me for making what he described as `irresponsible and malicious' allegations about the Australian Council of Churches. I believe that I had every right to ask questions about the Australian Council of Churches concerning its aid program to Tamil groups in southern India, particularly as I have had many representations from congregational members of churches associated with the Council. I reject the suggestion that it was an unfounded attack. For the information of the Senate and the public I will outline some of the projects funded by the Australian Council of Churches to demonstrate why I thought it necessary to ask some questions. It must be remembered, as I read out some of these aid projects, that people who donate money to the Christmas Bowl appeal do so under the impression that it is going to relieve starvation and sickness. The following are some details taken from the 1985 annual report of the Australian Council of Churches: The ACC gave $25,741 to a Tamil group in Madras, southern India, called OFFER, which stands for the Organisation for Eelam Refugee Rehabilitation. An amount of $24,224 was given to a Tamil group called PEAL, which stands for People Education for Action and Liberation. Last Friday the Australian newspaper reported the Sri Lankan High Commissioner as having said there were grounds for `suspicions' about these two Tamil groups. The Australian group, Christians for Justice and Peace, was also reported to have said that there was a strong suggestion that `money given by people who thought they were feeding babies has gone to political groups which support terrorists'. Therefore, I believe it was responsible of me to ask the Government to look into these allegations against the Australian Council of Churches' so-called complicity in giving Christmas Bowl money to so-called humanitarian support groups of terrorists, particularly as these donations are subsidised by the Australian taxpayer in the form of tax deductions. I also stated in my Press release: There is ample evidence to demonstrate that the ACC has indirectly supported the Communist Party of the Philippines and its military wing, the New Peoples Army. The latter organisation was described by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in September 1986-Mr President, you should remember this-as a `Marxist-Leninist movement aimed at the revolutionary transformation of the Philippines'. I would like to present some facts and honourable senators can then determine whether the Australian Council of Churches is indirectly supporting the Communist Party of the Philippines or not. In its annual report in 1982, the Australian Council of Churches indicated that it had given $4,180 to Australia-Asia Workers Links. Australia-Asia Workers Links is the centre of a group of solidarity groups including the Philippines Resource Centre. The Australian Council of Churches also gave $6,000 to the Philippines Resource Centre according to its 1984 annual report. In 1982, John Halfpenny of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union was instrumental in setting up Australia-Asia Workers Links. This group, in turn, established the Philippines Workers Solidarity Fund and has publicly solicited funds for the May First Movement. The May First Movement openly collaborates with unions in the Philippines which are in solidarity with the Communist Party. John Halfpenny's Australia-Asia Workers Links has three known sources of funding. The three sources are Force Ten, the Australian Council of Churches and Community Aid Abroad. Force Ten, an organisation jointly sponsored by the Australian Catholic Relief and the Australian Council of Churches, has provided funding for John Halfpenny's group through the Asia Partnership for Human Development-APHD. APHD gave $14,000 in 1983 and $12,000 in 1984. The Australian Council of Churches gave $4,180 in 1982 and Community Aid Abroad gave $3,200 in 1983 and $5,000 in 1984 to that particular organisation. I suggest that most members of the public, including many members of church congregations, would be reluctant to donate money to an organisation which John Halfpenny was instrumental in establishing. Even if people dismiss the fact that the May First Movement has strong links with the Communist Party of the Philippines, the important and indisputable fact is that the Australian Council of Churches, the Australian Catholic Relief, and Community Aid Abroad give money to a group associated with John Halfpenny's Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union. I regard it as disturbing that these aid groups, to which people donate money under the impression that they are feeding hungry children, are funding a John Halfpenny inspired organisation which is blatant about its communist connections here in Australia and also in the Philippines. There has been a public debate ensuing for a number of months now in the Uniting Church newspaper, Church and Nation, concerning the accountability of the Australian Council of Churches for Christmas Bowl money. Christians for Justice and Peace asked Jean Skuse, the General Secretary of the Australian Council of Churches, a series of 36 questions about three months ago and she has refused to answer them up until now. I believe that people who donate money to the Christmas Bowl under the impression that it is helping to feed hungry children have a right to know the full details of how and where this money is spent. One only needs to read the 1985 annual report of the ACC in order to become curious as to how the money is applied. For example, the ACC has given more than $40,000 to Nicaragua. Christians for Justice and Peace has asked the ACC whether it is true that this project was a socialist left initiative of David Groves of the Food Preservers Union of Australia and whether this money went straight to the Nicaraguan Government. I would also like to know the answer to that question. The ACC also gave $4,000 in 1985 to the African National Congress and $5,000 to SWAPO, the South West African Peoples Organisation, to assist in establishing information offices in Australia. Both the ANC and SWAPO are self-confessed terrorist organisations. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), in reply to a question from Senator Bolkus, stated: The Government's views on the use of violence to achieve political ends are very well known. We give no encouragement to terrorist groups- this is in spite of the fact that the Government has allowed these terrorist groups to establish offices in Australia- and would naturally be deeply concerned at any evidence of such groups receiving assistance from Australia. I repeat, as I said at the outset, that no such evidence has been forthcoming regarding the Australian Council of Churches activities in South Asia, the Philippines or anywhere else. This statement is suggesting that there is no evidence that the Australian Council of Churches has given money directly to a terrorist group. I have never said that the ACC has given money directly to a terrorist group for the purpose of providing weapons. In fact, I have never made that suggestion at all. The Government and the Australian Council of Churches clearly recognise, or should, that my concern has always been that the ACC may be giving money to groups which are linked to terrorist and communist organisations. In other words, ACC money does not buy weapons, but it assists non-military groups which are supporters of revolutionaries. If this is the case, such so-called humanitarian aid would free up other funds for use in military activities. It has reached the stage where such evidence needs to be produced so that my concerns and the concerns of many other people, including congregations from the churches represented by the ACC, are answered rather than my just having to rely on the word of both the Government and the ACC on these matters. The ACC has refused to answer questions on accountability in the Uniting Church newspaper, Church and Nation, and therefore I believe it is doing a disservice to its congregations. I would like to know why church money is given to John Halfpenny's group, Australia-Asia Workers Links, and for what purpose this particular money is used. I intend to make these concerns known to the ACC, Community Aid Abroad and the Australian Catholic Relief organisation. I sincerely hope that they will be able to satisfy my concerns and the concerns of many of their donors that their money is being directed to bona fide humanitarian organisations and that this money is reaching the needy people who are starving, hungry or sick in the countries to which this money is sent. I think that the Australian Council of Churches has a clear responsibility to answer the 36 questions that I mentioned before which hitherto have not been answered. The ACC should make a public statement in order to assure me and the many people in the congregations of these churches associated with that organisation that their money is being directed in the right way. I will continue to pursue that course, and I will continue to pursue it through the ACC until I get the answers that satisfy those questions. I think that clearly answers the accusations of Mr Hollis, the left wing member of the other place, and also Senator Bolkus who asked a dorothy dix question today. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(11.02) —I would like to make a short speech about an address given by a friend of mine, John Fincher, on Anzac Day at Scone in New South Wales last Saturday. John Fincher was a member of a near all-Australian crew in 626 Squadron flying Lancasters from Wickenby in England during the Second World War. He flew some 27 missions over Germany and after the war he joined the ministry, and only just recently the Reverend John Fincher retired as the vicar of Quirindi, my home town. I think the story told by John Fincher on Saturday shows the true spirit of Anzac Day-of reconciliation and healing and the message that we should not have any more wars. In recognition of all the people who we remembered last Saturday, I seek leave to incorporate the address in Hansard. Leave granted. The address read as follows: ANZAC DAY-SCONE 1987 I have a dream-a dream inspired by the true story of Arthur Lee, a British airman, and Rudi Balzer, a German soldier of World War II. These two young men, both 22 years of age, were caught up in events not of their making, on opposing sides in a brutal and savage war. This is their story: Returning from a raid on Berlin on 27th January, 1944, a Lancaster from 626 Squadron, stationed at Wickenby in England, was shot down near Katzenelnbogen in Germany. The only survivor was the Navigator, Arthur Lee. The other six crew members, including two Australians, were killed. Because of the great destruction, fear and death caused by air raids, airmen were often tortured or murdered when found. Arthur Lee parachuted to ``safety'' and, although wounded, his life was saved by the courageous intervention of a young German soldier, Rudi Balzer. Rudi gave protection, and showed great kindness to Arthur. He remained with him until he was safely transferred into the custody of the Luftwaffe on the following afternoon. He provided him with food and arranged for his burnt hands and feet to be dressed. One kindness which Arthur never forgot was when Rudi folded the parachute to make a makeshift mattress on the floor and covered him with his army greatcoat. Both Arthur Lee and Rudi Balzer were profoundly affected by this experience. Rudi never forgot those six enemy airmen who died when their aircraft, bleeding smoke and flame, crashed on high ground beyond the village. He felt that the place where the airmen died should be remembered. Years passed before Rudi discovered that Arthur Lee, the sole survivor, was still alive, and contact was re-established. Later, following correspondence between Rudi and Arthur, it was agreed that a plain oak cross, made by Rudi, would be erected in a glade in the woods in the beautiful countryside near the place of impact of the Lancaster. Arthur's German friends asked what form of inscription he thought the cross should carry. He suggested that the words should be the same as those on the burnt timbers of Coventry Cathedral-``Father Forgive''-This was accepted but it was felt that those two words were somehow incomplete and they added the word-``us''. So the cross carries the words, ``Father Forgive Us.'' in English on one arm of the cross and in German on the other. Arrangements were then made for Arthur Lee to visit the village on 27 January, 1984, (the 40th Anniversary of the death of his crew) for the service of dedication. However, Arthur's visit was cancelled due to illness, but the service went ahead as planned and the statement Arthur had intended to make was read to the congregation. I share with you now part of that statement: ``You will have noticed that the cross makes no references to war. It does not remember those who died here. But it does proclaim two words of our Lord which are perhaps the only hope for this pain-wracked and frightened world: ``Father Forgive''. The full meaning of those words came to me with startling clarity many years ago when I first stood among the ruins of Coventry Cathedral in England. A rough cross formed from burnt and blackened beams had been placed where the altar had stood before the building had been destroyed by German bombers. Carved on the wall behind the cross were two words: ``Father Forgive''. The crude burnt cross and those two words made me visibly aware not only of the wickedness and futility of war but also of the indomitable optimism of the human spirit. No matter what we had done to each other; no matter how we had failed to obey the commandment to love one another, nothing could separate us from the love of God. Forgiveness was there for the asking; we could hold out our hands to each other; we could ask forgiveness of each other; we could begin again. This I believe, is the significance of the cross which today stands on the hillside overlooking this community. It has been offered as a generous gift to me in memory of my friends who died. I now offer it back to you. I have not forgotten the terrible purpose of my journeys across your country forty years ago. I am only too aware of the terror, the pain, the death and destruction which I and my friends brought with us. Do not believe that we never thought about it. We thought about it a great deal, but we were caught up in the war and there seemed no other way to bring it to an end. Now, in sight of this cross, I ask you for your forgiveness. I hope that in years to come this cross will become known as the airmen's cross . . . . that it will become a symbol of forgiveness and reconciliation for the people of this and other communities. May you also live in peace and happiness under its protection''. Arthur Lee died last year (1986). He suffered a severe heart attack on the eve of leading a group of airmen, former members of the 12 and 626 Squadrons, on a visit to Sobernheim in Germany at the invitation of the German Night Fighter Association. David Oliver led the group in his stead and he has written: ``Hopefully the example of such implacable enemies getting together so unreservedly will yield benefits beyond those attaching to our own associations. We believe that the international situation is such that it is essential that ever closer ties of friendship and co-operation be established between our great countries''. There is an old Chinese proverb: ``Build golden bridges over which your enemy may retreat.'' Arthur Lee and Rudi Balzer have built a ``golden Bridge'' across which others may pass and find forgiveness and reconciliation. In 1981, after attending a Memorial Service at Wickenby in England to the 1084 young men (members of 12 and 626 Squadrons who flew out from Wickenby), I went to Germany to visit Cologne Cathedral. I had long hoped that such a visit would be possible for my log book records three occasions in which I took part in raids on Cologne. In my mind I can still see Cologne Cathedral standing, alone and defiant, amidst great destruction during a daylight raid on 2nd March, 1945. My attendance at mass in that majestic Cathedral was a personal reconciliation and healing. Some years ago, Helmut Kohl, the German Chancellor suggested an Ecumenical Service of reconciliation in Cologne Cathedral. Sadly, this suggestion seems to have lapsed through inaction. It is my dream that during my lifetime such a service will be held. The same quality of forgiveness shines in a story ``No Longer Enemies'' taken from a book ``a Precocious Autobiography'' by Y. Yevtuskenko. During the Second World War, the people of Russia suffered terribly. When 20,000 German prisoners were to be marched through the streets of Moscow, crowds, mainly women consumed by hatred, thronged the pavements. As the column approached, they clenched their fists and it was with difficulty that they were held back. Yevtuskenko writes: ``All at once, something happened to them. They saw German soldiers, thin, unshaven, wearing dirty, bloodstained bandages, hobbling on crutches or leaning on the shoulders of their comrades; the soldiers walked with their heads down. The street had become deathly silent, the only sound the shuffling of boots and the stomping of crutches. Then I saw an elderly women in broken boots push herself forward and touched a policeman's shoulder, saying, ``Let me through.'' There must have been ``something'' about her which made them step aside. She went up to the column, took from inside her coat, something wrapped in a coloured handkerchief and unfolded it. It was a crust of black bread. She pushed it awkwardly into the pocket of a soldier, so exhausted that he was tottering on his feet. And then suddenly from every side, women were running toward the soldiers, pushing into their hands bread, cigarettes, whatever they had. The soldiers were no longer enemies, they were people.'' I close with two lines from the prayer of St. Francis: ``For it is in giving that we receive It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.'' I hope that the ecumenical service of reconciliation at Cologne Cathedral as suggested by Helmut Kohl in John Fincher's address can be held at some future time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(11.04) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the adjournment debate. I will be brief in reply. I will take Senator Jessop first, though out of sequence, because I do not think the matters he raised require any sort of answer on the part of the Government. He defended his raising of several questions concerning the support given by the Australian Council of Churches in particular-although he also mentioned some other donating organisations within the Australian Christian communities-who he said had made donations, so called in his terms, in the form of humanitarian aid to groups associated with and which support terrorists or violent revolutionary movements in Sri Lanka and the Philippines. Senator Jessop thought that the questions that he was raising were about the, as he put it, diversion of resources donated by people who were perhaps not fully conversant with the sort of list of organisations to which these donations are made and which he listed for the benefit of the Senate. I think he invited honourable sen- ators to assess the list of donations for themselves. I am sure senators will take into account his remarks along with other information in making their assessments. Senators Reid and Kilgariff mentioned the fact that today outside Parliament House there was a day of commemoration of the twelfth anniversary-according to the brochure circulated throughout the demonstration-of the fall of Vietnam to communist tyranny. Senator Reid, I think, made very good points about the obvious links that must exist between those who come to Australia as refugees from such a war-torn country and from the experience of authoritarian, not to say totalitarian regimes, and their families back in Vietnam. It is understandable that in that very heart-rending situation where family reunion is as delayed as it has been over the past 10 or 12 years, emotions run as high as they evidently do within the Vietnamese community in Australia. As I say, Senator Reid, later joined by Senator Kilgariff, made the point that within the Australian community we have now a large group of Vietnamese who will not allow the memory of what has happened in their homeland to be expunged from our collective consciousness here in Australia. I think that it is quite proper for people who come to Australia as migrants or refugees to have a memory of and an affection for their homeland and perhaps a great sadness for what may have occurred there. But as for the solution and how a better society back in their former homeland might be achieved, I do not think it is simply a matter of protests, demonstrations or commemorations of a peaceful kind, here in Australia. Although it is outside my field, it is quite clear that so much depends on the Soviet Union in this instance. Certainly, if the Soviet Union wants to establish less threatened relations with democratic nations that are associated with the Western Alliance, as it is sometimes called, of course it must be required, as part of the process-it should also, of course, involve that country getting out of Afghanistan-to use its influence to bring about a withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from other countries in Indo-China as an accompaniment to an act of self-determination by the people of, for example, Kampuchea. In so doing, of course, there may be a recognition of the rights of self-determination of people which may even have an influence on the authoritarian mode of thinking which, of course, always accompanies a Marxist-Leninist group in political power. As far as the Australian Vietnamese community is concerned, however, I think it must be reiterated that it is the policy of the Australian Government-and it is a bipartisan policy-that the enmities and hatreds, which can be readily understood by us, must not be so exacerbated here in Australia so as to lead to violent confrontation between groups within the Australian community and within the Vietnamese community in Australia in this instance. Also, we must resist those claims that are often made in moments of fervour that young members of these refugee groups-whether they be from eastern Europe or South-East Asia-should take up arms and go back to their former homelands in order to overthrow the government there. That sometimes happens. We know it happened very tragically in relation to-was it Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia? The PRESIDENT —Yugoslavia, I think. Senator TATE —I am sorry, Mr President. Perhaps, according to proper decorum, I should not ask you that question. But we recall that a few years ago some young Australians went back to Yugoslavia to liberate their former homeland and, of course, were killed almost instantly upon crossing the border. I just issue a caution in that regard because I know that some of the rhetoric on these occasions-even today-is somewhat along those lines at times. Nevertheless, I think in general we understand the sentiments and it is quite right that those who have fled as refugees from Vietnam remind us of the plight of that country. Paradoxically I think, Senator Brownhill's contribution in the end reinforced my remarks and the bipartisan attitude of Australian governments to the question of the proper stance that migrants, and particularly refugees, should adopt when he said that in an address in his home town the Reverend John Fincher spoke of the need for reconciliation and healing. In particular, in the address which has now been incorporated in Hansard, he spoke of an instance where German and British members of opposing armed forces were able to forge a friendship in the height of warfare which was sustained over many years. It enabled them to experience a sense of forgiveness, as I think it would have been put in the address by the vicar. I think that is an important element to keep in mind and it should be kept in mind by those who have had members of families and, indeed their whole country, ravaged by warfare. There is always that possibility if we remember our common humanity. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act- Correspondence and Statement relating to extension of specified period for presentation of the Merit Protection and Review Agency Annual Report 1985-86. Statement relating to failure to furnish within specified period for presentation of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board Annual Report 1985-86. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1). Public Service Act-Determination 1987 No. 19. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1987-No. 6-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Principal Member, Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and others, dated 10 April 1987.