Thursday, 7 May 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 providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the 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 Walsh (from 102 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. There is no legal barrier to the importation of X-rated videos into the A.C.T. or to their sale in the A.C.T. 2. The Government has ignored the repeated protests of the Senate and the people of Canberra on this situation. 3. As a result X-rated videos are being sold from Canberra to other States, although they are banned in all States. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to put pressure on the Government to ban the importation and sale of X-rated video material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 21 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 9th 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 Gietzelt (from seven citizens), Lewis (from 10 citizens) and Robertson (from 137 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and 2. Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium 137 and caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 199 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to Standing Orders, I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 3, standing in my name for the next day of sitting relating to disallowance of the New South Wales Acts Ordinance 1986. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —Late in 1985 the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances obtained ministerial undertakings to amend certain old New South Wales Acts applying in the Australian Capital Territory so that objectionable provisions would be dealt with, including the removal of strict liability offences, the inappropriate definition of an offence, unusual powers of arrest without warrant and some reversals of the onus of proof. When the Committee had occasion to study progress made in addressing these matters it learnt that not as much progress had been made as was originally anticipated. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has assured the Committee that its concerns will be the subject of special attention in his Department's legislation program for this year. The Committee is confident that the questions affecting individual rights will now be dealt with expeditiously. In keeping with the Committee's usual practice of informing the Senate of its legislative scrutiny, I seek leave to incorporate the Committee's correspondence in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA-THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES 24 February 1987 The Hon. Lionel Bowen, M.P. Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Lionel, At its meeting on 19 February 1987 the Committee considered the New South Wales Acts Ordinance 1986, being A.C.T. Ordinance No. 91 of 1986 which, inter alia, remakes amendments to N.S.W. Acts applying in the A.C.T. which were lost on the disallowance of the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985. The Committee notes that the reprinted old N.S.W. Act still contain certain provisions which would attract the Committee's attention if placed in new A.C.T. Ordinances. The provisions in question relate to such matters as strict liability, the right to arrest without warrant, deeming clauses and other onus of proof reversals. These matters were referred to in the Committee's letters to you of 18 September 1985 and 15 October 1985 and your letter of 9 October 1985 (M85/12979:G.I.B.). In your letter you indicated that you had written to your colleagues, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Territories advising them of the Committee's concern in relation to the outmoded drafting and provisions in old Acts within their portfolios. The Committee would be very grateful if you could let the Committee know what progress has been made towards removing or revising these objectionable provisions. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman M87/3085:GIB 26 March 1987 Dear Barney I refer to your letter of 24 February 1987 about the New South Wales Acts Ordinance 1986 (``the 1986 Ordinance''). As with its predecessors, the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1984 and New South Wales Acts Applications Ordinance 1985 (``the 1985 Ordinance''), the 1986 Ordinance did not seek to make substantive reform of NSW Acts in force in the A.C.T., other than by omission of unnecessary provisions. Your Committee queried, in Senator Coates' letter of 18 September 1985, provisions of 5 NSW Acts (Pawnbrokers Act 1902, Public Gates Act 1901, Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1906, Stock Act 1901 and Truck Act 1900) continued in force by the 1985 Ordinance. Under the 1985 Ordinance, the Truck Act was administered by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the other Acts mentioned were administered by the Minister for Territories. At the time work was under way in the Department of Territories to repeal and replace 3 of those Acts (Pawnbrokers Act, Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act and Stock Act). I sent copies of Senator Coates' letter to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Territories and suggested that your Committee's concerns might be taken into account in setting their legislative priorities for the A.C.T. As you will have noticed, 2 of the 5 Acts which concerned the Committee, (Public Gates Act and Stock Act) were repealed by the 1986 Ordinance, and that Ordinance also transferred responsibility for the Truck Act to the Minister for Territories. I understand that work on the repeal and replacement of the Pawnbrokers Act and the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act has not progressed significantly since I wrote to you in October 1985, because of demands imposed by other matters in the Department of Territories legislation program. I am writing to my colleague the Minister for Territories suggesting that if higher priority can not be given to replacement of these Acts he consider examining the specific provisions raised by the Committee in a separate exercise. In this regard you will recall that the Minister had short amending Ordinances made last year to amend the power of entry provisions of the Games Wagers and Betting-Houses Act and the Gaming and Betting Act to meet concerns expressed by the Committee. I have also advised the Minister that my Department is ready to assist in relation to criminal law and any other legal policy issues involved. Yours sincerely LIONEL BOWEN Senator B. Cooney Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Your ref: M87/3085:G1B The Honourable Lionel Bowen, M.P. Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Attorney-General, At its meeting on 2 April 1987 the Committee considered your letter of 26 March 1987 regarding the New South Wales Acts Ordinance 1986. The Committee had written to you to discover what progress had been made with consideration of issues of principle raised by the Committee on 18 September 1985 following its consideration of the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1986. The current Ordinance is a partial remake of that Ordinance. The Committee thanks you for your concise and helpful exposition of the current position. The Committee's initial concerns were summarised in the Committee's letter to you of 18 September 1985. For present purposes, they related to: provisions which appear, at worst, to impose strict criminal liability or, at best, to leave the matter uncertain, in a number of sections of the Pawnbrokers Act 1902, the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1906 and the Truck Act 1900; a provision including an inappropriate test as an element of an offence in section 24 of the Pawnbrokers Act; a provision conferring an unusual power of arrest without warrant in section 12 of the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act; and deeming provisions in the same Act, which reverse the onus of proof. When you wrote to the Committee on 9 October (M 85/12979: GIB) you explained in some detail the background to the making of the 1985 predecessor, in particular pointing out that the program of N.S.W. Acts Ordinances was not intended or designed for law reform purposes other than by way of the repeal of generally archaic laws. You pointed out in your letter that substantive law reform issues would be dealt with on a subject by subject basis as to do otherwise would make the general N.S.W. laws consolidation project unmanageable and would distort priorities for substantive law reform. You also explained that work was being done to replace the Pawnbrokers Act and the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act. The Committee was somewhat disappointed to learn from your letter of 26 March 1987 that, since October 1985, little progress had been made on the replacement of these Acts. Because of its involvement in scrutinising A.C.T. Ordinances the Committee is aware that the Territories legislation program is large and priorities must be assigned to its component elements. However, the reasonable speedy implementation of ministerial undertakings given to the Committee is a sine qua non of the way the Committee operates in terms of accepting undertakings and withdrawing disallowance motions in reliance on them, rather than proceeding to disallowance. The Committee believes that to sustain this process, which facilitates both the Executive and the Parliament, a higher priority must be given to providing remedies for problems raised by the Committee. The Committee's attitude to unusual delay in implementing undertakings was reported to the Senate in Chapter 5 of the Committee's Eightieth Report. I have attached a copy for ease of reference. The Committee acknowledges, of course, that any delays in this particular matter are not your direct responsibility. The Committee notes that you have written to your colleague the Minister for Territories offering legal services and suggesting ways of dealing with the Committee's specific concerns for example by making a short amending Ordinance which clears up the matters of concern to the Committee. As it appears likely that a complete overhaul of the Pawnbrokers, Second-hand Dealers and Truck Acts is still some distance away, the Committee endorses and supports your suggestion if it can be carried out without disruption to the Minister's otherwise pressing legislation program. The Committee certainly hopes that it can be and it looks forward to seeing relevant amendments. It might be of some assistance, both to you and the Minister for Territories, if I were to send a copy of this letter to the Minister. Yours sincerely, Barney Cooney Chairman 28 April 1987 Senator Barney Cooney Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Cooney I refer to your letter of 3 April 1987 with which you enclosed a copy of your letter to the Attorney-General of 3 April 1987 concerning the New South Wales Acts Ordinance 1986. You expressed concern about delays in removing or revising objectionable provisions in certain NSW Acts within my portfolio which the Committee had identified in September 1985 when considering the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985. As the Attorney-General noted in his letter to you of 26 March 1987, the Public Gates Act and the Stock Act have been repealed. It has not been possible to repeal and replace the Pawnbrokers Act and the Second Hand Dealers and Collectors Act due to the overwhelming demand for legislation considered to require greater priority. Because of this, I have requested that the concerns raised by the Committee-including the provisions of the Truck Act-be examined in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department. I have also requested that any legislation which may arise from that examination be included in my Department's legislation program for this year. I have forwarded a copy of this letter to the Attorney-General. Yours sincerely GORDON SCHOLES Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) The Senate, at its rising on Thursday, 7 May 1987, adjourn till Monday, 11 May 1987 at 2 p.m. (2) The Sessional Orders relating to the days and hours of meeting of the Senate and the Routine of Business for Week 2 apply to the week commencing 11 May 1987. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Tate) read a first time. Second Readings Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(10.05) —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- SEA INSTALLATIONS BILL 1987. There have been several proposals for establishing off-shore installations on the continental shelf beyond the territorial sea, mostly in the Great Barrier Reef area. Some of these can be dealt with simply enough under the current arrangements, involving the Great Barrier Reef ministerial council, both of which involve continuing Commonwealth and Queensland co-operation on policies and day to day management. However, there is no similar arrangement for other areas, and proposals are now being made which require regulation beyond the scope of those arrangements. This Bill provides a framework to ensure that new developments are technically sound and environmentally acceptable. It provides a basis for the application of important Commonwealth laws, and for State or Territory laws to be adopted as Commonwealth laws. These provisions are parallel to those already applying under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, which regulates offshore petroleum and mineral exploration and extraction. That Act and the Bills are based on the belief that the most efficient approach is to adopt State and Territory laws and to develop administrative arrangements involving State and Territory administrations. This approach also takes account of the satisfactory arrangements we have with the Queensland Government for day to day management of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park activities by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is important that off-shore installations not be used as a basis for evasion of Australian laws, particularly those regulating customs, migration, taxation and quarantine. The proposed legislation will deal with this by requiring contact with the installations to be from the mainland, and by including provisions to ensure that the laws in question can be efficiently and effectively applied. The Bill before the Senate does not cover sales tax and income tax, both of which will be the subject of separate legislation in accordance with the Treasurer's announcement in January this year. The approach taken in the legislation is to require proponents of off-shore installations to seek permits from the Minister. They will have to provide information about the purpose of the installation, structural and technical issues, the extent of use and occupation by people, insurance arrangements and so on so that proper standards can be applied, and assessments made of the impact on the environment. Where necessary, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act will be invoked, as has already been done in the case of the proposed floating hotel off Townsville. Permits will be accompanied by whatever safeguards are necessary to ensure that safety and environment considerations are paramount in day to day operations. Variation, revocation and renewal provisions have been included to provide a means of continuing monitoring and to allow changes to accommodate any new factors which arise. The application of State laws and the use of State administrations will be an important part of this monitoring, in areas like health standards and others which will normally apply to similar operations on the mainland the Sea Installations Bill makes clear that the States will be paid for their participation. There are already several cases of small installations such as those used as navigational or meteorological aids which do not require further regulations. It would be possible under the regulations to exempt these from the new legislation. A provision has been included to allow exemption from particular aspects of the regulatory scheme. This will also ensure there is no unintended interference with existing regulatory arrangements directed at matters not within the objectives of this Bill, such as commercial fishing. On the other hand, care has been taken in defining sea installations to include ships which remain constantly or continuously in the seas in question and thereby provide a basis for evasion of the legislation. These provisions acknowledge our obligations in respect of foreign shipping. The development of off-shore installations is already a fact of life. We are committed to harmonising conservation and sustainable development in the natural environment. This includes the seas. This legislation will be part of the Government's policy of protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of the environment. This approach is already being applied by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to installations subject to its regulations. I commend this Bill to the Senate. SEA INSTALLATIONS LEVY BILL 1987 This Bill is part of a package of Bills to provide for the implementation of the Government's decisions relating to sea installations. The levy Bill provides a framework for imposing taxes or charges on these installations. This will ensure that the administrative costs of the States and Territories are met, and that general revenue can benefit, as it would if similar installations were located on the mainland. The States have quite rightly pointed out that the development of off-shore installations for commercial purposes should not be at the expense of the mainland economy, and should not provide a basis for evasion of State and Territory taxation. The Commonwealth accepts this, and so the intention is that the levy be set with these factors in mind. I commend this Bill to the Senate. SEA INSTALLATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1987 This Bill makes amendments to Commonwealth legislation necessitated by the sea installations legislative package. The Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901 are amended to give to officers administering the respective Acts power over such installations, ships, aircraft, persons and goods arriving with or at the installations or departing overseas from such installations. The Migration Act 1958 is amended to identify the point when sea installations and the persons on board enter Australia and when such installations become or cease to be part of Australia. The amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 apply a wide range of controls under the Act to sea installations. The principal control is to make newly-arrived installations, persons and goods on the installations subject to quarantine. I commend this Bill to the Senate. CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (SEA INSTALLATIONS) BILL 1987 This Bill is part of a package of measures which extend the Commonwealth's taxing and Customs' control powers to sea installations as a consequence of the introduction of the Sea Installations Bill 1987. The Bill extends the application of the Customs Tariff Act 1982 to sea installations installed in coastal areas of Australia, or adjacent areas and to goods brought with or taken to such sea installations. This will ensure that such sea installations and goods receive the same treatment as goods imported into Australia in the normal way. I commend this Bill to the Senate. EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (SEA INSTALLATIONS) BILL 1987 This Bill is part of a package of measures related to the implementation of the Government's decisions relating to sea installations. The Bill amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to provide excisable products manufactured or produced at an Australian sea installation shall be deemed to be goods manufactured or produced in Australia. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on the motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several 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 Tate) read a first time. Second Readings Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(10.07) —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- ABORIGINAL LAND (LAKE CONDAH AND FRAMLINGHAM FOREST) BILL 1987 This Bill, and the related Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill which I shall be introducing shortly, arises from the failure of the Victorian Parliament to pass legislation put before it by the State Government, and a subsequent request by the Victorian Government for Commonwealth assistance. I propose in this speech to describe both Bills and the reasons for our action in putting them before the Parliament. The Bills provide for the vesting of land, in the State of Victoria at Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest, in the relevant Aboriginal communities; and a revised regime for the protection of Aboriginal culture within that State. The introduction of the Bills into the Senate is the direct consequence of a request from the Victorian Government. The general intentions contained in these two Bills have been the subject of negotiation between the Victorian Government and the Victorian Aboriginal community for some three years. After much discussion and consultation, three Bills were tabled in the Victorian Parliament during 1985 and 1986. They were the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah) Bill, the Aboriginal Land (Framlingham Forest) Bill and the Aboriginal Culture Heritage Bill. The Victorian Aboriginal Land (Framlingham Forest) Bill intended to grant inalienable freehold title to an area of approximately 11 square kilometres of State Forest immediately adjacent to an area at Framlingham, which had previously been granted to the Kirrae-Whurrong people in 1970. The Victorian Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah) Bill intended to grant inalienable freehold title to an area of a square kilometre of land, on which the historic Lake Condah Mission Station is situated, to the Kerrup-Jmara people. This area is a site of considerable social, architectural and historic interest, particularly for the Kerrup-Jmara for whom the area was a permanent home. It was also a traditional meeting place and a hunting area before white settlement. Both Bills also provided for the management of the land, including co-operation with local authorities for bush fire protection, for vermin and noxious plant control, for the protection of significant sites, for the control of mining or exploration activities and for the preservation of traditional law. The proposed Victorian Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill provided for the involvement of the local Aboriginal community in the protection of their cultural heritage-in particular the protection of sites of significance, the protection of objects of religious, cultural or historical significance and for the return of such objects to Aboriginal control. The Victorian Opposition's reaction to these Bills was nothing short of extraordinary. The Opposition put forward Upper House amendments that intended to convert the title to the Framlingham and Condah land to alienable freehold and indicated its intention to remove basic provisions relating to mining which the Aboriginal community considered fundamental to its control of its traditional land. The Opposition wanted the Cultural Bill withdrawn in toto. The Opposition claimed it was not objecting to the grants of the Framlingham and Lake Condah areas to their traditional owners. It did not dispute that the Kirrae-Whurrong and Kerrup-Jmara people are the traditional owners of these areas. It did not dispute the size of the area being granted-11 square kilometres and 1/2 square kilometre-it simply demanded that the areas in question be held under freehold title which could be sold or mortgaged. That position would indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the place of land in Aboriginal society. The Opposition totally ignored the stand on Aboriginal land rights issues taken by the Bolte Government, which was not a Government generally considered to be socially progressive. However, the Bolte Government saw fit to grant what amounted to inalienable freehold to the Lake Tyers and Framlingham communities in 1970. At that time the Victorian Parliament enacted the Aboriginal Land Act which transferred title to the two Aboriginal communities at Framlingham and Lake Tyers. These communities were living on the remnants of the Aboriginal reserves declared in the nineteenth century but which had been gradually reduced by way of revocation to enable the land to be put to other uses. Yet the Victorian Opposition, 16 years later, now repudiates the actions of their Conservative predecessors and will not compromise on their stand against inalienable title, regardless of what the Aboriginal traditional owners or the broader community thinks. Several prominent members of the Aboriginal communities in question have stressed the need for inalienable title to preserve the special relationship that Aboriginal people have with their land. The acceptance of this relationship is shared by Aboriginal communities throughout Australia and it is both recognised and supported by most State Governments, past Coalition Federal Governments and the current Hawke Government. The relevant Victorian Aboriginal communities never claimed this land, for the purpose of disposing of it. They do not accept that this generation of Aboriginal leaders have the right to dispose of the heritage of future generations. That is their view. That position is totally accepted by the Victorian Government and this Government. It is regrettable that the Aboriginal recipients' views were not seriously discussed or considered by the Victorian Opposition. It might be noted that during the whistle stop tour of Western Victoria, the Leader of the Victorian Opposition, the Hon. Mr Kennett, failed to ask the people directly concerned what they wanted, but spent a lot of time saying what he thought would be best for them. Surely it is ironic that there are prominent Liberal State Parliamentarians who voted for inalienable title for the land at Lake Tyers and Framlingham, yet cannot countenance it now. Is the Victorian Opposition saying what was right in 1970 is now wrong and if so why? The answer is, of course, that the Conservative forces in Australia today consistently oppose the granting of Aboriginal land rights, and they now seek to ensure the grant of a form of title that can and, no doubt they hope, will be removed from Aboriginal ownership by way of sale or through default. In the case of the heritage legislation there was no possibility of compromise. The Opposition simply would not entertain the legislation. Given these circumstances, the Victorian Government, quite properly, sought Commonwealth assistance to enable these limited measures to become law. Before taking the matter to Cabinet, I publicly indicated that I wished to discuss the matter with the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Kennett paid me the courtesy of discussing the matter only after he had held a press conference to state the Opposition's refusal to compromise. Given this attitude on the part of the Victorian Opposition parties, there was nothing to be gained by the Cain Government taking the Bills back to the Victorian Parliament. The Commonwealth right to legislate in the Aboriginal Affairs area is undisputed. The Commonwealth has a clear Constitutional power to legislate on behalf of Aboriginal Australians as conferred on it by the 1967 Referendum and the subsequent amendment of our Constitution. Moreover, the High Court has, in the Tasmanian Dam Case, confirmed beyond doubt the Commonwealth's authority to legislate in this area. The Commonwealth therefore proposes to legislate to give effect to the spirit of the Victorian Bills. These actions are consistent with the Hawke Government's stated policy of addressing the question of land rights and heritage protection on a State by State basis to ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the Aboriginal citizens of each State are fulfilled. In proceeding with the request of the Victorian Government to enact this legislation, the Commonwealth Government is satisfied that the principles and policies agreed between the Victorian Government and the relevant Aboriginal Communities have been faithfully embodied in the Bills now before the Senate. It should be said, however, that the Commonwealth was not privy to the consultations which led to the agreements between the Aboriginal Communities and the Victorian Government. Therefore, this legislation should not be construed to imply that the Commonwealth necessarily endorses in every particular, the agreements arrived at and should not be regarded as a precedent for Commonwealth legislative action elsewhere in Australia. It is sufficient for the Commonwealth, having been satisfied that the principles endorsed by the Victorian Government and the Aboriginal Communities are embodied in the proposed legislation, and having regard to the political situation in the Victorian Parliament, to use the due process of the Commonwealth Parliament to give legislative effect to those agreements. Obviously, certain provisions contained in the Victorian Bills and certain administrative processes proposed by them could not be enacted by any Commonwealth Parliament. For example, the Commonwealth would not seek to compel State Ministers or officials to carry out tasks, or to bind State review tribunals to review decisions. However, with the agreement of the Victorian Government, the administration of the legislation will, as far as is possible, be delegated to a Minister of the Victorian Government. Together with such obvious changes any other alterations have been agreed with the Victorian Government. The general provisions of the Bills now being considered by the Senate are discussed below. The land Bill before the Senate provides for the acquisition of the land from the State of Victoria by its own force and the vesting of that land in the Kerrup-Jmara and Kirrae-Whurrong Communities. The acquisition will not include the minerals which will remain vested in the State of Victoria. The vesting will provide for the extinguishment of easements and privileges including the closure of the roads identified on the plans scheduled to the Bill. The Communities will be granted full power of management and control of the land subject to the laws of the Commonwealth and Victoria. The Minister will have to approve the giving of a lease or licence in excess of three years. The power of control and management will include the power to transfer land to another Aboriginal group within Victoria. The Kerrup-Jmara and Kirrae-Whurrong Communities will both be incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 and will provide for a Community Corporation and a Committee of Elders for each group. The Communities will have general local government type by-law making powers. Such by-laws will be gazetted and be subject to disallowance by the Commonwealth Parliament. The Committee of Elders of the Communities will have specific powers relating to membership of the Community and a determinative function with respect to traditional matters within the Community. The Communities will be obliged to compile a register of sacred or significant sites on community land. The register would be kept so as to prevent disclosure of its contents without the permission of the Committee of Elders or for certain purposes under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Amendment Bill 1987. There will be provision for the register to be made available to the Minister when the Minister is considering making a declaration that a sacred or significant site has been appropriately protected in relation to the granting of permission for a mining operation. Upon a winding up of either Community the land will be vested in the Commonwealth on behalf of the Aboriginal people of Victoria. The Minister would then have power to approve any transfer of that land to any other incorporated Aboriginal group whose members are the descendants of the respective clan or, in the case of the Kerrup-Jmara clan, failing the existence of such a group, to one other incorporated group within Victoria. The Community will have the power to transfer its interest in the land to another Aboriginal group within Victoria. That transfer would not be able to proceed if one or more of the Committee of Elders object. There would be no requirement for ministerial approval to such a transfer. Community land will be declared exempt from Victorian land tax. The Bill provides that full care and control of flora and fauna by the Community will be subject to the endangered species provisions of the Wildlife Act of Victoria and the proclaimed plants provisions of the Wildflowers and Native Plants Protection Act of Victoria. With regard to exploration and mining on the land concerned, a person may not carry out a mining operation without the permission of the Community, excepting those operations which are undertaken in compliance with pre-existing mining interests. Mining operations will be defined to cover operations for the recovery of all minerals, petroleum and stone as defined in the relevant Victorian Statutes. Permission to carry out mining operations can be obtained only if a person has applied for a mining tenement in relation to community land. Any grant of a mining tenement by the Victorian Minister of Mines will be rendered of no effect until permission has been obtained from the Community to carry out the mining operation. The Community may give its permission subject to terms and conditions. If those conditions are agreed to by the applicant they may provide for a payment to the Community. If the Community refuses its permission, or gives permission with conditions that the applicant rejects, or does not provide a response within 120 days, the applicant may notify the Minister who will then call for a meeting of the parties to attempt conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the applicant and the corporation may within 60 days appoint an arbitrator and, if unable to agree, may request that the Minister appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator who would be required to review the decision of the Community both as to approval and as to terms and conditions for the giving of such approval. The arbitrator is required to consider a number of issues such as the effect of mining on the preservation and protection of the lifestyle, culture and traditions of the traditional owners of the land, before making a final determination. If compensation cannot be agreed, the arbitrator is required to make an appropriate determination. The legislation provides that compensation payments are not to exceed those payable for disturbance under the Mines Act, Petroleum Act or Extractive Industries Act of Victoria at the exploration stage. However, they may exceed such payments at the mining stage. In the event that the arbitrator confirms a community decision not to approve a mining operation, any grant by the Victorian Minister for Mines of a mining tenement will be of no legal effect. Mining operations to be carried out in accordance with a renewal, extension, or variation of a pre-existing interest will require the permission of the community. Where an application is made for a mining tenement on Community land and the Minister is satisfied that the application relates to an area which is, in whole or part, a sacred or significant site, and that site is recorded in the register the Community is required to keep of such sites, the Minister, if he is satisfied that it is appropriate, must provide for the protection and preservation of that site. Such protection would be in the form of a declaration in accordance with the provisions of the Victorian Aboriginal and Cultural Heritage Bill as enacted by the Commonwealth as an amendment to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. The legislation will make it an offence to offer a gift or consideration so as to obtain Community permission to carry out mining operations. If permission is granted by the Community to a person to carry out mining operations, that permission will include permission to enter and be on Community land for the purposes of the mining operation. Importantly, the Bill provides for an allocation from the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund of an amount, determined by regulation, for the purposes of payment of a mining royalty equivalent. Such amounts will be paid into a Trust fund. One half of that amount will go to the relevant Community and the other to a separate fund for the advancement of the Aboriginal people of Victoria. The trusts will be administered by the State of Victoria under delegation from the Minister. The Senate should note that the Commonwealth Minister responsible for this Act will be empowered to delegate his authority to appropriate Ministers of the Victorian Government. These delegated powers will in themselves be capable of further delegation by those Ministers. I commend the Bill to honourable senators and present the explanatory memorandum. ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER HERITAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 It is proposed to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 to create a new part to provide for the provisions which were contained in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill of Victoria. The amendment Bill will provide that any person may apply for an emergency declaration which may be granted by the Minister, an inspector or a magistrate, providing that an Aboriginal place or object is under threat of injury or interference. The emergency declaration is designed to cover the situation where, for example, the bulldozer is coming down the road or the significant object is advertised for auction. Such declarations would remain in force for 30 days. There is a power given to the person making the declaration to vary or revoke it. There will be a duty to notify any local Aboriginal community concerned and any such persons who are likely to be affected by such a declaration. A local Aboriginal community may decide that an Aboriginal place or object in its Community is under threat of injury or interference. Provision will be made for such a community to apply to the Minister for a temporary declaration. The Minister will be required to give notice of such application to those likely to be affected and give such persons an opportunity to be heard. If after consulting with appropriate State Ministers the Minister is satisfied in all the circumstances that a declaration ought to be made, he would make that declaration setting out the terms of the declaration and the manner of preservation of the Aboriginal place or object. The Minister will have power to vary or revoke such a declaration. There will be provision for a person affected by a temporary declaration to apply to the Minister for the Minister to appoint an arbitrator to review the Minister's decision. Similarly, if the Minister refuses to make such declaration or varies that declaration the local Aboriginal community may apply to the arbitrator for review. Temporary declarations remain in force for 60 days or such longer period not exceeding 120 days as the Minister, on the advice of the local Aboriginal Community, determines. If a local Aboriginal Community decides that an Aboriginal place or object is of such significance the community may request the Minister to make a declaration of preservation. The Minister must give notice of such an application and give any person who might be affected the opportunity to be heard. If the Minister, after hearing all objections and consulting with appropriate State Ministers, is satisfied that in all the circumstances it is appropriate the Minister must make the declaration. The Minister may vary or revoke such declarations. He must also give notice of any making, variation or revocation of a declaration and there are similar rights to apply to the Minister for the appointment of an arbitrator to review the decision. A local Aboriginal community may cause notices to be placed on or near Aboriginal places or objects that are the subject of a declaration. Damaging or removing such a sign would be an offence. The legislation will make it an offence to contravene the terms of a declaration. Separate penalties will be provided for individuals and corporations. A defence is provided for a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known of a declaration of the place or object. Provision will be made to enable a local Aboriginal community to enter into an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Agreement with a person who owns or possesses any Aboriginal cultural property. Such agreements would provide for preservation, maintenance, sale, etc., in accordance with the needs and wishes of the Aboriginal and general communities. The local Aboriginal community may lodge such an agreement with the Victorian Registrar of Titles. The Bill will empower the Minister to acquire compulsorily, any Aboriginal cultural property if he is satisfied that it is of such significance that it is irreplaceable and no other arrangements can be made for its preservation. Such acquisition would carry with it a right to compensation from the Commonwealth. Persons whose property is effectively acquired when a declaration of preservation ends their rights to deal with it as owner, are also entitled to compensation. The Minister also has a discretion to compensate any person affected by, or likely to be affected by, a long term declaration of preservation. After consultation with the local Aboriginal community, the Minister may appoint as inspectors persons with knowledge and expertise in the identification and preservation of Aboriginal cultural property. If a Magistrate is satisfied by evidence given on oath or affirmation, that Magistrate may issue a warrant authorising any member of the police force and an inspector, to enter premises, to search those premises, and to take possession of any Aboriginal objects under threat. Any object seized must be returned to the owner within 60 days unless compulsorily acquired, or otherwise becomes the property of the local Aboriginal community. A local Aboriginal community may, in writing, appoint honorary keepers or wardens whose functions will be to keep or record and maintain Aboriginal cultural property of that community. It will be an offence to wilfully deface, damage, or otherwise interfere with Aboriginal objects or places. It will be a defence to such a charge that the local Aboriginal community consented in writing to the act done by the person. The Minister will cause to be kept a register of all declarations of preservation. The information upon that register would be protected from access except as prescribed. The Minister responsible for this Act will be empowered to delegate his authority, including delegation to appropriate Ministers of the Victorian Government. These delegated powers will in themselves be capable of further delegation by those Ministers. The Governor-General would have appropriate regulation making powers. Commonwealth legislation cannot directly amend the Archeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972 of Victoria as the Victorian Government had proposed. The existing Victorian statute will continue to apply to Aboriginal relics except to the extent that it is inconsistent with overriding Commonwealth legislation. Declarations for protection under the State statute which were made prior to the commencement of this Bill will continue to apply. These Bills represent a unique and important step on the part of this Parliament to recognise the legitimate and traditional interests of the Aboriginal people of Victoria. It is an opportunity for this Parliament to exercise its Constitutional power to enact legislation for the benefit of the Aboriginal people in Victoria. Those powers are being exercised at the specific request of the elected Government of the State of Victoria. Such a request, in the face of an intransigent, irrational and unjustifiable stand taken by the Opposition parties in the Victorian Parliament necessitates the Commonwealth Parliament taking a stand in support of the Aboriginal people who are the subject of these Bills. There is no question that the Hawke Labor Government is prepared to take that stand. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Tate) read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(10.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill is to give effect to the shipping industry development package announced by the Government on 22 December 1986. The package consists of shipboard productivity and capital assistance measures. This legislation will assist Australian ship operators to acquire modern, technologically advanced ships which can be operated efficiently at the crewing levels specified in the Bill. The Government has a firm commitment to the development and expansion of efficient, competitive and reliable Australian flag shipping. We believe that there are opportunities where Australian shipping can compete internationally, on its commercial merits, despite the very difficult market situation shipping faces globally. On the basis of cargo volumes and distance carried, the Australian seaborne transport task ranks fifth in the world. Yet less than 5 per cent of our trade is carried in Australian flag ships. This reliance on foreign shipping places a heavy burden on our balance of payments. In today's tough economic climate we can no longer rely solely on traditional exports to keep our economy buoyant. If we are to enjoy future prosperity we must look to expanding our trade in services, such as exports of efficient Australian shipping services. The industry development package which this Bill seeks to implement is a major element in the Government's long term strategy of developing an efficient Australian merchant fleet. The Package is based on the recommendations of the Maritime Industry Development Committee-MIDC-as set out in its report `Moving Ahead'. The MIDC is a tripartite Committee of Australian ship operators and seagoing unions, chaired by an officer of the Federal Department of Transport. It was asked to examine, in detail, shipboard organisation and operational arrangements in Australian shipping and to recommend a workable industry manpower plan appropriate for modern ships. I would like at this point to express the Government's appreciation of the work of the Committee and to pay tribute to the seagoing unions and the ship operators for their enlightened approach to their industry. The Committee delivered an innovative, forward looking plan that has four main elements. First, the introduction of multi-skilled ratings on to Australian trading ships; that is, ratings who will work both in the engine room and on deck. This integrated approach to ship crewing introduces into the Australian shipping industry the general purpose crew concept being developed by leading maritime nations. Secondly, the establishment of a new training regime to equip entrants into the industry with the skills demanded by high technology, modern ships. Thirdly, establishment of a retraining program to provide the opportunity for existing seafarers to upgrade their skills and remain in the industry. Fourthly, the introduction of a new social environment on Australian ships, with the emphasis on teamwork. The MIDC plan for a new approach on Australian ships is a sound basis on which to take Australian shipping into the next decade. The implementation of this plan has been set by MIDC in a three point Package. First, the unions have agreed to changes which will improve efficiency. Secondly, ship operators have undertaken to invest whenever commercially feasible in the high technology ships that will introduce the new crewing arrangements. Thirdly, the industry has called on the Government to provide financial incentives, which this Bill seeks to do. Each of these elements reinforces the others. Implementation of the MIDC package will bring immediate benefits. The maximum crew on a new generation bulk carrier operating to the new standards will be 21. That is an improvement of some 20 per cent on the previous crew level on an Australian bulk ship of 26. However, the importance of the package goes well beyond this aspect. The introduction of multi-skilled, general purpose crewing will provide a method of shipboard organisation that can readily accommodate further improvements to crew productivity, in line with technological developments in the industry. This package constitutes the greatest single step forward for Australian shipping. It represents the most progressive move made in decades. It is an achievement that has been made possible by genuine goodwill, co-operation and consultation involving all parties-sea- farers, ship operators and Government. The package has been derived by those who know the industry's strengths and weaknesses and how it functions, and are committed to its improvement. It is a model for other industries to follow. Over the last few years seafarers have faced a contraction in employment opportunities. Improved shipboard technology has reduced manpower requirements and ships have become significantly larger, one ship often replacing two. Despite these difficulties Australia's seafarers have adopted an enlightened approach, squarely facing up to the issues and supporting measures which will put Australian shipping on course for a better future. The role of government has been to encourage and promote this worthwhile development. It recognises that progress must come from within the industry and cannot be imposed from without. They key to the success of the package is investment in new tonnage. Smaller crews will only eventuate if high technology ships capable of being operated at the proposed new levels, are introduced into the Australian fleet. New ships mean new job opportunities and a firmer, more secure future for the industry. Both are essential prerequisites for a healthy industrial relations climate. As the cost of capital is the major cost in ship operation, accounting for up to half total costs, any lightening of capital burdens would be a major step forward in promoting the industry. The financial measures that will be provided by the Bill now before the Senate will therefore act as a positive incentive for ship operators to invest in the new ships that will make the package work. It is the Government's contribution to the success of the MIDC plan. It is the Government's contribution to the future of a vital national industry. The intention of this Bill is quite clear. The Government will provide grants to encourage the introduction of new ships into the Australian flag fleet, provided those ships are operated at all times at or below specified crew levels. The Bill's purpose is to improve the efficiency of Australian shipping by promoting the shipboard management and work practices, and training programs, developed by MIDC. The Government is prepared to take this step because it knows that the industry-ship operators, unions and employees-are committed to the success of this industry package. I turn now to the details of the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill. The draft Bill provides for a taxable grant of 7 per cent of the purchase price of eligible new or secondhand trading ships, or, in certain circumstances, 7 per cent of the modification cost of an existing trading ship. As Clause 8 sets out, grants will be available only to ships which are: Crewed with Australian residents, at a level no more that that specified for the appropriate ship category; engaged in the carriage of passengers and/or cargoes; owned and registered in Australia. No ship will be able to qualify for a grant more than once under this scheme. For income tax purposes, the grant will be treated as income in the year of receipt. A shipowner in receipt of a grant will be required to operate the relevant ship in accordance with its certificate of ship category issued by the Secretary to the Department of Transport. Clause 6 specifies the categories. That clause also allows for new categories of ships to be created by regulation, where warranted. It is expected that this will occur only rarely, for instance, in the case of small ships, or ships engaged on short coastal voyages where a three watch system need not apply. In this case a maximum crew level of well below 21 would be determined. Clause 7 specifies maximum crew levels for ships benefiting under this Bill. These are 21 for tankers in the international trades and for other types of ships-for example, bulk carriers and container ships. Tankers engaged in the coastal trades will have a maximum crew of 23. I should stress that these are maximum crew levels, arrived at after consultation with the MIDC. Nothing in the legislation will prevent ships from being operated with lower crew levels, provided that can be done with safety. To ensure the maximum impact of the grant scheme, it is subject to a sunset clause. The scheme commences on 1 July 1987 and cuts out for new ships on 30 June 1992, and for secondhand ships on 30 June 1990. To allow maximum operational flexibility, provision is made in clause 12 for a ship to be issued with a certificate stipulating more than one category. For instance, a tanker engaged in both coastal and overseas trading would be able to be crewed according to the voyage actually being undertaken. If required, ship operators can apply-under clause 14-for a variation to a ship category certificate when a ship changes its operations or trade. Provision is made in clause 22 for the Secretary to the Department of Transport to permit, where circumstances warrant it, additional persons to be carried for a limited period. This provides the flexibility to cover the case of a new ship experiencing teething problems that require the temporary carriage of specialised technicians. Provision is also made in clause 23 for the Secretary to permit the ship to be operated with trainees in addition to the crew, without jeopardising eligibility for grants. This will allow essential sea experience in practical ship operation through the temporary creation of training berths on appropriate ships in the fleet. A ship operator who fails to maintain the crew at or below the appropriate level or knowingly breaches other conditions-for example, crews a ship with non-Australian residents-will be required to repay the grant as set out in clause 26. That clause also requires a ship operator who disposes of a ship in under 5 years after receipt of a grant to repay that grant, on a pro rata basis. As announced by the Minister for Transport on 22 December last, these arrangements replace the depreciation concessions and manning notice requirements set out in section 57am of the Income Tax Assessment Act. However, for new ships which are eligible for the grant the Government has decided to retain the entitlement under that section to depreciation in the pre-commissioning year. Eligible new ships would therefore qualify for 20 per cent depreciation in the pre-commissioning year and each of the four subsequent years. In the case of secondhand ships the usual taxation rules will apply, which would allow five year depreciation commencing from the date the ship is first used by the owner. Those depreciation rules will also apply to modifications. Appropriate amendments will be made to the Income Tax Assessment Act as soon as practicable. Australia is an important trading nation almost totally dependent on overseas-owned or controlled shipping to get its goods to distant markets. The MIDC package will promote a more efficient, competitive and reliable Australian flag fleet. Australia will be less dependent on overseas shipping and will retain a greater share of the external freight bill. The package will also mean lower coastal sea freight costs. The scheme is estimated to cost $18m, after tax is paid on the grants, spread over 5 years. For this net outlay, a foreign exchange contribution of $40m to $50m a year could be achieved under the MIDC package. A saving of up to $40m a year is also in prospect from the use of more efficient tonnage on the coast. These savings will increase profits and create jobs. The resultant boost to tax receipts will further reduce, and should eliminate, the net budgetary cost of the grant scheme. Moreover, these benefits are permanent additions to national wealth, that will long outlive the transitory cost of grants. This package replaces the Crawford plan, established in 1984. Under that plan, some 10 per cent of the Australian flag fleet was renewed with crew reductions of between 20 and 30 per cent achieved. I acknowledge the part played by the Minister for Transport and Construction under the previous Government, the Hon. Ralph Hunt, who recognised the need to bring the parties together so that the industry could develop on a realistic and commercial basis. He had our support for his initiative in commissioning Sir John Crawford to work with ship operators and sea-going unions to promote Australian shipping. This Bill represents a watershed for the Australian shipping industry. It will cement into place an industry plan which has evolved after much hard work over the last three years. That plan is the path to the future for the industry because it provides an ongoing system of crewing that has the flexibility to adjust to the competitive pressures that will continue to emerge in shipping. The industry will have to work hard to secure its future, to continue to improve its efficiency. It will require considerable co-operation between all elements of the industry. I am, however, confident that we have the right framework for success, a success that will benefit Australia as a whole. The Ships (Capital Grants) Bill is an important contribution to this process. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of General Business for consideration this day pursuant to Sessional Order be as follows: (a) consideration of Government Papers; (b) General Business, Order of the Day No. 384 [Air Navigation (Smoking) Amendment Bill 1987]; and (c) General Business, Order of the Day No. 367 (Moreton Island Preservation Bill 1987). Senator COOK(Western Australia) —I present the report from Estimates Committee A on the proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1987, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator AULICH(Tasmania) —I present the report from Estimates Committee B on the proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1987, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —I present the report of Estimates Committee C on the proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1987, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the report of Estimates Committee D on the proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1987, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I present the report of Estimates Committee E on the proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1987, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present the report of Estimates Committee F on the proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1987, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Consideration resumed from 6 May. Clause 5 (Times at which redistributions are to commence). The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering clause 5 of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill, to which Senator Vigor is proposing to move amendments and, by leave, to move associated or consequential amendments to clauses 7, 13, 15, 33, new clause 46 and new Schedule 2. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.13) —When the debate was interrupted last night I was dealing with some of the matters which would be advantaged by my amendments. The main one is that we will get real one vote one value. However, I would just like to resummarise some of the other advantages. Firstly, under the current system, every month we have to ascertain the number of people in each electorate. Under my proposed scheme it would be necessary only every six months, in our estimation, simply because the electorates would be bigger if we had multi-member electorates and under those circumstances we would not need to redistribute so often. Redistribution under current legislation is required at least every seven years, and sooner if numbers get out of kilter. This provision could be relaxed if we moved to a system of multi-member electorates with proportional representation. Savings are produced under a system of proportional representation redistribution because boundaries do not have to be continually disrupted due to the very small nature of the individual electorates. There will be an enormous cost advantage because redistribution can be very expensive. It has been rather difficult for me to get details of the costs of running the seven-yearly compulsory redistributions. I would be very grateful if the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) let us know in reply to the debate whether any figures are available on the costs of the 1984 redistribution. This would give us some idea of the money spent when electorates on the edges of cities grow and we have to carry out a full redistribution program. The one vote one value principle has received a lot of abuse. An excellent measure of the degree to which an electoral system is fair is the extent to which the wishes of the voters are mirrored in the composition of parliament. It is the voter's perspective that makes or breaks democracy. I would like to cite some of the figures associated with various elections to show that where proportional representation has been used the voters' wishes have been expressed much more effectively. I start with the 1986 general election, held on 8 February, in Tasmania. The Liberal Party received 54.2 per cent of first preferences and won 19 of the 35 seats. Across Tasmania there was one Liberal member of the House of Assembly for every 7,300 voters. That is only a rough calculation. The Labor Party received 35.1 per cent of first preferences in that election and won 14 of the 35 seats, that, is, 40 per cent of the total number of seats. So the Labor Party was slightly over-represented, instead of being totally wiped out, which would have happened in the single-member electorate system which we have for the House of Representatives. There was one Labor member of the House of Assembly for every 6,400 Labor voters. The independents and Australian Democrats received 10.7 per cent of the vote and won 2 seats, or 5.7 per cent of the total number of seats. The major parties could not complain about the result. Labor, in particular, had no reason to complain. Only two independents were elected. This shows that the practical hurdle of the 12.5 per cent quota is quite sufficient in seven-member electorates. Having a completely fragmented parliament is not a real problem. Senator Aulich —It is a lunatic system and you know it. Senator VIGOR —Senator Aulich, who comes from Tasmania, says that it is a lunatic system. He probably would have been wiped out. Extensive community support is needed in Tasmania for a candidate to be elected. Maybe that is what Senator Aulich objects to. It has been harder for people outside the major parties, outside Labor and coalition ranks, to get elected in seven-member districts in Tasmania than it has been for them to get elected to the Senate when there were five-member vacancies. A large part of the reason is that far fewer attempts are made to regiment voting in Tasmania than is the case in other places. The rotation of names in the ballot paper and the very sensible absence of how to vote card materials on polling day has helped generate a much more discriminating voter and a much more discriminating electoral climate. While both Labor and Liberal have maintained their representation levels from the previous election, six sitting Liberals and seven sitting Labor members of the House of Assembly did in fact lose their seats. So that parties maintained the holding which they had, but the people had a choice within those parties, which is pretty fair. The Hobart Mercury commented, in fact, that casualties came from both Liberal and Labor ranks and included some surprises, but all in all the electors of Tasmania showed great perception in choosing from the many candidates and their proven skills and enthusiasm. Under this system the candidates must work to be elected. At the previous general election of 15 May 1982 the Liberal Party received 121,346 votes with 19 members elected-one for each 6,400 supporters. The Labor Party received 92,184 votes with 14 members elected-one for each 6,600 supporters. When we look at the average figures for the major parties, we see that they are quite close together. In 1982 the Liberals were slightly advantaged while in 1985 the Labor Party was favoured. I compare this situation with that in NSW which proclaimed itself loudly as a one vote one value State during Mr Wran's term of office. The last general elections were in March 1984 when the Labor Party received 48.75 per cent of first preferences and won 59 per cent of the seats-quite a hefty bonus. In fact, there were 25,300 Labor supporters for each candidate elected. The Liberal Party received 32.17 per cent of the first preferences and won 22 per cent of the seats because its vote was spread rather widely over the whole State. There were nearly 44,000 Liberal voters for each Liberal member. Clearly the value of a Liberal vote in NSW is less than the value of a Labor vote in NSW under this scheme. If we take the National Party of Australia, with 15 of its 23 candidates successful and only 10.84 per cent of the vote, it was even more advantaged than the Labor Party because for every 21,700 supporters, the National Party managed to get one parliamentarian. An analysis of the election results by the Proportional Representation Society of Australia produced the following picture of 11 simulated nine-member districts: It was most likely that the Labor Party would win 51 seats on its 49 per cent of the vote, one for every 28,700 supporters; the Liberal Party with 32 per cent of first preferences translated its vote into 34 seats, one for every 28,500 supporters; and the National Party with 11 per cent would suffer and take only 11 seats, one for every 29,600 supporters. If we really believe in one vote one value, we must support a proportional representation system for the House of Representatives. That is exactly what this amendment does. Clearly the division of NSW into nine-member districts would produce a real one vote one value result, whereas the actual single member electorates in fact produce nothing of the sort. The situation in the 1981 election was even more unfair to the Liberal Party. I hope that the Liberal Party is listening to this. The distortion of voters' wishes in New South Wales has been as bad as that in Queensland, with its terrible zonal system which has been mercilessly refined by the Nationals since inheriting it from the Hanlon Labor Government. For instance, in 1983 on polling day there were 12,500 supporters for each National Party member of the Legislative Assembly, 18,100 for each Labor member and 24,500 for each Liberal elected. The situation for the House of Representatives election is not much better. Despite the proud assertion that one vote one value was upon us when Mr Whitlam succeeded in dropping the electoral tolerances from 20 to 10 per cent at the Joint sitting in 1974, all he appears to have done is to have given us more redistributions. The Australian Labor Party received 47.5 per cent of the vote Australia-wide in the election and it took 55.4 per cent of the seats-one for every 50,200 supporters. The Liberal Party received 34.4 per cent of the first preference votes and got 30.4 per cent of the members-one for every 66,200 supporters. The National Party got 10.6 per cent of the vote and 15.2 per cent of the seats-one for every 43,900 supporters. Once again, the fluctuations in the responsiveness to voter support indicate that one vote one value is not a fact in the House of Representatives system at the moment. The Bill before us does not change that. It continues to push a system which leads to these great diversities of values. I recommend to the Committee that my amendments be supported so that the voters of Australia are given a fair go. That is their aim. It is essential that this Parliament take the voters seriously and give them a real chance to express their votes so that they are given the same value, irrespective of for whom they vote. I seek leave to move my amendments together. Leave granted. Senator VIGOR —I move: GROUP 2-PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (1) Page 3, clause 5, lines 29 to 38, leave out the clause, insert the following clauses: ``Heading to Division 3 of Part III ``5. The heading to Division 3 of Part III of the Principal Act is amended by inserting `and Territories' after `States'. ``5a. Section 46 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted: Ascertainment of numbers of people of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories `46. Where a House of Representatives has continued for a period of 11 months after the day of the first meeting of that House, the Electoral Commissioner shall- (a) within one month after the expiration of the period of 11 months; (b) within one month after the expiration of a period of 17 months after the day of the first meeting of that House; (c) within one month after the expiration of a period of 23 months after the day of the first meeting of that House; and (d) within one month after the expiration of a period of 29 months after the day of the first meeting of that House, if that House is still continuing, ascertain the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth and of the several States and of each Territory in accordance with the latest statistics of the Commonwealth.'. Determination of numbers of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in States and Territories ``5b. Section 48 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section (1) `States,' and substituting `States and of each Territory,'; (b) by inserting in sub-section (1) `and in each Territory' after `States'; (c) by inserting in sub-section (2) `and in each Territory' after `States' (first occurring); (d) by omitting from paragraph (2) (b) `State.' and substituting `State;'; and (e) by adding at the end of sub-section (2) the following paragraph: `(c) the number of members to be chosen in each Territory shall be determined by dividing the number of people of the Territory as ascertained in accordance with section 46, by the quota and- (i) if on such division the result is a fraction less than one, one member shall be chosen in the Territory; or (ii) if on such division there is a remainder greater than one-half of the quota, one more member shall be chosen in the Territory.'. Notification of determination ``5c. Section 49 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting in sub-section (1) `and in each Territory' after `States' (first occurring); and (b) by inserting in sub-paragraph (1) (a) (i) `and of each Territory' after `States'. Number of members of House of Representatives to be chosen in States and Territories ``5d. Section 50 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting `and in each Territory' after `State'. Heading to Division 4 of Part III ``5e. The heading to Division 4 of Part III of the Principal Act is repealed. Repeal of sections 51 and 52 ``5f. Sections 51 and 52 of the principal Act are repealed. Interpretation ``5g. Section 55 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1) and substituting the following sub-section: `(1) In this Part ``average enrolment per member'', in relation to a State, means- (a) subject to paragraph (b), the number ascertained by dividing the number of electors enrolled in the State by the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the State in accordance with the latest determination made under sub-section 48 (1), or (b) in a case where the number ascertained in accordance with paragraph (a) includes a fraction-the number so ascertained- (i) if the fraction is less than one-half-reduced to the nearest whole number; or (ii) if the fraction is one-half or more-increased to the nearest whole number.'. ``5h. Sections 56 and 57 of the Principle Act are repealed and the following section is substituted: Distribution of States and Territories into Electoral Divisions `56. (1) In this section, ``population density'' means, in relation to an Electoral Division, the number ascertained by dividing the population in that Electoral Division by the number of square kilometres in that Electoral Division. `(2) Each State shall be distributed into Electoral Divisions in accordance with sub-section (3). `(3) Where the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in State determined in accordance with section 48 is- (a) any number other than a number referred to in paragraph (b)-the State shall, subject to sub-section (4), form such number of Electoral Divisions, each returning an odd number of members greater than or equal to five, as the Redistribution Committee for the State considered appropriate; or (b) thirteen, eleven, nine or any number less than nine-the State shall form one Electoral Division. `(4) Where, in accordance with sub-section (3), a State is distributed into more than one Electoral Division, no Electoral Division shall be formed such that the population density in that Electoral Division is greater than the population density in any other Electoral Division returning a larger number of members. `(5) Each Territory shall form one Electoral Division.'. Monthly ascertainment of enrolment, &c. ``5j. Section 58 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (1) and (2) and substituting the following sub-sections: `(1) The Electoral Commissioner shall, forthwith after having ascertained, in accordance with section 46, the numbers of the people of the several States- (a) ascertain, in respect of each State, as at the close of a day in a month referred to in paragraph 46 (a), (b), (c), or (d), the number of electors enrolled in each Division; (b) determine, in respect of each State, as at the close of that day in the month- (i) the average enrolment per member; and (ii) the extent to which, in each Electoral Division, the number ascertained by dividing the number of electors enrolled in the Electoral Division by the number of members returned by that Electoral Division differs from the average enrolment per member; and (c) cause a statement setting out the matters so ascertained and determined to be, published forthwith in the Gazette. `(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be taken to require a determination under that sub-section to be made in respect of the several States as at the close of the same day in a month.'. Times at which redistributions are to commence ``5k. Section 59 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from paragraph (2) (b) `2 months, been, malapportioned Divisions; and' and substituting `6 months, been, malapportioned Divisions,'; (b) by omitting paragraph (2) (c); (c) by omitting from sub-section (3) `or (c)'; (d) by omitting from paragraph (3) (b) `one year' and substituting `six months'; (e) by omitting sub-section (4); (f) by omitting from paragraph (5) (a) `(including that sub-section as affected by sub-section (4))'; (g) by omitting sub-sections (7), (8) and (9); (h) by omitting from sub-section (10) all words after `in a State' and substituting `in which the number ascertained by dividing the number of electors enrolled in the Division by the number of members returned by that Division differs from the average enrolment per member in relation to the State to a greater extent than one-tenth more or one-tenth less.'; and (j) by omitting from paragraph (11) (b) `in the case of a State-'.''. (2) Page 4, clause 7, lines 13 to 25, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ``7. Section 66 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted: Redistribution Committee to make proposed redistribution `66. (1) A Redistribution Committee for a State shall, in accordance with sub-section (2), (3) and (4), make a proposed redistribution of the State. `(2) The proposed redistribution shall propose the distribution of the State into Electoral Divisions in accordance with section 56. `(3) In making the proposed redistribution, the Redistribution Committee shall give due consideration, in relation to each proposed Electoral Division, to- (a) community of interests within the proposed Electoral Division, including economic, social and regional interests; (b) means of communication and travel within the proposed Electoral Divison; (c) the trend of population changes within the State; and (d) the physical features and area of the proposed Electoral Division. `(4) In making the proposed redistribution, the Redistribution Committee shall not, in relation to a proposed Electoral Division, allow the number ascertained by dividing the number of electors enrolled in the proposed Electoral Division as set out in the latest statement published in accordance with sub-section 58 (1) by the number of members to be returned by that proposed Electoral Division to differ from the average enrolment per member for the State to a greater extent than one-tenth more or one-tenth less.'.''. (3) Page 7, paragraphs 13 (b) and (c), lines 34 to 42, leave out the paragraphs, insert the following paragraph: ``(b) by omitting sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) and substituting the following sub-sections: `(3) The determination shall distribute the State into Electoral Divisions in accordance with section 56. `(4) In making the determination, the augmented Electoral Commission shall give due consideration, in relation to each Electoral Division, to- (a) community of interests within the Electoral Division, including economic, social and regional interests; (b) means of communication and travel within the Electoral Division; (c) the trend of population changes within the State; and (d) the physical features and area of the Electoral Division. `(5) In making the determination, the augmented Electoral Commission shall not, in relation to an Electoral Division, allow the number ascertained by dividing the number of electors enrolled in the Electoral Division as set out in the latest statement published in accordance with sub- section 58 (1) by the number of members to be returned by that Electoral Division to differ from the average enrolment per member for the State to a greater extent than one-tenth more or one-tenth less.'; and''. (4) Page 8, clause 15, lines 18 to 28, leave out the clause, insert the following clauses: Mini-redistribution ``15. Section 76 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section (1) `of Divisions in accordance with which the State is for the time being distributed' and substituting `of members to be chosen in the State in accordance with which the State is for the time being distributed'; (b) by inserting in sub-paragraph (3) (a) (ii) `and' after `Divisions;'; (c) by inserting in sub-paragraph (3) (a) (iii) `and' after `enrolled;'; (d) by omitting sub-paragraphs (3) (a) (iv) and (v); (e) by inserting in sub-paragraph (3) (b) (ii) `and' after `Divisions;'; (f) by omitting from sub-paragraph (3) (b) (iii) `enrolled;' and substituting `enrolled.'; (g) by omitting sub-paragraphs (3) (b) (iv) and (v); (h) by omitting from sub-section (4) `or remaining on'; (j) by omitting from sub-section (5) `or remaining on'; (k) by omitting from sub-section (7) `set aside a number of pairs of contiguous Divisions in the State equal to the difference between the present entitlement of the State and the previous entitlement of the State' and substituting `set aside a pair of contiguous Divisions in the State'; and (l) by omitting from sub-sections (9), (10), (11) and (12) and substituting the following sub-sections: `(9) A pair of contiguous divisions set aside under sub-section (3) shall be distributed into one Electoral Division. `(10) The Electoral Division so formed from the pair of contiguous Divisions shall have a name consisting of the names of each Division included in the pair of contiguous Divisions arranged in alphabetical order and hyphenated. `(11) Where the present entitlement of the State is greater than the previous entitlement of the State, the Electoral Division formed from the pair of contiguous Divisions set aside in pursuance of paragraph (3) (a) shall return a number of members one more than the sum of the numbers of members returned by each of the pair of contiguous Divisions. `(12) Where the present entitlement of the State is less than the previous entitlement of the State, the Electoral Division formed from the pair of contiguous Divisions set aside in pursuance of paragraph (3) (b) shall return a number of members one less than the sum of the numbers of members returned by each of the pair of contiguous Divisions.' Subdivisions ``15a. Section 79 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section (1) all words after `published' and substituting `in the Gazette, divide a Division into such Subdivisions (if any) as are specified and set out the boundaries of each Subdivision so specified'; (b) by omitting from sub-section (2) `District' (twice occurring) and substituting `Subdivision'; and (c) by omitting from sub-section (3) `or a District of the Northern Territory'.''. (5) Page 19, clause 32, before paragraph (a), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(aa) by inserting in paragraph (5) (b) `and' after `(4);'; (ab) by omitting from paragraph (5) (c) `candidate;' and substituting `candidate.'; (ac) by omitting paragraphs (5) (d), (e) and (f); (ad) by inserting after sub-section (5) the following sub-sections: `(5a) The Divisional Returning Officer shall, in relation to ballot-papers in a Senate election- (a) count the first preference votes given for each candidate on such ballot-papers, and transmit the following information, by telegram or in some other expeditious manner, to the Australian Electoral Officer: (i) the number of first preference votes given for each candidate- (A) on ballot-papers marked in accordance with sub-section 239 (2); and (B) on all other ballot papers; and (ii) the total number of ballot-papers rejected as informal; (b) seal up the parcels and indorse on each parcel a description of the contents thereof, and permit any scrutineers present, if they so desire, to countersign the indorsement; and (c) transmit with the least possible delay the parcels of unrejected ballot-papers marked otherwise than in accordance with sub-section 239 (2) to the Australian Electoral Officer and inform the Australian Electoral Officer, by telegram or in some other expeditious manner of the transmission. `(5b) The Divisional Returning Officer shall, in relation to ballot-papers in a House of Representatives election, count the first preference votes given for each candidate on such ballot-papers.';''. (6) Page 19, paragraph 32 (a), proposed new sub- section 273 (7), line 41, after ``State'' insert ``, in relation to a Senate election, or the Divisional Returning Officer for a Division, in relation to a House of Representatives election,''. (7) Page 19, after paragraph 32 (a), insert the following new paragraph: ``(ba) by omitting from paragraph (9) (a) `first pref- erence votes received by him' and substituting `ballot-papers of the elected candidate that express a first preference vote for him and a next available preference';''. (8) Page 22, after paragraph 32 (f), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(fa) by omitting from sub-section (17) `shall have a casting vote, but he' and substituting `, in relation to a Senate election, or the Divisional Returning Officer for a Division, in relation to a House of Representatives election, shall have a casting vote, but the Australian Electoral Officer or Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires,'; (fb) by inserting in sub-section (19) `of ballot- papers in a Senate election' after `scrutiny'; (fc) by inserting after sub-section (19) the follow- ing sub-section: `(19a) At the conclusion of the scrutiny of ballot-papers in a House of Representatives election, the Divisional Returning Officer shall place in parcels all the unrejected ballot-papers, seal up those parcels and the separate parcel of informal ballot-papers set aside under paragraph 5 (b), indorse on each parcel a description of the contents thereof, and permit any scrutineers present, if they so desire, to countersign the indorsement.';''. (9) Page 22, paragraph 32 (j), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: ``(j) by omitting from subsection (22) `or transfer' (wherever occurring); (ja) by inserting in subsection (22) `or the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division, as the case requires' after `State'; (jb) by omitting from subsection (23) `or transfer' (wherever occurring);''. (10) Page 22, paragraph 32 (m), proposed new subsection 273 (29), proposed definition of ``leading shortfall'', line 36, after ``Senate'', insert ``or House of Representatives''. (11) Page 22, paragraph 32 (m), proposed new sub- section 273 (29), proposed definition of ``shortfall'', line 43, after ``Senate'', insert ``or House of Representatives''. (12) Page 23, paragraph 32 (m), proposed new sub- section 273 (29), proposed definition of ``vacancy shortfall'', line 6, after ``Senate'', insert ``or House of Representatives''. (13) Page 23, paragraph 32 (p), proposed new sub- section 273 (31), line 33, after ``State'', insert ``, in relation to a Senate election, or the Divisional Returning Officer for a Division, in relation to a House of Representatives election''. (14) Page 23, clause 33, lines 35 to 43, leave out the clause. (15) Page 32, after clause 45, add the following new clause: Consequential amendments ``46. The Principal Act is further amended as set out in Schedule 2.''. (16) Page 34, at end of Bill, add the attached Schedule. SCHEDULE 2 Section 46 CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS 1. The following provisions of the Principal Act are amended by omitting ``or the Australian Capital Territory'' (wherever occurring): Sub-sections 59 (1) and (11), 62 (1), 63 (1) and 64 (1), section 67, sub-sections 68 (1), 70 (1), (2) and (3), 71 (1), 72 (1), 73 (1), 74 (1), 75 (1) and 77 (1) and section 78. 2. The following provisions of the Principal Act are amended by omitting ``or Territory'' (wherever occurring): Paragraphs 59 (11) (a) and (c), sub-sections 64 (1), 68 (1) and 70 (1), paragraph 70 (2) (c), and sub-sections 70 (4), 72 (1) and (3), 73 (1) and (2) and 75 (1). 3. The following provisions of the Principal Act are amended by inserting ``or House of Representatives'' after ``Senate'' (wherever occurring): Sub-sections 145 (1) and (2), 146 (2) and 168 (1), section 169, sub-sections 179 (1) and 209 (1), section 210, sub-sections 211 (1), (2), (4) and (5), 214 (2), 216 (1), 226 (3) and 239 (1), paragraph 268 (1) (b), sub-sections 269 (1) and (2) and 270 (1), paragraphs 272 (1) (a), 272 (2) (a), 272 (3) (a) and 272 (5) (a), sub-sections 273 (1), 287 (1) (definition of ``group''), 293 (2), 294 (5) and 299 (3) and (4) and section 301. 4. The Principal Act is further amended as set out in the following table: Provision Amendment Sub-section 4 (1) (definition of ``Division'') Omit the definition, substitute: `` `Division' means an Electoral Division for the election of a member or members of the House of Representatives;''. Sub-section 4 (5) Omit the sub-section. Sub-section 34 (2) Omit ``District'', substitute ``Subdivision''. Section 61 Repeal the section. Sub-section 62 (4) Omit the sub-section. Sub-section 64 (2) Omit all words after ``perusal'', substitute ``at the office of the Australian Electoral Officer for the State.''. Section 65 Repeal the section. Sub-section 77 (2) Omit ``sections 56, 57 and 65'', substitute ``section 56,''. Sub-section 145 (3) Omit paragraph (c), substitute the following paragraphs: ``(c) specify the House of Parliament in an election for which they are candidates; (ca) in the case of candidates in a Senate election-specify the State or Territory in which they are candidates; (cb) in the case of candidates in a House of Representatives election-specify the Division in which they are candidates;''. Paragraph 146 (2) (a) Insert ``, (ca), (cb)'' after ``(c)''. Paragraph 154 (2) (h) Insert ``or members'' after ``member''. Sub-section 168 (2) Insert ``or Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires'' after ``Officer''. Sub-section 168 (4) Insert ``or Divisional Returning Officer'' after ``Officer''. Sub-section 168 (5) Insert ``or Divisional Returning Officer'' after ``Officer''. Section 169 (a) Insert ``or Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires'' after ``Officer'' (first occurring). (a) Insert ``or Division Returning Officer'' after ``Officer'' (second occurring). Section 173 Omit all words after ``if he is elected,'' substitute ``or- (a) if the total number of votes polled in his favour as first preferences is at least 14% of the total number of votes polled in favour of the candidates in the election as first preferences; or (b) in a case where the name of the candidate is included, in ballot-papers used in the election, in a group in pursuance of section 168-if the sum of the votes polled in favour of each candidates included in the group as first preferences is at least 4% of the total number of votes polled in favour of the candidates in the election as first preferences, otherwise it shall be forfeited to the Commonwealth.''. Sub-section 179 (1) Insert ``or Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires,'' after ``Officer''. Sub-section 179 (2) Omit the sub-section. Sub-section 180 (2) Omit the sub-section, substitute the following sub-section: ``(2) If after the nominations for the House of Representatives election have been declared and before polling day any candidate dies and the candidate or candidates remaining are not greater in number than the candidates required to be elected, the candidate or candidates remaining shall forthwith be declared to be elected and the writ returned.''. Sub-section 209 (2) Omit the sub-section. Paragraph 210 (b) Insert ``Or the Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires,'' after ``Officer''. Paragraph 210 (c) Insert ``Or the Divisional Returning Officer'' after ``Officer''. Paragraph 210 (d) Insert ``or the Divisional Returning Officer'' after ``Officer''. Sub-section 211 (1) Insert ``or the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division'' after ``Territory''. Section 212 Repeal the section. Sub-section 213 (1) Omit ``or 212''. Sub-section 216 (1) Insert ``or the Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires,'' after ``Officer''. Sub-section 221 (2) Insert ``or members'' after ``member''. Section 240 Repeal the section. Sub-section 250 (4) (a) Omit ``212,'' (first occurring). (b) Omit ``, 212'' (second occurring). Paragraph 268 (1) (c) Omit the paragraph. Sub-section 270 (2) Omit the sub-section. Sub-section 270 (3) Omit ``or (2)''. Sub-paragraph 272 (2) (d) (i) Insert ``or the Divisional Returning Officer for the relevant Division, as the case requires'' after ``Territory''. Sub-paragraph 272 (3) (d) (i) Insert ``or the Divisional Returning Officer for the relevant Division, as the case requires'' after ``Territory''. Sub-paragraph 272 (3) (e) (i) Insert ``or the Divisional Returning Officer for the relevant Division, as the case requires'' after ``Territory''. Sub-paragraph 272 (3) (e) (ii) Insert ``or the Divisional Returning Officer for the relevant Division, as the case requires'' after ``Territory''. Section 274 Repeal the section. Section 276 Repeal the section. Section 277 Repeal the section. Paragraph 284 (1) (a) Insert ``or the names of the candidates'' after ``candidate''. Paragraph 284 (1) (b) Insert ``or the names of the candidates'' after ``candidate''. Sub-section 284 (3) Insert ``or the names of each of the candidates'' after ``candidate'' (first occurring). Sub-section 287 (1) (definition of ``election'') Insert ``or members'' after ``member''. Sub-section 294 (1) Insert ``or an eligible group'' after ``candidate''. Sub-section 295 (7) Omit paragraph (b), substitute the following paragraph: ``(b) each group the members of which- (i) were endorsed in one of those elections by the party; and (ii) stood for election in the State or Territory on the basis of which the branch is organized.''. Sub-paragraph 351 (1) (b) (ii) (a) Insert ``or Members'' after ``Member''. (b) Insert ``, or that that group of candidates is the group for which,'' after ``whom''. Schedule, Form E (a) Omit ``Senators'', substitute ``[ 9 ]''. (b) Insert in note 5 ``(in the case of a Senate election) or Division (in the case of a House of Representatives election)'' after ``Territory''. (c) Add at the end of note 6 ``or Division, as appropriate''. (d) Add at the end of the Form ``9 Here insert Senators or Members, as appropriate''. Schedule, Form F Omit the Form. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.28) —Senator Vigor has moved some fairly extensive amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill, the effect of which would be to bring about proportional representation for the House of Representatives. He does not, of course, support a purist approach to proportional representation. Whilst he might bleat about the representation of minorities in that House, he talks about a multi-member electorate. He does not go to the purist system under which 148 members would be elected by proportional representation but he refers to multi-member electorates. The reason for that is that his political party would be accommodated under multi-member electorates but the small minority groups would not be, those that would normally bleed votes from the Australian Democrats-esoteric conservationists and the rest of them that they regard as necessary for their coalition to receive a quota. He is nothing more than a shonky Tammany Hall politician. Under his proposal the Democrats would be elected but not the smaller groups in society. That proposal has been around since Federation but the most disingenuous argument I have heard in this chamber is that the proposal should be adopted because it is much cheaper. Here is a senator who must cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars with his aimless bleatings in this chamber, and with his thousands of questions at Estimates committees, most of which are meaningless. From one in 20,000 he gets a nugget of gold. How much money does Senator Vigor cost us? He costs the chamber and the taxpayers more money than we would save by introducing proportional representation and avoiding by-elections. The key issue with proportional representation is whether we believe the most important matter to be the distribution of representation, the distribution of power, or a blend of both. There is no doubt that, theoretically, proportional representation is basically a fair method of distribution of representation. Indeed, we are all here because of it. It is not, however, a good means of distribution of power. We have only to look to overseas examples for confirmation of that. For example, Israel has purist proportional representation-a system with multitudes of small parties, including some fairly fanatical, narrow-minded religious parties. In the end, the two major competing parties had to have a grand coalition because that was the only way to achieve stable government. That also happened in Germany in the 1960s, when the Free Democrats blackmailed one party and then another, from the conservatives to the socialists, and played them off against each other. In the end, there was the magnificent spectacle of a socialist-conservative coalition government, which was caused by the proportional representation system. I do not believe that the proportional representation system could ever be worth the price of instability to which it leads. The most recent example of that blackmailing approach by small parties occurred in Tasmania. The last time that Tasmania had a really deadlocked House was from 1968 to 1970, when the great system that Senator Vigor has advocated today resulted in both major parties having exactly the same representation. There was one Independent by the name of Lyons, who was basically just the bookies' representative in the State Parliament, and nothing else -- Senator Sanders —And Amatil. Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, and Amatil. That great system allowed one individual, who obtained just 6,000 votes, to run an Australian State at his own whim. What a great system that was for Tasmania! People often put forward the argument that proportional representation is fair because there is no gerrymandering or malapportionment. There is nothing to prevent malapportionment under proportional representation. I suggest that, when Senator Vigor visits the European Parliament later this year, he take a trip to the Republic of Ireland, where he will be able to witness malapportionment under a proportional representation system. Of course, there can also be gerrymandering-it is as easy as falling off a log. Senator Boswell, his colleagues, I and anyone else could very easily work a gerrymander into proportional representation. The key to proportional representation and multi-member seats is who has the missing quota. For instance, in a five-member electorate the quota is one-sixth. The whole art of designing the boundaries in the States is to ensure that one's opponent has a fraction less than the missing sixth each time. I did the model for Victoria when it was proposed in 1981. At one stage out of 33 seats the Australian Labor Party was able to win 19 on one model and 13 on another. Yet there was not one element of malapportionment in that division of the boundaries in a multi-member electorate. Therefore, malapportionment and gerrymandering are just as easy under proportional representation as they are under single-member constituencies. Under Senator Vigor's model, there would be different quotas for different States. For example, Tasmania has five seats so its quota will be one-sixth. Therefore, to be elected in Tasmania one needs one-sixth of the vote. In Senator Vigor's State, there are 13 seats under his model, so one would need one-thirteenth of the vote. Where is the fairness in having a different quota from State to State? There would also be problems with section 33 of the Constitution-and Senator Vigor has not been able to disprove that in the debate-on how to get over the by-election. Another problem would arise under section 24, which states: That the House of Representatives shall be comprised of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth. That requirement, insofar as it applies to casual vacancies, is not qualified as is the equivalent requirement in respect of Senate elections. So even if the Democrats' amendment were to fluke it through this chamber, and even if the members of my Party had amnesia in the House of Representatives and it got through, the High Court of Australia would have it out of the legislation within five minutes. What we come back to is: Do we really want a replication of this chamber in the other chamber? I say right now that I would rather live under a Howard-led Liberal government than under a Liberal or Labor government dictated to by minority parties which have to appeal to their own constituencies. I say that straight out. The worst thing that can happen is to have the smallest party in the country dictate to the other two political parties. Minority parties do two things. Firstly, they never take the hard revenue decisions-never ever. The second thing they do to maintain their 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 10 per cent of the vote is to appeal to a section of the constituency. It does not matter to the party whether the other 90 per cent of the constituency is missing. It is like being a good used car salesman: As long as they get 10 per cent of the market with their offensive advertisements or attitudes, they go ahead and do it because all they need is the 10 per cent. All a minority party has to do is to decide where its constituency is and pander to it all the time. They have all power and no responsibility. No matter which minority party had the balance of power in the House of Representatives-it may not be the Australian Democrats-it would have all power and no responsibility. It would never be up to that party to say where the revenue comes from, where the revenue is necessary for the increased expenditure. It would not have to worry about that or how the whole thing fits in. It would just pursue its own position. We have had the suggestion that we have rotating ballot papers and we are told how well that system works in Tasmania. Let us have a look at the Tasmanian system. First of all, why do so many sitting members of parliament in Tasmania get beaten? Senator Vigor in his simplistic approach would have us believe that the electorate makes a judgment on the quality of the members and suddenly turfs half of them out from time to time. That is what Senator Vigor would have us believe. But our friend Senator Sanders knows that to get elected in the seat of Denison one needs $25,000 of the folding stuff. If one is a poor candidate, one has no hope in Tasmania. Since the campaign limits were lifted, it is those with the money who get elected-that is, within their parties. We might run seven Labor candidates. The one with the most chance is not necessarily the one out of the seven with the most ability; it is the one who can best organise and fund his campaign. I say to Senator Vigor that this has a more malignant result. It means that Ministers do their job. In that sort of cut-throat electorate, Ministers have to be continually pumping the parish pump. They cannot run the State. Let us take the case of a Liberal Minister. He would know that not only the Labor Party is trying to take his seat, but also that another six members of the Liberal Party are trying to pull the rug from under him in his electorate. It is a real cut-throat business, so Ministers cannot go ahead and run the State because they have to look after themselves. Honourable senators should look at the expenditure of any Minister in Tasmania. Let us say that the Minister for Sport represents one of the five electorates. Do honourable senators think that 20 per cent of the Minister's budget goes into his electorate? Do they think that 30 per cent or 40 per cent does? No. At least 50 per cent of the total State budget goes into the Minister's electorate so that he can pump up that electorate and hope to survive next time. We have had this proportional representation argument on many occasions. I believe we have the best of both worlds in Australia because what we allow is one chamber-unfortunately, with full powers-to be elected under proportional representation. We believe that in the other chamber there should be single member electorates. By the way, there are advantages to single member electorates. It does mean that a member is not given a massive electorate to represent. It means that a member can relate to 70,000 voters rather than one million voters. I can tell honourable senators what would happen under proportional representation. The electorate at large would not be able to distinguish between candidates; people would still vote on party lines. Let us take the case of a 13-member electorate and say that Labor wins six, the coalition six and the Democrats one. I can tell honourable senators who will work in the electorate. It will be the No. 6 on the Labor ticket and the No. 6 on the Liberal ticket. They will have to go out and work everywhere because they are in the death seat, but Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be in such a large electorate and so certain of being elected that they will see no need to put in work in the constituency; they may as well try to be stars in the Parliament, in committees or somewhere else. That is what would happen. We would tend to have party hacks such as myself at the top of the tickets. I would be an absolute moral certainty to head a ticket in a multi-member electorate, but I do not think I am necessarily the best constituency representative. I think there are better. I concede that most of my colleagues in the House of Representatives are more proficient and more adept at constituency work. Under this system we would have No. 6 on the Labor ticket, the Democrats ticket and the Liberal ticket out there working. That situation is not replicated at the moment in the House of Representatives. People would feel alienated in those circumstances. If people had the choice of running on a ticket for a multi-member electorate, what guarantee would there be of a distribution of representation? What would happen in Queensland or Victoria if all the members decided to live in Brisbane or Melbourne? There is no way in which the member for Bendigo and the member for Maranoa could live in Melbourne and Brisbane and represent their seats. Those days are gone. But, under proportional representation, whole tracts of country areas might find themselves with no member of Parliament. I think this amendment should be defeated, and defeated as quickly as possible. We have so often had this argument about the value or otherwise of proportional representation. I wish to refer to only one other point. Senator Vigor has come in here and read out a whole series of figures to show that the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales is overrepresented. I think he could point to other States to show where the Liberal Party historically has been overrepresented. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is concept of cubism, which Senator Vigor, being a mathematician, would understand. That is, those who win a single constituency election tend to win with a slightly distorted majority. But Senator Vigor seems to be saying that everyone has to vote for a winner, that everyone has to be represented in Parliament by his own person. I am afraid that our society is not like that. We have winners and losers in elections. That is one of the competitive aspects of Australian politics that hone our skills and make for good government. But under Senator Vigor's system everyone has to back a winner. I am afraid that when that happens the dividend is not particularly high. In effect, if I vote for the Labor candidate in my electorate and he is not elected, I do not feel disenfranchised. Plenty of other Labor candidates will have been elected elsewhere to represent my point of view. It is ridiculous to suggest that 49 or 47 per cent of people are disenfranchised. They are represented by the party of their choice in other electorates. My final point is this: I do not see many House of Representatives members knocking back a constituent because that person did not vote for them in the last election. Imagine where they would get by doing that. Members of Parliament represent all constituents. If one is a member of the Labor Party and a Liberal supporter comes to see one, of course one tries to help him, and vice versa. This amendment deserves to go into the garbage bin of Senate history. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.43) —I rise not to support the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats but to refer to a relevant matter about which I read in the Press this morning-I take it that it has not been denied-that is, a threat by the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) to the Democrats that he would favour a change in the electoral system not because of the merits of the change but to use it as a bludgeon to destroy the Democrats because of their failure to support the resource rent tax. In my judgment, it must come very close to a serious breach of privilege-I invite the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) to take this into consideration-that there should be an attempted threat to change the electoral laws in order to bring about, under duress, a change of policy. I find it quite outrageous. Senator Robert Ray is Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. That Committee, of which I am a member, purports to approach dispassionately, as far as it can, the issues of the day and the merits of the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have a government making an outrageous statement and a joint parliamentary select committee which purports to look at the base of things in an objective way. As a member of the Committee, I believe that over its journey of four years it has done by and large objective research. For Mr Keating to say `We will consider bringing in optional preferences to destroy you people' is a threat to this chamber and its privileges. Also, it is a piece of corrupt thinking because it does not attempt to use the logic or the value of the system itself; it simply uses the weight of the bludgeon or the threat. I remind Mr Keating of the phrase `physician heal thyself'. There is a Federal electorate called Blaxland in New South Wales that contains a couple of State seats. One of those seats was lost to the Australian Labor Party because of the very optional preference system that Mr Keating is now threatening. Nothing could be worse than that unconscious suicide. Certainly, Mr Keating has not understood the elements of the optional preferential system in the four by-elections in New South Wales. I have no doubt in the world that the majority of Labor Party members, understanding that, would run so far away from optional preference as not to have the words echoed again in the Committee. I rose with all the strength I could command to say that it is an outrageous breach of parliamentary privilege and practice by the Treasurer to threaten any person or party in this Parliament. Intellectually, it is a corruption to do so, but it gets to the very basis of the principle of integrity of this chamber. I reject the proposition. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(10.47) —I rise, again, to speak against the proposal put forward by Senator Vigor. I do so as someone who has had some experience of the system about which Senator Vigor spoke and which he proposes as a model. I have been both a beneficiary, in terms of luck and positioning, and a victim of that system. There are a couple of issues which we should consider very closely before we look at that model as a model for responsible government anywhere in this country, let alone in a chamber in which a government is about to be formed. I am a very strong proponent of the principle of ministerial and governmental responsibility. I believe that the main aim of an electoral system is to ensure that a Minister does his or her job and that a government does its job and that, if it does not do so, it gets kicked out at the end of its term. I am a believer in long terms and certainly in who is in government. I do not believe in coalitions and I do not believe in minority parties dictating to a government of the day. The responsibility for who runs the country or a State should be clearly in the hands of one party so that people can choose, at the end of its time in government, whom they want and there can be no diffusion of responsibility. The Hare-Clark system has been proposed by Senator Vigor as an ideal model which should be used around the world. That gives me a feeling of deja vu, of cobwebs and of a viewpoint that seemed to exist in the 1930s. It is the sort of thing in which George Bernard Shaw would have been involved-the person who convinced himself he was a rationalist but could go to the Soviet Union in the 1930s and believe that Stalin was doing the right thing, who could not see the realities that existed under the so-called `PR'-in that case public relations rather than proportional representation-who believed that Mussolini could make trains run on time and, therefore, accepted that dictator's loathsome approach to life and politics. Senator Vigor is being similarly naive in terms of understanding how an electoral system works. He is saying that the Hare-Clark system is very good because, mathematically, it represents voter intentions in the most accurate way compared with any other system. That is true; voter intention is mathematically reflected in the Hare-Clark system-more so than in any other system of proportional representation. However, the facts of life are that Tasmanian politics have been bastardised by that very system. The idiocies that come out of Tasmania in the policies of its Premier are very much a part and a direct result of the system that has prevailed in that State. My colleague Senator Robert Ray mentioned the two major weaknesses in that system. The first is that there is no clear ministerial accountability in that State. He mentioned, for example, that there is a very significant tendency amongst Ministers in the Hare-Clark system to ensure that they get re-elected, as in other systems, but of course the pressures against them being re-elected in the Hare-Clark system are quite great. There are, for example, six other people who have the status and the salary of members of parliament moving around in the Minister's electorate. They are there more often than the Minister is, although in some other cases they may also be Ministers. The choice many Ministers have to make is either political survival or ministerial responsibility, fairness and equity. I can assure honourable senators that what Senator Ray says about spending, for example, on budgetary items by Ministers within their portfolios is true. I have done studies of the patterns of expenditures on the part of various departments in Tasmania and I have found that particular Ministers have ensured their re-election by spending the money allocated to their portfolios primarily or significantly in their own electorates at the expense of the other electorates. Suppose the Minister for Sport represented Denison. I am using a theoretical example here. The total sporting vote allocated by Parliament may be divided something like 40 per cent to Denison and 60 per cent to the rest. In fact, some of the percentages for expenditure from various government departments going to Ministers' electorates have been even higher, particularly where the Minister has had a discretionary vote. Where hospitals get placed, where schools get built or upgraded, where roads get constructed tends to follow the interests of the Minister holding the portfolio. There is in fact no equity between electorates because the tendency is for Ministers to parish pump their own electorate, because if they do not there are six other people in his electorate with, as I said, the status and the salary of sitting members, not candidates, working away while the Minister is visiting other electorates, for example. Senator Tate —And they may be members of your own party. Senator AULICH —They may be members of the same party. They are not bagging the Minister, as Opposition members would, but they are bagging him from the prestigious and, in theory, sympathetic position of being the Minister's comrades in the same party. Senator Sanders —But you get the publicity. As Minister, you get the personal publicity. Senator AULICH —Publicity is no good if a Minister is acting fairly across the board. Unless publicity is generated within his own electorate and he is seen as a Minister who brings home the bacon for his own electorate, using his ministerial portfolio to allocate appropriate finance, he is generally regarded in that system as not being an appropriate Minister or member. So the turnover of Ministers, for example, in the Hare-Clark system is extremely high. In 1982 it was one-third of the Cabinet and about the same in 1986, and on other occasions there has been a similar pattern. In other words, Ministers are certainly not safe. Who could understand and tolerate a system under which, for example, the Treasurer of this country was in a multi-member electorate, had to go back to his electorate on frequent occasions, attend all the functions-the baby shows and the dog shows-and do all the parish pum-ping that seems to be important to getting re-elected, and still do his job as Treasurer of this country? I could not see any Minister in a Federal government operating effectively in a system that placed his seat in jeopardy. The second point I wish to make is that in a multi-member electorate, where there is not party discipline in terms of putting out a how-to-vote card which organises voters to vote in a parti-cular tight pattern, the spoils go to the person who spends significant amounts of money, or alternatively generates enormous populist support. Senator Sanders is a fairly good example of an extremely good actor. When he was in Parliament in Tasmania, people used to say that there were two shows in town. There was the Theatre Royal, and one had to pay to get in there and it was generally fairly empty, and there was the House of Parliament. That was usually pretty empty too, but the theatre there was a lot better. I remember Senator Sanders turning up for his first day at Parliament on his motorbike and wearing his leather jacket, so he was front page news. He turned up here on his motorbike and wearing his leather jacket and, of course, the Press fell for it a second time-which goes to show that as with the Mousetrap, or any other good show, the performance can be repeated until the audience gets sick of it. But I give Senator Sanders his due. He is a good actor and a populist. He was someone who rode penny-farthings around the town and got himself elected, whereas boring people like me who wear grey suits and so on have to try to survive on other attributes. Let us look at the other people who get elected to parliament, and leave the populist and good actor, such as Senator Sanders, who can run on one particular issue. The people who were elected, for example, in the most competitive electorates in 1986 were the people with money. Everyone in this chamber who has looked at the Tasmanian situation knows that seats in Denison were being bought for close to $25,000 per person. That was not party expenditure; it was paid by individuals. So a person could actually sit down and say: `I am a presentable person. I have $25,000 and I am running in a multi-member electorate. I will get endorsed because basically endorsement is not hard to get in Tasmania under the Hare-Clark system'. Senator Sanders —Anybody who can read can get endorsement. Senator AULICH —If anyone can read and count, he can get in. Those sorts of people were winning seats in the last election. Senator Archer —Who? Senator AULICH —I am not going to name them because they come from both sides of the House. Of course if a person wanted endorsement he or she could donate a house. There are all sorts of ways of making sure that one gets endorsement. The point I am making is that winning in the Hare-Clark system is quite different from winning in any other system that I have seen. The most important weakness of that system, and the reason why I would oppose any of the proposals put forward in this case by Senator Vigor, is that it diffuses ministerial responsibility and it diffuses government responsibility. I know that every voter has to have that right, at the end of three or four years, to say clearly in his or her own mind ``That party, and that party alone, has done a good job in government', or `It has done a bad job, and I will make my decision accordingly'. Any diffusion of the clarity of that particular issue is a weakening of any electoral system. On these grounds, and on those grounds alone, as a person experienced in two electoral systems, I would oppose virtually everything that Senator Vigor has said. Like Senator Ray and like George Bernard Shaw, who said that some things ought to be consigned to the dustbin, I would say that Senator Vigor's judgments ought to be put in the dustbin. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.58) —I rise briefly to support Senator Vigor's amendments for proportional representation. I want to make a few comments essentially in reply to Senator Robert Ray's contribution. I would have thought that democracy was about trying to get elected into the Parliament representatives of opinion in the community in proportion to that support. Let us take the Australian Democrats as an example. The support for the Democrats in the nation as a whole was roughly 10 per cent, and they have 10 per cent of the membership of the Senate. Any system that can do that is a system that embraces and supports true democracy. Surely we need a parliament that is representative of the various groups of opinion in our community. I cannot think of any better system to achieve that than proportional representation. Senator Ray made great play about his ability to manipulate a proportional representational system. Of course he can. Any system can be manipulated. But if we are true believers in democracy we should first be looking at what is the best system, and how that can best be applied, to give true representation in the Parliament in proportion to the support in the community. There is no doubt in my mind that a proportional representational system engineered with the aim in mind of giving true representation in the Parliament is the fairest system. Senator Vigor is advocating seven-member electorates, and I would think by and large that is a better approach than electorates of five or any other number, certainly in Australia, where the States are divided up as they are and undoubtedly will continue to be divided in that way. We will, undoubtedly, continue to have our States dividing the country, as they do. Senator Robert Ray also made great play of the fact that in Israel and Germany there have been cases where minorities have caused problems and that there have had to be compromises. Let us look at Israel. It has survived as a nation in spite of enormous pressures on all sides of its borders. Let us look at Germany. Next to Japan it has the second strongest economy in the world. In spite of the pressures of the political system and the wheeling and dealing that was necessary amongst politicians in those countries they have had good government, if we take the results that they have achieved as the final arbiter. I can understand Cabinet Ministers and members of a party such as the Labor Party wanting a system where one wins all or loses all. It is because, when it has been won, one can operate virtually as a dictator. The system at the moment is an elected dictatorship. If one goes into the House of Representatives, there is a charade going on there every day of the week. Members of the Opposition get up and say this and that, but they know that no matter what they say they will always lose the vote. It escapes me how they can maintain their enthusiasm to get up and talk in the lower House because the result of the vote is a foregone conclusion before they get to their feet. At least with a three-party system in the Senate we have, to some degree, a House of review, which is what the Senate was supposed to be. We have had a party representing what was about 10 per cent of the support of members in the community and their point of view has had to be listened to although it has, at times, been listened to with great annoyance by the Government. Senator Robert Ray —Would you concede that we introduced proportional representation in New South Wales and South Australia and tried to do it in the upper House in Victoria? Senator SIDDONS —I take the honourable senator's point. He is suggesting that in an upper House proportional representation may have its place. I accept that. I do not accept, though, that the present system of preferential voting is good for Australia. Let us look at the effect the Democratic Labor Party had in this country for many years with a preferential voting system. A minority was able to manipulate the whole preferential voting system for years. There was no change until the poor old Australia Party came along and said: `Look, we will direct our preferences to somebody other than the Liberal Party'. It formed a bit of a counterbalance and the Labor Party was elected in 1972. In fact, the Australia Party preferences were responsible for at least five Labor candidates winning in the State of Victoria and, in turn, they were probably responsible for the election of the Whitlam Government. I am not holding up the Whitlam Government as something that has necessarily done a good job for this country, but at least it did give us a change of government. We probably would never have had a change of government under a preferential system with a small party like the DLP unless another party was established to act as a counterbalance. I am simply saying that there is no perfect system. If we are really interested in a true democracy, if we are to have a parliament as a place to debate the strands of opinion in the community, we should seek to get the system that truly gives the number of parliamentarians in a parliament in proportion to the support those parliamentarians have in the community. If that makes the life of a political party or a government a little harder, so be it. Politics is the art of the possible. It is the art of arriving at a compromise and it is certainly not the art of winning and then disenfranchising the other 49 per cent of the population. I support Senator Vigor's amendment. I think proportional representation does achieve its objectives if it is properly applied. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.04) —The Opposition will not be supporting the Australian Democrats' amendment. I take this opportunity to put on record the fact that I appreciated very much seeing a true professional at work this morning. I thought Senator Robert Ray's contribution in exploding some of the myths and pointing out the various aspects of the electoral system was very well done. I commend him for it, and I do it publicly. However, Senator Aulich who followed-I regret he has left the chamber-gave just about the opposite, in my opinion. I think just about everything he said was wrong or ill-advised. I would have thought that with the time he had spent under the system he would have learned something from it, but apparently he did not. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.05) —Naturally, I support Senator Vigor's amendment, which is a sane, rational amendment. It would bring a sane and rational electoral system to this country. I listened carefully to Senator Robert Ray. His speech was a classic example of a meticulous and carefully thought out rationalisation of a fallacy. This is unfortunately one of the problems of this place. People argue vehemently for things and they become more obsessed with the argument than the facts. That is Senator Robert Ray's problem. He is really saying to us that he believes in the entrenchment of a system of elections in a country which purports to be a democracy. As we know, in Queensland close on 60 per cent of the electorate will not be represented by a person for whom they voted. I wonder if he has ever got back to taws and considered what he means. He is an intense student of electoral systems and something of an authority on them, but like so many people of that kind he tends to miss the wood for the trees. I think Senator Ray ought to go back to first principles and investigate what the system is. Is he happy that the Queensland electoral system is there? Is he happy that it can be manipulated, as it can be, by gerrymanders to create the situation that we see before us? I assure honourable senators that that is a natural consequence of what the honourable senator has recommended should continue. It is time we made a quantum leap in this country, time we made a jump towards a more sane and reasonable electoral system. It is time we answered that growing feeling in the community that, for some reason it cannot understand, it does not have enough input into the political process. The community feels this way increasingly; we all know that. It is time to concede that there is now an electorate which is much more aware of political matters than it was 20-odd years ago when we used to hear people in families say: `We never discuss religion or politics in this house'. It is not that kind of world now. The virtual obsession that the talks shows, the newspapers and the columnists have with politics demonstrates the political starvation in the electorate. Input is what the community wants. It wants input in a reasonable, realistic way. Senator Vigor's amendment, which is Democrat policy and has always been Democrat policy, for a rational proportional representation system in Australia would give that input. I suggest to Senator Ray that his attitude tends to be destructive in this matter. He looks at the thing and tends to start to tear it to pieces. He does not look at it as something which might be useful in Australia and bring his wisdom, his experience and vast knowledge of this area-and I concede that-to something which might be useful. I suggest that it is high time that he looked at it the other way around. I also thank Senator Sir John Carrick for raising the point about that strange man we have as Treasurer, Mr Paul Keating. When his bluff was called over tax option three, he did his block. He said that the country was going to come to an end and that everything would grind to a halt if he did not get his option three. He went away to sulk among his clocks. This man is a paper tiger. With all respect to Senator Sir John Carrick, I am not at all worried about his threats. Senator Sir John Carrick —The Parliament ought to be. Senator MASON —It depends on the honourable senator. The Parliament ought to be, I agree with him. I will come to that point in a moment. I make the point that Parliament is far too responsible to allow itself to become a party to the sleazy, dishonest and dishonourable manipulation of the electoral system for its own short term purposes that Mr Keating proposes. That is what it is-it is sleazy, it is dishonourable and it is unpleasant in the worst possible sense. I can assure honourable senators that the people in this country will be reminded by the Democrats from now on, every time they have the opportunity to put it, that this Labor Government is capable of that degree of deceit. It has said that it is going to manipulate the electoral system to the disadvantage of the Australian people in order to get its own little thing through. After all, the resource rent tax is a charade anyway, a piece of nonsense, a soft option income tax brought forward by this deceitful Government in the guise of a resource rent tax. A resource rent tax should be a tax on production, and everybody opposite knows it. Everybody knows what a lying piece of legislation it is. Maybe the Government will have the sense to change it now. If it does not we will continue to fight it on that kind of dishonesty as well as the other kind. The Democrats are tolerant people. We could raise the matter of parliamentary privilege with Mr Keating. I agree with Senator Sir John Carrick that he has offended the Parliament with his statements, which is a very important consideration. We have not yet discussed the matter. What Mr Keating says is not that important, after all, in that kind of context. If we discuss it and we decide that it is a matter of privilege it might be worth our while-not from our own point of view but from the point of view of the Parliament to see that something is done about it. Certainly, Mr Keating's Party should see that he withdraws the offensive statements he has made because they are offensive to this Parliament and to the Australian people. On that basis he, as a senior Minister, should be restrained. If he goes on with that kind of nonsense he should not continue to be a senior Minister. That, however, is so much froth and bubble. Whether or not the electoral system is changed is in the hands of this Parliament. It has been changed before, to the discredit and damage of the Australian people. The changes Senator Macklin tried to address so recently were made some years ago. I objected violently at the time to the removal of those sections from the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Act now permits any political party which wishes to do so to lie, cheat and deceive the Australian people with impunity in its advertising. That is something Senator Ray connived at. I do not know whether Senator Ray thinks there is an advantage in people being able to use immense sums of money to deceive the electorate with impunity. In a country such as Australia, which has the Trade Practices Act and where other areas of commerce and business cannot do this sort of thing, it is okay for politicians and political parties to do so. Senator Ray might find that that chicken comes home to roost a little more forcefully than he thinks over the next year or so. It was a very bad move. I conclude by appealing to honourable senators to take this amendment seriously. It is time we considered this matter properly. We should not get the sort of destructive speech we get every time from Senator Ray. It is time the Australian people were permitted at least to know about, to consider, and to have, even perhaps on an experimental basis, an electoral system which more truly represented them and which expressed their views in this Parliament more accurately than can possibly be done now. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.13) —I do not want to appear to be defending an honourable senator who can defend himself very well, but I have to say that any suggestion that Senator Ray connived at protecting those who lie and cheat in electoral matters is not only an incorrect reflection on Senator Ray but also a reflection on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I suggest that Senator Mason should come before the Joint Committee and state his views if he wants to do so. The debate and dialogue on this matter is heard openly and publicly at the Committee's hearings. The Committee has reached conclusions supported by eminent legal opinion on all sides, not on biased opinion in favour of any one political party. Basic mischief of this sort ill serves this debate. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(11.16) —I will be very brief because we do not want a debate all day on proportional representation if we can anticipate its eventual outcome. I want to comment on Senator Sir John Carrick's assertion with regard to optional preferential voting. He probably missed the debate we had on this subject yesterday. The one assurance we can give on this side of the chamber is that we will not introduce amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act as to optional preferential voting without first obtaining a majority recommendation from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Even though it would have been possible, and very easy, over the last three years to get a majority recommendation for optional preferential voting-after all, the Labor Party has a majority on the Committee-we have never pursued it on the basis that we believed that it would founder in this chamber easily. We do not believe in pushing the impossible. It is well known that written into our Party's platform is a choice for optional preferential voting. As to Mr Keating's threats to the Democrats, they are probably tongue in cheek, part of the rough and tumble of politics. The Democrats would have a bit more to be concerned about if things proceeded in that regard but I do not think they will. I never take seriously any comment made on the front steps of Parliament House, be it made by Mr Howard, Mr Keating, Mr Hawke or anyone else. I am not going to comment on how Mr Keating's comments affect the privilege of the Parliament. I have no real knowledge in that area. Certainly we on this side of the House do not hang with bated breath on an amendment regarding optional preferential voting because we know that it will have the same fate as Senator Vigor's amendment on proportional representation. I do not think Senator Siddons understood the point I was making about manipulation of proportional representation. I concede that there can be a dead straight, honest multi-member electorate without malapportionment or gerrymander. But what I am saying is that too often the argument comes forward: `Here is a method which almost absolutely prevents it from occurring'. My comments are made in the context that proportional representation does not absolutely prevent malapportionment and gerrymander. I think I made the point by interjection on Senator Siddons that the Labor Party has been committed to introducing proportional representation in upper Houses. We did so in New South Wales. We have done so in South Australia. It is proposed to do so when possible in Western Australia. Certainly it is coming to the boil in Victoria, although I am not terribly confident that it will be introduced there. So we have had a commitment to introducing and giving mino-rity parties proportional representation in upper Houses. Senator Mason —The optional preferential system has failed in New South Wales. Senator ROBERT RAY —I have no comment on New South Wales politics. As I said before, we have no intention at this stage of introducing the system into Federal politics. I make two other points about proportional representation. The first is that recently I had a look at the effectiveness of the Craxi Government. In spite of Mr Craxi being a socialist, I assert that he has been the best Prime Minister of Italy since the end of Second World War. Yet, in spite of the fact that he has achieved a massive rate of economic growth, got interest rates down and the rate of employment and participation rate up-everything is going well-he gets knocked out of office because of the proportional representation system and the instability that occurs under the system. I can always tell who supports proportional representation. There are two classes of people, I suppose-winners and losers. It is always the losers who support proportional representation. Why do honourable senators think the French socialists got caught out on having to introduce it? Because they had lost for 20 or 30 years. Why do honourable senators think the Australian Labor Party in 1981, for three or four months, suddenly started supporting proportional representation? Because we were losers. In August 1981, I wrote a paper on proportional representation. I said then, in spite of the fact that my Leader was a supporter of proportional representation, `if we win the next election-let us say for instance 75 seats', which was a pretty wild guess which turned out to be dead right-`proportional representation for the Labor Party in the House of Representatives will be dead in the water the day after'. And that is what has occurred. So I feel some sympathy for minority parties in trying to break into a single-member constituency system. It is not easy. But it is not really my job to make their lives any easier. They do not make our job easier. Senator Mason —What about the electorate; you have a responsibility to it. Senator ROBERT RAY —The honourable senator asks about the electorate. I have argued before, and I will argue again, that in my view what the electorate wants is a stable government, as representative as possible. But there is no perfect world and no perfect trade-off between stability and representation. As long as the system is absolutely adequate, as I believe it is at the moment-I think we have one of the fairest redistribution systems in the world-we will get the balance the electorate wants. I dare-say-I predict-that if by any chance we were to have a referendum on proportional representation the Democrats would go under by a very large margin. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.20) —I will pick up a number of points made so far with regard to these amendments particularly, first of all, the comments by Senator Ray that the amendments are moved within the context of the overall Commonwealth Electoral Act. For example, Senator Ray referred to the possibility of gerrymandering within this system. Undoubtedly, it is possible. Senator Ray used the example of Ireland. I think we should be a little more generous to the Irish because, after all, they have established an independent constituencies commission to draw up boundaries. Our amendments are within the context of this legislation and therefore within the context that the boundaries would be drawn up by the independent Australian Electoral Commission. Many of the points raised by Senator Ray actually did not address these amendments; they addressed the issue at large. They did not address these amendments which seek to be embodied within the Act as it stands with the various protections provided within that Act with regard to so many other matters. I think that needs to be taken into account. In fact, as I was mentally ticking off the points raised by Senator Ray all but one fell within that category. They are answered by reference to the current Act and other parts of the Act. The point not answered was the basic philosophical objection to proportional representation, that Senator Ray and Senator Aulich raised which is essentially summed up in the words of Senator Ray as `power without responsibility'. Of course, that is simply a nice slogan that has no relevance to this amendment. The reason for this is quite simply that Senator Ray there seeks by sleight of hand to confuse totally executive government with the parliamentary operation, with the legislature, in this country. Undoubtedly, the executive government has responsibility but the legislature also has responsibility. I object most strongly and vehemently to that type of operation. Indeed, if anyone ever said that outside this chamber, I would contemplate seeking its reference to the Standing Committee of Privileges. The suggestion is that senators will vote in this chamber without taking any cognisance of what they are voting on and without taking any responsibility for their votes. It so happens that, unlike many people sitting on the Australian Labor Party benches-and I think Senator Georges exemplified this most when he had to leave the Labor Party-we accept personal responsibility for our votes. We do not hide behind a party room decision which tells senators how they will vote and even though some of them may think that the decision is wrong they will come into this chamber and vote according to the decision. We accept personal responsibility for our vote and any power accruing to that is the power of an individual senator. Again, the simple message is that nothing is passed or defeated in this place following a division unless there happens to be a majority of senators voting for or against. If those people cannot add up, that is their problem and not ours. The responsibility is taken in this chamber where proportional representation operates. I suggest that, if one went out into the electorate-I often go into the academic world to talk to honours students or others in political science-and spoke to people about their knowledge of the operation of the two chambers of this Parliament as legislating chambers, there is absolutely no doubt that they would point to this chamber as the premier chamber in terms of legislation because it engages in detailed debate. That is sometimes to the disruption of the program that the Government would like to get through but this chamber looks at legislation. The types of comments made by Senator Ray by way of philosophical objection, I think, are best answered by reference to the understanding that the community has, that the academic world has and that anyone has when looking at these two chambers and deciding which chamber best addresses legislation. That is our task. Of course, other people in this place such as the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) have other responsibilities which have been added-not subtracted-to their duties. Added to Senator Tate's responsibilities as a legislator is his responsibility as a member of the executive government. I think it is extremely poor and childish debating tactics to suggest that, if you do not have the added responsibility of the Executive, you have no responsibility. That is a most extraordinary proposition which I think ill befits anyone elected to this place to determine the laws that govern this country. In general, the propositions that I would argue I will not put forward now; they are set out quite clearly in the extensive minority report that I submitted with the first report of the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform. I make only one comment on the point made by Senator Sir John Carrick in response to some remarks made by Senator Mason. The Joint Committee on Electoral Reform suggested a strengthening of those regulations with regard to truthfulness in advertising. There was no suggestion in any report of this Committee which led to the amendments made to the Act at the end of 1984. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.26) —I support Senator Macklin in saying that the parliamentary responsibilities are extremely important and in fact override the ministerial responsibilities which are simply added on. In fact, it is a policy of the Australian Democrats that we should not have Ministers in a House of review. There is a perception in the community of this need for Parliament. At the last federal election a large number of voters, especially the young, looked at the House of Representatives election in their own particular areas as being unsatisfactory and expressed this by recording informal votes. The informal vote in the House of Representatives, which had an electoral system that had been in existence for a long time, was higher than the informal vote for the Senate. People were not impressed in most cases by any of the candidates presented to them and decided to hand in blank ballots or put in deliberately informal votes. By and large these people actually voted in the Senate election, and I believe that is an expression of confidence either in the voting system or in the performance of the Senate. I believe there is some point in the whole exercise of having a system in which the voter does not feel disenfranchised. People say that attitudes like that expressed by both Senator Aulich and Senator Ray, that everything is done by executive government and that the parliament does not have the final say, leads people to have such a poor view of politicians. In fact, I believe that out in the community people do not have the same view of senators because we do not go into that type of process in this place. There is an absence of real choice in single member electorates. That has a really deadening effect in safe seats. I believe that it is just as criminal to have a Minister not taking any notice of the people who have elected him or her individually and not taking up the parish pump issues, as do back benchers, as it is to have the type of corruption in the other direction which Senator Aulich talked about where Ministers may well be pork barrelling in their own electorates. The corruption of individuals in a system is completely separate from the system itself. There is corruption in each of the systems, whether it be a single member system or a multi-member system. I do not believe any of the arguments put forward by either Senator Ray or Senator Aulich that there is a propensity for the proportional representation multi-member electorate system to be more open to corruption. Single-member electorates can be bought; it may just take a little extra money. Where does one make the cut-off? In fact, the large parties do that. The cynical attitude of the party manipulators has been brought out in this debate. They think in terms of buying electorates and of voters as just stepping stones to power instead of as individuals who need a service from Parliament. That is the difference between my view of the parliamentary process and that which has been expressed openly by Senator Ray and Senator Aulich-and tacitly by the people who are supporting them, such as Senator Archer, who referred to a wonderful presentation. The basic aim seems to be the achievement of power in ministerial form instead of the representation of people and the final production of laws which are suitable and representative in Parliament. Ministers have very little power. The Public Service basically handles what is given to them. They are spokesmen in their area. Yes Minister is very much with us. Ministerial responsibility is a myth that is put forward by the Opposition to go against the real role of Parliament, which is to be a check on the actions of the Public Service. Ministers are part of that check. This chamber is part of that check. We will continue doing that job. We believe we will get better people for doing that job if we have the rotation of names on ballot papers as proposed by Robson. If we had the proper systems of multi-member electorates we would not have the types of distortions which we have. I have been accused of being mathematical in my approach. I shall finish quickly by pointing out that what really counts is giving one vote one value. I have given examples from Tasmania and New South Wales. I have examples from each State which could be presented. Basically, the single-member electorate system gives worse representation than the multi-member proportional representation system. People do not get the candidate that they want. Hence, they are not able to have that candidate check properly the operations of government and the Public Service. That is the role the people want performed. I uphold that. I urge Government and non-Government senators to put the voter first for a change and to strengthen democracy by voting for the amendments. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(11.35) —I thank those honourable senators who have contributed to this debate. I think it has been a very good debate in that both sides have very vigorously presented their point of view as to whether proportional representation should be introduced for House of Representatives elections. I regard it as a true debate. I heard Senator Vigor raise this matter only as I was on my way to speak at a meeting in Bardon in Brisbane last night at 12 minutes to seven after I asked my driver to switch on the car radio. Honourable senators can imagine my delight when I heard Senator Vigor about to begin his contribution on proportional representation. I have no great binding Caucus decision which is going to force me to a particular point of view; therefore I have listened to the debate as closely as possible. On balance, I must say that I am not convinced that the Australian people would be best served by the introduction of proportional representation for the House of Representatives. I do believe, having listened to the debate, that there is a danger of instability in that chamber in constantly changing coalitions and majorities that might emerge from time to time. The Government is required to have the confidence of the House of Representatives. The proposed system could lead to the sorts of disruption and destabilising political activities that have been pointed to in other sovereign states. It is not simply a question of my listening to this particular debate and not being convinced on balance. It was my intention in introducing this Bill, and in some amendments that I have proposed to it, that we build as far as possible on the work of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. It was, and remains, my intention that as far as possible the Government adopt the spirit of bipartisanship which characterised the work of that Committee and try to build on its constructive work. When one looks at the first report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform one finds that it had a look at the voting system for the House of Representatives, considered preferential voting and came to the conclusion, as I have on balance, that the adoption of such a proportional representation system for selection of members of the House of Representatives would not assist, as it said, the stability of government. I think that that was the main reason put for the emergence of that point of view amongst the majority of members of that Committee. I have heard nothing which convinces me that the advantages of proportional representation which have been mentioned by Senator Vigor and his supporters are such that I could recommend to my colleagues on this side of the chamber that the risk of accepting the amendments be taken, given the fact that I really wanted this package of legislation to build on the work of the Joint Select Committee. Whilst we might pass certain Bills, have them assented to and proclaimed, there are still constitutional hurdles that have to be faced. Until we are satisfied that section 33 of the Constitution can be adequately satisfied by this piece of legislation we should not go ahead and purport to introduce a system of voting, perhaps have an election and then find that the method of filling casual vacancies falls foul of the Constitution as presently drafted. For all those reasons I will be recommending, on behalf of the Government, that senators on this side of the chamber do not support Senator Vigor's amendment. I have not had an opportunity to see the media reports to which Senator Sir John Carrick referred. If in substance they are along the lines that he has indicated to the chamber, I make it very clear that introducing the optional preferential system as a system of selection of representatives of the House of Representatives is not part of the Government's policy as far as I am aware. I think I would have been made aware of it had it been suggested that the Government press for that particular system of voting. The Government has no such intention. If Mr Keating made those remarks I am sure he was simply venting frustration. It would be to exaggerate the importance of that venting of frustration to regard it as some sort of attempt to unduly influence the vote of legislators in this chamber. In any case, I do not think that at the Committee stage of a Bill one can properly decide whether it is truly a question of privilege. I tend to agree with Senator Ray that we should regard it as an outburst on the steps of Parliament House, rather than as a serious attempt unduly to influence those who wish to cast a vote on a different Bill in this chamber. That is especially true as the Senate Committee, to whose first report I have already referred, had some discussion of the question of optional preferential voting, and did not pursue the matter. We are as well aware as Mr Keating is, and as anyone in this chamber is, that the proposal has Buckley's chance of being translated into effective law, and therefore it would be an exaggeration to regard such an empty outburst as being unduly intimidating when casting a vote on the resource rent tax proposal. Government members, if they heed my words, will vote against Senator Vigor's proposals. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Vigor's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Powell, J. F. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Childs. B. K. Newman, J. M. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Townley, M. Evans, Gareth Vanstone, A. E. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. West, S. M. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 6 agreed to. Clauses 7 to 13-by leave-taken together. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.49) —One of the basic philosophies of the National Party of Australia over many years has been that there should be voting weightage or tolerance towards country electorates. Such weightage or tolerance has been accepted by most democratic countries throughout the world. We want that sort of tolerance to be maintained, and it has always been our philosophy that it should be up to 20 per cent. Through the amendment I will move, we are opting for a mean level-in other words, about 10 per cent. Whenever this discussion comes up there is much talk about one vote one value, equality of voting and all the rest of it. I just ask the question: How does one value a vote? We in the National Party of Australia are more concerned with equality of representation. In other words, we think one of the basic criteria should be the access of constituents to their elected member and, conversely, the access of the elected member to his constituents. In talking about one vote one value and about how one values a vote, I suggest that if a constituent does not have the same access to his elected member as others have to theirs, that constituent's vote is devalued. For instance, if that constituent does not have a telephone, his vote is devalued as the elected member does not have the same access to that constituent. Similarly, constituents may not have regular newspaper or transport services and all these things add up to the effect that the vote of that constituent is markedly devalued. The amendment that we are debating under clause 7 seeks to amend section 66 of the Act, which at present states: . . . shall, as far as practicable, endeavour to ensure that, 3 years and 6 months after the State or Territory has been redistributed, the number of electors enrolled in each proposed Electoral Division in the State or Territory will be equal . . . In talking about my home state, the situation now in three of the large electorates, from the figures available from the Commissioner as at 23 January 1987, is that the seat of Kennedy has 69,351 electors, Leichhardt has 68,215 and Maranoa has 70,367. They are markedly above those of some of the inner city or near city electorates in the State of Queensland. So what we have is a situation where the representatives of those three large rural electorates have larger constituencies and thus serve a greater area than do other members, with all the restrictions that go with those areas, such as lack of phones, lack of communications and lack of transport. They have all those problems that members for inner city areas do not have with the constituents in their electorates. I do not think that even the Government desires to see that situation continue. But the situation certainly is not at the stage where those electorates are equal. Equality is running considerably the wrong way. As I have said, one of the fundamental beliefs of the National Party-this has been so for many years-is that we should have equality of representation. Any talk about enrolments being equal or tolerances down to 2 per cent flies in the face of reality. The population dispersal in Australia is probably more varied than in any other democracy in the world. The last time I looked at the figures-I do not think they have altered very much-70 per cent of our population lived within 30 kilometres of the coast. I do not think that is the case in any other democracy. Yet, with a more even spread of population, most, if not all, of the other democracies recognise the need for tolerance and weighting towards their rural constituencies. By these amendments the National Party wishes to bring that to the notice of the Parliament and have effected a 10 per cent tolerance at least, taking into consideration that we believe in equality of representation and we believe that constituents should have equality in their access to their elected member and, conversely, the elected member's access to them. I seek leave to move my two amendments. Leave granted. Senator COLLARD —I move: (1) Page 4, paragraph 7 (a), new paragraph 66 (3) (a), line 22, leave out ``98 per cent or more than 102 per cent'', insert ``90 per cent or more than 110 per cent''. (2) Page 7, paragraph 13 (b), new paragraph 73 (4) (a), lines 39 and 40, leave out ``98 per cent or more than 102 per cent'', insert ``90 per cent or more than 110 per cent''. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(11.55) —I do not intend to go into a long and detailed debate on representation. I even promise not to get into the question of alleged payments under the Queensland electoral system, at this stage at least. Senator Collard has talked about equality of representation. It is quite clear that there will not be an argument on that from this side of the House. We would like all Australians to have equal access to members of parliament throughout Australia, as, I might add, we believe in equal access to commercial television stations. This is part of our generous philosophy. But we do not believe that that sort of access can be granted by giving an extra weightage to a vote of someone in a rural area as opposed to a vote in a city or elsewhere. We have always sought to try to establish that equality of representation, firstly, by running high quality candidates in rural areas, and we have a great track record on that; secondly, where necessary, by increasing the size of Parliament-I have never been an opponent of increasing the size of Parliament-to make sure that those seats do not blow out and become too big; and, thirdly, by increasing the resources of the members of parliament in distant areas to enable them to provide services that are much more easily provided in small electorates. Once one starts fiddling with the weightage of representation, where does one stop? Senator Collard today suggests 20 per cent as a fair measure of where one stops. Possibly people in other States would take that further. There have been many examples in Australian history-even in the West Australian Legislative Council at the moment-where it has not stopped at 20, 30 or 40 per cent; the difference in weightage has been 3:1 or 4:1. It is that in general to which the Australian Labor Party objects. Senator McKiernan —Thirteen to one. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator McKiernan tells me that the ratio in Western Australia is 13:1. It really does depend upon where one wants to draw the line. Drawing the line at 20 per cent is not too hurtful. But once one accepts a degree of weightage in voting, one abrogates one of the basic principles. Therefore, when the figure goes to 30 or 40 per cent, it does not matter because the principle has already been lost. What we have in the current Commonwealth system has never appeared in any Australian State. Not only do we have a 10 per cent limit at the time of redistribution; we also put in a very important criterion, that is, growth. At the time of the redistribution those seats that the commissioners judge to be fast growing are basically set at below quota-anything up to 10 per cent below. Those that they believe will decline in enrolment or not match the growth in other areas are given more electors than the average, up to 10 per cent. What occurred in the last redistribution was that we asked the commissioners to devise a scheme whereby all seats, 3 1/2 years after the redistribution, would be of equal enrolment. In other words, a fast growing electorate would have less than average in one election; at the second election it would have average and at the third election it would go over the average amount. So over a three-election period it would balance out. That growth criterion is absolutely essential to understanding our current redistribution. I may be misunderstanding the amendment put forward by the Queensland National Party. Senator Boswell —The National Party, not the Queensland National Party. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am sorry, the National Party. What it is doing is amending one of our amendments. It does not really refer to the initial redistribution. What we are now giving the commissioners a chance to do is to have a 2 per cent variation 3 1/2 years into a redistribution. What happened last time was that, in trying to get them absolutely dead level after 3 1/2 years, the commissioners had to do some artificial things-jump a creek here or artificially put fast growing and declining areas together. Giving them that 2 per cent variation after three years enables them to be more creative and to create more homogeneous seats. The National Party amendment would give up to a 10 per cent tolerance after 3 1/2 years. If the National Party wants to achieve what it is proposing, it has to do two things. It has to go back to the original Act and amend the 10 per cent variance to 20 per cent at the start of the redistribution. That seems to me to be what it intends. If the National Party wants a rural bias, for which it argues genuinely but with which I disagree, it has to remove the growth criterion, the predominant criterion of the Electoral Act governing redistributions. We have to do those two things. But I am afraid that the amendment, as it now reads, is just a nonsense. It will mean nothing. It will not necessarily result in advantages. I also point out that if the National Party wants to have a 20 per cent variance at the start of redistributions without touching the growth criteria, it will be badly hurt in certain areas of Australia in the initial period. There is no doubt about that. I admit that certain National Party seats are now growth seats, which is not traditional in Australian politics. Seats such as Fisher or those in northern New South Wales are growth seats. But if a 20 per cent variance is introduced and the growth criteria are not touched the National Party will find when the first redistribution comes out that 70 or 80 per cent of its seats are 20 per cent over quota. That will not achieve the other objectives that the National Party has been putting forward today. Senator Boswell looks a little confused. I am just saying that the National Party's amendment does not go to the original redistribution and the variance allowed. It goes to the rule that governs electoral boundaries three and a half years after a redistribution. In effect, the amendment would just make a nonsense of the redistribution. It would not help the National Party in any particular way. I again stress that even if the Party gets a 20 per cent variance at the very start of the redistribution process, unless the growth criteria are removed, the Party will be worse off than ever in most States, with the exception of two seats in northern New South Wales, and maybe the seat of Fisher. It really goes against my grain when people in this chamber, for the wrong reason, oppose their own self-interest. I find that absolutely appalling. I hope the National Party will reconsider the amendment. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.02) —This clause is part of a mechanism which aims to overcome one of the two defects that might emerge in a redistribution. The two questions that need to be examined are whether there is a gross malapportionment and whether there is a gerrymander. The malapportionment would relate to whether any one person's vote had more value than another person's vote; in other words, the loading of electorates with different numbers. The gerrymander would depend upon the geographer's pen and whether there was an intention to draw the boundaries, even respecting the principle of one vote one value, so as to collect a particular Party's votes in an area to give a preference. It has to be realised that electorates differ-that is, that some electorates, as Senator Robert Ray has said, are growing rapidly and will therefore grow much faster towards the end of their term and others are declining, rapidly or otherwise. There has always been a tendency to suggest to electoral commissioners that the rapidly growing electorates should start below the quota and subsequently move towards it and through it and that the rapidly declining electorates should start well above the quota and move down through it in the median period following the redistribution. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform had determined and the Parliament had decided on a device which would allow a tolerance at the start of the period of up to 10 per cent and, as nearly as practicable after a median period of three years and six months, bring all the electorates in a State to equality. That has been attempted once. The difficulty was that the formula was a little too rigid. Distortions may have resulted from drawing boundaries with absolute rigidity. It was thought necessary to allow some tolerance, and it has now been recommended that that tolerance be 2 per cent. I have to say to the National Party that I agree with the point made by Senator Ray, that is, that the National Party's amendment will frustrate its intention. Indeed, the application of a tolerance at the median point could result in a grave distortion at the end of the journey-a quite different result from what the National Party might have in mind. There is no perfect system, but the present system tends to apply the tolerance at the start. The principle of a 10 per cent tolerance has been understood in previous electoral Acts and, indeed, supported by my side and I think by the National Party itself. So we have that tolerance at the start. It is then necessary to devise a system that looks at the movement in the number of electors to give something of a fairness throughout Australia. Many arguments are advanced from time to time that the principle of one vote, one value is wrong since the size of the electorate must be taken into account. It is said that the enormous size of, say, Kalgoorlie or Riverina-Darling must be taken into account because the member servicing that electorate has an immensely more difficult task than a member servicing the Sydney electorate of Phillip. That is true, as in Phillip there may be one or two municipal councils, one or two chambers of commerce and one or two other such bodies. In the enormous country areas there are so many other situations. The difficulty that a Parliament and a democracy must have is to reconcile the two situations. If we give an electorate a much lower number of votes, the individual vote of an elector in that electorate has a greater value than the vote of an elector in another electorate. That is the problem that is always before those who seek to define electoral boundaries. How far do we go in this exercise? We do a number of things in the big and extended electorates to provide more electorate office facilities, charter and motor car facilities, travelling allowances and so on. Whether we have achieved that objective is another thing, and that is another matter which needs to be looked at. The fundamental fact is that, in a parliamentary democracy, in the end the majority will prevail. We ought to have a system in which a majority of votes means a majority of seats. If we can do that, we can look to other things. If one is to have a majority of votes giving a majority of seats-and that is what this is all about, and why we are in this chamber today-we have to find a method of redistribution that is very likely to reflect that principle. One has to watch not only for malapportionment but also for gerrymander. Those who insist that one vote, one value is the primary thing fail to understand that they could have that throughout Australia and the wet pen of the geographer could distort the whole system. The two must go together. We also need to consider the needs of the electors to be served, the needs of the electors to get to their member and the needs of the member to understand the electorate. All these things have to be put together. We have to ask ourselves whether, having put them all together, we have the best compromise we can get. In the end, we cannot really overcome the fact that it is comfortable to have a small electorate such as Phillip and enormously difficult to have an electorate such as Kalgoorlie, which constitutes virtually three quarters or more of the whole of Western Australia. These are vastly different situations. Consistent with that, one has to ask oneself whether an elector in Kalgoorlie should have significantly more power in his or her vote than an elector in Phillip. That is the dilemma we face. The system was devised to allow a tolerance at the start, taking into account the principle of growth, stagnation or decline, so that in the median period of 3 1/2 years all electorates would be the same. It being demonstrated that that system was too rigid for the redistribution committees, the Select Committee recommended that a minor tolerance should be allowed. If we get anything that looks like a significant tolerance we should not have the system at all because the tolerance distorts it. If we place a tolerance of the order of 10 per cent or more at the median period we get an absolutely wrong result for the person who wants and advocates that at the end of the journey and for future journeys. I commend the Government's amendment. However, I suggest to the National Party that it will not achieve what it seeks by the amendment it has put forward. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(12.11) —I have listened with interest to what has been said regarding the amendment moved by the Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate, Senator Collard, including the comments made by Senator Robert Ray and Senator Sir John Carrick. Our Leader says that we still want to proceed with the amendment. As a senator from Queensland, I travel Queensland extensively. I am well aware of the many problems that face people who live in the outback, although I am probably not as aware as the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) or the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). The distances are very great. As I listened to Senator Ray talk about the disadvantages, the advantages and whether the measure was right or wrong, I thought to myself: `Senator Ray is a senator for Victoria and Victoria will fit into Queensland seven times'. Senator Boswell —It should have fewer senators. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I have often wondered why Queensland does not have seven times as many senators as Victoria. Senator Sir John Carrick raised the issue of whether people in the outback, if they were given a 10 per cent tolerance, would have more power in their vote because there were fewer people in those electorates. We must realise that people who live in city electorates can contact their member by telephone without any trouble. They can probably get to their elected member in a motor car within five minutes. They could even ride a bike without any trouble and get some exercise. That is not possible when one lives in the outback. It is essential for those who live in the outback to have access to their elected member and for the elected member to have access to his or her constituents. There is a real need for people who live in the outback to be able to make their point of view known in the same way as people who live in small electorates in the big cities. Those who live in the outback of Australia play a very important part; they help tremendously with our export earnings. I believe that they need a weighted vote and a tolerance 10 per cent, 20 per cent or whatever it should be. It is important to consider their problems. I support the amendment moved by Senator Collard. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.14) —The Australian Democrats will oppose the amendment. When I listened to Senator Collard I quickly realised that he had misread the clause and was trying to move an amendment to a completely different clause. The amendment does not tighten up the system; it frees up the system. It was brought about by discussions in the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform when we were confronted with the problem of getting numerical equality 3 1/2 years down the track and when probably we could not achieve that result given the database that we had to start with. The amendment is a recognition of the lack of information we have in determining redistributions. It is hoped that by making use of different building blocks-for example, the census basis-progressively over time we will be able to get better accuracy. However, at the moment we talk about equality 3 1/2 years down the track, and really it is a punt. The amendment does not actually refer to that. The arguments as to why such things should occur always intrigue me. They seem to ignore the realities in Australia. The realities are that every electorate is different in some way. There are disadvantages in country areas, but there are also disadvantages in city electorates. For example, a member with an electorate in parts of Sydney and Melbourne may not just represent 60,000-odd electors on the roll but he could also represent over 60,000 others who are not on the roll. Therefore, he has 120,000 people to look after-twice the number of people on the roll. There are different types of disadvantages. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —Who would the 60,000 people be? Senator MACKLIN —Does Senator Bjelke-Petersen not realise that there could be migrants who are not citizens of this country? There are people who are not on the roll. Senator Boswell —Why wouldn't there be migrants out in Maranoa? Senator MACKLIN —There are none in Maranoa. Senator Boswell knows that and so do I. Senator Boswell —I don't know. I haven't done a survey. Senator MACKLIN —If Senator Boswell has not been to Maranoa, that is his problem. I have. He knows that there are none. Senator Tate —Not 60,000. Senator MACKLIN —No. I assure Senator Tate he would not find one in Maranoa. Every House of Representatives electorate has peculiar problems-problems that are caused by geography, migration, ethnic backgrounds and the difficulty of language communication. Language is a tremendous problem in some Melbourne and Sydney electorates. Members have to pay out dearly to get translators to help them in their work. I am sure that Senator Bjelke-Petersen has not found that difficulty when she has travelled in Kennedy, as I have not. We must recognise that there are different problems around the country. I join with Senator Sir John Carrick in saying that we do not translate those difficulties into a power proposition. What we do is to seek directly to address the problem. Senator Tate, as the Special Minister of State, could address one of the problems which Senator Bjelke-Petersen raised. There is the technological advance of a 008 telephone number which we and members of the House of Representatives do not have the advantage of using a 008 number, anybody in Kennedy could ring Bob Katter for the cost of a local call. I have been urging that for a long time. People would be able to ring Bob Katter and say their piece for the cost of a local call. Currently, they can send him a letter for the cost of a stamp; I think that they should be able to contact him on the phone for the cost of a local call. We should have that facility. The major problem in terms of distance is physical access, and it applies both ways as Senator Bjelke-Petersen suggested. It is a major problem that ultimately cannot be overcome no matter what we do regarding additional electorate offices and additional ability to travel and to hire planes. That is one of the disadvantages of distance. That is as difficult to deal with as the problem of language, when non-citizens are in one's electorate, and the other problems that confront members of the House of Representatives. In any democracy the parliamentarians represent the people. They do not represent trees, sheep or farms; they represent people. Ultimately we have to deal with that issue as the basic building block of our redistributions in this country. We attempted in the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform to overcome some of the problems that occur-through distance, language, ethnicity or religion. Senator Sir John Carrick would remember well our talking about the hours of polling. We tried to address the problems directly and we tried to solve them as best we could by amendments to the Act. But one of the things that we did not do was try to take power away from the people. I remember a small piece of paper with a rather nice message on it that was circulated in one of the State electorates in the last Queensland election. It said: `Use your 0.46 of a vote wisely'. I do not think any such pieces of paper should be circulated anywhere in this country. I think we should be able to circulate pieces of paper which instead say: `Use your vote wisely', and to do that we have to have a fair and equitable redistribution system. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.21) —I support the thrust of Senator Collard's arguments. I understand what the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has tried to do but what has eventuated is that the third biggest electorate in area in Australia, Maranoa, has ended up with the most electors. So we have an electorate that I believe is three times the size of Victoria, with 71,000 electors, and one member to represent them all. I believe that everyone in this chamber would agree that the country members have so many more problems to face. For example, in Maranoa there are the problems of the kangaroo industry, communications, roads and mining. I could go on and on. The area that the member has to cover is so much greater than that which a member for, say, the metropolitan seat of Brisbane has to cover. It would probably be only five or six miles square. So in every democracy in the Western world there is a weightage. I did not know that I would be speaking in this debate, so I have not been able to do any research and I am therefore relying on my memory, but there is an electorate in Great Britain called, I believe, the Western Isles, which has something like 20,000 people. I ask honourable senators to compare this to the inner London electorate-the name escapes me at the moment-with an enrolment of about 140,000 people. That situation does not apply only in Great Britain. It applies also in America and Canada- Senator Robert Ray —Not in theory in America, it doesn't. It only applies in America where there is a redistribution every 10 years. Senator Macklin —And in Britain different parties hold different seats. That is essentially the difference. Not one party holds all the seats. Senator BOSWELL —Whoever holds the seats, that is up to the electors. Senator Macklin —It is the way you draw your boundaries. Senator BOSWELL —That may be the case in theory, but in point of fact it is the electors who represent the members. What has happened in this country, and I do not believe this was devised through the fault of anyone, is that the biggest electorate in Australia has the most number of people in it. That is why I support a tolerance of 10 per cent. I would have thought that a tolerance of 20 per cent would have been more reasonable. But we have now got to the stage where, to adjust that, the Government has gone back the other way and tried to develop electorates with equal numbers. In order to give equal representation, the Government has shrunk the size of the electorates. Instead of having 70,000 or 75,000 people in an electorate, the Government has shrunk their size back to 61,000, but to do that it has increased the number of members in the Parliament. Senator Macklin —So have you. Senator BOSWELL —I know, and I supported it because I had no alternative. If I had not supported it I would have been depriving the rural electors of Australia of representation. I was forced to do it. I did not want to support the legislation but I had no alternative, other than to disenfranchise rural electors in Australia. So I was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea and I had to vote with the Australian Labor Party, which did not give me any great joy, I can assure honourable senators. My point in this argument is that I do not want to see a system, such as that of the House of Commons, which has 500-odd members, most of whom are allowed to make a contribution to the Parliament only once a year, if they are lucky, and they may get to ask a question once every two years. Senator Archer —It would be no good for Senator Vigor. Senator BOSWELL —I do not know what would happen to Senator Vigor. He would get so frustrated and I do not know what he would do about it. Therefore I believe that if we do not want to continue reducing the size of the electors and increasing the number of parliamentarians in both Houses, we are going to have to go back to some form of weightage. Otherwise, every five years we will be wanting to increase the number of representatives in the Parliament to get equal representation. Senator Robert Ray —You realise we have gone up by 23 seats since 1949? That is not a lot. Senator BOSWELL —I am saying that in another five or 10 years, when we redistribute again to get equal value, we may have to increase the number of electorates again. That is what I am opposed to. I believe the only way out of that situation is to have some form of weightage, as is applied in every other democracy in the Western world. That is why I support the thrust of the amendments. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(12.26) —On behalf of the Government I indicate that we will be opposing these amendments. I cannot really add to the philosophical and practical reasons that have been so eloquently put forward on both sides of the chamber for the rejection of the amendments, except to reiterate that it is a question of balance. The egalitarian notion that each person voting for a member of the Parliament ought to have equality of voting power with any other Australian is one argument. The physical features in Australia, the great geographical differences that have been adverted to and the community interest factors, are also important. But I would agree with those who think that the question of the equality of voting power is perhaps the dominant matter. But it is not the intention of the Government, in rejecting the amendments put forward by Senator Collard, to retreat into some slavish adherence to a mathematical formula of equality. In fact, there is a weighting in this very proposal in clause 7, put forward to the Committee today by me, which relies on the report of the Joint Committee. The fact is, as has been mentioned, that we can start off with a tolerance of 10 per cent above or below the quota and after 3 1/2 years, as a result of clause 7, there will still be a tolerance allowed of some 2 per cent. So in fact we are moving away from the slavish equality, which was quite properly adverted to in some of the remarks of those supporting Senator Collard, to a situation where there will be some weighting even in the middle of the distribution cycle. As I say, I do not think I can add much more to the arguments that have been put forward, and the Government will be opposing these amendments. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 14 to 22-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 23 (Preliminary scrutiny of postal ballot-papers). Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(12.30) —I move: (1) Page 12, clause 23, line 39, leave out `14 days', insert `13 days'. In a spirit of bipartisanship, which the Joint Select Committee on Electoral reform has engendered, I invited some Senate members of the Committee and representatives of political parties in the Senate to a preliminary meeting a week or so ago to resolve any detailed, technical questions relating to the Bill. At present the cut-off for the receipt of postal votes is 10 days after the close of the poll. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform recommended that this period be extended to 14 days. In discussion around that table the view had been put that it would be more sensible to close off the period for receipt of postal votes on a normal postal delivery day on the Friday of the second week after the election or 13 days after the close of a poll. That is the intent of clause 23, as amended by amendment No. (1). Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.31) —The Opposition is proposing, by an amendment of which I will give notice, that clause 23 be deleted. The reason for this is to comply with the notion that once pre-poll and absentee votes have reached the hands of the electoral staff, they should be counted. The amendment as it stands includes pre-poll, absentee and postal votes as if they are all the same. Clearly, they are not. Postal votes are not necessarily put into the hands of the electoral staff and we are relying on other carriers. But where the voter has clearly voted and the vote is in the hands of the electoral staff, we believe that it should be taken into account and it must be counted. Recommendation 59 of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform produced a minority report. Page 220 of the report states: the majority recommendation is that there should be a fixed cut-off period of 14 days for the return of postal and pre-poll votes. There is some merit in a cut-off period for postal votes since although the number of ballot papers is known, there can be no way of knowing the number completed and committed to the post. Pre-poll votes, however, are quite different. All such votes are in the hands of electoral officials prior to polling day. There is no reason, by any action of the voter, why they should not be admitted to the ballot. There should be no limit on pre-poll votes. Similar procedures to absentee votes . . . should be followed. Recommendation 141 also led to a minority report. Page 222 of the report, states: This majority recommendation should be rejected. At the close of polling, all absentee votes are in the hands of the Divisional Returning Officers. Their total numbers by Electoral Divisions are determined and the information conveyed to the respective Divisions. It is the duty of electoral officials to ensure that all absentee votes reach their appropriate Divisions. There should be no reason why such parcels of votes could not be conveyed to their destinations by safe-hand. Failure to do so within a reasonable time must arise from action or inactions of officials. Electors should not be denied their validly cast vote due to the actions of others. If the absentee votes are not received in their electoral destinations within a reasonable time, say one week, it should be the duty of the appropriate official to seek an explanation of non-receipt. If the non-receipt is due to a delay, whatever its duration, which can be overcome and the votes ultimately delivered, those votes should be admitted to the count. If votes are irretrievably lost, an official statement should be made and a statement made public. The information should be admissible in an appeal to the Court of Disputed Returns. In other sections of the Electoral Act the principle is enshrined that an elector should not be denied an otherwise valid vote if the defect is not due to his or her fault. This principle should apply to absentee voting where the total responsibility for safe transmission lies with the officials. As a result of that, we have produced an amendment, which is before the Committee. Having sought some advice from the Secretary of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I would just like to read out one paragraph of his letter. It states: As the amendments stand they will restore the status quo with the exception that the time given for postal ballot-papers posted to the relevant Divisional Returning Officer to reach their destination will be extended from 10 to 13 days. That is for postal votes. The letter continues: There will therefore be no time limit on postal ballot-papers delivered to any Divisional Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer or presiding officer prior to the close of the poll pursuant to subsection 194 (3) or (4) (in accordance with the advice of the Attorney-General's Department referred to in paragraph 5.64 of the Joint Select Committee's report) and no time limit on the voters' ballot-papers. I ask the Minister to recognise the difference between these pre-poll and absentee voters, as distinct from postal votes. I see no reason why anybody should be deprived of having the vote that he has cast and put into the hands of the polling staff at an official polling station. The amendment that we have proposed would cover exactly that. It would let postal votes retain the period of 13 days, which we completely support. I ask that the amendment be thoroughly considered. We would certainly like to see it accepted. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.36) —I am one of the authors of the dissenting report which Senator Archer has quoted. Apart from the facility to cast one's vote on polling day at the polling booth within one's electorate, there are three main methods of casting a vote. The first is a postal vote for which there is an application. If the application is accepted, the electoral authorities send out a vote. The postal voter fills it in and posts it back. There are many mishaps and uncertainties on the way. There are two other methods of casting a vote for which there are no uncertainties. It is possible for a mobile person to go to the booths and, instead of casting a postal vote, to cast a pre-poll vote. That is done personally and deliberately in one action. The vote is then absolutely secure inside the divisional returning office. There can be no question of how many votes there are or where they lie. Thirdly, there is the facility for a person who is away from his or her own electoral division and in another electorate to apply for an absentee vote, fill in the claim, vote and the ballot envelope is then given to the electoral officer. There can be no doubt about the casting of that vote and its location. When the poll closes there is no way of knowing how many postal votes issued are likely to come back and what delays there may be. So there is some merit in a cut-off point for postal votes. The period of 14 days being amended by a valid suggestion to 13 days is reasonable, but there is absolutely no argument in support of denying a pre-poll vote or an absentee vote to an elector who has cast that vote prior to the close of the polls, the existence of that vote back in the electoral division being dependent upon its transmission. What happens is this: At the close of the poll each electoral office is compelled to make a list quickly of the pre-poll votes and the absentee votes in the electorates to which the votes apply. They are then compelled to send a telegraphic message to the particular electorates, saying: `I have here so many pre-poll votes and so many absentee votes for your electorate and I will send them to you'. The fact that that knowledge is known gives an imperative responsibility to the electoral system to include those votes. Applying a time limit penalises the voter. The voter has made no mistake. The voter has cast his vote prior to the close of the poll. To apply a time limit is to say that misadventure, carelessness, can have a time limit on it. That is a nonsense. Ordinarily, in an electorate where this information has come to hand, the addition or otherwise of outstanding postal, absentee or pre-poll votes will not alter the result. The declaration can be made. And why not? It is amply clear that those votes cannot influence the show. But where an electorate is of such a margin that the introduction of those votes could alter the result, it would be outrageous to apply a time limit. It could be an encouragement to deliberate misadventure, a signal to some miscreant to say: `If I withhold these votes it will guarantee the present result'. I am not suggesting that there would be widespread dishonesty, but there would be provision for it. Let us suppose that an electorate has a margin for a particular party of 20 votes, without having counted the pre-poll and absentee votes, and there are 60 votes to come from outside, and that we know that those votes favour a particular party. There is an incentive for someone with bad intent to obstruct the movement of those votes by, say, delaying them for 10 days. It is no good talking about appeals afterwards. Appeals are a messy business. Save for this provision, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has tried to remove from the Act provisions which penalise the voter for any action, either witting or unwitting, caused by the prevailing electoral situation. The wrong marking of a ballot paper by an electorate officer does not, according to our recommendation, penalise the voter. If the voter has, with good intent, complied with the law I put it to the Minister that that voter has an absolute right for his vote to be counted. Whereas there is a justification for a time limit on postal votes because one has no way of knowing how many postal votes there are-although we should pressure all our missions and posts around the world to send in any votes they are withholding-fundamentally it is quite outrageous to say to a voter: You have cast your vote accurately and legally but, because of some defect in communication between the electoral office that holds your vote and the electoral office that ought to receive your vote, the time has passed and your vote is negated. That is quite outrageous and I suggest to the Minister that it ought not to occur. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(12.43) —I do not think there is much chance of pre-poll votes going astray. They are delivered to an electoral office. They are usually made to the same electorate. There is already a cut-off point for postal votes which this legislation extends by three days. I suppose one could say that if there has to be a cut-off point we are going in the right direction. The problem with absentee votes is that if there is no time limit, is it open-ended? I think there are votes still missing from the United States for the 1984 election-however, I could be wrong-which have just never turned up. One of the key factors will be administration. Last time diplomats at overseas missions were instructed to use a courier service and not the diplomatic bag but, being diplomats, they ignored the direction. They had better not do so again otherwise they might find themselves before the Public Service Board. It is essential that those votes come in. However, we need a cut-off point. I have a lot of sympathy for what Senator Sir John Carrick said today. If possible, I would like to see a compromise on this matter. I do not think the choice should be simply between having an open-ended system or a cut-off point. Senator Sir John Carrick —I did not put that. Senator ROBERT RAY —Unfortunately, as I understand it, there is nothing else before us in terms of an alternative cut-off point. There is a failsafe mechanism-the Court of Disputed Returns. The honourable senator should remember that the legislation allows disputed votes to be counted. So, if at the one election for each Federal Parliament at best, deferred votes were going to influence the result, the court could definitely rectify the situation. Senator Sir John Carrick —But why go to the courts, with all the costs and everything else? Senator ROBERT RAY —The point is: What happens if the votes come in eight months later? We cannot leave a seat unrepresented in this Parliament, which is what could happen. That is the problem, as indicated by Justice Stark in the Nunawading case. He pointed out that the legislation had no cut-off point at all. Progress reported. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes and provided further that should a division be called for, such division shall be forthwith postponed till a later hour of the day not being earlier than 2 p.m. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.47) —I believe that the independence of the Australian Audit Office is under threat from the executive arm of government. Parliament should not only direct more of its time and attention to debating the contents of the Auditor-General's annual reports but also start to reflect on the question of trying to safeguard the role, independence and integrity of the Australian Audit Office. In recent times we have seen that Office come increasingly under pressure exerted by the Executive. In most cases the Auditor-General is responsible to this Parliament, not to the Prime Minister or to any of the agencies of government. Today we are seeing the Australian Audit Office increasingly shackled by such government departments as the Department of Finance and the Public Service Board. We have seen in recent times a tremendous growth in government activity. We have seen an enlargement of the Public Service. That has been manifested in the growth of departments and the growth of statutory responsibilities. Generally, in the computing area, the standard of automatic data processing is quite high. It is in the peripheral areas that trouble occurs. So we see no diminution in the size of the Auditor-General's reports. If anything, his responsibilities are increasing, in part because of problems which he is discovering as part of his duties. A very unhealthy situation has been reached. Perhaps Canada and the United Kingdom have the answers, where the Auditor-General, unlike his counterpart in Australia, determines the terms and conditions that are applicable to audit staff and has direct recourse to the Parliament for the funding of the auditing institution. That is where the Canadian and British systems differ from the Australian. Increasingly we find pressure being exerted on the Australian Audit Office by the Public Service Board and the Department of Finance. In fact, the issue first arose with the previous Auditor-General, who requested and required an extra 69 members of staff in order to fulfil his audit needs. In a report that was tabled in the Parliament on 4 October 1984 Mr Brigden stated: It is timely to question whether the independence of the Auditor-General and the Australian Audit Office from the executive arm of government is not more apparent than real. I submit that today the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that Parliament must take upon itself the responsibility of ensuring that a change occurs and the Auditor-General is given the responsibility for, and makes recommendations to Parliament concerning, the funding of his office, rather than being shackled by such bodies as the Public Service Board or the Department of Finance, which can be directly influenced as a result of ministerial intervention. That is the sort of situation that we have got ourselves into. What actually do we find upon reading the comments in the 1984 report? The Auditor had sought an extra 69 people, including data processing staff, following an escalation in the size of the audit task but, as Mr Brigden noted, in the 1984-85 Budget the Government had not approved such an increase; the Audit Office had actually been accorded a slightly lower staff ceiling than it had enjoyed previously. So despite the pleas of that Office, the Government sought not to make any increase in staffing at all, certainly not to the level of 69 additional persons. Instead, it brought the ceiling down. The present situation is quite untenable because, since those comments were made, the Auditor-General has been given a wider range of responsibilities, due to the increase in the size of departments and statutory authorities, yet still lacks these important resources. He has a problem and it is not surprising that increasing numbers of departments are stating that they are having problems because of the Auditor-General's Office's failure to approve their accounts in time to meet deadlines. If one wants to improve this situation, while not diminishing the auditing function in any way, it is only appropriate that one do as has been done in other departments-increase the resources available. I wish now to pick up a couple of special issues. For example, the Auditor-General, in his 31 March 1987 report, while indicating that audit results were generally satisfactory, noted a number of exceptions to this, which I think should be brought to the attention of the Senate. First, in auditing the Department of Social Security's implementation of the assets test, the Auditor found that errors in the determination of entitlements under the test had been made; that there was an omission of assets and an inclusion of incorrect property and other assets; further, that these errors had not come to light until the external audit had taken place. Delays had been noted in valuing the property of pensioners, some valuations being outstanding for 40 weeks. These sorts of issues were raised by the Liberal Party before the Labor Government introduced its iniquitous assets test. We warned of these sorts of consequences and the problems that applied in individual circumstances. As a result of this report from the Audit Office our fears have been confirmed. There have been errors; there have been delays. I believe that these sorts of problems can be of extreme concern to the elderly. Uncertainty over financial matters tends to loom large, for the elderly in particular. These difficulties in the application of the pension assets test are evidence of what the Opposition has been maintaining all along-that the assets test on pensions is intrusive, inequitable, costly and complex to impose. In effect it penalises those people who have worked very hard during their lives. Mr Deputy President, another issue concerns the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The scheme provides for the supplying of approved drugs and medicines to the public upon payment of a patient contribution or, in the case of entitled pensioners and other eligible persons, essentially free of cost. Problems have developed with the operation of the scheme due to staff shortages. There have been significant backlogs in the processing of payments and, of course, there has been the problem of repetitive strain injury. In May 1985, in an attempt to reduce the backlog, the advance payment of claims without verification was begun. Herein, I think, lies an important problem, particularly for the Parliament. The Department of Finance registered no in-principle objection to the claim. The Department of Finance, which is responsible for the stewardship, the financial integrity, of payments from the Commonwealth exchequer, raised no in-principle objection to the claim. The result was that payments were not authorised under the Health Act. This meant that the payment of pharmaceutical benefits was made, in contravention of section 83 of the Constitution, without due appropriation. This is indeed pretty serious. It is poor accounting practice. It has been estimated that, as at November of last year, the value of pharmaceutical payments that were unadjusted by subsequent reprocessing and verification was of the order of $300m. That is quite a staggering amount. I now move to the position of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and look at some of the problems that occur in relation to the disability pensions provided under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. That Act covers the payment of disability and widow's pensions and allowances to eligible beneficiaries. What do we find here? We find that in respect of these people, who served their country in time of war, there were significant delays in the processing of disability pension claims. The old soldiers and women who served this country have experienced significant delays in the processing of disability claims. So despite a processing target of 90 days, as at October 1986, the average processing times for entitlement and assessment were 174 and 159 days respectively. They were far off the target. It was also indicated that 300 claims had been outstanding for over a year and a number for more than two years. I just do not think that this is good enough so far as the veterans are concerned. There is obviously room for some improvement. Those who may be suffering as a result of war service should be entitled, I believe, to prompt consideration of their claims. The number of inquiries concerning such matters that are coming, for example, into my office-no doubt the experience is repeated in many of my colleagues' offices-is evidence of the concern about such delays which is occurring within the community. Finally, I wish to comment on a report in today's Sydney Morning Herald that efficiency experts see $500m savings being made in expenditure on the Public Service. Before the Hawke Government enshrines some of these changes in its May statement, I suggest that in the interests of accountability it should be very careful in embarking upon such pursuits as the `elimination of ``double checking'' procedures in the payment of government accounts'. This is an awful situation. Giving effect to that recommendation could create the risk of providing greater opportunities for fraud in return for savings in administrative costs. I certainly hope that the Parliament will examine this issue very closely. The payment of funds out of the Commonwealth account is the responsibility of this Parliament. True, the Government is supposed to do the monitoring, to set up the machinery; but I think that if it takes away some of the checks and balances that ensure the appropriateness and correctness of payments, we are going to see fraud perpetrated on a large scale and will lose as a consequence. I regret that it has been necessary to draw these matters to the attention of the Senate at this time, but I believe that they cannot be overlooked and should provide a basis for further investigation and the revision of existing practices. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the release today of the labour market statistics for April which show that, while there was a welcome slight fall in unemployment last month, unemployment is virtually stagnant at around 8.3 per cent. Is it a fact that the teenage unemployment situation worsened during April with another 1,600 15- to 19-year-olds out of work, bringing the rate for that age group to 23.1 per cent? Why have the Government's policies failed to move unemployment from what the Australian Bureau of Statistics describes in the document issued today as the plateau which has been experienced since October last year of 8.3 or 8.4 per cent? Does the Minister accept that unless next week's mini-Budget does more than just reduce government spending and unless other measures are taken-for example, the Government's industrial relations package provides for a more flexible labour market-there will be little chance of achieving the increased private investment necessary to create jobs for the more than 600,000 Australians out of work? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney has asked a number of questions which relate to the labour market statistics just made available, and he particularly referred to the unemployment rate for teenagers seeking full time work. I make the comment about those figures that care needs to be taken when looking at single month figures. In quarterly average terms the teenage full time unemployment rate was 23.1 per cent for the three months to April 1987, which is up on the 21.5 per cent figure for the three months to January 1987. That is not a satisfactory result, but it must be remembered that the teenage unemployment rate does not represent the proportion of teenagers who are unemployed because of the high and growing proportion of teenagers who are in full time education; nor does it take into account the fact that the proportion of the 15- to 19-year-old population unemployed and looking for full time work in March 1987, the most recent months for which figures are available, was 9.2 per cent. Nonetheless, the basis of the question relates to a static level of unemployment and I must say that the Government, in having regard to macroeconomic conditions, is generally encouraged by the fact that unemployment has not risen more significantly than it has. If one looks back to the introduction of the Budget, there were predictions, which I do not recall precisely, about levels of employment which I believe were higher than is currently the case. Senator Chaney also asked whether further impact could be made on the unemployment figures by more flexible labour market programs. I am sorry, I have forgotten his second point, but it certainly related to the mini-Budget and whether it was sufficient to cut government expenditure in the context of the mini-Budget. The cutting of government expenditure in the mini-Budget is directly related to the question, in policy terms, of interest rates, which again is relevant to the capacity of firms to employ people. The question of a more flexible labour market is something that Senator Chaney would be fully aware the Government has been addressing in a particular way. The second tier of the current wage system provides a little more flexibility than was there in former times. Flexibility in general is to be increasingly encouraged, but one must do it at an appropriate rate, having regard to a number of restraints which operate in Australia. Finally, and this is a very personal view, I think one of the problems with the unemployment levels which currently exist is not just a question of the aggregate jobs available but a question of matching jobs with available skills-and not only matching jobs with available skills but also matching jobs with regional requirements for employment. They are difficulties which are not overcome quickly, I believe. The Government has instituted in a number of areas training programs which are designed to enhance skills in particular areas of labour market requirements. In time I hope that those policies will have significant effects on the overall levels of unemployment, particularly among young people. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Minister a supplementary question. I thank him for his very full reply, but I wish to raise a further point. The Minister referred to the fact that there is a high and growing proportion of young people in education and the inference was that that reduced the impact of the unsatisfactory figures for unemployment in the 15- to 19-year-old age group. Is it a fact that with a high and rising proportion of that age group remaining in education there is therefore a smaller proportion of the total teenage population seeking jobs? The fact that there is a worsening of the unemployment figures in those circumstances is a rather serious indication that the availability of jobs for that age group is being squeezed even more than the figures would indicate. Senator BUTTON —I must agree with the assumptions behind Senator Chaney's supplementary question. It is a relative matter as to how quickly we can deal with those things, and I appreciate that. The Government has a number of schemes in place to try to help particularly with teenage unemployment. I refer to schemes such as Jobstart and the formal training assistance for youth scheme. The Commonwealth Employment Service is also paying particular attention to the needs of young people. Going back to what I said earlier about matching jobs with skills, I must say that there is at least substantial anecdotal evidence of a shortage of labour in a wide variety of areas in Australian industry. That is a problem which must be continually addressed. Senator CHILDS —Has the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs seen a report in the Canberra Times newspaper of last Monday about an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Managua at which a resolution was carried urging the United States of America to stop trying to oust the elected Government of Nicaragua? In view of the Australian delegation's unanimous support for the resolution, will the Government be supporting the resolution? If so, I ask whether the Federal Government will take any action in line with the resolution, which appealed: . . . to the United States to comply with a June 6th, 1986, ruling of the International Court of Justice outlawing Washington's support for anti-Sandinista rebels as well as its trade embargo against Nicaragua. Finally, what practical action will the Government be taking to help bring peace to the Central American region? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware of reports of a resolution carried by the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference held in Managua last week calling for the United States to suspend efforts to oust the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua. While we have not seen the text of the resolution, I can say that our position on United States support for the Contras in Nicaragua and the trade embargo against that country is well known. The Australian Government believes that the countries of the region have a right to conduct their affairs without foreign interference and that the best hope for peace in Central America lies with diplomatic negotiations and through the Contadora process rather than in military action. Australia remains committed to the role of the International Court of Justice in settling international disputes and to observance of international law. Australia's assistance totalling some $500,000 to projects in Nicaragua and El Salvador is an example of the Government's active interest in helping to resolve problems of that region. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the forthcoming meeting of the South Pacific Forum. Does the Government still intend to raise the question of Libyan influence in the Pacific and, in particular, the apparently increased links with Vanuatu at that Forum or will it back off following that warning by Father Walter Lini that any airing of his country's relations with Libya will spell the end of the Forum? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I said in answer to a question on this subject on Tuesday of this week, Libyan activities in the region are an issue of regional security and significance and therefore they would be expected to be of interest to all members of the South Pacific Forum, the Forum being the appropriate regional organisation to consider matters of regional concern. So we would certainly expect this issue to be discussed in Apia. I cannot believe that any comment made by Father Lini, or anybody else, would in itself be seen by us as making it inappropriate for the matter to be so raised. I add further that discussion of this issue does not represent any intention to interfere in the internal affairs of any one of the Forum member countries. It would simply be an appropriate recognition of regional concern. I reiterate the point I made earlier in the week; that is, that a very senior officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs in the next few days will visit all the Forum members and discuss with them the Libyan issue and possible approaches to reacting to it. No doubt in the light of those discussions we will be much better informed about how best, and to what extent, the issue might be addressed in the Forum context. I think it would be premature to speculate in any more detail at this stage as to how the matter might be raised in that context. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Finance whether he has examined the proposal for cutting public sector health outlays by a net $7 billion as contained in the National Priorities Project book Spending and Taxing. Can the Minister tell the Senate what the implications of this proposal, if implemented, would be? Senator WALSH —I have looked at the health chapter of the book. It proposes, from gross spending cuts of $8.9 billion-Commonwealth and State government-to pay back $1.9 billion as medical rebates to taxpayers on low incomes. That equates more or less with the present Medicare cover for holders of a pensioner or beneficiary health card. This would leave gross savings of $7 billion-not all on the Commonwealth Budget by any means-out of total gross savings of $12 billion proposed in the book. For the rest of the people the book proposes that something like an open market should operate, but with this very big stopper-that there should be private insurance in a free insurance market; that is, no community rating, allowing cover for 100 per cent of expenditure incurred. That would be extended to pharmaceuticals. There would also be a freeing up of the availability of pharmaceuticals, including abolition of the present pharmaceutical agreement under the Health Act. So people could go to a pharmacist and buy drugs, including presumably drugs of addiction, just as they go to a supermarket to buy a packet of Weeties or a cake of soap, and get from their insurer a 100 per cent rebate for that activity. The theory of the free market in health in economic terms would actually work and would probably lead to reductions in health outlays in total provided insurance was banned. In other words, those who became chronically ill, unless they were rich, under this proposal would die in the gutter. The ideologues who wrote the book are not willing to pursue their social Darwinism that far. They advocate a free market and claim all the efficiency benefits that can be associated with a free market and then cancel the free market by allowing not only private insurance but private insurance for 100 per cent of the expenditure incurred, while abandoning all controls on the supply of the service. In other words, if the Australian Capital Territory doctors union decided that doctors would double their fees, anybody who had 100 per cent private health insurance would still have no deterrent from a personal viewpoint to going along to the doctor more often than he had before because the insurance company would pay the bill and the incremental cost to the insurance fund would not be noticed by the individual. That is referred to as `moral hazard' by the people who study this phenomenon. Senator Michael Baume —That is exactly the problem with bulk billing. Senator WALSH —Senator Baume knows a great deal about moral hazard; it is something he has faced very often, and usually he succumbs to it. Senator Walters —What do you think bulk billing is? Senator WALSH —Bulk billing is something, providing the doctor charges the schedule fee, which leaves no cost to the disadvantaged. This is exactly what the Opposition proposed and exactly what the Centre of Policy Studies group proposes. What is also proposed, Senator Walters-- Senator Michael Baume —It is equally as bad, is it? Senator WALSH —No, there are some controls on bulk billing. Senator Baume and the Centre of Policy Studies would abandon all the controls while handing out blank cheques. In terms of economic theory, the proposal is fatally flawed because it not only allows private insurance but it would have no problems with a 100 per cent rebate of any costs incurred for medical services or for pharmaceuticals. In other words, this proposal is even worse than what the Opposition is putting up. It is not only flawed in economic theory but also it has been tested empirically in the United States. The Centre of Policy Studies proposal is considerably worse than the United States system, but movement towards a free market with fee for service and private insurance has been tested in the United States. Eleven per cent of gross domestic product in the United States is spent on health services-compared with 7.5 per cent in Australia-for a health service delivery outcome which is certainly no better. There are a couple of other points of fact I wish to make. Firstly, the book assumes that the current rate of utilisation under Medicare is above the long term trend. That is an error of fact. Secondly, it also says that an allowance of $700 per taxpayer should be given to people who are on incomes deemed to be too low to pay full premiums for private insurance. This allowance would be clawed back from those on annual incomes of between $10,000 and $24,000. That makes no allowance for the fact that cover would also be required for a dependent spouse, if there were one, and dependent children. So on top of the error of fact we have an error of arithmetic. In closing, if this proposal were applied it would be even more catastrophic than the system which operates in the United States. If it applied here it would increase total spending on health by $9 billion and the United States system is basically what is advocated by the Opposition. Senator MASON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In view of the striking fuel economy and radar efficiency offered by modern airships, what consideration is the Government currently giving to the use of airships in a defence capability, especially in the role of coastal surveillance? While conceding that the role of airships must be ancillary because of their inability to operate in high winds, does the Minister agree that Australia's diminishing resources of liquid fuels might well justify using them in that ancillary role? Senator GARETH EVANS —There are a number of-- Senator Kilgariff —Hot air balloons. Senator GARETH EVANS —I would not talk about hot air balloons if I were Senator Kilgariff. A number of studies are currently in progress within the Defence Department to examine Australia's surveillance needs. The studies are considering both the needs and the available solutions and evaluating a number of proposals for an airborne early warning system which were received following the issue of a request for proposals. An airship-based solution is one proposal under consideration. The claimed fuel efficiency and endurance of airships would appear to be a significant asset in the surveillance role. However, a number of other factors, such as speed, operating height and cost, need to be considered in determining the mix of surveillance systems best suited to our needs. It should be recognised that airborne surveillance is just one element of a total system. Australia already has significant surveillance capability with the P3C Orion aircraft and Navy surface vessels and submarines. A wide area of surveillance capability will be further enhanced with the planned construction of a network of over-the-horizon radars that was recently announced by the Government. It is apparent that technology is steadily improving the performance and versatility of the airship in a defence role. The Department will be closely monitoring local and overseas developments and will take these matters into account when developing recommendations. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy confirm that a major mining company, MIM Holdings Ltd, has decided not to establish a new zinc processing plant, which would employ up to 500 people, in Townsville? Has that decision been taken because of the high cost of freight and electricity to Queensland industry, particularly in isolated areas? What steps can the Minister take to have Mount Isa Mines and the Queensland Government reconsider this important project? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware that Mount Isa Mines Ltd has considered the feasibility of establishing a zinc refinery at Townsville on several occasions from the mid-1970s, and most recently within the past six months. At present, most zinc concentrates are sold in unprocessed form from Mount Isa, which is one of the major world producers of zinc. It would be manifestly very much in the national interest if further evaluated processing were carried out in Australia. As Senator Reynolds intimated, the company has made it clear that the return on capital required to establish a refinery is just not available, not simply because of energy costs but, more particularly, because of rail freight charges in Queensland. It is of great concern that a major potential investment is apparently being prevented by the extraordinarily high State charges being exacted from industry in Queensland-that allegedly low tax and free enterprise State that is now being touted so implausibly as a model for national government. This Government is certainly giving, and will continue to give, a very high priority to the further processing of Australia's raw materials before they are exported. We believe that the devaluation of the Australian dollar and the restructuring of industry that is currently under way in Japan present a number of increased opportunities for secondary industry in Australia. The Bureau of Resource Economics within my Department has recently completed and published a major study, entitled `Further Minerals Processing: Opportunities in Australia'. The Government has also requested a detailed study on how to maximise the opportunities presented by the currently favourable general environment for processing. That report from the Basic Metals Industry Council-a tripartite body of State, Commonwealth and business representatives-should be available to the Government in June. I repeat that there is no point whatsoever in our exploring these opportunities on the current scale if we and our major industries are to be stymied by pig-headed, obdurate, economically absurd and inconsistent-certainly in terms of the internal ideology involved-taxation imposts of the sort for which the Queensland Government has become so justly notorious. It has made a mess of the Mount Isa Mines zinc project in Townsville. It is making a mess of rail freight policy for the coal industry, which is hard pressed, as is the coal industry generally, in the current world environment. The notion that the greedy, economic illiterate running Queensland should have any larger field in which to display his capacities and his economic sensitivities is one that fills all but a handful of honourable senators in this chamber with disgust. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Government aware that, of the $5,600m collected from the total fuel tax in Australia, only $1,245m, or 22 per cent, is spent on Federal road construction, and that less than one-third of the $4 billion spent on Australian roads last year came from Federal government funds? From those figures, it is clear that the Federal Government is the biggest fuel tax collector, but the smallest road construction spender. Considering that the road network is the lifeline of millions of Australians and the lifeblood of 830 local authorities in Australia, when will the Federal Government play its part in improving the roads used by Australian motorists? Senator GIETZELT —I cannot confirm precisely whether Senator Bjelke-Petersen's assessment of the collection of tax from fuel excise is being spent in the percentage terms that she suggested. Assuming that her statistics are correct, I remind her that, as far as I can recollect, fuel tax was introduced in about 1929 and has continued as a means of collecting revenue under successive governments over that time-in excess of 50 years. This Government has not departed from the principles on which previous governments have used the excise tax for general revenue purposes as well as for the construction of roads. The proportion of funds that this Government has set aside for road construction in its first four Budgets has been considerably in excess of that provided under the Fraser Administration. The honourable senator's Party was an honoured member of the coalition but is no longer part of the process. I suppose that her question today is part of the independence that is emerging from the conservative forces. On the Government's future intentions for road construction, Parliament has agreed to the Australian bicentennial road development program which, from memory, provides about 25 per cent more in total funding to the States for allocation to their main roads and local government roadworks programs. Therefore, this Government has spent more on road construction than the previous Government. I shall refer the question to Mr Morris in case he wishes to add to my answer. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Do the April labour force figures released today provide a guide to the relative performances of the various State economies? If so, what economic policy differences among the States have contributed to the current position? Senator WALSH —The employment figures released today, which are not seasonally adjusted, show that the Queensland unemployment rate in April was 10.2 per cent while the national figure, as was mentioned earlier, was almost 2 percentage points lower at 8.4 per cent. Queensland has had the highest unemployment rate of any mainland State for the past five consecutive months, including the most recent month of April. It is a continuation of the form displayed by Queensland in 1986 when that State, ruled by the Petersen regime, had the worst rate of unemployment of any mainland State for seven out of the 12 months. In April, Queensland had 19.4 per cent of the total number of jobless, compared with 16 per cent of the national labour force. Also in April the two conservative governed States of Queensland and Tasmania had the highest youth unemployment rates among the States. The unemployment rate in Queensland for the 15- to 19-year-old cohort was 28.4 per cent and in Tasmania 27.3 per cent, compared with an Australian average of just over 22 per cent. Senator NEWMAN —Is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs able to confirm today's newspaper report that at least 70 members of the ruling political party in Vanuatu are expected to travel to Tripoli within the next few weeks? If so, can the Minister say whether reports reaching the Government indicate that this group is likely to undergo weapons training and instruction in political propaganda techniques? Is the Government concerned at this further development of Libyan interest in the Pacific region? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no further information on that matter other than what appeared in the Press. I will take it on notice and see what further information it is possible to provide in the near future. Senator DEVLIN —My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and it relates to the answer he gave yesterday in the Senate in which he highlighted the simplistic economic solutions put forward by leaders of business, the farming community and the New Right in their strong advocacy of less government spending. The Minister will be aware of a function attended by most of the dry faction opposite yesterday for the launching of a new book called Spending and Taxing-Australian Reform Options, which advocates major spending cuts and the slashing of personal and corporate tax rates. Is it a fact that these proposed cuts in spending would hit hardest those people on fixed incomes, such as veterans and war widows, while the biggest gains would be for those on the highest incomes? Senator GIETZELT —For the last two or three years I have warned members of the veteran community at the conferences that they hold at about this time each year of the preposterous proposals that come from an amazing and increasing number of non-elected self-appointed experts who tell governments and political parties what should be done about the economy. I was representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services at a function this morning, but I noticed that today's Melbourne Age drew attention to the fact that the Centre of Policy Studies has identified the most disadvantaged group as those with incomes in the $5,000 to $15,000 income bracket who do not qualify for a family income supplement. The group which has been identified by this new survey and which has received maximum publicity today includes at least half of the persons receiving benefits from my Department, and they would be affected if those proposals were put into effect. That is, war widows, service pensioners and disability pensioners would be affected, and they represent about half of my Budget outlay, which is anticipated in the 1987-88 Budget to be slightly in excess of $4 billion. These proposals that are receiving such maximum publicity will have the effect, unfortunately, of creating a lot of distress amongst the most vulnerable group of Australian citizens, that is, people who come within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. To that extent I deplore the proposals because, inevitably, I get responses from war widows and others complaining about them and suggesting that the Government should somehow respond to these propaganda blasts which come increasingly from these new centres that are being established. There is no doubt that half of the clients of my Department would be affected if there were any serious attempt to interfere with the current Budget outlays. I have noted that it has also been suggested that the public hospital system should be privatised. Of course, that would arouse tremendous ire among the veteran community and would flow against what I believe to be the correct policy of this Government-I think it enjoys the support of the Opposition-which is the process of integration of the repatriation hospital system with the States over time. Any suggestion that those repatriation hospitals should be sold off to private interests would certainly create a great deal of distress, having regard particularly to the fact that the Government accepts the legal, moral and cost implications of providing treatment and services in repatriation hospitals. Obviously, if the hospitals were sold off to the private sector, it would cost us a lot more. A mentality seems to be developing of wanting to sell everything that moves. This would have tremendous cost implications. It seems that the clock is being turned back to the nineteenth century. It worries me that many members of the Opposition parties are not able to perceive what is the strategy of the New Right. In turning the clock back to the nineteenth century, we should perhaps look at the historical differences that existed then in the struggle between the whigs and the tories for the conservative soul. From what is developing, it seems that the tories are going to take over the conservative parties. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the Government's response to the official protest by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics over the lampooning of past and present leaders of that country on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program The Dingo Principle? Has there been any threat by the Soviet Government of retaliatory trade action? If so, will the Government support Australian exporters in any subsequent action to sue the ABC for damages? Does the Minister believe that the segment complained of is any more `vicious and outrageous'-to use the reported words of a Soviet diplomat in Canberra-than treatment of, for example, the President of the United States of America by similar ABC satirical programs? Is the Government reviewing existing ABC guidelines adequately to cover such situations? Senator GARETH EVANS —All I can say is that glasnost is certainly having its impact on the wets, at least, in the Opposition if we have a situation in which manifest concern for the sensitivity of the Soviet Union apparently overrides, in Senator Teague's breast, his commitment to the basic principles of freedom of speech and media freedom. A quite extraordinary bias was implicit in his question. But these are troubled times and, as we watch, principles are changing visibly on the other side of the chamber. It is an extremely interesting state of affairs. The situation is that the Soviet Embassy has lodged a formal protest with the Department of Foreign Affairs over the 4 May edition of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program The Dingo Principle. It expressed a fundamental objection to the program, which it stated had insulted the Soviet leadership, ridiculed the values of Soviet society and made fun of the founder of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, V. I. Lenin. In response, the Department of Foreign Affairs reminded the Embassy of the long tradition of political satire and freedom of expression in Australia. By comparison, mention was also made of the sharply satirical treatment of Western societies, values and leaders by the Soviet media. I understand that the Soviet Embassy has agreed to pursue its complaints with the ABC. An ABC spokesman-this seems to be its only statement on the record at the moment-stated that the ABC is `not setting out to affront people'. If so, that is news to me and to most honourable senators in this chamber. But, again, I wish it well in its endeavours in this respect. I cannot believe that it is either serious or likely to be successful. But no doubt it is a worthy approach and is to be commended if it can pull it off. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can he explain the connection drawn by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, between a resource rent tax and optional preferential voting? In the light of the Treasurer's threat to wipe out minor parties and introduce changes to the voting system that will do that, are we to assume that because minor parties, including the Unite Australia Party, together with the Opposition-that is, everyone but the Government-chose to oppose what they considered to be a very ill-conceived tax on industry, we are threatened with changes to the electoral system designed to deny parliamentary representation to anyone holding a view contrary to that expressed by the present Government? Senator BUTTON —I do not think any particular conclusions can be drawn from the Treasurer's association of the resource rent tax and optional preferential voting. The only conclusion which can be drawn, which is nothing new, is that the Treasurer of this country is imaginative, colourful and brilliant. I think that, in expressing the thoughts which he expressed on the steps of Parliament House on behalf of all of us, he was indulging those qualities which have made him a very good Treasurer of this country. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister for Finance. I refer to reports earlier this week of a refusal by Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union members employed by Australia Post to handle mail for the Australian Taxation Office in protest against proposed changes to workers compensation laws. It was reported that talks on the changes had been arranged to be held today, involving the Finance Minister, the Minister for Social Security, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the APTU. Can the Minister advise whether or not this discussion has been held today? If so, has the refusal to handle Tax Office mail been removed. If there has not been a successful outcome from the talks, what is the effect on the collection of government revenue and what action does the Government propose to take to protect the revenue and personal tax collections from pay as you earn taxpayers? Senator WALSH —The meeting which had been scheduled and to which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has referred was not held, the reason being that we had intended to complete the Expenditure Review Committee work yesterday and that has slipped a day. It will not be completed until today. Since Mr Howe, Mr Willis and I are all on the ERC and might have had a meeting with the unions, I suggested cancelling the meeting yesterday and that was done. In regard to the rest of the question, I have made very clear to the Public Service unions before my view that this Government will not tolerate the sabotage of public administration through the continued application of work bans, and I repeat that. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to claims made that the appointment of Dr David Williams to a position on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands was not advertised in the usual way? If these claims are correct, will the Minister assure the Senate that the appointment was in no way improper? Senator GIETZELT —Numerous questions were asked about this matter in one of the Senate Estimates committees. I felt that the officers answered them adequately. I was not aware at the time of the motivation behind the questions asked about the appointment of the Administrator's spouse as an environmental officer. The fact is that the Administrator's spouse, Dr Williams, who has received an appointment by this Government to carry out an important environmental study on Cocos Island, was entitled to accompany the Administrator to that island at the taxpayers' expense when she was first appointed. This is the normal entitlement for Commonwealth employees, including administrators. Indeed, I am advised that 70 per cent of spouses of the administration employees on Cocos Island at the moment are employed in the Territory. Senator Robertson knows full well, as I suppose most other senators know, that the Government in planning for the future development of that island is looking at alternative employment opportunities. The area is ecologically sensitive and the Government lacks data about the environmental and ecological issues. The Minister has obviously, in recognition of this deficiency, taken steps to obtain more information in these areas. We are looking to the future of that Territory and in that context, whether it be in tourism or other developments, we need to know what steps can be taken to preserve the environment of the island and of the Cocos Malay community. There is nothing improper, therefore, in the appointment of the spouse of the Administrator to the position in question. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. It relates to today's Press reports concerning the Government's proposed amendments to the mining provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Will the Minister elaborate upon his comments in the Press concerning the removal of the right of veto once Aboriginal traditional owners have agreed to mineral exploration taking place upon their land? In particular, how will this assist those companies with existing exploration licences which have not been able to negotiate for mining leases? Will they have to go back to square one and get a new exploration licence under the amended Act in order to get a mining lease? Senator GARETH EVANS —These matters will become clear later in the afternoon, I hope, when the Bill is introduced, with the leave of the Opposition, which I fully expect it to grant, to provide this important stimulus to mining activities in the Northern cemetery-Freud rides again, but the Territory has been a cemetery to mining activity in the last decade as a result of the difficulties with the present structure of the legislation. We hope to make it otherwise. There is much to be said about the legislation, but let me confine myself to the specific question asked by Senator Kilgariff. The legislation will provide that miners can choose whether to continue negotiating under their existing licence applications and under the existing regime. If they do not so elect, they will then come under the rubric of the new legislative scheme. If they do come under the rubric of the new scheme a more extended form of proposal will need to be submitted and the mining companies will be given varying degrees of time-extendable at the discretion of the Minister if practical difficulties make that necessary-to make those new proposals and to set in train the new procedures. It will be a matter for each of the mining companies with exploration applications outstanding themselves to determine whether they will be better off by continuing under the present regime-say, if negotiations are well advanced and they think some decision is imminent-or whether they would prefer to operate under the new regime, which I think is likely, certainly in the long run and quite possibly in the short run as well, to give them a quicker solution to their particular problem. There is much that we can debate in detail about this. I will be happy to give the Opposition an opportunity to do just that next week. Senator WEST —I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the Government's attitude to yesterday's actions of the South African authorities against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Richard Carleton and his team? What do these actions tell us about the nature of the apartheid regime? Senator GARETH EVANS —The expulsion of Richard Carleton and Jennifer Ainge by the South African authorities is another example of the lengths to which the South African Government is prepared to go to stifle reporting on the internal situation although, seen against the draconian laws which apply to South African journalists and the media, expulsion is probably relatively mild. My understanding of the facts surrounding the case is that Carleton had completed an interview sequence with two academics-Professor Philips, a political scientist from Natal University, and Professor Werchers, a professor of constitutional law. A third participant in the program, a Mr Otto Krause, a supporter of the governing National Party, took exception to some of Mr Carleton's introductory remarks-a not unusual state of affairs for those of us who have spent some time with him-and left the program. The program continued, as many others have in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation studios in Northbourne Avenue, without the gentleman in question. Mr Carleton was confronted by four South African Broadcasting Corporation officials at the end of the interview, including the Director-General. He was accused of telling lies about South Africa and was advised that the SABC was withdrawing all its facilities for the team, including the transmission of the interview. Carleton was later taken to police headquarters and questioned by police. Senator Chaney —Was he beaten? Senator GARETH EVANS —No such luck-on available evidence. His work permit was withdrawn and he was advised that he would be expelled. He was escorted-I am not sure whether his arm was held behind his back-- Senator Ryan —He will tell us. Senator GARETH EVANS —He will tell us in due course-by police to the airport for departure on a flight to Harare. His introduction to the segment which was objected to so strongly included comments-there is never a shortage of comments in Mr Carleton's introductions-on censorship, townships, demonstrations and the role of the police and the army which are, of course, realities of daily life under the state of emergency which has been in force since June last year. I repeat a proposition that has been advanced often enough, at least on this side of the chamber: The Government roundly deplores the trivial and petty actions of the South African authorities in this instance. It is a sad but revealing commentary on any country that it has to resort to such desperate measures to stifle legitimate reporting of events, all the more so in one such as South Africa which purports to represent, unpersuasively though it may be, Western values. I might also indicate for the record, as I think the Prime Minister announced earlier today, that when the South African Ambassador to Australia returns from Wagga, where he is now gracing the halls of various conferences being organised by the forces of the New Right in this country, he will be called to the Department of Foreign Affairs to receive an official protest over what has been clearly a quite disgraceful and a quite unjustified form of treatment meted out to Richard Carleton. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I ask the Minister to table the document from which he quoted. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document from which he quoted? Senator Gareth Evans —In general, I object to tabling documents. However, in this instance it is so manifestly inconsequential that it cannot possibly do any damage. Senator WALTERS —As the Minister representing the Minister for Health would be aware, Professor Penington is one of the most influential advisers to the Government in the area of health. Is the Minister aware that, about six months ago, Professor Penington called on the Government to scrap universal bulk billing in an effort to curb costs? If so, why, as reported in today's Sydney Morning Herald, is the Government, in its mini-Budget, about to ignore this advice and attempt to force more doctors to bulk bill by maintaining the Medicare rebate of 85 per cent of the schedule fee for patients whose doctors bulk bill but to lower the rebate to 75 per cent of the schedule fee for patients whose doctors do not bulk bill, creating a 25 per cent gap for one section of the community? The PRESIDENT —Order! Before calling Senator Tate, I must say that Senator Walters's question was a hypothetical one. However, if the Minister wishes to answer it he may do so. I call the Minister. Senator TATE —Mr President, I was about to make the same comment in the preliminaries to my answer and, therefore, I do not intend to comment on the speculative part of Senator Walters's question. I take it, from the first part of her question, that she adopts Professor Penington's view that bulk billing should be abolished. There are many myths about bulk billing and the effect it has on the cost of providing health care to Australians. For example, it is often claimed that bulk billing has led to overservicing by doctors. I will point out some statistics which may be useful in the Senate's consideration of such claims. In the last full calendar year of the final Fraser Government's health scheme, each Australian used an average of 7.7 medical services. In the 1986 calendar year, the average was 7.68-an almost identical utilisation rate. Therefore, the claims made by the Opposition that bulk billing has led to overservicing are fraudulent. Insofar as Senator Walters seeks some confirmation of the speculation in the Press, I will not respond. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the trade agreement between Australia and New Zealand known as Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations. I understand that to date the agreement has benefited New Zealand more than Australia. Are there any new developments which are likely to benefit Australian manufacturers in the near future? Senator BUTTON —One of the first acts of the present Government after it was elected to office was to sign the formal agreements for closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand, the details of those agreements having been negotiated by the previous Government. It is correct, as Senator Giles implied in her question, to say that to date, on published data, New Zealand seems to have benefited more than Australia from the developments in CER. I do not regard that as surprising because, firstly, in spite of its own remoteness and past difficulties, New Zealand probably has had a more significant export culture than Australian industry and, secondly, a small market and supplier, such as New Zealand, is likely to be more attracted by a larger market, such as Australia, than Australian industrialists are by a small market. Nonetheless, last week the Minister for Trade and I announced that Australia and New Zealand had reached agreement on arrangements to liberalise trans-Tasman trade in iron and steel products under the closer economic relations trade agreement. The new arrangements will provide increased opportunities for exports of Australian steel products to New Zealand. They constitute a significant improvement in trading conditions insofar as Australia is concerned. Under the new arrangements, free trade will be achieved for most steel products by 1 January 1989. The main element of the package is the accelerated phasing out of tariffs and quantitative restrictions on Australian steel products exported to New Zealand. The phasing out of tariffs will commence on 1 July 1987. New Zealand products already enter Australia free of duties and quotas. Relevant Australian industries and unions were consulted during negotiations on the new arrangements. Although the arrangements have brought some signs of distress from certain New Zealand interests, they have been welcomed in Australia. Senator PARER —I refer the Minister for Education to a report in the Weekend Australian of 2-3 May on the findings of a recent survey conducted by Newspoll, on behalf of the Constitutional Commission, which found that 46 per cent of those surveyed did not know that Australia had a Constitution and that, of people aged between 18 and 24 years, 70 per cent did not know the Constitution existed. What is the Minister's response to the statement by Sir Maurice Byers, QC, who said that the findings of the survey highlighted a `quite shocking deficiency in Australia's education system'? In view of the fact that a major responsibility of the nation's education system is to provide all those who pass through it with a knowledge of the Constitution and its place in Australian political life, what does the Government propose to do to remedy the appalling ignorance highlighted by the survey? Senator RYAN —I did not see the survey that was discussed in the Weekend Australian, but I am aware of similar evidence that Australians are very ill-informed about the political structures and processes in this country, as indeed they are ill-informed about a few other things. I think it is quite reasonable to trace back some of the defects in the understanding of Australians of how their country works to shortcomings in school curriculums. It is partly in recognition of that fact that our Government has taken a number of initiatives. A major one is the Australian studies project, which is a bicentennial project, being conducted by us in consultation with the Australian Bicentennial Authority. This is aimed to ensure that all Australian school children will have access to learning about Australia at all stages of school and that learning about the political structures and the responsibilities of Australian citizens in our democracy will be part of that. We hope in that way to help to rectify the defect in curriculum throughout Australia. It is also the case that the Commonwealth agency, the Curriculum Development Council, has in co-operation with the Australian Electoral Office developed a kit of material which is specifically designed to assist teachers to help students learn about the Australian Constitution, the two Houses of Parliament and so forth. From memory that kit is almost ready for completion but I will certainly supply the honourable senator with more specific information about that, because it will directly address the problems to which his question drew attention. In conclusion, Senator Parer will be aware that the Commonwealth Government has no direct rights or responsibilities with regard to the setting of curriculum in our schools. Those rights and responsibilities are with the States, but it is through Commonwealth agencies, such as the Curriculum Development Council, that we are able to work in collaboration with the States in the non-government school system to produce curriculum which will overcome defects in State curriculum or which will improve the quality of teaching and learning in our schools. That is why we are extremely critical of any suggestions coming from the other side of the chamber, from any spokesperson for the Opposition or for the New Right or from anybody from the Centre of Policy Studies, that functions such as those of the Curriculum Development Council should be wiped out in order to make cost savings. It is a very good example of the kind of influence that the Commonwealth can have in overcoming defects in the curriculum. We are certainly moving to overcome the defect whereby very few students leave school with a proper grasp of the system in which they are expected to be an active, democratic citizen. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 30 April Senator Hill asked me about the consequences of a recent meeting of the Palestine National Council in Algiers and in particular about the prospect of an alleged `summer of violence' in the Middle East. Senator Hill —You laughed at it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not laugh it off. I said that I would seek comment from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and now that I am in a position to offer that comment I do so. At this stage it is uncertain what consequences will follow the decisions of that meeting. I note, however, that the resolution adopted by the Palestine National Council in Algiers states: Supports the convening of the International Peace Conference within the framework of the United Nations and under its auspices, with the participation of the permanent members of the Security Council and the concerned parties to the conflict in the region, including the Palestine Liberation Organisation on an equal footing with the other parties. I also understand that the Foreign Minister of Israel is discussing further with his colleagues in the Israeli Government the question of that Government's position on an international conference on the Middle East. The Australian Government hopes that, rather than a so-called `summer of violence' continuing the decades of violence that have accompanied the failure to resolve the Palestinian problem, the concept of an international conference will take root. It seems to me to be about the only possible way forward that can be identified by anyone at the moment. If Senator Hill has any bright ideas, in his new-found capacity as foreign policy spokesman for the wets, I would be delighted to hear them, but it really is an intractable problem, as we all know, and therein lies the difficulty. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 4 May Senator Crowley asked me a question on the subject of domestic violence and its management. I have obtained from the Attorney-General information in response to the honourable senator's question, which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows- The A.C.T. Domestic Violence Ordinance came into force on 1 October 1986. The Ordinance took account of relevant legislation in the States and New Zealand and extensive consultation within the ACT community. The legislation has, as the honourable senator notes, drawn considerable support from the community. The terms of the legislation are of course, only one element in the success it has had to date. Much of the success of the A.C.T. legislation has resulted from the support given to it by the judiciary and the police. This is essential if legislation of this kind is to work. As far as consultation with the States is concerned the legislative response to domestic violence and the manner of its implementation is a matter for the States. All States now have broadly comparable laws to deal with the matter. Another factor, which cannot be addressed by uniformity of legislation, is that there may be differing degrees of commitment by the relevant agencies in different States and Territories. As the ACT Ordinance represented the most recent (and comprehensive) legislation in Australia on this subject the Attorney-General tabled a copy of the draft Ordinance at a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General last year. It is hoped that the ACT Ordinance will be taken into account when legislation in other jurisdictions is being reviewed or updated. As foreshadowed at the time of its introduction a review of the operation and effectiveness of the ACT Ordinance is now under way. The continuing evaluation and review of domestic violence legislation by the various jurisdictions may well lead to a more effective legislative and administrative response than would normally be achieved by seeking to introduce a uniform legislative scheme. Effective legislation, and its effective implementation by police forces, is recognised as being part only of the response necessary to deal with domestic violence. Equally important is the need to ensure that support services are available to assist victims and perpetrators and that the availability of such services is widely known. A number of the States (and the ACT) are also actively engaged in addressing these aspects of the problem. In the longer term there is also a need to bring about changes in community attitudes to domestic violence which currently result in such behaviour often being regarded as acceptable. Consultations with women in the context of developing the Government's National Agenda for Women have indicated that domestic violence is an issue of significant concern for women of all social groupings. The Government's response to those consultations will address those concerns. The Commonwealth will be consulting with the States on further co-operative efforts in this area. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —by leave-Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation. I refer to an article which appeared in the Bulletin yesterday, which was drawn to my attention. Having read it, I feel constrained to refer to a cable that was sent by Mark Twain to Associated Press many years ago as follows: `The report of my death was an exaggeration'. The particular part of the article to which I refer states as follows: A complex proposal in South Australia involves Don Jessop retiring and his Senate seat going to Deputy Whip Neil Andrew, which would make his rural seat of Wakefield vacant for McLachlan. As far as McLachlan and I are concerned, never the twain shall meet on this issue. I would like you, Mr President, to mark my words. I am sure that this sentiment would be shared by my colleague in the other place, Mr Neil Andrew. Perhaps I could offer a little advice to would-be politicians seeking blue ribbon Liberal seats. I know I might be slightly transgressing but I think it is important that I should record these views. Senator Cook —I move that you have leave. Senator JESSOP —I thank the honourable senator. The advice is this: Any member aspiring to be in Parliament should run the baptism of fire which is normal for us, particularly in a blue ribbon seat. Democratic processes are available in the Liberal Party and those processes should be followed. More significantly, it is preferable that any aspiring member should attempt to win a seat from the Australian Labor Party, as I did. Having done so, I have been here for nearly 20 years, which indicates that the baptism of fire that I referred to is very valuable experience for parliamentarians. The PRESIDENT —Senator Jessop stretched the standing order on this matter. 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)(3.08) —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- SUGAR CANE LEVY BILL 1987 This Bill and the associated Levy Collection Bill will provide the basis for the establishment of a Sugar Research Fund. The sugar industry will thereby join other major rural industries in the Commonwealth's rural research program. The introduction of this scheme will also complete the Commonwealth's package of measures to assist the sugar industry. The Bill is to provide for the imposition of a levy on sugar cane produced in Australia for the purpose of funding sugar industry research. The associated Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill 1987 will provide the machinery for collecting the levy. Expenditure of the moneys raised through the levy will be matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth. Administrative and organisational arrangements for the research scheme, including the establishment of a trust fund and research council will be provided pursuant to the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. The sugar industry is an important contributor to our national wealth. Total gross return in 1985 was about $800m dollars, over $600m of that earned as export income. The industry both in Queensland and in New South Wales has an established basis for research but in recent years these programs have proven inadequate to cover the range of issues the industry needs to address to remain efficient and competitive in a hostile world market. The Commonwealth supported program is intended to complement existing arrangements and provide scope for the industry's research effort to be expanded beyond production into areas such as economic and marketing research. The legislation provides for an initial levy rate of 5 cents per tonne of sugar cane delivered and accepted by a raw sugar mill for milling contributed 50 per cent by the grower and 50 per cent by the miller. Provision exists for the rate to be varied by regulation up to a maximum of 10 cents per tonne and for the split between the grower and the miller to be varied. Provision is also made for any recommendations arising from consultation between the Minister for Primary Industry and sugar industry organisations to be taken into account prior to any adjustment to the operative rate of the levy or the grower/miller split. Amounts equal to the levy collected will be paid into a trust fund established under the Rural Industries Research Act. The Commonwealth's matching contribution will be up to a maximum level equal to 0.5 per cent of the average gross value of sugar production. It is expected that given normal seasonal conditions the levy will raise about $1.25 million. The Research Council will therefore have scope for an annual research program approaching $2m. The commencement date of the legislation is to be set by proclamation but it is intended that the levy be imposed on sugar cane produced on or after 1 June 1987. A full year research program under the scheme cannot begin until 1988-89, essentially because of the need to build up reserves. However the actual level of expenditure on research will be determined by the Research Council and it is possible some research could be funded in 1987-88. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. SUGAR CANE LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery necessary for collecting the levy imposed by the Sugar Cane Levy Bill 1987. This Bill should be read as one with the Sugar Cane Levy Bill 1987, and is to come into operation on the same day that the Levy Bill becomes operative. The Bill specifies the liability of growers and millers under the scheme, outlines penalties for non-compliance and provides appropriate powers of enforcement. It is intended that levy collections will commence on 1 June 1987. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit, dated 7 May 1987. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I present the report on the delay in the disposal of the Customs House, Wiltona Hostel and Rifle Range, Williamstown, Victoria. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This is a very brief report containing the explanations of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, Mr Uren, for the delay in the disposal of these properties. In one case disposal has now been finalised and in another it is expected soon. In a third, progress has occurred and the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations recommends that the Minister promptly inform the Parliament when the processes of consultation have been completed and a decision made. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COOK(Western Australia) —I table volume 1 of additional information received by Estimates Committee A. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the paper. (Quorum formed) Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.13) —I wish to address a few remarks to the report of the National Companies and Securities Commission. The report outlines some of the difficulties the NCSC has had in fulfilling its role as a national watchdog over the behaviour and good citizenship of Australia's corporate and securities sectors. It also emphasises the necessity for international regulation of corporate responsibility. Both this report and the report from the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the role of parliament in relation to the national companies scheme draw to the attention of the Parliament the revolutionary changes in the business environment caused by advances in information and communication technologies so that world financial markets are becoming increasingly interdependent. It was the recognition of Australia as one market in the global market which led to the recent amalgamation of the six State stock exchanges to form the Australian Stock Exchange Ltd. In the light of the pressing need for internationalisation of control of corporate and financial sectors, I would like to commend the NCSC on its successful co-operation with overseas regulatory bodies to close down a scheme making illegal offers of securities to Australian residents by overseas persons based mainly in the Netherlands. I look forward to increased formal, as well as informal, channels for such international oversight of the business community. We need to look very closely at what powerful international institutions are doing to the modern world economy. The parliamentary inquiry into the national companies scheme underlines the need for Australia to rationalise and unify our companies and securities laws in order to support Australian business within the international context. The Chairman of the NCSC has also commented on the need for extra staff and financial resources to enable the Commission adequately to supervise the proper functioning of our stock and securities markets. He has commented particularly on the serious disruptions to the work of the NCSC due to high staff turnovers. The problem of statutory bodies being tied to Public Service pay and conditions when they are competing in the labour market for scarce skills and knowledge has led to the myth that the Public Service cannot competently supervise and regulate the private sector. I reject this thesis totally. Until the Australian Government sees its role as being the proper management of `Australia Incorporated', and until the public sector is prepared to employ the best talents available in the public interest and to pay accordingly the Australian people will continue to be exploited and oppressed by the most dishonest and unscrupulous of the international and national business organisations, operators and financiers. I am not saying that of all of these business operators as such; I am just saying that we will be oppressed by the most unreasonable. It is vital to Australia's interests that staff, financial and regulatory resources are made available to ensure that the operation of our corporate and financial sectors is carried on properly and in our national interests, particularly the interests of the people of Australia. The Chairman has pointed to the trend of the mega-corporations in the commercial sector to buy legal support. This has been done by initiating novel and expensive legal actions against commercial adversaries and against the Commission. This has been aimed at forcing them, through what is effectively legal and financial blackmail, into resolving issues to the advantage of those large corporations. We cannot afford such distortions of our legal system. The Trade Practices Commission has also reported to Parliament on this matter. The trend to extensive litigation by large corporations, which know the limitations of the Commission, has also led to a large number of problems. The Commission should not be limited by staff and finances in being able to apply muscle to people who try to use these types of tricks and techniques. The NCSC supports the move towards self-funding by stock and securities exchanges in Australia through a levy on all transactions to be used to fund the NCSC. We support this move. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.18) —This is a very valuable report about a very important subject. The National Companies and Securities Commission was set up as the centrepiece of the co-operative scheme to regulate companies and securities in Australia. It was done on the initiative of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when he was Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. However, the recommendation that Australia needed a national watchdog for companies and securities in Australia was first made by the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange-better known as the Rae Committee-which reported to the Senate in 1974. The mining boom of the late 1960s and early 1970s led to that Committee being established and after it a full inquiry into the state of the industry brought to light the very grave deficiencies in the regulation of the companies and securities industries in Australia during the crisis of those years. This is the report on the workings of this body since it was first set up in 1980. I believe it clearly indicates the wisdom of the initiatives that were taken in the 1970s to establish this national watchdog body accompanied, as it was, by the first proper uniform legislation. The value of having effective uniform legislation and of having a national watchdog has been very great indeed. One has only to look at the list of significant activities undertaken by the Commission in 1985 and 1986 to appreciate the value of the work it has done. Another Senate committee, namely, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, has recently reported on the working of the scheme and recommended that there should be national legislation. That is a further step to the present scheme and needs to be given very careful consideration by both Government and Opposition senators and members, which I am sure it will. The idea of having a national watchdog would be central to either scheme. One of the problems that has to be addressed is the extent of administration of any scheme, whether we operate under the co-operative scheme or under national legislation. This report sets out the immense amount of work that is involved in the administration of companies around Australia, including the overwhelming number of private companies, a great many of which operate only in local areas or in State areas at most. Under whatever scheme, the national body must give its greatest attention to nationally listed companies, those operating on a national basis, and an international basis. The developments in this area have been immense in recent times. This report emphasises those problems and gives a very clear indication that the scheme needs to be seriously considered again but without, I hope, creating a national bureaucracy, which is unnecessary. A more efficient and better resourced body than the existing one is necessary at the national level. I, too, am concerned about the report of the Commission's turnover of staff and the fact that it has not been able to attract people of sufficient quality because of its Public Service salary scales. Obviously, to get the best people to work for a few years only-that is all that is necessary-in this national body one has to meet the market. That is one of the great weaknesses revealed by this report and it needs urgent attention from the Government. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.22) —I also welcome the report of the National Companies and Securities Commission. It gives me an opportunity to say how pleased I am with the reception of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the National Companies and Securities Commission Act. The Committee reported only a week or two ago and the reception of the report by academics, the business community and editors of the major financial Press has been most pleasing. With that impetus, and with the further work that will obviously be done by both the major political parties, as mentioned by Senator Durack, the process of reform towards a national companies scheme to replace the current so-called co-operative scheme can proceed. I also agree that, whatever the scheme, the role of a central watchdog such as the NCSC will continue. Therefore, we can examine this report in that light. I have been somewhat mildly critical of aspects of the work of the NCSC in the past and of its Chairman. I can recall, for example, last year expressing concern at statements of the Chairman which I though had moved from an administrative function into a political or policy function. He made those comments in relation to there being too many takeovers in this country. It appeared to me that the role of the Chairman was becoming confused, which can only lead to difficulty in the administration of his very important functions. I can remember expressing concerns also about comments of the Chairman of the Commission calling for more discretionary powers. I suppose it is my upbringing, but it seems to me that so often administrators call for wider discretions when a better option would be better drafted legislation-legislation that is clear and unambiguous, stating responsibilities to be administered in precise terms. In many cases the legislation in this area does not fit that criteria. I suppose that the Senate can in some way excuse itself because it has not had any power to amend or improve legislation in this area. That will change with a central Commonwealth scheme. I put these criticisms in their context, however. The context is stated again in the report. The Commission is operating in an environment of remarkable change. We spoke about the internationalisation of the market in our report. I see that the Chairman of the NCSC does so in his report. In the year in question the Commission was operating in an environment of the floating of the dollar, foreign banks entering Australia, automated securities exchange, at a time of great volatility of exchange and interest rates and numerous new instruments coming on to the market, at a time of a proliferation of financial advisers, with often inadequate regulation or licensing requirements and at a time when, regrettably, tactical litigation of the United States mould is starting to creep into this field, providing greater pressures for the NCSC. The NCSC had to cope with such complex new legislation as the futures industry legislation. Added to that, what the Chairman does not say is that the NCSC has had to do so in an environment in which it has been starved of funds. I hope that will change when it becomes properly responsible to one Minister, a Federal Minister. Putting all this in context and trying to find a balance, the NCSC has provided a fast service for business, which is commendable. It has done a great deal of useful work, often in circumstances of great stress and having been put under the public spotlight in the last 12 months. I particularly commend the Commission for the work it has done in attempting to eliminate unnecessary regulation. Other statutory bodies could look towards that goal. If they could achieve as much it would be commendable. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.31) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report refers to the installation of traffic lights not far from this building and in proximity to the new Parliament House at the intersection of Kings Avenue, King George Terrace and Macquarie Street. I think most senators will be familiar with the intersection involved. It might be thought that this matter is of little consequence but the area is within the Parliamentary Triangle and pursuant to the provisions of the Parliament Act the Parliament must approve any work within this area. For this reason I think we should refer to it, ever though briefly. At present the intersection is controlled by stop signs fairly well but there is a tendency for motorists to slip across in front of traffic when there is a gap. Next year when the new Parliament House is in operation there will be more traffic in this area and it shows foresight to put the lights in now before that happens. There are lights at the next intersection with National Circuit, which leads up to one of the main roadways to the new Parliament House, and also at Commonwealth Avenue. Apart from this area being within the Parliamentary Triangle and all that means, it is an area in which a number of my constituents travel going to and from work. For that reason it is necessary for the area to be as safe as it can be made. In addition to that, being within the Parliamentary Triangle, the area is used extensively by tourists who come to the national capital. In some respects those travelling to and from work and those travelling around as tourists have competing interests in the road system. This perhaps makes the area less safe than if it were used mainly for the one purpose. For that reason I want the area to be as well controlled as it can possibly be. The Parliamentary Triangle is a very significant area of Canberra for tourists and we want them to visit it. We can expect them to do so only if we provide a road system which makes it easy for them to move around. This is part of the road system which will lead them from the new Parliament House to this building. A report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the New Parliament House, of which I was a member, relating to the future of this building suggested that it should be a political and constitutional museum. I certainly hope that it will be. The Committee suggested that a report be prepared as to the maintenance of the building. Senator Button —Some people say that is what it is already. Senator REID —That may be so. I see a big future for it in that role. I hope that in time that is what it will become. Traffic will continue to move in this area. There will be traffic from tourists visiting the National Library, the new science centre, the High Court and the National Gallery. I hope that before too long the archives building will also be in the area. Just this week we saw the sort of splendid exhibitions that the Australian Archives can put on in relation to matters that are relevant to the growth of this country with the exhibition on the 60 years of this building, which is definitely worth seeing. This set of traffic lights needs to be put in for the greater safety of those who use the area travelling to and from work and of other Australians who come here as tourists and who want to be able to move freely and safely around the area. I trust that the Senate will approve the installation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.35) —Quite a lot of private member's Bills come before this place these days. They are something of a hobby of the Australian Democrats, as honourable senators will know. They all deal with matters of considerable importance. I cannot think of any which has more implications, and more gathering implications as time passes, for the Australian community-indeed, for everybody who flies in an aircraft who does not smoke-than the Air Navigation (Smoking) Amendment Bill. The non-smoking zones in aircraft are a farce. They are a joke, and not a very good joke either. I think it is very plain to everybody that there is no proper separation between the non-smoking and the smoking areas of aircraft. There is absolutely no protection to enable people in the non-smoking zones to get away from smoke. That is really the point that we have to look at. It is a farcical situation. Travellers who elect to go into a non-smoking zone-it is called that-are not being put in a non-smoke zone, a zone which is not contaminated by smoke. Evidence is gathering that one does not die just by being the person who smokes the cigarette, the pipe or whatever. The issue being debated in this Bill is, in fact, whether each of us has the basic human right not to be harmed, not to be disabled and not to be killed by another person. Smoking does those things. I do not in any sense try to prevent anybody-it could be Senator Button-from smoking. If people want to kill themselves in such a silly way that is their business. All I say is that they ought not to have the right to contribute to the lack of welfare of other people by indulging in that rather strange and curious habit. I often wonder what people who came from outer space to this planet and who saw some of its inhabitants with these little sticks in their mouths from which smoke emerged with a little piece of fire on the end would think. It would seem to them to be one of the more curious perversions and aberrations of this new and strange species that they had found. I say this with all the zeal of the convert as an ex-smoker-fortunately one of long standing. I have, analogously, the right to take my car on to a public road and to drive it just as Senator Button has the right to take out a cigarette and smoke it. But I also have the responsibility to ensure that in driving my car I do not endanger anybody else's life or well-being. I think that is a well established principle of law. Indeed, a great deal of our body of law is based on that very simple principle. The next stage we have to consider is whether smoking is a hazardous activity. Chemical examination of the smoke from the lit end of a cigarette shows that it contains at least 18 known animal carcinogens. Interestingly enough, some of them are in greater concentration in the smoke that enters the air than in the smoke directly inhaled by the smoker. This is a little known fact but it is so. It has been estimated reliably that seven hours in a smoke filled room or cabin will produce toxin levels in a non-smoker equivalent to those caused by that person smoking three cigarettes. In a report published in this month's issue of Community Health Studies, the journal of the Public Health Association of Australia and New Zealand, Professor Bruce Armstrong is reported as estimating that 136 Australians die each year as a direct result of inhaling the products of other people's smoking. That figure plainly is a statistical one and not one which is taken completely out of the air. It is probably somewhere near the truth. It may be considerably less than the true figure. In February of this year Oxford University Emeritus Professor of Medicine, Sir Richard Doll, who has done some excellent work in this area and who is a very much respected authority, said that 25 per cent of all lung cancer cases were due to the inhalation of other people's tobacco smoke. He said that in his opinion, cigarette smoking was one of the world's most harmful atmospheric pollutants and that passive smoking posed a danger 50 times greater than asbestos poisoning. When we consider those facts and the amount of time, effort and thought that we give to other contaminants in the atmosphere, especially asbestos, it should be some indication that this is a Bill of more than ordinary importance. Indeed, I note that there are 11 honourable senators on the speakers list. I hope that the Government will allow the Bill sufficient time, even if it is Government time, to go through its second reading and other stages. If it does, I am sure that Parliament will have done something of great importance and will be creating a milestone piece of legislation. As the facts emerge in the debate, such as those from such an important authority to which I referred, I cannot believe that any honourable senator would have it on his conscience not to pass the Bill. If the Government does not allow the Bill to pass so that we can tidy up a matter of so much importance to the community, it will be reprehensible. Sir Richard Doll said that 13 studies of the relationship between lung cancer and passive smoking had all shown a link, and that cancer from passive smoking could also be caused in the mouth, larynx, oesophagus, bladder, pancreas and kidneys. That is a pretty good cocktail of cancers that a smoker in an aircraft can inflict on his or her fellow passengers. The United States Surgeon-General last year issued a report stating: . . . involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy non smokers. That is the United States Surgeon-General, not some wild-eyed anti-tobacco lobby. Actually, I do not blame tobacco lobbies for being wild-eyed when they obtain such little recognition from the Government, even though the facts are so appalling. The report continued: . . . the children of parents who smoke compared with the children of non-smoking parents have an increased frequency of respiratory infections, increased respiratory symptoms and smaller rates of increase in lung function as the lung matures. In relation to smoking in enclosed spaces such as aeroplanes, the report said: The simple separation of smokers and non-smokers within the same air space may reduce but does not eliminate the exposure of non-smokers to environmental tobacco smoke. That confirms the point I made when I commenced my speech. That report from the United States was based on the findings of more than 60 studies into the effects of smoking on non-smokers. A recent report by the United States Worldwatch Institute said that nearly 20 per cent of deaths in the United States and Europe were linked to cigarette smoking, and that passive smoking by non-smokers inhaling ambient smoke causes as many as 5,000 deaths a year in the United States. Leading United States companies are now moving towards restricting smoking after realising that each smoker costs them an average of $940 per year through sick leave and the decreased productivity of the smoker and the smokers' non-smoking associates. That, of course, is another aspect of the smoking problem that is of enormous importance. At this stage in my speech, it is important to examine the reasons why nothing is done about smoking. It is a pretty sorry commentary. Some very dedicated people in the community are extremely concerned about the effects of smoking. They are especially concerned about tobacco advertising, which encourages children to smoke. That happens; there is no doubt about that. On the face of it, it would appear that the Government's lack of desire to do anything about the problem is based on the pressure on two groups. The first is the pressure of the tobacco lobby on members of parliament; the other is the pressure of the tobacco lobby on the media, which carries a very heavy responsibility. It is well known that newspapers, television and radio stations take advertising to make money, and one of the better sources of revenue is tobacco advertising. That is not a good reason for smoking to continue. If there is any sense of responsibility in the Australian media, and I believe that there is, it must bite the bullet, and the sooner the better. We have in the community an extremely dangerous activity, and one that is demonstrated throughout the world, by the most eminent of authorities, to injure and kill people on a scale that is not matched by any other drug. Members of the community and the media howl and scream about marihuana, heroin and other illegal drugs, yet the statistics prove that the enormous preponderance of hospitalisation and death in this community as a result of drug abuse comes from the use of one legalised drug-tobacco. By far and away, the next largest group of deaths, although, surprisingly, it is much smaller, is caused by another legal drug-alcohol. The so-called illegal drugs, those that we complain about young people using, represent only a tiny proportion, just a few per cent, of the deaths caused in this and every other community through the use of drugs. I implore members of this Parliament and the media to exercise a proper sense of responsibility and to understand that the evidence shows that it is not simply a matter of whether people smoke. If people smoke and kill themselves, that is their business, but it is the business of the community and this Parliament if, as the figures so strikingly demonstrate, every day people die from inhaling smoke from other people's cigarettes. I would have thought that any smoker with a conscience would want to consider that matter sufficiently to agree with the aims of the Bill-that a smoker should be able to get on an aircraft for a relatively short journey and refrain from smoking. There is no way that people also on the flight can get away from a smoker, even though there is supposed to be a non-smokers' zone. Senator Michael Baume —You cannot step outside for a fag. Senator MASON —Certainly not. One cannot step outside for a fag and one cannot step outside if a cigarette is smoked in front of one. Non-smoker areas are not non-smoker areas. That is an important distinction. The Bill becomes all the more important because, unfortunately, the use of tobacco world wide has grown by nearly 75 per cent over the past two decades. That is an absolute indictment of our society. It is also an indication of the tremendous strength and power of the tobacco lobby. Somehow, it has been able to persuade the Government, young people and people everywhere that there is nothing wrong with smoking, that it is not dangerous, and that not only should it continue but also it should be at an increased rate. Direct health costs, health risks to passive smokers and the economic costs grow proportionately with the increase in the number of smokers. Smoking is now increasing by 2.1 per cent a year-faster than the world's population is increasing. The world-wide cost to lives from smoking now approaches-it is a figure well worth noting-2 1/2 million deaths a year. That is almost 5 per cent of all deaths in the international community. If there were any other epidemic of that size, we would be scandalised by it. We rightly talk about the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, the problem that it represents and the deaths that it causes. AIDS is disgraceful, shameful and bad-but smoking is okay! I cannot understand that curious ambivalence in society. The dear old guy who smokes on an aeroplane is perfectly respectable. He is not, he is a killer-- Senator Button —Now, Senator Mason, do not go overboard. Senator MASON —I apologise to Senator Button. In my enthusiasm I was carried away. I have a great respect for Senator Button's humanity and sense of responsibility. Maybe I am getting through to him. Senator Button —Nothing ruins a good cause like some people who embrace it-like you, for example. Senator MASON —I have confessed to Senator Button that I have the zeal of a convert. He can also be a convert and be as zealous as I am. To go back to this rather dismal catalogue of the consequences of smoking, in the United States of America tobacco kills 13 times as many people as do hard drugs-that is a very interesting point when we consider the time and attention that people give to wringing their hands over hard drugs-and eight times as many as are killed in road accidents. Passive smokers are three times more likely to die of lung cancer than they would be if they were not forced to inhale the products of someone else's addiction. When speaking of passive smokers, I imagine these are people who are regularly exposed to this problem. Passive smoking is also very harmful to the next generation, to unborn children. Nicotine, numerous toxic chemicals and radioactive plutonium may all interfere with foetal development, which is very sensitive. The effects of such contaminants at the very beginning of life can be greatly multiplied. The effects of passive smoking in children can last a lifetime because they delay physical and intellectual development. There is increasing evidence from many countries that that is the case. No avoidable condition claims more adult lives than tobacco addiction. As I have said, over two million people world-wide die each year from heart disease, lung cancer and emphysema caused by their addiction. Additional thousands die as a result of fires caused by cigarettes and from cancers caused by tobacco consumed as snuff or chewing tobacco. We must try to slow down this carnage in every possible way. To give honourable senators some idea of the total lack of responsibility of the tobacco industry in this regard, it must be some three years ago that I suggested in this place by way of a question-it was well publicised at the time-that the Australian tobacco companies should consider devising, as can be devised quite simply, a self-extinguishing cigarette which, if it is dropped, left on the road or put down, will go out after a short period of time. Those hardened addicts from way back, including me, may recall the poverty of our youth when we rolled our own cigarettes. Most of them would go out if put down. Saltpetre and other chemicals are put into cigarettes to make them keep on burning. The point is that, if there were self-extinguishing cigarettes, we would not have fires caused by people smoking in bed. How often do we see in local papers that people are believed to have died because they were smoking in bed. When cigarettes are dropped, they should go out. I said at that time that I hoped that the tobacco industry in Australia had sufficient sense of responsibility to be self-regulating in this regard. But not a bit of it; no, it does not care whether people go on dying from fires caused by cigarettes. That is a matter of total lack of interest to the tobacco industry. That is a gross indictment of it. One could go along these depressing themes for a long time, but I do not propose to do that. We have a long list of speakers and I am looking forward to hearing some of them. I want the Government to take seriously the suggestion that this Bill ought to be passed. It ought to go through its second reading and be considered by the Senate properly and reasonably as a piece of legislation that is important and urgent, in spite of all the other considerations that we have. I would like the Government to have courage and not to worry too much about the tobacco lobby, tobacco revenues and things like that. It should see that this is something that we cannot duck out on. It is something that we have to do something about. It was brought forward by the Australian Democrats in that interest and on that basis. The only responsible action that the Senate can take is to pass this Bill with as much speed as possible and so gain the long-lasting and unqualified support and respect of the Australian community. On that basis I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.56) —The Liberal Party of Australia shares the concern of the Australian Democrats that there may be-may be-a health risk, as yet to be totally established, that emerges from smoking in aircraft. It is also concerned with the general issue of smoking in public transport. However, we do not share the Australian Democrats' solution to any problems that may-I underline the word `may'-emerge in health terms. We take the view that the Democrats' Bill, the Air Navigation (Smoking) Amendment Bill 1987, is therefore unsupportable in its present form. Senator Mason —You can amend it if you like. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Its form is so difficult that any amendment to make it acceptable would involve total rewriting and resubmission of it. That is a matter that should properly be the concern of the Government. I will return to that issue very shortly. Let me outline the serious problems that this Bill presents to the Senate. In effect, it provides that people can be sent to gaol for six months as a result of their smoking. That is an arrant nonsense and I think very few senators, no matter how violently they are opposed to smoking, would be prepared to accept that kind of proposition. It is a self-evident nonsense. I read from the Bill. Proposed new section 26 (a) (1) states: A person shall not smoke in any part of an aircraft other than an enclosed space designated in accordance with the regulations as a smoking bay. Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months. Senator Mason —That is a matter which I agree is necessary to be amended. I do not want Senator Button to suffer unnecessarily. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Unlike the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, I am a non-smoker and would not face the risk of imprisonment and therefore deprive the Senate of the pleasure of my company by going into the cooler for six months as a result of my smoking. Senator Button —You could visit, Senator-not that I would encourage it, but you could. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I think I would have better things to do. The second paragraph of the proposed new section states: A space in an aircraft designated as a smoking bay shall be ventilated in such a way that it is not possible for smoke in the air in the space to enter the air in any other part of the aircraft. Of course, the reality of that is to prohibit smoking on every aircraft in service in Australia. It would impose a massive cost burden in the sense of requiring the introduction of a separate ventilation system in all new aircraft coming into Australia-at significant expense, which would, of course, be borne by air travellers in Australia. I suggest that this Bill is an effective prohibition on smoking in aircraft with a penalty of up to six months gaol. The Bill goes further. It does not relate simply to smoking in aircraft. It also relates to smoking in any part of an aerodrome other than a room designated in accordance with the regulations as a smoking room. Once again, a smoking room has to have a discrete ventilation system under the proposals, and it seems to the Liberal Party at least that this is taking matters to an extreme situation, particularly as aerodromes, and waiting rooms in aerodromes, are not confined spaces where people are obliged to spend lengthy amounts of time-except, I suppose, in cases of emergency-as is the case in an aircraft. Senator Coates —What about check-in queues? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Coates says, there are check-in queues. If the airlines take the view that the convenience of their passengers would be better served by prohibiting smoking in some areas, that is fine. That brings me to the next point, which it seems to me is a significant one. There has already been a significant trend within the airline industry towards limiting the extent to which air travellers who are not smokers are inconvenienced by those who are. I think it is self-evident, particularly from the experience of Qantas Airways Ltd, which has probably been leading the way, quite apart from with what has been happening with the two major domestic airlines, that significant steps have been taken down the path of limiting the scope for smokers in aircraft. This, of course, is a response to commercial demand. I think we have to recognise this as a proper and sensible way for the airlines to go. The airlines have been progressing in this direction. In fact, a couple of airlines in Australia, of their own volition, have banned smoking in aircraft. I presume that those of us who are not smokers and who find it unpleasant to breathe cigarette smoke would commend those airlines. Kendell Airlines is one of them, as is East-West Airlines Ltd. Senator West —And Eastern. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Eastern Airlines, as the honourable senator says, is also one of them. I understand that other airlines are at present considering that move-considering it, I might say, without the threat of the sort of legislation that Senator Mason and Senator Vigor want to impose on the nation, involving a penalty of six months in gaol. Nonetheless, there is a problem, which I recognise. This problem emerges from the Government's failure to proceed as it undertook to do last December. At that time the Minister for Aviation, Mr Peter Morris, announced that he would introduce legislation prohibiting smoking on domestic flights of less than 90 minutes. This, apparently, was in line with the Australian Labor Party's health platform adopted at the 1986 Conference, which called on the Government to: . . . further restrict smoking on public transport, including domestic aircraft, and restrict smoking in public places to defined zones. As Senator Vigor pointed out when introducing his Bill, the expectation was that the Government would act on that statement of last December. Now we are into May and nothing has happened. Senator Powell —In our Bill it has happened. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Nothing has happened on the part of the Government. It is all very well for Senator Powell. Because the Government has not introduced what may well be a sensible Bill-we do not know because we have not seen it-because the Government has not done what it undertook to do, there is no justification for the Senate accepting what is in fact a darned silly Bill which does not do the right thing and which attacks the problem in totally the wrong way. The Liberal Party takes the strong view that it would like to see the colour of the Government's legislation. The Government's failure to do anything about the matter perhaps shows that its Bill was stillborn. In that case it may well be yet another victim of smoking in labour. No doubt Senator Vigor, as an incipient parent once again, will have a special interest in that analogy. The reality is that Senator Vigor's Bill, as the honourable senator has pointed out, has at least drawn the Senate's attention to the fact that the Government has done nothing. As I said, whether or not the Opposition will support or oppose the Government's Bill, if and when it reaches this chamber, is a matter which will depend on the quality of that Bill. We are unaware of what that will be but we will hold our fire until we see it. The fact is that the demand for non-smoking seats in aircraft has increased significantly. On some flights, as Senator Vigor, I think, pointed out, something like nine out of 10 seats are now occupied by non-smokers. It has been suggested that one of the ways to discourage smokers from smoking even on those flights and to ensure that those who wanted a smoke-free flight could have one would be to encourage all non-smokers to get to terminals early to book all the smoking seats and then, of course, not smoke. The plane would then subtly be smoke free. Senator Coates —That would be recorded as a demand for smoking. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Coates quite rightly says, that could then be recorded as a demand for smoking. It is one of those short term solutions which may not result in long term satisfaction. The reality is that when the Government announced that it would do something about smoking, at least on short flights, there was widespread support for that view. I think even the airlines indicated that they would welcome such a move. We have to recognise that the airlines face very substantial expenses in terms of cleaning the filters on their ventilation systems. To them it is an inconvenience. I presume that they provide smoking seats because they perceive that there is a demand for those seats. If Senator Vigor's Bill encourages strong expressions of public view which have an impact on the airlines themselves, of course it has an advantage. Those of us who do not like breathing secondhand smoke hope that this will take place. Whether it will take place by direction is a question that the Government itself has to address. It has been suggested that the airlines have been holding back from progressing down that track in the expectation that the Government would provide legislation to force them to do what they really want to do themselves. If that is so, it is one of those examples of the prospect of legislation defeating, if you like, or delaying the ultimate good to the people concerned. It may well be, and I have heard it suggested quite strongly, that the airlines would be quite happy to have the responsibility for banning smoking on aircraft taken from them and placed firmly with the Government. That, of course, is a political issue that the Government has to face up to. I do not deny in any way that there are problems involved in smoking in aircraft, and I think very few people on this side of the chamber, even those who smoke, would do so. Senator Vigor has pointed to the findings of the Committee on Airliner Cabin Air Quality, which reported to the Congress and which suggested a ban on smoking on all domestic flights. It also concluded that environmental tobacco smoke: . . . is a hazardous substance and is the most frequent source of complaint about aircraft air quality. In Australia there have been similar findings. The Occupational Health and Safety Study of In-flight Duties, commissioned by Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines and referred to by Senator Vigor, has formed part of an industrial decision with the Australian Flight Attendants Association which, I understand, has resulted in an extra six days sick leave being made available to members of that organisation because of the emergency of upper respiratory tract problems resulting from air problems within aircraft-not necessarily all of them due, I might say, to cigarette smoking but nonetheless problems in which cigarette smoke is a major factor. The report said: The only matter of significance found during the study concerned the quality of the air breathed during the flight and of the presence of contaminants likely to impair performance, health and . . . safety. The dominating factor-- not the only factor- was cigarette smoke. The report concluded: We recommend that operators seriously consider a joint agreement to curtail the use of tobacco on all flights of less than 60 minutes duration as an intermediate step towards the eventual complete restriction of smoking on aircraft. The recommendation was that the airlines should do so of their own volition. An encouragement to proceed in that direction would be appropriate. Whether we encourage the airlines to do so by legislative or other means is something to which the Government must address itself. It cannot keep ducking behind a statement that it intends to do something and then do nothing. Senator Coates —Would we have your support? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Let us see what the legislation is like, Senator. We cannot stay in a vacuum such as this, which has already lasted six months, and be expected to take the Government seriously. The Government is being wimpish on this issue. It should make up its mind what it intends to do. We will happily look at its legislation. The point has been made, and I expect it will be made by other speakers on this side of the chamber, that the legislation, which we understand is still in gestation with the Government, limits the proposed prohibition on smoking to short flights. Yet, it has been pointed out that tobacco smoke on long flights creates an even worse pollutant. No doubt we will be able to consider that issue when we see what the Government's legislation is-if it comes forward. I reinforce the point made by Senator Vigor that there is a respectable body of opinion that says that smoking in a passive sense creates some problems. However, I would rather see much more convincing conclusions from more detailed studies than we have had so far on the impact of passive smoking in enclosed spaces such as aircraft. I share Senator Vigor's concern based on a letter to honourable senators from the National Heart Foundation of Australia which spoke of: . . . proper policies to protect smokers and non-smokers and improve general health and working conditions as restrictive smoking in the work place and other public places. That is a matter which we, as legislators, should address. The National Heart Foundation expressed its concern in the letter about the effects of smoking, both active and passive, on the community. It said that smoking, without saying whether it was active or passive, was the major avoidable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease and several important and fatal cancers. It said: Passive smoking increases the risks of serious harm, such as lung infections in young children, lung infections in children and adults, lung cancer, and a worsening of health in those with existing heart and lung disease. Although active smoking is by far the greater concern, passive smoking is an important public health issue in its own right. Furthermore, passive smoking is not a matter of choice in most instances, and often occurs against the expressed wishes of the non-smoker. In aircraft the big issue is the extent to which one becomes a passive smoker if one is in a non-smoking area. It is claimed that one is a passive smoker if one is in a non-smoking area. To my knowledge, no individual and substantial research has been done to establish that is the case for passengers in aircraft. It has been established that for flight stewards there is an impact because the level at which they work, which is higher than the level of seated passengers, has been established to be more contaminated. As I understand it, that fact was established in the study. However, as I understand that study, there has been no detailed work on the effect on the health of passengers in an aircraft which, for example, has 10 per cent smoking seats and 90 per cent non-smoking seats. If that work has not been done, I ask whether there is some benefit in doing it before imposing controls. On the basis of some of the information available, it would seem that there may be a risk. All I am saying is that, before going down the path of legislative action, would it not be proper to do some thorough examination of that risk? Is that not what responsible government is all about-examining what the risk is before rushing into legislation and putting people in gaol for six months. It is hard to take seriously, if I may say so, a Bill which addresses a very serious question in such a reckless way. I would expect the airlines to come under increasing pressure from the people who are most affected by the problem-that is, the airline flight attendants who must put up with what they consider to be, and what a study has shown to be, an unpleasant atmosphere. The National Health and Medical Research Council has stated that an atmosphere free of tobacco smoke should be regarded as the work place norm and that employers should be reminded of their obligations to provide a safe working environment. That seems to me to encompass the sorts of problems we face with this serious issue. I am not diminishing in any way the view of the Australian Democrats that it is a serious problem. I am seriously questioning the sense of bringing in a Bill that is draconian and involves, if it is to proceed, massive expenditure on the airlines to provide what may well be very little benefit ultimately, depending on whether there is a serious risk. The Bill de facto prohibits smoking on aircraft, because of the expense involved in providing the alternative that the Democrats claim is all they are seeking. That extends, quite irrationally in my view, to aerodromes. While Senator Vigor's direction may well be an acceptable one which has widespread support in Australia-that is evident from the fact that the airlines have been going down that track-the reality is that the manner in which the Democrats propose to go about this seems to be authoritarian and offensive. The penalties are excessive. A Big Brother approach is clearly evident from the penalty of a $5,000 fine or six months imprisonment. I hope that there are better ways of resolving this threat once we establish its extent. Maybe the Government will tell that to us. It clearly has a duty to do so, following the introduction of the Democrats' Bill. They have pointed out the delay and the prevarication by the Government on this issue. Whilst all that is accurate, it is clear that Senator Vigor's Bill is not the right way to solve the problem, and the Opposition will not be supporting it. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.21) —The Senate is debating the Air Navigation (Smoking) Amendment Bill 1987, submitted by the Australian Democrats with the view of persuading the Parliament to enact legislation that would drastically alter the existing arrangements in regard to smoking in civil aircraft and airports. One of the few privileges that honourable senators have is to move private members' Bills on the Thursday afternoon of a sitting week. The Government does not quarrel with that privilege that exists in our Standing Orders. Senator Vigor has taken advantage of that privilege to try to hasten the process by which government or private initiatives can realise the objective-this appears to be the basis of Senator Michael Baume's contribution-of eliminating, either in a voluntary or legislative way, smoking in public places. We have to recognise that there has been a major evolution in community attitudes towards smoking in the last 20 years. What was once accepted as the norm is now recognised as constituting a major health hazard. I well recall in my very first year in the Senate, 1971, debates about what sort of warning was to be placed on cigarette packages; whether we would put that smoking was a health hazard, which was the compromise proposal of the then Government, to which Senator Baume belonged-I think he was then a member of the House of Representatives. That was the warning that the Minister for Health at that time was pursuing, whereas my party wanted to go further and express the view that smoking was more than just a health hazard, that it was, in fact, a process by which people's health was very dramatically affected. We are dealing with a centuries' old habit. In the evolution of time we have seen dramatic changes in the way in which the community now perceives the problem of smoking in public places. Of course, that is to be welcomed. I represent in this place the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). We have to concede that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) also has a very active interest in this portfolio issue, as indeed do I, as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I have to deal with the end product in my repatriation hospitals system. The Minister for Finance and Minister assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Senator Walsh) also has an interest. We cannot accept-I reject what Senator Michael Baume said on this-that the Government is entitled to be criticised when we look at what has happened recently. The Government has not resiled from its responsibilities in Public Service offices for example. The Government has thrown its weight behind the proposal to ban smoking in public places. In relation to passive smoking it has determined that those who wish to smoke in the Public Service environment shall do so in specially selected areas. It has thrown the initiative upon the smoker rather than the non-smoker. One cannot say that the Government has not adopted a judicious, fair and reasonable approach to this matter. I think Senator Baume would be the first to acknowledge that within the last week or 10 days Telecom Australia, one of the public instrumentalities, has also moved down the track of putting the smoker on the defensive in the working environment. The Government accepts its national responsibility in this health matter. The way in which it prefers to move is to continue the evolution of understanding within the community so that we do not have to set up a punitive process by which those who enjoy the habit are placed in such a position as to be denied the opportunity to continue their habit, access to seats on aeroplanes and other forms of public transport, and the opportunity to work in public places. It is in that environment that the Government says does not quarrel with the Democrats' motivation or their end objective. But we have some doubts about whether the legislation proposed by the Democrats is the path to take. I suppose to that extent we take a position closer to that taken by the Opposition, which prefers to have an emphasis on self-regulation rather than regulation. Senator Michael Baume is correct in referring to the early initiatives taken by the airlines, with at first only a few seats being set aside for non-smokers, whereas now the majority of seats are set aside. That is the process which the Government prefers. One of the reasons I have exercised the opportunity to speak early in the debate is to express the Government's views in these matters; not so much to quarrel with the strategy that has been developed by the Democrats, but to indicate that we prefer the initiative to rest with the community and the airline industry itself. One of the great difficulties that the Government is confronted with in these matters is the effect of smoking on staff working in the aircraft. Senator Michael Baume is quite right in drawing attention to this. But in response to Senator Baume's criticism I refer to the experience that I have had in my portfolio responsibility. For example, in cases of lung cancer in veterans, who began smoking 40 years ago, I have had to ask what was the causal relationship. Only over time can we estimate the effect on air hostesses or hosts-we now have males working on many of our domestic and international flights-of passengers smoking. The smoke is at a high level and will affect the staff more than the passengers. We have to reach a conclusion whether, because of that, hostesses and hosts in their twenties or thirties will be affected in their fifties or sixties. This is the experience I have had in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. People have begun smoking in their teens but it has not affected their basic health until later in their lives. We believe that the initiative that has been suggested by the Democrats is unworkable. Some of the reasons for that have been referred to by Senator Michael Baume. There are flaws in the Bill. We have suggested to the Democrats that whilst they have the right to ventilate this issue and discuss it, there are problems relating to the ventilation in airports and on planes; and how to implement a smoking ban in a non-punitive way which is acceptable to the community, the airlines and the passengers, and which will not drastically infringe upon the rights of smokers who find great difficulty in taking the essential step to improve their health, that is by not smoking. What has the Government's position been in this matter? First of all, the Government's political position in the sense of its responsibilities to the platform of our Party is that it will seek to limit smoking in public transport, including domestic airlines. In other words, that is a persuasive approach rather than a regulatory approach. We recognise that there are tremendous public health cost implications in people smoking. I personally do not have any quarrel with that conclusion. To the extent that the community as a whole smokes and has done so over time, there must be cost implications in the public health area, as well as the private health area for that matter, because we have to deal with the end result, a person's state of health. As an individual I am certainly convinced by the powerful argument from the National Heart Foundation and from medical specialists that lung disease and other diseases can be attributed to smoking. They have made those statements over a number of years. For example, my wife worked for some years as a librarian for the Australian Medical Association. She became convinced, just by cataloguing the evidence that was available-I am going back now 15 or 20 years-of how undesirable it was for people to smoke. What has emerged in the last half a dozen years is the acceptance not only that is smoking detrimental to an individual's health, but also that passive smoking is detrimental to health. That is a matter that has been identified by the medical profession, as well as by concerned citizens. They have made that point so vociferously-and very correctly in my view-that Parliament can no longer ignore the need for consideration of the issues. The quarrel we have with the Australian Democrats is that the legislation could not realise its objectives, for a whole number of technical reasons, but we also believe that at this stage it is premature for the Government to go further down the track than it has in respect of its own employees. It has to live with the results of that innovation and its initiatives in the public sector. I imagine that there will be moves over time for the same sorts of initiatives to be taken in private sector employment. Moves will be made in stores, factories and offices to ensure that the non-smoker is protected and that the smoker is put on the defensive, which is quite contrary to what has been the long established position. We have to recognise that there are rights which have to be protected. I suppose that is why we have been put in a position of having to defend what Senator Michael Baume says is neglect. I do not think that the Government has neglected its responsibilities in this area. I think there is a recognition of the complexities of the problem. This matter has been dealt with at Cabinet level. The Government has accepted the basic principles in these matters, but has placed the responsibility upon the airlines to respond. The airlines, being in competition with one another, are afraid to take the next step. That is the only conclusion that I can reach on the briefing notes that have been supplied to me. The Government's view is that it is reasonable and responsible to say that smoking should be barred on domestic flights of less than 90 minutes. That is an issue on which we can probably reach some agreement. At the moment the Government's responsibility in providing legislation is based purely on the issue of safety. It is limited to that issue. Smoking does not constitute a safety issue on the aircraft, except during take-off and landing. Existing legislation covers smoking only during take-off and landing. In other words, if we are to move to the next stage, obviously new legislation is required. The Cabinet has authorised legislation for a ban on smoking on receipt of a request from the major domestic airlines. So rather than the Government having to defend its position, I think the airlines have to take the next step. They have, for their own reasons, not been prepared to make the necessary request. This is despite the fact that the private airline Ansett Airlines of Australia has already imposed a ban on its coaches. In the majority of cases, coach trips would be longer than 90 minutes. So it has taken that tentative step, but it is not prepared to take the next step. The Senate should be aware that the matter was raised during a meeting of the Aviation Industry Advisory Council as early as the beginning of 1986. The airlines indicated that they would accept a ban, but they considered that a legal instruction under the Air Navigation Regulations was required for enforcement. In a certain sense, we have reached an impasse. The airlines want to ban smoking, but they are not prepared to; and the Government wants to ban smoking, but it is not prepared to. That seems to me to be the position in which we find ourselves. I remind the Senate that I have had several questions asked of me as the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. I have indicated the views of the Minister for Aviation. Recognising his public responsibilities, he has taken a submission to Cabinet and Cabinet has approved legislation subject to the receipt of requests from the major domestic airlines. In response to that decision the airlines say that this is a matter for the Government to determine. I find this a bit contradictory. I think one is entitled to say that many of the people associated with Ansett would take the view that government intervention and government involvement ought to be restricted. When it comes to the application of legislation dealing with this particular problem, the airlines have a stand-off position. The Government is in the invidious position where the airline's ideological position has not been brought out in the way it has approached this matter. One can say: `What about the government airline?' The Senate will be aware that Australian Airlines is a statutory authority and it makes its own commercial decisions. But in this case it is not prepared to do so. This is in light of the fact that East-West Airlines Ltd, which is trying to become one of the big airline developers in our country, has expressed the wish to institute a smoking ban not just on the short hauls, but on all domestic flights. What should be the next step? That is a dilemma which this Government faces. Should there be a change of government the next Government will face this problem. What is the next step? Accepting that there is a need to protect passengers from passive smoking and that there is a need to educate the community still further about the health hazards, the Government says: `We have made our decision. Now it is entirely up to the airlines to take it to the next stage'. If they are prepared to take that step, we are prepared to amend the legislation to meet the requirements. As I said, Ansett Pioneer Services has banned smoking on express coaches between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. It has done so because of public demand. Senator Michael Baume is quite correct in drawing attention to the fact that there has been a great increase in the number of seats that are provided for the non-smoker. Public demand has moved in the other direction to protect the non-smoker. That is part of the persuasion, the evolution, the process upon which the Government is relying. We all have our personal views on the matter. My office, bar one person, is a smoke-free zone. My electorate office is a smoke-free-zone. Public servants have different attitudes to the decisions the Government made with respect to the environment in which public servants work. On 20 March this year, a little over six weeks ago, the Minister for Health wrote to the general-managers of both Ansett and Australian Airlines suggesting that they get together in an effort to reach an agreed position on the need for the early introduction of non-smoking flights of less than 90 minutes duration. So it is fair to say that the Government is not abrogating its responsibilities. The Government has been reasonable. It has said: `We are prepared to move but it has to be done on the basis of an agreed position with the airline industry'. The competitive influence which used to exist, and which still may be a major influence on this matter, is back in the airlines' corner. Dr Blewett, the Minister for Health, has a major interest in this area, having regard to Medicare and the cost implications that flow from ill health arising from smoking. In responding to Dr Blewett, Australian Airlines said-I suppose that it is entitled to make its views known to the Minister for Health-that there is no clear legal basis for an airline to ban smoking. It said that where governments have considered a ban on smoking to be appropriate on other forms of transport or in public places, enabling legislation has been passed without requests from the parties affected. That is the view Australian Airlines has expressed. The Government maintains that is a view Australian Airlines is entitled to hold, but questions whether it indicates a willingness to comply with and implement any legislation the Government may bring forward should it be Government policy to act on the basis of the balance of interests involved. I am expressing only a personal view, but maybe this issue should be determined by a non-party vote. I can imagine the difficulties that would exist in any party room if legislation were brought forward by any party against smoking. Smokers on my side of the chamber would have difficulty with that and I imagine that Senator Michael Baume would have the same problem. The problem would transcend party politics. It is not easy to take a decision about this matter. One would find that the different factions would have different views. The different ideologues who exist in the political process would fight to their last breath to protect their particular vested interests in this matter. Senator Powell is attempting to interject. The Democrats are lucky. There are only a few of them and maybe they are all non-smokers. I can assure them that that is not the position in my Party and I am certain that it is not the position in the other political parties. If there is to be progress in this area of legislation, somewhere along the line it may have to be dealt with at a different level. It will not be very helpful if by 61 votes to 59 a Caucus or a parliamentary group of any of the major parties forces the issue to that extent. We have to admit that there has been a measurable increase in public awareness. There has been an increased acceptance that change needs to be effected in this area. The Government is inclined to rely upon that process rather than the processes Senator Vigor has suggested. In the period of the previous Government, in 1982, the Department of Aviation introduced a policy of providing non-smoking seats within public areas in airport terminal buildings. These areas are still being established progressively at all Commonwealth airports. The Department also requires the provision of non-smoking areas in all new airport terminals. Depending upon one's personal approach, this represents progress with respect to the smoking issue. During the same period the possibility of providing separate air conditioned smokers' lounges was considered but rejected due to the high costs and difficulties foreseen in policing such areas. Consideration was also given to having separate air-conditioning units in aircraft. That is an example of what renders Senator Vigor's proposal unacceptable to the Government. Technically there would have to be two different units in the one aircraft. A cost factor is involved. As Senator Michael Baume correctly suggested, there would have to be a regulatory process which would involve more and more people supervising the legislation. Many factors have to be considered, without in any way taking away the right of Senator Vigor and the Democrats to put forward their proposals. The Bill we are considering excludes private and public aerodromes from coverage. It specifies `only those aerodromes established under the Air Navigation Regulations Nos 82, 84 and 85'. We accept that this is probably consistent with the Commonwealth's powers. However, it appears that the Bill would provide a smoking ban in all parts of an aerodrome except a room designated for the purpose and would include open spaces within the boundaries of the aerodrome, its carpark and so on. The Bill has widespread implications, therefore, which cannot just be written off by the passage of private member's legislation. We have no quarrel with the right of the member, but we do quarrel with the precise terms of the legislation which, whilst the Government accepts it may have a motivation towards improving public health, is not realisable in the short term. Senator Vigor's Bill would hasten the application of a ban on smoking in such a way as to create a whole number of technical and legal difficulties. We suggest to the Democrats that they ultimately withdraw the proposal on the understanding that the Government will examine the Bill and take further steps and initiatives, in conjunction with the airline industry, to see whether it is possible to come up with a formula which would realise the objectives put forward by the supporters of the legislation, with goodwill and with good intentions, but which would also protect the general public and those who want to smoke. I am sure that the honourable senators on my side of the chamber who smoke do not want to place me, as a non-smoker, at any disadvantage. Similarly, as a non-smoker I must consider whether I want to put them at a disadvantage. We can surely work out a compromise. It is within the means of advanced civilisation to come up with a formula which will protect all the interests concerned. We do not believe, therefore, that the legislation suggested by Senator Vigor should be supported. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.50) —I support the Air Navigation (Smoking) Amendment Bill 1987 brought before the Senate as a private member's Bill by my colleague Senator Vigor. I confess at this early stage to having the zeal of a convert, as was also confessed by Senator Mason before me. I pay tribute to and thank my children who are responsible for my conversion, and perhaps before them to their teachers in the public education system, the National Heart Foundation, the anti-cancer councils and all those good people who are working to make people like me see the light when there is still time to redress the damage. I am reassured that our bodies cells are replaced once every seven years. Thus, since I gave up smoking I have had at least three new bodies. I appreciate the perceived needs of people who, as I think the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) said, have a habit, having been one of those people at one stage of my life. I also accept the evidence, which is now clear and on the public record, which shows us that there are dangers not just to people who are smokers but also to people who come within range of people smoking-passive smokers-who inhale sidestream smoke and for whom a smoke free environment is really the only safe environment. Senator Michael Baume, speaking for the Liberal Party in this debate, seemed to indicate that we should wait for the Government to act on what is, after all, Australian Labor Party policy. I do not believe that is a particularly strong argument. I am sure that a great many members of the once great ALP would agree with me that if we sat on our hands and waited for this Hawke Government to implement Labor Party policy we would have a long wait. Senator Michael Baume —That is a good point. Senator POWELL —I thank the honourable senator. I think this can be illustrated by a litany of policies which have been duly adopted at ALP conferences. Senator Baume outlined the ALP anti-smoking and smoke free air policy, which I endorse. I refer to other ALP policies which it has adopted through its relatively democratic policy-making process. It pales into insignificance against the Australian Democrats policy-making process. Nevertheless, ALP policies are not brought into being by this ALP Hawke Government. I refer to policies which guarantee a safer and healthier future, such as the anti-nuclear policy. We are told by medical experts around the world that nuclear weapons are very strongly medically contra-indicated. That is another health policy of the ALP which we are not seeing implemented by this Government. I could list a great many policies which have not been implemented. I thought the ALP believed education was a right and not a privilege. Of course, there are hundreds of thousands of students around Australia at the moment who are feeling disillusioned about the non-implementation of that policy. Many pensioners are moving around this city and this building at the moment-- Senator McKiernan —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think the honourable senator is straying quite a way from the subject matter of the Bill that is before the chamber at the moment and I ask you to bring her to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Senator Powell, I draw your attention to the character of the motion and the Bill. Senator POWELL —As I said, Mr Acting Deputy President, I speak with the zeal of a convert and, in relating my remarks to Senator Baume's earlier remarks, I have had brought to mind a great many issues which may be somewhat peripheral. I certainly appreciate your guidance in this matter. Senator Baume and the Minister have suggested that we should also wait for the airlines to act in this matter. The Minister was quite adamant on that point. I think it just takes a little thinking to reason out why that is not a tenable position and not a position which will get us smoke free air on aircraft. Perhaps I will come to that matter a little later but I simply say at this stage that in the commercial world it is not a surprise to find that one airline will not implement a policy of no smoking on its aircraft unless it is guaranteed that the other airline is going to do it at the same time. Indeed, the opinion of Ansett Airlines of Australia was given to us by the Minister. It points out that there is a need for legislation for the airlines to bring in, even together, a smoking ban on aircraft. A great many points have been made and will, I am sure, be made about the reasons why smoking should be banned, particularly in aircraft. There is a high proportion of flammable materials on aircraft. The plastic linings, the upholstery and the materials which furnish the aircraft are flammable. Indeed, I have seen claims that it was suspected that at least two recent air disasters were caused by concealed burning cigarettes. My colleague, Senator Mason, spoke at some length about the virtues of a self-extinguishing cigarette. Perhaps we should bear this in mind when we think about that safety aspect. It has been well documented that the costs to airlines, and therefore to passengers through the cost of tickets, of smoking on aircraft are very high. The cost of cleaning or replacing clogged air filters alone is about $500,000 a year for one airline. That does not take into account the burns on carpets and seats and the discolouration of walls which all have to be dealt with in the normal maintenance program. Major airlines have said at various times that they would be keen to have a ban on smoking on aircraft. As I have said, there is a need for the legislature to provide a leadership role and an enabling role in this exercise. Airline staff have been pressing long and hard-formally since 1982-for this ban. They now warn of industrial action unless it is introduced. Some of us suffered because of industrial action, at least with one airline, in flying from Melbourne on Monday of this week. This Parliament should not wait until there is some form of industrial action on this issue. I think it is worth listening to people whose working lives are made unpleasant, if not miserable, by smoking. It should be banned, at least on short trips. Of course, if airline staff are not satisfied with the situation they might actually move against the airlines and claim for damages to their health. This will probably occur unless some sort of action is taken. I turn to the situation overseas. The Government airline in Canada, Air Canada, has banned smoking on its major trunk routes, and those bans are being extended. The Swedish domestic airline has banned smoking on all its flights. The Soviet airline, Aeroflot, banned smoking on its domestic flights three years ago. The chief company doctor of the Swedish airline has pointed out-Senator Baume seemed to be indicating to us that maybe the cabin staff had a problem because they operate at a higher level than the passengers-that the atmosphere in the cabins of aircraft is drier and has a higher ozone level than normal air. I am referring to the whole cabin, not just where the cabin crew are working. He points out that while that, in itself, is not dangerous, it causes irritation to the mucous membranes and that problem is magnified by cigarette smoke. The Swedish airline was probably motivated by research conducted by Aeroflot on its pilots, which showed that if they smoked even a single cigarette before a flight it would reduce their ability to adapt to darkness and discern colours. That, perhaps, extends the issue of smoking outside the flight time. The airlines, of course, favour smoke-free flights for many reasons-safety, which I have mentioned, economy, health and hygiene. There is a very strong case to be made. It is interesting that Sweden has chosen to promote its ban at the provision of smoke-free services. That is a positive approach, and is what we should do as we are trying to promote public health and safety. More than 70 per cent of flights on airlines in Australia are now no-smoking because the smaller airlines have taken a no-smoking stand. Many flights are of less than 90 minutes duration-for example, from Melbourne to Sydney, Adelaide, Canberra, Albury, Hobart, Launceston, Devonport and so on. Cinemas and theatres are already smoke free because of fire regulations in all States. Surely what is possible in those public areas is also possible on aircraft. Public transport and a number of other confined areas, such as elevators, are also smoke free in most States. During the past 12 months many more work places have become smoke free-a large number of them voluntarily-and it is encouraging to note that change in community attitudes. This legislation is simply another step in that direction. There is a specific problem in creating smoke-free zones on aircraft unless there is a smoking ban. As there is no effective barrier between the smoking and the no-smoking sections, the whole of the air becomes permeated and everyone on the plane is subjected to passive smoking. All airlines are reporting less and less demand for smoking seats. Indeed, many smokers choose to sit in no-smoking seats-although, as was said earlier, that can actually rebound on the move towards no-smoking. I think that something much more direct, such as legislation in this chamber, would be a much better idea than following a practice that distorts statistics. The reverse aspect is that non-smokers are often forced to sit in smoking areas because sufficient no-smoking seats are not available. I have not yet put any emphasis on the evidence in the public arena about the dangers of smoking generally. During this and other debates in this chamber about smoking, that evidence has been well canvassed. It is for that reason that the United States Academy of Science has called for a ban, as has the United States National Research Council. The United States Congress currently has a proposal before it to ban smoking on flights of less than two hours duration, or on flights where no seating is assigned for non-smokers, and that covers many domestic flights in the United States. It was intriguing, and even a little worrying, that Senator Michael Baume, the health spokesperson for the Liberal Party of Australia, stressed so often in his contribution that he was not convinced by evidence in the community. He keeps calling for more detailed information, yet authorities such as those to which I referred have come out in favour of bans on the basis of the very detailed information that is now a matter of public record. I am concerned that someone in Senator Baume's position appears not to be prepared to accept that evidence. New figures from the National Health and Medical Research Council show that an estimated 136 people each year die of lung cancer as a result of passive smoking. Those are not the people who, through free individual choice, have chosen to smoke; but those who have had no choice at all. There is strong and growing evidence that sidestream smoke is more harmful than the smoke inhaled through a cigarette. It contains a number of carcinogens, and in greater concentration than in smoke inhaled by the smoker. The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 April showed that 57 per cent of people support smoke-free aircraft, 62 per cent of whom are white collar workers. They are some of the most travelled people in the air, and among those travelling most often on domestic airline flights below 90 minutes duration are people who work in this place and travel back and forth to work, many of us on a weekly basis. There is strong support in the community for this sort of legislation. We believe that the presentation of this private member's Bill by Senator Vigor makes a major contribution to the general debate. It is interesting to note that, in these stringent economic times, a particular exercise is affecting this issue. It has come to our notice that airline passengers are now getting less fresh air than they did 10 years ago because of the cost-cutting exercises by airlines. Ten years ago some 15 to 20 cubic feet of fresh air was generated through the cabin, but that is now down to about 7 cubic feet because the exercise requires a great deal of fuel. The airlines have cut back on the passage of fresh air to the cabin. Therefore, it is even more urgent that this Parliament takes some action. There are additional issues in the whole area of the damage and costs to our community caused by addiction-which is what it is-to a legal drug. The evidence is disturbing, so any action that we can take, as a body of responsible people, will be responsible action. I am encouraged by the remarks of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Australian Democrats have initiated debate on a number of matters that Parliament has the ability to influence. Parliament can, perhaps, reduce the damage done by smoking to our community health. On every possible occasion, the Australian Democrats have taken the opportunity, as we are doing today, to face Parliament with its true responsibilities. They include the ability to impose a tax on cigarettes, which would put their price out of the reach of, for instance, young people, and decisions about whether advertisements of various kinds, in various places and at various times were appropriate. We have taken these opportunities, as we have with this legislation, not just because we are concerned that some people are choosing to engage in this activity. Our particular concern is that evidence is showing that young people are still inappropriately beginning to take up this habit. I do not think that even adult people for whom it is a matter of normal practice really want to see our young people take it up, yet this is continuing to happen. The Parliament has a responsibility in a number of areas. The Australian Democrats have brought forward this legislation because we believe it is an opportunity for the Parliament to act in the interests of having a smoke-free zone for those people using our domestic airlines. We are encouraged to a certain extent by some of the comments made by Senator Gietzelt in this debate. We will continue to press not just for debate on this issue but for the Parliament to take action on this issue, which has a great effect on our public health. We believe that we have a responsibility as a Parliament to act wherever that is possible. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I have just been misrepresented by Senator Powell and I believe it proper that any correction should be made immediately when there has been gross misrepresentation, as there has been in this case. Senator Powell wrongly claimed that I had rejected a volume of significant evidence on the dangers of passive smoking. I did not. That is a totally false allegation. What I questioned clearly-honourable senators know this-was whether the level of passive smoking in an aircraft in which only 10 per cent of the people occupy smoking seats is such as to be a health hazard. As Senator Powell knows, I was not doubting or questioning the evidence or attacking the concept that passive smoking may constitute a health hazard. I thought it vital, in view of the misrepresentation, that I put the record absolutely straight. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(5.13) —This is not the first time that I have spoken in this place or in other places from a minority position, but I have no doubt that I am speaking in the minority on the whole question of smoking. I am addressing the Air Navigation (Smoking) Amendment Bill 1987, a private member's Bill brought forward by Senator David Vigor of the Australian Democrats. It is rather surprising that we in the Senate and in this Parliament should be looking at legislation as draconian as this Bill. There are other parliaments in this great nation of ours in which it would be more appropriate to address legislation that contains draconian measures such as are contained in this Bill. In speaking in opposition to this Bill, the tobacco companies and advertising agencies should not in any way think that I am now seeking or will in the future seek to represent their interests in this controversy over the whole question of smoking in aircraft and other public places. There is no way in the world that I am associating myself with any of the propaganda that continues to fall on my desk, and the desks of other honourable senators, from the tobacco companies and from the agents who represent them. Indeed, I am sure that everyone here would agree that there have been some appalling examples of advertising used by tobacco manufacturers in order to market their product and hook young people on a very vile, dangerous and dirty habit. I stand here as an addict to the habit of smoking. I do not think that my addiction in any way will be cured by this draconian legislation. In fact, it will probably make things easier. I admit that I have not experienced the problems that Senator Powell addressed of getting a non-smoking seat on planes. From my experience-I probably do many more kilometres in the air than does Senator Powell-the great difficulty is in getting a smoke seat, not only on the long haul flights from Perth to the eastern States but also on the other long flights around the country. Very few seats are now allocated to smokers. If one is not in the terminal building very early in order to make a reservation, one can miss out. I had cause to walk off a flight on one occasion when the seating was messed around. Certainly, I do not think the airline companies are in any way encouraging us to smoke in their aircraft. They are probably doing that for a number of reasons, some of which result from action by the aircraft crew. I find that somewhat odd, too. We members of parliament have the privilege of sitting in the first class section, which is a privilege that I will defend. Quite often I am joined in the first class seats by members of the crew who wish to indulge in the habit. So when I see propaganda emanating from the unions that represent the flight crew, agitating for smoking bans on aircraft, I often wonder whether the executives of those unions are truly reflecting the views of their members and what they have done in order to elicit the views of their members. It is not just on an odd occasion that it happens. It happens quite frequently. From my experience of sitting in the first class section of the aircraft, very few people wish to have smoking seats. The exception is when there is a football team or a sporting team on board. They seem to want to indulge in the habit. I accept that smoking is a vile and dangerous habit. It is offensive, and it is also very expensive if one happens to live in Western Australia, the State that I represent. It is not a cheap habit in which to indulge in the Australian Capital Territory either. It is a very expensive habit when one smokes 40 a day, which I have cut down to at the moment. No doubt next week, with all the rigours of the May economic statement, it will probably rise beyond that. Senator Michael Baume —Is that a tip? Senator McKIERNAN —I am not giving any tips today-filter or otherwise. We will let that one smoulder and see what happens next week. The smoking habit is smelly, it is dangerous, it is dirty and it is an addiction of which I am not proud. But the fact is that one has such an addiction for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps mine is a result of a misspent childhood in some respects, and an urge to grow up more quickly than perhaps I should have done. I accept the evidence that is offered from a number of circles that it is very dangerous and does cause lung cancer and other diseases. I, too, as with Senator Powell, have been a non-smoker. I proudly boast that on one occasion some years ago I gave the habit away for about six months. Senator Walters —Oh, you are weak. Senator McKIERNAN —I was weak. I was also wallpapering on the particular day. Anybody who has ever done wallpapering will know why I went back to the habit of smoking. I think that the question of smoking and non-smoking has also become a very trendy and popular issue on which to run. Indeed, I think that is the very reason why we are debating this Bill here today. A tremendous amount of government money and private money is being devoted to research on this one element of public health-the question of smoking and the dangers that arise from it both to the smoker and to the non-smoker. I was amazed at a release put out under the name of the National Health and Medical Research Council, I think earlier this week, relating to some unfortunate individual who had to sit-one imagines in a room with no windows and the air totally controlled-through 17 or so separate studies on smoking and come up with one hypothesis on the whole question of passive smoking and statistics on its effects. How would a person get any real job satisfaction from doing something like that? I suppose one would have to be provided with a computer to do it. I think that because this issue is trendy it is receiving undue attention. People can identify an individual who smokes not only when the individual has a cigarette in his hand or his mouth but also by the smell which that individual exudes. At the end of the day, and sometimes even at the beginning of the day, the clothes smell, the hair smells and the hands smell. The room in which a smoker works smells. I know that from experience. I know that I am a polluter of the atmosphere. I apologise for it. I will try to give up the habit but, unfortunately, I do not think this week or next week is the time to start trying. I wish to point out, however, one very great danger to us as legislators-and I refer to all parties. In looking at the question of public health we must be careful not to home in on one popular trendy issue. Too often-the medical profession is to blame here-when a person dies and the death is attributed to lung cancer we start searching back through the history of the poor, unfortunate corpse to find out whether that individual at some time smoked or lived with a smoker. If that is found to be the case, it is all too easy to state on the death certificate and to have it recorded in the relevant statistics that that death from lung cancer was attributed to smoking. I think far too little research goes into industry and the hazards that workers in industry have to endure. The same applies to the pollutants that members of the community have to endure. When we fly around this country, hopefully soon in aircraft that leave the air pure, we in turn are polluting the environment. Maybe one day that issue will become trendy and the Australian Democrats will flock into Canberra so that they will not have to travel, and really run hard with that issue. On the question of smoking and occupational health and safety, very few doctors in this country particularly-and we are talking only about this country-are skilled in diagnosing the effects of industry on workers' health and safety. A lot of attention has been paid in recent years to the issue of asbestos, which was raised by the trade union movement with the help of some sympathetic medical persons. Senator Walters —Back to the subject. Senator McKIERNAN —I will get back to the subject. Senator Powell —That was trendy years ago. Senator McKIERNAN —It is still trendy. Did Senator Powell see in the news bulletins last week the number of people who died, and the number who continue to die, working for a particular company? People in my area of Wittenoom are continuing to die as a result of suffering from exposure to asbestos. Senator Walters —What about the smokers? Senator McKIERNAN —Has Senator Walters ever looked at the statistics on deaths attributed to smoking? It is a disgrace and an indictment on this society and us in this Parliament as legislators that we did not act earlier to do something about it. I agree with some of the comments about the action we should take in respect of smoking on aircraft. I will return to that topic. The Australian Labor Party's policy in respect of smoking has been mentioned. Senator Gietzelt spelt that out very well. For the sake of time I will not elaborate on it because it is on the record and in our publications. I find that one of the quirks of nature at ALP conferences-I attend a few at both the State level and the national level-is that whilst we probably make our deliberations in halls as big as this chamber-in the case of the last National Conference in Hobart the hall was a lot larger than this chamber-the halls are declared a smoke free zone. At the beginning of the conference the delegates vote on the matter and declare the conference venue a smoke free zone. Subsequently, the poor, afflicted individuals like me and you, Mr Acting Deputy President, sneak out to the corridors and smoke there. After a few hours of heavy debate on all sorts of issues we sneak out yet again. Probably on the second, third or fourth occasion we do not even have to light a cigarette because the air in the confined space of the corridor is polluted. Let me just give the Senate an example to put what I have just said into some perspective. Because of the size of this chamber, we are not allowed to smoke in it, and I am not advocating that we should. But we are allowed to smoke in the tiny adjoining alcove, a confined space which holds the smoke. I know that, because I have walked through it myself. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we have before us a very draconian piece of legislation which will not solve the problem confronting us. We never will solve problems such as this by imposing penalties of the magnitude put forward-not even suggested-by Senator Vigor. Let me just repeat the penalties. For a person smoking on an aircraft, the penalty proposed is $5,000 or imprisonment for six months. The Bill provides for a penalty of $5,000 or imprisonment for six months for lighting a cigarette on an aircraft or in an area of a terminal which is designated as a non-smoking area. Senator Archer —You get no more than that if you shoot your mother-in-law. Senator McKIERNAN —Exactly. I ask: What competence can we attribute to the authors of this legislation if they resort to tactics such as that? As the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has said, a very serious criminal offence must be involved if we are to consider penalties of that nature. We must look also at what smoking is. Senator Vigor was kind enough to give the Committee some thoughts on his definition by referring to a Bill that had previously been introduced in this chamber. Senator Walters —If you don't hurry up Senator Elstob is not going to get a chance to say something, and he desperately wants to support you. Senator McKIERNAN —I appreciate that he might run out of breath. I will wind up my remarks. I quote Senator Vigor: For example, another Bill introduced into the Senate defines smoking as `the act of inhaling, exhaling, puffing, sucking or blowing the smoke of a tobacco product'. But we also have problems in defining a tobacco product. If in this chamber I took out one of my cigarettes and, without putting it in my mouth, lit it and held it in my hand, would I be smoking or not? I will not ask the President, or even you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to rule on that point. I am slightly against it. I think there are other ways of doing it. I am not against the proposal put forward by the Government and by the airlines that bans on smoking be limited to flights of less than 90 minutes. I will endure and suffer that restriction. There are actually some nights in the week when I can sleep for more than two hours without waking up to have a cigarette. I urge the Senate, when voting on this legislation, if it gets to vote, to reject it. I think Senator Vigor will have earned some more names for himself in putting forward this piece of legislation. I would call him the Genghis Khan of clean air or perhaps the Joh Bjelke-Petersen of civil liberties. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.28) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I know very well that you would dearly like to speak on this subject. I will be very quick just to give you a few minutes. I have found myself in complete agreement with Senator McKiernan, who preceded me, which probably makes him have another think as to whether he could possibly be right. I am a non-smoker. I have never smoked, which I find has been very fortunate. I did not take up smoking in my early years and, having watched some of my relatives going through the very traumatic experience of trying to give it up, I can only be thankful that I was not introduced to it when I was much younger. The Government has already said that it will be bringing in legislation which deals with smoking on airlines and I understand from Senator Gietzelt's speech that it will contain a provision banning smoking on short flights of 90 minutes or less. I find that completely illogical. If this ban is to be imposed on short flights because of the hazards of passive smoking what on earth is the damage done to people on long flights? The proposition is illogical. That is all I wish to say on that subject. I cannot understand how the Government could say that harm is caused to passive smokers on short flights when it allows smoking to continue on longer flights-for example, on a three-hour flight to Perth. Senator Tate —It is recognising human weakness. Senator WALTERS —Let us recognise the human weakness of people on short flights. Senator McKiernan says that he has to wake up every two hours to have a cigarette. It seems that we would be doing him a great disservice if ever he has to go to Perth again. I cannot understand why the Australian Democrats would not just shoot or hang those who did not comply with the legislation. It provides for a prison sentence of six months or $5,000 fine. Perhaps Senator Powell now understands the difference between `and' and `or'. If the penalty was a $5,000 fine and imprisonment-I would not have been surprised seeing the legislation is so draconian-she may have understood the difference between `and' and `or' in respect of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill, because she could not see the difference when we debated it. However, in this legislation she can suddenly see the difference. The imposition of such draconian penalties on a person who smokes in an aircraft or at an aerodrome in areas in which smoking is not permitted is quite ludicrous. We need to exercise a little tolerance. I understand that some non-smokers are allergic to smoking. They find that their eyes run and are very sore, and they object to the smell of smoke on their clothes. Nasal symptoms, coughing, wheezing and so on can result from passive smoking. However, let there be no doubt that passive smoking does cause problems. In 1977 I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare of which Senator Peter Baume was the Chairman. The Committee produced a report entitled `Drug Problems in Australia-An Intoxicated Society'. The Committee considered tobacco smoking. The Committee's report states: Evidence has indicated that, in confined atmospheres, passive smoking leads to absorption of carbon monoxide into the bloodstream of non-smokers, where it forms the compound carboxyhaemoglobin. Such passive smokers generally show above-average levels of this compound. That was the evidence in 1977 when passive smoking was not a trendy subject. Other evidence which the Committee received was: The most common effects experienced by non-smokers as a result of passive exposure include eye irritation, nasal symptoms, coughing and wheezing. Smokers should realise the discomfort-and at times distress-which their habit causes other people, and as a matter of courtesy regulate their smoking so as not to inconvenience anyone. More serious consequences were shown to exist for children of `smoking families'. One survey of 1119 subjects recorded 33 per cent more respiratory disease in young children of `heavy smoking families' . . . Importantly, the evidence continued: A similar survey examined the incidence of pneumonia and bronchitis on 2205 young children over the first three years of life. Their respiratory symptoms and the parents' smoking habits were checked annually. In the first year of life, the incidence of pneumonia and bronchitis was lowest where both parents were non-smokers and highest where both smoked. In the first year of life, and when a mother is breastfeeding her baby, there is a very close association between her and her baby. The survey showed that, after the first year of life, the consequences were negligible and were not conclusive in any way. That, I think, underlines the point made by Senator Michael Baume when he said that in very confined spaces, where there is a one to one association, harm is done. As has been indicated, the National Health and Medical Research Council came out with recommendations in 1975 and 1976 with which we, as a Committee, agreed. Those recommendations were: (a) To prohibit smoking in hospitals and other health care institutions except in specially designated areas; (b) To adopt regulations to protect non-smokers from exposure, without their consent, to tobacco smoke in the working environment; (c) To provide or extend non-smoking areas in public transport and other public places where smoking is not totally prohibited-- such as restaurants, cafes and bars-- (d) To clearly define non-smoking areas in public transport and other places where smoking is not totally prohibited; and (e) To give special attention to the protection of infants from contact with persons who are smoking. That is as far as we should go. We should make areas available for those who wish to smoke. To penalise a smoker who dares to light up a cigarette in an aircraft or an aerodrome, other than in the correct areas, is beyond any reasonable acceptance of the individual's rights. In the last few minutes of this debate, I have pleasure in handing over to Senator Elstob. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(5.36) —The Air Navigation (Smoking) Amendment Bill, which has been introduced by the Australian Democrats, is probably the most draconian legislation that has ever been brought before this Parliament. The wording of the legislation means that not only those who smoke on a commercial airliner would face a fine of $5,000 or a six-month prison sentence but also a person flying his own aircraft-there may be only one person in the aircraft; the pilot-who dared to smoke would also be liable to a fine of $5,000 or six months imprisonment. That is how foolish the legislation is. If the Democrats had wanted to improve the health of the Australian community I would have considered their proposition more seriously. I believe that there should be a complete review of what we are doing. Many things are wrong in our community. I am nearly 63 years old and I have smoked for 50 years. However, I have never said that what is good for me is beneficial to someone else. I would not be so ridiculous as to say that. I am fortunate in having been born of healthy parents. I notice that I have 43 minutes in which to speak-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Elstob, you are under a misapprehension. You do not have 43 minutes; you have until 5.43 p.m. Senator ELSTOB —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. There are many issues which I would like to touch on but, unfortunately, I do not have the time to do so. If we are to consider ways of improving our health, one of the first things that I would look at, as a person who has gained some experience in my 63 years, would be air-conditioning in public buildings. Air-conditioning is the most outrageous thing that has been inflicted on the human race. Because we want to utilise all the available space, when we build we do not allow for natural ventilation. In a country such as Australia, which has good air 95 per cent of the time, it is unnecessary to heat or to cool that air. We restrict the flow of air by bringing it in through an air-conditioner. In the early 1970s, when the price of fuel rose, the people who controlled the buildings restricted the air flow. It costs money to heat or to cool air, so we now find that only about 25 per cent of the air that we breathe in any public building is fresh. It has been proved beyond all doubt that air-conditioning is one of the great polluters of our time. Yet why is it that doctors and others, as Senator McKiernan said, find it trendy today to blame smoking. I do not believe that. Many years ago I worked on the waterfront. At that time, when mechanisation took place, many people working down below in the ships' holds were suddenly dying-we thought from heart attacks. Over a period of 10 years we gathered many statistics on this and we proved beyond any doubt-this proof did not come from the medical profession, it came through our own research-that those people had suffered a build-up of carbon monoxide gases. We took that evidence to a convention in the United States of America, which proved that we were right. We were then able to insist that the machines had to be powered by liquefied petroleum gas, which is a much cleaner fuel than petrol. That stopped people dying from the build-up of carbon monoxide gases in their bodies. It was once believed that if people got out into fresh air all the carbon monoxide gases in their bodies would dissipate, but that is not so because the gases build up. People who thought that they were having heart trouble or that they had blood clots to the brain and similar things, found that they were suffering from a build-up of carbon monoxide gases. How many people in our community are affected in that way? Senator Archer —Listen to him. Would you like to stop for a cough? Senator ELSTOB —Senator, I have to work. I had never been ill in my life until 1985. I have gone through many trials and tribulations. I have scraped the bottom of barrels and I have licked the cream with the best. I have not been ill and I do not take many drugs. I am one of those people who like a cigarette but I have never been drunk in my life. I enjoy life. I think I have some feeling for my fellow human beings. Senator Janine Haines was on a plane with me once and she said `Would you mind not smoking as I suffer badly because of it?' so I said: `I will not smoke'. I consider other people's feelings and I think every person who smokes has some compassion for other people. But it is quite wrong for people to take this high attitude and say that smoking is the cause of all our ills. It is not. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of General Business has expired. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the introduction of a Bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I seek leave to make a statement on Senator Evans's application for leave. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —The Opposition, with considerable reluctance, is prepared to grant leave. We think it is a very bad precedent, and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) should not imagine that we will readily do so in the future, but in the circumstances that he has indicated to me, we are prepared to grant leave. However, I put it on record that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3), which is about to be introduced, is scheduled to be debated next week. This means that the Opposition has only the weekend to conduct the very major discussions that will be involved, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to complete the processing of the Bill in such an unreasonable period. In those circumstances we will expect to be given consideration about the debating of the Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Is leave granted for Senator Evans to move a motion in relation to the introduction of a Bill? There being no objection, leave is granted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.45) —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- When the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986 on 22 October last, he indicated that action on a number of matters had been deferred to allow more time for problems to be analysed and discussed. This Bill sets out the Government's proposals for a new regime to cover exploration and mining on Aboriginal land which is the first fruit of that further process of analysis and discussion. Consultation with the various interested parties has been extensive. In particular, the Northern Territory land councils have been given many opportunities over the last two years to put their views to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, to the caucus committee on Aboriginal affairs, and to myself. The Government has sought, to the maximum practicable extent, to accommodate the views of all parties. Where this has not been possible, best efforts notwithstanding, it has sought to follow a course that strikes a fair and equitable balance between competing interests, while preserving at all times the essential purpose of the Act-that is, enable Aboriginals in the Northern Territory to claim land of traditional significance, and to control activities undertaken on that land. The amendments now being placed before the Parliament, together with those contained in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986, will significantly improve the operation of the Act in the key areas. By reducing the potential for continued tension and conflict between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals in the Territory, the amendments will reinforce and strengthen the real and lasting benefits that Aboriginals in the Northern Territory have gained from this legislation. I refer now to the main features of the Bill. Exploration and Mining on Aboriginal Land The single most controversial aspect of the Act over the last 5 years has been the set of provisions regulating the exploration for, and mining of, minerals and in particular, the operation of the mining veto on Aboriginal land. However, it is fair to say that it has not been the existence of the veto power which has produced the present situation where only one agreement between Aboriginals and companies has been concluded under the Act since its enactment. Rather, the major reason is that the implicit conjunctive structure and direction of the Act tended to work against the finalisation of exploration licence applications and the resolution of disputes. The new scheme embodied in this Bill recognises the need to clearly set out the rights and obligations of the councils and companies and requires them to work within a set of firm parameters. The new scheme will ensure that Aboriginal traditional owners are able to control exploration and mining activity on their land. As well, it will allow those Aboriginals wishing to negotiate agreements with companies for the grant of exploration and mining interests to do so with greater certainty of the process and time limits within which those negotiations take place. In summary, the new scheme will provide clear guidelines governing the granting of a once-only consent at the exploration stage and the negotiation of terms and conditions at the exploration and mining stages. The Exploration Stage A person who has the approval of the Northern Territory mining Minister will be able to apply to the relevant land council for its consent to the grant of an exploration licence. An applicant will be required, within certain time limits, to submit a detailed application to the land council, which will then have 12 months-and such further time as either the parties agree or the Minister allows-in which to give or refuse its consent and to come to an agreement in respect of the terms and conditions relating to the exploration proposal. Within that period the land council will have to consult the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land and any Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the grant of the exploration licence. The land council will be obliged to convene meetings with the traditional Aboriginal owners to consider the exploration proposals, and the applicant or his nominated representative will be able to attend such meetings to present and explain the exploration proposals. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will also be able to send a representative to such meetings. The land council will be required to either consent, or refuse to consent, to the grant of an exploration licence in accordance with the wishes of the traditional Aboriginal owners. In general, where consent is refused, no further exploration licence applications will be able to be made in relation to that land for 5 years. If, on the expiration of the 5-year period, the same applicant wished to present a further application he will be able to exercise that option. It has been decided, however, that a ministerial discretion to re-open the application process at the request of the relevant land councils should be retained for use in special circumstances. The use of this discretion will involve appropriate consultations with Commonwealth and Northern Territory Ministers and requires the Minister to be satisfied that the re-opening of the application is, among other things, in the public interest. This provision is not intended as a backdoor means by which Aboriginals can avoid the necessary incentive to seriously consider the ramifications of any decision to refuse consent. If a land council has neither consented nor refused to consent at the end of the 12 months, consent shall be deemed to have been given by the land council. So that this deeming provision does not operate unfairly in situations where, for example, there is a sizable backlog of applications, the Bill makes provision for a land council to apply to the Minister for an extension beyond 12 months. A decision by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to extend the negotiating period requires consultation with the Northern Territory mining Minister. Further, the Minister must be satisfied that in all the circumstances it is not reasonably practicable for the land council to perform these functions within the normal period. The Minister must also give written notice of his decision to the applicant, the land council and the Northern Territory mining Minister. Where a land council consents, or is deemed to have consented, to the grant of an exploration licence the Minister will also have to consent before the licence can be granted. Where there is no agreement on terms and conditions within the negotiating period, the parties may either agree to appoint a person to conciliate or may request the Minister to refer for conciliation the matters in dispute to a person appointed as a mining commissioner. Upon the expiry of the negotiating period, and the consequent deeming of consent in the absence of express refusal, the Minister shall appoint a mining commissioner who shall attempt to conciliate between the parties concerning the matters in dispute. Where such conciliation is unsuccessful the mining commissioner shall proceed, by arbitration of the matters in dispute, to determine the terms and conditions which he considers should be acceptable to both parties. In determining the terms and conditions of exploration the mining commissioner shall have regard to a number of specific matters, relating to the impact of exploration on Aboriginal land and on the lifestyle, culture and traditions of the Aboriginals. The terms and conditions either agreed between the parties or determined by the mining commissioner may include the payment of compensation for damage or disturbance caused to Aboriginal land but shall not include compensation for the value of minerals removed or proposed to be removed from the ground and shall not include payments for any other purpose, for example, payment which is not related to damage or disturbance but is made simply in return for the giving of consent to the application. Where the intending explorer is willing to enter into an agreement on the terms and conditions determined by the mining commissioner then the land council shall enter into an agreement on those terms and conditions. The Bill contains a safeguard clause which empowers the Minister, after consultancy with the Northern Territory mines Minister, to cancel an exploration licence or lease if he is satisfied that the actual exploration activity does not accord with the proposal and that consent would not have been given. He must also be satisfied that the national interest does not require that the exploration works proceed. The Mining Stage The central feature of the Bill as it relates to the mining stage is that a further consent is not required to enable the successful explorer to proceed to develop a mineral deposit. It is necessary however that a terms and conditions agreement be entered into by the parties and be approved by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs before a mining licence can be granted by the Northern Territory Minister for Mines. The intending miner will have to submit to the land council a written statement setting out a full range of specified particulars concerning the proposed mining activity and its impact on Aboriginal land and on Aboriginal people. The parties will have 12 months, or such longer time as they agree, within which to endeavour to reach agreement. As at the exploration stage, the Bill requires land councils to consult with traditional owners and other affected persons, and to provide full opportunities for representatives of the mining company to present and explain their proposal. If the parties fail to agree within 12 months, either the intending miner or the land council or both may request the Minister to refer the matters in dispute between them to a person appointed as a mining commissioner. That person shall be a Federal Court judge appointed by the Attorney-General in consultation with the Commonwealth Ministers responsible for Aboriginal affairs and resources and energy. The mining commissioner shall attempt to conciliate between the parties on the matters in dispute but where such conciliation is not successful, he shall proceed, by arbitration of the matters in dispute, to determine terms and conditions that are fair and reasonable and which in his opinion would have been negotiated by the parties in commercial arms length negotiations concluded in good faith. The mining commissioner will not be limited by the Act as to what matters to take into account, for example he will be able to take into account the value of minerals likely to be mined. Where the intending miner is willing to enter into an agreement on the terms and conditions determined by the mining commissioner, the land council shall enter that agreement failing which the Minister shall enter into it on the council's behalf. Where the intending miner does not enter into the agreement within 90 days, or such longer time as the Minister determines, of the arbitrator's determination, its exploration licence or lease will be cancelled. There will also be a provision to guard against a situation where a miner puts forward either an exploration program or a mining proposal so as to obtain the consent of the traditional owners and, after that consent is gained, departs substantially from the original proposal. If such a situation occurs, the relevant land council will be able to apply to the Minister who will have a discretion to decide that his departure from the original proposal was such as would have led to the traditional owners refusing their consent. If he so decides and, excepting where the national interest requires the project to proceed, then the mining interest is invalidated and it is open to the Northern Territory Minister to provide the opportunity for another application to be made to the land council. Other provisions in the revised exploration and mining provisions of the Bill include- Retention of the existing power for the Governor-General to proclaim that the grant of a licence is required in the national interest; Scope for a land council to enter into an agreement relating to exploration or mining on land under claim; Specifications for the appointment of two assessors to assist the mining commissioner at the exploration agreement stage-one on the nomination of the relevant land council, and the other on the nomination of the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines (Incorporated). Financial Impact The only additional cost to the Commonwealth arising from these amendments will be incurred in the event that the arbitral proceedings are involved. Conclusion With this Bill and the Bill introduced last year, the Government has made significant improvements to the Act. The amendments will result in a scheme which gives proper recognition to the wider range of interests affected by the Act while continuing to preserve and protect the rights and interests of Aboriginals. This Bill represents the culmination of a most intensive and thorough process of review and consultation. The compromises that have been reached may not please everybody. What is now required, however, is that all parties recognise that each has legitimate interests, and that the changes proposed represent both an attempt to address in an equitable manner the structural deficiencies in the present Act, and a genuine effort to balance the interests involved, whilst maintaining the fundamental rights that Aboriginal people are able to exercise in relation to their land in the Northern Territory. The Act remains the most visible symbol of the recognition by the Commonwealth Government of the special relationship between Aboriginals and their land. The Bill maintains the unequivocal and fundamental right of traditional Aboriginal land owners to control resource development on their land, whilst instituting a number of essential reforms which are in the interest of both Aboriginals and the wider Australian community. Further details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum being circulated with the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Clause 23 (Preliminary scrutiny of postal ballot-papers). The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering clause 23 of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill, to which Senator Tate has moved Government amendment No. (1). The question is: That the words proposed to be inserted by Senator Tate's amendment be inserted. (Quorum formed) Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.48) —Earlier we were discussing the Government's proposal and the Opposition's amendment on the question of whether there should be a cut-off point for pre-poll, absentee and postal votes. I was putting forward some of the reasons for it, while also acknowledging-- The CHAIRMAN —To avoid misunderstanding, there is no Opposition amendment before the Chair. The only matter before the Chair is the Government amendment. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am anticipating a potential Opposition amendment. I will not anticipate debate because the basic issues are the same. I was also acknowledging the validity of some of the points that Senator Sir John Carrick was making at the time. In theory and in most cases one would always argue for every vote to be admitted to the count. But we do have two or three problems with that at the moment. The first concerns the striking of a Senate quota. If in theory we have to wait until every vote comes in, it is quite possible that we might have to wait for two or three months before we can strike a quota. We cannot start the distribution of preferences or a proper Senate count until we have struck a quota. It would be quite objectionable if before all votes came in we struck a quota and then, at some later time, adjusted that quota. I think that is the first problem. The second problem is just how long to wait to declare a seat. The returning officer knows that there are five, six or seven potential votes to come in. Under the current law, does he hold up declaration of the poll until every vote is in? That would leave electorates unrepresented in the House of Representatives. So there are problems and, therefore, the cut-off point comes in. But to some extent I argue that both Senator Sir John Carrick and I are right in an odd sort of way because maybe the new administrative procedures adopted by the Electoral Commission will overcome all these problems in any event. The biggest problem has been overseas where electorate officials-they are not employees of the Electoral Commission, they tend to be diplomatic staff-ignore the specific directions of the Electoral Commission, do things their own way and votes go missing. In the last election the Electoral Commission requested that all votes from overseas come in by courier. But lo and behold, as I understand it, many officials sent them by diplomatic bag. I think we all know how slow that can be on occasions. It may well be that with these new administrative procedures we do not need a cut-off point because they will all be back on time. I am hopeful that that is the case. My view on this particular proposal is that, on balance, I still support it. If there is extremely strong opposition-I know it is up to the Minister, but I do not suggest that the Government is encouraged necessarily to bat on with this proposal-it may well be appropriate that the Senate Select Committee on Electoral Reform discuss it again to see whether there is some middle ground. I assume that there would not be any opposition from those opposite if we followed that course and brought in any necessary amendments in a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill rather than a separate Electoral Bill, but I will leave it to the Minister to respond to that point. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.52) —I commend Senator Robert Ray's final suggestion. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting for one minute that in every electorate the returning officers should wait until every vote comes in before declaring the poll. They do not do that now. In any electorate where it is absolutely clear that outstanding votes cannot alter the result, they declare it. I am pointing out something that is fundamental and will occur only in small cases. When the preliminary count has been made and it is clear that the margin is so narrow that the outstanding votes known to exist could influence the result, it is very wrong to declare the result. It is no argument to say: `Oh, in any case you could go to the Court of Disputed Returns'. That is a very long, difficult, unpredictable show and a lot of red herrings are raised in that situation. It ought to be possible to devise a form of amendment which holds up declaration of a seat whose result can be influenced by the outstanding absentee votes. That is the only thing I am interested in. I do not believe that that affects, in any imperative way, the worries that Senator Ray has. I think that it can be coped with in any case. We know precisely how many votes there are. In my judgment there is no way in which votes could be outstanding for three months. If, within a week or two, the votes cannot be tracked down and a declaration is made that they are lost, that is all right; we have got a case for the Court of Disputed Returns. But we know where they were collected, we know their number and we are able to find out what method of transit was used. I suggest very strongly to the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) that he accept the proposition that this particular matter be put aside for the moment and that it be sent back to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform for study. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.54) —I draw the Committee's attention to the National Party's amendment No. 3. It is relevant to some of the things that Senator Sir John Carrick has mentioned. We propose a new clause 274a which states: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where, at any time before: (a) the end of the period of 13 days immediately succeeding the close of the poll; or (b) the declaration of the result of an election; In other words, the returning officer is not going to declare a poll when it is very close and there are a handful of votes outstanding, which is the problem we all have. One reason we have drawn this amendment up is that there have been cases within the Australian Electoral Commission of votes having been lost temporarily. Our amendment also covers votes that could be lost or mislaid within the postal system. There is always that problem in the rural areas, where people use postal votes a lot and where there are mail services only once a week. We took those cases into account in the drafting of our third amendment. Firstly, votes could be mislaid by the Electoral Commission and, secondly, ballot papers could take longer than necessary to get to the Electoral Commission because of the postal services of this nation. We have two provisos: Votes should be counted up until the end of the 13 days or the declaration of the poll, which the divisional returning officer would declare only if there were an absolute majority at that stage. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.55) —Just to deal with Senator Collard, my advice is that the proposal of the National Party of Australia has the potential to delay the Senate scrutiny indefinitely while it makes provision for the declaration of the poll to proceed in the House of Representatives election before all outstanding votes have come to hand in cases where those votes cannot affect the outcome. There is no such provision in respect of the Senate. It is not practicable to commence the Senate scrutiny and alter the figures to take account of postal votes subsequently received. The Senate scrutiny cannot commence until all eligible votes are in and the quota is struck. The proposal is, therefore, in effect, that there be no cut-off for the receipt of postal votes. Have I understood correctly what Senator Collard is proposing? Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.56) —Yes. Surely we would know how many votes were outstanding? There would not be many. The number could probably be counted on the fingers of two hands, and maybe the toes of one foot if necessary. I do not see how our proposal would greatly affect the striking of the quota. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.57) —I will try to simplify the situation. There is a difference between postal votes, pre-poll votes and absentee votes. I think they can be readily distinguished and can be dealt with quite separately. The 13 day cut-off is ideal for postal votes because one does not know whether they are all going to get back, when they are going to get back or how they are going to get back. The other votes are in the hands and control of the Electoral Commission right from day one. They should be taken into account. There is no reason for them to be delayed and there is no reason why they should not be in the count right from the start. I believe that the changes I have proposed on behalf of the Opposition would cover that. They would also look after the point that Senator Collard has in mind. I believe it is a very simple course to follow. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.58) —I have a bit of a problem. Whilst in theory the votes are in the hands of the Australian Electoral Commission, they are, as Senator Robert Ray said, collected by overseas diplomatic staff and returned in batches by courier. So obviously they are not in the control of the Electoral Commission in the same way as they would be if they were in the Denison office of the Commission. So there are difficulties. As I understand it, we have to strike some sort of balance. Of course, if an enrolled person casts a vote one would want to do everything that was humanly possible to ensure that that vote was taken into account in the selection of the members of the Australian Parliament. But there is an Attorney-General's opinion which indicates that there is no close-off date in relation to votes received for this chamber and a quota cannot be struck until one is confident that all those who have cast a vote have had their ballot paper transferred to a place where it can be counted. In that situation we have to strike some sort of balance which will, in some very rare cases, have the effect of disenfranchising some Australian who had voted with full intention and expectation that his vote would be counted. Senator Archer —Do you recognise the difference between the two-postal votes versus the others? Senator TATE —Yes. The only real problem is with overseas diplomats. Clause 4 of the Bill states that the Act extends to officers outside Australia. That carries with it section 324 of the Act which states: A person who, being an officer, contravenes a provision of this Act . . . or a direction given to him under this Act, is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding $1,000. It also carries with it section 197 which, I recall for the Senate's benefit, provides for a penalty for the failure to post or deliver a postal ballot paper. Once again the penalty is $1,000. So, together with the new administrative arrangements that are being made and will be insisted upon in relation to overseas posts, the assistant returning officers overseas will be subject to such directions and to the jeopardy of such a heavy penalty that we can expect that the problems which have occurred in the past through sheer negligence will be overcome. There may still be an occasion when for some reason or another a bag goes astray. In that situation we have to countenance the possibility that we have to set some sort of arbitrary date, close off the matter and allow the quota to be struck for the Senate scrutiny to proceed. That is all we are attempting to do. So I am inclined to go ahead with clause 23. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.03) —I do not want to be tedious but if the Minister, as he says, can anticipate votes going astray by misadventure, then the logical consequence of what he is saying is for me to say that 13 days is not a reasonable time to try to find the mistake, unwind it and locate the votes. Perhaps he may make it three weeks. A period of 13 days is very short. Anyone who knows what happens in regard to a misadventure which occurs in sending material from overseas to Australia would agree. I suggest that it is not good enough for the Government to say that it has tightened up the procedures and made some punitive arrangements to get things going. It is not just that electors are deprived of the effect of their franchise. The result of an election can hang on a seat. In 1961 the election was decided by one seat. Postal votes could determine, in a difficult case, who shall govern. To turn all this back to the Court of Disputed Returns is to fail to understand the enormous complexity of the matter. I do not see why, just because we may delay the Senate for a moment or two, we should let things stand. The system exists to enable the votes that are validly cast to determine who shall hold the seat. To say `That is not true, we are going to put a caveat on it. We mean only the votes that are validly cast and that get there in 13 days shall decide the seat' is an outrageous proposition. It is a defiance of the situation. We say, with sweet reason, that, as we have all the punitive arrangements now, and if we know where the votes are, then from the word go the pressure should be put on to find out whether all the votes are there. If after 13 days, we have not found them we should keep searching. I suggest to the Minister that he reconsider his opinion and report back to the Committee. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.05) —I suppose that the ideal solution to this problem would be to allow the House of Representatives voting to be almost open-ended, up to three or four weeks, and to apply a cut-off point to the Senate of 13 days. It is stretching the imagination to an extreme degree to suggest that those missing votes-I think Senator Collard suggested that one could count them on one's hands-could affect a Senate election. It is almost inconceivable. We are trying to solve one problem which affects two specific areas. I wonder whether it is possible for us to come up with a form of words to solve the Senate position and then maybe go to the three-week rule for the House of Representatives. However, we are talking about a very small number of votes. If that small number of votes is to affect an election result, determining which candidate wins or loses, it will go straight to a Court of Disputed Returns in any event. That is inevitable. It is almost equally inevitable that the decision will be turned over if it involves only a small number of votes and there will be a fresh election. I acknowledge one other factor. It is always important in a Court of Disputed Returns to go in as a winner rather than as a loser. In electoral history there has been a tendency for sitting members to be returned, especially if the case goes ahead relatively quickly and without controversy. Therefore, there is an advantage in having every vote in in determining a winner. I can assure honourable senators from experience that the worst thing in the world is to have a tie and then have a pull out of the hat. One gets none of the advantages of incumbency and all the disadvantages of going to the Court of Disputed Returns. But there is some advantage in being a winner. Maybe at some stage we could consider having a set cut-off point for the Senate such as 13 days, which I do not think would be controversial, and maybe a three-week rule for the House of Representatives. There are problems. Senator Sir John Carrick said that governments could be determined on this issue. Not only governments but also leadership and Prime Ministers could be so determined by not having someone here to vote for who is going to be Prime Minister or who is going to be in the ministry. So it works both ways. It could well affect the future. We have not worried about this point in the past prior to the Nunawading case. I think the various divisional returning officers had an arbitrary cut-off date and went ahead with a declaration, irrespective of whether there were votes outstanding. It was very hard for us to find out, especially prior to freedom of information. We simply would not have known. I do not think there is anything malevolent or suspicious about a government saying: `Given the Nunawading decision, we have decided to put in a cut-off point'. I would have to agree, though, that I would not like that ever to be used to influence an election result. But at the same time I am conscious of the fact that even with the other amendments put into this Bill it takes weeks and weeks to have a Senate election result declared. To put in something without control at the moment-there is nothing prospective in any of the amendments to control it-may involve a long delay. I suspect that at the next election that will not be a problem because the Senate term goes to 1 July, there has to be a House of Representatives election before April and there will be a good eight or nine weeks to count. But what will happen in the future if we have a 25 May or later election, even a June election, and we need to have senators sworn by 1 July, or at least available on 1 July? That simply will not be possible if we have an open-ended situation. I guess that what I am saying, having listened to all the contributions, is that all of us have contributed some wisdom but none of us have contributed comprehensive wisdom to this issue. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.09) —I have been worn down. I would like to see this Bill passed by 7 o'clock or whenever we adjourn. When is it? The CHAIRMAN —It is 6.30. Senator TATE —In any case, I am going to give in. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment that I was suggesting to clause 23. However, I do so on the basis that, at the earliest possible stage in the Budget session, in a statute law miscellaneous amendments Bill, or even in a Bill of one clause-because one never knows when an election will be upon us and we may not have time to get through the whole process normally attendant on presenting a statute law miscellaneous amendment Bill to the Senate-and having considered this matter in the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, we pass speedily a form of words which allows us to strike a quota for the Senate as soon as is practical after the election. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted for Senator Tate to withdraw his amendment? Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.11) —I appreciate the Minister's remarks. We would be perfectly happy for the matter to be considered by the Senate Committee in due course on that understanding. Leave granted. Amendment-by leave-withdrawn. Clause negatived. Clauses 24 to 26-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 27 (Individual voting tickets). Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.11) —I move: (2) Page 15, clause 27, proposed subsection 211a (1), lines 4 to 9, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: ``(1) Where: (a) a candidate in a Senate election is: (i) a Senator; or (ii) in the case of an election following a dissolution of the Senate, a person who was, immediately before the dissolution, a Senator; and (b) the candidate has not joined in a request under section 168 in relation to the election; the candidate may lodge with the Australian Electoral Officer a written statement that the candidate wishes voters in the election to indicate their preferences in relation to all the candidates in the election in an order specified in the statement, being an order that gives preference to the candidate lodging the statement before any other candidate.''. The implications of the amendment I think are clear to honourable senators. This merely clarifies a matter. Amendment agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.12) —I shall move an amendment circulated in my name on behalf of the Australian Democrats to insert new clauses after clause 40. The substantive item I have already dealt with at fair length at the second reading stage. Owing to the lateness of the hour I do not propose to do that again. We are looking at a very small band of statements which can be true or untrue. We are not looking at that whole range of statements about what governments will be doing or might do or have any intention of doing; we are looking only at statements of the kind that I mentioned. Senator Tate —Mr Chairman, is Senator Macklin talking to his amendment to clause 40? The CHAIRMAN —Senator Macklin is moving his new clause 27a which has other amendments and new sections 34a and 44a. Senator MACKLIN —No, as the amendment on clause 27 was lost, we do not intend to proceed with those amendments. The only other amendment we intend to proceed with is to clause 40. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 28 and 29-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 30 (Forwarding of declaration votes). Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.13) —I move: (3) Page 18, clause 30, proposed subparagraph 228(5) (c) (i) line 41, leave out ``14 days'', insert ``13 days''. This amendment changes the cut off date for receipt of postal votes from 14 days to 13 days after the close of the poll to ensure that the cut-off falls on a normal postal delivery day. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 31 and 32-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 33 (Scrutiny of votes in House of Representatives elections). Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.14) —I do not intend to move the amendment I proposed to move to clause 33 in the light of the previous dissertations and harmonious decisions reached in this chamber. Clause agreed to. Clauses 34 and 35-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 36 (Expenditure incurred for political purposes). Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.15) —I move: (4) Page 24, clause 36, at end of clause add the following new subclause: ``(2) Where, apart from this subsection, the disclosure period, for the purposes of section 305 of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, in relation to an election would have commenced on a day before the commencement of this Act, that section, as amended by this Act, applies as if the disclosure period in relation to the election commenced on the date of commencement of this Act or on the day of issue of the writ for the election, whichever is the earlier.''. This is a non-contentious clause and the amendment I have moved is not subject to any great debate. It inserts a new sub-clause to ensure that the disclosure period applicable to third parties at the next election under section 305 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act will run only for the date on which the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill comes into effect or the date of issue of writs for the election, whichever is earlier. Of course, this is entirely in harmony with our general policy of avoiding the imposition of retrospective obligations on persons-in this case third parties caught up in section 305 of the Act. Amendment agreed to. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.16) —I move: (4) Page 24, clause 36, lines 14 to 33, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ``Repeal of Division 4 of Part XX ``36. Division 4 of Part XX of the Principal Act is repealed.''. I will be brief as I recognise that we have a fair chance of passing this Bill tonight. It has never been National Party of Australia policy to disclose the source of election funds. The disclosure of where a party gets its funds from is tantamount to disclosure of where its support is. It is also getting to the stage of showing how certain people or certain sections of the community will vote. Also, there is the possibility of retribution. People in the business community in particular run the risk of a government which they did not support saying that they are marked men. I realise that the quid pro quo of that is that if funds dry up, as indeed they do and have done, there is public funding, which of course I am also against. That was indicated in the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill which was moved and supported by our Liberal colleagues. It is obvious which side of politics this disclosure affects. The Australian Labor Party does not deny that it receives vast sums from the trade union movement. We acknowledge that these tax deductible funds are available. We also know that paid union officials work for the ALP at election time without any disclosure. Our policy-it is a basic principle-has always been against disclosure of funds because such disclosure shows who people support and that breaches what we understand democracy is all about. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 37 to 40-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 40a. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.19) —I move: (1) Page 26, after clause 40, insert the following new clause: ``40a. Section 329 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by inserting after subsection (1) the following subsection: `(2) A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, authorise to be printed, published or distributed, any electoral matter containing a statement: (a) that is untrue; and (b) that is, or is likely to be, misleading or deceptive.'; and (b) by inserting `, (2)' after `sub-section (1)' in subsection (4).''. As I was saying before when I jumped the gun somewhat, this amendment seeks to impose upon politicians an obligation that is on ordinary companies operating in the community with regard to their representations to the community. Clearly, only a very small band of statements would be caught up but they at least should be caught up. I gave an example. To be brief, I will repeat the same example. A statement which would be caught up is a statement that in the party platform of the Australian Labor Party says that the ALP is going to introduce a capital gains tax. That fairly obviously is a statement, with regard to the last election, which would be false. A statement which would not be caught up under this provision is one that Senator Archer referred to-that is: `The Australian Labor Party will introduce a capital gains tax'. As I suggested, fairly obviously at that stage it is a matter of grist for the mill. As it turned out, that statement was true. It would not have been caught up because it is a prediction about a future proposition which cannot be either true or false in itself until the time arrives and that time is after the election, if it is a prediction of the next government's activities. Anyone can look, as I have done, at the laws that have flowed from the operation of those sections of the Trade Practices Act. There is now a clearly worked out basis in law on how those particular obligations operate, are to be imposed, what will occur, how it will occur and the types of defences available to people resulting from those obligations not to mislead the community about services or products. I believe that this proposal should be included as a first step. Indeed, I believe that the community expects of us standards far higher than they expect from companies. We should be prepared to have in the legislation that governs our activities the same impositions that we impose on others with regard to truthfulness about products and the way that they are represented to the community. I do not intend to discuss this matter at length, because it is hoped that the Bill will be passed tonight. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.21) —The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has discussed the matter in very great depth. It had it in mind that if there were ways that could reasonably be seen to ensure that untruths or wilfully misleading statements could be removed from campaigning, that path should be pursued. Let it be clear that because the Committee members, including me, are not supporting the amendment, it is not an indication that we want to leave open the grounds to enable people to fly high, wide and handsome. The jury considering statements made during election campaigns comprises the electors themselves. Indeed, the very nature of the ballot box is a judgment by the people of not only whether this or that policy is right but also whether, inherent in that, they have been misled and whether statements are untrue or are likely to be misleading. As I understand the evidence given to the Committee, the weight of legal opinion was that such a provision could be so used that election results could be deferred or even overthrown in a chaotic manner. In any case, one must ask why, during the relevant period of an election campaign-which I take to mean the writ period of 25 days-it is wrong to mislead or tell untruths, but it is all right for the remaining 340 days of the year. The matter is complex and I do not want to delay the Senate. I simply suggest that the volume of evidence put before the Committee shows that this proposal could be widely used for vexatious purposes, or that even if it were used sincerely, it could create chaos. Indeed, the cost of attempting to decide the intent of a person is very real. Time and time again all of us have made statements here that we believed to be true, but which in future could be shown to be untrue. They could also, however unwittingly, have been misleading. There is no suggestion in the proposal that the intention of a person or party must be proved. On plain words, the statements are either untrue, misleading or likely to be misleading, whatever the intention of the person or party. I think that we are in a wilderness on this matter. The electoral system has worked pretty well so far. There have been no major cases of someone putting a massively misleading position before the people as a confidence trick, which has therefore disrupted the democratic process. I believe in the good sense of the jury. If there is to be any such provision, I would want it to be for 365 days of the year, for each year, for three years-not just trying to keep the illegitimates honest during the days of the writ period. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.25) —There are a number of problems with the amendment moved by Senator Macklin, but I congratulate him on its nature compared with the one three years ago, to which I objected most strongly. I do not have the same strong objection to this amendment, but I do not know whether it will achieve as much as Senator Macklin would wish. There are three problems. The first is how do we define what is untrue? Secondly, how do we define what is misleading and deceptive, and thirdly, how do we define what is deceptive? I think that the courts will look to the debates in Parliament for some guidance, although it does not appear that we will have a long debate to guide them. It is very hard to define what is true or untrue and what is likely to mislead or otherwise. Nevertheless, perhaps the attempt is worth while. The real problem is that in seeking to avoid having the misfits of the electoral process taking constant injunctions, Senator Macklin limited the proposal to the Australian Electoral Commission. His motives in that were absolutely proper, but I can imagine the pressure that will suddenly come on the Commission. It is going to be in the gunsight. If we refer to it something that we regard as untrue or misleading, and it refuses to take out an injunction, all our candidates and supporters will say that it is biased. If it does take out an injunction, the other side will accuse it of bias. Given the other pressures on the Commission at the time, I think that it would be extremely difficult for it to carry out the proposed task. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.27) —Clearly, the Government will not be supporting the amendment, for the reasons so eloquently expressed by Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Robert Ray and contained in the report of the Committee. Proposed new clause negatived. Clauses 41 to 43-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 44 and 45-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Postponed Clause 2 agreed to. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.28) —I will not move my amendments. I think that section 99 of the original legislation covers most of my concerns. Amendment (by Senator Tate) agreed to: (5) Page 33, Schedule, proposed amendment to subsection 194 (3), leave out ``14 days'', insert ``13 days''. Amendment (by Senator Archer) agreed to: (2) Page 33, Schedule, after the proposed amendment to subsection 194 (3), insert the following new proposed amendment: ``Subsection 200 (1): Omit `10 days', substitute `13 days'.''. Amendment (by Senator Tate) agreed to: (6) Page 33, Schedule, after proposed amendment to paragraph 229 (5) (b), insert: ``Subsections 239 (2) and (3): After `211 (5)' insert `or 211a (6)'. ``Subsection 269 (3): After `211 (5)' insert `or 211a (6)' ``Section 272: Add at the end the following subsection: `(6) Where, in a Senate election, a ballot-paper has, or ballot-papers have, been marked in accordance with subsection 239 (2) by a mark having been placed in a square printed above the name of a candidate who has lodged a statement under section 211a, this section applies to that ballot-paper or those ballot-papers as if: (a) a reference to the candidates in a group were a reference to the candidate; (b) a reference to the names of the candidates in a group were a reference to the name of the candidate; and (c) a reference to a group voting ticket or group voting tickets registered for the purposes of the election were a reference to the order of preferences, or the orders of preferences, given in that statement, as the case may be.'.''. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Amendment (by Senator Tate) agreed to: (7) Page 1, at end of title, add ``and for related purposes''. Title, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senate Tate) read a third time. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Defence Act-Determination 1987-No. 35-Temporary Rental Allowance Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1987 No. 5-Export Meat Orders as amended (Amendment). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 137) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March, 1985: (1) Did a Labor Party Foreign Affairs Committee advise the Government before the 1984 election to admit all visa applicants who are not members of terrorist groups and who do not advocate violence; if so, has the Government adopted this recommendation. (2) Has the Government decided to admit Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) affiliate member Faris Glubb, who was refused a visa in 1984, into Australia. (3) Is the Government unequivocally opposed to recognising the PLO or allowing PLO representatives and functionaries entry into Australia while that body continued to deny Israel's right to exist. (4) If the answer to both (2) and (3) above is yes, how does the Minister for Foreign Affairs justify the issue of a visa to Mr Glubb. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) No. (3) The Governments position is as stated by the Prime Minister on 13 March 1987. (4) See answer to (2). (Question No. 1216) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: What action has been taken within the CSIRO to make personnel management practices more flexible. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Achieving the objective of more flexible personnel management practices is a long term matter. It involves adopting new approaches to a range of personnel policies. The success with these will depend in part upon how well the perception of managers, staff and staff associations about existing policies can be changed. For this reason, changes will be introduced over a period of time rather than as a single exercise. Areas in which CSIRO will be endeavouring to achieve greater flexibility include recruitment, staff rewards, personnel management and mobility. CSIRO is re-examining, for example, its practices in the use of contract staffing, performance appraisal, performance pay systems, superannuation, staff appeals, redundancy, redeployment, involuntary retirement, and staff exchanges and secondments. A formal Performance Review and Development Program will be introduced at the beginning of the 1987/88 financial year. By July 1987 the Early Separation Incentive Scheme will have concluded resulting in the separation of some 250 staff thereby contributing significantly to CSIRO's capacity to redeploy resources as well as to mobility. CSIRO will shortly be examining, with the Department of Finance, revised superannuation arrangements to facilitate mobility into and from CSIRO. A more streamlined approach to managing staff appeals is currently being worked out. The Government's general policy on streamlining is of assistance to CSIRO in achieving this important objective. (Question No. 1348) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) Are there certain designated growth areas in CSIRO; if so, what are they and what proportion of CSIRO's budget is allocated to each of those areas. (2) Will funds from other areas be deployed to the designated growth areas in the 1986-87 financial year; if so, what amount and from what specific areas will the reductions be made. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In recent years it has been the practice of CSIRO to direct funds to selected areas of research in order to provide either supplementation or start-up funds to specific priority research areas. For 1986-87 the designated Growth Areas are: Total CSIRO in 1986-87 Growth area allocation for 1986-87 ($m) ($m) Generic Manufacturing Technologies... 14.0 1.4 Information Technology... 4.5 1.0 Space Science and Technology... 4.4 0.7 Raw Materials Processing... 4.8 0.7 Water Resources Research... 8.6 0.5 Human Nutrition... 5.6 0.2 Funds directed to these areas in 1986-87 represent about 1.6% of Appropriation funds for research, and bring the total CSIRO funds allocated to these Growth Areas to about $42m (15.7%). (2) Total funds allocated to Growth Areas in 1986-87 were about $4.4m Program areas that have been either terminated or substantially reduced to free resources for work judged to be of higher priority include: renewable energy (solar/wind); coal liquefaction; mineral exploration (geophysical techniques); irrigated tropical cropping; tropical pastures; sheep reproduction and nutrition; basic wool science; fleece handling; basic standards of measurement research; basic wood science; building materials; land classification studies; cloud seeding; and solar astronomy. (Question No. 1609) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Why is it not practicable to split funding for the Drug Offensive on a State/Territory basis. (See Answer to Question on Notice No 1254, Weekly Hansard, 10 December 1986, P. 3771). Senator Tate —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As I advised in my answer to the honourable senator's earlier question the Drug Offensive is the information/media element of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse and has included Australia-wide activities such as the National Drug Information Line. Other activities have included a nation-wide booklet distribution, a national advertising and information campaign and other activities, the benefits and costs of which have been spread throughout all States and Territories. The Drug Offensive is not a grants program or a cost-shared program, therefore it would be impossible to quantify expenditures in each State and Territory. (Question No. 1636) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: What are the numbers of notified arrears to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation by the lending authorities for each month July to December 1986 and the comparisons for 1985. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Housing Loans Insurance Corporation requires approved lenders to report at two monthly intervals on home ownership loans in arrears by 4 months or more where the loan amount is not more than $150,000 and to report all other loans monthly where they are one month or more in arrears. Separate statistics of new cases included in each report are not maintained. The total number of loans in arrears reported to HLIC for the months of July to December 1985 and July to December 1986 are set out below. 1985 1986 July... 1,084 1,761 August... 1,082 1,941 September... 1,093 1,860 October... 1,050 2,052 November... 1,068 1,953 December... 1,024 2,050 The number of loans in arrears expressed as a proportion of total loans held insured by HLIC at 30 June of each year since 1975/76 was: Loans in arrears as percentage of loans held insured % 30 June 1976... 0.62 1977 ... 0.55 1978... 0.53 1979... 0.48 1980... 0.44 1981... 0.38 1982... 0.44 1983... 0.52 1984... 0.41 1985... 0.29 1986... 0.42 The number of loans in arrears expressed as a proportion of total loans held insured by HLIC for each of the months July to December 1985 and July to December 1986 was: 1985 July... 0.32 August... 0.32 September... 0.32 October... 0.31 November... 0.31 December... 0.30 1986 July... 0.51 August... 0.56 September... 0.54 October... 0.60 November... 0.57 December... 0.59 Senator Gareth Evans —On 3 April 1987 (Hansard, page 1821) Senator Jessop asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, without notice: Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs able to inform the Senate of the direct cost to the Commonwealth involved in transporting, accommodating and promoting Mr Oliver Tambo, the leader of the self-professed terrorist organisation the African National Congress, and his entourage on their visit to Australia . . . Can the Minister also inform the Senate of the estimated cost of the security arrangements for this visit and also the cost of the security arrangements for his visit to Nareen this weekend? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. The cost of air travel, accommodation and meals for Mr Tambo and three accompanying staff amounted to $39,000. Ground transport charges have yet to be brought to account but are estimated at approximately $17,000, giving a probable total expenditure of the order of $56,000. Security for the visitors including the visit to Nareen was provided by police forces in each of the Australian states visited and no charges accrued to the Commonwealth for these services. Costs undertaken by New Zealand and Japan, the two other countries visited by Mr Tambo following his tour in Australia, are understood to have been on an equivalent scale.