Monday, 11 May 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate of the death, on 8 May 1987, of Sir James Plimsoll, AC, CBE, Governor for the State of Tasmania from 1982. 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 respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term `extraordinary circumstances of the economy' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from five citizens), Gareth Evans (from 34 citizens), Gietzelt (from 17 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 47 citizens) and Reid (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support ``The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smo- king tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 64 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legal enforceable rights under the Bill The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 15 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 Vigor (from 61 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the 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 Chaney (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 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 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament: We the undersigned-assembled. (i) are greatly disturbed by the dangers to health posed by passive smoking, and evidence of which is being documented daily by medical authorities around the world; (ii) Note that environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as the major pollutant in aeroplane cabins, and that its direct threat to health is recognised in the special leave provisions for flight attendants specifically on grounds of upper respiratory infections; (iii) appreciate the Government's undertaking to legislate for smoke-free travel on aeroplanes, but are dismayed at the apparent reluctance to follow up the Minister for Aviation's December announcement with action; and (iv) call upon the Government to make smoke-free aeroplane travel a reality without further delay, and to ensure that smoke-free areas which cannot be contaminated by recycled pollutants, are available at all aerodromes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Reid (from 200 citizens) and Ryan (from 100 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given on the last day of sitting, I now withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 3 standing in my name to disallow the New South Wales Acts Ordinance. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to standing order 109a 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. 1 standing in my name for the next day of sitting for disallowance of section 2 of the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1986. I seek leave to make a statement which is a little longer than normal. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —I sought the indulgence of the Senate to make a longer statement than usual about the scrutiny by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances of this short but very important Ordinance concerning blood transfusions and the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The principal Blood Donation Ordinance 1985 stated that, provided certain testing procedures were used, the Red Cross Society would have a statutory defence if sued by persons who had contracted AIDS from Red Cross blood. This defence was provided at the request of the Society's insurance companies, which had refused to continue insurance coverage without the enactment of such a statutory defence. When the Committee scrutinised the Ordinance late in 1985 we expressed very serious concern about its implications and the possible denial of rights of action to those victims of AIDS who had contracted the illness from contaminated blood transfusions or products. After an in camera hearing at which the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, attended and advised the Committee, it was agreed that the Ordinance would be amended so that the statutory defence would not avail the Red Cross or its insurers where actual negligence in the performance of the testing or other procedures had directly or indirectly led to the infection. The Minister also agreed at that time to place a 12-month sunset clause in the Ordinance to limit its duration while research continued on whether the prescribed blood testing procedures could be improved upon and whether some form of national compensation scheme for blood transfusion victims of AIDS could be devised. These matters were reported to the Senate on 27 November 1985. Section 2 of the latest Blood Donation Ordinance repealed that initial sunset clause to ensure that the modified statutory defence remained in force. Unfortunately, the Committee had not been informed that this would happen. There was also a lack of communication regarding progress with the Committee's suggested full scale review of testing procedures and compensation rights. In correspondence with the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) the Committee learned that the insurance companies, which had originally insisted on the statutory defence, had withdrawn totally from the scene, notwithstanding the enactment of the defence. It seems that to their minds, even with the statutory defence, the risk of liability was too great in terms of the economic return that would be obtained from premiums. I should say that their decision to withdraw was unrelated to the Committee's insistence on a modification of the defence in the Australian Capital Territory expressly to protect, in some degree, a person's right to sue for negligence. The position now is that the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, backed by the Commonwealth Government, has undertaken to indemnify the Australian Capital Territory Red Cross Society in claims against it, provided that it has complied with the prescribed blood testing procedures. Similar arrangements also exist in the States. The Committee has also learned from the Minister that a compensation working party of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS has done some work on the question of compensation rights for victims of AIDS contracted from blood transfusions and other non-sexual transmissions of the disease. When we examined the latest Ordinance which unexpectedly repealed the protective sunset clause, the Committee had the following concerns of principle: Firstly, it is a most serious matter for any legislation to take away rights of action. It is of course, if anything, more serious when delegated legislation is used. Taking away common law rights by legislation should be done only after the greatest consideration and, hopefully, when something more beneficial to the person who has the common law rights is given to that person in the absence of such rights. Much reflection and balancing of interests is required where it is proposed to use legislation to circumscribe a litigant's right of action or his or her chances of success in court. This issue is here compounded by the exceptionally serious medical, legal and social problems presented by AIDS. The Committee's earlier scrutiny of the main Ordinance in 1985 had tried to ameliorate the invasion of rights. Secondly, the Ordinance represents a point of legislative contact between the Senate and the Government in its response to AIDS. The issues are serious and some form of continuous parliamentary oversight of developments in the war against AIDS is needed, At least as far as the technical, legal aspects of this ordinance is concerned, this Committee can and will perform an oversighting role on behalf of the Senate. The broader issues and the question of whether, for example, a select committee is needed are, of course, matters beyond the scope of the Committee's technical responsibilities. Thirdly, since the Committee last looked at the Ordinance, no real advances appear to have been made in improving the prescribed blood testing procedures. They are regarded as 99 per cent reliable on persons in whose blood the AIDS antibody has already developed. The Committee has learned that it can take between four weeks and 40 weeks for an infected person's blood to develop identifiable antibodies detect- able by state of the art testing procedures. This unpredictable corridor of vulnerability exists and it is a limitation in the medical tests which has not yet been overcome. It can result in a person contracting AIDS and the Red Cross would not be liable to the victim in the absence of strict product liability or negligence. Fourthly, the examination of a possible compensation scheme which could, to some extent at least, offset any limitation on the right to sue for blood product liability has not yet progressed to a conclusion. We understand that the Government recognises that there is a case for a compensation scheme and the question is still being looked at. To ensure that honourable senators are kept informed of the relevant issues arising from the Committee's scrutiny, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Committee's correspondence to and from the Minister. Leave granted. The correspondence read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES 24 February 1987 The Hon. Gordon Scholes, M.P. Minister for Territories Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 19 February 1987 the Committee considered the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1986, being A.C.T. Ordinance No. 90 of 1986. Section 2 of the Ordinance repeals section 10 of the Principal Ordinance which had provided for the Ordinance to cease to have effect on 1 January 1987. The Explanatory Statement explains that the reason for preserving the operation of the Principal Ordinance is the continuing need of the Red Cross Society to be protected from legal action where, notwithstanding the Society's compliance with prescribed procedures in the handling of blood and blood products, a person contracts AIDS from blood supplied by the Society. As you know, prior to an administrative reorganisation last year, responsibility for this legislation rested with the Minister for Health, the Hon. Dr Neal Blewett, M.P., with whom the Committee, in 1985, had extensive discussions concerning the operation of the Principal Ordinance. In a letter to the Committee, dated 22 November 1985, Dr Blewett undertook, at the request of the Committee, to insert a sunset clause into the Ordinance. In its initial scrutiny of the Ordinance in September 1985, the Committee had been concerned about certain aspects of the Ordinance, including the provision of a statutory defence for the Red Cross Society in civil actions by persons who had allegedly contracted AIDS from blood supplied by the Society. This statutory defence, the drafting of which was subsequently revised to confine its scope, was included because without it the A.C.T. Society was unable to obtain insurance cover for its A.C.T. operations. The Committee was extremely concerned that such a special defence was needed and that insurance coverage for such a vital aspect of the health system was in doubt. In its letter to Dr Blewett of 18 October 1985, the Committee wrote ``The Committee is strongly of the view that you should amend the Ordinance to insert a sunset clause to provide for its expiry in the shortest reasonable time, but at least before the end of the autumn parliamentary sittings in 1986, while a genuine review of all the issues occurred. This review would allow assessment of: the above matters; new and improved testing methods which might be introduced (and which might improve further the insurability of the risk); the possibility of a system of indemnity or a no-fault liability fund; and the introduction of a replacement Bill into the Parliament. Consideration might also be given to extending the insurance, the fund or the Bill to cover tissue or organ donations and other diseases. These would all of course be matters on which you would need to consult fellow Health Ministers in the hope of a nationally uniform arrangement.'' The Committee noted Dr Blewett's reply of 22 November 1985 in which he stated ``I do, however, share your Committee's view that our knowledge of the AIDS virus and epidemic is constantly increasing and that it is important that both blood testing procedures and legislative provision dealing with AIDS be constantly reviewed and, where necessary, updated. I am, therefore, happy to undertake to review the Ordinance and its procedures on a regular basis to ensure that if any new tests or procedures become available and receive scientific approval, they can be adopted without delay. Given that AIDS is to be the subject of further consideration at next year's Australian Health Ministers' Conference, I am also agreeable to raise with State and Territory Health Ministers at that forum matters which are of particular concern to the Committee and to keep the Committee informed of any national action adopted by Ministers at the Conference that may affect the scope of the Ordinance . . . If the Committee still remains concerned with the Ordinance after the above undertakings, I would reluctantly agree to the insertion of a `sunset clause'. I firmly believe, however, that the operative date of such a clause should not be earlier than 31 December 1986. Any period ending earlier than 31 December 1986 is unrealistic in the light of current experience, both in relation to the settling of future insurance contracts to cover the Society and the implementation of any action agreed to at next year's Australian Health Ministers' Conference.'' The Committee was pleased to accept this outcome and after you had assumed responsibility for A.C.T. health matters, you wrote to the Committee on 11 February 1986 indicating your willingness to give effect to Dr Blewett's undertakings. The Committee's scrutiny of this matter involved a considerable volume of correspondence, and a number of meetings, including one in camera hearing with the Minister for Health himself yet, as you know, the Committee has not received any further communication from you concerning this aspect of the Ordinance. Since the sunset clause was placed in the Ordinance at the request of the Committee, it is somewhat surprising, to say the very least, that the Committee was not informed of either the progress of the review referred to in its letter of 18 October 1985 or the decision to repeal the clause. Because of its implications, the Committee has, of course, had a continuing interest in the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance. In particular, the Committee has been concerned to ensure that the decision by Parliament itself to remove from the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 former clause 206, which was virtually identical in effect to section 3 of the Principal Ordinance, would not give rise to potentially discriminatory effects for veterans being treated in A.C.T. and State repatriation hospitals. At the Committee's request, the Committee Secretary wrote to your Department on 24 February 1986 and 17 April 1986, and to the A.C.T. Health Authority on 13 June 1986, raising this issue on behalf of the Committee. None of these letters produced any response from your Department or the Authority until the Committee wrote to you on 22 August 1986 reiterating its concern about potentially discriminatory implications of the respective legislation. In your reply of 10 October 1986, you indicated that there may be validity in the Committee's concern and suggested that the matter be taken up with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Hon. Arthur Gietzelt. In response to the Committee's letter to him of 17 October 1986, Senator Gietzelt, noting that the Ordinance contained a sunset clause, deferred any comment on the matter until the future of the Ordinance was known. The Committee wishes to express to you its concern about the way in which this most important and most sensitive matter has been dealt with to date. The Committee expected that it might have been kept informed of general developments impacting on those matters of concern to it, in particular, the outcome of the extensive review recommended by the Committee in its letter of 18 October 1985 and the decision embodied in this latest Ordinance to repeal the sunset clause. The problem of inconsistency between the Minister's Blood Donation Ordinance and the Parliament's Veterans' Entitlements Act is a further complicating factor which, for the past year, the Committee has been trying to have resolved. The Committee regards these as important issues and it would very much welcome your comments on them. I have sent a copy of this letter to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, with a covering letter drawing his attention to the repeal of the sunset clause and inviting his comments on the question concerning the differing rights of A.C.T. and State veterans. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman MINISTER FOR TERRITORIES HON. GORDON SCHOLES, M.P. Member for Corio 27 April 1987 Senator Barney Cooney, Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Cooney, Thank you for your letter of 24 February 1987 concerning the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1986 and the Principal Ordinance which it amended. I wish to apologise at the outset for not informing the Senate Standing Committee of the repeal of the sunset clause from the Principal Ordinance. The deadline of 1 January 1987, which was required to be met if the Ordinance was to continue, effectively precluded referral of the question of repeal of the sunset clause to the Senate Standing Committee. The consequence of deferring the repeal of the sunset clause until the Committee was informed would have been the repeal of the Ordinance with resultant loss of protection from legal liability for the ACT Red Cross and the removal of the requirement that donors make declarations as to whether they are at risk of having been exposed to the AIDS virus. Accordingly immediate action had to be taken to prevent repeal of the Ordinance. Steps were taken to arrange for the continuance of the Principal Ordinance because the ACT Red Cross had indicated there were no scientific advances which had a practical application to mass testing for the AIDS virus and it could still not obtain insurance. The Red Cross has recently written to the ACT Health Authority concerning these issues and confirms that they remain a problem (see attachment `A'). You will note the Red Cross no longer has insurance and is not totally dependent upon the protection provided by the Principal Ordinance and indemnification by the Health Authority providing it complies with the testing requirements of the Principal Ordinance (see attachment `B'). Up until 1 September 1986, the Red Cross had national insurance which was conditional upon the continuance of legislation comparable to the Principal Ordinance in all states except New South Wales and Queensland (each of which provided separate indemnification). The national insurance had covered AIDS related claims which may be made regardless of the effect of the Principal Ordinance (such as negligence in the labelling of containers). National insurance was discontinued amid steps to provide indemnification against these claims by the States and Territories which have similar legislation to the Principal Ordinance. Agreement was reached between the Commonwealth and the States to fund jointly the indemnity. The Health Authority's indemnity was part of that process. Accordingly, the Principal Ordinance remains part of the scheme to protect the Red Cross from litigation. Without that protection the Red Cross has indicated it may be forced to discontinue its service in the ACT. Of major importance are the requirements of the Principal Ordinance that donors make declarations as to whether they are at risk of having been exposed to the AIDS virus and the penalty for making false statements in the declaration (see Sections 5 (a), 7 and 8). Even if the Red Cross was to continue to provide this service without protection, the absence of the declaration requirements through disallowance of the amending Ordinance, would increase the possibility of infection of the local population. This would undermine the credibility of efforts to supply blood in the ACT and is likely to destroy confidence in the supply for some time. From the outset it was understood the review recommended by your Committee on 18 October 1985 was to be conducted by the Commonwealth Department of Health as part of its national initiatives in conjunction with the National Advisory Committee on AIDS. I am advised the National Advisory Committee on AIDS established a Compensation Working Party and that common law recovery rights affected by the Principal Ordinance and comparable legislation in the States have received the attention of that Committee. It is recognised that there is a case for these AIDS victims to receive alternative compensation. The National Advisory Committee on AIDS received a report on this issue on 4 February 1987 and referred the matter to the Inter-Departmental Committee on AIDS recommending that a statutory cause-base compensation scheme related as nearly as possible to common law benefits be established. The Inter-Departmental Committee will be considering the matter in the near future and I will be advising the Minister for Health to proceed with the scheme as soon as possible (see attachment `C') for a copy of the deliberations and Working Party Report to the National Advisory Committee on AIDS). The disallowance of the Ordinance at this stage would not advance the position of victims should they subsequently have been afforded a much simpler and more satisfactory system of compensation to the alternative of initiating common law actions. I seek your co-operation in approving the proposed amendment. Disallowance will result in the collapse of the ACT blood donation service and could undermine its credibility for some time. Furthermore it would be unlikely to benefit AIDS victims and could hinder their access to the type of compensation proposed by the National Advisory Committee on AIDS. Yours sincerely, GORDON SCHOLES PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES May 1987 The Hon. Gordon Scholes, M.P. Minister for Territories Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 30 April 1987 the Committee considered your letter and attachments of 27 April 1987 concerning the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1986 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 90 of 1986). The Committee thanks you for the letter and the accompanying papers which were useful in informing the Committee of progress made in offsetting the creation of a statutory defence by development of an appropriate compensation scheme. However, bearing in mind its initial scrutiny of the Principal Ordinance, the Committee remains concerned about the implications of the Ordinance. As you know the Committee's original interest in the Principal Ordinance arose from its concern about the provision of a statutory defence for hospitals, medical practitioners and the Red Cross Society in common law negligence actions by plaintiffs who had innocently contracted AIDS from blood transfusions. As your attached paper by the Melbourne legal academics Messrs Evans and Patrick indicates at pages 12 and 13, common law recovery rights of innocent AIDS victims were severely affected by a very significant limitation on their personal legal rights. As far as the A.C.T. is concerned the Committee's requested amendments to sections 3 and 4 of the Principal Ordinance, made by sections 4 and 5 of the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 47 of 1986) have modified the width of the statutory defence in sections 3 and 4. The committee has noted with interest that the Red Cross Society's insurance cover, originally made available only on condition that a statutory defence be enacted, lapsed in August 1986 and the A.C.T. Health Authority has now undertaken to indemnify the Society against successful claims provided the Society has complied with the blood testing and other requirements of the Principal Ordinance. The Committee now understands the position to be as follows: a (modified) statutory defence, insisted upon by relevant insurance companies as a precondition for issuing insurance cover, remains in force notwithstanding the apparent refusal of those insurers to renew their insurance coverage; that statutory defence is not felt to be needed to protect repatriation hospitals and medical practitioners since it does not appear in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; The A.C.T. Health Authority, backed by the Commonwealth Government, has, in effect, taken over the role of the Society's insurer; a blood donor, wittingly or unwittingly infected with the AIDS virus, may contaminate the blood supply for up to 40 weeks before his or her HIV antibodies are detected by state-of-the-art testing which is considered to be 99% reliable; accident victims, surgical patients, and, to a vastly greater extent, haemophiliacs, are exposed to a medically assessed probability of being innocently infected by AIDS virus from blood transfusions and products; in the absence of proof of negligence, such persons have no right to compensation; when their health inevitably collapses then in the absence of private means, they may become social welfare dependants; and it appears that as far as the Red Cross Society is concerned the only major, and perhaps only realistic, role played by the Principal Ordinance is to provide significant penalties for making wilfully false statements in the donor declaration form. The Committee's concern in all of this is two-fold. Firstly, it is concerned, as a matter of principle, that delegated legislation does not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties and that it does not contain matter more appropriate for enactment by Parliament than a Minister. It is, of course, a trespass on rights to circumscribe, directly or indirectly, a litigant's ordinary right of access to the courts. Further, although the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is potentially the most important health issue in Australia, the legislative role of the Federal Parliament is affected by the legislative rights of the States. Secondly, the A.C.T. Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance is the major legislative point of contact between the Parliament and those responsible for all aspects of the management of the AIDS problem. It is the Committee's strong view, therefore, that the sunset clause which the amendment Ordinance repeals should be re-enacted to come into operation again in say, 6 months, but limited in its scope to sections 3 and 4 of the Principal Ordinance. At that time the Committee would hope to have from you informative documents and materials, like those attached to your letter, which the Committee would hope to table in the Senate for the continuing information of Senators. (When agreement is reached between us on this matter and the Committee moves to withdraw its protective notice of disallowance, the present attachments will be tabled for the information of Senators.) Since no progress has been made in improving testing methods, and since a compensation scheme for innocent victims has not yet been finalised, the Committee considers that the situation now is essentially the same as that prevailing on 18 October 1985 when the Minister for Health was asked to enact the sunset clause which the current Ordinance repeals. As was the case last October, a further sunset clause would be a most valuable incentive to encourage progress with the review of these matters. As you know the Committee in its scrutiny of legislation traditionally endeavours, as far as possible, to proceed through agreement with Ministers rather than by advocating disallowance of instruments which may infringe its Principles. The Committee is hopeful that in this most important and most sensitive matter you will be able to agree with the Committee's suggestion about a further sunset clause. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman MINISTER FOR TERRITORIES HON GORDON SCHOLES, M.P. Member for Corio 6 May 1987 Senator Barney Cooney Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Cooney Thank you for your letter of 1 May 1987 concerning the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) Ordinance (No 2), 1986 and the Principal Ordinance which it amended. Your decision to recommend that the operation of any sunset clause be limited to sections 3 and 4 is welcomed in view of the importance of other provisions in the legislation. However, due to the complexities of the matter and the resources which become tied up in re-enacting legislation, it is preferable not to limit the operation of sections 3 and 4 for less than 12 months. It takes several months to develop and finalise even simple amendments to legislation. A sunset clause limiting the operation of these provisions for less than 12 months would not provide sufficient time to ensure the issues covered by them are properly pursued and reviewed. The issues will require consultation with the Commonwealth Departments of Health and Finance which in turn may need to consult with the States. I propose therefore to arrange for the insertion of a sunset clause which would allow the particular sections to operate for a further 12 months. Your Committee will be kept closely informed on developments concerning issues relevant to sections 3 and 4 of the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance, 1985 and it will be provided with relevant material available for tabling in the Senate. Yours sincerely GORDON SCHOLES Senator COONEY —I thank the Senate. I also seek leave to table more lengthy supplementary documents supplied by the Minister for the information of the Committee and the Senate. I express my thanks for the Senate's indulgence, and for yours, Mr President. Leave granted. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) noting the failure of the Joint Sitting of the Tasmanian Parliament on 8 May 1987 to choose the duly nominated Australian Labor Party (ALP) candidate, John Devereux, to fill the casual vacancy consequent on the resignation of Dr Don Grimes; (b) noting the resolution of the Senate of 19 March 1987 endorsing the constitutional convention, established in 13 successive instances since the 1977 referendum, that `a person chosen to fill the vacant place in accordance with section 15 of the Constitution should be the member of the political party duly nominated by that party to fill that place'; and (c) noting the statement by the Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. John Howard) on 8 May 1987 that `I believe that the person appointed to fill casual vacancies of this kind ought to be the person nominated by the retiring Senator's political party', and the statements in support of the established convention made by the leaders of all other parties in the Commonwealth Parliament, calls on the Presiding Officers of the Tasmanian Parliament to immediately take such action as is necessary to reconvene the Joint Sitting of the Houses of the Tasmanian Parliament to fill the vacancy in order that representation of the people of Tasmania in this place be in accordance with their constitutional entitlements and calls on those members of the Tasmania House of Assembly and Legislative Council, including members of the Gray Government, who have to date acted contrary to the established convention, to vote at such a Joint Sitting to accept the nominated ALP candidate. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) views with great concern the most recent newspaper speculation about the likely severity of education cut-backs in the mini-Budget statement (Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday, 9 May 1987, page 1); (b) notes that such a disastrous course of action would run completely counter to the brain-based economy the Minister of Science (Mr Jones) was propounding at the weekend (9-10 May 1987) (c) urges the Federal Government not to sacrifice the nation's long-term prospects on the altars being erected to appease foreign money interests. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move the following motions concerning four proposed sessional orders relating to the procedures of the Senate: 1. That the Order of the Senate of 22 February 1985 relating to the consideration of papers presented by Ministers be varied: (a) by leaving out sub-paragraph (2) (d) and inserting the following sub-paragraph: `(d) on Thursdays, at the commencement of General Business, when an Order of the Day is called on under this Sessional Order Senators who have previously spoken to that Order of the Day may speak again for not more than 5 minutes, and debate under this Sessional Order at that time shall not exceed 1 hour.'; and (b) by adding after paragraph (2) the following paragraphs: `(2a) Where a paper is presented but is not called on under paragraph (1) because of the limitation of time provided by paragraph 2 (b), the consideration of that paper shall be made an Order of the Day for the next day on which General Business is considered at the commencement of General Business, without any question being put, and where that Order of the Day is called on at that time, a motion may be moved without notice to take note of that paper. (2b) Where consideration of a paper is an Order of the Day in accordance with paragraph (2a), it shall remain an Order of the Day for each succeeding day on which General Business is considered at the commencement of General Business until: (a) the Order of the Day is called on and no motion to take note of the paper is moved; (b) a motion to take note of the paper is determined; or (c) the Order of the Day is discharged from the Notice Paper, whichever first occurs.'. 2. That the following proposed Sessional Order be agreed to: That the Standing Orders have effect as if Standing Orders 141, 142, 143, 144, 144, 145 and 149 were deleted and the following Standing Orders inserted: `140. In respect of every amendment the President shall put a question, `That the amendment be agreed to'. `141. An amendment to a motion may not be moved if it is the same in substance as an amendment already determined to the same motion, or would have the effect only of reversing an amendment already made.' [Note: these Standing Orders are expressed to apply to amendments to motions, but by virtue of Standing Order 201 apply also to amendments moved to Bills in Committee of the Whole.] 3. That the following proposed Sessional Order be agreed to: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the following procedures apply in respect of Bills: (1) A Senator may present a Bill or two or more Bills after the Senate has agreed to a motion upon notice, setting out the long title of the Bill or Bills, that the Bill or Bills be introduced. (2) After the presentation of a Bill or Bills, or after the receipt of a message or messages from the House of Representatives forwarding a Bill or Bills for concurrence, a motion may be moved without notice containing any of the following provisions: (a) that the Bill or Bills may proceed without formalities (this shall have the effect of suspending any requirements for stages of the passage of the Bill or Bills to take place on different days, for notice of motions for such stages, and for the printing and certification of the Bill or Bills during passage); (b) in respect of two or more Bills, that the Bills may be taken together (this shall have the effect of allowing the questions for the several stages of the passage of the Bills (or any of them) being put in one motion at each stage, the consideration of the Bills (or any of them) together in Committee of the Whole, and the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills, the words in parentheses being applicable where there are more than two Bills); (c) that the Bill, or, where the provision referred to in sub-paragraph (2) (b) is agreed to, the Bills, be now read a first time. (3) Where a motion is moved containing two or more of the provisions set out in paragraph (2), at the request of any Senator the motion shall be divided and the provisions put as separate motions. (4) If, after the second reading of a Bill or Bills, leave is granted for the third reading to be moved forthwith, a motion for the third reading may be moved accordingly. 4. That the following proposed Sessional Order be agreed to: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, when debate on a motion is adjourned, by motion or by the granting of leave for a Senator to continue the Senator's speech, the resumption of the debate shall be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting without any question being put, unless a motion is agreed to fixing another time for the resumption of the debate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the explanatory notes relating to those notices of motion. Leave granted. The explanatory notes read as follows- These proposed sessional orders are put forward with the aim of streamlining the proceedings of the Senate. The first two were recommended by the Standing Orders Committee in its Fifth Report for the Sixty-second Session, presented on 30 March 1987. The other two are designed to eliminate, with appropriate safeguards, procedures which have become purely formal and routine. 1. Consideration of Government Papers-The Standing Orders Committee, having been asked by the Senate to consider the sessional order relating to government papers, recommended these amendments of the sessional order. The effect of the amendments would be that papers not reached during the half-hour debate each day would be automatically listed for consideration at General Business time on Thursday, and would remain listed until disposed of. 2. Putting of Amendments-The Standing Orders Committee recommended that all amendments be put in the form: `That the amendment be agreed to'. This would avoid the inconvenient double question when words are proposed to be left out and other words inserted, and avoid the situation, which has occurred several times, of the Senate being left with a meaningless motion. 3. Proceedings on Bills-This proposed sessional order is designed to eliminate certain motions in the stages of the passage of Bills. Paragraph (1): This would provide a simple motion for the introduction of a Bill which is making its first appearance in the Senate, and would allow two or more Bills to be introduced together where it is intended to move a motion to allow the Bills to be taken together. If the Senate does not agree to allow this, the Bills in question would proceed separately. Paragraph (2): This paragraph provides that, after a Bill has been introduced or received from the House of Representatives, the necessary motions to set proceedings on the Bill in train may be `telescoped' into one motion. The individual parts of the motion are: (a) that the Bill may proceed without formalities; (b) where there are Bills to be taken together, that the Bills may be taken together; and (c) that the Bill be now read a first time. These motions are all moved separately under current procedures. The only changes which have been made to them are that the phrase `proceed without formalities' has been substituted for `taken through all stages without delay', because the latter misleadingly suggests that a Bill is going to proceed forthwith, and the motion to take Bills together is simplified. The motion for the second reading of a Bill would still be moved separately and debate on that motion could be adjourned in accordance with the usual practice. Paragraph (3) provides, as a safeguard, that any Senator may ask that the parts of the `telescoped' motion be put separately. This preserves the right of any Senator to vote against any part of the compound motion or to adjourn debate on the first reading of a non-amendable Bill. Paragraph (4) provides that, if no Senator objects, the Committee of the Whole stage of a Bill may be dispensed with. Many Bills pass through Committee of the Whole stage without any debate or amendments being moved, and this procedure would be used in relation to those Bills to avoid the necessity for going in and out of Committee as a mere formality. If any Senator objects to the Committee stage being dispensed with, it must take place. This procedure has been used in the House of Representatives since 1963. 4. Adjournment of Debates-This proposed sessional order would avoid the necessity of moving a motion for the resumption of a debate whenever a debate is adjourned. It is proposed that an adjourned debate be automatically made an order of the day for the next day of sitting unless some other time is fixed by a motion. This would dispense with the great majority of resumption motions. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to make, unlike my lawyerly colleague Senator Cooney, a very brief statement concerning these notices of motion. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —The four notices of motion I have given contain an amendment to the sessional orders and three new sessional orders designed to streamline proceedings of the Senate. Two of the proposals were recommended by the Standing Orders Committee in its report of 30 March. The Committee agreed that it would be appropriate for me as Manager of Government Business to take action to put them into effect. They relate to the automatic listing under General Business of Government papers not reached during the daily half-hour and a simplified method of putting amendments in this place. The other two proposals, which were discussed by the Standing Orders Committee but not formally reported on, relate to streamlining proceedings for the introduction of Bills and avoidance of the necessity for a formal resumption motion whenever a debate is adjourned. The proposed sessional orders have been formulated to streamline proceedings, as I have said, and also to avoid unnecessary motions without in any way detracting from the rights of senators. I commend them to the Senate. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the refusal of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to grant permission to build a marine terminal at Shelburne Bay in far north Queensland; (b) further notes Reef Authority documents which show that the project would not have any significant adverse environmental effect on the Reef; (c) condemns the Hawke Government for placing pressure on the Reef Authority to reach this decision by telling the Authority that it will not be issuing any export permits for silica extracted from Shelburne Bay; and (d) further condemns the Government for pandering to a vocal, misinformed minority of southern greenies while the people of northern Queensland suffer the loss of 100 jobs and valuable capital expenditure in their area. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) there are 430,000 more people in receipt of welfare payments since the Labor Government came to office, an increase of 18 per cent; (b) there are greatly increased funds allocated to welfare spending; and (c) there are now 650,000 households living under the poverty line-an increase of 97,000 families in the past 4 years, calls upon the Federal Government to introduce in the forthcoming mini-Budget policies which will effectively reduce poverty and provide genuine employment possibilities. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Senator Chaney —Before leave is granted I just seek clarification. I am not sure whether the Manager of Government Business was indicating to me that the ministerial statement shown on the list has been taken from the list and is to be brought in later as a statement. I would like clarification before leave is granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am unhappy that the Opposition should want to debate this separately as a statement. However, I suppose that, if it wants to do so, there is nothing much I can do about it. I do not know whether the Opposition wants two bites at the cherry. I suppose the sensible thing to do is to seek leave to remove it from the list as it has been circulated. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Chaney —Yes. Just so that there is no misunderstanding, leave is granted for the incorporation of the list without the first item-that is, `Tourism-under Labour-text of a statement by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tou- rism'. I understand from the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that that matter will now be dealt with as a statement tomorrow. Leave granted. The amended list read as follows- 2. Second Hobart Bridge (Bowen Bridge)-Joint Committee report on construction. 3. Legal Aid Commission (Australian Capital Territory)-annual report 1985-86-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to sub-section 94 (4) of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977. 4. Addendum to the 1985-86 annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission-pursuant to sub-section 31 (3) of the Atomic Energy Act 1953. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Gietzelt is absent from the chamber for Question Time today because he is in Melbourne. Any questions in this chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Gietzelt in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to me. I might say that in the past few months I have adopted the practice of informing the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, well in advance if any Minister is going to be absent from Question Time. I was informed by Senator Gietzelt's office that he would not be here today only about 10 minutes before Question Time began. That is a matter that I intend to speak to him about. I apologise to honourable senators for any inconvenience that has been caused. Senator Chaney —I thank the Leader of the Government for his explanation. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the figures released yesterday by the Real Estate Institute of Australia showing that average home loan repayments in Australia have increased by a staggering $281 per month under the Hawke Government-from $350 per month in the March quarter 1983 to $631 per month in the December quarter 1986. What excuse does the Government offer to Australian families for this massive increase in the cost of home ownership, given that the Prime Minister's 1984 Australian Labor Party policy speech contained the pledge to bring home ownership within the reach of ordinary Australians? Senator BUTTON —I understand that the figures cited by Senator Chaney relate to a period before the decline in interest rates which has taken place generally and not, in the broad of course, affecting housing interest rates. I appreciate that. I understand that the figures were compiled some time ago. Be that as it may, the circumstances of 1983 were vastly different from those of 1986 and 1987 when some $9 billion was taken off Australia's export earnings-that is, there has been a very substantial devaluation of the dollar during that period. As has been said on a number of occasions in the Senate-and I do not wish to labour the fact-it is simply true that interest rates have been high as a result of those macroeconomic factors in the economy. The Government is not unmindful of the point of Senator Chaney's question. It is certainly very concerned about it. That is why a May expenditure statement will be brought down on Thursday of this week and will involve substantial cuts in Government expenditure. Senator Walters —Do you mean Wednesday? Senator BUTTON —Thank you, Senator-it will be brought down on Wednesday of this week. That statement will lead to substantial cuts in Government expenditure and hopefully that will contribute to a sustainable fall in interest rates in the foreseeable future-and I use the word `sustainable' quite carefully. I do not think I can add much to that except to say that, during the period since we have been in government, the first home owner's scheme will have assisted almost 250,000 first home buyers up to the end of the financial year 1986-87. When this Government came to office there had been an enormous slump in commencements to 105,000 in 1982-83. That situation has been much improved since the present Government has been in power. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I note that the Minister in his reply placed some reliance on the decline in the terms of trade under Labor. I ask him: Is it not a fact that the Government has chosen a high interest rate policy rather than reducing government expenditure and taking a stronger line on wages in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and its accord with the trade union movement and that that is the reason which underlies the high interest rates which are putting such pressure on Australian home buyers and home owners? Senator BUTTON —There are a number of factors in that part of the question. Senator Chaney referred to the Government's having opted for a high interest rate policy instead of cutting government expenditure. I do not have the precise figures in front of me now, but government expenditure has been reduced substantially throughout the life of this Government. Senator Chaney —Ha, ha! Senator BUTTON —As a percentage of gross domestic product. Insofar as the wages policy is concerned, we have had a very stable one throughout the period of government. That is of considerable concern, particularly to lower income groups in this community. Secondly, I would make the point that a number of other factors have contributed to benefits for less well-off sections of the community which have had some offsetting effect. It is not true to say that the Government has chosen an interest rates policy to the exclusion of doing anything on the fiscal front or on the wages policy front. Both of those things have been done, and they are equally contributing to the problem of trying to adjust the declining terms of trade in the Australian domestic economy to a situation where the effects of that terms of trade decline are borne equally by the community. Senator COATES —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the outrageous action of the Tasmanian Liberal Government and so-called Independent legislative councillors in refusing to fill the Senate casual vacancy with Labor's properly chosen nominee in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Australian Constitution. Is it constitutionally possible for Tasmania to continue without its correct representation in this chamber beyond the short period envisaged in the Constitution? Can the Commonwealth take any action, legal or otherwise, to ensure that Tasmania and the Australian Labor Party are not disadvantaged by Mr Gray's unprincipled behaviour? Senator GARETH EVANS —Unfortunately, as the Attorney-General has pointed out in recent days, the Constitution, as amended in 1977, is not expressly written in such a way as to compel any parliament to choose the endorsed nominee of a particular party as the successor to a departed senator in the case of the casual vacancy. Whether there is some implied obligation to do that, which would give rise at least to some declaratory judgment, is, of course, a complex matter for legal argument if and when this matter should ever come to court. Issues of justiciability, issues of standing and issues of the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution are involved. I do not think it is appropriate for me to speculate here, even if it were within Standing Orders, on what the outcome of any such legal action might be. What is clear is that the Constitution ensures that a government and parliament, behaving in the way that the Gray Government and the Tasmanian Parliament are now doing, cannot impose a choice upon a political party against that party's will because in the Constitution it is quite clear that under those circumstances there is a right to expel someone so nominated who is not the officially endorsed candidate and, as such, that person cannot take his seat and the situation reverts to square one. Under those circumstances we have all the makings, however, of a deadlock, and that is what will prevail in the absence of legal challenge and in the absence of a change of heart in Tasmania at the moment. What is perhaps clearest of all in this, however, is that the situation we have at the moment is one that should never have arisen. Not only is the underlying intention of the constitutional amendment perfectly clear, as it was passed in 1977 and given the circumstances in which it was passed, but on some 13 occasions since then casual vacancies have occurred and there has never been any question but that the officially endorsed nominee of the party in question would take the seat. There have also been numerous occasions within those 13 when a particular government has chosen without any demur at all the nominee of a party in opposition. I refer in particular to the Victorian Liberals accepting Senator Neal; the Dunstan Labor Government in South Australia appointing Senator Haines; the Wran Labor Government appointing Senator Puplick; the Victorian Cain Labor Government appointing Senator Alston; and that same Labor Government appointing Senator Powell. There may well be others that could be added to that list. So the convention is established beyond possible dispute, and that convention was acknowledged in this chamber in the resolution that was passed some weeks ago making absolutely clear our commitment across party lines to the convention that a nominee of the party should be so appointed. There is no doubt but that that position is one that is shared across party lines. Senator Chaney came somewhat belatedly to his acknowledgment of it, but did so; Mr Howard was quite firm and express in his support for this convention and its application to Tasmania right from the outset-- Senator Walsh —Nobody takes any notice of him. Senator GARETH EVANS —Not that anyone appears to have taken any notice of him, as Senator Walsh has said. Even Mr Sinclair has come into the act, describing in the last day or so the act of the Tasmanian Premier and Government as one of stupidity. I believe the situation is one that is more appropriately resolved-at least in the first instance, not least because of the time that would be involved in any full scale legal challenge-in the political arena. One hopes, and we certainly hope, that this is an occasion-a rare occasion-on which Mr Howard will prove to be able to exercise his authority in such a way that those members of his Party in other parts of this country actually take some notice of him. Mr Gray obviously is not prepared to do so at the moment, but it is an occasion for the exercise of authority if Mr Howard is to have any claim to credibility as a leader of any stature whatsoever in this country. It is also an occasion when the Premier of Tasmania should start to exercise some long overdue common sense and some long overdue and perhaps impossible to attain sense of constitutional decency. The situation that has arisen is manifestly intolerable; it cannot be allowed to continue, and I hope that this Senate tomorrow, when Senator Tate's motion comes on, will express a view unanimously as to the outrageousness of the situation that now exists in Tasmania. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Government of Vanuatu given any reasons for its reported intention to cut military links with Australia? Does the Government believe that there is any justification for this action, given that it appears to be based on legitimate expressions of concern by Australia about the increased involvement of the Libyan Government in that country? Will the small number of military personnel involved be withdrawn, and will Australia proceed with its plans to present Vanuatu with a patrol boat next month? Senator GARETH EVANS —We are, of course, aware of reports based on a conversation at the end of last week by a senior Vanuatu official with a senior Australian official about possible changes by Vanuatu to its policy of defence co-operation with Australia. We are still uncertain about the precise extent, the implications and the timing of this proposed policy change, but we do have particular concerns about its possible implications for Royal Australian Navy visits and Royal Australian Air Force landings in Vanuatu, which are, of course, aimed at not only reinforcing bilateral ties but also enhancing regional security and stability. We are aiming to clarify the proposed change with the Vanuatu Government and, as has been mentioned a couple of times, a senior official from the Department of Foreign Affairs will be visiting South Pacific countries, including Vanuatu, for discussions this week, and we certainly hope those discussions will help to remove any possible misunderstandings. In that respect I think it is very important to draw attention to a radio interview that was given earlier today by Father Lini, welcoming the forthcoming visit of the Australian Foreign Affairs official, a Deputy Secretary of that Department, Mr Sadleir. Father Lini, in that interview, also described the relationship with Australia as a mature one. We certainly share that assessment and look forward to an early return to the close, co-operative and very constructive relationship which we have traditionally enjoyed with Vanuatu. Senator COLSTON —Has the Minister for Education seen an article in today's Canberra Times which reports that the Confederation of Australian Industry is calling for a $1,000 tertiary education administration charge for students? Will the Government follow the course of action suggested by the Confederation of Australian Industry? Will the Minister give the reasons for the Government's accepting or rejecting that course? Senator RYAN —I did notice that the Confederation of Australian Industry thought it would be a good thing to cut education funding and to impose a $1,000 administration charge. The Government will not be accepting the recommendation of the CAI in that respect. It is somewhat disappointing, when industry leaders are constantly coming to the Government asking for improvements in the education system, for a higher level of education for all young Australians-not just for a percentage who may go on to universities-and for a higher level of research, particularly industry oriented research, that they should at the same time choose to nominate education as a suitable area for massive cuts or, as in this case, for fairly massive increases in the cost of higher education for the individual. It is certainly not the case that all business leaders do that. I had occasion to say in the Senate recently that I welcomed the education policy put out by the Business Council of Australia which, although it has from time to time called for education cuts, I think has lately taken a more constructive and more realistic approach to the question of education funding. It is simply not the case that education could be dramatically slashed on the one hand, or priced well beyond the affordable limits of most families on the other, without industry as well as individuals being the losers. I hope that the Confederation of Australian Industry will become a more active partner in the industry-education links which the Government has set up very successfully, and come to a more realistic understanding that, if they are to have improved skills in the work force, an improved level of managerial talent, improved entrepreneurship, better research and better opportunities for development arising out of research, Budget slashing is no way to achieve that. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Does the Minister recall receiving a copy of an open letter to the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand arguing in favour of seeking a ruling from the International Court of Justice concerning the legality or otherwise of nuclear weaponry? Does the Minister agree that the opinions of the eminent jurists contained in this document put a forceful case in favour of the Australian Government's supporting this step? As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have also been in possession of this document for some weeks now, is the Minister in a position to indicate whether the Government intends to respond positively to this initiative? If it is not yet ready to respond, when will it be ready to do so? Senator GARETH EVANS —I presume the honourable senator asked me that question in my capacity as Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs or as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, rather than as the Minister for Resources and Energy, but never mind. Senator Haines —Pick a portfolio, Senator. It does not matter. Just answer the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do recall getting the letter in question, just as I hope Senator Haines will recall my sending a very charming acknowledgment of it on 8 April, which was only four weeks ago. The situation is that the issues involved in getting the ICJ to make the kind of declaratory judgment involved are very complex and weighty. Whether it is practical, practicable or effective to pursue the issue through the ICJ, given the essential stumbling block-which has been, hitherto, the attitudes of the super-powers themselves-is certainly an open question. We welcome constructive efforts at this time to contribute to the debate and to think of new ways in which it can be advanced. Certainly, we will leave no stone unturned in the future, as we have in the past, in the pursuit of our disarmament objectives. All I can say is that the letter is receiving active consideration, I think within the Department of Foreign Affairs. I will be happy to let Senator Haines and the rest of the Senate know as soon as we have reached some considered conclusion. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to Press reports that the President of Austria, Kurt Waldheim, in the near future will not be able to visit the United States of America because of alleged nazi activities? In light of this report, what would Australia's attitude be to any proposed visit by Waldheim? What information is held by the Australian Government in relation to Waldheim's previous activities? Senator GARETH EVANS —We are aware of allegations involving President Waldheim's activities during the Second World War, and the Government appreciates the seriousness of those allegations. Reports about the alleged atrocities attributed to President Waldheim have been received, but the Australian Government is not in a position to comment on the veracity of those reports. To date, there have been no indications from the Austrian authorities that President Waldheim wishes to visit Australia and, since such a proposal has not arisen, the Government has not given consideration to the matter. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the Government resumed spy flights over Tasmania as part of its dispute with the Government of that State over logging operations? If so, how many such flights have been conducted, how many more are planned, and what Commonwealth Government personnel have been involved in them? Is it the Government's intention to use only civil aircraft, in contrast to the Minister's use of Royal Australian Air Force F111s during the Franklin dam controversy; and, if so, how much are these spy flights costing the Australian taxpayer? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware of there being any substance whatsoever to the implied questions underlying Senator Walters's question, but I will seek information from my successor, Flight Lieutenant Bowen, and see whether he has any further comment. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister be able to give me that information today? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am just advised by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, via a bit of paper of uncertain origin that was shoved into my hand a moment ago, that the Commonwealth has engaged in some aerial observation in order to advance its understanding of what is happening in the area which is the subject of the inquiry under the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act, given the Tasmanian prohibition on Commonwealth access to land in those critical areas. Without this, the Commonwealth would not be taking a responsible approach to its obligations. Unlike the Tasmanian Government, the Commonwealth Government will uphold the law. I am also advised that such aerial observation or photography has not involved the use of RAAF planes at any stage. Senator Walters —Mr President, will the Minister table the document from which he is reading? The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator Gareth Evans —No. Senator Peter Baume —On a point of order, Mr President. Is not the Minister required to table the document, unless it is confidential? The PRESIDENT —Senator Evans, do you claim that the document is confidential? Senator Gareth Evans —I do not know whether or not the document is confidential because I had not had a chance to look at it until the last 30 seconds. On the basis of my uncertainty about its status, I claim confidentiality and refuse to table it. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the management and investment companies program set up by the Government three years ago to stimulate a venture capital market in Australia and investment in the growth of innovative businesses. Can the Minister report on the success of the program in encouraging the success of young, export-oriented firms? Senator BUTTON —The management and investment companies scheme was set up to try to encourage a venture capital market in Australia to help small, particularly high technology, firms. Just over a week ago I announced that the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board had passed two milestones in its history. First of all, $100m has now been invested in such firms and committed to over 100 Australian businesses. Since the scheme has been running, the 11 management and investment companies have invested and firmly committed $102m, and in total 104 businesses have received MIC funds as well as the vital management support in such areas as marketing, production, financial control and quality control which is necessary for successful businesses. The Board was set up by the Government to promote the establishment of a private sector venture capital market in Australia, and to encourage the provision of management skills and equity finance by young innovative export companies in fast growing businesses. Photo Advertising International Ltd, makers of advertising display panels, became the one-hundredth business to receive MIC support. That company has won Australian industrial design awards and holds patents for the product in 26 countries. The Bureau of Industry Economics is currently reviewing the venture capital market in Australia and the management and investment companies program. A review will assess the extent to which the venture capital market in Australia has developed since the introduction of the MIC program and the role of the program in addressing any deficiencies in that market. That review is to be completed by July of this year. I say for the benefit of honourable senators that from time to time the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board provides, as it were, a seminar session in various cities on the management and investment companies which have been financed by the Board and which, in turn, finance other companies in the high technology area. As far as I can see, the seminars have been well attended, and what the Board has done has been very impressive. Senator BOSWELL —Does the Minister for Resources and Energy agree with the final statement of a background paper presented by the Department of Trade to a Caucus committee, namely, that a national coal marketing authority would inhibit structural changes within the industry, thus militating against the continuation of an efficient and internationally competitive industry and that, in the long term, such an authority must be expected to lead to diminishing international market shares? Will the Minister assure the Senate that his Government will not follow the recommendations of the Caucus coal committee to Cabinet reported in the Australian Financial Review on 22 April to appease the coal mining unions by establishing such an authority? Senator GARETH EVANS —It would be premature to anticipate what the final report of the Caucus committee would be, which is not, to my knowledge, yet complete. It would be equally premature to indicate a reaction of the Government to that. What I can say is what I have said on numerous occasions to both industry and coal trade union gatherings and meetings, and that is that I do not believe-I do not think the Government believes-that the concept of a national coal marketing authority is one that is sustainable. A combination of constitutional problems are associated with the inability of the Commonwealth to legislate for such an authority in the absence of State co-operation which, one assumes, would not be forthcoming from the honourable senator's State. There are practical problems, given that the commodity is not a single one but involves 40 or 50 different grades of coal, or more than that depending on how one chooses to describe the various combinations of characteristics, and is sold to some 40 or 50 different countries. It is not a commodity that is, in essence, a single commodity such as wheat which lends itself to compulsory acquisition marketing-type arrangements. There are all sorts of other difficulties internationally associated with an attempt by the Government to do all the marketing of this commodity. A number of other points could be made, but I think it is premature, as I have said, to put any final or conclusive statement on the record at this stage. However, that is not to say that there might not be a case to be made for bringing together, under the head of a single banner, a number of the different functions that are presently performed by the Commonwealth in various departments and various statutory authorities that bear upon the coal industry. That is a live issue as far as the Government is concerned. But, I repeat, it is not one on which we have any concluded view. The whole position of the Government on export controls so far as the coal industry is concerned has been spelt out in recent times. The realities of the international market-place are such at the moment that it is not susceptible to detailed regulation of the kind that might be regarded by some people as theoretically ideal. The reality is that it is a very fluid and very open trading environment. The crucial thing, as with all consideration of regulatory activity, is that the Government's actions should be directed towards engaging in regulatory activity of any form only when the benefits manifestly outweigh the costs. It is not true of the marketing side of the exercise, but as for other statutory functions and other relevant functions the question is still very much an open one, so far as we are concerned. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication `State Estimates of Private New Capital Expenditure: December Quarter 1986 Survey' which was released on Friday, 8 May? Can the Minister elaborate on the information those statistics provide on the State by State pattern of growth in business investment spending during the current financial year? Are the figures for Queensland such that the Commonwealth Government will be seeking to emulate the policies of the Petersen regime for encouraging private enterprise business investment spending? Senator WALSH —I have seen the ABS bulletin. The survey reported in it was carried out in January and February of this year. Data were gathered on how much investment spending private businesses had carried out in the first half of 1986-87 and how much they expected to carry out in the second half of 1986-87-that is, the current half year. Using information from previous surveys on the average extent to which second half year expectations investments were, in fact, realised, the Bureau has produced a table of statistics which is printed at page 1 of the release. It shows on a State by State basis growth in business investment spending from 1985-86 to 1986-87 to be 15 per cent Australia-wide. That is in nominal terms, so in real terms it is something like half of that. On a State by State basis, again in nominal terms, Victoria showed a 25 per cent increase in business capital investment, Western Australia 23 per cent, New South Wales 18 per cent, South Australia 6 per cent, which regrettably is in real terms a small decline, Tasmania 4 per cent, and Queensland 2 per cent. So obviously in the case of Queensland that is a very significant real decline in private capital investment. Queensland is going backwards at a not insubstantial pace. The Petersen regime's policies for encouraging private enterprise business investment consist of three things: A lot of hot air, usually pretty incoherent; special deals for cronies and mates, at least those who are not yet in jail; and hidden taxes and little-publicised regulations on business activity. The Hawke Government will certainly not be following those policies. Senator TOWNLEY —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to today's report in the Sydney Morning Herald that Mr Michael Mansell, who we all know is the legal adviser to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, is planning to travel to Aboriginal communities throughout Australia during this week to tell them about his recent trip to Libya, during which he discussed the possibility of Libyan funding for Aboriginal organisations. Is the Aboriginal Centre, an organisation which, of course, receives funds from the Australian taxpayer, or any other Commonwealth taxpayer funded source wholly or partly financing Mr Mansell's trip around Australia? If so, will the Minister immediately direct that Centre or any other body involved that it should not support such an exercise and give the Senate a guarantee that no public funds will be used to finance Mr Mansell's trip? Senator RYAN —I do not have information from Mr Holding specifically on the matter raised by Senator Townley; that is, the report of the proposed visit by Mr Mansell to Aboriginal communities on the mainland. But I remind Senator Townley that at the time Mr Mansell returned from Libya and spoke in terms of possible Libyan funding for Aboriginal organisations Mr Holding made it very clear-unambiguously clear-that any Aboriginal individual or organisation in receipt of such funds, that is, funds from Libya, would immediately lose all Commonwealth funding. That position remains as clear as it was then. I will ask Mr Holding for particular comment on the matter raised by Senator Townley. Senator TOWNLEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs put into action any method by which money coming from Libya could be detected? Senator RYAN —I will have to refer that matter to Mr Holding. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister for Education able to give any details on the establishment and function of the new Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific? Can the Minister say what States have access to the kinds of services which the Institute is planning to provide? Senator RYAN —The Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific was given some publicity last week. I understand that the Institute was launched yesterday by the Chancellor of the University of Sydney, Sir Hermann Black. Funding and staff for the Institute will be provided by the University of Sydney out of the $146m provided by the Commonwealth in recurrent grants to the university for 1987. The initiative came from the Centre for Asian Studies at the university. The new Institute will provide businesses, governments and academics with a vastly increased range of informational resources than is currently available. It will facilitate the exchange of information and personnel, as well as collaborative research. It will bring together business, government and academic interests in an ongoing program of short courses, public lectures and specialist symposia to facilitate business within the region. It will involve the general public and those with special Asian interests in a program of seminars, talks and lectures. I commend the Centre for Asian Studies and the University of Sydney for this initiative, which will place us in a much better position to meet the challenges and opportunities facing Australia as an integral part of the rapidly developing Asian and Pacific region. In conclusion, Senator Elstob asked what access States or State bodies would have to the Institute. I presume that, as is the case with universities generally, the seminars, workshops, symposia and so on that it intends holding will be open to State participation or representatives of State governments as well. Of course, I know that South Australia, the State Senator Elstob is from, has shown a particular interest in forging some economic and trading relationships in the region. I hope that the Institute will facilitate the efforts of South Australia as well as other States of the Commonwealth. Senator MESSNER —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence noted the reports in today's Press and the reports over the weekend concerning recent initiatives by the West German Government in seeking to clarify and correct a number of apparently false allegations concerning the West German consortium's tender submission to the Government for the contract to construct Australia's six new submarines? Can the Minister explain what the Government proposes to do in respect of these official West German representations which have raised some serious doubts about the Royal Australian Navy's evaluation procedures in assessing the relative merits of all the tender proposals? Do these representations indicate that there have been serious deficiencies and flaws in the Government's overall tender review process and is the Minister proposing to defer the Government's decision on the successful tenderer in light of these new developments? Senator GARETH EVANS —One would have had to be blind not to notice a lot of frantic, last minute lobbying going on in a whole variety of contexts, not least the nation's media, in the last few days. Whether that lobbying, which has been reflected in the publicity which has been obtained and to which Senator Messner referred, reflects any matters for genuine concern or, rather, the last minute anguish of one of the parties to a highly valuable commercial tender, is essentially a matter for the judgment of the Minister for Defence in the first instance and, ultimately, the Cabinet. I will not pre-empt either of those processes, which are in their last stages at the moment. Nor do I want to pre-empt indications by the Minister for Defence as to when it is expected that a decision finally will be made. My belief is that it is just a matter of days. Senator Messner and everybody else will have to curb their racing hormones until we make that decision. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to recent questions answered by the Minister in relation to the National Farmers Federation Press release headed `Farmers Identify $11 billion Budget Cuts' and to Press reports in last Thursday's Age newspaper reporting accusations by the President of the NFF, Mr Ian McLachlan, that the Government is orchestrating a campaign of misinformation against the National Farmers Federation's policies. Has the Minister received any correspondence from Mr McLachlan taking issue with any aspect of his comments in relation to the NFF's economic policies? Senator WALSH —I have not received any correspondence from Mr McLachlan, nor do I expect to receive any. The plain fact is that Mr McLachlan is furiously peddling lies and nonsense around the country; therefore, when he has them corrected I do not expect him to indulge in correspondence with the people who have corrected him. Mr McLachlan's reference to misinformation, as reported in the Weekend Australian the weekend before last, is Orwellian-it is straight out of George Orwell-because, as I said before, he has been peddling lies and misinformation around the country for the last few months as, indeed, has the National Farmers Federation in general. Mr McLachlan continues to assert, and I notice that the National Party is now echoing him, that if all excise on refined petroleum product were abolished, the consumer price index would fall by nearly 6 per cent. In fact, the CPI would fall directly by a bit over 2 per cent and over a long period of time, probably many years, it might fall by as much as 4 1/2 per cent. The offset to the revenue loss of $5.6 billion proposed by the National Farmers Federation is to end government funding of health services-an almost total withdrawal by the Government from the funding of health services. The effect of that would be to push the CPI up straightaway by 6 per cent. In other words, there would be an immediate addition of 6 per cent to the consumer price index and, according to the National Farmers Federation's line of reasoning, an immediate increase of 6 per cent in nominal interest rates. I notice that the Liberal Party is starting to echo that line insofar as it is giving any indication at all of the policies it intends to follow. So the net effect of this brilliant NFF strategy would be to add 4 per cent to the consumer price index in the short term and, in the long term, at least 1 1/2 per cent-and possibly a good deal more-if the higher initial CPI got locked into wages. It is typical of the NFF to advocate this sort of policy. Prior to this latest and most brilliant economic strategy the NFF has been among the most vociferous opponents of capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax and abolishing the free lunch-measures which have almost no impact on the people the NFF purports to represent, but which would of course have a huge impact on Commonwealth revenue. There would be a loss of around $700m if the fringe benefits tax alone were abolished and another $300m or $400m lost if free lunches were brought back in. On present indications, as the Treasurer said yesterday, or perhaps it was Saturday, something over $100m would be gained in the first year of the capital gains tax. In that figure, the Treasurer probably was including increased receipts under section 25 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act and under section 26aaa, with those increased receipts being attributable to the introduction of a capital gains tax. Just to polish off the betrayal of the people the NFF purports to represent on tax matters, it is now furiously searching for some excuse to support flat tax at a rate of 25 per cent a la Petersen. The NFF says it is conducting research on the matter. There is no need to conduct research on the matter. All that is needed is a copy of the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation and about five minutes to examine it to realise that the effect of that tax change on the people the National Farmers Federation and McLachlan purport to represent would be that 80 per cent of them would pay more tax than they do now. Senator SHORT —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence follows a question asked by Senator Messner. I refer the Minister to a response by Senator Button to a question from Senator MacGibbon on 1 May in which Senator Button said: At this stage the Government has not addressed the costings and so on of the submarine project in detail as a government. Is the Minister aware of reports that the total submarine project cost has ballooned since 1985 from $2.6 billion to, according to reports, up to $5.6 billion, only part of which can be accounted for by the exchange rate and other factors? My questions to the Minister are: First, has the Government yet addressed the costings in detail? Secondly, what steps does it propose to take to ensure that the blowout of the dimensions now being talked about do not in fact occur? Thirdly, will the Minister assure the Senate that no decision on the submarine project will be taken without full consideration of its impact on the Government's total expenditure program and on the overall viability of the defence forces? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can certainly give Senator Short the third assurance that he seeks-that is exactly the context in which the Government will be evaluating the submarine proposal when it finally comes forward. I can also say that we are extremely conscious of the costing issue involved here, as with any major defence procurement program. Beyond that, I do not think it is appropriate for me at this stage to add anything further to what I said in reply to Senator Messner. It is simply premature. An announcement will be made, I hope quite soon, by the Minister for Defence. Senator MAGUIRE —Did the Leader of the Government in the Senate see the article by the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 May which examined the corporate tax system in Australia and compared it with those in other developed countries? If so, does the Minister accept the conclusions of the article that claims by some business groups about high corporate tax rates in Australia are thoroughly wrong? Is it possible also that some of the taxation levied on the corporate sector in Australia is not ultimately borne by that sector but is shifted to consumers? Senator BUTTON —This matter has been the subject of earlier questions in the Senate. I recall that Senator Lewis asked me a question about this and I gave him a written answer. I have seen the article by Ross Gittins, the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. In fact, it is one of the few sensible and rational articles to address the level of corporate taxation in Australia and our comparative position with other developed countries. Senator Chaney —You agree with it, do you mean? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney asked by way of interjection whether I agree with it. I would not go that far. However, I would say that I have some sympathy with it because it is a thoughtful piece of work. It is one which has a degree of intellectual rigur about it-something which is not present in the Opposition or in any of its questions. I say that because the article looks at the entire range of corporate tax and taxation concessions and draws the conclusion: When you take account of all these factors, Australia's effective level of company tax is quite comparable with those in other OECD countries-which is hardly surprising, when you think about it, since the public sectors they have to finance are roughly the same size as ours, if not bigger. Unlike these countries, Australia has decided to retain its special taxation concessions for the corporate sector such as the `5/3' accelerated depreciation allowance and the 150 per cent deduction for research and development. Compared with other countries, Australia's tax regime is now highly favourable for investment in industries that are capital intensive and spend large amounts on research and development. The importance of that is to redress some very clear structural imbalances which developed in Australia over the period of the 1970s, particularly in relation to such matters as research and development. Although Australia's company tax rate was increased by 3 per cent to help pay for imputation, which will be introduced from 1 July 1987, the benefits from that, the Government believes, are very considerable. Australia is the first country to offer full imputation, which will relieve the double taxation on dividend income. If I can give some figures, the fact is that the abolition of double taxation of dividends leads to a reduction in the highest level of tax payable by a company from 78 per cent to 49 per cent. This will make Australia more attractive to foreign investors by freeing franked dividends from the 15 per cent dividend withholding tax applying to income repatriated overseas. Senator Watson —It is not paid by companies. You are misleading the Senate. Senator BUTTON —If only the honourable senator could hear himself; he sounds like an oversexed cicada. I cannot answer this question seriously with all that squawking going on. Other corporate taxes being abolished are the Division 7 tax on retained earnings and the branch profits tax. The abolition of the Division 7 tax will have particular benefits for small business. The reduction of the company tax to levels of 40 per cent or below would require the introduction of a consumption tax, which would be irresponsible at a time when inflation is a concern to the Government. The Government has indicated its position about that on a number of occasions. Senator VIGOR —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Has the Minister received a letter from the Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation expressing concern about exclusive arrangements for the broadcast of sporting events, in contravention of the Government's video and audio entertainment and information services guidelines? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the guidelines are not flouted and that complaints about breaches are thoroughly investigated in open public forums? Will the Minister set in train the first steps towards a unified broadcasting Act which acknowledges technological convergence and which provides an accessible and open means of resolving complaints about all broadcasting or radiocommunications matters? Senator WALSH —At some time just after midday, I think it was, Senator Vigor told my office that he intended to ask a question about this. By the time I entered the chamber for Question Time I had not received an answer from Mr Duffy. I will see whether I can get one as soon as possible. Senator BOLKUS —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Attorney-General been drawn to the February 1987 edition of Overseas Trading, a journal now published by the Bell Publishing Group of St George's Terrace, Perth, Western Australia, and particularly page 70 of that journal where an advertisement has been placed seeking recruits for the Central Intelligence Agency? Does Australian law prevent foreign security organisations from advertising for recruits in Australia and actively operating in Australia? If so, what action will the Attorney-General take to stop the CIA recruiting in Australia? If not, will the Government consider amending the law to prevent foreign organisations from actively pursuing their security interests in this country? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the advertisement in question, complete with its tag line that the CIA is an equal opportunity employer. As to the substance of the question, there is no prohibition in Australian law which prevents foreign security organisations from advertising for recruits in Australia. The Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 prohibits the recruiting of mercenaries and recruiting persons to serve with an armed force of a foreign country. No law specifically prevents foreign security organisations from actively operating in Australia. However, any actions undertaken by members of such organisations are subject to ordinary Australian law, including those laws relating, among other things, to the protection of information. Accordingly, the question as to whether the Attorney-General will take any action to stop the CIA thus recruiting does not arise. As to the final question-will the Government consider amending the law to prevent foreign organisations from actively pursuing their security interests?-the Attorney-General's response is this: Actions contrary to the public interest are prohibited by the general law applying to all persons in Australia. If the activities of foreign security organisations constitute acts of foreign interference, as defined in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, it is within ASIO's functions to investigate and keep the Government informed. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In view of the statement in the Canberra Times that the Germans have tendered a fixed price of a staggering $120m for weapons systems integration and sea trials, against an estimate only of $35m from the Swedes, what credibility can be placed in the financial estimates coming from the two tenderers? Why is it necessary for Australia to underwrite the cost of sea trials and weapons systems integration when the contract called for the boat selected to be a proven design in service with the navy of the designer's country so that these on-costs could be avoided and also bearing in mind that Australia made the extraordinary move of spending $32m on the project definition study to avoid these costs? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator MacGibbon and, I hope, other honourable senators opposite will appreciate that it is simply inappropriate for me on behalf of the Minister, or the Minister himself, to comment publicly at this stage on any aspect of the tendering process. There are many claims and counterclaims being made at the moment in the atmosphere that I previously described. It simply should not be assumed from the Government's failure to respond specifically on any of these matters at this stage either that there is any substance in the allegations that have been made or that the Government will not respond to all of these matters at the appropriate time. To the extent that there is any substantive point of significance that has been raised in the increasingly public debate on this issue, of course, these are matters that will be addressed by the Government in making its decision, and of course they are matters on which I and the Minister himself can properly expect to be questioned after the event. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. How does the Government assess recent reports of a serious escalation of violence in the communal situation in Sri Lanka? What steps has the Government taken to urge upon all parties the need for a peaceful solution to the present conflict? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is very deeply disturbed by the recent escalation in communal violence-I might say criminal as well in some instances-in Sri Lanka. The bombing of a bus stop in central Colombo which claimed the lives of over 100 innocent people and critically injured many more is abhorred by all civilised people. Such an act can never be justified by the political end it is calculated to achieve. We are concerned, too, by reports that a large number of civilians have been killed in the Government's offensive against militant strongholds in the Jaffna Peninsula. The Australian Government strongly urges both the Sri Lankan Government and representatives of the Tamil militants to exercise restraint in their approach to resolving the communal situation in order to put an end to the cycle of violence. We reiterate our support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka. Australia firmly supports efforts involving India to renew negotiation between the Sri Lankan Government and Tamil representatives. Discussions between President Jayewardene and Prime Minister Gandhi at Bangalore in November 1986 seem to have generated a package of proposals which could form the basis of serious negotiation. We have made clear to the Sri Lankan Government, at the highest levels and on many occasions, the need to find an early political solution to the communal conflict. We will continue to take every opportunity-bilaterally and in the United Nations-to underline our abhorrence of the use of violence for political ends, and our concern that human rights be respected. I say finally that the Department of Foreign Affairs is closely monitoring the security situation in Colombo and has advised intending travellers to consider deferring travel to Sri Lanka for the time being unless absolutely necessary. Senator WATSON —Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister assure the Senate that the refurbishment of the Prime Minister's Sydney suite of offices is an exercise in financial prudence, and can the Minister advise the Senate of the estimated costs of the fitting out and installation of the facilities of those Sydney offices of Mr Hawke? Senator BUTTON —I know nothing about that issue. Senator Watson —Nothing? Senator BUTTON —Nothing. I shall make some inquiries and provide the honourable senator with an answer as soon as possible. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to a proposition contained in the volume on spending and taxation reform options for Australia released last week by the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. In that document it is stated: . . . in 1984-85 some $6 billion in interest and dividends were declared to the Australian Taxation Officer, far less than estimates by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of interest and dividends received by households of some $14.8 billion. But with only one in 150 non-wage and salary tax returns being audited, it is little wonder that over 80 per cent of personal income tax is collected from PAYE wage and salary earners. Can the Minister shed any light on the apparent discrepancy implied in the passage between the amount of interest and dividends received by householders-some $14.8 billion-and the amount of interest and dividends declared to the Australian Taxation Office, being $6 billion. Senator WALSH —I was a little surprised to hear the honourable senator refer to a hoary, old and misleading figure, which is usually trotted out by the Party that believes that fairies inhabit the bottom of the garden. It fails to take into account a number of quite legitimate factors. The figure in the book appears to have been derived by subtracting interest declared to the Commissioner of Taxation from interest payments recorded in the national accounts, with the conclusion that income tax is being evaded on the difference between the two. That simplistic conclusion fails to take account, firstly, of the fact that a great deal of interest is received by tax exempt individuals-that is, by people who do not have a taxable income-and that interest is also received, in large amounts, by tax exempt institutions such as charitable funds. It is also possible, it would seem, that the errors in that book are further compounded by having closed off the measurement of interest declared on tax returns before all the tax returns for the relevant year had been received. But that would be a minor factor compared with the other two. The chapter of the book is, I understand, acknowledged to be the work of three professors of economics-Walsh, Freebairn and Porter. If a third year student were to submit in an examination an answer so lacking in intellectual rigour and knowledge as the conclusions put forward by those three professors in that chapter, that student would be failed-or, if he were not failed, he certainly ought to be failed. If this chapter displays the standard of the teachers of economics in some universities, one must despair about the achievement of their students. The PRESIDENT —Order! I wish to advise the Senate that, at a meeting on 28 April 1987, the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings passed a resolution to transfer the parliamentary broadcast from the Senate to the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 13 May. This is to be offset by a transfer of the broadcast from the House of Representatives to the Senate on Tuesday, 12 May. Accordingly, the Senate will be broadcast today and tomorrow, and the House of Representatives on Wednesday and Thursday. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator TATE —This is the first opportunity for me to make a personal explanation in relation to a misrepresentation of my position in relation to the present constitutional crisis in Tasmania. In an article headed `I asked Governor to step in: Tate' by Bruce Montgomery and Mike Secombe in today's Australian, it is stated: The Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, last night disclosed that he had asked the Governor of Tasmania, Sir James Plimsoll, on Friday to approach the Premier, Mr Gray, to reconsider the nomination of Mr John Devereux for the State's casual Senate vacancy. At no stage did I approach the Governor of Tasmania in order to have him intervene in this constitutional crisis. I did, I think a week or so ago, indicate in the Tasmanian media that I thought, as a last resort, the office of Governor may become involved insofar as you, Mr President, had written to the Governor asking him to make arrangements with the Presiding Officers of the Houses of the Tasmanian Parliament to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of our former colleague, Dr Don Grimes. But at no stage did I make any approach whatsoever to the Governor of Tasmania either in writing or verbally. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Powell proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Hawke Government to resist the push of the New Right by forcing those Australians who are in greatest need to bear the brunt of its stringent economic measures while allowing the continuing accumulation of wealth by a small number of top income earners. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.21) —I propose to the Senate today this matter of public importance-the failure of the Hawke Government to resist the push of the New Right by forcing those Australians who are in greatest need to bear the brunt of its stringent economic policies while allowing the continuing accumulation of wealth by a small number of top income earners-because the evidence is clear. A new study by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research has estimated a significant overall rise in poverty in Australia between 1981-82 and 1985-86. Using the Henderson poverty line as its base, the Institute found that poverty increased, after taking account of housing costs, from 11.5 to 12.4 per cent of all income units in that period. This means that an extra 100,000 families and single income earners have slipped below the poverty line since 1981-82. More than 650,000 households are now living in poverty, compared with just over 550,000 in 1981-82. The poverty line has crept up on the average worker, jumping 46 per cent, while average weekly full time male earnings have increased by only 37 per cent. Social security benefits increased by between 40 and 46 per cent over the same period. The poverty line itself ranged from a low of $114.80 a week after tax for a single unemployed person to a high of $379 for a couple with five children where the head of the family works. The poverty line, we should remember, marks reasonable costs of living, including housing, gas, electricity and food. Hardest hit by the poverty trap in this study were single parent families, but an increasing proportion of families with several children are sliding below the poverty line. We should also remember that the total number of children living in poverty has rocketed to around the 800,000 mark. The big losers over this period were families with four or more dependent children, with the number below the poverty line jumping from 27.1 to 31 per cent after housing costs were taken into consideration. The publication of this report received widespread media coverage, for which I believe the media deserve commendation since it is certainly important that the Australian public be aware of the facts in this matter. Senator Michael Baume —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I note that under standing order 64 the proposed discussion must be supported by at least four other senators. I note that not one other senator from the Australian Democrats is in the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! There is no point of order. Four senators stood in their places when the President put the question. Senator POWELL —As I suggested, it is important that the Australian public be aware of the facts, and this matter of public importance is part of that process. A case in point was reported in the Melbourne Herald on April 24, and I seek leave to incorporate a table showing a detailed breakdown of some of the findings of the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research that formed part of that Herald coverage. Leave granted. The table read as follows- THE POVERTY CRISIS Per cent of households below the poverty line after housing costs 1981-82 1985-86 4.6m households 5.5m households All households... 11.5 12.4 Married couples, no dependents: head aged less than 65... 4.3 4.5 head aged 65 or over... 4.4 4.2 Married couples: 1 dependent... 7.8 8.3 2 dependents... 9.7 10.7 3 dependents... 12.6 14.3 4 or more dependents... 27.1 31.0 Single parent households... 45.6 43.5 Single income earners: aged 15-24... 22.7 25.8 aged 25-64... 13.8 15.2 aged 65 or over... 5.8 5.6 Heads of household aged: aged more than 25... 20.8 23.2 aged 25-44... 12.7 13.5 aged 45-64... 11.1 12.6 aged 65 or over... 5.5 6.3 THE POVERTY LINE IN AUSTRALIA, AFTER TAX AND TAKING ALL COSTS INTO ACCOUNT (OR WHAT YOU NEED TO EARN TO PAY ALL YOUR BILLS) Head working Head unemployed $ $ Couple... 189.50 162.70 Couple and one child... 227.80 201.00 Couple and 2 children... 266.10 239.30 Couple and 3 children... 304.30 227.50 Couple and 4 children... 342.60 315.80 Couple and 5 children... 379.00 352.00 Single person... 141.60 114.80 Single parent and one child... 181.80 155.00 Single parent and 2 children... 220.10 193.30 Single parent and 3 children... 258.40 231.60 Single parent and 4 children... 296.70 269.90 Senator POWELL —I thank the Senate. It should be noted that for several household categories in this study poverty rose at above the average rate. For families with two or more children, the rise was in excess of 10 per cent. Single people aged 15 to 24 years and 25 to 64 years recorded rises of 13.8 and 17 per cent. Married couples with no dependants, whose head was aged under 65, recorded a rise of 11.6 per cent. In all, two million people live below the poverty line. What about at the other end of the scale? We already know that one-tenth of Australians own 60 per cent of the wealth in Australia. The social issues magazine-Australian Society-in its May 1987 edition, revealed new figures which have come from work by John Piggot of the University of Sydney and which will be published in the June 1987 edition of the Economic Record. The figures show that there are now over 30,000 millionaires in Australia. The new study points out that exclusion from earlier studies of fixed assets and inventories of unincorporated businesses, including rural land, has led in the past to an underestimation of the total wealth of Australians. Piggot's figures show that total wealth is now at close to $1,000 billion, almost 50 per cent higher than in previous estimates. It is most disturbing to note that his figures also show that at June 1985, 13.68 per cent of Australia was overseas owned. Even leaving aside the new figures and using data from Ross Williams of the Australian National University, Phil Raskell presents a clear picture in the Australian Society article of the change in wealth holdings over the past year. In summary, the top one per cent-some 90,000 Australians-have increased their wealth from $1.5m to $1.83m. Recently the Business Review Weekly in its annual wealth report showed that the very rich were doing extremely well and suggested that there are an extra 16 centi-millionaires and 56 people with net estimated wealth of over $50m in Australia. Further analysis by Phil Raskell leads to the conclusion that over the last year the number of millionaires has increased by over 3,000 to 28,000-a figure which would be even higher, almost 32,000, if the new Piggot data were used. Clearly, there are sharp extremes of rich and poor, as the Australian Society magazine continues to point out, and the gap increases. This must be a matter of great concern. Just this weekend a caution was issued by Bishop Peter Hollingworth of the Brotherhood of St Laurence. The Times on Sunday of 10 May stated: ``There are two million people now living below the poverty line, 850,000 of them children,'' he said. ``It is very dangerous. If the gap continues to widen between the exceptionally rich and the very poor, you create a lot of stresses. ``I am not saying that we're going to have revolution, like in the Philippines, but you will find growing numbers of young people going around slashing, ripping up train seats, a life where it's unsafe to go on public transport. You could describe that as the blind lashing out.'' The Bishop said: If the Treasury savages welfare in its mini-budget, not only would the Labor Party lose its credibility, but the poor could not take it any more. I am inclined to ask: What credibility? Clearly from the evidence before us, the Hawke Government's economic policies are hitting hardest at those who are least able to cope. What are these policies and what is the motivation? After the rhetoric of the Fraser years about deregulation it was only when we found ourselves with the Hawke Labor Government and its ultra-conservative Treasurer, Mr Keating, that we actually saw financial deregulation, the delivery of Australia's economy into the hands of the international money profiteers, financiers and major Australian corporate entities. Now the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, looks almost a benevolent figure before the current crop of New Right advocates from Sir Joh, to John Howard, Andrew Hay, John Elliott, Ian McLachlan, Peter Boyle et al with their strident calls for cuts in the coming mini-Budget of anything from some $4 billion to $11 billion. As it was with those economic policies espoused by the Fraser Government, so it is with what the New Right push advocates today. What it advocates today, the Hawke Government seems to implement tomorrow. I suppose the Opposition conservatives are looking on with some admiration, if not envy, as they rip themselves apart trying to outdo the Hawke conservatives and, of course, they cheerfully vote with them as often as not. In the last Budget session they voted with the Hawke Government in over 40 per cent of divisions. We remember the Budget session in 1986 in which both the Hawke Government and the Opposition parties combined to impose taxation on juice and milk products-basic necessities of life. They also combined to delay welfare legislation in the form of indexation of payments and the implementation of property traps legislation which was designed to assist those people least able to assist themselves. They introduced legislation to impose fees for tertiary education. They cut various multicultural and foreign aid programs, and on goes the list. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the last two or three weeks in particular but certainly in the whole time since the last Budget session there has been increasing trepidation among people in the community who represent the poor, the weak and the disenfranchised, in particular with the focus on the mini-Budget coming up this Wednesday. Those people, who have been virtually haunting the corridors of this place in recent weeks, and the Australian Democrats recognise the economic problems of this nation, and no one is proposing irresponsible economic measures. We are all calling for the Government to look towards alternative means to raise revenue as opposed to looking merely at spending cuts as a means of achieving some sort of reduction in the deficit. Honourable senators interjecting- Senator POWELL —I am not surprised that honourable senators from both my left and my right do not really want this particular point to be made and therefore have chosen to call out to each other across the chamber. There are numerous voices in the community which support the sorts of calls that the Australian Democrats have been making for the Government to take action on some of the greatest tax rorts which exist in the system, that system which the Government seems determined to support, that system which involves people speculating against out economic position, those people who have been and continue to be in large measure responsible for the enormous overseas indebtedness we have and who continue to profit from that process particularly through the exercise of negative gearing on company takeovers and in particular where the funding for those takeovers comes from international borrowing. The transfer pricing process which is available to the multinational corporations is another area which desperately needs to be looked at and which, along with abolition of this type of negative gearing, could provide the Government with increased revenue and more stability in our international trade situation. There is a great deal of speculation against our currency, which currency has been floated and deregulated by courtesy of the Hawke Labor Government. In the last couple of weeks this kind of action has been sought by the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Metropolitan Municipal Association of Victoria to name just two. The Government refuses to act in these matters. It seems quite determined not to displease the international money markets. After the Budget in August last year we noted the calls for comment in the media. Had it been a responsible Budget? Would it be a Budget to get Australia back on the track? Those comments seemed to be largely from the international corporate sector. Something must be done about the corporate sector as well as the tax mix. It is worth noting that, following the last Budget, company tax receipts have continued to be around 10 per cent of total tax revenue. By contrast, 10 years ago company tax provided approximately 20 per cent of total tax revenue. It is notable that the revenue obtained last year from company tax fell more than $350m below the Government's predictions. It is in this area that the Government also needs to pay some attention. People who have been stridently pushing for further policies in this direction are seeing from the 1986 figures that, in their corporate forms, they have not made major contributions. The John Elliott company pays 10.35 per cent tax, the Bond Corporation 13.9 per cent, which looks fairly high when put up against Industrial Equity Ltd, whose tax payment was 4.66 per cent. There is obvious injustice in this when we compare it with the tax paid by people on pensions and benefits, who when they earn just a dollar or two above their allowable $30-this will not go up to $40 until July because of the delay in the poverty traps legislation supported by both the Government and the Opposition in the last Budget session-lose 50c of their pension or benefit and very quickly fall into the tax bracket and have to pay even more. When those tax rates are put against the figures that I have just given the injustice is obvious. There is also misrepresentation in this whole process of the Government attempting to justify the sort of thrust that it is succumbing to, under pressure from the Right. Those people who have been asked to pay already and who live in fear of being asked to draw in their belts more-Australia's pensioner community-are most unhappy to hear Government members moving about the country, and certainly in the last Budget session in this very chamber, claiming that those groups are happy with the burden that they have been asked to bear. Representatives of the Combined Pensioners Association and the Australian Pensioners Federation have told me that this is not the case; that they see the injustices and that they want them redressed. We have seen the students putting forward their view on the Government's policy of introducing fees and, of course, the Opposition's policy of introducing full fees for any additional access to further education. The students believe, as do the Australian Democrats, that education is a right and not a privilege. We have seen that the Government-- Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Is there nothing in the Standing Orders that makes a senator tell the truth in this place? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Powell is putting a case. Senator POWELL —The committee of review which has been looking into the so-called administration charge indicates that the charge has impacted most heavily on low income people, particularly on women with families, which was predicted by the Australian Democrats in this chamber last August. The ethnic community will not forget what it has been through in trying to maintain its services in the form of the Special Broadcasting Service, English as a second language programs, and so forth. The unemployed in my State of Victoria, where in a number of safe Australian Labor Party electorates community youth support scheme funding is being reduced, are asking questions. Families looking at the proposals for cuts in funding for health care will be concerned because they are the ones who will be hit if in the mini-Budget some of the proposals which have come from the more conservative forces-if that is possible-in the community are adopted as part of the Government's proposals. Education cuts impact very heavily on families. It seems that the Australian Democrats are the only ones in this chamber who are prepared to continue to oppose the push towards the Right, the ultra-conservative Right and the belief in the trickle-down approach-which, of course, does not work, as we have seen by the figures I have given for the corporate tax contributions to total government revenue. We will continue to be the voice for those people who suffer at the hands of this kind of movement, people represented by organisations such as the Ethnic Community Council, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Combined Pensioners Association, and so on. The Government's credibility is at risk. In the run-up to being elected, the Australian Labor Party suggested that there would be a wealth inquiry. Mr Jacobi, MHR, wanted to initiate a parliamentary inquiry but that was watered down to a ministerial sub-committee and an interdepartmental committee. The ministerial sub-committee has not met. The interdepartmental committee may have met once or twice. Surely that is a good example of how the Government's credibility is at risk. The Government needs to look into these very great discrepancies. Let me conclude by quoting what R. H. Tawney said over 70 years ago: What thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thoughtful poor people call with equal justice the problem of riches. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.41) —I regard the quotation from Tawney, from the source from which it has just come, as an obscenity. We have just heard yet another sanctimonious sermon, full of unmitigated nonsense, redolent with economic ignorance, from the group that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) so eloquently described last week as the swill of Australian politics. The familiar charge that we hear from the Australian Democrats is that this Government has sold out the needy and is pandering to the greedy. On the first charge, over and above the growth in the numbers of people who are entitled to social security payments, we have already directed, through changes in rates and policy changes, more than $1 1/2 billion extra in real terms in closely targeted assistance to social welfare. If we were really pandering to the greedy, would the ratbag Right be behaving in the way it is? Would the ratbag Right be demanding that issues be settled in the streets or at public rallies, a la Nuremburg, in the way that it is demanding that issues be settled right now? The ratbag Right would not be putting on the performance that it is if this Government were guilty of the charges levelled against it by the fairies at the bottom of the garden party. In fact, the ratbag Right is behaving in the way that it is because this country has just had the greatest reform of its taxation system that it has ever had, as a consequence of which more than $2 billion-and that figure will grow-has been taken from the people who are represented by the ratbag Right and made available to honest taxpayers. Insofar as there was any substance in Senator Powell's address, it was taken from a publication called Australian Society-a publication, I might say, not noted for its intellectual rigour. Indeed, it is about as lacking in intellectual rigour as some of the work that is poured out by the ratbag Right via the National Farmers Federation and the Centre of Policy Studies. I am talking about the intellectual non-rigour of the bourgeois Left as against the intellectual non-rigour of the ratbag Right; otherwise they have a great deal in common. Because of policy changes we have directed $1 1/2 billion of closely targeted assistance into the welfare sector. Senator Powell should not forget Medicare, and she should not forget the 770,000 people now holding jobs who did not have jobs when this Government was elected. As present, 770,000 more people have jobs than had jobs when the Howard-induced recession hit its nadir in April 1983. The greatest single cause of poverty in Australia in recent years has been unemployment, and we have made major progress in redressing that problem. Having looked at the Government's record, I want now to look at the record of the fairies at the bottom of the garden party which is, of course, always on the side of the angels, always calling for justice, income redistribution and so on. But what is the record of the Democrats? They, in collusion with Senator Harradine and the official Opposition, have rejected Government legislation which would have collected more than $600m from tax evaders, from the notorious bottom of the harbour operators. That is what they have actually done while sanctimoniously mouthing their concern for the poor. When it actually came to voting they overturned government legislation that would have required the notorious bottom of the harbour tax evaders to pay another $600m of the tax that they had evaded, stolen from honest taxpayers in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Senator Vigor —Retrospectively. Senator WALSH —The great tax reform package that this Government finally achieved was watered down to a significant extent on the way through because we had to get the Democrats to vote for it. Every time they are lobbied on an issue by more than half a dozen people they change their minds and their policy. The Democrats are political opportunists, bereft of any intellectual rigour or real moral commitment. I heard an interjection from the talking head in the Democrats about retrospectivity. The legislation was retrospective, just as the legislation passed by the Fraser Government was retrospective in respect of bottom of the harbour tax evaders. The Fraser Government recovered some of the tax that those people had evaded. We set out to recover the lot but we failed because the Democrats would not support the legislation. Moreover, the credible threat of retrospective legislation will kill the tax avoidance industry stone dead. Once the threat is credible it will never have to be invoked, just because it is credible. What prevents that from happening? Again, it is that scungy union of Harradine, the Democrats, the official Opposition and the National Party of Australia. Senator Vigor —The majority in the Senate. Senator WALSH —That is right, the majority in the Senate which, as the Treasurer so eloquently observed the other day, represents the flotsam and jetsam and the swill of Australian politics. A while ago the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) was accused of showing his contempt for the Senate. I do not know whether Mr Duffy was showing his contempt for the Senate. However, I will say that he was entitled to because the lot opposite all failed to win seats in the House of Representatives, just as I did. Honourable senators opposite think that they have to compensate for it with pomposity and self-importance. It does not worry me at all. I accepted a long time ago that I had failed to win a seat in the House of Representatives and I do not feel the need to compensate for it in the way that most of the pompous, self-important people across the aisle do. Senator Walters —I have never stood for the Representatives. Senator WALSH —I suppose that the honourable senator's Party had the good sense not to endorse her as a candidate for the House of Representatives. At least I could get endorsed. Senator Messner —We want more. Senator WALSH —If Senator Messner wants to know a bit more of the history of that, I will be happy to oblige him. In fact, I stood for the House of Representatives twice. The first time I stood I got a swing of about 10 per cent and went within 2,500 votes of winning the seat. The next time I lost by twice as much, so the Australian Labor Party put me into the Senate before we got the Labor vote down to zero. The Democrats are very big on tax reform in the abstract. If they believe that tax is being avoided, or that income is being received on which tax is not being paid, such as in the case of a superannuation fund, they advocate the abolition of the tax exemption of that income. If they stood up and said yes, this was what they advocated, they might get some respect. But what do they do? They parade their ignorance yet again by talking about company tax and alleging that the nation's external debt is a function of borrowing for company takeovers. I have taken Senator Powell through this before but I will take her through it again. I will try to speak slowly and in monosyllables and, although that is not entirely possible, I hope she will actually get to understand it. One of the nice things about the Democrats is that they are so predictable. When the Whip brought a copy of the letter proposing this matter of public importance to my office this morning, I immediately said: `The Democrats will talk about the alleged evasion of company tax by drawing that ratio of company tax paid as a proportion of company profits and concluding that any figure less than 46 per cent is, ipso facto, proof that taxation is being evaded by companies'. That fails to take into account two very important facts and a number of less important ones. I will deal with the important two. Firstly, that aggregate figure of company profits entails a lot of double counting; that is, profits transferred to one company from subsidiaries. The same profit possibly is counted many times. The tax, of course, is paid only once. This is known as the section 46 rebate. I suggest that Senator Powell look at it some time. The Democrats, like bourgeois left populists in general, grab hold of this figure-they do not understand it; they are either not capable of understanding or are too lazy to understand it-and use it as, according to them, definitive proof that company tax is being evaded. Secondly, very generous accelerated depreciation provisions were enacted by this Government in its first year in office. If the Democrats want to criticise that as a policy, they are at liberty to do so. They are not entitled to misrepresent the truth by ignoring the effect that those accelerated depreciation allowances have on company tax liability. The Treasury put out a publication in February 1987. I presume that a copy is available to the Democrats; if not, I am happy to make my copy available. I presume that they are either not smart enough to understand it or too lazy to read it. I want to quote one paragraph from it. On page 15 the document states: Figure 8 shows no downward trend over the period of analysis in the effective tax rate payable by the corporate sector when measured against National Accounts company income. The period measured by figure 8 is from 1967-68 to 1985-86. The document goes on: The average effective tax rate over the last three years of approximately 42 per cent (see Table 4 at Attachment C) is lower than the average of around 45 per cent for the period as a whole. This difference, however, is largely attributable to the peaks in effective tax rates in the early to middle 1970's and the late 1970's and early 1980's, rather than to any downward trend. These peaks are associated with peaks in the rate of inflation, which affects the trading stock valuation adjustment relative to deriving National Accounts company income. The document is not very big. There are just over 40 pages altogether. I commend the study of it to the Democrats if they have any interest in understanding these taxation and other economic issues, as distinct from having a very keen interest in bourgeois left populist grandstanding and political opportunism. Senator Vigor —What about transfer pricing? Senator WALSH —What about transfer pricing? If the honourable senator has any evidence of it he should supply it to the Commissioner of Taxation who has power under, I think, section 360 to issue an assessment. If the evidence is sound, I am sure the Commissioner will act on it very quickly. Senator Walters —Who brought that in? Senator WALSH —The Liberal Party did not introduce section 360 into the Income Tax Assessment Act, as I recall. It was certainly not the John Howard-Malcolm Fraser Government. Senator Walters —Come on, correct yourself. Senator WALSH —Is the honourable senator saying that her Party put section 360 in-that Howard did? Senator Watson —The Liberal Party altered the transfer pricing arrangements to forbid it. It was a direct result of a Senate committee report on the aluminium industry, and you know it. Senator WALSH —That is not what was in dispute. What was being disputed was whether John Howard put section 360-I hope that I have the right section-into the Act and I do not believe that he did. I notice that those opposite are now not alleging that either. Senator Messner —You mean the section in Part IVa, don't you? Senator WALSH —No, I think it is section 360. It is the section that effectively reverses the onus of proof. Senator Vigor —It is not working. Senator WALSH —It is not working because no hard evidence can be gained. If the honourable senator or the rest of the fairies he keeps at the bottom of the garden have any evidence they should supply it to the Taxation Commissioner. The other manifestation of gross ignorance paraded yet again by Senator Powell was the allegation that our foreign indebtedness is caused by foreign borrowings or company takeovers. It might be possible to mount a good case against some of the corporate takeovers and raiding that have been going on and against the fact that more attention is paid to shuffling paper than to producing anything or efficiently managing a business. Some very sound criticism could be made on those grounds. But this is not the cause of our accumulating foreign debt. Senator Watson —Part of the cause. Senator WALSH —It could make a very marginal contribution, depending on what the shareholders who were bought out did with the money. The cause of our accumulating foreign debt is the current account deficit-the difference between what we pay for goods and services and what we receive for goods and services; what we receive in interest payments and what we have to pay out in interest payments. This deficit has been running at a high level since 1980-81. It peaked in 1981-82 then fell away quite substantially to about 4 per cent of gross domestic product. It rose to a peak again in 1985-86-almost as high as it was when John Howard was Treasurer-and it has started to fall away again. Because we are running a current account deficit of that size we can either run down our reserves-and they would be exhausted within 12 months-or borrow money overseas. Australia has to persuade people overseas to lend it bridging finance to cover that current account deficit at a rate of interest which will not drive the economy into the ground. That has been a difficult thing to do. This Government has managed to achieve it. Enter the bourgeois Left populists and the political opportunists, who solve the problem by reversing cause and effect; by saying that foreign borrowing, which is a response to the problem, is the cause of the problem. That is the shonky economic analysis we get from the fairies at the bottom of the garden party. It is not at all helpful in addressing the nation's real problems that that sort of nonsense should be so frequently and mindlessly repeated. Indeed, that brand of snake oil is as unhelpful as the other brands of snake oil peddled by the Petersen regime and the Liberal Party. These brands of snake oil say that average living standards can be enhanced via tax cuts. That is the National's brand of snake oil, and the Liberal Party's brand is just a milder version of that of the Petersen regime. Because of the collapse of export prices Australia has two options. It can accumulate debt at a faster rate or average living standards must fall. This Government has been honest with the public about that. In the meantime they are fed rubbish by the Opposition, the Petersen regime and the Democrats with their snake oil device of reversing cause and effect. Foreign borrowings are a function of our current account deficit. They are an inescapable consequence of continuing to run a high current account deficit. The money has to be borrowed by somebody. Even if it was not borrowed in this way before, it is now borrowed by a mixture of governments-particularly the Queensland Government-banks and, in some cases, individuals. The Democrats pretend that if we just stop individuals borrowing for takeovers the problem will disappear. That is nonsense. I hope that they will stop staying this but I do not expect that they will. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.00) —This matter of public importance gives the Senate an opportunity to examine the policies of the Hawke Labor Government and their effect on Australia and on Australian families. I submit that these policies are quite devastating. Under this regime we have witnessed a government which is the highest taxing and highest spending government in Australia's history. We now find ourselves in a situation where the chickens are coming home to roost and the Government is running into trouble. Let us look briefly at the history of the Australian Labor Party and how it has deviated from its original principles. The Labor Party was founded on the basis of helping the ordinary working man and to give him an opportunity to improve his standard of living. Unfortunately, these original objectives have now been unceremoniously dumped by the Hawke Labor Government in favour of a pragmatic vote and, I submit, for quite grubby reasons. The irony of the situation is that this Labor Government has presided over a reduction in living standards and labour while paying lip service to the constituency which originally supported it-a constituency which consists of salary and wage earners with mortgages and with children to bring up, educate, feed and provide with medical care and security. I submit that the Government has deserted these very people. At the next election I think the Government will find just what is the popular view of this pragmatism. Yesterday was Mother's Day, traditionally a day of family reunion, of thinking of mother and the family. What has this Government done for families? In 1986 the Australian Catholic Welfare Commission predicted that by 1988 Australian families as a whole would be $1,156m worse off than they were in 1983 as a direct result of the policies pursued by the Hawke Labor Government. The Commission said that this amount is made up as follows: The non-indexation of the family allowance, at a cost to families of $530m; non-indexation of dependants' rebates, at a cost of $394m; restrictions on eligibility for family allowance, at a cost of $79m; and abolition of concessional expenditure rebate, at a cost off $170m. But even if the second stage of Labor's promised tax cuts is implemented in July 1987, the two-parent single income families with two dependent children on average weekly earnings will still be $15 a week worse off than they were four years ago. That is the status of the ordinary people, the ordinary families. What has happened in relation to the running of a car, which is considered a basic requirement? Since 1984, a year after the Hawke Government came to office, the price of the family car has increased enormously. For example, the standard Laser-considered a typical working man's car-has risen in price by 53 per cent and a Falcon by 33 per cent. The cost of running a car has increased by $108.29 a week for a Laser and $157.18 a week for a Falcon. The source for these figures is the National Roads and Motorists Association, so they are factual. These are some of the problems. Let us look at the areas where the burden has fallen. In the 1960s and the 1970s the share of the gross domestic product that went to company profits was between 16 per cent and 17 per cent. During the black years of the Whitlam Government this fell back to about 13 per cent. Under the treasurership of the Hawke-Keating regime, despite the rhetoric about the J-curve and the possible improvement for Australia-`improvement that is just around the corner'-the rate has dropped back to 12 per cent. What does this really mean? It means that the profits after tax which are being retained by business and which can be used for reinvestment purposes to develop new industry and for innovations has fallen back 50 per cent. This has happened under the Hawke Labor Government. I submit that this Government is not even listening to its own advisers. For example, the Economic Planning Advisory Council has warned that Government reliance on high interest rates to restrict domestic demand is dangerous for the growth of a national economy. What has happened in the interest rate area? Prime interest rates were about 13.5 per cent at the time of the 1983 election. Today they are at least 17 per cent or higher. Bankruptcies are at record levels. In the first nine months of this year they were up 40 per cent. Since the Hawke-Keating duo took over the running-or the ruining-of this country we have noticed in the retail sector of the motor vehicle industry that, for example, 5,500 jobs have been lost, and there is an indication of a further 10 per cent rise in unemployment in this industry in the current year. As a result of the fringe benefits tax, 81 per cent of firms will be forced to retrench staff. From 1 July company tax will rise from 46 to 49 per cent-one of the highest levels in the western world. What does this mean? Because taxes add to the cost of running a business, this means less retained earnings, less money spent on research and development and less employment. Therefore, the Government's policies in this area are not conducive to extra employment and raising the standard of living. If the companies are taxed out of existence, or are forced to retrench staff, who suddenly find themselves out of a job and in a position where they are least able to protect themselves? In fact, manufacturing employment fell by 17,000 from February 1986 to February this year. The Confederation of Australian Industry said in late 1985: It should not be forgotten that unemployment still remains some 200,000 above the level at which it was when the 1982 downturn commenced. That is a sad reflection indeed. Thus, this continued bleating by the Government that the state of the economy is all due to the policies of the previous Government can be clearly seen to have absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. That fact is that under the Fraser Government the average unemployment rate from 1976 to 1982 was 5.8 per cent. Since March 1983, when the present Government was elected, the average has fluctuated at around 9 per cent. In addition, the average duration of people receiving the unemployment benefits has risen from 36 weeks to 64 weeks and the number of people who have been unemployed for more than one year has risen by 53 per cent-more than half. I believe that these figures speak for themselves. Again, the policies of the Hawke Labor Government have failed and are placing even greater burdens on the average income earner in this country. Conversely, I think this Labor Government has permitted the unscrupulous and dishonest to make obscenely high profits on the share markets through a spate of takeovers and through certain unprincipled operators selling to uniformed people, many of whom do not have a great familiarity with share markets. In fact, there is evidence that a lot of money has been lost by these sorts of people as a result of the selling of worthless foreign shares. While many unprincipled operators have taken the opportunities afforded as a result of deregulation and internationalism the Australian Labor Party has been quite slow to recognise the dangers inherent in these sorts of changes. It has been slow to act. I submit that the Government has done little, if anything, to contain the monopolies which are forcing out competition with a ruthlessness seldom seen in Australian corporate history. What has this Australian Labor Party done to put more teeth and power into section 46 of the Trade Practices Act? Very little indeed. This provision, which deals with the misuse of market power, needs urgent attention. I believe that the Government is unconcerned about the effect that this share raiding is having on unemployment, the closure of firms and the placing of people on the scrap-heap. As a result, I believe that the Government stands condemned. On the other side, what do we find in a comparison of wealth and income? We find that one-tenth of Australians now own 60 per cent of the wealth of this country. At the same time two million people remain below the poverty line. These two million people, I submit, have very bleak prospects for advancement under this Government. The tax laws have the effect of encouraging takeovers, where all too frequently the rich make paper profits and the poor, the worker is confined to the scrap-heap, to unemployment. So the Government, instead, punishes those who have the least political clout-the pensioners of this country. In November last year the Government deferred the promised pension increase, and this was at a quite considerable cost to the pensioners of Australia. Again this year we find another deferment-from May to 25 June-a sad reflection on the priorities of this Government towards the pensioners of Australia, pensioners who have already given their share to the tax coffers and to the growth and development of Australia through a lifetime of service and work. They deserve some respect in their retirement. This Government has forgotten about the pensioners; it has forgotten about all those people who are least able to help themselves. Unfortunately, this Government is not very interested in helping those who can least help themselves. What is the situation in the health care area? The same people are being forced to bear the brunt of the Government's policies in this area. People who are wishing to undertake elective surgery now often have up to a two-year wait. Recently a Sydney man had to wait four years for a prostate operation. Senator Giles —Ha, ha! Senator WATSON —It is not an emergency, but it requires a person to undergo quite a bit of suffering, pain and severe discomfort. I would ask honourable senators opposite not to laugh at this issue because it involves pain and discomfort and at the same time it requires those persons to be dosed up on pain killers on which they can become quite dependent. In January 1983, before the Labor Government and the introduction of Medicare, the health cover for the ordinary Australian family on average weekly earnings cost $9.66 per week. By January this year the cost had jumped to $14.30, an increase of 48 per cent. So families have been hard hit by these Hawke-Keating policies. In the election speech of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, in 1983 he promised a substantial increase in the spouse rebate, a promise which characteristically has never been fulfilled. The last four years have seen the most sustained reduction in living standards since the 1930s Depression and, with the economy as it is and the Government that we have, there is no relief in sight. Since this Government came to power foreign debt has trebled to over $100 billion. What is this Government leaving for our children for the future? Tremendous indebtedness. Over 400,000 people now live in caravan parks. A further 100,000 are temporarily homeless. This Government is putting into place philosophies that are contrary to the best interests of the people that it is supposed to serve. The abolition of negative gearing has meant tremendous rent increases to the poorest section of the community, those who can least afford it. My time has expired. I support the proposition. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(4.14) —This afternoon we are debating a matter of public importance which seeks to chastise the Hawke Government for its `failure to resist the push of the New Right', amongst other things. It is not very difficult to demonstrate that there has been strenuous resistance to and condemnation and rejection of the philosophies of the New Right; I will seek to do this in just a moment. Before I forget, though, lest it should appear that some of us on this side of the chamber were finding reference to prostate operations funny, I assure honourable senators that it was not so at all. What we found amusing was the quite common tendency to pronounce the word `prostate' as `prostrate'. Those of us who have nursed people who have needed prostate operations are well aware of the fact that it is no matter for laughter. What would have been the financial position of the average Australian family, I wonder, under the chaos-ridden coalition? We have heard from Senator Watson this afternoon a great deal about what he believes to be the distress of Australian families at this stage. What exactly would he and his colleagues have advocated, I wonder? What magic measures would the Opposition have pulled out of a hat to protect low income earners? Senator Watson —Our record was pretty good when we were in government. Senator GILES —The record over seven years of the previous Liberal-National Party Government gave no indication whatsoever of solving the enormous problems that were clearly developing at the time the Hawke Government came to power in 1983. We still do not know what the Opposition would do, despite pleas from every sector, especially the Opposition's so-called friends and supporter's such as John Elliott, Mr Hay and Mr McLachlan. We know that the exponents of dry as dust economics-those who are the driving force behind the Opposition parties these days-are making more and more outrageous demands. I will paraphrase what I heard Mr Peacock say yesterday morning. He rejected much of this call from the New Right as being without any philosophy, without any vision of the type of society that it hoped to develop-in fact, without principles. Nothing but greed is driving the more and more outrageous demands that are being made for cuts to the services which have developed in this nation over decades, the services which, in many cases, would appear to be under a very serious threat from the Liberal and National parties and their friends if they were to come to government. Attempts would be made to dismantle the system. The Opposition is strong on self-provision for wealthy people such as Ian McLachlan and John Elliott but very short on any sort of compassion for lower income people in the community. The most recent in an amazing array of recommendations that have come from the New Right has been a document entitled `A National Priorities Project', which was initiated by the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers Association and the Housing Industry Association and which has obtained a large amount of newspaper coverage within the last few days. The document advocates savage cuts in social welfare and education programs and savage cuts in health and welfare, cuts which would deplete quite dreadfully the living standards of many Australians. Amongst the sweeping changes that have been advocated by the leader of the Monash University research group, Professor Porter, and his colleagues, we have the notion that $7 billion should be cut from the health budget. This would mean that we would return to the dark days of the 1950s, the days to which we were rapidly returning under the Fraser Government, when very few people on low incomes could afford any health insurance at all. Under this proposal there would be a cost to the average family on, say, $25,000 a year of $27 a week, from the $6.25 that it now pays under the Medicare levy. We would see the cessation of funding for public hospitals. The safety net that is advocated by these New Right people would be for very poor people only. A dual system of health would be with us once again. Public hospitals would have to increase dramatically charges for private patients, thereby increasing private insurance premiums. To make up for the effect of the loss of subsidies a further $9.60 a week would be added to the current basic hospital insurance rate of $9 so people would be forced to pay something like $18.60, plus $7.90 in medical insurance, a cost of something like $27 a week, where now the cost to a family depending on Medicare is $6.25 a week. A front page article on the Porter proposal in the Australian of 7 May states: Quick calculations show that a family with two children, earning about $25,000 a year, would benefit from the direct tax cuts but suffer from lost family allowances- also being advocated by this mob- leaving them no better off than under the present system. I suggest that that was far too quick a calculation, because if one looked a bit further to the taxation recommendations of this particular group one would find that there is one option which includes a 10 per cent consumption tax allied to two rates of taxation, one of 20 per cent and one of 30 per cent with, I understand, no tax free threshold. Of course this would lift the vast majority of income earners into a higher income tax bracket. As Senator Walsh says, the arithmetic does not work. There is no logic, and there is certainly no understanding of the way in which a caring society has been developing with the concurrence of the community over the last few generations. We have been faced with recommendations from the New Right that our social security system should be the subject of quite drastic cuts. Something like 25 per cent is to come off the rate after six months of unemployment. As we have just heard from Senator Watson-and he is quite accurate here-the proportion of long term unemployed has indeed been growing. These great brains from Monash are suggesting that the long term unemployed-the very people who have very little chance in many cases of getting back into the work force without a considerable amount of assistance, and very sensitive assistance, which we hope to give them-can cope on 25 per cent less than the income they are now receiving. Another quite barbaric cut of 25 per cent in the supporting parent's benefit is advocated. Many honourable senators will recall that the Low Income People's Network came to Canberra early this session and treated us to an 80c meal. We all felt it was working miracles in providing a meal for 80c. Just imagine if that meal had to be provided for 60c, which is exactly what is being advocated by the Monash group. The group does not mention what it would do to community services, but the usual New Right approach to community services is to privatise wherever possible. The record of the Right in the United Kingdom has been to put the care of the aged, the care of the young, the care of the disabled, back on to the families least able to cope with caring for those who need constant care. Shelter for the homeless is another program which would be at risk to achieve so-called savings being advocated by those who take this particular line. What we know from recent studies is that over the years of a Hawke Government the development of community services that we have been able to achieve-and this includes our Medicare-has added something like 5 per cent to the average social wage of the Australian community. This is not seen in the pay packet; it is seen in an increased standard and increased quality of life for very many people-for the aged; for those responsible for the care of little children; for the disabled, or `other abled', in the community; for those who would be without support but for the assistance that this community, a compassionate community, has over the decades and over the generations agreed should be made available. We see under these recommendations of the New Right cuts to the education system. The group apparently has some doubt about whether it is a particularly good idea to encourage young people to stay on for a complete secondary education or to go on to tertiary education unless they come from families where they are able to fund themselves. I have news for the New Right. The fact that we are keeping young people at school, expanding the options available to them, providing real opportunities for them within the work force, is one of the most important ways of breaking out of the vicious circle of disadvantage that so many low income families have experienced in the past. As has already been stated this afternoon, the fact that there are 770,000 jobs in existence now which were not there in 1983-- Senator Walters —That is an absolute fraud! Senator GILES —I am sorry if Senator Walters cannot count, but that is a fact. Senator Walters simply does not like to acknowledge the fact that we have been able to expand the participation rate in Australia. Instead of persuading more and more women to go back to the kitchen sink or condemning more and more young people to the desolation that comes with chronic unemployment, we have made it possible for well over three-quarters of a million people to become part of the work force. Many of them have been able to do that because of the wonderful restraint that we have seen from the trade union movement, workers having accepted an 8 per cent drop in real wages, another fact which the Opposition finds it very hard to acknowledge. Two million dollars has been redistributed, and that is a fact in which we have considerable pride, targeted into those services that make living much less intolerable for many vulnerable groups in the community. We have introduced a package of taxation measures which includes the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the assets test. We have initiated measures so that the social security system is targeting those who are genuinely in need of social support. I am quite sure that under a conservative government there would have been a great deal more social distress because of higher unemployment, fewer people in the education system and fewer community services. By contrast, we have been able to achieve an impressive range of assistance for low and middle income families, and we will continue to do so. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.28) —I believe there are three separate parts to this matter of public importance brought forward by the Australian Democrats today: Firstly, that the Hawke Government has succumbed to the arguments of the New Right; secondly, that those in greatest need are the natural victims of the New Right; and thirdly, that the accumulation of wealth by certain citizens is bad for all citizens. This `New Right' term has been promoted frequently in the Press lately. It is almost tiresome the number of times that the New Right has been mentioned over the last few months, and I thought it might be appropriate to attempt to define, if it is possible, what the New Right happens to be. I believe that the New Right identifies a set of ideas rather than interests, and this can be shown to be true by the number of governments of widely differing viewpoints that have adopted some or many ideas of the New Right. This is one reason why I believe a better name would be the `New Enlightenment'. The Chinese Communist Government, for example, has adopted many of the New Right's ideas; the Russians are trying to adapt their ideas to the economy of the Soviet Union without suffering the terrifying freeing up of the society as a natural reaction to freeing up the economy. Many of the East European countries have demonstrated that economic success comes not from central planning but from decentralising decision-making, reducing regulations and introducing the profit motive. The New Zealand Labour Government and the Australian Labor Government have adopted some of the ideas of the New Enlightenment, or the New Right, if one likes to call it that, but have not had the courage to stop wasting billions of dollars of precious public funds. Throughout the world there has been a pronounced swing towards market economies rather than the excessive central planning of Marxian economics and the demand management philosophy of Keynesian economics. These changes in the policies of a wide variety of governments are due to the widespread recognition that increases in government spending designed to boost demand have not operated to increase output and reduce unemployment to specifiable goals. The changes are not due to any pressure from the New Right, but simply represent the adoption of some of its ideas. I would argue that the New Right is not a political movement underpinned by a set of shared theoretical claims, but an intellectual movement independent of political allegiance. As Dr Chandran Kukathas, a young Australian academic at the Australian National University who wrote an interesting book about this matter recently, has argued, the New Right lacks a natural political constituency and, although the philosophy of the New Right is at odds with that of the Left-which in this Parliament means the darker shades of red in the Australian Labor Party and the tomato red of the Australian Democrats-the philosophy of the New Right is no less in conflict with that of the old Right. The New Right's attitude to the state differs from the attitudes of both the Left and the old Right insofar as its primary concern is the scope of state power, whether that power be exercised through the law or the democratic process. The New Right argues that the power of the modern state has exceeded its proper bounds. The New Right shares with the conservatives a hostility to the idea of wealth redistribution according to principles of social justice. It also shares with libertarians a suspicion of the state reinforcing particular moral values and a wariness of any moves by the state to strengthen its own authority. Even among those people who can properly be termed as members of the New Right, there are various schools, differing in the degree to which they would limit the role of Government. Thus Ayn Rand and Mr Nozick reject all state activities other than those essential for the defence of society against internal and external aggressors. Hayek and Friedman, of course, argue for a reduction of state regulation of business and labour and of state provision of welfare services. One study claimed that the cost of government regulation of Australian business was between $40 billion and $80 billion a year. This estimate seems to give a fair bit of room for error. Nonetheless, it demonstrates the order of cost involved in overregulation. This, of course, is what has been recognised by the Liberal Party of Australia. Mr Howard has indicated that the cost of government regulation must be dealt with, and policies have been formulated in order to address that horrendous cost to business when the Liberal Party takes over the Treasury bench after the next election. Senator Watson pointed out earlier in the debate the escalation in the costs of motor cars-the running costs as well as the initial capital cost of a vehicle. Housing costs have gone berserk under the present Government, undermining families. All of these things have been due to the poor economic management of the Hawke Government. The state of affairs in housing today is that repayments cost the average family over 25 per cent of its income. The New Right holds a favourable view of capitalism, but that support does not extend beyond the defence of the market free of state intervention. The second major claim held by the New Right is that central organisation is not an essential prerequisite of order; or, to put the reverse of that idea, the absence of governmental control and regulation does not mean chaos. The New Right's third claim, and the most important, is that the condition of freedom must exist in which individuals are free to produce and market their wares. Such a system enables individuals to discover values which no one may have realised existed before. New Right economists have been exceedingly successful in demonstrating that attempts to secure social improvements through the ordering mechanisms of the state invariably prove to be not merely futile but counter-productive. The harm is created not by human planning but by the superseding of countless individual plans by a single enforced plan drawn up by agents who do not have, and cannot possibly acquire, the knowledge necessary for such a task. It may come as a surprise to certain members of the Democrats that they do not have the knowledge to arrange the lives of other Australians. In this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, it is worthy of note that in 1906, in the wake of the earthquake that destroyed half of the housing in San Francisco, rendering about one quarter of a million people homeless, in the absence of rent control, replacement housing was completed at an incredible rate. In fact, in the first re-issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, there was no mention of a housing shortage and the paper advertised 65 dwellings for rent. In 1906 there were three houses for sale for every 10 listed for rent. In 1946, simply due to rent control or government interference, there were 730 houses for sale for every 10 listed for rent. That is a remarkable record. Due to the interference of the state in rents and lease conditions, the picture was distorted altogether. I think the same distortion exists in Australia today with respect to the ratios of houses for sale and for rent. I imagine that it would be very similar. The Government has taken certain actions that have met with the approval of the majority of the nation, in particular, the deregulation of the financial system in accordance with the recommendations of the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. However, the Government could not escape certain political interest groups associated with its left wing. As a result, billions of dollars have been wasted with no long term benefits being accrued to the economy of the nation or the efficacy of structurally unemployed. There are, of course, political interests associated with the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party, and every government has these interests to satisfy. The New Right would argue that the less government interferes with the market the more likely it is that a larger part of the population will benefit, and that, as the economy expands, so wealth will be created and more and more people will be educated and able to obtain employment and hold down their jobs. Mr Howard has promised that when the Liberal Party gains power at the next election, his government will diminish government interference in the market-place. He has also committed a Howard government to deregulation and the removal of constraints. The Liberal Party is also committed to the removal or lessening of the maze of legislation, tax concessions, subsidies, statutory authorities, boards, regulations, professional practices, official and semi-official monopolies, tariff protection import quotas, regulated prices and wages and arbitrary bureaucratic decision making which has built up significantly since the War and particularly under this Government. Because the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has to placate the left wing of his Party and its supporters, he has seen fit to tie the New Right to the Liberal Party. I have tried to demonstrate that that is a lot of nonsense. The New Right is not affiliated or tied to any particular party. One or two people who speak up in the name of the New Right may be members of the Liberal Party, but the New Right is certainly not any part of our Party in a corporate sense. Senator Powell —What about your Federal Treasurer? Senator JESSOP —Our Federal Treasurer is not, to my knowledge, a member of the New Right. I believe Andrew Hay is, and he has not been particularly helpful in recent times. That is one thing that annoys me. We hear people outside of Parliament telling us to release our taxation policy. One simply does not do that until the election date is known. We will not tell the Government the policies that we have developed because, inevitably, the Government would be attracted to them and would adopt many of them. So we would be very foolish to allow the Australian Labor Party into the secrets of-- Senator Durack —It has adopted just about every other major policy. Senator JESSOP —Exactly; they are following the monetarist policy that they seemed to deplore when we were in government. Nevertheless, that is the way it goes. For people like Mr Hay and John Elliott to make those suggestions is, I think, unhelpful to us and I believe in due time they will recognise that the policies we have developed will satisfy the demands of the people of Australia. I am sure many of these ideas of the New Right will be adopted to varying degrees by the main political parties when they are better known. In the meantime, the Prime Minister has attempted to smear those who, working in an apolitical manner, have devised these ideas. The media have done their best to malign these apolitical people-and I say that genuinely because I believe most of the spokesmen are apolitical; they are mainly academic people-because the media refuse to do the research required to understand these new or perhaps reborn ideas. It is fair to say that, if the Prime Minister had adopted a number of other ideas of the New Right, Australia would certainly not be groaning under its adverse international trade imbalance and its mounting national debt. There are a number of problems in this nation, not the least of which is structural unemployment, but the Commonwealth employment program and other artificial job creation programs have done nothing to solve the problem. It is merely an example of putting off the inevitable day when long term solutions to this and other problems must be found. Last year, I think, expenditure on the CEP was something of the order of $1.4 billion, but not very many permanent jobs have been created as a result of that particular program. There are a number of other matters that must be addressed. Certainly the policies of the Liberal Party are designed to come to grips with the very serious problems of unemployment, getting the economy back on track and increasing our export income. That is what the Liberal Party undertakes to do after the next election. Senator JONES(Queensland)(4.42) —This afternoon the Senate is discussing the following matter of public importance brought forward by the Australian Democrats: The failure of the Hawke Government to resist the push of the New Right by forcing those Australians who are in greatest need to bear the brunt of its stringent economic measures while allowing the continuing accumulation of wealth by a small number of top income earners. I have never heard so much tripe, drivel and dishonesty in all my life as that put forward today by the Democrats. The first part of the matter, that the Hawke Government has failed to resist the push by the New Right, is totally dishonest. The Australian Labor Party, the Hawke Labor Government and members of the Government have, from time to time, as I shall demonstrate clearly during the course of my address, attacked the New Right and have pointed out clearly to the people of Australia the need to take very seriously the problems for the Australian political system that might develop out of the New Right. Further the second part of the matter uses the words `forcing those Australians'. This is an almighty guess by the Democrats at what might be in the May statement that is to be brought down tomorrow night by the Treasurer, Mr Keating. It seems to me that the Australian Democrats' dishonesty in putting this matter of public importance forward is clearly shown in the way in which it is worded. It is clearly shown in the arguments put forward by Senator Powell, who raised this matter on behalf of the Democrats. It is not the Government that should be under attack for the alleged promotion of the activities of the New Right at the expense of the rest of the community; it should be the Opposition, and the Democrats for supporting the National Party and the Liberal Party when legislation proposed by the Australian Labor Party was brought before this House to deal with tax avoidance and evasion. The Hawke Government introduced retrospective legislation designed to prosecute the activities of the bottom of the harbour tax cheats. By and large, many of those cheats who were being attacked by the Government's proposed legislation were basically supporters of the New Right and its philosophies. They were the kind of people who supported the push for Canberra by the Queensland Premier, but the Government was not allowed to enact that legislation because the Democrats supported the Opposition, the National and Liberal parties. They made sure that that legislation was not passed and that action could not be taken against those tax cheats, those people who were robbing the community and those whom the Democrats today say that they defend. It was defeated because of the actions of the Australian Democrats. The Democrats defeated Labor's tax program. Not only did they defeat the bottom of the harbour legislation, but also they voted against the Australia Card. This denied the Government and the people of Australia income which should have gone to the Treasury for use by the Government. Instead we found that the Democrats defeated that legislation. They took away their right even to stand up here today to try to defend those people on the poverty line whom they are supposed to be defending. It is the greatest show of hypocrisy I have ever seen in my life. It means that the Democrats are the most dishonest political people ever to come into this place or any other parliament in Australia. Let us go further and look at what they did. By their actions in supporting the Opposition, the Democrats denied the Government $507m that would have been collected under the bottom of the harbour legislation. The defeat of the Australia Card legislation means that something like $2.5m per day is being lost to the Government. The Democrats made up their minds to allow the cheating that was going on. They were going to allow the Government and Government payments to be fraudulently attacked by people within the community. They were going to allow people to take money from the Government. They were not going to do anything about it. They were going to allow this Government to suffer as a result of the loss of the finance that that legislation would have brought into the Treasury. In other words, the Democrats have been purely in favour of robbing the people of Australia; then, today, they try to defend people on the poverty line. They have ripped money out of the Treasury because they will not support legislation that would stop cheating within the community. They have allowed that legislation to be defeated in this place, and now they stand up today as hypocrites and try to argue the case for the people on the poverty line. Yet they expect the people in the Senate who are listening to them to have some respect for their point of view. In my estimation the Democrats have slipped so far that their being in the Senate is a pure waste of time. I only hope that when the people of Australia vote at the next election they will decide once and for all to remove from the Senate those dishonest people, the great pretenders who pretend to defend people on the poverty line. Let us go back to the first part of this matter of public importance where the Democrats referred to the failure of the Hawke Government to resist the push of the New Right. On 11 February 1986 in a report of an Australia Day speech by Mr Dawkins, the Minister for Trade, the Australian Financial Review said: . . . the Federal Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, delivered a stinging attack on neo-conservative thought which contained one striking feature. In identifying the popular propagandists of the New Right, he named three individuals none of whom is a sitting parliamentarian for either the Liberal or the National Country Party. The three singled out for excoriation by Mr Dawkins were columnists Katharine West, Des Keegan and John Stone, the former Secretary to the Treasury. At that stage I did not see a statement about the New Right by the Democrats. They were silent. In a transcript of an interview on 13 March 1986, Max Teichmann, senior lecturer in politics at Monash University, talked about a former member of the Liberal Party and Liberal ex-politician and referred to an article in the Age headlined `New Right would Doom Liberals'. Max Teichmann said: This Liberal, Mr Peter Block, targets the president of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, Andrew Hay, . . . for threatening that the Liberal Party will lose the chamber's support unless its performance improves. In fact the Chamber might run its own candidates at the next state and federal elections, if the Libs don't see reason, or is it unreason. That statement was made by Mr Block, a former Liberal Party member, about Andrew Hay and the New Right. We still have no statement from the Democrats. One has to trace back what the New Right means and where it is going. I am not sure at this stage whether the New Right, or the baby of the New Right, will be borne by the Liberal Party or the National Party or whether the Liberal and National parties will be divided. Certainly, with the Democrats putting forward this matter of public importance, it appears that they are on the same side as the Liberal and National parties-they are arguing the case for the New Right and the sorts of things for which it stands. The Courier-Mail on 3 September 1986 stated: But if the advent of the New Right can be attributed to anything specific, it can be attributed to a grassroots gut feeling fostered initially by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in the South-East Queensland Electricity Board dispute, and to the sprouting of the Right-wing think-tank industry and the business and farming lobbies. If one continues to go through those sorts of Press statements, it is very easy to see the sorts of people who are associated with the New Right, people who would have no truck with the Labor Party. I might say that the Labor Party would have no truck with them. So the matter of public importance submitted by the Democrats today is very dishonest. It has no basis; it has nothing to back it up; and it seems a cheap way for the Democrats to try to gain some support on a Senate broadcast day. The Courier-Mail of 3 September 1986 describes the Grassroots 2000 organisation protest movement against the Government. It states: In Brisbane is the Australian Free Enterprise Foundation. In talking about the New Right and the various organisations to which it is attached, the article states: In Melbourne and Sydney is the Crossroads Group which grew out of Mr Hyde's exasperated ``dries'' during the Fraser Government's period of pretending it was going down the deregulation path. In Melbourne is the Institute of Public Affairs, in which former Treasury Secretary Mr John Stone is a leading light. I think Senator Jessop said in this chamber that this organisation was apolitical. Mr Stone, a former Treasury Secretary, is now on the staff of Bjelke-Petersen advising him on his taxation policy. Bjelke-Petersen claims that he will run candidates against the Liberal Party during the next Federal election campaign. I do not think Mr Stone is very apolitical, unless he is receiving money under false pretences. The article continues: And in Melbourne is the recently-formed and quaintly-titled H. R. Nicholls Society, named after an editor of the Hobart Mercury newspaper who successfully defended a contempt of court action brought by the Arbitration Commission in 1911. Mr Stone- the man who is advising the Premier, Johannes Bjelke-Petersen- is president of the H. R. Nicholls Society and a member of Crossroads. Mr Andrew Hay, president of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the recently-formed Australian Federation of Employers, is a member of Crossroads, the H. R. Nicholls Society and the Institute of Public Policy. Very clearly one can look at the New Right and find a cross-fertilisation between the sorts of organisations that exist-the National Party in Queensland; the Premier, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen; the National Party in Canberra; and the Liberal Party in Canberra. The Democrats are starting to support the proposition that the Labor Party or the Federal Government should do something about the New Right. Instead of attacking the New Right, they are starting to line themselves up alongside the Liberal Party and the National Party. The New Right admires people such as Margaret Thatcher, Adam Smith, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Henry Nicholls and Professor Friedrick von Hayek. Could anyone believe that any of those people would support the Labor Party? Could anyone believe that the Labor Party would have any truck with the New Right when those sorts of people are supporting it? Let me go a little further because a whole series of interviews on this matter has been given. Before my time runs out let me mention Ray Martin's interview with John Howard, the Leader of the Liberal Party, which I think shows the coalition between some members of the Liberal Party and the New Right and the buildup between the leadership and the New Right. Ray Martin, said: Hard line businessmen in the front line of the New Right have been accused of treasonable activities because of their confrontationist attitude toward the unions. And statements like: There should be more Robe Rivers. Well, this week happens to be the first anniversary of John Howard's rise to leadership of the real Opposition-the parliamentary one that is. Where does he stand in relation to the New Right. Mr Howard, thank you for your time. Reading the newspapers, the editorials, the headlines, one could easy believe that something called the New Right is the new opposition in Australia. A transcript of the interview states: JOHN HOWARD: I think the whole exercise is a diversion by the Government away from its own problems. RAY MARTIN: You don't think it's the New Right that's leading this? JOHN HOWARD: No, I don't. RAY MARTIN: Are they political allies of yours? JOHN HOWARD: Many of them I know; many of them I like; and many of them have views on some matters that I agree with. RAY MARTIN: Would you call people like Andrew Hay or John Stone . . . JOHN HOWARD: Yes. RAY MARTIN: . . . or Charles Copeman allies of yours, though? JOHN HOWARD: Well, certainly their broad political views would be similar to mine, yes. And I make no bones about that. In other words, it is very clear that the people who are with the New Right are the Liberal Party in Canberra, the National Party, Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland, who is forcing the National Party in this respect, and the Democrats are trying-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.57) —The matter of public importance before the Parliament today accusing this socialist Government of moving to the right would be quite mind boggling if it were not for an acknowledgment by the Australian Democrats of how far to the left their Party has moved. Let us look at the history of the Democrats. They have gone so far to the left that they have said that ANZUS should be abolished-they have even outdone the socialist Government we have at the moment-and they have said that United States naval ships should not be allowed to enter our ports. The Australian Democrats sent a delegate to Libya, to Gaddafi. That is exactly how far left this group has gone. It sent delegates to Gaddafi, the biggest terrorist in the world. The Democrats have decided to cut defence spending. Senator Mason, in a hilarious speech on the defence White Paper, said that we should be consulting with Papua New Guinea in relation to our defence spending. Maybe the public can understand that this matter of public importance was raised by perhaps the most left party this country has ever seen. Senator Powell —It is just as well that such a left wing party remains in Australia. Senator WALTERS —Senator Powell has just acknowledged that fact: She said that it is just as well that such a left wing party remains in Australia. I do not think the Australian people understand-- Senator Mason —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I take exception to Senator Walters's remarks. The most left party is the Liberal Party, left behind by events. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will not bother commenting on that point of order. Having dealt with the Democrats, who without any doubt will be gone after the next election, I will deal with the Australian Labor Party members because I believe that some of them will be left-not many perhaps, but some-after the next election. They are, without a doubt, the big spenders. We thought that we had seen the last of the big spenders when we got rid of Gough Whitlam-but we have not. We now have the Bob Hawke, big spending, high taxing Government. Let us look at its deficit. Let the people understand that the total gross external debt in the last financial year that we were in government was $25 billion. At the end of last year our gross external debt was $101 billion. In just over three years it rose from $25 billion to $101 billion. This means that instead of paying an interest bill on that debt of $1.8 billion we are now paying $7 billion-$3,000 for every family in Australia. If that does not prove that the Government is a big spender, and that the Australian people have to borrow in large amounts, I do not know what will. Of course, we have this wonderful Treasurer, the best Treasurer in the whole wide world! We all remember him. He went from being the best Treasurer to being the Treasurer of a banana republic in double-quick time. He lost us our AAA credit rating, which means that we now have to pay a higher rate of interest than we were paying under that rating. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has brought in 15 new taxes to pay for his big spending; yet we are still not paying our interest bill; we are going further and further into debt. The mini-Budget being brought in by this Government is not a move to the right, as is claimed by the Democrats; it is an attempt to right the dreadful mess that this Government has created. Inflation has gone up. Inflation in Australia at the moment is 9.3 per cent; in Japan, where it is going down, it is minus 1.4 per cent; in the United States of America it is 2.1 per cent; and in West Germany it is minus 0.5 per cent. Let us see what the Government is doing to Australians and to their interest rates. Home interest rates start at 15 1/2 per cent. One can borrow where one can at that interest, but rates are generally higher and Australians are losing their homes as a result. Let us see what the Government is doing to industry. The prime interest rate in Australia is 19.2 per cent, in Japan it is 5.2 per cent, in the United States it is 7.5 per cent, and in West Germany it is 8.4 per cent. With our prime interest rate at 19.2 per cent, is it any wonder that our entrepreneurs say: `Australia is a nice place to live, but one could not possibly work here; we have to take our industries off-shore'? Of course, members of the Government are the same old socialists we have had before in the Labor Party. What has the Government been trying to do to the medical profession? What has it done to the health situation? We all remember who Dr Deeble is. Deeble and Scotton were the two who led to the introduction of Medibank under Mr Whitlam. The Government has resurrected Dr Deeble and he has made it very clear, saying, as reported in the Sun-Herald: Putting private hospitals into three classes- that is, the categorisation of private hospitals- is a very first step towards putting private hospitals into the public system. This is a very big step but it is a long term aim. This is why the Government brought in Dr Deeble in 1984. Senator Button —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. The honourable senator is quoting from a totally anonymous Press release. She ought to identify it by the date and the name of the paper. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I believe that at the end of the speech an honourable senator can ask for that information. I do not think that the honourable senator has to identify it if she does not want to. It might be to the Senate's advantage if Senator Walters did identify it. Senator WALTERS —I say to Senator Button that that is an old trick in which I did not think he would bother indulging. Dr Deeble has made it very clear what the Government's socialist aim is. Because of the Government's socialist ideology it is prepared to send people broke with its Medicare scheme. We have every adviser telling the Government that if it wants to cut costs in Medicare it has to stop universal bulk billing. It has to make it available only to pensioners and people who are disadvantaged. We have the Government's main adviser, Professor Penington, telling it that it has to stop universal bulk billing. The spokesman for Dr Blewett said that he would look at what Professor Penington said. After all, he is one of the Government's chief advisers. I can assure the Senate that Dr Blewett will do nothing about it. So we have the good old socialists in action. Once it has reached the stage where all doctors bulk bill, doctors are socialised. Let us look at what else the Government does. It certainly goes about buying its votes. The Opposition Waste Watch Committee has identified the grants that this Government gives to its special constituents. For example, there was a grant of $11,000 to Wild Women Surfboards for the design and development of a special surfboard for women in its project `Women's surfing'. The sum of $11,000 is not peanuts. There are more examples. A grant of $123,000 went to the Gay Publications Co-operative for the production of its magazines and for the support of an associated group. What sort of government is it that will waste taxpayers' money to that extent? Senator Button is putting on a fine old turn. He is trying to whistle and read at the same time in an effort to ignore these statements. If taxpayers knew of the waste in which this Government indulges, they would understand what we are talking about. Senator Michael Baume did such a good job on the Waste Watch Committee. What has the Government done now? It has closed ranks completely. In the middle of last year each issue of the Bulletin gave a list of recipients of government grants. The Government has cut the Australia Council grants and is not allowing us to see the details. It will not acknowledge all the grants it has made, so we have to try to get the information under the freedom of information legislation. Senator Watson —So much for open government. Senator WALTERS —Yes, so much for open government. The Government has attacked the family. It has already cut the family allowance. It has taken that away from the 16- and 17-year- olds and dependent students. It has not increased the dependent spouse rebate, and the week before last it brought into the House of Representatives for debate legislation allowing very young children to live in a de facto relationship and be paid the married pension rate. If that is not the grossest attack on the family, I do not know what is. It is absolutely ludicrous. This Government is certainly not moving more to the right. This is good old lefty stuff. Let the 14- and 15-year-old girls say to their parents: `I'm going out to live with Joe Blow'. If their mothers say `You cannot do that, dear; what would you live on?', they can very rightly say: `This Government will pay a de facto spouse the married rate of pension'. What a situation this Government has created! What does this Federal Government's own Business Regulation Review Unit say about the way in which the Government is handling the economy? It says that Australia has not achieved growth for three main reasons: Firstly, national savings have been low due largely to taxation regimes discouraging savings. The Government's own review has said that it is taxing people too much and that they now cannot put their money into the bank for savings. Secondly, there is excessive intervention by the Government through economic and social regulations and, thirdly, the wage determination and other labour market processes are inflexible. So the Government's own review unit is very critical of the Government and says that it is going the wrong way about doing things. What has the Opposition been telling the Government for years, ever since it has been in office? We have been saying that if this Government does not lower inflation, if it does not lower interest rates and if it does not encourage the worker to produce higher quality articles in greater numbers by giving incentives and enabling him to retain more of his wage packet, the standard of living of all Australians will continue to deteriorate. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.12) —The matter of public importance brought forward by Senator Powell for the Senate's consideration is in the following terms: The failure of the Hawke Government to resist the push of the New Right by forcing those Australians who are in greatest need to bear the brunt of its stringent economic measures while allowing the continuing accumulation of wealth by a small number of top income earners. This Government was re-elected on a wave of optimism. It believed that the business climate in Australia was improving. Effectively, the Hawke Government was elected on the strength of its promises of cutting taxes and interest rates, together with lower unemployment, higher pensions and an end to poverty traps. It was expected that improved economic conditions would be maintained, that investment in industry would continue to improve and that Australia would see a return to the good times that existed in the 1960s. However, this has not happened. The cause for this optimism was a marked improvement in Australia's balance of trade due mainly to high export prices for wool, wheat and other grains and a record harvest which followed many years of disastrous drought. As a spin-off of the improved trade figures, business investment also showed a marked improvement and the economic advantages flowed to the rest of the economy. Once again, Australia was riding high on the sheep's back. Once again, Australia was rich on a good harvest. Once again, Australian governments failed to perceive, and to deal with, the underlying problems of Australian industry. No firm plans for development were put into place. No attempt was made to budget according to a development plan. Instead, the Government pursued a policy of non-intervention in business, in finance and in the activities of the country. Earlier today the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) described the Australian Democrats as the fairies at the bottom of the garden party. I believe that a good description of the Australian Labor Party under the Hawke Government, or hoax Labor Government, would be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow party. We all know what happens at the end of the rainbow, and this is what the Government is trying to put up for us. No matter how hard this Government tries to please the gnomes of Zurich, the foreign speculators and the big businessmen of the United States of America, the pot of gold recedes, and will continue to recede, into the future as this Government squeezes ordinary Australians and tries to get the last drop of blood out of them, especially the poor, by its high taxation measures which are backing up its corporate welfare policies. When the Government had the chance to jump on the windfall returns of a good season for primary industry it did nothing but promise and hope. When it had a chance to build on a lower Australian dollar it did nothing to plan ahead; it did nothing but promise and hope. Laissez-faire government, or, in other words, deregulation and non-interference with free market forces, has had its inevitable consequences on the economy as the smaller and more vulnerable ingredients in that economy-small businesses-have actually succumbed to the trade fluctuations to which Australia is being subjected. World grain prices have slumped with the outbreak of protectionist trade wars, and Australia is reaping once again the penalty of dependence on primary industry alone for its export income. The inevitable flow-on to the rest of the economy is having its effect and the Government is now selling out Australia's future chances of recovery for the sake of kowtowing to those who will finance it at the next election and to those in the New Right who believe that we need a return to the dark ages of serfdom, cheap labour and control by big business in order to keep the wealthy operating in the state to which they have become accustomed. In an attempt to maintain an apparent buoyancy in the economy and to keep money flowing into Australia the Government has adopted a high interest rates policy. As a result, the Australian dollar has gone up in value, and our exports are once again uncompetitive on world markets. This problem has yet to surface, since deliveries are still being made under contracts entered into when the value of the Australian dollar was low. High interest rates attract foreign investment into Australia and disguise temporarily, for foreign banks and other currency investors, the real difficulties which are facing our economy. These difficulties are due to very large inflows of capital for useless purposes-not to support a new wave of industry or a revitalisation of the Australian economy, but to overheat the stock market and to provide more money for the speculators in that market, which is supported by the taxpayer. This support by the taxpayer comes in the form of negative gearing arrangements which are available to the large companies, but access to the same negative gearing arrangements has been ripped from ordinary Australians saving for their retirement by owning a flat. High interest rates have diverted savings away from productive investments into speculation on financial and property deals and into short term, high interest loans. This Government is killing the goose that laid the golden egg at the last election. It is killing the farmers by this overload in interest rates and government charges; it is killing the ordinary small businessman; and it will leave us totally at the mercy of the large industrial organisations. We must not forget that small business and the public sector are the major employers in Australia. Big business is employing fewer and fewer people. Small business is unable to take up the slack and, were it not for the Public Service increase, particularly in welfare areas, unemployment would be much higher. Indeed, it is a sad reflection on the Government that unemployment is the major growth industry in Australia. Less than 5 per cent of foreign money ends up in any form of productive investment. Most of it is being brought in on a speculative basis and is used to buy up the farm on the cheap. This Government has encouraged the sell-off of Australian resources. It has pulled the teeth of the Foreign Investment Review Board and relaxed nearly all the constraints on foreign takeovers of Australian resources, land, industry and development. Likewise, it has shut up the independent voices close to government, such as the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs and the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations. Like the ugly stepmother, this Government cannot face its reflection in the mirror. It will not let the people it has appointed to advise it tell it where it is going wrong. It is deregulating wildly, simply to help its big friends in the media and elsewhere. The Government is proposing to hand over all media activities to a few people who, of course, will support this Labor Government later on in the election! The people of Australia have to know that the Government is not doing anything to stop the power of these media barons and of multinational financiers and corporations. The Government is attacking the ordinary individual, as Senator Jones has said, through the Australia Card by constraining them and cutting out their methods of gaining income. But it is doing nothing about the large tax rorts in the system-transfer pricing, the flight of earnings to tax havens overseas and the huge takeover surge taking place in Australia all at the taxpayers' expense. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance is concluded. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator Sanders —It is a parochial issue, is it? Senator TOWNLEY —It is very parochial, but it is something which as an engineer I have taken a great deal of interest in. The Bowen Bridge was named thus by the then Prime Minister on 10 October 1980. The bridge was built using a very interesting technique-the balance cantilever technique. The pieces of the bridge were made upstream, floated down and lifted into place to construct what all Tasmanians who have seen it would say is an excellent construction which has a very pleasing appearance. It was built to replace the bridge damaged when a ship ran into it, something which was foreshadowed when discussions took place in the Parliament of Tasmania before the bridge was built across the Derwent River. It could very well happen again. Because this could happen again, from a mechanical point of view it is now much safer to go back and forth from the eastern and western shores of Hobart. In passing I would like to say how annoyed I get with delays in going over the other bridge, the main bridge, in Hobart. Traffic is held up for an inordinate length of time whenever a ship of certain size passes underneath it. Such delays are much too long and should be looked at. This joint committee report on construction shows that the government of the day recognised just how important it was for Hobart to have a second bridge. In November 1975 the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments established a joint committee. Eventually, the results of the investigation and a design were presented to the Prime Minister and Premier in January 1979. It was estimated then that the cost would be some $32m. The total cost, which included the removal of the old rattling bailey bridge, eventually came to some $51 1/2m. Senator Sanders —It took them a year to build that temporary one. Senator TOWNLEY —It did, but not a lot of people had really thought that the first Derwent bridge, the Tasman Bridge, would be knocked down. The bridge that has been built-as a spare, if you like-is an excellent project. I would like to commend all those people who helped design it and work on it, many of whom I claim as my friends. I am very pleased to be able to speak about them today in the Senate. I point out that there are other bridges in the Hobart area that should be replaced. I am reliably informed that the one near Bridgewater on the highway between Hobart and Launceston would not take a substantial knock from a smaller ship or tug. Senator Sanders —And the barges. Senator TOWNLEY —I do not think that barges are going through as often now because products from the newsprint mill at Boyer are being transported by road. But it is not a very strong bridge and at some stage it will have to be replaced. The Commonwealth and the State should be looking at this at this time. I am not saying that the Bridgewater bridge is not safe but it could easily be knocked out of operation. The other bridge that is still safe but will soon need attention is a causeway bridge down near Sorell. Recently, a speed limit has been placed on the bridge to stop any damage progressing to a dangerous state. Sooner or later both the State and the Commonwealth will have to look at both these bridges because projects such as the construction of bridges are usually beyond the means of just one government to finance. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to refer to one matter which arises from this report of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Commission, about which I have spoken previously in the Senate. The report quite carefully goes through the activities of the Commission in 1985-86 and deals with its financial statements. The Commission functions well and serves the community well. The further guidelines, when referring to the future, say that owing to financial constraints it will be necessary for considerable care to be exercised by the Chief Executive Officer and the legal aid committees to ensure that such funds as are available for legal assistance are spread as widely over as many cases and to as many applicants as possible. The matter that I wish to refer to, and as I have said I have done so previously, relates to Allen Douglas Thompson's appeal to the High Court of Australia based on the question of whether two of the murders that he committed and for which he was convicted took place in the Australian Capital Territory or New South Wales. As I said previously, it is a very interesting legal argument but it seems to me quite inappropriate that this action should be paid for by legal aid. The fact is that Thompson was in goal, having been convicted of six murders. There was no question of this case determining whether he would remain in custody or be set free. I agree that if the actual liberty of a person is at stake, perhaps that is a different matter. But in a technical argument of this kind which has no bearing on whether he would stay in goal or be set free, it seems to me that we have to look closely at restricting grants of legal aid to be quite certain that the Commission's aims as set out in this report-to see that assistance is spread as widely as possible over as many cases and to as many applicants as possible-are followed. I urge the Commission to take a stricter view of this sort of application. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.28) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper basically is an addendum to a report issued earlier-the thirty-fourth annual report, 1985-86, of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The addendum concerns expenses and salaries and the general monetary situation. One of the things that the addendum covers in terms of salaries, and it thus refers back to the original report, is the safety aspects of visits by nuclear powered warships. I quote from page 65 of the report: The Regulatory Bureau discharged for the Commission its role as technical adviser to the Department of Defence on the safety implications of visits by nuclear-powered warships to Australian ports, specifically in connection with berth assessment, co-ordinated routine radiation monitoring during visits and port contingency-planning against accidents. The advice given to the Department of Defence was wrong because it failed dismally to give any credence to the possibility of accidents involving nuclear weapons. It is probably true that there is little danger from a nuclear weapon actually exploding on a warship in port, but there is a distinct possibility that a nuclear weapon could be involved in a fire-thus it does not explode but it can release radioactivity. A Professor Jackson Davis from the University of California at Santa Cruz recently visited Australia, testified before a committee and gave a general statement to the Press. He pointed out that the incineration of a single nuclear warhead would release radiation which could cause 11,000 cancer deaths in Sydney and the clean-up cost, if it could be done, would be $150 billion. It is so costly because one would almost have to level the city of Sydney block by block, ship the blocks to outback New South Wales or some other place and then build a new Sydney. This is why the cost would be so expensive. This is the belief of not only Professor Jackson Davis but also of the Government Accounting Office in the United States of America which has included similar data in a report. This information was not put forward by the Atomic Energy Commission at all in its advice to the Department of Defence. The Atomic Energy Commission also underrated the risk and the consequences of nuclear reactor accidents. We know from Chernobyl, from Three Mile Island and from Windscale that accidents can occur in nuclear reactors. The Commission assumes that any accident could be contained and that it would be a fairly easy matter to tow a ship out to sea. It maintains that, if one can tow a ship out to sea in 24 hours, everything will be fine. The Commission assumes an evacuation zone of only 600 metres. It also assumes that potassium iodate tablets would negate the effects of radiation exposure. All these assumptions are wrong. Current United States assessment of risks and consequences is that ports must plan for uncontained reactor meltdown. In other words, meltdown will not be contained in a ship but will spill over into the harbour itself. Of course, if this happens and one tows the ship out to sea, one must also evacuate the entire city because towing is totally inadequate. Unfortunately the Atomic Energy Commission is still protecting atomic energy in all its forms. In so doing it must become an apologist for nuclear weapons and for meltdown accidents in nuclear warships. The Commission is doing Australia a great disservice by not recognising the risks involved in visits to Australia by nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered warships. In forthcoming reports I hope that we will see the Commission take a realistic view of the dangers in visits by nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships and advise that such visits to Australia are no longer permitted. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.34) —I will speak to the motion and respond to a couple of things that were said by Senator Sanders. One of the problems with Chernobyl was the fact that there was no containment on the nuclear reactor. Senator Sanders —It would have blown off the containment dome as well. Senator TOWNLEY —That is not necessarily a fact. If Senator Sanders does some reading on these things, he will learn that the reactor is designed to keep inside any material that could be released. Senator Sanders —There is less impact from inside. Senator TOWNLEY —That is not so. I am not going to enter into an argument. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Sanders has already spoken in this debate. He should allow Senator Townley to proceed without interruption. Senator TOWNLEY —They are designed to contain any element that might be otherwise released into the atmosphere. This design-and I believe that there are about 15 in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-has no containment. Graphite is used and this is what caused the main problem at Chernobyl: The graphite, to which of course is flammable, caught on fire and the attempts to put it out produced more steam and other products that caused a tremendous amount of trouble. That would not have been the case if proper containment had been designed. I point out that I do not believe that the Atomic Energy Commission-or the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which is its new name-is an apologist for atomic weapons. It is just not current to say that someone who believes in nuclear power is an apologist for nuclear weapons. I for one believe that the main problem faced by this world is acid rain, which is caused by the release of sulphur and nitrogen oxides into the air from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal. Senator Vigor —And the greenhouse effect. Senator TOWNLEY —That is another effect of the burning of these fuels. As I said in this place the other day, acid rain-the combination of nitrates and sulphurous oxides with water from the atmosphere which falls as rain-is very acidic and is causing untold damage to lakes, trees, buildings and structures, particularly in the northern hemisphere. That does not mean that we in the southern hemisphere can sit back and not worry about it because eventually it will intermix and the problem will come down here. If the ozone layer happens to be reduced because of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, the ultraviolet radiation and other radiation will cause numerous cancers-many more, I believe, than would be the case from the accidential release of atomic particles as happened at Chernobyl. I do not for one moment believe in nuclear weapons. Those of us who have thought about this realise the damage that they could cause, even if they were on a ship or in an aircraft which sustained damage. But a balance can be found. I repeat: I believe that the main thing we must do is produce a safe and effective nuclear-power plant that can be gradually perfected so that it is not a danger. This will help us to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels which is causing so much trouble in the northern hemisphere and which will eventually cause trouble in this country as well. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.39) —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- STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 provides grants to the States and the Northern Territory for financial assistance to universities, colleges of advanced education, institutes of tertiary education and for technical and further education for the 1985-87 triennium. The purpose of this Bill is to adjust and supplement these grants for cost increases in accordance with the Government's agreed procedures. The supplementation takes account of the recent national wage decision for all but the university academics who are currently seeking an amendment to their award with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Provision to cover changes resulting from this will be included in the next round of legislation. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $78.281m. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The primary purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (School Assistance) Act 1984 to supplement grants to government and non-government schools in the States and Northern Territory, in line with the Government's policy of providing retrospective cost supplementation for the Commonwealth's programs for schools. This Bill also reflects the Government's decision to streamline the distribution of capital grants for non-government schools from 1988 through allocation as a block grant for distribution by approved block grant authorities. It is expected that in most States, Catholic schools will form one block authority and most other non-government schools a second authority. Non-government schools not electing to join an authority will still be able to apply directly to the Commonwealth for capital grants. This Bill also implements the Government's decision that full fee paying private overseas secondary students will not be eligible for general recurrent grants. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $18m in 1987 and $9m in 1988. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (EDUCATION ASSISTANCE-PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to supplement for cost increases the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the participation and equity program in 1987. The Bill provides new schedules for 1987 showing the allocation of funds to the States, and Northern Territory and the education sectors. The cost supplementation proposed is in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bills which are also before the Senate today. The financial impact of this Bill will be to provide an additional $1.097m in 1987. Total provision for the participation and equity program is $45,819,000 in 1987. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.41) —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- WOOL MARKETING BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to introduce legislation to replace the Wool Industry Act 1972. The Bill will govern the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation and the wool auction system. It introduces a number of changes consistent with the Government's policy statement `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities'. The Bill also introduces additional administrative arrangements including measures for quality assurance of the Australian wool clip. Associated with the Bill are five wool tax amendment Bills 1987 which I will address separately. The package of Wool Bills I am introducing today has been developed with a high degree of consultation with the Wool Council of Australia, the Australian Wool Corporation and other elements of the wool industry. It is intended that they provide the framework for the marketing of Australian wool over the next decade. I believe that it is most appropriate that the Wool Marketing Bill be introduced to this House at a time when the Australian wool industry has re-emerged as Australia's leading rural export industry and in a year when wool exports are likely to contribute almost $4 billion to our balance of payments. The present legislation for the wool industry, the Wool Industry Act 1972, commenced on 1 January 1973 in starkly different circumstances to those currently enjoyed by the industry. In the early 1970s the industry was on its knees. It was through bold leadership of the wool industry at that time by such men as Bill Vines, Bill Gun and others, including David Asimus, the present Chairman of the Corporation, and the initiative of Ken Wriedt that the reserve price scheme was established, the decline in the wool industry arrested and the basis for a sound reconstruction laid. The recovery of the industry since that time can in no small way be attributed to the arrangements set in place in the Wool Industry Act. The Australian Wool Corporation has operated effectively in its support of the market through the reserve price scheme and wool growers have strengthened the position of wool in the world textile market by their continued investment in wool promotion and research and development. Notwithstanding the present buoyancy in the wool market, the industry faces enormous challenges in the future. We should not let our record wool exports hide from us the fact that wool is a special fibre occupying a small and declining share of total textile consumption. It presently accounts for only around 5 per cent of overall world textile use against a 47 per cent share for cotton and 48 per cent for synthetics. Furthermore, in those areas where wool is relatively strong, its share is declining. Wool had 33 per cent of the menswear market in 1970, it has about 18 per cent today. Similarly its share of womenswear has fallen from 27 per cent to 14 per cent and knitwear from 40 per cent to 27 per cent. These markets are extremely volatile and subject to the vagaries of shifts in world fashion and alternate expenditure choices available to consumers. We must remain vigilant to the need to maintain high levels of investment in wool marketing, promotion and research and development, so that wool continues to be profitably sold overseas. On the supply side, honourable senators are aware of the present disruption in world agricultural markets and the potential for a continued shift in resources away from other farm enterprises, in particular cropping, to wool. Sheep numbers have grown rapidly from 133 million in 1983 to an estimated current flock of 160 million. A continuation of this rate of growth poses a longer term challenge for the wool industry and must be monitored. We must have flexible marketing arrangements in place to meet any crisis in the supply of wool arising from an expansion in sheep numbers. In addition to demand and supply considerations, the wool industry must also remain aware of the future options which may emerge in the whole chain of events from the production to consumption of wool. At the moment the Australian industry can stand proud. It clearly surpasses all other wool producing nations not only in the quality of wool it produces but the way that it is harvested, handled, sold, stored and distributed. It has an outstanding record of innovation. However the industry cannot rest on its laurels. We compete not only against other wool producers, but against other fibres and other options for the consumer to spend his or her dollar. The industry must therefore remain cognizant of the need to continually innovate, adapt and modify, to ensure that wool is moved from the sheep to the consumer in the way that presents the best product to the consumer in the most cost effective way. This means that the wool industry must think creatively in working out better ways of doing things and how new technologies can be embraced in the industry. In many cases this will involve an extension and improvement in present techniques. For example it is likely the industry will continue with manual shearing for many years. But I believe there is considerable scope for researching the ergonomic basis of shearing and to research shed management to improve the process to the benefit of both wool growers and shearing teams. But in addition to incremental changes of this kind, I am sure there is still scope to make dramatic changes in the wool logistics system through a re-examination of the location of present facilities and the way wool is stored, handled and sold. In this respect I anticipate that the industry will make significant breakthroughs in the coming years in computerisation of the selling system linked with sale by description. I also believe there is potential for significant gains in the on-shore transportation of wool. Further to the above, the Government is of the view that there is considerable scope for further processing of wool in Australia. Vision will need to be applied in working out how this can best be done and in marshalling the necessary investment funds. Nevertheless the potential benefits for the community and the industry in employment, infrastructure development and in ensuring long term contracts for sale of Australian wool are significant. The Government will continue to examine these opportunities, in particular, as part of the textile initiatives being introduced by my colleague Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. This brief outline of pressures on the industry and possibilities open to it, illustrates the extent of change the industry inevitably faces. Continued success in the industry, like any other business operation, will require that change process to be properly understood and effectively managed. It is timely therefore that the process commenced in the late 1960s and early 1970s be extended to cover modern demands and to position the industry to prepare for the circumstances it will encounter in the 1990s and into the next century. It is for this purpose that the Minister has developed new arrangements in consultation with the wool industry. The result of this process is the Bill I now propose to this House. The Bill focuses on four principal objectives. First, the Bill seeks to place the Australian Wool Corporation on a sound commercial footing so that it is equipped to respond now and into the future to the pressures of the market place. Second, the Bill is designed to introduce appropriate arrangements to ensure the Corporation is fully accountable to industry and Government without disturbing its commercial performance. Third, the Bill introduces new arrangements for the quality assurance of Australian wool. Finally, the Bill has the objective of providing modern businesslike legislation for the industry which will guide the industry towards the next century. I would now like to comment in more detail on the Bill in relation to these objectives. This Government has distinguished itself in comparison to the previous coalition governments in that it has introduced significant market deregulation and opened the way for better commercial operation by Australian enterprises. It has abandoned conservative rhetoric and given the market the chance to work. The initiative of this Government is particularly evident in the approach it has taken to the changed administration of its Government statutory business enterprises and to the reform of its statutory marketing authorities. The Australian Wool Corporation has been successful in its commercial operation. But the Corporation like other statutory marketing authorities has been constrained by the need to comply with numerous Government controls which have presented difficulties for it in its market operations. The Government has already, in its general reforms of statutory marketing authorities, made a number of changes to the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation. These are outlined in the Government's policy statement `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Marketing Authorities' released as a White Paper on 29 January 1986. Many of the reforms outlined in that document have been discussed in this House in respect to the meat, wheat, dairy and wine and brandy statutory marketing arrangements. I do not propose to discuss these reforms in detail except where the wool statutory arrangements are significantly different and where this Bill removes further controls on the Corporation to place it, where possible, on an equivalent footing to commercial business corporations. It is essential if the Corporation is to operate on an effective commercial basis, that its Board comprise the best available talent. To this end I introduce a number of changes. The Minister will continue to select and appoint the chairperson of the Corporation as well as the Government director. However in keeping with best commercial practice I believe it is appropriate that there be flexibility to make sure that the person appointed to chair the Corporation is the best available and that that appointment is made on the most appropriate basis for the Corporation at that time. The Bill will therefore provide for the chairperson to be appointed on a part time or full time basis. Where a full time chairperson is appointed that person will be the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. Where however the chairperson is appointed on a part time basis, a Managing Director will be appointed by the Board as an additional director of the Corporation and that person will be the Chief Executive Officer. Honourable senators will agree that it is imperative that the Corporation be headed by the best available person and the increased flexibility provided by the Bill will enable this to be the case. The wool industry has been fortunate to have David Asimus as its Chairman for the past eight years. David has been an outstanding Chairman and has piloted the Corporation to its present successful position. David has publicly announced his intention to retire as Chairman of the Corporation when his current term expires at the end of June 1988. He will be sorely missed and he will be a most difficult person to replace. The new arrangements in the Bill will give the Minister more options to work with in trying to fill the gap David will leave. I hope however that we can do more than this. The Minister has said that he will ask David to stay on to serve the industry in some capacity, if it is at all possible for him to do so. There are numerous positions a person of his talent could ably fill. One which occurs to me is Chairman of the International Wool Secretariat. In the past the Australian Wool Corporation and International Wool Secretariat Chairman roles have been filled by two people, although in recent practice the full time Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation has also been the Chairman of the International Wool Secretariat. The new arrangements could open up the option for David to continue as Chairman of the International Wool Secretariat. In respect of other appointments to the Australian Wool Corporation the Bill provides for nine other Directors, in the case of a part time chairperson with a full time Managing Director, and eight other directors in the case of a full time chairperson. At present there is a Chairman, Government member and eight other members, four grower members appointed on the nomination of the Wool Council of Australia and four special qualifications members selected and appointed by the Minister. The Australian Wool Corporation has been served well by its members and these have been of the highest calibre. Nevertheless I do not believe that this procedure will always result in the best available persons being appointed. The Bill proposes a selection arrangement for the purpose of seeking out the best persons for appointment as directors of the Australian Wool Corporation. The procedure to be used has been worked out with the Wool Council of Australia and is unique to this Bill. The arrangement acknowledges that the Wool Council of Australia, as the body representing the growers who contribute to Australian Wool Corporation funds, should be represented on the Committee tasked with selecting the best persons for appointment to the Corporation. When a vacancy on the Australian Wool Corporation occurs the Wool Council of Australia will nominate between three and six persons to represent them on the Selection Committee. Those persons will join the presiding member of the Committee who will be a statutory officeholder appointed by the Minister for a term not exceeding three years. The Wool Industry Selection Committee so comprised will select grower and other special expertise persons for nomination as the eight selected directors to the Australian Wool Corporation according to selection criteria specified in the Bill. In undertaking its task the Selection Committee may employ staff and engage the services of a personnel search consultant. The Committee will be required to advertise for nominations in a newspaper circulated throughout Australia and the presiding member will be required to consult with the chairperson of the Australian Wool Corporation on the skills and qualities that should be reflected in the membership of the Corporation. Members of parliament, members of the Wool Council of Australia and members of the Selection Committee established to select persons for nomination to a particular vacancy will not be eligible for nomination to the Corporation. When the Selection Committee has completed its task it will be abolished by the presiding member. When another vacancy arises the presiding member will write to the Wool Council of Australia so advising them and requesting nominations of persons to represent them on the Selection Committee he will then establish to select persons against that vacancy or vacancies. The Wool Industry Selection Committee will therefore be an `ad hoc' committee established for the purpose of nominating persons to a position or group of positions and will dissolve once appointments are made. The one permanent appointment and obviously the pivotal position will be that of presiding member. It has always been the Minister's intention that a leading business figure would be appointed as Presiding Member to provide guidance to selection committee members on the requirements of a balanced corporate Board and on selection techniques. I have pleasure in announcing that Sir Roderick Carnegie has agreed to serve as Presiding Member for an initial three-year period. As members of this House will be aware, Sir Roderick is an outstanding Australian. He will serve the wool industry with great distinction. In the interim all current members of the Board of the Corporation will continue in office as directors under the new arrangements until their terms expire. Members will be aware of the sophistication of modern financial markets and of the complexities involved in present day financial management. Any corporation which is not structured so that it can control its cash flows, place its money and borrow at the best rates and adapt to changing circumstances, is vulnerable. In this context it is worth noting the financial demands on the Australian Wool Corporation. It presently has in excess of $1 billion to the credit of the market support fund, sells wool internationally in various currencies and could in the event of a severe downturn in the market be required to spend heavily in purchasing wool to support the market. The Australian Wool Corporation can on a financial transaction basis be equated with larger Australian private corporations. It is not appropriate in this regard for the Australian Wool Corporation to be hampered in its ability to operate commercially. It cannot be expected to frequently seek ministerial or government approvals for corporate financial decisions. It is also fundamentally wrong for major decisions on the finances and market operations of the Australian Wool Corporation, such as decisions on the minimum reserve price, to be taken in a political environment. If the Australian Wool Corporation is to act as an autonomous commercial body it must have its financial arrangements established, as far as possible on a commercial basis like any other business organisation. The Bill introduces a number of changes to ensure this. It also establishes a proper relationship on financial matters between the Australian Wool Corporation, the Government and the Wool Council of Australia. At present the Minister for Primary Industry determines the market indicator floor price each year for the Reserve Price Scheme. This is inconsistent with the Government's objectives of maximum commercial flexibility and autonomy. Accordingly, the Bill provides for the Corporation, as the commercial operator, to set and announce the minimum market indicator reserve price and the reserve prices for the various wool types, after agreement with the Wool Council on the minimum market indicator price. This arrangement recognises not only the commercial role of the Australian Wool Corporation but also the role of the Wool Council of Australia in representing the wool growers who provide the funds through a tax paid on the shorn value of wool sold. If the Corporation and the Council are unable to agree the Minister will determine and announce the minimum reserve price for that year. The Corporation will be required to furnish information relative to the setting of the minimum market indicator reserve price and the proposed levels for minimum reserve prices in the annual operational plan for the Minister's agreement. Moreover, the Minister will continue to require the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to advise him on the factors underlying the supply and demand for wool and the appropriate floor price level and to publish this information to provide another viewpoint to assist the Wool Council in the consultation process. Recently the need has been demonstrated for more flexibility in the rate and apportionment of wool tax. In particular the present experience of a healthy market support fund has been accompanied by a shortfall in funds for promotion arising from the depreciation of the Australian dollar. As a move in this direction the Bill provides for the Wool Council, after consultation with the Corporation, to decide how their wool tax should be allocated each year. Minimum allocations of 2.5 per cent to market support, 2.5 per cent to promotion and general purposes of the Corporation and 0.25 per cent to wool research and development have been specified. In other words 5.25 per cent of the wool tax on the shorn value of wool will be committed each year leaving the Wool Council free to allocate the remainder of the tax among these areas of activity. The Minister will shortly be introducing complementary legislation to increase the ceiling rate of wool tax from 8 per cent of the shorn value of wool to 10 per cent. This will give greater flexibility to the Corporation to respond to pressures on the reserve price scheme and promotion funding needs. I should hastily add that the increase in the ceiling rate does not mean that the operational rate will automatically change from the current 8 per cent. Any request from the Wool Council for an increase in the present ceiling rate will be studied very carefully by the Treasurer and the Minister before making a decision. The reponsibility for determining refunds will rest with the Wool Council. Current arrangements, whereby the Corporation can borrow up to $200m without ministerial approval, and at least a further $200m with approvals are inflexible and inconsistent with statutory marketing authority reform policy. In the event of a sudden and significant downturn in the market necessitating heavy buying by the Corporation, it is vital that the Corporation be able to fund purchases and maintain market confidence in the floor price through immediate access to substantial funds available under previously arranged lines of credit. This Bill provides for the Australian Wool Corporation to borrow, without ministerial approval, up to 50 per cent of its net assets valued at the end of the previous financial year. Borrowings beyond 50 per cent of Corporation net assets at the end of the preceding financial year will continue to require ministerial approval. In effect this means that the greater the net value of assets the higher the permissible level of borrowings with approval. To place this approach in perspective, it would have implied borrowings of about $500m if applied in 1986-87. This arrangement allows the corporation to borrow to the extent of a 50 per cent debt to equity ratio which is a conservative level when compared with leverage levels of modern business enterprises particularly in the light of the Corporation's conservative valuation of some of its assets. The Australian Wool Corporation has an outstanding record of financial stewardship to support this arrangement and will have a high calibre expertise based Board to oversight its implementation. The Bill also provides for the Corporation, after consultation with the Wool Council, to appoint a commercial auditor should it so wish. If it does seek to use a commercial auditor, the Minister for Primary Industry will be responsible for the appointment of the auditor subject to the Auditor-General's agreement that the auditor is suitable and to the agreement of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts. I believe this provision is an important step in increasing the commercialisation of the Australian Wool Corporation. Under the existing legislation the precise ownership of some wool stores which were vested in a predecessor of the Corporation in 1953 has been uncertain, particularly in view of the defence provision dating back to World War II which allows the wool stores to be reacquired in the event of threat of war. This Bill removes the defence provision which has been rendered obsolete and clarifies the ownership issue by fully vesting all wool stores in the Corporation. Simultaneously the Bill upgrades the status and visibility of the wool stores operation by establishing a separate wool stores board of management as a sub-committee of the Corporation to administer the stores to the benefit of wool growers. The wool stores board of management will be required to prepare corporate and annual operation plans and an audited annual report, with full visibility of financial accounts, to the corporation for inclusion in the latter's annual report. The wool stores managed by the Corporation are an important aspect of the wool marketing and logistics system in Australia and it is of paramount importance that they be established on an appropriate management basis. In addition the stores are a significant asset of Australian wool growers. They should be managed so as to ensure the best commercial returns to wool growers and growers should be appraised of the location and other relevant information on the stores and on the results of their management. Provisions in the Bill will achieve these goals. The third objective I stated for this Bill was that of ensuring accountability by the Corporation in a way which does not disturb the Corporation's commercial performance. Under the arrangements proposed in the Bill there will be a significant devolution of responsibility to the Corporation to allow greater operational flexibility by freeing it from the need for constant reference to the Minister for approval of each major activity. This re-direction is essential to the proper commercial functioning of the Corporation. Whilst they give additional freedom to the Corporation over commercial matters, these changes can in no way be taken as reducing the level of its accountability by the Australian Wool Corporation to government and wool growers. The changes I have mentioned are accompanied by provisions to ensure proper accountability. These provisions are interlocked in the Bill so that the Corporation will be required to operate on a corporate strategic basis both in its management and in its dual accountability to Government and industry. The Bill, as discussed previously, clearly defines the role of the Australian Wool Corporation and ensures that it has the wherewithal, including the necessary skills at board level, to perform its role in a commercial manner. In this respect the selection committee comprised essentially of Wool Council of Australia nominees will have an important accountability role. The Minister will select and appoint the chairperson of the Corporation and that person will be his principal point of contact with the Corporation. He will relate with the chairperson throughout the year and in particular he will request that he or she report to him on any substantial policy matters, pertinent to the corporation's relationship to Government policy, following each board meeting. The Minister will also select and appoint the Government director who will be a special expertise appointee knowledgable in matters of Government policy and public administration. The Government director will not however have a reporting relationship to the Minister on Corporation business which is any different to that of any of the other directors. In this respect the Minister will expect that person, like any other director, to perform a two hatted role in respect of the separation between the corporate role as a director of the Corporation and any other role normally filled. In keeping with modern corporate practice, the Corporation will be required to prepare each year, after consultation with the Wool Council of Australia, a corporate plan for the ensuing five-year period and an operational plan for the next financial year and submit these for the Minister's agreement at least one month before the commencement of the period. These plans will address the strategies the Corporation intends to follow and the Corporation will be required to state its strategies in respect of wool stores, research and development and its equal employment opportunity program. The Wool Research and Development Council will also prepare a five-year research and development plan for presentation to the Corporation for later submission for the Minister's agreement. The Corporation will also be required to present an annual report for the latest financial year to Parliament and to the Wool Council of Australia within a specified time frame. This report is to include full particulars of the Corporation's activities with full visibility of the financial accounts pertaining to each activity. In particular the report will contain an assessment of the Corporation's performance during the financial year against the corporate goals agreed with the Minister for that year. The Chairman of the Corporation will be required to personally present the report to the first meeting of the Wool Council after it is tabled in Parliament and to be available to answer any questions arising from the report. Apart from the accountability procedures mentioned above, there is also a provision for the Minister to give directions to the Corporation in exceptional circumstances. I do not envisage the use of such a power with any frequency. It is in the nature of a reserve provision and there are strong caveats against its capricious use including the requirement that any directions issued to the Corporation be in writing, gazetted and tabled in Parliament. The corporate strategic arrangements I have outlined here both provide the Australian Wool Corporation with a modern management system for its operations and an effective strategic basis for its meeting its accountability obligations. In respect of the wool quality assurance objectives of the Government it is important to recognise the value of wool to Australian agricultural producers and the wider community. Wool is our number one rural export and Australia is the dominant world supplier of apparel wool. We must do everything possible to preserve that market dominance of Australian wool and its competitive position relative to other fibres. This includes taking whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of Australian wool. The wool industry has, essentially through self-regulatory approaches, sought to institute sound quality controls in the selling system and has participated on Corporation advisory committees in the establishment of wool selling regulations and clip preparation standards. The Australian Wool Corporation also operates a voluntary scheme for registration of wool classers. Notwithstanding these measures there are reports from overseas mills of wool being delivered which is not to standard, contains contamination or in some other way does not conform to desirable levels of quality. When one examines present procedures and the prospect for unscrupulous operation, the need for change is real. This will become an increasingly important issue as wool is sold by description with further introduction of automated processes in modern textile mills. There is also a growing community concern about the quality of commodities generally and with the pesticide issue. I believe that more has to be done to build industry co-operation and the Bill introduces a number of new quality assurance provisions with the Corporation playing a pivotal role. The Bill provides for compulsory registration of wool classers classing wool to be sold at auction, prohibition of sale at auction unless classed by a registered wool classer and deregistration of wool classers for up to two weeks where such classers have been found to consistently flout industry agreed standards for presentation of wool for auction. The scheme, to be administered by the Corporation in consultation with appropriate industry advisory committees, will cover owner classers, professional classers and classing houses. Although aimed at auctions for practical administration reasons it is expected that the benefits will flow over to wool sold outside auction. It is expected that deregistration action would be an infrequently used deterrent but would have a significant impact on the industry. Any deregistration action would be subject to appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Minister will request the Corporation to form a committee comprising all relevant industry organisations, including the Woolclassers Association, to develop this scheme. Pesticide residues in wool and wool by-products such as lanolin also pose a threat to our exports. Pesticides such as dieldrin are illegal under State legislation for use on livestock but at present there are no adequate control mechanisms to ensure that sheep are not improperly treated. Pesticide residues can only be detected through chemical analysis and this Bill enables the Corporation to acquire samples from wool testing houses, to ascertain the ownership of wool found to have excessive levels of pesticide residue. The Corporation will then be able to provide a warning to the grower and if necessary to inform the relevant state authorities for action under State legislation. Reserve powers are also provided in the Bill to allow the withdrawal from auction of any wool which the Corporation advised where appropriate by its industry advisory committees, considers does not meet industry standards of preparation. This also includes action to stop the use of second hand wool packs. These reserve powers will require the offending bales and documentation to be noted accordingly, with such notation to be withdrawn once the wool has been re-prepared in accordance with acceptable standards. The intention is only to invoke such powers if industry agreement and action on a self regulatory approach is not forthcoming. A further matter which affects wool quality is shearing. The Minister is concerned at industry reports that the present high level of wool production will lead to shortages in the availability of quality shearers with adverse effects on the industry. The Minister has specified a function in the Bill for the Australian Wool Corporation to encourage and facilitate the training of shearers with a view to ensuring the availability of shearers for the industry and a standard of shearing suited to its needs. The Minister has also asked his Department to investigate what more can be done by the Commonwealth Government in this respect and will introduce further policy changes if necessary. I make the comment, in regard to the quality assurance provisions of the Bill, that these issues have been around the industry for many years. Recently a report was released by an industry committee set up to prepare a code of practice for preparation of Australian wool clips. Apart from that report the questions of poor clip preparation and contamination, classer registration, use of secondhand packs and pesticide residues are all issues, Mr President, which everyone has been aware of and nobody has acted on. This Government is not prepared to shirk the issue. The risks from exposure under present legislation are too high and this Government has acted decisively to introduce real change. The final objective I mentioned for this Bill is that of providing a modern, businesslike legislation to govern the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation and the auction system. We have through the Bill sought to establish a new modern commercial approach to the administration of wool marketing in this country. If we are to be successful in this endeavour, the new arrangements must provide a sound good management practice and be expressed in such a way that its provisions are clearly communicated to and understood by participants in the wool marketing system. This Bill is expressed, as far as possible, in what is commonly called plain English terms. Much of the detail of the Wool Industry Act has been removed and the Bill is organised on the basis of a clear logical structure. There is a clear specification in the Bill of the objects and functions of the Corporation. The Bill comprises nine integral parts, including a new part introduced to cover the finance of the Corporation. Each part is self contained with a statement of the object, functions and powers of the Australian Wool Corporation in respect of that part. I have outlined as far as possible the most significant reforms to the administration arrangements for the wool industry since 1972. I have considered a number of changes in detail and have alluded to the Government's reforms for statutory marketing authorities which include adoption of equal employment opportunity procedures and the power to establish subsidiaries, subject to Ministerial approval. Because the reforms are so extensive it has been considered logical, as proposed, to repeal the existing Wool Industry Act 1972 as frequently amended and replace it with the Wool Marketing Bill, a title more representative of the content and orientation of the legislation. Many sections of the Wool Industry Act have been retained, notably the 1986 amendments to wool research and development. The old section relating to refunds from the Market Support Fund was essentially a set of administrative procedures and guidelines and these have been removed to be redrafted as regulations to be made under the proposed legislation. I am confident that the new Wool Marketing Bill will enable the wool industry to better respond to future marketing challenges. The proposed reforms are not expected to impose any additional costs on the Commonwealth. Indeed it is expected that there will be indirect savings, albeit modest, in administration through devolution of responsibility to the Corporation. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. WOOL TAX (No. 1) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 1) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on the sale value of shorn wool sold by a wool broker. This Bill is one of five wool tax amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool. It provides for an increase in the maximum rate of wool tax to 10 per cent and for a minimum rate of wool tax of 5.25 per cent being equal to the sum of the minimum rates of apportionment of the wool tax specified in the Wool Marketing Bill of 1987. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. WOOL TAX (No. 2) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on the sale value of shorn wool purchased by a registered wool dealer from a person other than a wool broker. This Bill is one of five wool tax amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool. It provides for an increase in the maximum rate of wool tax to 10 per cent and for a minimum rate of wool tax of 5.25 per cent being equal to the sum of the minimum rates of apportionment of the wool tax specified in the Wool Marketing Bill of 1987. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. WOOL TAX (No. 3) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on the sale value of shorn wool purchased by a manufacturer from a person other than a wool broker or a registered wool dealer. This Bill is one of five wool tax amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool. It provides for an increase in the maximum rate of wool tax to 10 per cent and for a minimum rate of wool tax of 5.25 per cent being equal to the sum of the minimum rates of apportionment of the wool tax specified in the Wool Marketing Bill of 1987. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. WOOL TAX (No. 4) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on the sale value of shorn wool subjected by a manufacturer to process of manufacture. This Bill is one of five wool tax amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool. It provides for an increase in the maximum rate of wool tax to 10 per cent and for a minimum rate of wool tax of 5.25 per cent being equal to the sum of the minimum rates of apportionment of the wool tax specified in the Wool Marketing Bill of 1987. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. WOOL TAX (No. 5) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on the sale value of shorn wool exported from Australia. This Bill is one of five wool tax amendments Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool. It provides for an increase in the maximum rate of wool tax to 10 per cent and for a minimum rate of wool tax of 5.25 per cent being equal to the sum of the minimum rates of apportionment of the wool tax specified in the Wool Marketing Bill of 1987. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Collard)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Sheil for the period 11 May 1987 to 15 May 1987, inclusive, on account of ill health. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.43) —I move: That the Advisory Council (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 2 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. The Advisory Council (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 proposes to do two things. Firstly, it removes a requirement that seven people be needed to form a quorum at meetings of any advisory council that a government may set up in the Australian Capital Territory in the future. Of course, such an advisory council is no substitute for effective self-government, which is what the Australian Democrats would like to see for the Australian Capital Territory. Such effective self-government must have proper financial guarantees available in the legislation and an electoral system which would not provide 60 per cent of the seats on 40 per cent of the votes and must provide real control over the day to day matters, including land planning and administration of the Territory, by a body which has been properly and reasonably elected by the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The second arm of the Ordinance which I am seeking to disallow today has the following objectionable aim: To allow the Minister, at his discretion, to determine the number of people on such an advisory council. I quote from the explanatory statements on this Ordinance: The Advisory Council (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 amends the principal Ordinance to provide that the number of members comprising the Council will be at the Minister's discretion. I would like the Senate to realise that `at the Minister's discretion' means totally open slather. The Senate has, at this stage, knocked out the quite outlandish sums of $9,701 in fees and $1,000 in allowances that the Remuneration Tribunal put forward in response to the submission of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) for this advisory council. However, it is still possible for a future government to aim at a similar waste of money, and perhaps even a greater one. Under those circumstances we would need to be constantly vigilant because we could end up with a Minister deciding that he wanted to appoint 30, 40 or any number of people to such an advisory council, if this type of arrangement were available. Indeed, the Government might want sinecures for people to assist in a campaign leading up to a general election. It might want to pay off old debts and give people safe positions on a body. This is an open cheque if we do not reject this Ordinance. It is quite important that we should be making certain that future governments cannot just take up the idea of the advisory council. The current Minister has said that he will not go ahead with it, so it really does not make any sense that we should be debating this now. I offered, if the Government were willing to support me, to make this a formal motion; but the Government said that it would vote against this disallowance motion. That seems very fishy to me. The Government said that it was not going ahead with the advisory council; why then is it so keen on making this change which gives the Minister open slather? I remind the Senate that the Government has failed to make available time for debate of any of the Bills for self-government which are now on the Senate Notice Paper. We have not been given a chance to debate them. If we had been, they would have been passed with amendments and we would now have properly elected self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. I point out that it is distinctly in the Government's court that we do not have proper and effective self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. The second point that I want to make is that already a large number of committees advise the Minister directly. Such committees as the Taxi Fares Advisory Committee, the Community Services Council and the Housing Liaison Advisory Committee advise the Minister, and others are set up from time to time. A small advisory committee might have been acceptable, provided that we did not pay for it. Had the Government made clear that what it wanted to do was to have no more than 13 people on any advisory committee, we would not have objected to this-if it was to be a smaller number. However, that is not what the Ordinance says. The Ordinance removes the words `12 other councillors' in section 6 (1) (b) of the Advisory Council Ordinance 1986 and it leaves the way open for 20, 30 or 100 appointees if that is what the Government wants. The current shambles over the appointment of the successor to Senator Grimes, I believe, shows that it is very important to get wording right. The alteration to the Constitution in 1977 had a variety of known defects and others have emerged since. We have had quite a few difficulties, even with the very first appointments under that new system, and we will have quite a few more. The Senate is able to say to the Minister and the Department of Territories: `If you really do mean no more than 12 advisory councillors plus a president, then we should say it explicitly'. That is what our job is. We should not just leave it in a vacuum and let some sort of general understanding prevail. History has shown that governments do not operate that way. The situation in Tasmania with the replacement of Senator Grimes shows that if there is a hole in the wording it will be used. It would be totally remiss of this Senate as a House of review to allow an open-ended proposition of this type to go through and on the books, even if this Government does not intend to use it. If this Government does not intend to use it the Government should be voting against it and not cluttering the books, cluttering the legislative system, with utterly useless pieces of legislation. I believe we are here to keep Ministers and administrators on the straight and narrow. We were elected as Australian Democrats on some type of theme to `keep the bastards honest'. That is exactly what we are doing. It may be in something very small; in this case there is something fishy about this Ordinance. Why is the Government insisting on wanting to have a vote at this stage on an issue which it is telling us is dead? We need answers to those types of questions, and we must also have the courage to stand up and say to the Government: `Come clean on this. If you really do mean not to have an advisory council, why are you forcing us into this situation?'. I would just like to complete my short presentation on this matter by pointing out that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has a role to play in investigating the problems that exist in the Australian Capital Territory. The people of the Australian Capital Territory are not being given proper rights of representation by this Government, and that is a real problem that we are facing. This particular Advisory Council (Amendment) Ordinance is just a part of the artificial construction which this Government is putting up as an excuse for self-government, as a replacement for self-government, and I believe that is just not good enough and we should throw it out holus-bolus. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.53) —I shall endeavour to be much briefer than Senator Vigor was. I totally disagree with the things that he said. The simple explanation for his motion being voted against-which it will be-is that in the original negotiations for the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council (Amendment) Ordinance there was provision for the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) to appoint 13 councillors. I pointed out to the Minister at the time that 13 councillors might be an excessive number, and after some negotiations with the Minister he agreed with me that it would be better that the Ordinance contain a provision which said: `appoint so many Councillors as from time to time the Minister may determine.' In effect, as the explanatory statement attached to the Ordinance states: Section 3 amends section 6 of the Principal Ordinance to provide that the Council will comprise a President and such number of other Councillors as may be appointed. So all this does is to vary the Ordinance so that instead of there being a requirement that there be 13 councillors, there will be such other councillors as may be appointed. Senator Vigor —Thirty or 40? Senator LEWIS —That is nonsense. Of course the Minister would not appoint 30 or 40. The Minister has a political responsibility to the people of Australia, and he is not going to do something stupid like appointing 30 or 40. I was rather hoping, if he were to go on with this Bill, that he would appoint seven or eight, and he would have had the discretion to do that. The truth of the matter is that the Government is not going to appoint any. The whole Advisory Council is now defunct, and the motion is a nonsense and should not be debated any longer. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.55) —The Government takes the view that this proposal to disallow the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council (Amendment) Ordinance is a waste of time, and we will not be supporting it. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.56) —The Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill implement major proposals by the Government to rationalise the judicial system in Australia, and that question is of the utmost importance, and these Bills have very great significance because of that importance. The Opposition has favoured the cross-vesting proposal, and we will support that Bill, although we will be proposing a number of amendments to it. However, we believe the other Bill, the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, is not only contrary to the notion of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, but also goes a step backwards from the present situation, and we will oppose that Bill. The subject that these Bills deal with, as I have said, relates to the whole of the judicial system of Australia, and therefore the legislation is of historic significance. Because Australia is a federation and because the Constitution creates a Federal judicial power, we have within our Constitution the inevitable situation of there being Federal jurisdiction as well as State jurisdiction. That was the choice of the founders of the Constitution. They in that regard, as in many others, were influenced by the Constitution of the United States of America. Anyone familiar with the United States Constitution and the way it works in the judicial area is well aware of this great significance of the Federal jurisdiction and State jurisdiction, of Federal courts and State courts, and of the misuse which can be made of those two streams, because in the United States of America the concept has been taken to excess, and virtually never the twain shall meet. Indeed, I suppose television watchers these days without any legal training would have heard the expressions `That is in the Federal jurisdiction' or `That is in the State jurisdiction' and so on. The Australian Constitution did not go as far as that, and indeed left it open for the Federal Parliament, although it has the power to set up its own judicial system, to invest the State courts with Federal jurisdiction. By and large, until the last decade or so, that has been the choice followed by governments and parliaments in Australia. So the real problems of having conflicting jurisdictions between the Federal and State systems was avoided in Australia until comparatively recent times. I might add, of course, that there is another major difference between the United States system and our own system under our Constitution. That is the establishment of the High Court of Australia as the final court of appeal, not only, of course, in constitutional matters but also in matters from all courts in Australia, whether they are State courts or Federal courts, exercising State or Federal jurisdiction. It was a piece of great enlightenment on the part of the founders of the Australian Constitution that they saw the force and certainly the desirability of having a hierarchical judicial system with one final court of appeal. Of course, in those days there was the Privy Council as well, but I do not need to go into that. But certainly the fact that they established the High Court as the final court of appeal from both the Federal and State judicial systems is of tremendous importance and value. It now gives us the opportunity of doing something effective about the conflicts which have arisen in recent years. The possibility of such conflicts has always been inherent in the system. Their dangers were perceived very well by Australia's greatest lawyer, Sir Owen Dixon. In fact, he detected and warned about them as long ago as the 1920s when he gave evidence before a royal commission on the Constitution. He strongly advocated then, 60 years ago, that we do something about the matter before we got into the American mess. He suggested that there ought simply to be a unified court system in Australia which was neither Federal nor State. But, of course, the proposal that he advanced would have required a constitutional amendment, and no government or parliament in Australia has thought that to be a very satisfactory way of proceeding. I would like to refer to some remarks made by Sir Owen Dixon when he was sworn in as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. My colleague the shadow Attorney-General quoted these remarks in another place and I think they should be put into the record of the Senate as well. Sir Owen said: . . . I think it has become apparent to a larger number of people, and to all the judges of the Commonwealth, that the judicial system of the Commonwealth is an integral whole and that the High Court stands merely as the final appellate tribunal in Australia in that coherent and established system which is recognised as a unit in judicial administration . . . In saying that this represents simply the appellate tribunal and the tribunal for Federal questions in the judicial system of the Commonwealth, I do not overlook the distinction which we unfortunately maintain between State and Federal jurisdiction. This is an eighteenth century conception which we derived from the United States of America in the faithful copy which was made of their judicial institutions. It is to be hoped that at some future time it will be recognised that under the English system of law, the British system of law which we inherited, the whole body of law is antecedent to the work of any Legislation and that the courts as a whole must interpret and apply the whole of law, so that there should be one judicial system in Australia which is neither State nor Commonwealth but a system of Australian courts administering the total body of the law. As I said, those remarks were made by Sir Owen, when he was sworn in as Chief Justice of the High Court in, I think 1952. He was repeating then what he had already said 20-odd years before. Indeed, he maintained that view throughout the rest of his legal career. I think it is a view which is subscribed to by most Australian lawyers, but, as I said, unfortunately it is one which requires a constitutional amendment to give effect to it. Although the odd few problems probably arose from time to time prior to the 1970s, I would imagine that it was then that problems began to arise more regularly, particularly after the establishment of the Federal Court in Australia in 1977. However, there had been a Federal Court prior to that, known as the Industrial Court, and no doubt there were some areas of conflict then. The other major initiative of the Federal Parliament in the 1970s was the establishment of the Family Court of Australia. So about this time there were very great advances by the Commonwealth in establishing and expanding the Federal judicial system. At more or less the same time there was also a very considerable increase in legislative activity by the Parliament. New areas of legal rights and obligations were created, particularly in the trade practices area. In many other areas Federal powers were exercised for the first time, creating further potential for conflicts of jurisdiction. Looking back, I regret that the matter was not really more fully thought out and that these problems were not grappled with at an earlier stage. But, certainly by the time I became Attorney-General towards the end 1977, a lot of concerns were arising. I can remember suggesting at the Constitutional Convention in Perth in 1978 that we should look, through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, not at the ideal propounded by Sir Owen Dixon but at some ways of co-ordinating the State and Federal courts and the jurisdictions conferred on them respectively by this Parliament in order to minimise as far as we could the potential for conflict so that litigants would not be shunted around from one court to another wasting money and time and generally finding the legal system utterly infuriating. I might say that fortunately it is not an area of the law which most legal practitioners find of any interest, because the legal arguments involved really are quite arid and useless and I think most lawyers-even though some of them may make a little money out of them-do not find them agreeable or satisfying. So the search has continued since then. One of the ways that were favoured at one point was the investing of State and Federal courts with concurrent jurisdiction under Federal laws. There were thought to be difficulties about State parliaments investing Federal courts with jurisdiction-I suppose there still are difficulties-but legal advice now seems to indicate that that is possible, and that has been a major advance towards the legislation that we now have before us. Shortly after the present Government came to power, at a legal convention in Adelaide some more adventurous proposals were advanced whereby, instead of simply conferring concurrent jurisdiction on State or Federal courts we made a move to a bolder plan along the lines envisaged, I guess, by Sir Owen Dixon which might be achieved without the need for constitutional amendment. A committee of that Constitutional Convention was set up. It was chaired by Mr Storey, a former Victorian Attorney-General for some years; and Senator Gareth Evans and I were members of that committee, together with a number of other State politicians most of whom had had experience in this area and who had in some cases also been State Attorneys-General. That committee consulted widely with judges, with State Governments and with the profession, and it recommended to the Constitutional Convention held in Brisbane in August 1985 two proposals. One was the cross-vesting of jurisdiction at trial level between the Federal Court of Australia and the State Supreme Courts and between the Family Court of Australia and the State Supreme Courts, such cross-vesting of jurisdiction to be effected by the conferring of original Federal jurisdiction on State Supreme Courts and the conferring of original State jurisdiction on the Federal Court and the Family Court; and secondly it recommended the setting up of an Australian court of appeal below the High Court of Australia to hear appeals in civil matters from the decisions of the State Supreme Courts, the Federal Court and the Family Court. That committee was well aware of the objections widely held to the idea of establishing an Australian court of appeal, so it did not link the two proposals together. It left it to the Convention to decide either to accept both proposals or simply the proposal for cross-vesting. In the event, the Convention decided that the only proposal that would be widely accepted was the proposal for cross-vesting of jurisdiction, and the committee detailed the way it would work. The Convention did not adopt the proposal for an Australian court of appeal below the High Court. I think that was an unfortunate decision. It was unfortunate that, for the better development of the Australian legal system, agreement could not be reached on the establishment of an intermediate Federal court of appeal below the High Court. Schemes were proposed whereby State judges would participate fully in that court. When I say a Federal court, it would be Federal only in the sense that it would necessarily be established by Federal legislation, but certainly every opportunity should, in my view, have been taken to proceed with that proposal because it would have been better, instead of having a whole appellate system within the Federal Court and another in the State court, with the High Court ultimately at the pinnacle of the system, to pool the resources of the State and Federal systems into one appellate court standing between those judges exercising the original jurisdiction and the High Court. But that opportunity was not taken. I hope the proposal will not be abandoned or forgotten by government and parliaments. I hope some day the wisdom of the proposal will be better considered without the degree of prejudice that unfortunately seemed to be attached to it. Mr Storey presented that proposal. On behalf of the Government, the present Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, said that the Commonwealth Government was pleased to go along with those proposals that found favour with the Convention. In his speech at Brisbane he said: As far as cross-vesting is concerned, the Commonwealth has made it clear that, provided the States are prepared to amend their legislation similarly, the Commonwealth will amend the Federal Court of Australia Act in order to prevent actions being brought before the Federal Court which ought more properly to be brought in State courts. I am aware also that there are problems in what is called the trade practices jurisdiction, but I am advised that a legislative solution can be found to accommodate the particular problems that have arisen in that area. That was a promising situation because we had wide agreement at the Convention and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth was saying that he would proceed to implement the proposals. He certainly proceeded in that direction and, at the end of last year, the Bills now before us were introduced into the House of Representatives. Given the slowness with which things move in the legal area in Australia, it was not a bad performance to have it in the House within 12 months. Unfortunately, the proposals fell very far short indeed of the concept and the detailed provisions of the recommendations of the committee of the Constitutional Convention to which I have referred. To quite a large extent, the legislation still falls short of those recommendations and, as I said, the recommendations themselves also fall short of the ideal that could have been achieved had there been bolder and more forward thinking. The real failing of the legislation is that it preserves the concept of exclusive jurisdiction in some areas for the Federal Court, which is quite contrary to the proposal for cross-vesting. It also goes a step further and removes from the State courts their exclusive and original jurisdiction in tax matters and at the time the Attorney-General introduced the legislation, also in intellectual and industrial property matters. Since then the Government has amended the legislation to bring the intellectual and industrial property jurisdiction into the cross-vesting system, and that is a considerable advance about which I am pleased. However, the Government has not seen fit to bring the tax jurisdiction into the scheme, as envisaged by the cross-vesting Bill. Indeed, it has gone one step further and removed from the State courts their jurisdiction to hear taxation matters and has given exclusive authority in taxation matters to the Federal Court. That is the reason why the Opposition proposes to vote against the second Bill. Hopefully, the Government may think again and come up with a full cross-vesting scheme in relation to tax matters. We can achieve that in all other areas where exclusive jurisdiction is retained for the Federal Court. We can achieve that under the Trade Practices Act and other Acts by a simple amendment to the cross-vesting Bill, but it is not so simple to do that in respect of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The Government's argument for retaining exclusivity of jurisdiction in certain areas is hard to follow, particularly in the light of its support for the concept of cross-vesting which the Attorney-General gave at the convention in Brisbane. This scheme was supported by the chief justices of the States at the time. I have checked again and have found that they are still of the same view-that is, that it is desirable to have a full cross-vesting system. The Attorney seems to suggest that one reason why State chief justices would be happy to get rid of the tax jurisdiction was the great volume of tax cases that had suddenly flooded the State systems. However, from my discussions I believe that their real concern was that they were being asked to cope with all of the cases that are in the system without being able to rearrange their judges and their systems to cope on a permanent basis. That was pretty unreasonable. Amendments to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1987 provide for a complete or holus-bolus transfer of all existing tax cases to the Federal Court of Australia, as well as future cases that can only be exclusively commenced there. Compared with State supreme court judges, judges of the Federal Court do not have superior wisdom in tax matters. Obviously, there are horses for courses, so to speak. A number of judges in the State courts may not have had much experience of tax matters. Many judges do not have much experience of criminal matters before they become supreme court judges. Yet a lot of the work of supreme courts is in the criminal jurisdiction. Certainly there are some very fine judges in the Federal Court who do tax work and work in other specialised areas. But there is absolutely no reason why State judges who can handle a lot of other complicated legal matters should not be quite capable of handling these areas which are, according to this legislation, still kept exclusively within the Federal Court. I believe that the Government's proposals are a step backwards from the advances that were made after great effort at the Brisbane convention in 1985. As I have said, I would have hoped that the Brisbane convention might have gone further towards creating a unified court system in Australia. At least that objective should be achieved by this legislation and this Parliament at this time. It is disappointing to see the Government's proposals are a step backwards rather than a step forward from Brisbane where there was wide agreement. For those reasons the Opposition supports this legislation in principle but it is disappointed with the restrictions that it contains on the cross-vesting principle. We believe there is no rational argument in support of that. We hope that if our amendments succeed, the Government will be induced to adopt a full cross-vesting system. But even if it does not happen, I must record the Opposition's support for the advances in that direction that are made in this legislation. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.24) —The Australian Democrats welcome the intro- duction of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1987 which should go some way towards freeing the Australian court system from jurisdictional disputes. The proposals should eliminate at least some of the problems which have arisen in the past involving the choice of the correct jurisdiction in which civil actions might be brought, particularly in relation to commerce and family law matters. Senator Durack referred to the Brisbane convention. Of course, there were some extensive discussions in the family law area at the Adelaide and Brisbane conventions. Up to now, choosing the wrong court has been very expensive to litigants both in terms of time and money. Despite that support, the Australian Democrats have some concerns about each of the Bills. I will look at these concerns in some detail at the Committee stage when we are discussing the clauses and the Opposition amendments which have been circulated in the chamber. As honourable senators are aware, this scheme was arrived at after quite lengthy and detailed consultations between the Commonwealth, the States, the Northern Territory and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The rationale for the scheme, as finally devised, is sensible-that is, that the jurisdiction should be shared between the courts in our Federal system. The proposal involves the transfer of jurisdiction between Federal and State systems, between State and State and between Territory and Territory. Problems which have arisen in the past should be greatly simplified by the passage of this legislation and matching legislation in all States and Territories of the Commonwealth. As Senator Durack pointed out, some matters will remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. We will obviously deal with this issue in greater detail at the Committee stage. This proposal means that litigants will not be able to go forum shopping. By and large, the scheme will mean that justice will be administered, hopefully more quickly and efficiently, and some of the futile arguments about the particular jurisdiction in which a case should be heard will be avoided. The legislation provides for the existence of specialist jurisdictions and the Opposition, through its amendments, will oppose this measure. The types of arguments outlined by Senator Durack certainly have merit. Indeed, there has been a great deal of argument leading up to this legislation. Honourable senators who have been involved have been inundated with representations and material. In looking at the operation of the legislation overall, the Australian Democrats have decided that a case can be made out for the matters of particular significance to the Commonwealth which are to be treated in these Bills as special Federal matters. Before speaking further on that matter, let me say that while it is a great pity that the courts of this country have never been fully integrated, that is a fact of life which we cannot ignore. In terms of our attitude to the Bills, we are concerned to see that the best is made of this fact. The relatively narrow range of matters defined as special Federal matters in the Bill are presently within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The special role and expertise of that court is recognised in relation to matters that arise particularly under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act; under section 39b of the Judiciary Act under which writs or injunctions are sought against certain Commonwealth officers; under Part IV of the Trade Practices Act, except sections 45d and e which, obviously, will be debated in this chamber at some later stage; under section 32 of the National Crime Authority Act; and other matters as defined in clause 3 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The body of expertise built up by courts with specialist jurisdictions means that these courts will be able to deal with cases within that jurisdiction more efficiently, more quickly and, hopefully, more cheaply than courts that do not have that expertise. As I have said, that argument will be dealt with at greater length when we debate clauses of the cross-vesting Bill. Before moving on to comment on the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, I want to raise some concerns that have been drawn to the attention of the Australian Democrats by the Law Reform Commission of Victoria. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MACKLIN —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I was making some comments on the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1987. I was about to draw the attention of the Senate to some concerns that have been raised by the Law Reform Commission of Victoria. Essentially, these concern the cross-vesting Bill, in particular clause 11 (1) (c) and clause 11 (1) (b). I raise these concerns in the hope that the Minister in summing up the second reading debate might be able to address those problems raised by the Law Reform Commission. The concern with clause 11 (1) (c) seems to be aimed at any possible difficulties that might arise, particularly under sections 79 and 80 of the Judiciary Act in cases where transfer is possible, and where different States have different statutes of limitations. It is not possible to say what the Government has considered or not considered in the run-up to this legislation. It may very well have looked at these particular problems. If so, I would be quite interested to hear any comments from the Minister. The Law Reform Commission has drawn attention, for example, to the vast and unstructured discretion granted by clause 11 (1) (c) to apply any rule of evidence or procedure anywhere in Australia. This could very well cause problems, possibly in terms of the way it might be done. Hopefully, we might be looking at the absolute minimum of expense in protracted litigation, which is after all the intent of the Bill. When one looks at the experience with respect to statutes of limitations under sections 79 and 80 of the Judiciary Act one is rather pessimistic that this might be the case. The concern with clause 11 (1) (b), however, is more substantial. The Law Reform Commission has raised this problem: Its effect is that if the subject matter of the action arises under the written law of another State or Territory, the court must apply the written and the unwritten substantive law of the other State or Territory. The real source of the difficulty is that this clause requires the application of a choice of law rule which is different from that which would have been applied in a non cross-vested action. This may give rise to a different result entirely at the discretion of the plaintiff, because it is the plaintiff who chooses whether to commence in a court with ordinary jurisdiction over the matter or in a court whose jurisdiction is only a cross-vested one. I will certainly be interested in the Minister's comments on that. I might need to return to that matter at the Committee stage. I would like now to turn to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. In passing I note the regret of the Australian Democrats that there is not full integration. The Senate, of course, has already been appraised of some of the concerns, for example, of the Law Council of Australia, and I wish only to raise these arguments briefly. The Law Council of Australia has been quite active in making submissions on this matter. It is important to point out that the Council's most recent submission, that of 11 May, says basically that the legislation is commendable. That is the attitude that the Australian Democrats have taken; hence we will be supporting the legislation. However, the Law Council goes on to raise essentially two other items. One is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court in tax appeals. The other concerns clause 7 (5) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill. It maintains that it should be opposed on the grounds that it will have an adverse effect on the status of the Supreme Court. These items were raised previously in the debate by Senator Durack. While in our deliberations we have taken full account of the concerns raised by the Law Council about these two Bills, particularly its weighty submission of a couple of weeks ago, we believe that it is far better to proceed with the Bills as they currently stand-at least we are moving somewhere. While obviously there will be hiccups along the way and while we may wish we had more, we are getting part of the way down the track. When one considers the rather tortuous history of this affair, one is rather loth to give up the chance of some movement in the hope of getting everything one was looking for. It is on that basis that we intend to support the legislation before us in its entirety, in the hope that further down the track future governments, whether of the persuasion of this Government or of the Opposition-I was heartened by Senator Durack's full support in this matter-will, in fact, take the steps necessary to enable this legislation to operate fully. Having sat through so many of these debates in the Constitutional Convention, I do not believe it is proper at this stage to tamper with something which actually has been agreed on widely across Australia by so many jurisdictions, although it might not be the optimum level that everybody might want or require. I hope that the Minister will be able to refer to the points that have been raised by the Law Reform Commission of Victoria and the Law Council of Australia. I would also be interested in the Minister's comments on points which were raised by Senator Durack about the possible increased work load being transferred to the Federal Court by virtue of this legislation. Undoubtedly, the Government has taken this into consideration. I would be interested in the Minister's response as to how the Federal Court will handle what could be a vastly increased work load, considering the work load carried by the Federal courts and the difficulty they currently have in completing their task in the timeframe that I think most people would think is reasonable. This is not a problem solely to do with the Federal courts, although this legislation is likely to compound Federal Court problems; it is also to do with State jurisdictions. One is reminded of the enormous problems encountered, for example, by the courts in New South Wales in dealing with matters in a time frame that seems to be reasonable. When one looks at a possible hearing of a case two or three years hence, one feels that justice could seem to be done in many of those cases in such a time frame. There is a fundamental principle of the ability to be able to get into the court as rapidly as is possible. But with all the good will in the world and with the case loads which are currently being experienced by so many judges, it is fairly obvious that that is not possible. Most governments are finding it very difficult to increase this capacity by increasing the number of judges and all the ancillary services which are necessary to allow those judges to meet. I think this will be an emerging problem in the more litigious society that Australia seems to be moving towards. But in this legislation I am interested particularly in the Federal Court of Australia and its work load. Let me conclude by reiterating that the Democrats welcome these two pieces of legislation. I do not think the Government believes that they are perfect. The Australian Democrats certainly do not believe that they are perfect, but we believe that they go a considerable way towards obviating many of the jurisdictional problems that have arisen in the past in this country. Hopefully, they will set the pattern for further reform in this area in the future. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(8.11) —I see that the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) is eager to get to his feet to deal with the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1987 with his usual style, aplomb and gusto, so I will not speak for long. I wish simply to say a couple of things about this legislation before Senator Tate gets to his feet and outdoes any brilliance that I might show. I think these Bills are a great reform. Speakers have conceded that they are a reform but I do not think they have given them the praise that should be given them. These Bills are radical in the sense that they make available to litigants a much more sensible system than has hitherto been available to them. Those who have already spoken in the debate have mentioned the effects on the status of courts and the niceties that must be preserved by members of the legal profession. This legislation has turned itself not so much to that question but to the question of what litigants are entitled to have when they go before the courts of this country-and it is becoming more and more a matter of this country rather than a matter of separate States. With the increase of trade across the borders, with the increase in our means of transport, with planes getting faster and faster and with telexes being replaced by facsimile machines and so on, business, social intercourse and relations generally between people are conducted not so much on a State basis but very much on an Australia-wide basis. It is appropriate in those circumstances that all the courts in the land, whether they be set up by a Federal system or a State system, be available to all litigants. I notice that Dr Gavan Griffiths, QC, the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, is sitting behind me in the chamber. I understand that he has had much to do with the initiatives that have been taken in this legislation and I think he, together with those who have fallen behind him, deserve congratulations for bringing this legislation before the Parliament. Not only has he received the praise-perhaps muted-of all parties in this Parliament but also he has obtained consent and agreement and an enthusiastic response from all the States to making courts available to litigants no matter in which State they are situated. I think that is a great reform. Indeed, as we look through the history of law we note the introduction of merchant law, which has become part of our legal system and which everybody now presumes has always been there. It makes the law much more sensible than it would otherwise have been. I do not think it would be too much to say that this legislation fits in with that grand tradition. Some points have been raised and some adverse opinions have been given about this legislation. Senator Macklin mentioned the Law Reform Commission of Victoria. As I understand it, if he has the same letter as I have, it is not so much the Law Reform Commission of Victoria but David Kelly, the chairperson of a committee, who has properly raised matters which he has discussed with Matthew Goode of the Adelaide Law School. It seems that there may be some misconception of what this legislation is all about. Perhaps I ought to explain it to those people who might be listening. This legislation sets out to exchange Commonwealth and State jurisdictions so that Commonwealth courts will now be able to exercise State jurisdictions, except in certain matters. Not only will State courts be able to exercise Federal jurisdiction but also each State court will be able to exercise the jurisdiction of other States. This means that a litigant can go into any State court and that the judge who is seeing to the matter can listen to the propositions that are put before him by the litigant and then make a decision. If the judge thinks that it is appropriate for a litigant to go elsewhere and for a matter to be heard in some other State or in a Federal court, subject to some qualifications the judge can send the matter there. In those circumstances it seems that David Kelly and Mr Goode have perhaps not properly appreciated that that service to the litigant will make things much easier, more understandable and more appropriate than was previously the case. Honourable senators have also raised the question of the plaintiff choosing the forum. I would have thought that the whole legal system was based on the plaintiff choosing where he or she goes. Whether a matter goes to a county court, a supreme court or wherever, the plaintiff always initiates the litigation. If the plaintiff wants to initiate the litigation not only in a particular court within a State but also in some other court or in a Federal court, how unusual is that? As was the case before this legislation was introduced, if a court thinks that a matter is not properly raised in that court, the plaintiff can be sent off somewhere else. It seems to me that honourable senators are clutching at straws when they raise this question of the plaintiff being able, solely as a result of this legislation, to choose the jurisdiction. It seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the situation that has existed until now. The question of tax appeals has been raised. It has been said that the supreme courts ought to have a right to hear tax cases, as if that were the be all and the end all of litigation-that somehow the standing of supreme courts would be lowered simply because they did not hear tax cases. The situation at present is that people can take their tax appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or to a supreme court, but in either case the appeals ends up in the Federal Court of Australia for hearing. As has been said, instead of going the dog-leg way from the Supreme Court to the Federal Court, why should litigants not go through the State system to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and then on to the Federal Court, which is a much more direct approach? The question of the status of the supreme courts has been raised. The reality is that the supreme courts of the States will not have any of their existing jurisdictions changed much at all. In each State the Supreme Court will be the highest court. There is no attempt in this legislation to lessen the dignity of the supreme courts in any way. If anything, it gives them a greater status because they will be able to exercise not only their own jurisdiction but also the jurisdiction of the courts of every other State. They will also be able to exercise the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, except in certain matters. One of those matters relates to sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, about which we might hear some more in this place. I think that is appropriate enough. I cannot resist going on to the topic of sections 45d and 45e at this stage, as they are matters which are presently placed in a commercial setting by the Trade Practices Act. In my view, when they are used in the industrial relations field they should be properly placed in that field. Perhaps I have deviated a little from the proper path. The Law Reform Commission of Victoria, of which Senator Macklin spoke, certainly does not express the view of the Attorney-General of that State. Mr Kennan, perhaps one of the great Attorneys-General in the history of this country, is very much behind the system set up in this legislation. Perhaps I could quote from a letter from Mr Teague, a former President of the Law Institute of Victoria. This letter was written in April. Mr Teague has been twice President of the Institute. He is an outstanding solicitor. I emphasise that it is very rare for people to be twice elected as President of that society. Senator Tate will be interested in what Mr Teague said: I write on behalf of the Institute to express the support of the Institute- that famous Law Institute of Victoria, on which the patina of glory glows- . . . for the scheme of legislation contained in the above Bill to which you spoke in the House of Representatives on 22 October 1986. He was writing to the Attorney-General. Perhaps the only thing that he could have added to that would be `about which you spoke so well'. Senator Tate is about to speak in the same sort of mode. Mr Teague continued: The Institute has been a supporter of the principle of granting to the States the jurisdiction to hear Federal matters particularly when the monetary value of those matters does not justify the cost of proceedings within the Federal Courts. Perhaps I could skip a bit. He raised the matter of clause 5 (8), which I think Senator Macklin criticised. Mr Teague continued: Clause 5 (8) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Bill provides for a temporary entitlement of a Barrister and Solicitor to practise in the jurisdiction of another State if an action in which he is involved is transferred and the amendments proposed to be moved by the Government shall have the effect of avoiding problems in the case of a series of actions. He means that if somebody briefs a barrister and instructs a solicitor in South Australia and the case has to be removed to some other State, such as New South Wales, that person will be able to take with him the solicitor he has instructed and the barrister he has briefed so that the people representing him, seized of the matter right from the start, can follow it through. As things now stand, if a person starts a matter in South Australia and then has to take it to New South Wales, he has to brief a barrister who is admitted in New South Wales. The whole thing is very clumsy. Indeed, Mr Teague puts the following logical idea: In the Institute's view there is no sound reason why a national scheme of complementary legislation ought not provide at this point for a Barrister and Solicitor of one Court to be automatically admitted to practise as a Barrister and Solicitor of any other Court in another State or Territory or in the Federal sphere. I hope it is not suggested that a barrister or solicitor found competent in one State should not be allowed to practise in another. There is only one State which would take that view, and that is Queensland. I hope that there is no resistance to this Bill from the Law Council of Australia on that basis. Some suggestions have been made that the matter ought to be held up but that is certainly not the sort of basis on which to hold up a Bill that enables people to litigate and gives them the access to the courts of this land to which they should be entitled. Senator Macklin talked about delays in the law-and this legislation certainly will help resolve that problem-as if they were something new. Charles Dickens talked about delays in the law in Bleak House. Since then there have been a series of law reforms, such as the Judiciary Act and others, which have tended to speed up matters. Here is the next reform in that grand tradition. But Senator Macklin says: `No, this will delay the law'. That is absolutely wrong. What has happened to some extent is that Senator Macklin has been affected-and properly so because he is a man of great compassion-by the various letters that have been sent to him which have raised problems about this great Bill and which have erected windmills in his mind at which he tilts. I assure him that this legislation is another step in the long line of reform so that no matter what State or court one stands outside one can go in and get some sort of relief. Until now people have stood outside courts saying: `Should I go in there?'; `Is this the place to litigate?'; `Is this the court I should go to to get access to my child?'; and `Is this the court I should go to to get a property settlement?'. If a person enters the trap and it is the wrong court he is milked for costs and is sent out again. This way the person can go into a court with assurance that he can litigate properly. It is very imaginative and great legislation. Senator Durack —Not the result of the Government, though. Senator COONEY —We on this side of the House are the sort of people who do not look at matters in those terms. We do not care whether the legislation comes from this Government. We say that this is very effective legislation which has been introduced into this chamber and which has been accepted on the other side, although perhaps a little grudgingly. The Australian Democrats also accept it, but a little less grudgingly. We on this side accept it with full heart and without any grudge at all. Given that scenario we simply say that that is our position. If the legislation is not due to us, at least we are the ones who have embraced it with such enthusiasm-the enthusiasm that it deserves. I congratulate not only the Federal Government but the various State governments right around Australia which have come together to bring this idea to fruition. I again congratulate the Solicitor-General who, as I say, has worked tirelessly together with other legal bodies. We have legislation that will go well. Before I conclude I should say two other things. First, there is a three-year sunset clause so if this legislation does go wrong-which is very much against my expectations-at the end of the three years something can be done about it. Secondly, there is a committee of chief justices and chief judges to monitor the operation and balance the various interests around the courts and between the States and the Federal body. So this legislation hopefully will be passed tonight. It will make litigation a happier-if we can call any litigation happy-more pleasant, faster and less stressful venture into the law. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(8.28) —My remarks will be very mundane compared with those of my colleague Senator Cooney, who preceded me. The Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill are very important pieces of legislation. I thank the honourable senators who contributed to the second reading debate. One need think of only a few instances for it readily to come to mind why such legislation is required. When the property market on the Gold Coast collapsed a few years ago, people tried to avoid their contracts for the purchase of home units and so on. The vendors went to the Supreme Court of Queensland to get specific performance of the contracts whereas the purchasers went into the Federal jurisdiction, trying to avoid the contract and claiming misrepresentations under the Trade Practices Act. That sort of conflict between the jurisdiction in which the purchasers and vendors tried to assert their rights in relation to the contracts is just one example that comes to mind quite readily. The other case which caused greater anguish and was a cause, I think, of much of the political momentum initially for this project occurred within families where on the dissolution of a marriage the Family Court of Australia could deal with the children of the marriage but not with ex-nuptial children. In that situation there was more trauma and anguish for the households which already have enough problems without having to go to different jurisdictions to try to resolve the matter. So with those two very homey instances, I simply illustrate the fact that this legislation is so complex that at times it sounds as though it is concerned with only asserting the jurisdiction of courts. Because we are subjected to so much lobbying by groups of legal luminaries, it may sound as though it is a fairly esoteric matter. It is not. It is a matter with very practical consequences for us as we, as Australians, try to assert our rights and conduct ourselves in accordance with legal principles, wherever we may happen to be, by geographic happenstance. This package of legislation, as has been commented on by other speakers, comes into this chamber after a very long history. It may be that perhaps Senator Durack more than most, but certainly Senator Macklin who was on the Constitutional Convention sub-committee which dealt with these matters, will be more aware than I as to the complexities of the negotiations that occurred between politicians in that instance trying to find a way through the complexities brought about by the fact that in our creation as a nation we were dependent on that initial framework of separate colonies which spread throughout this continent. As politicians we try to come to grips with that. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General-known as SCAGS-tried to refine the proposals that came partly from consideration by the Constitutional Convention sub-committee, and the result is what I believe to be a balanced and workable-if not perfect-scheme. I think it is important to note that on 5 March 1987 in Adelaide members of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General reaffirmed their full support for the scheme. Senator Durack —Have they passed any legislation yet? Senator TATE —Perhaps they are dependent on seeing whether some of the forces of reaction that occasionally stalk the corridors of this place stymie our efforts here in this chamber. I am sure that the State and Northern Territory Attorneys-General, having given their imprimatur to this package of legislation, will come up with the complementary legislation and arrangements that are required. Therefore, this legislation is not something which the present Federal Government necessarily claims as its own. Nevertheless, it does take responsibility and some pride in the fact that at last there has been brought into this Parliament legislation which helps to deal with a problem which all have recognised particularly and acutely over the past few years. I wish to refer to one or two matters which may come up again during the Committee stage. The tax jurisdiction has been particularly placed in the Federal jurisdiction and there has been some complaint that this has stripped the State supreme courts of some element of their work. I think it is important to recall that taxation board of review functions have been transferred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from which an appeal lies on a question of law to the Federal Court. As a result, the right of appeal from the Commissioner of Taxation to a supreme court is now something of an anomaly when we look at it in that context and in the context that the full Federal Court has exercised appellate functions for appeals from decisions of supreme courts since 1977. It must be recalled also that State full courts have no jurisdiction in taxation appeals, nor do State courts now hear appeals from boards of review. So in some of these matters it is quite clear that the movement to an exclusive Federal jurisdiction in relation to tax matters makes a lot of sense. I could give more instances of why that should be so. Senator Macklin I think, and perhaps Senator Durack, also raised the question of the anticipated work load that would be placed on the Federal Court and whether it would be able to deal with the backlog of tax cases any more quickly than perhaps would the supreme court system. We believe, and I am advised, that the Federal Court's capacity to deal with lists more quickly than some supreme courts has been publicly recognised. We believe that the Commonwealth can respond to any work load in the Federal Court fairly readily. But I think it has to be noted that the backlog transferred to the Federal Court jurisdiction by the transitional provisions of tax matters comes about really as the result of a request. The Commonwealth was asked to transfer the backlog because of the concern in some States as to the very large number of taxation cases pending before State courts, and there was a recognition of the strain placed on those courts as a result. Once again SCAGS at its meeting fully agreed to this transfer. It may be also not well known to Senator Macklin as a matter of fact that, for example, the Victorian Supreme Court has not held a taxation callover since September 1986. So no new cases are being set for hearing in that jurisdiction. In New South Wales, with one exception, no new matters have been given hearing dates since 1 January 1987. So the State supreme courts themselves are not trying to deal with new cases and I think that they will be very pleased to see the transfer that I speak about. I think Senator Cooney dealt very adequately with the problems raised with clause 11 by Messrs Kelly and Goode in their submission. I do not know whether Senator Macklin requires me to reiterate those points. Senator Macklin —No. Senator TATE —The honourable senator says no. Therefore, with that matter put to one side, I again thank those honourable senators who have contributed to this debate and seek the support of the chamber for the second reading. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I believe it would suit the Senate if we dealt with the two Bills separately. I put the question: That the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. Haines, J. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Georges, G. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Knowles, S. C. Black, J. R. Parer, W. R. Reynolds, M. Hill, R. Richardson, G. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McIntosh, G. D. Sheil, G. Morris, J. Chaney, F. M. (Senator Brownhill did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes.) Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1987 be now read a second time. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. JURISDICTION OF COURTS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1987 Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) BILL 1987 The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.45) —As I indicated in the second reading debate, the Opposition proposes to move a number of amendments to this Bill in order to put into place a true cross-vesting regime. In an ideal world the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1987 should have been presented together because there are restrictions on cross-vesting in each of them. The House of Representatives dealt with them in a more logical order by having this Bill dealt with before the other one. For some reason which is unknown to me but which may be explicable they are being dealt with in this order here. As I foreshadowed, the Opposition wishes to move some amendments to this Bill to give effect to that full cross-vesting regime. I do not need to go over that ground again. The five amendments which the Opposition will move all deal with that matter. I seek leave to move them together. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —I move: Pages 2 and 3, subclause 3 (1), definition of ``special federal matter'', leave out the definition. Pages 7 to 9, clause 6 leave out the clause. Pages 9 and 10, clause 7, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ``7. An appeal from a decision of a court shall only be instituted and heard in accordance with the appeal provisions which normally apply to that court.''. Page 11, paragraph 10 (c), lines 15 and 16, leave out the paragraph. Page 14, Schedule, leave out the Schedule. The Opposition opposed the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill because it was designed solely to preserve exclusivity of jurisdiction in the Federal Court of Australia although, as I said, it had some other minor features in it which transferred jurisdiction to a State court. The overwhelming reason for it was to transfer exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court from the State courts. This is the Bill which gives effect to the principle of cross-vesting. We support that main purpose of the Bill. However, it qualifies that principle in quite a substantial way by introducing the concept of special Federal matters. They are set out in the interpretation. They preserve as the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court matters arising under Part IV of the Trade Practices Act, the part of the Act which deals with the classic restrictive trade practices. That has traditionally been dealt with in the Federal Court. From our point of view there seems no sound reason why judges dealing with commercial matters in State Supreme Courts would not be perfectly capable of handling these matters. The judges who would be dealing with those matters in the State Supreme Courts would almost certainly, as counsel, have had great experience under the jurisdiction of the Trade Practices Act. It is quite arrogant of the Federal Government and this Parliament to assume that only Federal Court judges would have the capacity to handle these matters. It is totally arrogant, totally unnecessary and totally wrong. So it goes on. I have already dealt with the reasons why the Opposition opposes the view that the Federal Court judges should have a monopoly over tax matters. Exactly the same argument applies. We have dealt with that, and I do not want to go over it again. Suffice it to say that this Bill, in the clauses that we are seeking to change, qualifies the very sound principle of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, which is the purpose of this package of legislation, in quite a considerable way and to some extent certainly destroys its basic purpose. So the amendments we are proposing to this Bill are designed to remove those qualifications. There are some other matters I want to raise that are not the subject of amendment, and they can be dealt with separately. These amendments simply give expression to the views of the Opposition which I have already dealt with at length in the second reading debate. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(8.51) —In relation to the matters raised by Senator Durack, although the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill goes a long way towards cross-vesting, it does leave some matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. That is understandable, because the matters that are contained within that jurisdiction are matters which, as I have said and as Senator Durack acknowledged, already fall within that exclusive jurisdiction because they have a very clear relationship to that jurisdiction, and it is thought sensible to maintain that expertise which has been built up in relation to matters involving the review of decisions or the hearing of appeals from decisions of Commonwealth officials or restrictive trade practices matters which are obviously of particular concern to the Commonwealth officials or restrictive trade practices matters which are obviously of particular concern to the Commonwealth. It is thought important that the acknowledged expertise be maintained by dealing with these matters by the Federal Court. However, I think it is probably too late in the day to try to unscramble this in a way that is satisfactory to the Opposition, nor do we intend to try to do so. The fact is that this has been the subject of prolonged negotiation and has been agreed to by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and affirmed again on 5 March in Adelaide. It required some delicate negotiations, and of course there are jealousies and misgivings, no doubt some protection of turf, and the erection of barriers both within the Federal Court and on the part of some of the Supreme Court judges who naturally would like to so some of this work. But a compromise-a balance-has been reached which is acceptable to the Attorneys-General from right around Australia, and this Bill tries to incorporate that final agreement. The proof of the pudding which I think Senator Durack was looking for in a question to me a little earlier was extent to which those State Attorneys-General were prepared themselves to come up with legislation which would be complementary to this project that we are engaged in this evening. I am informed that Victoria has already passed legislation which will be its complementary statutory framework for this cross-vesting of jurisdiction, and that in New South Wales the legislation is in the House of Assembly, so already there is movement is those State jurisdictions, which indicates that we can fairly safely assume that, should the Senate be so minded and this legislation is passed and receives the assent of the Governor-General shortly, all those jurisdictions that are interested in this matter will have passed legislation which will make it as workable as we could hope. Amendments negatived. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.54) —Senator Macklin raised a question in the second reading debate, but I did not hear the conclusion of his speech, and I am not aware whether it was answered. I also have received a letter from Mr Kelly, the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission of Victoria, about clause 11 (1) (b) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill, which is a more detailed version of the clause that was contained in the Bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives in the first place. It deals with how one chooses laws to be applied in a situation where a cross-vesting occurs-in other words, where a matter is transferred from, say, a State court to a Federal court or vice versa, or between State courts for that matter. The original version of it seemed to be a simple and practicable way of dealing with it, but it seems to be the case that the Commonwealth draftsmen think of more subtle or more complicated ways of doing things, and the present version raises a rather odd concept, as I understand it, of the difference between written and unwritten substantive law. Certainly Senator Macklin drew the Government's attention to this matter but I do not think we have received any answer to it. The memo sent to me by Mr Kelly of the Law Reform Commission of Victoria states: The real trouble maker is Clause 11 (1) (b). Its effect is that, if the subject matter of the action arises under the written law of another State or Territory, the court must apply the written and the unwritten substantive law of the other State or Territory. That is even though the action arises under the written law. It is a very odd sort of provision. The letter continues: The real source of the difficulty is that this clause requires the application of a choice of law rule which is different from that which would have been applied in a non cross-vested action. This may give rise to a different result entirely at the discretion of the plaintiff, because it is the plaintiff who chooses whether to commence in a court with ordinary jurisdiction over the matter or in a court whose jurisdiction is only a cross-vested one. It is a highly technical subject. It was not in the original Bill; it has been introduced now into this legislation. Mr Kelly seems to raise a matter of some obvious concern, and I should like to know what the Government's explanation is. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(8.58) —I say firstly that I did reply to Senator Macklin, but it was by way of asking whether he was satisfied with the response which Senator-- Senator Durack —You dealt with another subject altogether. Senator TATE —No, I asked him whether he was satisfied with the response on clause 11 which Senator Cooney had put forward, and he indicated that he was. However, I am quite willing to repeat the advice I have in relation to the matters raised by Messrs Kelly and Goode, because they need to be set at rest. Generally speaking, the objections are thought to be misconceived in these ways: First, it is thought that Kelly and Goode do not seem to have understood completely that the courts of a State or Territory will have cross-vested jurisdiction from every other State and Territory. Accordingly, in their example one-and they were kind enough to particularise and try to make concrete their particular concerns-for instance, the South Australian Supreme Court would have both its ordinary jurisdiction, in which case the action based on the Victorian Act would fail, and cross-vested Victorian jurisdiction, in which the plaintiff would succeed, as would happen also in the Federal Court of Australia. So the result in the State Supreme Court would be the same as in the Federal Court-not different, as the authors of that memo circulated to honourable senators alleged. Their example two falls to the same defect. As far as example three is concerned-and I think this is the one Senator Durack was concentrating on-although the example itself seems correct, it does not seem to involve any undesirable results as asserted in the comments in the memorandum. It has been put to me-and I was not really able to answer the question-why a plaintiff having a claim under a written law of a State that might be within a crude Federal jurisdiction should not bring the claim in that State if that is the only jurisdiction where it will succeed. If, on the other hand, it appears to be within cross-vested State jurisdiction, which can be exercised by all Federal courts and the courts of all the other States and Territories, the result will be the same, applying clause 11 (1) (b), wherever the claim is commenced. That is the best advice that I can provide to the chamber from the top echelon of the Attorney-General's Department. I do not know whether it would be of any assistance to have the document incorporated in the Hansard since I have virtually done so in reading from it anyway. Bill agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Tate) read a third time. Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! I understand that it is the wish of the Senate to debate the Australian Institute of Health Bill 1987 concurrently with the National Health Amendment Bill 1987. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.02) —The Australian Institute of Health Bill and the National Health Amendment Bill reflect the sort of chaos that the Government has now imposed, through its policies, on the health area. The first Bill seeks to establish the Australian Institute of Health as a statutory body. This is a totally unnecessary proposal and the Opposition sees no merit in creating such a body. The reality is that there is no need for yet another statutory body to be created by this Government in addition to the great mound of statutory bodies which exist, frankly, to harass the Australian public. It is intriguing that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in the House of Representatives on 19 March, in dealing with the Australian Institute of Health Bill and responding to our objections, said that a whole range of reports over the last decade recommended an independent body to carry out the collection of the data required by this Institute. The functions of the Institute would include collection, analysis and dissemination of health related information and statistics and the conduct and promotion of research into health services. The Institute would consist of 13 members including the Chairman, the Director, the Australian Statistician and the Secretary of the Department or their nominees. The Government claims that there will be no financial impact on either government expenditure or private industry. The Institute, in fact, is not a new body as it already exists in one form or another within the Department of Health. Our view, of course, is that it should be made to work within the Department rather than the people of Australia being burdened with another body with no foreseeable or evident benefit. There is a need for better performance in the area of health statistics, and I think we all agree about that. In comparison with other countries our health survey performance ranks just about in the middle of the range, but we rank second last in gathering usable statistics and last in gathering information about our hospitals. The Australian Institute of Health was established to provide a central health data service. It has not performed and it should be made to perform. What is intriguing about the Minister's second reading comments in the other place was that he claimed that a report by Professor Kerr White made it quite explicit that the statistical collection should be done by a statutory authority. He attacked the concept that a statutory authority was not necessary. I have to concede that, on the point of statistical analysis, the Minister is quite right. The statistical analysis is appalling, as is evident from his own statements and from those of such senators as Senator Crowley in this place last week and Senator Coates, who misused and misquoted statistics and misled this Senate in a totally disgraceful way, simply because there is not a body which has been effectively preparing-- Senator Crowley —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I object to the honourable senator's suggestion that I have misled the Senate. I would like him to withdraw that remark. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Crowley, if after Senator Baume's speech you claim to have been misrepresented you can then put your point of view. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As I was saying, the Senate has been misled by statistics which have been misused, simply because there is no appropriate or effective statistical service provided on health, which leaves the Government the opportunity to seek deliberately to mislead the Parliament and the people on the reality, for example, of the increased utilisation per person of medical services as a direct result of bulk billing and Medicare. I quote from the Minister's statement of 13 April. He said: The Opposition has loosely based this claim- that is, that bulk billing has led to increased utilisation- on the false assertion that Medicare, and in particular bulk billing, has resulted in an increase in the average number of services received by the enrolled population. He went on: In fact in the 1983 calendar year- that is, the last full year of the fifth Fraser scheme- the enrolled population- I emphasise the word `enrolled'- received an average of 7.70 medical services. He said further: In the last calendar year-1986-they received 7.68 services. I draw the Senate's attention to the word `enrolled', because that is where the mischievous misleading takes place. In reality, of course, out of the total population in 1983 the services used were about 6.25 and they have increased to 7.70. It would be unreasonable to compare those two figures because in fact 1.8 million people were excluded in 1983. But, for the benefit of Senator Crowley, not all of that 1.8 million were in fact excluded because they were large users. On the contrary, they had excluded themselves because many of them were fit and did not want to take insurance for the very reason that taking insurance was actuarially a bad proposition for them because they did not want to have to subsidise through the funds the health users who would have a much higher rate of utilisation of health services. Those younger healthier people would then have been subsidising other users. They preferred to take the tax benefit as a result of paying their medical fees. The point emerges here quite clearly: It is totally phoney for the Government or any Government senator to pretend that utilisation has not increased when in fact in every instance one can see that it has. In the Budget of 1986-87, for example, and in every Budget in every year since the Government came to office it has admitted that utilisation has increased. If utilisation has increased every year, how is it possible that Senator Crowley can pretend that her figures, which show that utilisation has fallen over three years, have any credibility? It is absolute bunkum. It is simply self-evidently false. Senator Crowley, by that inane grin on her face, is recognising that she cannot possibly defend this proposition. Senator Tate —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point or order. I call for the withdrawal of the remark `inane grin'. A person may have a grin on one's face, but to call it inane is, I think, just going over the edge and becoming offensive. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I happily withdraw the word `inane' and replace it with `embarrassed'. Let us look at the facts for 1986-87. The Budget said in the second dot point that the reason for the increase on the 1985-86 expenditure was the expected growth of 7 per cent in one year in the utilisation of services. In the special appropriations for the Department of Health, one sees that further utilisation rises by quite an amount. For increased utilisation, population and free drift-a mixture of things-there is $208m extra. So increased utilisation in the latest year is clearly a significant factor. What about the previous year? We hear this bunkum about the utilisation having fallen since Medicare and bulk billing came in. In the 1985-86 Budget, one sees exactly the same thing-increased utilisation. In the special appropriations I notice changes to population utilisation. If they had applied for the full year 1984-85, something like $4.2m would have been involved, and on page 118 of the Budget itself we have expected growth in the utilisation of services in 1985-86 of $121m. Here we have in every year growth of utilisation, yet the Government still claims by the phoney use of phoney figures that utilisation has in fact fallen. How can it have fallen when every year it is demonstrated by the official Budget statistics to have increased? This underlines the real reason why we must have better health statistics-so that the Government will stop trying to fool the people of Australia. I certainly favour the creation of such a body. The question is whether it should be another statutory body, and of course there is no justification for that at all. The Minister quite misleadingly suggests that the great body of opinion is that it should be so. He says, for example, that a study of health in Australia undertaken by Professor Kerr White made it quite explicit that the statistical collection should be undertaken by a statutory authority. I have had a look at that report, which says that the recommendations of the Australian Institute of Health: . . . should be strengthened by giving it a more clearly defined role as the substantial policy analysis and `intelligence' group working directly for the Minister and Secretary and reporting to the latter or the Deputy Secretary. It should have a Director and staff of perhaps 6 to 8 professionals with appropriate support personnel. The Minister and the Secretary, together with the Director, should set the AIH's agenda. No suggestion is made there of a statutory body. The Minister then says that a National Centre for Health Statistics together with a National Advisory Committee on Health and Vital Statistics should be established by legislation. `By legislation' is the only straw at which the Minister is clutching to justify the suggestion that this should be a statutory body. There is no evidence within the report to justify or support that proposition or to assert that this should be anything more than a committee. Let us look at all the other reports that have recommended such a body. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts said that there was a lack of adequate objective advice on economic aspects of the health industry. At paragraph 9.28 it reported: The Director-General of Health stated that there was no specific division or unit within the Department of Health which has provided specialised economic advice . . . the Department of Health should be serviced by a specialised group of economists and other relevant disciplines, advising on economic matters associated with the health industry. Nothing there says that it should be a statutory body. The Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals, in its report of December 1980, recommended: A Bureau of Health Economics as proposed by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts in 1979 be established. There is nothing there about a statutory body. In 1979 the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare recommended that the Commonwealth Government direct the Australian Bureau of Statistics to raise to an appropriate level the proportion of its budget spent specifically on health and welfare statistics. That in fact leads us in the right direction. Why have we not simply got a situation where the Commonwealth Statistician is used as effectively as he can and should be used for this purpose? We have no explanation whatsoever from the Government as to why the Australian Bureau of Statistics is not an appropriate body to collect this information. The Minister says that it is important that this collection be carried out, and I quote him: We have endeavoured to carry out the task of a national collection of health data in this country through the Department of Health . . . it is not possible to do this through that method . . . First of all, we are very dependent on State governments for the basic health statistics because they are the deliverers of health services. They have made it perfectly clear that unless we have a body divorced from the Commonwealth Department of Health-separate, independent and not under that Commonwealth department-we will not gain State confidence to provide statistics. What is wrong with the Australian Bureau of Statistics? It is created for that purpose. It is nonsense to say that the only way to solve the problem is to go down the track that the Government has followed of creating yet another statutory body. The Minister was frank enough to admit that there have often been adverse relations between the Commonwealth Department of Health and the State departments. He said: States are willing under the . . . arrangements that we have reached with them, to pass that information on through a separate statutory authority. He makes no comment on whether the Australian Bureau of Statistics should be that statutory authority. The Minister goes on in a quite insulting way about the Australian Bureau of Statistics, by inference, because he says: . . . we need top class people with top class research backgrounds. In other words, they apparently are not available elsewhere. He continues: It is much more difficult to attract them into a health department, into a sort of basic Public Service operation, than it will be into an independent statutory authority. Is he saying that the Australian Bureau of Statistics people are not good enough? There is no discussion here of what is clearly the relevant issue when we are discussing whether it is important to create a separate statutory body. There is no discussion whatsoever by this arrogant Government and this arrogant Minister of the reality of the recommendation made and advice given by other bodies over the years that this function could and should be carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Perhaps the Minister in this place will be kind enough to respond in a way that the Minister in the other place found beyond him. I now come to the second part of this package, the National Health Amendment Bill. This involves, I suppose, to use the word in its real sense, a scandalous situation in which the Auditor-General has demonstrated that the Department and the Minister have broken the law. The purpose of the amendment is to correct retrospectively that law breaking. The Opposition will of necessity support the Bill, but we point out that it is simply another fix that ignores the basic problems. The Bill attempts to patch up the administration of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by changing the law so that chemists will be able to be paid without the Government continuing to break the law. The Auditor-General in his report in March on audits to 31 December 1986, said that staff resources at Pharmpay processing centres had been insufficient to process all prescriptions lodged by pharmacists. In March 1985 the Department of Health sought comments on a proposal from the Department of Finance that the processing of the backlog of prescriptions on hand should be overcome by making advance payments prior to the verification of the entitlement to those payments. The report states: Finance raised no in principle objection and noted that such payment should be subject to Ministerial determination . . . It suggested, however, that Attorney-General's Department advice be sought on the drafting of the proposal to be put to pharmacists. In the event, the Department of Health did not seek such advice. Why did not the Department of Health or the Minister find out whether what he was going to do was illegal? We do not know; we have not been told why that matter was not pursued. What we do know is that the advance payments commenced in May 1985. By November 1986, advance payments for a total of 67.4 million prescriptions had been made to pharmacists but I emphasise that the unprocessed backlog of prescriptions peaked at 61.3 million during that month. That is the mess that this Government, this Department and this Minister got this scheme into. What is the excuse, the justification? It was primarily because of repetition strain injury to keyboard operators. That is how the Department got 61.3 million prescriptions behind by November 1986, and that is after illegally paying 67.4 million prescriptions in advance. The Auditor-General's report continues: During discussions with the Department over settling the backlog of pharmaceutical claims, Audit suggested that legal advice be obtained of ways of ensuring the validity of the proposed basis of settlement. The resultant legal advice- that is, at the end of 1986- from the Attorney-General's Department stated that the advance payments were not authorised by the National Health Act. In particular . . . the Act does not authorise the making of payments; it only allows the Minister to determine conditions subject to which payments otherwise authorised by the Act can be made. The Department has advised that, on receipt of the legal advice, advance payments were suspended immediately, and action has been taken to seek amendment of the National Health Act. That is why this legislation is now before us. The Department and the Government were acting illegally largely because the Department did not get the advice of the Attorney-General's Department at the time the Department of Finance suggested that it should. On 13 February 1987 the Minister wrote to pharmacists offering to settle claims which had been paid in advance but which had not been fully processed. The offer provided for a pharmacist to receive an adjustment to bring claims previously paid in advance to a level calculated by a consultant as being due. In addition, a once only payment of 10c per prescription item would be made to compensate for any inaccuracies in the initial payment. It is estimated that adjustment payments will be approximately $7m and the once only payment will be about $6m. The Auditor-General commented that the effect of the legal advice that the payments were not authorised by the National Health Act is that all of the PBS advance payments had been made without appropriation in contravention of section 83 of the Constitution which states: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law. Audit sought information from the Department to quantify the total amount paid without appropriation. In response, the Department advised that it did not have the statistics currently available on the amount of advance payments made. However, it estimated that at November 1986 the amount unadjusted by subsequent reprocessing was of the order of $300m illegally paid. Clearly, we have what could at best be described as a curious situation which, naturally, needs serious attention. I would suggest that it is part of a whole pattern of disaster within the health policies of this Government. We have this sort of backlog and illegal behaviour allegedly because of a lack of personnel but basically because of the impact of RSI. Yet in May 1986 nearly 700 staff comprised the body which administers the Pharmpay system-organisation which is costing the taxpayers of Australia in excess of $18m a year to mess up the system. As I have said, it has been a total disaster, an absolute disgrace which we now have to have to pass this legislation to fix up. Clause 3 of the Bill redefines the table of benefits so that when samples are taken from a patient during a stay in hospital, pathology tests performed after the patient is discharged can be considered as an inpatient professional service for the purpose of private hospital insurance benefits. Such tests will be covered by the limited gap insurance arrangements applicable to such charges raised through a hospital stay and, of course, the Opposition supports that change. However, we want to know why the Government has not taken this opportunity to address the problem it has created with all medical services by its aggressive bulk billing As we know from the genuine statistics which involve annual increases in the utilisation of medical services since Medicare was introduced, there is certainly a problem. It is intriguing that this Government puts out statements about utilisation having fallen and calls on various reports and so on as evidence. But when one looks into the reports, one finds that this is simply not so. Let me quote two studies which reveal increased utilisation under Medicare. A Macquarie University study, which is often quoted as being in support of bulk billing, in fact admits that there is `increased use of services per patient induced by bulk billing'. That Macquarie University report points out, however, that because bulk billing is at a lower unit price than non-bulk billing, the total cost to the society, to the nation as a whole, is not adversely affected by this increased use of services per patient. The reality is that the burden is transferred on to the taxpayer. The clear consequence of that Macquarie report is that the taxpayer is picking up a bigger bill because of bulk billing. The annual report of the Health Insurance Commission quite clearly demonstrates some more statistics which I hope Senator Crowley will look at with perhaps greater impartiality, energy and enthusiasm in her search for the truth than she did when she took the Minister's figures as gospel. The Health Insurance Commission statistics show that medical practitioners who bulk billed between 95 and 99 per cent of their services last year had an average number of services of 7,428 compared with only 4,698 services on average for those practitioners who bulk billed between only one per cent and 25 per cent of their services. That is not conclusive but it is very persuasive when one looks at the enormous difference between the rates of utilisation from those doctors who almost entirely bulk bill and those who bulk bill only a little. Senator Tate —A lot of those are specialists who take longer in their consultations. That is the problem. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Many reasons may well be involved. As I have said, those figures are not conclusive but if one goes up the spectrum-the group aged between 25 and 50 years and the group aged between 50 and 75 years-one sees that the utilisation clearly increases. The second and main issue addressed by the Bill is the revision of certain administrative procedures of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I addressed parts of this issue before. This scheme was changed last year and under the new safety net program the chronically ill, whose financial burden without the pharmaceutical benefits scheme would be a hardship, are now protected by a maximum contribution for their first 25 prescriptions, after which a supply of all drugs on the PBS will be free of charge. The Opposition supported the changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme last year as the changes were in line with Opposition policy. We promised that we would carefully monitor the implementation of these changes. Regrettably, as I indicated, the introduction of the scheme has been yet another disaster. Patients and pharmacists were given little or no notice of the changes made to the PBS and the Government was forced, at great expense, to airfreight the relevant documentation to pharmacists even though it took months to organise the scheme. It is yet another example of gross administrative incompetence by this Government. The current Pharmpay scheme fails every test of efficiency and cost effectiveness that one could think of. Pharmacists are currently buried in paper work to meet the demands of a bureaucratic payment scheme. The promised improvements in the speed and accuracy of payments made to pharmacists have not been forthcoming. Pharmacists are still being paid in guesstimates and averages of previous months billing. These two Bills clearly reflect the sort of administrative incompetence and ministerial inability to cope with the disasters being brought about in the health system in Australia by this Government's fixed and philosophic problems in health care. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(9.32) —I support the Australian Institute of Health Bill 1987 and the National Health Amendment Bill 1987. Principally, I wish to direct my remarks to the Institute of Health Bill. In doing so I wish to outline what the legislation aims to do and to refute some of the scurrilous claims made by the new shadow Minister for Health, Senator Michael Baume, who does not mind-- Senator Michael Baume —What is scurrilous about the truth? Senator CROWLEY —Since the honourable senator asks, amongst other scurrilous things are his tactics of smearing people such as me and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Let us talk about the facts, let us talk about the numbers, but if the honourable senator wants to drag name calling into this place he stands judged by his own smear remarks. This Bill establishes the Australian Institute of Health. It will, in essence, collect and provide assistance in the production of health related statistics, it will conduct and promote research into the health of the people of Australia, and it will undertake studies into the provision and effectiveness of health services and health technology. In establishing this statutory authority, the legislation not only aims to make sure that there is actual and perceived independence of the collection of health statistics-that is an absolutely vital part of this legislation, and it also goes to one of the reasons why this legislation is establishing the Institute of Health as a statutory authority-but also establishes the long term viability of the authority. I will come back to that in a moment when I will tell the Senate what Mr Porter plans to do with this legislation should he ever get to be the Minister for Health. The next point that will be insisted on and established through this legislation is the co-operation of States on data provision. Senator Michael Baume seems to be unclear about why we should have a statutory authority and why it is necessary to go down this road. One of the principal reasons is the importance of clear co-operation of the States, and to this point that co-operation has been, to say the least, troublesome. It is certainly clear that we do not have sufficient statistics to make any of the estimates that we need to make in this area. That certainly is the case. It is confirmed by all sorts of reports and by the Opposition itself. The co-operation of the States is critical to the successful outcome of health statistics being collected around this country. The Bill also provides legislative guarantees to the States of confidentiality of the information they provide. It will ensure the support of professional bodies and it will also enable the drawing in of researchers from outside of the Australian Public Service-a very important point that a statutory authority allows much more readily than an Institute within the Department of Health. The legislation also clearly defines the roles and structure of the Institute. The Opposition made some extraordinary claims. One of the points raised by Senator Michael Baume was: `Why can't we use the Australian Bureau of Statistics?' He seemed to suggest that the Minister had never dealt with this or that there was no evidence of it. In establishing this legislation, the Government has insisted on good collaboration with the Australian Bureau of Statistics and that body will be represented in the Institute, so that optimal arrangement between the two statistical gathering bodies will continue. I draw two things to the attention of Senator Michael Baume, if he is not too busy talking to listen. I ask him to turn to page 62 of volume 1 of `Looking Forward to Better Health', a Better Health Commission report. The Senate will remember that this report was tabled in 1986. Under the heading `Why are our health statistics so poor?' there is an accounting of the fact that we have huge gaps in health statistics and health statistical organisational structures around this country, and that in 1976, presumably under the Opposition which was then in government, the National Committee for Health and Vital Statistics was established to co-ordinate State collections and to identify priorities. It had little success in this area. The paragraph goes on to point out: In addition, within ABS there has been a lack of enthusiasm about health statistics and, indeed, an apparent lack of understanding of their social purpose and importance. That is a comment in the Better Health Commission report on one of the insufficiencies of the collection of health statistics under the arrangements up until then. I also draw to the attention of Senator Michael Baume a document put out by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission titled `Occupational Injury and Disease Statistics: Proposals for a Minimum Data Set'. The honourable senator might argue that occupational health and safety does not come directly under the Australian Institute of Health, but the relevant points and comments are very much the same as those made in the Better Health Commission report and in other reports mentioned by Senator Michael Baume or other Opposition people in the House of Representatives. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission report comments: The extent to which State and Territory compensation authorities have adopted the ABS standard varies, and at the present time it is not possible to produce a nationally comparable set of compensation-based statistics. I go to another comment in the same document which says that these statistics between States are not comprehensive in coverage, that they lack reliability and consistency between States, that these deficiencies are due to a number of reasons, and that the ABS to this point is insufficient to collect that data. If Senator Michael Baume were listening he would realise that that would at least refute those points that he raised in some strange way to suggest that the establishment of something that might do the job thoroughly and competently is not to be encouraged. The main objection from the Opposition, of course, is that it is a statutory authority. It claims that we want to have better statistics but it seems to be griping about the way in which the Government is proposing to do it. The next important point in looking at this legislation was to anticipate what the Opposition would say against it. As in the debate we had the other day, the Opposition's objections to this legislation are, again, boringly predictable. It referred to bulk billing statistics. Senator Michael Baume had no difficulty in smearing my name across this chamber. By way of refutation, I refer him to the claims by the Minister. If he wishes to call him a liar that is his business, but I think it is a disgraceful thing to do so. I also object strenuously to being so called myself. If, as the Opposition claims, we have insufficient statistics, how can it suggest that anything that is said on either side can be believed or refuted. The Opposition seems to suggest that anything we say is a lie, based on insufficient statistics, and anything it says is the truth, based on the same insufficient statistics. One wonders what source it has to feel as though it is right. I do not quite understand the logic of it saying `We need better statistics' and `We've got the answer'. That is a very simple and basic contradiction in terms, but apparently it is beyond the Opposition to deal with it. I turn now to the bulk billing figures and the peculiar and clever little tricks that Senator Michael Baume was playing. If we compare the actual yearly statistics it can be seen that in 1983, the last full calendar year of the final Fraser Government health scheme, each Australian used an average of 7.7 medical services. In the 1986 calendar year the average was 7.68-in effect, an identical utilisation rate. Senator Baume claimed that figures proving increased costs suggest that there has been an increased usage. A couple of things ought to be borne in mind. Firstly, Senator Tate interjected to point out that the costs provided an insufficient analysis because one would then have to work out the cost of an individual item or service and some of the treatments under Medicare were much more expensive than others. A reliance on cost figures is fraught with difficulties. It is unreliable and insufficient. Secondly, the increase in services has occurred for a number of reasons. Let me read the following: The growth in use of and spending on medical services has been rising throughout the last decade with or without Medicare and bulk billing. Between mid-1975 and mid-1983 pathology use increased by 105 per cent, radiology by 55 per cent, with an overall increase in medical services of 20 per cent. With Medicare there has been a slight increase in the use of services. However, this is expected as Medicare is intended to remove financial barriers which have prevented people in the past using those services. The two million Australians who were disadvantaged under Fraser health schemes and could not afford to go to the doctor were able to do so in Medicare. Many of those who previously had waited until they could see their way to being able to afford going to a doctor went to their doctors once Medicare was introduced by the Labor Government. Of course, they would have accounted for some small increase in the number of services being measured. Essentially, let me quote again from the figures mentioned by the Minister for Health. In 1983 each Australian used an average of 7.7 medical services if the full year's statistics are compared with the average of 7.68 in 1986. To all intents and purposes there is no change. The other important thing is that, when talking about health costs, to selectively pick out statistics, which Senator Baume has done, is again to misrepresent the position. This Government has held the costs of health care to about 7.5 per cent of gross domestic product. Another area that I am surprised Senator Baume did not raise is the great furphy that the Opposition likes to wheel up; that is, the hospital waiting lists. I am not quite sure to what we owe our freedom from that attack tonight. But, in anticipation of Senator Walters speaking this evening, let me refute the wild, ridiculous and again very misleading claims of the Opposition. The Opposition suggests that 100,000 people are on hospital waiting lists around this country. That is an absolutely wicked claim. It is nothing more than a scaremongering tactic. A recent Australian Hospital Association survey concluded that the number of people on waiting lists was well below those quoted by Senator Baume. As for his claim that people on waiting lists are dying, I refer him to a reply on the same subject by former Senator Grimes. He is reported in the Hansard of 16 April 1986 as replying to a question from Senator Peter Baume as follows: I was disappointed with the last five minutes of Senator Peter Baume's speech, because he said something I have not heard him say before and which I did not expect to hear him say in this place. I can get up and say: `I know two people who died in recent times while waiting for cardiac surgery and waiting for a bed in one of Sydney's leading private hospitals'. Am I entitled to get up and say, therefore, that the private hospital system is crook because that happened to those people, who had conditions from which one may die at any moment? This is absolute nonsense. If I got up and made a statement like that, Senator Peter Baume would laugh at me, but it happens to be true-I do know two people who died while waiting for cardiac surgery, waiting for beds in private hospitals, as people will always wait for beds in public hospitals and private hospitals. Senator Grimes went on to say: Senator Peter Baume has done what so many Opposition and conservative politicians do in this place. They come in and say that we have problems in our hospital system . . . He said that, according to the Opposition, this was all due to Medicare, and to the Labor Government and did not exist before this Government came to power. Senator Grimes described that assertion as `hogwash'. I am happy to put it on the record in my own name that that claim by the Opposition is utter hogwash. The Opposition simply does not understand the issues, although these were spelt out for Senator Michael Baume in that recent debate. At a recent Australian Health Ministers conference, all Health Ministers agreed that the following factors affect waiting times: Nurse shortages resulting in bed closures; the supply of some specialist medical services, such as orthopaedic surgeons; advances in technology allowing a greater variety of procedures, such as coronary bypass surgery, lens implants for eyes, or hip and other joint replacements to be more readily performed; and greater public awareness of new improved technology leading to greater demand. The Health Ministers agreed that it was up to the States and the Territories to develop programs to overcome waiting list problems. But, as I said, at that time the Federal Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, agreed to provide support, co-operation and proposals to assist the States in dealing with those difficulties. I remind Senator Michael Baume that, as he should be aware, 14,000 people had elective surgery in Victorian public hospitals in March 1987, the last month for which statistics are available, and that overall public hospital waiting lists for elective surgery fell by more than 1,000 in that month. If the honourable senator wants to use figures I urge him to approximate facts rather than provide the scurrilous fiction that he has used not just to argue against us-he knows full well that this legislation will go through-but simply to scare people out in the community. I hope that they understand that his scare tactics will do nothing. If the Opposition intends to do away with Medicare and, as stated by Mr Porter in the other place, to do away with the Australian Institute of Health, how could it have any figures from which to draw conclusions? It is quite clear that members of the Opposition do not need figures with which to argue; they just need any faint suggestion that pops into their heads. All they need is a good idea. In stressing the importance of this legislation I wish to cite another group of figures, which I would not argue were statistics. In 1982, Mr Macphee, a Minister in the previous Government, said that occupational health and safety was a disaster that this country had failed to address and must address. As I remember, according to his figures about 300 Australian workers died per year and the cost was assessed at $4.5 billion. A mere two years later, the figures still suggested that 300 Australians were dying each year from work related injuries or accidents, but the cost had risen to $6.5 billion. We then observed claims of 300 deaths emanating from New South Wales. Victoria had a bid for 300 deaths per year, and we eventually reached a figure of about 800 people dying every year from work related accidents or injuries in this country. In other words, such figures are still grossly unreliable. They point to the absolute importance of statistical collections of health costs and health related matters, such as occupational health and safety statistics, and they also point to the importance of the work this Institute will do in standardising definitions and methodologies, in analysing figures and in standardising the collection of data and what is being counted in any one of those collections. Senator Michael Baume —What do you think the Bureau of Statistics does? Senator CROWLEY —I have already pointed out-the honourable senator was too busy chatting in the gallery to notice-why the ABS figures are insufficient and why they have not been able to do the job to this point. The remarks made by Opposition senators and by Senator Michael Baume point to the inadequacy of those statistics to this point and why the legislation in this chamber is of such importance. Senator Michael Baume —They haven't been given the job. Senator CROWLEY —Does the honourable senator want me to run through the statistics again? Let me refer the honourable senator again to volume 1 of the report of the Better Health Commission. This matter is referred to and spelt out in that report. It actually says that the Australian Bureau of Statistics had a lack of enthusiasm about health statistics and, indeed, an apparent lack of understanding of their social purpose and importance. That was said not by me or the Minister but by the Better Health Commission, which took a lot of time to come up with this comprehensive and thorough report. Indeed, the honourable senator might wish to quote from other parts and chapters of the report. Will the honourable senator be selective about which parts of the report he agrees with? We have already refuted that, but I am happy to do it again for Senator Baume now that he is listening and taking notice. I do not think that the importance of this legislation can be overstressed. The Minister has made quite clear why the Institute needs to be a statutory authority. First, it is to ensure the best co-operation with the States and Territories, which is absolutely critical if the health statistics which we all need, want and hope will become more comprehensive, adequate and reliable than they are currently, are to do so. Understandably, as Senator Baume said, there has been ill-will or suspicion in the past which means that relations among the Commonwealth, States and Territories need to be specially addressed. The Minister has done that in this legislation by establishing the independence of a statutory authority. The second important point that the legislation to establish the statutory authority provides is contained in the very significant clauses going to the confidentiality of that information, not only for States and Territories or departments but also very much for individuals because some of those statistics are not about costs or numbers of beds, but about the health status of people in this country. Another very important point that I would like to reiterate is that of being able to invite to work in the Institute researchers of world reputation in this critical area-in the methodology of examining statistics and even of looking at what should be measured. I will move to some areas of great interest to me-other areas of the Better Health Commission report that point to the importance of public promotion of good health, the establishment of preventative focuses in the whole delivery of health services and promotion, and the importance of adequate epidemiological data to discover the health status of Australians and whether any programs put in place to implement the altered health status of the community can be measured. The significance of all that cannot be overemphasised. Just in passing, the Minister points out that there will be no financial impact, no increase in costs, with the establishment of the statutory authority. But I am quite sure that members of the Opposition would presume him to be a liar on that point too. Those opposite are of little minds and one cannot argue with little minds. The importance of the health status-- Senator Michael Baume —You are so polite. Senator CROWLEY —I thank Senator Baume for that. I am much more polite than he is. He is a very much meaner person. The things the Government has promoted and intends to promote further under the Better Health Commission-and has already implemented in some areas; for example, its program to try to eradicate measles-are very important. They certainly go to the prospect of changing and improving the health status of Australians. But there is no way that we can rely on a good guess or what seems to be the case. It is absolutely critical, not only in terms of properly accounting for the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars but also in terms of claiming whether the services being put in place are having an effect. For example, if insufficient people are immunised against measles, the prospect of a measles epidemic is always on the cards. Measles is one of those diseases that, while a lot of people think it is just a childhood disease, has a very serious series of consequences in a sufficiently high number of people to more than justify the measles eradication program. Another area of health statistics that really deserves the Senate's attention is the appalling statistics, to the extent that we have them, on the status of Aboriginal health. It is a great shock to me that to be born Aboriginal means a person is more likely-according to some statistics, three times, and according to others, five times more likely-to die very young than a person born to white parents. That alone is sufficient to justify a complete campaign by the Government. I am entirely in support of the steps being taken by the Department of Health and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to try to address that and all other areas of Aboriginal health. Again, the definition of who is Aboriginal and the importance of being able to measure much more accurately the statistics on our Aboriginal population are absolutely critical. These matters certainly demand the attention of the Senate and this country. They certainly have the attention of the Government but they are one small example of a statistic that I think justifies the Government's very serious intent through this legislation to ensure that our health statistics are the very best possible. Other changes in the area of public health include improved prospects for training. The establishment of the Master of Public Health, now decentralised and available in a number of States, will contribute to the establishment of better statistical data and analysis and to having more people with those skills, and also to alternative ways of implementing health services to ensure an improvement in the health status of Australians. There are a number of critical areas that one could cite in justification of the importance of having the Institute to collect this information. I turn to page 69 of volume 1 of the Better Health Commission report. I will quote a small item from a whole chapter referring to evaluation and the absolute importance of it, the reason why we have not had sufficient evaluation to this point, the importance of standardisation and so on. This is very well illustrated by the following paragraph, which states: The evaluation of random breath-testing . . . provides further compelling evidence of the need for an adequate national statistical data base. Australia has no national hospital inpatient statistics collected and the quality and scope of such collections that do exist varies among and within States. The Hunter region is the only New South Wales region with fully enumerated public hospital morbidity data for each year since 1977. Using this information, it has been shown that the introduction of RBT in the Hunter region was associated with a 20 per cent decline in the number of patients admitted to a hospital with traffic accident injuries. This figure is over and above the 3 per cent per annum decline observed during the previous five years. If anything illustrates the importance of adequate and comprehensive statistics and data collection, that does. If a program, for example the random breath test program, is implemented, it is absolutely critical to find out whether the expenditure of costs and time, particularly by our police forces, is justified. There are many demands on our police forces. Implementing a random breath test program has to be justified in terms of cost savings and the changed health status of the community. That small example from the Hunter region of New South Wales suggests that there was a 20 per cent decline. By any criterion, that is a very good justification for having random breath tests. If we did not have that figure we would be going on only a best guess of the effect of random breath testing. We must have much more adequate and national statistical collection. The importance of national statistics cannot be overstated. Most of our health services are delivered through the States and Territories but we have a Federal government responsible, in large part, for the expenditure of public dollars to deliver those services through the States. The Government honourably and properly requires adequate and proper collection of data, even if we look only at proper evaluation of the expenditure of those dollars. But the Government is also very concerned with putting in place legislation that will allow comprehensive and proper collection of epidemiological statistics that go not only to the evaluation of dollars but also to the health status of individuals and communities. I do not understand how the Opposition possibly can object to this legislation. The principal objection of those opposite seems to be that while we need all those things we do not need a statutory authority to get them. Their arguments finished with a lot of evidence that despite the fact that we have insufficient statistics, Medicare is still to blame for everything. I simply point out that out of their own mouths they are hung with such an argument. The Government appreciates the difficulties in gathering and the importance of these statistics. It says that the best way to go is the statutory authority way, principally to deal with the points that I have already enumerated but will state once again. I refer to the absolutely vital regard that must be placed on the co-operation of the States. Clearly, I have spelt that out on a number of occasions. Senator Michael Baume —And it is possible through the ABS. Senator CROWLEY —While it may be possible, Senator Baume, that the Australian Bureau of Statistics should do it, to this point it has not. However, it has been charged with doing it for quite some time. I have pointed out that it is not committed to doing it and to this point it has been inadequate in doing it. Further, the ABS will be involved as it will be participating in the Institute of Health. I would have thought that the co-operation and collaboration that is allowed between the Institute of Health and the ABS in the collection of this data is the preferred way to go. I also hope that there will be close co-operation and collaboration between the Australian Institute of Health and the Occupational Health and Safety Institute in collecting that very large body of information about accident and injury in respect of people in the work force in this country. As well as that, it is to be hoped that one day we will see established a proper national births, deaths and marriages register so that a more adequate set of comprehensive data about morbidity and mortality and health statistics in general will be available to the people of this country. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.02) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I welcome tonight the introduction of the Australian Institute of Health Bill and the National Health Amendment Bill which we are debating cognately. The Democrats intend to support both Bills, but we will be raising a number of concerns about each. We will move an amendment to the Australian Institute of Health Bill which we believe will strengthen the legislation and enhance the operation of the new Institute. First, I will deal with the National Health Amendment Bill which, of course, is concerned with streamlining the operation of the safety net provisions for pharmaceutical benefits which were introduced in last year's Budget with the support of the Australian Democrats. The safety net scheme is consistent with the ethos of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme which was first introduced in 1950 to mitigate the financial hardship associated with necessary drug use. The system which we had until last year buffered all Australian users from what most pharmaceuticals would otherwise have cost us, and particularly protected those of little financial means. With the introduction of the safety net, we saw the recognition of the criterion of chronic illness in an individual or family as a basis for additional subsidisation, and the Australian Democrats very much welcomed this move. The pharmaceutical `safety net' was consistent with our amendment to the original Medicare legislation to place a ceiling on the maximum medical payments which would accrue to any one person in any year. Unfortunately, a number of overly large holes in the net still leave certain Australians with chronic illness out in the cold. I will return to these problems which perpetuate financial hardship for those families with most illness after commenting on the significant provisions before us in this Bill. Clause 4 extends the operation of the safety net by making two exceptions to the requirement that prescriptions will only count towards eligibility if the maximum quantity is prescribed. This provision was included originally to prevent splitting scripts into smaller prescribed quantities so that a total of 25 scripts could be reached more quickly. The amendments here provide for, first, transitional arrangements should the Minister revise his or her determination of the appropriate maximum quantity and, secondly, an exception in the case of dangerous or addictive drugs. I particularly welcome the amendment made by clause 4 (2) to address the dangers of excessive prescribing, and the Democrats note the major problems facing our country in this area. Claims that the safety net scheme is already running well over budget indicate that Australian families are clocking up 25 scripts more quickly than had been expected and that the rate of prescribing in this country had been underestimated. The number of Australians obtaining free pharmaceuticals through the safety net is just one more indication that we need to look carefully at doctors' prescribing habits and other influences on the level of pharmaceutical use and abuse in this country. It is certainly true, as was recommended in the Industries Assistance Commission report on pharmaceutical products, that we need to see increased information to prescribers, pharmacists and consumers about the costs of pharmaceutical over-use. In his second reading speech the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) made certain flourishes about `the Government's present drug initiatives' in the context of clause 4 (2). I can only say that, given the history of therapeutic disasters associated with thalidomide, the Dalkon shield, the anti-depressant, merital, the anti-inflammatory, opren-and the list goes on-and examples of incompetent or fraudulent scientific `studies', for example, into the pill, and the recently infamous 33 generics, it is a pity that the review into the evaluation of pharmaceuticals and the revision of therapeutic goods legislation has taken so long. Furthermore, while tobacco and alcohol promotion continue without further restrictions, while the Aboriginal youth of Australia are being destroyed through petrol sniffing and while the social ills of poverty and hopelessness promote substance abuse throughout society, the Government has no cause to be over-confident about its drug policies. Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 11 of this Bill make changes to administrative arrangements concerning the issue of safety net entitlement cards. The requirement that supporting documentation be retained by the Department of Health rather than individual pharmacists is clearly a welcome reduction of bureaucratic imposition on private businesses. The provision that the fee to be paid to pharmacists, for issuing the card for the Commonwealth, is to be set with the agreement of the Pharmacy Guild is a welcome instance of consultation with industry; and the provision for advance payments to pharmacists in certain circumstances is similarly sensible. The subject matter of clause 8, and the associated clauses 9 and 10, however cause the Australian Democrats some concern. Clause 8 concerns the `special patient contribution', a charge which was introduced by the Government in 1985 as section 85b of the principal Act. The charge was introduced to deal with situations of failure to reach an agreement between the Government and the manufacturer as to the price to be charged for an item when no other therapeutically equivalent alternative exists. The charge is the difference between the price the Government is prepared to attach to the drug for pharmaceutical benefits listing and the price claimed by the manufacturer. Currently, special patient contributions apply to three products: An anti cancer drug, a fertility drug and to a preparation commonly taken by epileptics known as dilantin. Patients requiring these drugs pay an additional charge over and above the approved Commonwealth dispensed price to which the products are subsidised. In the case of dilantin, the price to patients has increased by 44.7 per cent in two years. The Democrats are concerned because each of these drugs treat chronic illness, and in each case a patient has no substituteable alternative, meaning an additional cost to ill and vulnerable people. Democrat health policy advocates protection for the chronically ill against the compounded hardship of financial strain which they can experience. However, we recognise that this charge represents the outcome of the judgment and negotiation of the Government with manufacturers which has given Australians pharmaceuticals at prices much lower than most overseas levels. In fact, average drug prices range from 65 per cent to 100 per cent higher in the United States of America than is the case in Australia, from 40 per cent to 80 per cent higher in many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and 37 per cent higher in New Zealand. So the system has worked to our advantage except in relation to those exceptions. The Democrats are opposed to the concept of a special charge on chronically ill patients, but we recognise the function this serves as a disincentive to indiscriminate price increases by manufacturers. Accordingly, in spite of our reservations, we will support clause 8 of this Bill, but we call on the Government to seek a mechanism which will discourage unilateral price increases without penalising the patients as it does at present-albeit in a relatively small number of instances. The Democrats are also concerned about what we see as a second major flaw with the safety net. This is its failure to protect those Australians who obtain pharmaceuticals from hospitals in those States which raise a charge for drugs to outpatients. These charges range from nothing in some States to $10 per script, with considerable variation across the States. In South Australia, where a charge of $7.50 per script applies, a State safety net pays for drugs after three scripts of $22.50 per family per month. However, a family with one, let alone more than one, chronically ill member can soon pay $270 a year to a hospital in this way in that State, quite separately from the $250 that it might pay filling scripts in community pharmacies. Patients are easily caught in a limbo between the State and Federal systems and, safety nets notwithstanding, can pay up to $620 a year, or even more if any of their drugs attract a special patient contribution. While we recognise that many Australians are in a better position after the revision of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme last year, the Democrats call upon the Government to correct this anomaly by negotiation and consultation with all State governments to provide better for those patients whose circumstances are jeopardised by a lack of co-ordination between the levels of government. The other Bill that is before us tonight seeks to establish the Australian Institute of Health as an independent statutory body. The Institute currently exists as part of the Commonwealth Department of Health, with the function of co-ordinating research in public health and health services for Australia, emphasising social medicine, health statistics and health economics. This Bill seeks to make the Institute a separate body and to broaden its functions to facilitate the collection of data and the conduct of research. Australia's poor performance in the collection of health status information is well known and documented. The need to take action on this lack of data and on evaluation of health services and technology has recently been identified in both the Review of Research and Teaching of Public Health in Australia, known as the Kerr White report, and the report of the Better Health Commission, both of which have been alluded to in the debate already. It is no secret that Australia ranks low internationally in the collection of health data and, according to the World Health Organisation, lowest of 16 developed countries in the collation of hospital statistics. There is bipartisan recognition that a reliable database is an absolute prerequisite for priority setting and resource allocation decisions in health care, yet the Opposition has opposed this Bill here and in the other place where it has argued that an independent statutory authority is not necessary to carry out these functions effectively. The Democrats have considered this proposition but have not been convinced by the arguments. It seems to us that the short sighted, curative, acute care approach to illness which the Opposition has so often demonstrated has again caused it to put its collective head in the sand. The Institute of Health does not and will not work optimally as it is currently constituted. The truth, of course, is that the sort of information that we need nationally has been least forthcoming from those States where the Federal Opposition parties are in power. We need an Institute that is both really independent and seen to be independent from the Commonwealth Department of Health and from other government agencies, and it is for this reason that the Democrats support this Bill. In addition, we can be confident that the future of the Institute is better secured from a hostile Opposition as a statutory authority than as a departmental division. An independent body, we would hope, will also be more conducive to community input than an established bureaucracy. The capacity of a non-departmental body to attract a range of researchers is also very important. The staffing arrangements of the Institute are intended to be flexible enough to accommodate academic and a range of contract staff. Clause 19 of the Bill deals with this matter, we believe, satisfactorily. The particular provisions of this Bill that are of interest to the Democrats are clause 5, which sets out its functions, and clause 8, which determines its composition, as these are the factors which we believe will determine its success to a very large extent. We are concerned to ensure that a range of researchers should, within the limits of confidentiality, of course, have access to the health information held by the Institute. The Democrats are concerned that community based researchers, not only those affiliated with formal research bodies, should be in a position to conduct investigations into the variables affecting the health of Australians. It is critical, in my view, that this information gets out of the ivory towers and gives power to those people in the community who are concerned with wellness, not just illness. We have been advised that the word `researchers' in clause 5 (1) (h) would include a very broad range of people and bodies conducting research. I will be seeking an assurance to this effect from the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) as Minister representing the Minister for Health. In this context we are pleased to note that clause 5 (1) (d) expressly confers on the Institute the function of facilitating research by other groups, which was one of the recommendations of the review of community participation in the Department of Health. Ultimately, of course, the leadership and ethos of the Institute will determine its success, at least as much as legislation can. However, the Democrats believe that another significant step is needed to encourage community responsiveness in the Institute. This is to add the Consumers Health Forum to the Institute's Board. The Democrats will be moving an amendment to this effect. As it is constituted under clause 8 (1), the Institute is made up of academic and bureaucratic appointments. The expertise of those likely to be appointed is not in question at all, but the perspectives that they bring and the interests that they represent are not everything that the Institute needs. The Democrats, along with many others, want to see consumer and community input into this body and its decisions about resource allocation, health service and technology evaluation, and information dissemination. The Consumers Health Forum was established by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in response to the recommendations of the review of community participation in the Department of Health. Like the Institute, the Forum has very exciting potential, despite being well overdue as a mechanism to redress the imbalance of influence that has existed between providers and administrators of health services and those who receive them. Our amendment seeks to add the Forum to the Institute for the very purpose for which the Forum was set up-that is, to provide community input into health policy decisions. Accordingly, we expect Government support for this amendment. Anything else would be an abandonment of the Minister's stated commitment to community consultation and a betrayal of those who believe the Government to be bona fide about the Health Forum and what it represents. The other key provisions of this legislation are clauses 29 and 30 concerning the confidentiality of information obtained by the Institute. The Democrats have received a number of submissions about the desirable weighting of these mechanisms for protection, but we accept that in the circumstances the provisions proposed should encapsulate the appropriate balance to ensure that the Institute both obtains and respects the information it will need-the information that Australia needs in order to address the health challenges of the future. The Australian Democrats welcome the new Institute of Health and recognise its critical role in our response to the World Health Organisation's goals for the year 2000. Until now, in its current form, the Institute has been known only through its annual report. We need an Institute of Health with dynamism. It needs newsletters and seminars, not just reports, as effective channels for communicating about its work. We need an Institute which takes a positive role in educational outreach. Its information must be presented in user friendly forms. It should produce a directory of research, a contact list of staff and a liaison person as a first point of contact, amongst a range of other initiatives, to maximise its accessibility. We can only hope that the job ahead of an organisation which represents such a positive initiative is not compounded by Budget cuts which enshrine the inhumane values of the New Right and disregard the public welfare in favouring greater private and corporate gain. Accordingly, the Australian Democrats will be moving the appropriate amendments and will subsequently be supporting the legislation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.19) —Tonight we are debating cognately the National Health Amendment Bill 1987, which is to amend the National Health Act 1953, and the Australian Institute of Health Bill 1987. The first Bill is one with which we would have no argument. We agree that it points up the incompetence of the Government that it has got so far behind with its own payments that it now has to pass legislation to pay retrospectively some of the bills that it should have paid, were it competent. I shall confine my words to the Australian Institute of Health Bill. The purpose of that Bill is to set up a new statutory authority to be called the Australian Institute of Health. The functions of that Institute are clearly set out at page 2 of the Bill in clause 5: The functions of the Institute are: (a) to collect, with the agreement of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and, if necessary, with the Bureau's assistance, health-related information and statistics, whether by itself or in association with other bodies or persons; (b) to produce health-related information and statistics, whether by itself or in association with other bodies or persons; (c) to co-ordinate the collection and production of health-related information and statistics by other bodies or persons; (d) to provide assistance, including financial assistance, for the collection and production of health-related information and statistics by other bodies or persons- those are the ones that deal with statistics. The Bill goes on and deals with evaluation, but it is not very clear- (e) to develop methods and undertake studies designed to assess the provision, use, cost and effectiveness of health services and health technologies; (f) to conduct and promote research into the health of the people of Australia and their health services; (g) to develop, in consultation with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, specialised statistical standards and classifications relevant to health and health services, and advise the Bureau on the data to be used by it for the purposes of health-related statistics . . . It goes on to say further: (j) to publish methodological and substantive reports on work carried out by or in association with the Institute; (k) to make recommendations to the Minister on the prevention and treatment of diseases . . . (m) to do anything incidental to any of the foregoing. So what it is basically saying is that the Government wants to set up this statutory authority to gather data with the agreement and help of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, to develop studies to assess the provision, use and cost effectiveness of health services, and to do some research into the health of the people of Australia and their health services. There are so many committees of this Parliament that have sat, and indeed I have been a member of two of those that asked for additional data. I have no problem whatsoever in the Government seeking accurate additional data. Indeed, the report of the committee of which I was a member and of which Senator Peter Baume was Chairman submitted a report called `Through a Glass, Darkly'. It was a report solely on evaluation of Australia's health and welfare services. Senator Michael Baume —It is a good report, too. Senator WALTERS —It is a very good report. The part I would like to read is headed `The Rationale of the Report'. It reads: This report asserts that, in order to achieve an efficient, effective, rational and equitable health and welfare system, it is necessary to conduct ongoing evaluation. Evaluation need not be confining. There is a wide range of possible evaluation methods and no need for any program to be confined to one prescriptive format. Evaluation reports can make it possible to improve programs and rectify mistakes and, at time, they may indicate a need for program termination. The benefits derived from evaluation include increased accountability of decision makers, improvement in the decision-making process, more effective use of resources, and enhancement of the capacity of organisations to strengthen their bids for additional resources. The consequences of not evaluating are possible indiscriminate cuts in funds, indiscriminate handing out of funds, continuance of the present ad hoc decision-making process . . . It is very clear that this Government needs evaluation. It has had so many people telling it that it is not cost effective to have universal bulk billing. Its chief medical adviser, Professor Penington, has told it that indiscriminate bulk billing is not cost effective, and yet it refuses to believe him. He has said that health care costs are out of control. He has told the Government repeatedly. He has told the Government that if it continues automatic universal bulk billing it is headed for disaster, and yet the Government will not heed his words and has decided instead to set up a whole statutory authority to be told exactly what Professor Penington has already told it but it will not take any notice of. Senator Grimes was a member of the Committee which recommended that the Commonwealth Government direct the Australian Bureau of Statistics to raise an appropriate level of its proportion of its budget spent specifically on health and welfare statistics. He did not see the need for a full statutory authority to be set up to do that. Senator Grimes, along with all the rest of us on that committee, said that the Commonwealth should direct the Australian Bureau of Statistics to do it and direct it to set aside a certain proportion of its budget to enable it to do so. But there is no need for a statutory authority to do that. Senator Grimes has now left this place, and Senator Walsh really amazes me. He is the Minister on duty in this chamber at the moment. Why does he allow the Government to spend this sort of money when we are already paying the Australian Bureau of Statistics to do this? All the Government has to do is to instruct the Bureau to do it, instead of setting up a totally new authority. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-I thank Senator Walters for sitting down before time to give me the opportunity of complying with the Standing Orders. 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. 2 standing in my name for the next day of sitting for disallowance of the Christmas Island Lands Ordinance 1987. I seek leave to give a very much briefer statement than my last one. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Ordinance reforms land law on Christmas Island. The Committee was concerned about the absence of review of decisions of the Administrator to be exercised under ministerial guidelines. After taking evidence from officials the Committee has agreed that Administrative Appeals Tribunal review is not practicable. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has agreed with the Committee, however, that the guidelines should be subject to tabling and disallowance. The Committee thanks the Minister for his helpful response. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a more detailed statement of the Committee's scrutiny. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Territory of Christmas Island Lands Ordinance 1987 This Ordinance makes wide ranging provision for control of the Island's leasehold land. The Committee was concerned about the extensive discretionary powers given to the Island Administrator to vary rents and determine leases without there being any independent avenue of review through which to challenge decisions. The Committee asked the Minister to advise it on the possibility of AAT review being provided making use of telephone hearings which could be available with the new satellite technology. The Minister in correspondence and through his officials who gave evidence before the Committee, explained that determination of residential rent levels was closely related to industrial relations negotiations on the Island and independent review in a single case could undermine complex agreements. It was also pointed out that telephone hearings could not always overcome the difficulties which might arise from the cultural and language differences as between the Island and the mainland. Finally, in deciding to withdraw its reservations about the lack of independent review the Committee noted that the Minister would be closely involved in personally deciding appeals against the Administrator's decisions on lease conditions and liabilities. The Committee decided therefore that it was not realistic to pursue the question of AAT review at this time. The Committee also asked the Minister why Ministerial Guidelines to be followed by the Administrator in exercising his or her powers had not been made subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament as was usually the case with such instruments. It was explained to the Committee that Guidelines could contain instructions regarding the Administrator's preferred position in negotiating business leases, the premature publication of which could be damaging to the Commonwealth's position. Other Guidelines could contain instructions on when to act against defaulting leaseholders and tenants. Once again it was argued that publication of these could enable potential defaulters to take advantage of the Commonwealth. The Committee considered that since the Guidelines would be the subject of consultations with the Island Assembly and since they would in any event be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, the traditional standard of parliamentary scrutiny should be maintained to prevent the possibility that Guidelines could be unfair or inappropriate. The Committee agreed that given the Minister's reservations, Guidelines containing financial criteria for negotiation of business leases need not be tabled. The Committee counselled that careful drafting of the Guidelines should ensure that they were adequate to protect the interests of both the Islanders and the Commonwealth without the need for resort to counterproductive unwritten ``ghost'' Guidelines. Senator COONEY —The Committee's correspondence is too lengthy for incorporation. I therefore seek leave to table it for the information of honourable senators and others. Leave granted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.30) —I want to refer briefly tonight to the fact that earlier today I presented a petition in which a number of citizens called upon the Senate to assist in banning smoking in aircraft. I will not go into details of the matter, because I think they are quite apparent. This matter has been debated recently in the Senate and, in a sense, I want to refer to that debate without going on with it. I was particularly interested in some of the remarks made by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) when he spoke in this chamber on behalf of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). I will not go into much of what he said. He raised the question of how a smoking ban could be implemented in a non-punitive way which is acceptable to the community. He indicated that the Government had accepted the basic principles in these matters but had placed the responsibility upon the airlines to respond. He indicated that Cabinet had authorised legislation for a ban on smoking in aircraft upon receipt of a request from the major domestic airlines. I do not think there is much doubt that the majority of people in this country believe that smoking in aircraft ought to be banned and that something needs to be done to see that it happens. The Minister, interestingly enough, then went on to say: 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. I suggest to Senator Gietzelt that he take up with the Government the suggestion that the Government appoint a bipartisan committee, probably of back benchers, to talk to the airlines about how this might be achieved. Certainly, if the airlines want to do it they can, but there are still no sanctions which make it possible for them to do it really effectively. I can understand the Government's reluctance in the context in which the Minister has placed it. I quite seriously suggest that the Government consider the suggestion that some members from each party and from each House-not too many, I would hope, because it would get a bit cumbersome-to arrange to meet with the airlines on how this might best be done. I have some difficulty with accepting that the ban should apply only to flights of less than 90 minutes, because if something is not pleasant it becomes even more unpleasant the longer it goes on. I put this suggestion forward, as I say, without debating the issue. It is, I believe, a reasonable and sensible suggestion to bring about a conclusion which all parties may then be prepared to put into effect so that something can be done and we do not just go on talking about if for too long. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.33) —I do not think that I am personally able to respond to the matter raised by Senator Reid. I will see that it is drawn to Senator Gietzelt's attention. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.33 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 71. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 55. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 72. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 73. National Health Act-Determination made by the Minister under subsection 47 (1) and subparagraph 42 (2) (b) (iii), dated 23 April 1987. Navigation Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 66. Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Marine Orders 1987- No. 1-Part 49-(Dynamically Supported Craft). No. 2-Part 50-(Special Purpose Ships) (Repeal and Substitution). Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Determination made by the Minister under paragraphs 13 (1) (a) and 13 (1) (d), dated 23 April 1987. Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 65. Quarantine Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 69. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1987-No. 16-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment). Regulations 1987-No. 4-Credit Regulations (Amendment). Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 70. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act 1987-8 May 1987 (Gazette No. S 76, 7 May 1987). Migration Act 1958-repeal and re-enactment of section 5A made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1986-11 May 1987 (Gazette No. S 78, 8 May 1987). Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1986-See-Migration Act 1958. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1383) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, on notice, on 22 September 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Defence's attention been drawn to an article in the National Times of 4-10 July 1986 concerning the role of the North West Cape Communications base. (2) Can the Minister confirm that the current role of the base has been downgraded by a reduction of the range of its signals to 5000 kilometres and a reduction in the numbers of its VLF frequencies to 2; If so, does this mean that North West Cape is no longer a key communication base for US missile-bearing submarines and consequently, no longer has an important role in deterrence. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The two VLF frequencies used by the Naval Communication Station at North West Cape are 15.5 kHz, which has been registered with the International Frequency Registration Board since 3 May 1967, and 22.3 kHz which had been registered since 21 April 1969. Both frequencies are registered with a nominal range of 5000 km. These registrations have been unchanged since 1967 and 1969 respectively. While a number of other frequencies between 14 and 29 kHz were trialled when the Station was being established, these two are the only frequencies which have been used operationally since the Station became a joint facility in 1974. There has been no reduction in the number of operational frequencies registered for or used by the Station, or in their nominal registered range, since 1974. It should be noted, however, that the Station's VLF signals can be received with varying degrees of reliability at distances well in excess of the nominal registered range of 5000 km. There has been no change in the role of the Station. (Question No. 1632) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) Are recent media reports which state that from 1 July 1987, Telecom plan to charge between fifty cents and seventy cents for each call to directory assistance, correct. (2) How many calls in each State and Territory were made to directory assistance in 1986. (3) How can the Minister for Communications justify such an excessive charge given the fact that subscribers already pay a sixteen cent call charge fee for the service. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Telecom plans to introduce charging for some Directory Assistance calls from July 1988. The charge will apply only when the wanted number is listed in the local area, and not for enquiries concerning new connections, changed numbers or numbers outside the area of the local directory. Calls from public telephones and mobile telephones will also be free, and special arrangements will be made to ensure that handicapped people are not disadvantaged by the charge. The actual charge to be applied has not yet been finalised, but will be based on the cost of processing those calls which relate to numbers published in the local directory. (2) New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory, 37.6 million; Western Australia, 14.3 million; Victoria, 32.7 million; South Australia, 12.1 million; Queensland, 24.6 million; Tasmania, 2.7 million. (3) All calls to Directory Assistance are at present free. The purpose of introducing a charge for calls to Directory Assistance when the required number is already listed in the local telephone directory is to help offset the considerable cost of providing the service (some $57 million in 1985-86) and encourage customers to use the telephone directory. Recent studies have shown that up to two thirds of calls to the 013 service are for numbers which are already published in the local directory. The charge will reduce the level of demand for directory assistance which at present cannot be economically satisfied, therefore enabling Telecom to provide a more efficient service to those people with a genuine need to call the Directory Assistance service. (Question No. 1668) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) On whose authority were employees of the ACT Fire Brigade permitted to use the department's vehicles to stage the protest outside Parliament House, on 17 March 1987 including the use of sirens which are intended only for emergencies, as part of an attempt to intimidate Members and Senators of the Parliament. (2) Who paid for the petrol and other costs involved in the protest. (3) What action does the Minister for Territories intend to take to stop this kind of unauthorised use of emergency vehicles and what action can the Government take and will it take relating to this kind of noise pollution. (4) Will the Minister now consider providing employment opportunities in the ACT Fire Brigade for the ACT's unemployed who are keen to work dispensing with the services of those Fire Brigade members whose skill at ripping off the compensation scheme and improperly using government equipment exceeds their enthusiasm for attending to their duty, given that the ACT Fire Brigade, in 1986, recorded an incredible workers compensation claim of 60 per cent of total employees even though they were on strike for much of the year. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Brigade vehicles were used without appropriate authority. (2) All costs, except for wages for the on-duty members, will be paid through the Brigade's appropriation. All on-duty members who attended the stop work meeting in front of Parliament House will have 2 hours wage deducted. (3) and (4) The Fire Commissioner has taken appropriate action and has the full support of the Government. Since the election of the Hawke Government progressive action has been taken to reverse the types of problems which had developed because of the failure of the previous Government to establish the Brigade on a sound basis following its separation from New South Wales in 1978.