Thursday, 14 May 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% 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 Jones (from 15 citizens), Parer (from 14 citizens), Robert Ray (from 29 citizens) and Robertson (89 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. Your petitioners therefore urge the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to:- 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependent Spouse Rebate to $1851 per annum. 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 Robertson (from 264 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament Assembled. This Petition of the Undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The introduction of the Higher Education Administrative Charge for tertiary students has and will continue to restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, low income earners, mature age, and part-time and external students. 2. Students are being deterred from furthering their education because of the probable escalation of the $250 charge in future Budgets, preventing students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of the Administration Charge is contrary to the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education.'' Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge and Overseas students `visa charge' are abolished so that education will remain accessible to all. by Senator Vigor (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and Honourable Senators assembled, the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and other recipients of Social Security benefits and to Commonwealth Superannuants and to cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Government. We call upon the Prime Minister and his Government to take the following action when considering budgetary changes to be announced in May this year. 1. They ensure there is no further erosion of existing benefits to pensioners and other Social Security recipients and further that they honour their promise to Pensioners made before the last election that pensions be increased to a level equal to 25% of average weekly earnings. 2. That the Government reconsider its action in reducing by two per cent the level of superannuation paid to Commonwealth Superannuants, retired members of the Defence Services and other eligible Commonwealth Superannuants. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 126 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) The days and hours of meeting for the week 22-26 June 1987 be as follows: (a) Monday, 22 June 1987- 11 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (b) Tuesday, 23 June and Wednesday, 24 June 1987- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (c) Thursday, 25 June 1987- 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (d) Friday, 26 June 1987- 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 3.45 p.m. (2) The days and hours of meeting for the week 29 June-3 July 1987 be as follows: (a) Monday, 29 June 1987- 11 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (b) Tuesday, 30 June and Wednesday, 1 July 1987- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (c) Thursday, 2 July 1987- 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (d) Friday, 3 July 1987- 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate declares that no changes in the structure or responsibilities of the Parliamentary Departments should be made until- (a) particulars of proposed changes have been provided to all Senators; (b) the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing has examined the proposed changes and reported to the Senate; and (c) the Senate has approved of the changes. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I give notice that, contingent on the President proceeding to the placing of business on any day, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Georges moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) The Senate at its rising on Thursday, 14 May 1987, adjourn till Tuesday, 26 May 1987 at 2 p.m. (2) The days and hours of meeting for the week 26-29 May 1987 be as follows: (a) Tuesday, 26 May 1987- 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (b) Wednesday, 27 May 1987- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (c) Thursday, 28 May 1987- 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (d) Friday, 29 May 1987- 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 3.45 p.m. (3) The days and hours of meeting for the week 1-5 June 1987 be as follows: (a) Monday, 1 June and Tuesday, 2 June 1987- 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (b) Wednesday, 3 June 1987- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (c) Thursday, 4 June 1987- 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (d) Friday, 5 June 1987- 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 3.45 p.m. (4) The days and hours of meeting for the week 9-12 June 1987 be as follows: (a) Tuesday, 9 June 1987- 11 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (b) Wednesday, 10 June 1987- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (c) Thursday, 11 June 1987- 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (d) Friday, 12 June 1987- 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 3.45 p.m. (5) That from 26 May 1987, Government Business take precedence of General Business on Thursdays. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.04) —I do not wish to debate the motion but to indicate to my own Opposition senators how we have reached this point, because we have not had time for a party meeting. The Senate will recall that originally the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) gave notice of a motion which extended our sittings for a further couple of weeks. That was the subject of some discussion following discussions in the Opposition party room and indeed with the Australian Democrats. As a result, the Government agreed that we would have a one-week break after three weeks of sitting and, if necessary, return for a two-week period, taking us through until early July. At my request-and I just want to acknowledge this-the Manager of Government Business deleted from the motion he had intended to deal with today the hours and days of sittings for that later fortnight. The reason for that is that I wanted an opportunity to discuss that matter in our Party room when we return after this next week up. So, in the interests of having a chance to look at that matter in an orderly way, I acknowledge that the Manager of Government Business deleted the detail of those sittings so that we can deal with them when we come back in a little over a week's time. I would also like to acknowledge that, at my request and that of the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines), a change was made to the proposed hours of sitting to accommodate our requirement for a party meeting when we return on 9 June. Whilst the Opposition is concerned at the long hours of sittings we face, we are pleased to have the one-week break. We also indicated as a Party to the Manager of Government Business some time ago that we were prepared to sit on Wednesday evenings to provide more time for Government Business than the existing sitting pattern allowed. That has been added into the program. There have been some other minor additions but I indicated to the Manager of Government Business that we would allow this motion to go through in a formal way. I am sorry that I had to take up some of the time of the Senate, but I thought it would save confusion if I made that explanation. I thank the Senate for the indulgence. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of General Business for consideration this day pursuant to Sessional Order be as follows: (a) consideration of Government Papers; (b) General Business, Order of the Day No. 393 (Business Investment in Australia); and (c) General Business, Order of the Day No. 209 (Family Law Amendment Bill 1985). Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That Business of the Senate, Order of the Day Nos 1 and 2 be postponed till a later hour of the day. I move this motion because one of the reports in question is still being printed, but it will be ready later in the day. I will seek leave at an appropriate time to table it then. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.08) —Before the debate was adjourned last night I was acknowledging the part that the sugar industry had played in providing $600m worth of export sales and foreign currency. The Millaquin Sugar Co. and the producers of Bundaberg rum provide $60m a year in excise and sales tax. In my State of Queensland-from Beenleigh, just 20 or 30 miles from the Gold Coast, right up to north of Cairns-the sugar industry provides many jobs and much wealth. The fact that the industry has been in decline over, I believe, the last three years has meant that the rural coastal towns have felt the pinch, as many business people, including small business people, have not had the incomes that they enjoyed when sugar enjoyed a higher price overseas. The sugar industry needs all the help this Government can provide. Only a couple of days ago on the Australian Associated Press wire we received a message from some of our sugar representatives who were in New York on a deputation. They sent back a very alarming message that America was at the point of being a net sugar exporter rather than an importer. The quota has already fallen to around 75,000 tonnes a year. The United States of America has subsidised its domestic sales by $15 billion during the last five years. It has also paid $85m in additional subsidies for farmers not to grow sugar. What alarms me-and a number of other speakers in the debate have picked up this point-is that under the American Farm Bill that $85m will be used to subsidise export sales. That must alarm everyone in this Senate and in primary industry in Australia. The European Economic Community is subsidising its beet sugar to the extent of $400 a tonne to compete in our markets. This is what we are facing, not only in the sugar industry but also in the wheat and grain industry-attacks on our markets from absolutely corrupted world prices. Last year, at the instigation of Ralph Hunt, an all-party committee visited America for very important discussions on subsidised exports of wheat and other primary products. I understand that this delegation met with moderate success. Another all-party delegation will be leaving next week for America, but the Government has not given this delegation a very high priority. It will be headed by a back bencher, an ex-potato farmer from Victoria. A delegation which is not supported by the Government appointing a Minister as its head will not receive very high priority in America. We in the National Party see the American Farm Bill as potentially catastrophic to our rural export earnings and the survival of the rural sector. The US protectionist measures and export subsidy scheme being proposed will have a devastating effect on Australia. Every effort must be made to make US congressmen aware of the results of their actions and aware of Australia's point of view. Many arguments and influences can be used to put forward our case. Even if there were not, this US Bill is so crucial to the future of our major export earners that every last effort must be made to hammer at the doors of Congress until we are heard. The deputation or delegation-whatever one likes to call it-must be headed by a Minister. It is an insult to the rural producers of Australia to send a delegation headed by a back bencher. The National Party has put forward its best delegate, the honourable member for Gwydir, Mr Ralph Hunt, who is well known in rural industry and well respected on both sides of this Parliament. He is once again going to America with a delegation. He will be supported by members of all other parties in the Parliament. Mr Cunningham, although I believe he is a fine man and may have picked up all sorts of useful information to use on the trip, lacks clout. I do not believe that the Americans will recognise him or give him the type of respect that is needed by this delegation. If we do not send someone in a senior ministerial position, the Americans will think we are not really worried and they will not give us the entrees to the people whom we need to see. The American Farm Bill has many implications, not only for the sugar industry but for all of rural Australia and for every primary industry. As I said before, the sugar industry contributes $600m to our export earnings, and that is down from $1.1 billion in 1982-83. Part of the package to which this Government committed itself in the last election campaign was to put in place an underwriting scheme to set effectively the floor price for sugar at $230 a tonne for the 1986 season. This was touted as a wonderful and generous gesture on behalf of the Government. However, with the subsequent rises in world prices in the following years, the Government has managed to avoid contributing hardly anything to this support scheme. I think it made some small payment but, as the prices rose from between 2c and 3c a pound to 7c a pound, the price support scheme was not triggered. So the Government got away without making much of a contribution to the sugar industry. It is good to see the Government coming through with a little money for research. Some Federal funds were made available last year for mill rationalisation, and those funds were matched, not dollar for dollar but 50c to the dollar, by the Queensland Government. So the Bill gives little enough back to an industry that has contributed so much to Australians over time. This industry has faced much hardship from our own Government in the last four years, particularly in terms of high interest rates, excessive taxes, fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax and the assets test. All of these factors have impacted very seriously on the industry. One thing that this Government does not seem to understand is that, while it has removed the excise on diesel fuel for primary industry, 40 per cent of all fuel used on farms is still petrol. That varies from primary industry to primary industry. However, overall, 40 per cent of all the fuel used is petrol. The Government has been more than generous to other secondary industries: It has given $176m to the steel industry and $150m to the automotive vehicle industry. So, really, it has made only a token contribution to the sugar industry. However, this contribution is certainly acknowledged by the sugar industry, which supports the legislation. I want to touch on another matter that is of serious concern to sugar growers at the moment. Over the last four years the Australian sugar industry has provided $10m to promote the image of sugar. Most of those funds have gone towards the television advertising campaign, `Sugar is a natural part of life'. That campaign has been very successful, and I am sure that everyone has seen it on television. It has changed the public's attitude towards sugar. The decline in consumption has stopped, and consumption has slowly started to pick up again. These industry funds also go towards sponsoring athletics and funding medical and dental research. The expensive struggle to promote the image of sugar and inform the public of its useful place in our diet is certainly not being helped by some Department of Health staff who cannot seem to overcome their prejudices and who continue to downgrade sugar in health guidelines, despite receiving numerous medical reports from overseas that sugar is really not a problem. Despite world recognised reports, such as that of the United States Food and Drug Administration published in August 1986 assuring the United States of America of the goodness in sugar and the important part that it can play in our diet, the Department of Health continues to tell the Australian population to avoid eating too much sugar. That is reasonable, I suppose, but it should also tell people to avoid drinking too much and eating too much of anything that is bad for health-too many fats and too much acid. Too much of anything is bad for a person. I wish the Health Department would not pick on sugar. In its guidelines for the dietary requirements of Australia it recommends a reduction in the consumption of refined sugar. In the face of reports to the contrary, why is this prejudice from the Department of Health allowed to jeopardise the fortunes of a national industry which contributes so much to our economy? I cannot get a direct line on this matter, but it has certainly been mentioned to me by a number of people that the Department of Health is planning to push for an artifical sweetener, aspartame, to be mixed with sugar-a move that would dramatically reduce the demand for sugar. Aspartame is made in a laboratory. It is not natural; it is a chemical. There is no reason for it to be mixed with or replace any proportion of sugar. Already the consumption of 40,000 to 50,000 tonnes of sugar has been lost to artificial sweeteners in Australia. It is about time the Department of Health got behind our established industries that have served us for years rather than sell out to the products of multinational companies. Once these artificially made products get a toehold in the market they pose a major threat to the natural products. The United States is a case in point. The United States consumption of refined sugar decreased from 10.18 million tonnes to 7.36 million tonnes in 10 years, from 1976 to 1986, while consumption of corn sweeteners increased from 3.238 million tonnes to nearly 8 million tonnes in the same period. Artificial sweeteners also experienced a significant increase, from 13.56 million tonnes in 1976 to 15.52 million tonnes in 1986. The pattern of sugar demand has undergone a considerable structural change with the advent of alternative sweeteners. This has reduced the demand for natural sugar products, particularly by industries which prefer to use the cheaper fructose made from corn and products such as aspartame which now control 25 per cent of the gigantic beverage market. We must be very wary of the havoc that giant multinationals can wreak on our sugar industry since most of our sugar goes towards beverage production both here and in the United States. Yet Australia's Department of Health is considering plans to replace some of Australia's natural sugar with chemically formulated products made in Japan by giant multinationals. This is something about which I believe every honourable senator should be concerned, and every member of Parliament should be lending a voice saying that we are behind Australian farmers and that we will not see some chemical taking the place of our natural sweeteners. This product has a shorter shelf life than natural sugar, and health authorities in the United States are already expressing some doubts about this product. A recent study in America showed that heavy consumption of aspartame increases the occurrence of behavioural disturbances and birth defects. It was a very serious problem. I wish the deputation to the US Congress every success next week. The Senate is represented-I believe that Senator Macklin will be going to Washington. On behalf of all rural industries, particularly the sugar industry, I take the opportunity to wish the deputation success. However, on behalf of all primary industry people, I express sorrow that the Government has not seen fit to send one of its Ministers to support the campaign. This is a cosmetic exercise by the Government, which would not even spare the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, or any other senior Minister to go to Washington and lend the deputation some degree of credibility on behalf of Australian rural producers. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.26) —The Sugar Cane Levy Bill 1987 and the Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill 1987 are being dealt with cognately by the Senate. They are machinery Bills and provide for the collection of a levy of 5c a tonne on cane delivered and accepted into the mills; 2 1/2c to be paid by the grower and 2 1/2c to be paid by the miller, with the collection by the mills. The money raised will be matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth and is to be spent on research, which is put out to public tender, into the sugar industry. The Opposition supports this move. The sugar industry is very important to Australia. In a competitive world it is only through research that we can maintain our markets. The sugar industry is one of the great export earners of Australia, and it has been for a very long time. That has been the primary effect; it has also had a beneficial effect on the standard of living of all Australians because of the export earnings it has provided. It has had a very important secondary effect that is lost on many people living in the southern States. First of all, it has provided a very strong decentralisation factor in the population of Queensland. In fact, the population in the tropical areas is primarily related to this great industry. It has generated a great deal of employment and a great demand for goods and services. I have had a long non-financial involvement with the sugar industry. Before and after the First World War-long before I was born-my father was a sugar grower. One of my uncles was a scientific adviser with the Queensland Cane Prices Board for a record period of nearly 40 years. Another uncle was Secretary to the Cane Prices Board. I have many friends in the industry and I grew up in a cane growing area. The history of the sugar industry is an absorbing part of Australia's development. It starts right at Australia's origin. It is interesting to note today, 14 May, the day after the day the First Fleet sailed in 1788, that the First Fleet carried some sugar cane from South Africa when it arrived in Australia. The origin of successful sugar growing in Australia goes back to 1862, when John Buhot from the West Indies first grew some cane in Brisbane-successfully. In 1864 John Buhot and Captain Louis Hope, whom history regards as the father of the Australian sugar industry, established a plantation at Ormiston with a juice mill. That is taken as the starting point for the industry in Australia. A couple of years later, in 1866, a mill was built at Maryborough, which would have been the old Yengarie mill. When I was a boy, the brick smoke stack of that mill still existed at Yengarie just west of Maryborough and I think it still exists today. From there the industry spread up the Queensland coast. In 1868 a mill was built in Mackay and mills were also built along the northern rivers area of New South Wales. In 1869 the famous Colonial Sugar Refining Company, CSR, entered the field as a mill owner. The sugar industry was firmly established in Queensland by the time of Federation. As my uncle used to tell me, but for the sugar industry Queensland would never have joined the other Australian States and become part of the Commonwealth of Australia. Victoria was buying sugar in Mauritius and Hong Kong and putting a heavy levy against sugar produced in the Queensland colony. It was the promise of free trade between the States, and therefore the promise of markets in the populated areas of Sydney and Melbourne, that was the determining factor in Queensland joining the Federation in the latter part of the last century. After Federation the industry embarked on a path which led to its becoming the most heavily controlled and legislated industry in Australia. The year 1915 saw the Sugar Acquisition Act passed by the Queensland Government, and an agreement on sugar was negotiated between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. At the same time an embargo was placed on the importation of sugar. That embargo has been most valuable to the Australian sugar industry in protecting it from competition from sugar produced in other countries. It has been a controversial issue, but I think on balance there have been financial benefits to the Australian community from the embargo. That embargo is still in place today and sugar cannot be imported. In 1923 the Commonwealth handed over control and legislative powers in relation to the sugar industry to the Queensland Government and the Sugar Board was established. In 1924 Australia started exporting sugar. In 1929 the `mill peak' system, with controls on production, was introduced and in 1937, although not implemented at the time, the first international sugar agreement for marketing was negotiated. The history of the sugar industry is one of great and notable families. The history of the Youngs at Fairymead in Bundaberg; the Drysdales in the Burdekin delta; the Gibsons in the Bundaberg area; the Braddocks in the Maryborough area. It is a history of great companies, such as the CSR company, Pioneer Sugar and Australian Estates at Kalamia in the Burdekin delta. It is a history of piracy with characters like `Bully' Hayes back in the latter part of the last century and their blackbirding and the Kanaka labour being recruited around the islands and being brought into this country. Today the industry stretches 2,000 kilometres from Mossman north of Cairns right through to Grafton in the northern part of New South Wales. Ninety-four per cent of its production is centred in Queensland; three-quarters of all sugar is produced in three great areas. There is the Ingham-Mossman area, which straddles Cairns; the Burdekin delta area, around Ayr and Home Hill; and the Mackay area with its five mills. Sugar is very much a family industry. Ninety-five per cent of cane production comes from family-owned farms and only 5 per cent from plantations owned by proprietary millers. That 95 per cent involves about 6,000 farms and provides employment for about 45,000 people. There is a very big capital infrastructure behind it with 31 mills, two of which have disappeared in the recent past. The Bundaberg Sugar Company closed Qunaba, and transferred its quota to other mills in the group. Qunaba is an interesting mill. It was an old mill that got its name from the fact that it was the Queensland and National Bank that bought the mill from its owner two years after it was created back in the last century. Recently the Goondi mill in the Johnson River area has been closed down. Let me give the House some statistics on the industry. There are about 25 million tonnes of cane crushed in the 22 weeks of the crushing season. That represents a production of about 150 tonnes of raw sugar per active worker in the industry. I said that it is a capital intensive industry. About $300,000 is invested per worker. It is a big consumer of fertiliser, fuel, chemicals and machinery. The industry has been characterised by growth ever since its inception. The statistics demonstrate very graphically the difference between what we were producing in 1900 with what was produced in 1980. In 1900 35 tonnes of sugar cane per hectare was grown, which yielded 3.7 tonnes of sugar per hectare. In 1980 the figure had risen to 82 tonnes per hectare of cane, which yielded 11.5 tonnes of sugar per hectare. In the last decade alone the average area per grower has increased by 30 per cent and the total area harvested has increased by 21 per cent. The qualification must be applied that there was a planned expansion of the industry through that period, but that does not negate the increased production per hectare. The industry yields about $800m a year, of which $600m is export earnings. That $600m, as I said at the outset of my speech, is very important to the Australian economy and our standard of living. It has become particularly important at present, given the big spending, high taxing Government we have and the absolutely crippling overseas debt that the Australian Labor Party has given us. It has trebled our overseas debt in the last four years. We will not reduce that overseas debt by fictitious cuts in prospective expenditures, as the Treasurer, Mr Keating, announced last night. We will reduce that debt by hard work, by earning money through exports. The sugar industry will play a very crucial part in working off that debt for Australia. In regard to the $600m we are earning at present through sugar exports, only 28 per cent of our markets are covered by long term contracts. Seven per cent of the sales are covered by special quotas, but the great majority of sales we make are free market sales on world markets. They are spot sales-sales that are made as the opportunity arises. So we must be efficient if we are to sell this product. One of the characteristics of the industry is that, relatively speaking, it is very efficient. It does face difficulties now. It has faced difficulties for some years and, as far as one can see, there will be difficulties in the future in fighting for markets. I said previously that it is the most tightly regulated industry in Australia. I think we have reached the stage where there must be some freeing up of the restrictions on the industry to make it more responsive to the changed markets to which we are selling, and changed conditions. It was not so many years ago that the International Sugar Agreement gave us some protection in the markets to which we were selling around the world. The International Sugar Agreement has not operated for some years and it is most unlikely that any regular marketing scheme will be re-established in the near future. So, we are on our own and we must be efficient. The thing that determines sales is the price. In order to make a profit, having regard to the price that is being offered, we simply must be efficient. That leads back to the importance of this legislation and the relevance of research in maintaining a competitive advantage. I come back to the over-regulation of the industry at present. We have totally controlled internal production and we are selling on a totally unregulated external market. We must be flexible. We must be able to get the cost even lower. The nature of the industry is such that protection for the growers and the millers cannot be achieved through diversification, in the way this can be applied to other forms of primary production. The efficiency of the sugar industry depends on volume. It depends on having somebody deliver the crop to the mill and the mill being able to operate more or less at peak efficiency all the time. Growing tomatoes, tropical fruits or something like that, which other farmers might do, will not help. But if the sugar producers start to reduce their volume of production, and do not meet their assignments, the mills become inefficient and the cost of production inevitably goes up. So diversification is not of that much value within the sugar industry. There is an argument, though, for diversification as to the use of the product. I think it is a matter of great regret that the sugar industry would not accept the advice that some of us tendered to it a few years ago at the time of the fuel crisis in the early part of the 1980s. I addressed many meetings of sugar growers and millers and some of them stick in my memory quite vividly. I remember the anger that various growers and some of the leading millers in the States demonstrated towards me in public when I tried to interest them in getting a market share in ethanol production. The proposition that I was putting to them was very simple; that it would be a guaranteed outlet for a minor part of their production, but a stable part that would be there year in, year out. The industry at the time viewed any move towards ethanol production as bringing about a diminution of return, because sugar prices on the world market were then very buoyant and growers could sell all that they were producing. I believe that had the industry in the early part of the 1980s accepted a figure from the Government and locked the Government into taking a fraction-it certainly would have been a minor part of production-of the raw sugar at a fixed price for ethanol production, and had the Government co-operated by allowing the successful mix of ethanol with motor spirit to be sold on an excise free basis, which would have made it price competitive with ordinary motor spirits, the industry would have had a valuable market there. I think the national interest would have been served, because I believed in the early 1980s, and I believe just as strongly today, that Australia must have 100 per cent self-sufficiency in fuels. Part of that comes from oil wells, but the supplementation of our fuel supply should come in part from ethanol and in part from methanol, and I think from coal-but that is another story. In recognising the need for flexibility, I think there is a general acceptance on the millers' side that things need to be changed. There is a marked reluctance on the growers' side to change the way they do things in any way at all. The Federal Government, to give it its due, came up with a workable and constructive scheme of reconstruction over the last few years but, regrettably, the Queensland Government would not co-operate at all. The Queensland Government, regrettably, played politics rather than look at the issues involved and the principles of supporting one of Australia's great export industries. It took the advice of the growers who, as I said before, as a whole are not prepared to change. One of the tragedies of the increasing price that we face at present is that there are a number of growers about who think we will go back to the boom days. We will not go back to the boom days in the foreseeable future. I hope that we will have an improvement in the world price, but it is going to be limited and we will not go back to the boom conditions that we had in the early part of this decade. What are the difficulties that face the sugar industry on world markets? As I said before, the great majority of our product-80 per cent-is sold overseas, so we are dependent on those markets. The difficulties come from two sources-subsidies and substitution. The European Common Market has played as much havoc with the sugar industry as it has with the rest of primary production through its support programs for the farming groups principally in France and to a secondary degree in Germany. Its policies have enabled beet sugar production to be economically attractive to farmers in that area. Beet is a crop that is in many ways simpler to grow than sugar cane, and historically the greater production of refined sugar in the world has come from the beet source rather than from the cane source. Most of the beet sugar, of course, has been used internally and has not been out on the world markets, and most of the world markets have been sourced on cane sugar. The European Economic Community has produced great problems for us by encouraging the overproduction of beet sugar, which in turn has been dumped on world markets. The United States of America has not been blameless in this either, but I would differ with some of the other speakers on this Bill who have tended to focus on the US as the sole cause of the problems for the sugar export market, thus losing a sense of perspective in the matter. The US has not helped and certainly has played a contributing part but, if I was assigning blame, I would be more concerned about the European Economic Community than I am about the US. The basic problem in the US is that the farm lobby has been supported almost without constraint by the US Government. In 1985 Senator Gary Hart and Senator Bob Dole from Kansas moved the Hart-Dole amendment to the 1985 Food Security Act to compensate any sugar grower who was left high and dry by bankrupt refiners. Nelson Bunker Hunt had a big splurge on the Great Western sugar refinery and there were all sorts of contracts outstanding as a result. The Government, through the US Department of Agriculture, picked up the debts, and that little exercise cost the US taxpayer $54m-which was almost as much as the then Australian Federal Budget. On top of that there has been the basic selling pattern of maintaining an artificially high sugar price within the US to protect the sugar growers in that country. That has had the very serious effect of making possible substitute sweeteners which is the other great problem that we face. Subsidies are one problem but sugar substitutes are the other. If sugar in the US had been allowed to be sold at the cost of production plus a small profit or at world price rather than being jacked up to an artificially high level to give returns to what is collectively an inefficient industry, the great substitution industries, those using high fructose corn sweeteners and aspartame, would not have developed, because it is all a matter of economics. Aspartame in particular cannot be produced at the same cost as we can produce fructose from cane sugar, and that is also the case with corn syrup sweeteners. Those products are not competitive with the world price of sugar and they would not have got off the ground if the US had practised the free market policies that it is so keen to talk about in its trading relations with Japan and all other countries of the world. Nevertheless, the US market was, and still is, important to Australia and it is one of great fluctuation. About five years ago we were selling nearly 600,000 tonnes of raw sugar a year to the US. This year the figure, I think, is down to about 70,000 tonnes, which is a very great drop in five years. We are very keen to maintain the US market because we get a better price selling there than we get in the world market, so we would like to continue to have access to it. However, as well as the movement towards protection within the United States, there is also a political movement to take product from the Caribbean and those countries close to the US. One can understand that sentiment within the US legislature because these countries are America's neighbours, they have a low standard of living and must have a market for their products-and sugar happens to be one of the commodities that they can grow with relative ease. Be that as it may, at the end of the day and whatever the difficulties, we must meet the market. It is no good whining and saying that the European Common Market is unfair and that the Americans are unfair. This situation will be a fact of life into the foreseeable future. Whether it is the Americans or the Europeans there will always be someone subsidising and dumping sugar. We have a market and we want to hold on to it, and we can do that if we are efficient enough. That leads to that whole place of research in relation to the sugar industry. The sugar industry has always recognised the importance of research. Cane growers at present contribute 19.2c per tonne to the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, a research body dedicated to crop improvement and milling techniques. Eight cents a tonne goes to disease and pest control. The millers contribute 8c a tonne to the Sugar Research Institute in Mackay headed by Dr John Allen. The measures we are debating today have the support of the sugar industry. The Australian Cane Growers Council in 1985 resolved to approach the Commonwealth Government for the establishment of a sugar industry research council under circumstances in which the council agrees to an initial levy of 5c per tonne of cane to be paid on a dollar for dollar basis by canegrowers and mill owners. The Sugar Industry Working Party report, the Savage report, commissioned by the Queensland Government, again supports the need for further research into the industry. Sugar cane is attacked by a variety of pests. Before that, however, the quality of the cane itself has to be considered. The Australian industry has done intensive research into developing strains of cane which grow in the varying conditions of the different districts in Australia. Those districts differ enormously. The irrigation of the Burdekin can be compared with the very high natural rainfall area around Mossman and the Herbert River. The relatively low rainfall areas in the northern areas of New South Wales and the Rocky Point, Moreton Central and Maryborough areas can be contrasted with what is to be found further north. So the quality of the cane and its ability to grow in these different climatological situations, its yield, the commercial content of sugar in the cane in these different areas are all factors to be considered. A lot of research has been done on these matters. Very useful strains of cane have been developed to suit these various areas. Cane is subject to a large range of diseases, as one would imagine of anything growing in a tropical area. Pests, parasites and other sorts of afflictions are quite common. A great deal of work has been done through the various research bodies to get on top of these. The great organisations in this respect have been, firstly, the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, headed by Dr Owen Sturgess, which has a very great record of achievement in support for the industry; and, secondly, of course, the Sugar Research Institute under Dr John Allen, on the milling side, which has also made very great strides over the years to support the industry. One would hope that these established operators in the field will be able to compete for and gain the majority of the funds that are available for tender. The research is industry specific and, while anyone can come in, a great deal of background knowledge is necessary. But I am a great believer in competition, and I think that the two institutes I have named will not shrink from meeting the competition in the market-place to carry out the relevant research to support the industry. Research is needed not only in the growing and milling fields; further research must also be done on advertising to sell the product, on transport and handling, and on marketing. On the marketing side, I would like to see the industry take more seriously moves towards selling refined sugar. As we see it, it would add to the value of the product, but this has been resisted collectively right across the industry-for some very good reasons. There are many technical problems with selling refined sugar. It has been easier for us in the past to sell raw sugar, but sales of refined sugar is something that we will have to look at quite seriously in the future-although it may be that the majority of sales will always be raw sugar sales. I would like to compliment the industry on the way it has reacted over the last few years to the cumulative effects of the various health groups which have been saying that sugar is bad. The way the industry responded to that was through very attractive and intelligent advertising. Features on television, built around the theme of sugar being a natural part of life, have countered the elements in the Australian community unfavourable to the use of sugar, and this has been reflected in increased sugar consumption within the Australian community. We support this legislation. We believe it is essential, and we believe the benefits of this initiative will flow on to maintain the standards of living of all Australians. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.55) —I am not going to speak for very long. In fact, I did not intend to say anything at all until I started listening to Senator MacGibbon. Whatever his faults may be, I had always thought before that Senator MacGibbon was fairly rational about economic questions. Believing that, I was astounded to hear him mouthing this cargo cult nonsense about ethanol. Every time that Australia has some carbohydrate product that it finds difficult to sell, the cargo cultists spring up and suggest that we set up some sort of ethanol industry. Frequently, of course, this is supported by agricultural journalists who, by and large, are the dregs of the profession to which they belong. Cargo cultism in recent times has been camouflaged by the suggestion that the petranol mix-by which people normally mean a 9:1 mixture of ethanol and petrol or motor spirit-should be marketed free of excise. That amounts to a hidden subsidy of almost $2 a litre. I want to put on the record that what might to the ill-informed or uninitiated appear to be a fairly reasonable proposition-that is, that the mixture ought not to be subject to petroleum product excise-disguises a subsidy of almost $2 per litre, about six or seven times the cost of petrol produced from crude oil, be it imported or local. The other general comment I want to make is that, in terms of technical efficiency, the sugar industry is unsurpassed in the world. Indeed, it is one of those areas, not only in cane production but also in milling, in which Australia has been a world leader for a very long time. The economic efficiencies for which its technical efficiency provides the potential have not been realised because of the regimentation of the industry by the Queensland State Government. I find it one of the many ironies of contemporary Australian politics that the Petersen regime, which presides over the most regimented economy in the country, should be so willingly embraced by the so-called New Right, which prides itself on its commitment to free markets. In particular, I would be very interested to know what John Stone thinks of the regimentation of the Queensland sugar industry under the Petersen regime. Having said that, I understand that the Sugar Cane Levy Bill and the Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill will not be opposed. On behalf of the Government, I thank the Senate for its support. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I claim to have been misrepresented. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MacGIBBON —I am sorry that Senator Walsh did not listen to what I said. I said that the ethanol-motor spirit mix was a form of national insurance. Any form of national insurance involves the payment of a premium. I do not believe that it is economic to mix ethanol with petrol for the cheapest and best motor fuel. But, insofar as it provides a measure towards self-sufficiency within this country in motor spirit and transport fuel, it is an insurance premium that is worth paying. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or requests, or debate. Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.03) —We are debating the Olympic Insignia Protection Bill. The Opposition supports the Bill, which is an important step forward in providing scope for greater financial independence for the Australian Olympic Federation and, therefore, the development of Olympic sport and, indirectly, other sport in this country. The purpose of the Bill is to protect the Olympic insignia-that is, the five interlocking rings and other designs used by the Australian Olympic Federation-from use by persons not connected with the Olympic movement. As the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states, the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Australian Olympic Federation to regulate the use within Australia of the Olympic symbol, that is, the five interlocking rings, and other nominated Olympic designs. The Bill also provides that these insignia shall not be registered under the Designs Act 1906. The Bill invests the Australian Olympic Federation with a monopoly in the insignia and provides that they are not to be used in trade or commerce unless a licence for such use has been granted by the Federation. The Australian Olympic Federation has done a wonderful job over decades. The Federation being established under the charter of the International Olympic Committee, it is its responsibility to promote the Olympic principles in Australia and to co-ordinate the massive effort that is required to ensure that Australia is effectively represented every four years at both the summer and the winter Olympic Games by the best possible team of sportsmen and sportswomen in this country. The success of the Federation and the athletes it has supported has been one of the great sporting achievements of this nation. It is a task that the Federation has undertaken for 90 years now since the first modern Olympics in 1896. The changes that have occurred in that period are enormous. The growth of our competitors in terms of numbers has been staggering. It is interesting to note that Australia has the great achievement of being one of only three nations whose athletes have been represented at each and every one of the 23 Olympiads to date. The Federation's responsibility has increased greatly over the period of the modern Olympiads. As I said, the size of the teams that the Federation has had to prepare has increased greatly. It was not that long ago-only 40 years-that the 1948 Olympic Games were held, and I should think that many of us would remember those games very well. In those games Australia was represented by 88 athletes and officials as compared with 1984, only 35 years on, when we were represented by 335 athletes and officials-a fourfold increase in that period. We have as a nation had an outstanding record at the Olympics. On a per head of population basis, we are certainly amongst, and may even be, the most successful of all the nations in the world in the Olympic sporting area. As well as the changes that have occurred in that sense-the growth of the number of athletes that the Federation has had to support, deal with and build on-the environment within which the AOF has to set about its responsibilities has also changed dramatically over the years. The world of sport has become much tougher and much more competitive. It is the Federation's task to respond to these pressures in a way that strikes and maintains a balance between the desire to succeed and the no less important values and principles for which sport is rightly renowned. I emphasise that point. We in this nation are often critical when our athletes do not perform quite as well as we might have wished if we wanted to win gold medals or achieve certain successes on the sporting field. That is in many ways a secondary consideration to the values and the principles that those athletes and those who support them bring to their endeavours, and we should, in my view, never judge our success in the sporting arena purely on the basis of the medals or the successes that we achieve. I think one of the challenges that sport and other aspects of Australian life probably face in 1987 and the years ahead is to maintain the values and the principles on which those endeavours and attempts are based. The Opposition recognises the vital contribution that the Australian Olympic Federation has made and will, we hope, continue to make to Australian sport. The Federation has on its board leading persons from all walks of life who are deeply committed to the furthering not only of the Olympic sports but of all sports in Australia. The President of the AOF, Kevan Gosper, the Managing Director of the Shell Co. of Australia Ltd, who was, in his own day, a great athlete and an Olympic athlete, has put a great deal back into the sport which he dearly and clearly loves so well. Phil Coles, the Secretary-General of the Federation, was another great Australian sportsman. Mr Gosper and Mr Coles are also the Australian representatives on the International Olympic Committee, and Mr Gosper was recently elected to that Committee's executive. Mr Gosper and Mr Coles have taken over from Syd Grange and Judy Patching, both of whom retired at the end of 1985 and both of whom I, on behalf of the Opposition, would like to thank again, even though it is a little while since they retired, for their tireless and total commitment over the years in promoting Australia and the Olympic movement. Kevan Gosper, Phil Coles and others have a very hard act to follow in emulating the achievements of their predecessors. The Opposition also wholeheartedly supports the Federation's endeavours. It has to be largely self-financing. Successive governments have made substantial financial contributions to the Federation, but importantly it has to be responsible for much of its own fund raising. That is an important part of the Bill that is before us. For the 1984 Olympic Games the Government provided $1.4m towards the preparation of the Olympic team. The total cost of that exercise was $5m. The proportion contributed by the Government, at $1.4m, was 28 per cent. The remaining 72 per cent, or $3.6m, was raised by the Federation. The $1.4m provided by the Government in 1984 compares with $40,000 provided by the then Government only a quarter of a century ago, in 1960. That gives an indication of how much the costs involved in preparing Olympic teams rose in the intervening period. As I said, the Federation was responsible in 1984 for raising the $3.6m balance of funds required. It did so through a range of marketing programs which involved the use of its various insignia. I understand that for 1988 the estimated cost of preparing the Australian team for the Olympic Games in Seoul and Calgary will by $10m compared with the $5m for 1984. I also understand that the Federal Government will be providing something like $2m towards that effort-that is an increase from the 1984 contribution of $1.4m but it is a decrease in percentage terms from 28 per cent to 20 per cent of the total cost, which will leave the Australian Olympic Federation to find the other $8m. I also understand that that fund raising exercise is well under way and is proceeding satisfactorily to date, although it will obviously need a further boost as it goes along, as 1988 is not far away. I understand that the Federation has already raised nearly $2m of the $8m that it is required to find. On behalf of the Opposition, I congratulate the Australian Olympic Federation on its very responsible and professional approach to all its duties, including its financial responsibilities. The Bill that we are debating today should help particularly in that latter capacity. Having mentioned the escalating cost of participating in the Olympic Games, I turn to how the Federation will go about financing it. It has embarked on a major marketing program based on the licensing and the franchising of the Olympic insignia. This campaign will provide an ongoing and major source of funds and will help to ensure that Australia is represented in future Olympic Games in a fitting and proper way. It may be seen as a measure of the success of the Federation's marketing program that it has encountered problems with certain persons whose use of the Olympic insignia suggests very deceptively to the public that they or their products are associated with and help fund the Olympic movement. Given the Federation's responsible efforts to ensure its financial independence, such unauthorised and deceptive use must be prevented. In this Bill, which, as I said, the Opposition supports, the Government has decided that, as with the Advance Australia logo and the Bicentenary logo, legislation is necessary to aid in securing the rights of the Federation to its insignia and to prevent them from being used in a false and deceptive manner. It will also ensure that if they are used deceptively the Federation will have a speedy and simple mechanism available to curtail such wrongful conduct. Those are the purposes of this Bill. The ability to ensure exclusivity of use is also a matter of critical importance to the Federation when negotiating the best terms for its licensing agreements. It is worth pointing out that this protection that is being afforded in this Bill is not totally without precedent in Australia. Prior to the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne the Government of the day, the Menzies Government, brought in legislation prescribing the Olympic rings, the Olympic motto and the words `Olympic champion' as prohibited trade marks. That is, they could not be registered under the then trade marks legislation. That did not prevent persons using those insignia as unregistered marks, and in these commercial times when sponsorship plays such an important role greater protection is required. I take this opportunity also to congratulate the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson and her team on their enormous and very nearly successful effort in trying to attract the 1992 Olympic Games to Australia. It was a great pity that they did not succeed. They must rest happy in the knowledge that no one could have worked harder or more productively to attract those games. It was universally acclaimed in Australia as a great bid and it was a great pity, as I said, that in the end it was not successful. I have already mentioned in broad terms the main features of the Bill. It provides that the Australian Olympic Federation shall have a monopoly in design in Australia with respect to the Olympic rings, thus ensuring its right to use the rings in relation to any article. The Bill also provides that the Australian Olympic Federation shall have ownership of the copyright in the Olympic rings. Those provisions will not impede the fair use by the media of the rings for the purpose of disseminating information on the Olympic movement or its activities. The Bill provides for the Australian Olympic Federation to grant licences to use the insignia in return for a payment or other consideration. That provision contains some of the fund raising elements for the Federation. I am glad to say that in the Bill it is recognised that some persons use the Olympic rings in conjunction with their goods and that they have done so for a considerable period. Those persons have never held themselves out as being connected with the Olympic movement and they do not increase their activity in Olympic Games years to take advantage of the use of these insignia. They have not therefore impeded in any way the Australia Olympic Federation's fund raising campaign when that has been at its peak. The rights of those persons to use the insignia are correctly recognised, and the Bill expressly preserves existing property rights in the insignia. As I mentioned earlier, neither the Bill nor the Olympic Federation restricts the campaign to the Olympic rings themselves. The Federation has developed a range of logos for which it grants licences, the most recent and familiar being `Willie', the koala insignia. Other logos include the Olympic rings and boomerangs and the Olympic rings and a kangaroo. The Bill provides for these logos to be registered as Olympic designs and the registration provides similar protection to that provided for use in the Olympic Games. The Bill seems to us to be very sensible. It should assist the Olympic Federation in its fund raising activities. Also, in the broader sense, it should stabilise and ensure the Federation's integrity and prevent people from taking advantage in any unscrupulous way of the Olympic insignia. I wish to comment briefly on the Australian Institute of Sport. To the extent that it improves the situation of the Australian Olympic Federation, this Bill has a pervasive effect on sport-not just Olympic sport-throughout the nation in a variety of ways. Throughout its history Australia has had many wonderful athletes. On a per head of population basis, over the years we have certainly ranked among the most significant sporting nations in the world-if not the most. This is not only in the Olympic arena but in many other spheres as well. Over the years we in this Parliament have had the privilege of having in our ranks some world famous sportsmen. We have one in the House of Representatives at the moment-Dr Ric Charlesworth, who is probably the greatest hockey player that this nation has ever produced. He has been a wonderful and inspiring leader of the Australian hockey team for many years and has done an enormous amount, not just for hockey but also for sport and sportsmanship in Australia. Many of us would remember with great affection `Oppy', Sir Hubert Opperman, who was a member of the House of Representatives for many years. Senator Gietzelt —In the 1950s, wasn't it? Senator SHORT —Yes, he was a member in the 1950s and 1960s. Back in the 1920s and 1930s he was the world road cycling champion. I am pleased to note that we have a record of having attracted some of Australia's better sportsmen into this area of sport, if one can describe it in that way. Unfortunately, it is more a blood sport. We are still a great sporting nation. It is true that our Olympic Games results have declined a bit in recent years on a relative basis, but they are still wonderful. One of the reasons that the Australian Institute of Sport was set up several years ago by the Fraser Government was to lift our Olympic Games performance. I hope that the Institute will play a very significant role in lifting our results in the 1988 Olympic Games and lifting the level of sport generally in this country. I take this opportunity publicly to congratulate Ron Harvey, the new director of the Institute of Sport, on his relatively recent appointment. He is a very experienced administrator, and a great sporting administrator through his long term involvement in basketball in this country. I am sure that he will bring to the Institute the cohesion, financial accountability and flair which are so necessary in that arena. Senator Jessop —We are doing well in basketball, I believe. Senator SHORT —Yes, we are; we are doing extraordinarily well in world basketball and also, I understand, in netball. I conclude by reiterating that the Opposition supports this Bill. It is a progressive step. It will give the AOF greater access to the private sector for raising money. We are very glad to support it. On behalf of the Opposition I wish the Australian Olympic Federation, our athletes and officials all the best for the 1988 Olympics. We hope that the Bill will be part of the further desirable development of sport in Australia in the years ahead. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.26) —My heart flutters with patriotism after that brilliant speech by Senator Short and that wonderful accolade for the athletes of Australia. The Australian Democrats support the Olympic Insignia Protection Bill 1986. Sending competitors and officials to Olympic Games is an expensive exercise and the Australian Democrats commend this Bill as an effort to make the Australian Olympic Federation less reliant on the public purse for its funds. The costs of sending an Australian delegation to the Olympic Games are increasing in proportion to the Government's commitment to sport in Australia through the Australian Institute of Sport. At this point, we are facing an estimated $10m to send our delegation to the Seoul Olympics, of which the Government is expected to contribute $2m directly. This is aside from the funding of the Australian Institute of Sport, the expensive organisation-about $120m has been spent since 1980-set up by the Fraser Government more appropriately called the `medal factory'. It would like to be called the `medal factory' if it could only produce more medal-winning athletes. From the taxpayers' point of view, one wonders just how much of our money the Government is prepared to spend in pursuit of sporting achievements which involve so few head of population, which fail to encourage wider participation by members of the community, and which allow the majority of Australians to indulge themselves in `spectator' or `armchair' exercise-a la Norm-rather than the real thing. While there is no doubt that the public money poured into the recent hosting of the America's Cup challenge resulted in some return of investment, it is a pity that such attention is not given to sports in which one does not have to be a millionaire to participate. The Australian Democrats believe that funding for sport must be looked at after an appraisal of what we really wish to achieve. For example, should our objective be to afford every Australian a certain number of times a year the vicarious thrill we collectively experience as a nation when a sportsman or woman who happens to have been born or naturalised an Australian wins an event? What does this thrill hold for the betterment of our quality of life, apart from the shortlived inner glow of pride and patriotism we experience in our living rooms without having to flex a muscle? The Australian Democrats will be moving an amendment to this Bill, the intention of which is to preclude the Olympic insignia and other Olympic designs being used in a context where they may be associated with the promotion of tobacco or alcohol consumption. The amendment, as circulated, prohibits the Australian Olympic Federation from granting a licence for use of the designs to anyone selling tobacco or alcohol, and to anyone who may allow them to be displayed where advertising of these products occurs. It seems obvious to the Australian Democrats that without this amendment we would be allowing, if not encouraging, a situation to develop which gives the hungry tobacco companies and alcohol producers the opportunity to exploit the Olympic Games and all they represent to their own questionable ends. By that I mean the promotion of their products to the young and impressionable by their association with the heroics of sporting excellence. Since the banning of tobacco advertisements on television, we have seen the injection of huge amounts of money by this industry into sponsorship of sport. Why? The companies at least give us credit for some intelligence: They do not claim they hand over this money out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course not. The companies will readily admit that it is because they expect some benefit out of it. Just what they expect is evidenced recently in the case of the North Sydney Oval. The North Sydney Council, which has a longstanding policy over 20 years of non-acceptance of tobacco company sponsorship, recently completed its $7.5m sports oval. The Council has been told by the New South Wales Cricket Association that no first class games will be staged at the Oval unless the Council refuses to accept government sponsored anti-smoking advertising at events. A similar situation has arisen in the Victorian Football League in the past month. Negotiations with the Fitzroy Club for the Victorian Government's `Quit' campaign sponsorship were in doubt following the threat of Rothmans of Pall Mall (Aust.) Ltd to invoke apparently exclusive advertising arrangements at Princes Park. Similar pressure was applied by the Benson and Hedges Company Pty Ltd at the Melbourne Cricket Ground which resulted in the Richmond Football Club dropping sponsorship with `Quit'. The tobacco companies continually attempt to persuade us that their advertising is not aimed at encouraging non-smokers to smoke, but merely to persuade confirmed smokers to change brands. If that were true these `confirmed smokers' presumably would not be influenced by anti-smoking advertisements and the tobacco companies would have nothing to fear. Their heavy-handed reaction destroys their own argument. Certainly they are trying to attract new customers to their particular type of drug and are aiming their campaign at the young and impressionable, the people who attend sporting events and who look up to sporting heroes. The New South Wales Cricket Association and New South Wales Rugby League have apparently become so manipulated and dependent on tobacco company funding that they are now prepared to do their dirty work for them. The sporting organisations which have benefited from and prospered by sponsorship with funds diverted from television advertising campaigns have become the advocates of the tobacco companies. I think we should really ask ourselves: Do we want to allow this manipulation of sport to occur and, more particularly, do we want the ideals of the Olympic movement to be associated with the promotion of these products and the methods employed to promote them? We all know that the reason tobacco companies sponsor major events is that these events are televised and the ban on television advertising of tobacco can be circumvented. The association by advertisers of tobacco and alcohol with the Olympic Games would allow the companies promoting these goods one more opportunity to use the advertisers' infallible formula: Promotion by association with the images of success which we as human beings are conditioned to strive for-health, wealth and sexual gratification. It is no wonder that promoters of potentially harmful products want to promote them by association with the embodiment of perfect health-the Olympic athlete. The temptation is too great and it must not be allowed to lead to the sacrifice of the potential of our young people who are, after all, the Olympians of the future. Perhaps our own apathy in this area is what has allowed the Federal Government to get away with inaction in combating the trend towards abuse of these drugs by young people in Australia. Is it because they are socially acceptable drugs amongst our adult population that the Government chose virtually to ignore them in the recent drug offensive, and concentrate on the far more sensational-in the public perception at least-trade in narcotics and barbiturates? The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, told a health seminar recently that alcoholism is Australia's fourth major health problem, affecting 20 per cent of the work force. But it is among our young people that abuse of these `social' drugs takes its worst toll. According to findings of a survey published in a recent edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, high school students alone spend at least $30m on cigarettes each year. This is double the amount that the tobacco companies spend a year on the sponsorship of 23 different sports and represents a not bad return on investment. The same survey found that in the week preceding the survey 23 per cent of 12-year-old boys and 14 per cent of 12-year-old girls had drunk alcohol, and that on average a 17-year-old boy had 9.3 drinks per week. Perhaps there is another reason for the failure of the Government to tackle abuse of alcohol and tobacco head on. After all, it is the Federal Government which collects a hefty excise from the sale of tobacco and alcohol-to the order of $8.5m of the $30m spent on cigarettes by those high school students, and no doubt a similarly high figure for excise on alcohol. The amount the Government spends on education programs to discourage young people from abusing these substances is pitiful in comparison. The Government has a moral responsibility to direct these funds to this purpose. My colleague Senator Powell intends to introduce legislation which actually does this. The Liquor Advertising Tax Assessment Bill and the Liquor Education Fund Bill impose a tax on alcohol advertising and use the revenue gained to help pay for educational campaigns and promotion against alcohol abuse and underage drinking. Implementation of such a measure is all the more necessary since the alcohol producers seemed determined to tap the underage drink market. We saw recent evidence of this with the release on to the market of wine coolers, in packaging similar to soft drinks and fruit juices and easily mistakable for them in the home. These so-called coolers have an alcoholic content of up to 6 per cent. Some producers event attempted to market their coolers in 250 millilitre packets equipped with a straw, similar to common fruit juice packaging available in milk bars and supermarkets, and then had the gall to deny the product was aimed at the juvenile market. It is fortunate that most State governments have now acted to prevent coolers in this type of packaging reaching the shelves. This recent development does go to show that we need to be vigilant in monitoring the activities of the alcohol producers if we are to prevent marketing strategies of this nature being implemented in the future. Current guidelines for advertising of drinking are such as to make questionable the legality of advertising of alcohol by association with sport anyway. The guidelines say that advertisements should only depict responsible drinking, that drinking should not be portrayed as a challenge, and that there should be no implication that success or social distinction is due to drinking. It is hard to imagine how the association of alcohol with the Olympic Games, a competition between the most successful sportsmen and sportswomen in the world, would not imply that success and social distinction are achievable by drinking. Surely that would be the motive of the advertisers' sponsorship of that sport. The Australian Democrats trust that the amendment circulated under our name relating to this Bill will receive the support of all parties in this chamber. Despite the customary cynicism I sometimes display towards the motives of the elected representatives of this Parliament, I believe that the weight of obligation to the health of fellow human beings and children-specifically children-will be sufficient to persuade honourable senators of the desirability of supporting the amendment. Not to give it support would be to prove their own unsuitability to remain as elected representatives of the people of this country and unworthy of the trust placed in them. We support the Bill and will be introducing amendments in the Committee stage. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.37) —My colleagues and I will be supporting the Olympic Insignia Protection Bill, which will enable the Australian Olympic Federation to raise funds by licensing the Olympic insignia of five interlocking rings for commercial use. It is a good plan to allow our Olympic Federation to raise its own funds as best it can, and this Bill will protect it in its use of the insignia. When Australia attended the 1984 Olympic Games, I understand that it cost about $5m to send 355 athletes. The estimated cost of sending 400 athletes to the games in Seoul, Korea, next year will be about $10m. It is interesting to note that in 1984 the taxpayers put in about $1.4m of the total amount of $5m, 28 per cent of the total expenditure. In 1988 it is estimated that, even though the taxpayers' contribution will increase to about $2m, that will represent only 20 per cent of the total cost of sending our Olympic team to Seoul. In other words, the Australian Olympic Federation is slowly reducing the percentage required from taxpayers to send our team overseas. I shall not trespass on ground traversed by previous speakers either in this chamber or in the other place, but I would emphasise that these games and the quality of our athletes who attend such international competitions help to put Australia on the international stage. For that reason we support the Bill, particularly in view of the fact that it will reduce the dependence on the Australian taxpayer for the necessary funds as the Australian Olympic Federation seeks to draw more and more funds from the commercial and private sectors. I cannot let this opportunity pass without congratulating Alderman Sallyanne Atkinson and all those in Brisbane who were responsible for the bid for the 1988 games. It was a tremendous effort and put not only Brisbane and Queensland but Australia on the map as well as any campaign could have done. It was a sterling effort. We know that it did not come off, but at least those in the international scene know that Australia is alive and well. Indeed, that effort followed the Commonwealth Games that were held in my own State-to my knowledge, one of the best run games in recent times. That also put Australia on the world map. All these efforts add up to a tremendous advantage for Australia. I do not refer merely to the holding of games in our own country or to the bid for the games, but to the fact that we are able to send top quality athletes to international meets such as the Olympics, and there is none greater than the Olympic Games. Their sporting standard, their behaviour and all of those things mean that Australia is certainly very active in the world scene. I understand why the Australian Democrats will move an amendment, but those sorts of decisions, which are basically social decisions, should be left to the Australian Olympic Federation. Even if the Olympic Federation sought to allow the insignia to be used by tobacco and alcohol organisations, which I suppose it must be admitted are great supporters of sport, tobacco and alcoholic beverages are two things that the coaches of our athletic teams would not allow the athletes to partake of to any great excess, if at all. It would probably put the Olympic Federation in a bit of a dilemma. Nonetheless, I think it is up to it to take what are basically social decisions. For that reason, and that reason alone, we will not support the Democrats' amendment. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(11.41) —I would like to reiterate briefly the purpose of this legislation. It clarifies the Australian Olympic Federation's rights to the Olympic rings and 10 other registered Olympic logos and enables the Federation to grant exclusive right to use the rings and logos in association with goods and services. This ability to grant, and guarantee, exclusive use of the rings and logos is the cornerstone of the AOF's fund raising campaign to send the Olympic team to next year's, and subsequent, Olympic Games. The legislation protects pre-existing rights by not permitting the registration of logos that are already in use. Moreover, existing bona fide users of the Olympic rings will be able to continue their use of the rings. What the legislation prevents is the use of the rings and Olympic logos by persons who wish to cash in on the fund raising campaign of the AOF by selling goods with the rings or Olympic logos on them. The Australian public will be assured by the passage of this legislation that if they purchase goods endorsed with an Olympic logo or the rings during a fund raising program, they are helping contribute to the sending of Australia's team to the Olympics. The enforcement mechanism of this legislation rests with the Olympic Federation or the persons who have the rights to use the registered logos. This will ensure speedy action if breaches occur. Also it avoids the necessity for enforcement action by the Commonwealth. In closing this debate I would like to emphasise the significance of this legislation. Not only will it facilitate the Australian Olympic Federation's ability to raise funds so that Australia will be represented by the best possible team at Olympic Games, and hopefully be able to do so with a smaller proportion of the associated costs being met from Commonwealth funds than would otherwise be the case, but it also provides the Olympic movement with the means to protect and maintain the dignity of its logo, the five Olympic rings. The International Olympic Federation has been seeking this type of protection for the Olympic rings for some time and Australia is only the second country, after the United States of America, to pass legislation providing appropriate protection. This maintains Australia's fine record of support and close connection with the Olympic Games. Only three countries have competed in all the modern Olympics. They are England, Greece and Australia. Further, there is an Australian on the new International Olympic Committee Executive-a committee that comprises only 11 members. When one remembers that the full Committee represents 157 nations, representation on that Committee reinforces Australia's standing within the Olympic movement and in the area of international sport generally. Australia's Olympic reputation is in the excellent hands of members of the Australian Olympic Federation, all of whom are dedicated to the Olympic ideals. This Government is proud to be able to assist in this matter of protecting the Olympic insignia and thereby help maintain Australia's reputation as a strong supporter of the Olympic movement. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.45) —I move: Page 9, after clause 15, insert the following new clause: ``Prohibition of certain licences ``15a. The Federation shall not, in respect of a protected design, grant a licence: (a) to a person carrying on the business of selling: (i) goods for smoking, being goods manufactured wholly or partly from tobacco leaf; (ii) alcoholic beverages; (b) in circumstances in which the Federation is aware, or ought to be aware, that it is intended that the protected design will be used for, or in connection with, the advertising or promotion of: (i) goods for smoking, being goods manufactured wholly or partly from tobacco leaf; or (ii) alcoholic beverages; or (c) in circumstances in which the Federation is aware, or ought to be aware, that it is intended that the protected design will be displayed at any function or venue where advertising of: (i) goods for smoking, being goods manufactured wholly or partly from tobacco leaf; or (ii) alcoholic beverages; occurs or is likely to occur.''. The purpose of this amendment to the Olympic Insignia Protection Bill, as I explained in my speech in the second reading debate, is to make sure that drug dealers are not allowed to advertise their wares in conjunction with the Olympic symbol. The people to whom the amendment refers are dealing in drugs. Alcohol is a drug and tobacco is a drug; we know this. I think it is absolutely absurd that these well-known killers and maimers in our society should be allowed to associate their image with that of the Olympic symbol which is, of course, the image of excellence and purity. It is a symbol which should be guarded. I think that the people who actually put forward the concept of the Bill should be worried about this because their image will be degraded by the inclusion of alcohol and cigarette advertising. For those reasons the Australian Democrats have moved this amendment. We do not do it lightly or mischievously. We feel that the Olympic movement will suffer if the drug dealers are allowed to attach themselves like leeches to the Olympic insignia. Therefore, we commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(11.46) —The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. The evidence certainly is clear that tobacco is inimical to health and appropriate warnings are visible on packaging. The Commonwealth controls television advertising of tobacco. That direct approach is to be preferred, as opposed to discriminating in a patronising way against a voluntary body which has always acted responsibly. If it is considered desirable to further control the advertising of tobacco and alcohol, that should be looked at in a rational, planned way, not by the ad hoc measures proposed by the amendment. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.46) —The Opposition also opposes this amendment. I understand from Senator Collard's speech on the second reading of the Bill that the National Party of Australia also opposes it. The amendment is a very clear indication that Senator Sanders and his Party have not done their homework on this issue. That, of course, is absolutely typical of the sloppy, disorganised approach of the Australian Democrats in this place which we have to put up with. Senator Sanders —I wonder where I have heard that before? Senator SHORT —Let me tell Senator Sanders a few things of which he is obviously not aware. The first is that the Olympic charter of the international body to which Australia is a party states that the Australian Olympic Federation should not be associated with the advertising of tobacco or alcohol. The AOF has never been associated with tobacco advertising. Secondly, the wording of the AOF charter reads: The use of the emblem for advertising alcoholic beverages or tobacco is strictly prohibited. The terms of the amendment are extraordinarily wide. For example, the amendment could prevent the use of the insignia by a conglomerate in circumstances in which tobacco or alcohol, although part of the operations of the conglomerate, were not actually being advertised, but would prevent the conglomerate from advertising other products. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment propose to prohibit the use of the insignia, at venues under existing obligations, by tobacco or alcoholic beverage producers. This could place the AOF in very difficult circumstances. As the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, said, the Australian Olympic Federation is a body of very responsible people. They have always exercised their social responsibility to the highest degree. It seems to me to be entirely inconsistent to proscribe certain activities when the whole purpose of the Bill is to give the Federation certain broad responsibilities in this area, and it is very insulting, if I may say so, to the Federation and its very distinguished members. For that variety of reasons the Opposition opposes the Democrats' amendment. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.50) —It saddens me that the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party are all opposing this amendment. I suppose it indicates that they feel they do not want to offend their rich and powerful friends in the tobacco and alcohol industry, and it saddens me greatly that this is the case. But if this is the stand they wish to take, they will have to answer ultimately to the voters. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.50) —The last comment by Senator Sanders is beneath contempt. As Senator Short has already quite clearly pointed out, there are sound, practical and decent reasons for objecting to this amendment. As Senator Short quite clearly pointed out, the guidelines from the International Olympic Committee, which have always been endorsed, followed and underlined by the Australian Olympic Federation, state that the use of the emblem for advertising alcoholic beverages or tobacco is strictly prohibited. As Senator Short said, not only is it insulting to the people who make up this Federation to seek to give them the instruction that Senator Sanders intends, but also it is insulting to all those who happen to disagree with Senator Sanders that his only riposte, his only response, is to doubt the integrity of people who regard his action as foolish, misguided and offensive. In that situation the Opposition naturally finds that it cannot and will not support this specific amendment. As Senator Short has said, in this legislation, which is being supported by both the Government and the Opposition, we are giving powers to a body to undertake a whole range of activities. If we did not believe that it has the integrity or the capacity to carry out those duties to the benefit of Australia, presumably we would not be supporting this Bill. The fact is that we are and, as I understand it, the Australian Democrats are supporting the thrust of the Bill. It is just that they simply do not trust people to follow an instruction from the International Olympic Committee or the wording of the AOF charter. I must say that we do not share that contempt for the people of the AOF that has been demonstrated by the Australian Democrats. I want to underline very strongly the point that Senator Short made about conglomerates. This amendment is so inept that a group that produces, for example, a newspaper or sells real estate or is in the meat industry would, under this amendment, be prohibited from using the Olympic symbol, because one other company in that group may either make or supply beer or cigarettes. What arrant nonsense. Presumably not even Senator Sanders could fail to recognise how ridiculous such an amendment would be. Why should someone be prohibited from doing a quite proper deal with the Australian Olympic Federation relating to the use of the advertising of some real estate, newspapers, meat-you name it-simply because that group also happens to be involved in cigarettes or alcoholic beverages? Yet that is what this inept and incompetent amendment seeks to do. I think it is quite clear that there is within this chamber a range of views about the merits or otherwise of advertising cigarettes and alcohol. The important thing is that those who totally oppose the principle of advertising alcohol and tobacco can nonetheless feel totally comfortable opposing the Democrats' incompetent amendment, because in fact it seeks to do far more than simply to prevent people who are selling alcoholic beverages or goods for smoking from advertising those items. As I said, it goes far beyond that to an unreasonable degree and seeks to intrude and impose a restraint which is inappropriate and bears no relationship to the advertising of alcohol or tobacco products that the Democrats claim they are seeking to prevent. Nonetheless, I think it is reasonable to say that all members of this chamber would expect the Olympic Federation, in making its decisions, to recognise certain social obligations, because it has always acted in that way and always will act in that way, and its charter requires it in effect to act in that way. So on almost every score the Democrats' amendment, which is a grandstanding amendment aimed at creating phoney righteousness, is in fact something that I am certain no honourable senator, apart from the Australian Democrats for a political purpose, would really be seeking to support. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Sanders's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Georges, G. Powell, J. F. Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. (Teller)Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Newman, J. M. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C. Foreman, D. J. Townley, M. Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, G. N. West, S. M. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —It may suit the convenience of the Senate to debate cognately the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986, the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 1987. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.05) —The package of Bills before the Senate today include two which seek to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and two which relate to the grant of Aboriginal land in Victoria. I will be largely confining my contribution in this debate to the proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, although I think some very important issues arise out of the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill. The first thing that one must say about the amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is that they have been a long time coming. Territorians have been waiting many years for some relief from the problems arising out of the Aboriginal land rights Act. They have seen the Act in operation over the past 11 years and have witnessed first hand the problems in its implementation and the detrimental effect of certain aspects of the legislation on the Territory community. There can be no question that the impact of the Act as envisaged by its architects and draftsmen has been far exceeded by the reality of its implementation. In the Northern Territory we have reached the point where almost 50 per cent of the area of the Territory has been either granted or is under claim as Aboriginal land. The extent of the claims has far exceeded what was anticipated by many of those who supported land rights 10 years ago. It would be true to say that the way that the land rights legislation has been extended in its application through the interpretation of the courts has led to a great change in the attitude of the Australian community towards the whole land rights issue. The manner and extent of claims under the Act has led to divisiveness in the Australian community and open resentment to some degree of the benefits extended to Aborigines which are not enjoyed by other Australians. I certainly do not believe that it was the intention of the original proponents of the Act for this to happen. Surely the Act was intended to allow for recognition of the special social and cultural aspirations of Aboriginal people, in a way which could see them effectively co-exist with public and private business sector initiatives and which would be readily accepted by the community at large. Even the principal architect of the land rights Act, Mr Justice Edward Woodward, has sounded a warning note to the Aboriginal people that they are endangering community support for their cause through the extent of the claims that are being made. At the 1985 Australian Legal Convention Mr Justice Woodward suggested that Aboriginal advisers give careful thought to the extent of future claims. He said: I suggest that Aboriginal councils and their advisers give careful thought to the extent of future claims and even consider the advisability of forgoing or surrendering some land already claimed or granted. It is quite significant that Mr Justice Woodward should voice this view, and I believe that the Federal Government, too, must heed the message which Mr Justice Woodward is sending in relation to land rights. We are now in a position, 11 years on, to review the Act, examine the problems stemming from its operation and do something to redress these problems. In some elements of the community there has been a feeling that the land rights Act is sacrosanct, that it cannot be altered regardless of any problem which it might be causing those who must live with it. Clearly this is an unrealistic view, and it is being seen as such by those in the community who are witnessing the damage it is doing to Aboriginal interests. It is an undeniable fact that in practice the land rights Act is not working as planned and is in need of change. That brings me back to the legislation now before the Senate, which will supposedly provide the changes needed to rectify these problems. I will deal with the Bills separately and address my initial remarks to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1976. The amendments proposed by this Bill are disappointing because they do not adequately address a number of the major problems identified with the Act. Some of the amendments, in fact, look set to provide additional burdens for Territorians, both Aboriginal and otherwise, who have to live with this legislation on a day to day basis. It is important that the Senate be made aware of some of the glaring omissions from the amendments put forward by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). I deal firstly with access to the provision of essential services. The first aspect is the failure of the amendments to address the quite basic matter of access to Aboriginal land for the provision of essential services. The Northern Territory Government's right to provide such services should not continue to be inhibited. When the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act came into force the Commonwealth reserved unto itself the right to acquire, under a law of the Commonwealth, Aboriginal land for public purposes. A similar power was not reserved to the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth does not have a monopoly of good works. Indeed, it is the nature of the division between Commonwealth and State responsibilities which sees the burden for the provision of most community services-such as health, education, power and sewerage services et cetera-fall on the Northern Territory Government. Yet the Northern Territory is expected to fulfil its obligations without the benefit of the power of acquisition, which is seen as essential to enable governments in other parts of Australia to provide such services. The lack of such power has led to the ridiculous situation where Territory authorities attempting to carry out their responsibilities to provide services on or across Aboriginal land-particularly services for the Aboriginal people-have been met with the outrageous suggestion that they should have to pay for the privilege of providing those services. Even the Commonwealth has been on the receiving end of this crazy mentality when, in attempting to supply an improved telephone service to Port Keats-which involved placing communications equipment across Aboriginal land-Telecom was hit with claims for excessively high compensation. Similar demands were made when attempts were made to put in millions of dollars worth of high technology equipment to provide upgraded communications at Lake Evella in Arnhem Land. The provision of the service was held up for two or three years. There have also been instances of Aboriginal people attempting to claim compensation for the gravel extracted from their land to build roads for the Aboriginal people themselves. Another example occurred when traditional owners in one community wanted to charge the Northern Territory Housing Commission rent for the houses it had erected on Aboriginal land for Aboriginal people to live in. These are but a couple of examples of the anomalous situations which have arisen, and, while they may ultimately be resolved, they have greatly frustrated the efforts of the Northern Territory government departments to provide services to Aboriginal people, and heated up community feeling to the point of confrontation. I might add that, most times, the traditional owners themselves are not the problem-it is the money- and power-hungry land councils which become embroiled in these matters. Indeed, one even finds that land council members themselves are expressing criticisms of the land council bureaus, which employ 70 to 80 people, many of whom are retained as consultants and advisers, at not inconsiderable cost to the Aboriginal people. It is the land councils that have attempted to control access to Aboriginal land and have said that other Australians cannot enter Aboriginal land without permits. In an article in the Bulletin, journalist David Barnett made the point that even Norforce, the North-West Mobile Force-which is supposed to train to defend and patrol our northern coastline-has experienced some difficulty in obtaining permits to carry out the exercises in Arnhem Land. Another example of these sorts of difficulties has been the inability of the parties involved to reach agreement which would enable the Northern Territory Government permission to build a road from Nhulunbuy to Katherine, thus linking Nhulunbuy with the Stuart Highway. Such a link is essential for development and for servicing the Nhulunbuy community. It also has considerable defence significance, particularly in view of the Federal Government's recently announced northern defence developments and upgrading. Mr Holding's amendments have done absolutely nothing to rectify this situation. I will be proposing an amendment to the Bill which would overcome the difficulties faced by Northern Territory authorities. But I will deal with that matter in more detail at the Committee stage. I turn to stock routes and public purpose land, and what the amendments do not do in relation to these issues. The Commonwealth Government is the only government in Australia which appears to have adopted a policy of abandoning the stock route systems which are under its control. All of the States maintain the stock routes within their territorial jurisdictions for sound economic reasons. But in the Northern Territory there is a clear and conscious policy, under the auspices of land rights, of abandonment of active stock routes. The problem with this development is that, once a route is broken, the effect of a break flows on to other routes within the same network, which leads to the ultimate breakdown of the network. These amendments purport to include alterations to the Act which would make certain stock routes unclaimable. But what Mr Holding gives with one hand he is taking away with the other. His amendments propose that stock routes will not be claimable, excepting those already subject to claim at the commencement of the operation of the amendments, and those where claimed land adjoins both sides of a stock route. While this would seem to represent an improvement on the present situation, which has seen claims upon stock routes divide some pastoral properties, the reality is that the Minister has retained unto himself the power to declare a stock route, which is prima facie exempt, to be claimable where no agreement between disputing parties can be reached. This means, in effect, that, as at present, all stock routes are claimable, because prospective claimants would only have to take an unreasonable position, which the user of the land subject to the dispute could not accept, and the stage would be set to make out a case for declaring that route claimable under the amended Act. What the Minister is proposing will provide no reassurance to the pastoral industry. The Minister is saying that he is willing to see negotiations between the pastoralists and traditional owners, but, if the traditional owners are dissatisfied with the outcome of negotiations, they can then have the land in question declared claimable under the land rights legislation. In my view, it is a not particularly subtle form of blackmail. The private member's Bill which I introduced late in 1985 made a real attempt at overcoming this problem by including a provision which set aside those areas of unalienated crown land which, over the years, have been nominated by the crown for any number of public purposes. These include use as stock routes or stock reserves, land set aside for entertainment purposes, such as for racecourses, for the erection of police stations, historical monuments, forestry reserves, cemeteries, and conservation parks. Under my proposed Bill, land so set aside or reserved would no longer be identified as crown land for claim purposes. The Holding amendments before the Senate do not even take account of these parcels of land; nor do they protect from further claim the beds and banks of various streams and estuaries, which would otherwise be available for claim, or the remaining foreshore areas of the Northern Territory are not already Aboriginal land. More than 60 per cent of the coastline of the Northern Territory-to which more than 75 per cent of the population, including many aboriginals, have effectively been denied access-is Aboriginal land. We are talking about 3,720 kilometres of coastline, out of a total of just over 6,000 kilometres. In proportional terms, in New South Wales, this is the equivalent of depriving Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong of access to a stretch of coastline from Bateman's Bay to Coffs Harbour; or, in Victoria, the equivalent of depriving the population of Melbourne, Geelong and the La Trobe valley of access to a stretch of coastline from the South Australian border to Wilson's Promontory. That would not be politically tolerated in either of those States. On that point, I might say that I have noted with interest the call by the Victorian Government for the Federal Government to legislate to provide certain limited land rights in Victoria, and the Bills which are before the Senate as part of this package arising out of that call. I would be much more interested to see Victoria whole-heartedly embrace the Northern Territory style of land rights, but of course it is not about to do that. The Victorian Government is not about to commit political suicide by imposing in Victoria what territorians have had to put up with for 10 years or more. Of course, on this issue of Federal intervention in land rights matters, it is my view that land rights is properly an issue to be left to the States. The Labor Government in Victoria should not be calling on the Federal Government to intervene in what is an area of State responsibility simply because it has some problem with the numbers in the Upper House. This is an attempt to circumvent the due processes of the State legislature which, I suppose, should not come as a surprise from a Labor Government, considering the Australian Labor Party's preference for centralism in government, as opposed to States rights. One wonders what the people of Victoria feel when their own Premier abrogates to Canberra his responsibilities. I turn to the question of the limit on claims. At the outset of my remarks in this debate I made the point that the manner and the extent of claims made under the Land Rights Act have far exceeded the expectations of those responsible for the preparation of land rights legislation. Mr Justice Woodward recently has acknowledged this. The Land Rights Act has been in operation for over a decade. To date, almost 50 per cent of the Territory has been granted or is presently under claim. At the time of the enactment of the Act, some 18 per cent of the Northern Territory was held as Aboriginal reserve, to the agreement of all. Contrary to popular belief, large tracts of this land, both in Arnhem Land and in the southern part of the Territory, in Territory terms was quite valuable land-particularly the pastoral land held in the south. It was estimated that land claims would add at most some 10 per cent to that figure. I will give some idea of the magnitude of the area under claim. It is over 450,000 square kilometres. The concept of the land rights legislation was that land rights would be granted in recognition that Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory were entitled to give full expression to their affinity with the land. The principle underlying the legislation was widely accepted within the Australian community. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the attitude of Australians today towards land rights. The implementation of the Act has created divisiveness in the community and resentment in come areas towards Aboriginal people. The aversion which has developed towards land rights does not stem from opposition to granting land to Aboriginals as much as the manner and extent of claims which have been made with little regard for the needs and aspirations of other Australians. The open-ended nature of the claim provisions has also meant that a great deal of uncertainty and scepticism has developed in the community. The concept of land rights has become the object of ridicule, not just by those who can be characterised as bigots opposed to assisting Aboriginal people in any way. I am sure that other senators must have seen cartoons and heard stories about Aboriginal people erecting `sacred site' signs on sites of recently discovered mineral deposits or on other areas found to be of commercial value. The whole matter has become farcical. It is quite a pity that it has become a reflection on those who do not deserve it. Many Australians now view land claims with a good deal of scepticism. Because no time limit has been set for the lodgment of Aboriginal land claims claimants over the past 11 years have lodged claims any time it has suited them. There have been occasions on which the lodgment of a claim coincidentally has occurred hot on the heels of the discovery of a mineral deposit. Claims cannot be allowed to continue unabated. There must be a realistic and sensible cessation of the land claim process. We must face the fact that in the Territory there will be a continuing need to foster pastoral and fledgling agricultural industries and to further provide land for government and community requirements. There has to be a limit to Aboriginal land claims. It has taken only 10 years for almost half the Territory to be claimed as Aboriginal land. The Minister is proposing that claims not cease for a further 10 years. Perhaps he feels that that is sufficient time for the outstanding unalienated Crown land in the Territory to be claimed as well. I would encourage Aboriginal people to become more active in the Northern Territory land law system rather than delve more into the Federal Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act system of land ownership. Another 10 years of land claims, divisiveness and uncertainty is the last thing that the Northern Territory needs, but that is what the Minister is prescribing. One sometimes wonders whether the Minister, in attempting to fulfil his portfolio responsibilities, forgets that the Territory's population is over 143,000 and that, whilst his primary responsibilities are to the 20 per cent who are Aboriginals, he also has some responsibility, as a member of the Australian Government, to the other 80 per cent. It would be quite possible for him to fulfil his commitments to all Territorians in the matter of a limit to land claims by setting a more realistic limit-say, 12 months-instead of the 10 years proposed. I will be moving an amendment to the legislation before the chamber which will provide for such a 12-month limit. There is no reason why those Aboriginal people who regard themselves as having a claim as traditional owners of land should not be required to lodge such a claim within a 12-month period, because, as I say, this has been going on now for 11 years. I pass now to the clause which relates to Aboriginal-held pastoral leases. Aboriginal people have played a very important role in the pastoral industry in the outback and they deserve our recognition and thanks for their contribution. Those Aboriginal people who became involved in the industry acquired skills which have enabled them to become involved in running pastoral leases of their own and the present Commonwealth Government, its predecessor and the Northern Territory Government have encouraged the purchase of such properties. The Land Rights Act, as it stands, allows for these properties to be claimed and converted to inalienable freehold Aboriginal land but it is certainly not always the case that those who claim the leases are suited to operating them productively. The amendment contained in clause 25 is to the effect that a land claim in respect of an Aboriginal-held pastoral lease may not be heard unless the Land Commissioner is satisfied that the holders of the lease, or the body holding the estate on their behalf, has consented in writing to the claim. The difficulty which I have with regard to this amendment is that while I am pleased to see that claims can now only be made with the consent of the leaseholders, ultimately there is still room for claims to be made on good pastoral land which, once it is converted into inalienable freehold, is out of circulation forever. The reality is that the Aboriginal holders of a pastoral lease are invariably the same people who lodge the claim and give the consent. The fact that such land can be claimed in the first place is anomalous when one considers that the Act was supposed to apply only to unalienated Crown land. Yet over the years claims have been successfully made on these pastoral leases-on land which is alienated. In some cases the land which is taken out of circulation in this way is not properly managed and is lost to the pastoral industry forever. This is of great concern to the pastoral industry and the people of the Territory, and it is a very legitimate concern. The Federal Government has not really done anything to allay the concerns of the industry. In fact, this amendment is quite half-hearted, like many of the other provisions of this Bill. It is a great pity that so little will be achieved by this Bill because the Minister seemed to start off with considerable vigor and enthusiasm. He now seems to have been worn out and defeated by the magnitude of the task before him. So now, instead of genuine reform, we have a series of amendments which most certainly are not worth the four years it has taken to get them this far. Some of them, like the one which required negotiated agreements on claims to stock routes, are supposed to show the Minister's preference for negotiated rather than imposed solutions, yet the Minister is still retaining the big stick-he will impose a solution if the negotiating parties cannot reach agreement. These amendments fall very short of the mark. They will do nothing to alleviate the problems which have caused such resentment among non-Aboriginal Australians. The list of critical omissions from these amendments goes on and on, but there can be no doubt that the aspect of the operation of the Land Rights Act which has attracted the most attention and has caused, in economic terms, the most damage to the Northern Territory's past, present and future prospects is the effect this legislation has had upon mining exploration and development within the Territory. The Minister has had four years in which to do something to begin to solve the problems caused by the operation of the Act on mining. Last Thursday in the Senate we were presented with the fruits of his labours-the amendments proposed to the mining provisions of the Land Rights Act. At the outset, let me stress that I fully appreciate that it is no easy task to attempt to reconcile the differing and competing interests of Aboriginal people and mining interests, and I acknowledge that attempting to work out an agreeable compromise is a job which necessarily involves time-consuming negotiations and consultation. The Minister has had four years-and has been working on amendments to the Land Rights Act throughout that period. I have to say that while what is proposed in the amendments to the mining provisions is a step in the right direction in that it at least recognises the need for change to facilitate access to Aboriginal land for the purpose of exploration and mining development, it does not go nearly far enough. The Minister has made a great deal of the amendments, and the fact that they include a removal of the power of veto on mining once an exploration agreement has been reached between an intending miner and the Aboriginal owners of land. The Minister claims that this, together with the timetable which has been set up, and the conciliation and arbitration process will clear the log jam of applications for exploration on Aboriginal land. This, however, overlooks the very basic fact that nothing in the proposed amendments makes it any more likely that miners will be able to get over that threshold of obtaining the consent of traditional owners to explore on Aboriginal land. The experience of recent years gives little cause for hope. Currently there are 152 applications for exploration licences over Aboriginal land in the Northern Land Council area. In the case of almost 90 per cent of these there has been some five to six years in which agreement could have been reached; 54 approvals to commence negotiation were given in 1981, 77 in 1982, and 14 in 1983. To date 32 applications for exploration have been vetoed in the NLC area-that is, no exploration has been allowed. The area which has been effectively withdrawn from exploration by the mining industry as a result of these vetoes is some 18,000 square kilometres. Since the commencement of the land rights Act, only one solitary application for exploration has been approved in the NLC area. It allows Uranertz of Australia Ltd to explore an area of 64 square kilometres. No applications for exploration have been approved in the Central Land Council area. No statistics could be more damning of the Aboriginal land rights Act and its failure to adequately provide a mechanism whereby the mining industry has reasonable access to Aboriginal land. But, even with Senator Gareth Evans's much vaunted changes to the Act, there is still no removal of the veto power at the exploration stage. Until there is, I doubt whether we can expect much, if any, improvement in the number of applications for exploration on Aboriginal land which are approved. The Opposition will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage of the debate which would remove the veto power at the exploration stage, with suitable arrangements. Even overlooking what seems to be a fatal flaw in the Minister's amendments, and assuming that exploration agreements are reached between traditional owners and miners, there remain a number of problems which have been identified by the mining industry, which will ultimately have the task of putting the Federal Government's theory into practice. The industry tells us that it cannot do it. The amendments, as the Minister has proposed them, would be unworkable under certain circumstances if they became law. For example, there is inadequate provision for some forms of Northern Territory mining tenements. One of the largest mining companies in Australia has identified a number of problems with the Bill in its present form, and concludes that if it is passed, as drafted, it will result in widespread industry dissatisfaction. The point has been made that the Bill needs to mesh in with the Northern Territory mining legislation. It is a matter of regret that the Bill has been foisted on the Senate at extremely short notice, giving senators very little opportunity to examine it and giving industry an equally inadequate period in which to scrutinise it. One can only wonder whether this short period for consideration of the Bill is intentional and designed to minimise the chances of the mining industry seeing through the gloss of the removal of the veto at the mining stage and discovering some very significant cracks in the specific provisions of the Bill. Amendments which would rectify a number of deficiencies which have been identified by the mining industry will be moved by the opposition at a later stage. There are very many more matters that one could bring up in the second reading debate on these important Bills. However, time is not now with me and some important matters that are extremely pertinent to these Bills will be raised in the Committee stage. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(12.34) —I am speaking on the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill insofar as they affect the Aboriginal people of Lake Condah and the Framlingham Forest in south-west Victoria, and I shall confine my speech to those aspects of the Bills. The aim of this legislation is to enable three Bills which were passed in the Legislative Assembly of the Victorian Parliament but which did not pass the Legislative Council to become law. The Legislative Council is Victoria's upper House and, like the Senate, does not have a Government majority-by a margin of one vote. Thus legislation passed in the lower House cannot pass if it is opposed by both the Liberal and National parties, which incidentally, have been separate in Victoria for some time. The Victorian Government has, after two years of frustration about fulfilling its obligations to some of its Aboriginal citizens, asked the Commonwealth Government to enact the Bills. This is a matter of Federal-State co-operation, in contrast to the situation in Tasmania that has been discussed in this chamber recently. Senator Kilgariff, in his speech, claimed that these Bills frustrate the due process of the State legislature. On the contrary, they enable the will of the Victorian Government to be realised, and it is significant that, as a senator for Victoria, I have received absolutely no representations opposing this legislation, whereas I have received a great deal of support from a number of sections of the population. The Victorian Bills were the Aboriginal Land (Framlingham Forest) Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah) Bill 1986 and the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 1986. The purpose of the Aboriginal Land (Framlingham Forest) Bill (No. 2) was to grant inalienable title to 11 square kilometres of land adjacent to an area previously granted to the traditional owners in a previous Bill. The Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah) Bill sought to grant title to 0.5 square kilometres to the traditional owners of that land. The aim of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 1986 was to directly involve Aboriginal communities in the preservation of objects and places of cultural or historical significance to the traditional owners. The Bills before the State Parliament resulted from at least three years of discussions between the Victorian Government and the Victorian Aboriginal community, and incorporate a recognition by the Victorian Government that the land was taken from its traditional owners by force, without consideration of compensation. Unfortunately the Victorian Opposition, for reasons best known to itself, saw fit to oppose these Bills. It sought to amend the legislation to give the Aboriginal communities alienable freehold title, which would mean the land could be sold or mortgaged, despite the fact that the conservative Bolte Government had granted inalienable freehold title to the Lake Tyers and Framlingham Aboriginal communities in 1970. I never thought I would find myself standing here supporting the actions of the Bolte Government, but in this case that Government was certainly more progressive and in more touch with community opinion than its successors in the present Victorian Opposition. So the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill will implement the intent of two of the Victorian Bills which were frustrated by the Legislative Council. It seeks to vest the Framlingham Forest and the Lake Condah land in two Aboriginal corporations. This will give these two bodies full powers of management and control of their land, subject to the laws of the Commonwealth and of the State of Victoria. The two Aboriginal communities of traditional owners will be incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976, which will provide for a community council and committee of elders for each community. These bodies will have local government-type powers to make by-laws concerning the protection of flora and fauna and use of and access to the land. Such by-laws will be gazetted and be subject to approval by the Minister and to disallowance by the Commonwealth Parliament. The communities will be obliged to keep a register of sites on this land which are sacred and significant. This register would be kept by each Aboriginal corporation so as to prevent disclosure of its contents without the permission of the committee of elders. There will be provision for the register to be made available to the Minister if the Minister has to make a decision relating to the granting of permission for mining operations. The Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill also provides for the regulation of mining activity on the two parcels of land, and for the establishment of two trust funds to receive moneys for distribution in accordance with the Bill. Although this Bill, together with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill, comes to us at the request of the Victorian Government and on its initiative, it is consistent with other Aboriginal land rights initiatives of the Commonwealth, such as the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the other Bill being debated cognately today. I believe that members of the Victorian Opposition did a very great disservice to public understanding of these Bills over a number of months by making outrageous allegations in the State Parliament and elsewhere as to what their passage would mean for the people of Victoria. For example, several Victorian Opposition members alleged that the Bill would enable the whole of Victoria to be carved up and allocated to Aboriginal groups. In spite of this allegation that all Victorian land was threatened, several members of the Victorian Opposition claimed that they would support the Bills if they gave ordinary freehold title to the Aboriginal communities. In other words, they presented two totally inconsistent views. Such a proposal to grant freehold title flies in the face of the wishes of the Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest Aboriginal communities. It reverses the policy of the Victorian Liberal Party under the Bolte Government, to which I referred before, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding by the Victorian Liberal and National parties of the relationship between Aboriginal communities and their land. Mr David Hawker, the Federal member for Wannon, alleged in the Portland Observer-a local newspaper-of 6 April 1987 that the Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs had not consulted properly local Aboriginals. However, the Victorian and Federal governments' extensive consultations with a wide range of Aboriginal organisations throughout Victoria are in stark contrast to the whistle-stop tour to Lake Condah in March by the Federal Opposition spokesperson on Aboriginal affairs, Mr David Connolly-I assume he is still the Opposition spokesperson. This tour was roundly condemned by the Lake Condah and District Aboriginal Co-operative which claimed: . . . the Connollys, Hawkers and Co. of the world prefer to have a feed now and not worry too much about the future. They have no understanding of Aboriginal values, customs and our belief in securing a land base for future generations. A similar whistle-stop tour by Jeff Kennett, the Leader of the Victorian Opposition pro team, was referred to by the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust as a: . . . General Custer-style Gallop through the Western District media with quotes like `No land was safe from Aboriginal Land Acquisitions'. Senator Cook —Did he say that on his car phone? Senator ZAKHAROV —Probably. No, the language was too pure for the car phone. That trip was also notable for its lack of consultation with the traditional land owners. The Victorian Opposition's propaganda seems aimed solely at hiding the fact that the Victorian Opposition has no viable Aboriginal policy. The Australian Mining Industry Council, in a recent Press release that was sent to me, alleged that the Government is relying on the Tasmanian dams case to bolster constitutional support. This is not the case. The Commonwealth has a clear constitutional obligation to its Aboriginal citizens, conferred on it by the 1967 referendum which was supported across parties. I remember that this was one occasion on which I was in the unusual situation of handing out how to vote cards on the same roster as the Liberal Party. The Bills are in accordance with the generally bipartisan approach taken by this Parliament and should be supported by all honourable senators. Debate interrupted. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) is of the opinion that the Australian Government should seek an international boycott on any dealings with the Fijian military, who are reported to have taken over the government; (b) believes that the strongest possible action should be taken by the Australian Government to indicate its disapproval of this attack on Fijian democracy and our determination to give it no aid or comfort; and (c) urges that this expression of opinion be conveyed to the Fijian High Commission as soon as possible. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes and provided further that should a division be called for, such division shall be forthwith postponed till a later hour of the day not being earlier than 2 p.m. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.45) —I wish to take the opportunity afforded by this public interest debate to comment on the composition of the Commission of Inquiry into logging in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests area of Tasmania. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) last week announced the three members of the Commission. The Chairman is to be the Hon. Michael Helsham, who recently retired from the New South Wales Land and Environment Court. The other two members are to be Mr Robert Wallace, a reader in Economics at Flinders University, and Mr Peter Hitchcock, who was a forester with the New South Wales Forestry Commission but also spent many years with the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. While I have no quarrel at all with the appointments of Mr Helsham or Mr Wallace, who I believe should be objective despite their lack of knowledge about forestry in general and the industry in Tasmania in particular, I do have very serious concerns about Mr Hitchcock's appointment. On 26 March in the Senate, during the Committee stage of the consideration of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, I asked the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate), who was in charge of the measure at the time, about those who would be chosen to form the Commission. Senator Tate replied: Of course there will be a balance on the Commission. He said further: It is essential to the credibility of this whole exercise that the composition of the panel conducting the inquiry not initially raise such an appearance of prejudice so as to affect people's readiness to accept the conclusion that the inquiry comes to. I think that everybody on this side of the chamber accepted that assurance in good faith. Those were the words of the Minister who was in charge of the Bill in the Senate at the time, one who is also a Tasmanian. The next thing we found the Government doing was appointing Mr Peter Hitchcock, a man who has been described by the industry in New South Wales as that State's most single antagonistic public servant towards production forestry. In fact, it has been claimed that Mr Hitchcock was instrumental in convincing the Wran Labor Government of the day to ban forestry in New South Wales rainforests-in the process ignoring many of the facts and putting hundreds of people in the industry into the unemployment queues. If the Government wished to appoint a commissioner who was sympathetic to the conservationists, the least it could have done was be consistent with the assertion of the Special Minister of State, made in this chamber, that the commission must be balanced in order to be credible. Mr Hitchcock is the only member of the Commission of Inquiry who has any expertise whatsoever in forestry matters. In fact, he is the only member who has had any experience of conservation as such. He is also the only member who has had any experience in relation to world heritage listing. He is not regarded by the forestry industry in general, or in Tasmania in particular, as being objective at all. Therefore we believe that he does not meet the criterion set out by the Special Minister of State. The forestry industry in Tasmania and elsewhere is angry-I believe justifiably-about what has happened. In fact, the industry argues that if the Government had to impose this sort of inquiry on Tasmania, the least that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment could have done was appoint what would be, in the words of the Special Minister of State, a balanced commission. The Special Minister of State has been good enough to come into the chamber to answer these challenges, and I ask whether he will seriously consider restoring to the Commission a fair measure of representation in order to ensure the parties affected that its findings will have the degree of credibility that he promised in March of this year they would have. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(12.49) —Senator Watson is to be the only speaker during this lunch-hour debate on matters of public interest and I do not intend to delay honourable senators for very long. Senator Watson has complained that the forestry industry of Tasmania is upset about the composition of the proposed Commission of Inquiry. I have come into the chamber without a briefing on this particular matter but have seen a letter from Mr Andrew Kemp to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) replying to the Minister's request that the forestry industry in Tasmania participate in the selection of persons to serve on the Commission. May I say that in my many years of holding public office I have never seen such an intemperate, ill-tempered, abusive letter from a member of an industry association to a Federal Minister. It had the effect of cutting off the industry, and saying quite plainly that the forestry industry of Tasmania did not want to participate in vetting, or commenting upon, those that were being put forward by the Minister for possible service on this particular Commission of Inquiry. It may well be that the forestry industry of Tasmania itself has a lot to answer for if the composition of the inquiry is not as balanced as Senator Watson claims that it ought to be. Of course, I do not accept his charge that it is unbalanced to the degree which he suggests. I am sure that the Minister, whom I do not even represent in this place, has sought to achieve a balanced representation and believes that, particularly under the esteemed chairmanship of the judge, the Commission will, once it is allowed to conduct its inquiry, achieve the desired result. I believe that there have already been indications by the Chairman that he is going about this in a very temperate, restrained and responsible manner. I believe that if the Tasmanian Government would extend just a modicum of co-operation the inquiry could get under way and come up with a result that would be based fairly and squarely on the evidence presented to it. Sitting suspended from 12.57 to 2 p.m. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-The Government has been deeply distressed and disturbed to learn that a few minutes after 10 o'clock this morning Fiji time, or 8 o'clock Canberra time, a group of soldiers from the Royal Fiji Military Forces moved into the Parliament building in Suva. The soldiers informed parliamentarians there that the armed forces were taking over the Government and they escorted from the building a number of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, Dr Bavadra. There are reports that troops involved in the coup have taken control of some major government offices and utilities. The Government is monitoring the situation very closely and remains in communication with our High Commission in Suva. Obviously not all of the facts have yet emerged. In particular, we do not yet know whether the armed forces takeover is supported by all of the armed forces. We understand that the coup is led by Lieutenant-Colonel Rabuka, number three in the Royal Fiji Military Forces. The Commander of those Forces, Brigadier Epeli Nailatikau, is in Australia at the moment for the ceremony this weekend marking the handing over of the first of the Pacific patrol boats, a program in which Fiji is participating. Two Royal Australian Navy ships happen to be on a routine visit to Fiji at the moment but have been instructed to stay clear of the situation other than to facilitate communication between Australia and the High Commission in Suva. The Australian Government and, I am sure, the Australian Parliament and people condemn this attack on a government in the South Pacific and the Commonwealth, elected through the proper constitutional and democratic process. Since its independence in 1970, Fiji has achieved a proud tradition of parliamentary democracy. This form of government has been a major factor in harmonising the interests of the different racial groups which make up the Fiji community. We were impressed at the way in which Fiji was managing the transition following last month's general elections in the normal way of parliamentary democracies. Australia has had close and friendly relations with Fiji, which is a highly valued member of the South Pacific community of nations. For many years, successive Australian governments maintained close relations with governments led by Ratu Mara. We had looked forward to having the same good relations with the Government of Dr Bavadra and constructive dialogue had begun. Instability in the South Pacific is a direct concern to Australia, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other members of the Government have several times made clear in recent weeks in condemning the intrusion into the region of Libyan destabilising activities which have played such havoc in other parts of the world. Today's events are particularly deplorable as the first military coup against an elected government in the South Pacific. The Australian Government calls on all elements of the Fiji community, including all the parties which contested the last elections, to work for a speedy return to parliamentary democracy in Fiji. We are pleased to learn that, so far at least, there has not been any sign of breakdown of law and order in Fiji and no reports of imminent danger to Australian residents or visitors, among them a number of Opposition representatives from this Parliament, including the Deputy Leader, Mr Neil Brown, who are attending a conference outside Suva. The Department of Foreign Affairs has convened its emergency task force and the Government will continue to keep the situation under close review, particularly from the point of view of caring for the safety and welfare of Australian citizens. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.03) —I do not think that this is the time to enter any lengthy debate on this matter, particularly as the situation is unfolding. I thank the Government for the statement which, as I understand it, gives us as much information as the Government has at this time. I ask the Government to keep us informed of developments as they occur. The Opposition joins the Government in condemning the attack on the elected Government of Fiji-that is, an attack other than through proper constitutional and democratic processes. The Opposition is certainly concerned by this evidence of instability in the South Pacific. It is a reminder of the potential for difficulty in our region, something about which we have not had much cause for concern until the very recent past. Clearly, the Opposition supports the Government in doing what it can to ensure the safety of any Australians who are caught up in the situation in Fiji. Again, we join the Government in expressing our concern at this clear attack on democracy in the South Pacific. It underlines the importance of Australia trying to ensure that its own actions in the Pacific are, as far as possible, an influence for moderation and stability. We must try to avoid issues which will divide the many small nations of the Pacific in a way which could be dangerous both for them and for us. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I join Senator Chaney in thanking the Government for its brief statement and assure the Government that as far as we are concerned the concern is quite unanimous. Indeed, we are quite distressed that this action took place this morning, and we condemn it. We are concerned that in Fiji, which is more than an emerging nation, there should be a general acceptance of the democratic processes. I remember that when the Somare Government fell in Papua New Guinea we breathed a sigh of relief and said that it was tremendous that one of these emerging nations could have a change of government without bloodshed and without tensions. Unfortunately, that has not happened in Fiji. We have had a unique relationship with Fiji, which is one of the Commonwealth nations in the South Pacific. This goes beyond government. The Methodist Church, in which I was reared, had a long and very fruitful relationship with the Fijian people and still has, even though the Methodist Church has now been formed into the Uniting Church. Through that church we had a great input into that nation as it emerged into the twentieth century. As Senator Gareth Evans mentioned in his statement, there is obviously concern, which has been expressed in recent times, over the intrusion of Libya into the South Pacific. I am not suggesting that this is a result of that intrusion. We are always concerned that when something like this happens and there is a destabilising action advantages can be taken. I hope no action will be taken by the armed forces against the members of the Government who, I understand, are being held in the army barracks. Such action could precipitate further tensions in Fiji. I thank the Government for its statement and assure it that my colleagues are as concerned as it is. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —by leave-The Australian Democrats take a slightly stronger view of this matter than does the Opposition, as I understand Senator Chaney. A position of trust and unequalled responsibility is established when some citizens of a country are entrusted with its armaments. They are in a position where they can enforce their will on that populace. That situation has occurred in many parts of the world. I believe and the Democrats believe that if there has been an attempt by members of the armed forces in Fiji to upset the Government that was duly elected four weeks ago it cannot be condemned in words that are too strong. It ought not to be condoned by this democratically elected House in any sense whatsoever. Senator Chaney —Good heavens! Senator MASON —I say this to Senator Chaney because anything other than the strongest statements internationally is likely to have the effect of turning the balance in that country. It might well be turned in directions we would not wish to see here. According to the latest news bulletins-telephone communications have been re-established with Fiji-a Press conference will be given by the people who are now calling themselves the caretaker government. I think that there should be no compromise, no hesitation, no playing around with this issue by this House, this Parliament or the Australian Government. The Australian Democrats, as I put in a notice of motion earlier today, call on the Government to condemn this in the strongest way, to give no aid or comfort whatever to any military takeover in Fiji and, if necessary, to encourage the international application of sanctions to that country until its military comes to its senses. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement in response to Senator Mason. Leave not granted. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the Treasurer's claim in his mini-Budget Speech last night: We are exporting more. We are importing less. Is it a fact that today's balance of payment figures for April show that exports fell by 9 per cent, or 12 per cent in seasonally adjusted terms, the fourth successive month of a trend decline in exports? Is it also a fact that last month on a seasonally adjusted basis imports rose by one per cent? Does he agree that these most recent statistics do not support the Treasurer's claim of a trade turnaround? Senator BUTTON —In respect of monthly balance of payments figures the Government has always said that there will be fluctuations in the current account deficit from month to month and that we expect the overall current account deficit for the year to come in below the predictions contained in the last Budget. It is not surprising to us or to anybody else that the figure is a little up this month. I think that was anticipated. The important thing is that the monthly current account deficit figures show a continual improvement on a medium to long term basis over the 1986 figures, for example. It is true that in the current account figures just published there is a decline in exports shown for the month, and that is disappointing. But the important point which the Treasurer was seeking to make, and made explicitly, in his economic statement last night is that it is the character of exports which is of most concern to the Government. We are moving and have to move away from our traditional reliance on primary industry and mineral exports, confronted as we are with international protection policies in agriculture and falling commodity prices, which appear to be a medium to long term trend. In those circumstances we have to improve the performance of our manufacturing and service industry exports. In spite of the aggregate figures, manufacturing and service exports have shown a steady improvement over the last four or five months. That is welcome to the Government and it is important that that continue. I do not think that on the basis of one month's figures one can draw any conclusions which digress from that general trend which has been apparent in respect of manufacturing exports recently. Senator CHANEY —I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister. It relates to the suggestion in his answer that one cannot place reliance on figures for any single month. I did not seek in my question to do that. I remind him that, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the trend estimate of exports shows a slight decline for the fourth successive month. How can he be satisfied with this trend when there is that trend decline over a four-month period in our export situation? Senator BUTTON —I tried to explain that point in my original answer. I concede that there may be a trend decline in aggregate export values, but I was dealing with manufacturing exports, which is the point to which the Treasurer specifically referred in his economic statement last night. Senator McKIERNAN —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the Minister's answer to my question to him on 26 March and to an article in this week's Bulletin reporting that the Minister has accepted an invitation to address a conference organised by the H. R. Nicholls Society on the subject `Abuses of power in contemporary society'. Has the Minister accepted an invitation to address the H. R. Nicholls Society and, if so, why has he chosen a more general subject for his address than the topic `The high degree of unionism in the public sector and the problems this might cause for governments' suggested by the Society's President, John Stone? Senator WALSH —Mr Stone wrote to me, following the question asked by Senator McKiernan some time ago, and invited me to address the seminar which the H. R. Nicholls Society is holding on the first weekend in June, I think. There was a brief report in yesterday's Bulletin to that effect and it is correct. Mr Stone had suggested-I do not have his exact words-something along the lines mentioned by Senator McKiernan. It was related to what could be interpreted as abuses of power by public sector unions, which I thought was much too narrow a subject to address. I felt that the question of abuses of power should be canvassed across a much wider spectrum of abuse, including abuses of power by, for example, the doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory, which reserves to itself the right to accredit people who are called specialists. There is no free and open competition in that area, any more than there is for conveyancing in most States, where the lawyers union has a monopoly of conveyancing, or indeed in those States such as Queensland where the Petersen regime dispenses patronage to its cronies and friends, or at least to those cronies and friends of the Petersen regime who are not yet in the slammer. Therefore, I think it appropriate, and Mr Stone has agreed as President of the H. R. Nicholls Society, that there should be an address with the title that I have chosen-`Abuses of power in contemporary Australia'. I shall be canvassing what I regard as abuses of power across a quite wide spectrum. Senator McKIERNAN —I ask a supplementary question. I notice from the official program of the conference that the Minister's name does not appear. Will the Minister be replacing any of the other speakers listed in the program, including Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Mr John Stone, Mr Andrew Hay, Mr Brian Jackson, Mr Hugh Morgan, Mr Charles Copeman, Mr Bruce Perkins, Mr Neil Brown and Mr Paul Houlihan? Senator WALSH —I am not sure what arrangements Mr Stone or whoever is responsible has made, but when he first wrote to me he said that the brochure had already been printed and if I were able to attend or somebody else from the Government, the Society would make the appropriate arrangements. It has, I presume, made those arrangements but I do not know what they are. I understand, however, that the session at which I shall be speaking will be chaired by John Hyde. I think that is significant because one of the more trenchant and, in my view, effective critics of the Petersen regime in Australia has been John Hyde, even though some of the other people with whom he may be associated do not seem to be so worried about it. Senator Button —He has the intellectual backing of the Liberal Party of the Left. Senator WALSH —That is probably true. I have known him for a considerable time. Although he was not in any sort of alliance with me, we were pursuing a common objective in 1972-that is, the removal from the seat of Moore of the then Country Party sitting member. We both failed in 1972, but Mr Hyde succeeded in 1974. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. On what factual grounds does the Minister disagree that last night's health changes in the mini-Budget will lead to a rise of up to $50 a year in the cost of private health insurance which, on top of recent rises forced by last August's Budget, will mean that the one-third of Australians earning less than average weekly earnings who hold private health insurance will have been slugged up to an extra $125 a year after tax, in addition to last December's 25 per cent rise in the Medicare levy of about $50 or so that they are forced to pay? What provision has the Minister made in the mini-Budget for added funding of the public hospital system needed to cater for additional demand for its services that will result from lower income groups and pensioners being forced out of private hospital insurance by this Government's discriminatory, anti-private sector health policies? Senator TATE —I am glad that Senator Michael Baume, in phrasing his question, acknowledged that so much of the tremendous contribution which Medicare has made to the health care of Australians and their economic security whilst that health care is provided has been left untouched by the Treasurer's statement of last night-though, indeed, the Health portfolio has needed to make its contribution to the savings in expenditure that are required if this country is to face not only the next decade but the next millennium with some confidence. I believe that that general objective of the statement of the Treasurer last night, of course, has been achieved. The Health portfolio has made its contribution, but in a way which has not made any impact at all on the out of hospital contribution by Medicare to those who seek the services of doctors and health care professionals. The Medicare rebate for all out of hospital services is maintained at 85 per cent of the schedule fee, with a maximum patient contribution of $20. That needs to be emphasised for those who may be concerned. Of course, Medicare preserves the right of every citizen to have free hospital treatment as a Medicare-only patient. In regard to those patients who may be described as private patients, whether they receive their treatment in private or public hospitals, it is a fact that there has been a change insofar as the rebate available for them will be 75 per cent rather than 85 per cent of the schedule fee, with private health funds picking up the difference. Senator Baume suggested in his question that that will add-- Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator TATE —Mr President-- Senator Messner —He sat down. It is the end of the answer. Senator TATE —I will sit down as long as I am interjected on in a way which prevents me from giving a sensible answer. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister should be heard in silence. Senator TATE —It is a fact that behind Senator Baume's question lies the implication that it will cost a family an extra dollar a week to fund the difference that the private health insurance funds will have to make up. The Government does not think that that is a necessary implication of last night's statement. Insofar as he asked for a factual basis for that lack of concurrence with his suggestion that an extra dollar a week will have to be paid by a family, one can point to the very substantial reserves held by the private health funds at the moment, which are in the region of half a billion dollars. Over $500m is held in reserves at the moment by the private health funds. One would expect that private insurance contribution rates, which may have to be altered, will certainly not have to be altered by an amount in the region of a dollar per week per family, because those very substantial funds will be able to absorb some of the extra costs. With regard to Senator Baume's concern about the impact of the statement last night on families in relation to their health care, one has only to remember that last time the Liberal and National parties were in coalition government two million Australians were stranded between holding a poor card to prove their credentials in order to get free treatment and having private insurance. Those two million Australians who could not afford private insurance were left stranded by the policies of the previous Government. If the health policy proposal of the Opposition to move $3 billion of costs from the public to the private sector is carried out it will require families in Australia to pay $27 a week in private insurance contributions. That would be a tremendous blow and would have a tremendously adverse effect on the disposable income of Australian families. Whilst the Health portfolio's contribution to last night's statement is significant in one aspect that has been mentioned by Senator Baume, I believe it is something that most Australians will see as a very sensible and moderate change in the Medicare system. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The second half of my question asked what provision the Minister had made in the mini-Budget for added funding of the public hospital system that was needed to cater for additional demand for its services that will result from lower income groups and pensioners being forced out of private hospital insurance by this Government. While the Minister conceded in his reply that he did not expect that the additional cost would be a dollar a week-because of the existence of surpluses or reserves in some of the funds-he nonetheless conceded that there could well be a rise of some amount. In view of his admission, will he now say what provision the Minister has made for added funding of the public hospital system which is needed to cope with the additional demand? Senator TATE —The clear implication of my answer was that the Government does not expect that the additional money which Australian families may have to contribute per week in order to cover the gap will necessitate the pressure on public hospital beds which is suggested in Senator Baume's question. Senator COATES —The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs will be aware of the deep concern of interested Australians about Australia's relatively low level of overseas aid compared with our promised 0.7 per cent of gross national product, and about the additional reduction of $20m announced in the Treasurer's economic statement last night, on top of the significant cuts in last August's Budget. Can the Minister tell the Senate how that further reduction can be justified and what the impact of the cuts in Australia's overseas aid vote will be? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian aid program, like most other areas of government activity, has had to share the burden of economic restraint necessitated by the Government's decision to introduce what has been the greatest cut in government expenditure for 30 years. The forward estimate for next year's aid program has been reduced by $20m and now stands at $1,005.8m. That represents in real terms a decline of 3.6 per cent on 1986-87 outlays, which were $976m. While the decision to reduce Australia's overseas aid funding was a most difficult one for the Australian Government, it simply reflects the stringency required in all areas of expenditure in current economic circumstances. Despite the savings, I should emphasise that all existing formal obligations, commitments and country pledges can be met and other programs can be maintained in real terms. The actual allocations to particular programs have not been finally determined. These will be decided in the Budget context. I can, however, assure Senator Coates at this stage that some key programs will not be affected. The Government's pledges to a range of recipient countries, including those in the South Pacific and the Philippines, can be accommodated, and so can our commitment to provide 300,000 tonnes of food aid under the Food Aid Convention. The Government is also able to proceed with an increased allocation to the DIF facility-the development import finance facility-which will increase from $16m to $30m, thus helping to promote Australian exports. Cuts have been made possible by a reduced funding requirement in some areas, such as the level of Budget support for Papua New Guinea, funding required to meet anticipated draw-downs by the international financial institutions, and the level of contribution by the aid program for overseas students studying at Australian institutions. This will decline as a result of an increase in the overseas student charge. I should say finally, in response to Senator Coates's opening remarks about our commitment to 0.7 per cent as a target ratio of overseas aid as a percentage of gross national product, it is the case that this year's reduction in aid expenditure will reduce official development assistance as a percentage of GNP from 0.4 per cent in the current year to 0.36 per cent. I emphasise, however, that this remains above the average for the major aid donors represented in the OECD's Development Assistance Committee. The Government remains unequivocally committed to achieving that target ratio of 0.7 per cent and will pursue this objective as economic circumstances permit. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister aware that the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre is $45,000 overdrawn due to the failure of his Department to release the previously allocated funds despite the fact that the Centre has provided expenditure advice to the Minister indicating that all expenditure over the past two months was within the conditions of grants? Given that advice, will the Minister now release the April-June allocation of funds to the Centre? Finally, has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs sought Cabinet approval to commence land rights legislation for Tasmanian Aboriginals? If he has not, when does he intend to do so? Senator RYAN —Senator Haines has asked a number of questions. On behalf of Mr Holding, I give her the following information in reply: I am informed that the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre commenced the 1986-87 financial year with a deficit of $12,000. At 31 December this deficit had accrued to $47,900. The TAC is expected to report its financial position to my Department before 31 May. The TAC has provided to my Department some details of its expenditure but not yet all. Further, the honourable senator will recall my informing the Senate yesterday that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has raised a number of questions with the TAC in relation to the recent activities of the Centre's solicitor, Mr Michael Mansell. The Minister has sought assurances as to whether any Commonwealth funds may have been employed in relation to Mr Mansell's visit to Libya or in relation to his recent activities in Australia not related to the discharge of his duties as a solicitor retained by the TAC. The response of the TAC is awaited. Consideration will be given to the next quarterly release of funds to the TAC once the inquiries referred to above have been completed. The answer to the fourth part of Senator Haines's question is no. The Minister has not sought Cabinet approval to legislate for Aboriginal land rights in Tasmania. The Minister has been pursuing negotiations with the State Government and Tasmanian Aboriginal groups for some time. For the moment, the Minister will continue these attempts. However, the Minister cannot rule out the possibility of future Commonwealth action, should the Tasmanian Government maintain its intransigent position. Senator COLEMAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce been drawn to the comments of the Australian Small Business Association on the effect of the statement brought down last night by the Treasurer on small business? It is reported in the Australian Financial Review today that the Australian Small Business Association has condemned the statement as a confidence trick. In fact, the Federal President, Mr Peter Boyle, who is also the Acting Chairman of the Australian Federation of Employers, said that the Government had squibbed the issue by not addressing fundamental issues. Does the Minister agree with Mr Boyle's comments or does he take a different view on the impact of the statement on small business? Senator BUTTON —There are some things which I agree with Mr Boyle about and some things which I do not. Senator Chaney —He definitely agrees with Mr Boyle! Senator BUTTON —The May economic statement is one thing which I clearly do not disagree with him about. Senator Chaney —You don't disagree with him! That is good. Senator BUTTON —I will fix that up. Senator Chaney has stimulated me into further thinking about this matter. I cannot, as a matter of fact, at this moment recall any issue on which I agree with Mr Boyle. I would like to think that there would be one or two things that we could possibly agree on. Mr Boyle is one of those people who use an association as a personal launching pad for political statements. The measures announced in the May statement last night, contrary to what he says, are aimed at reducing government spending and thereby easing pressure on interest rates, which is a matter of conceded fundamental concern to small business. The statement is an important part of the Government's economic and social strategy and will make a significant contribution to the prosperity of Australians in the medium to long term. Small business, along with the rest of the business community, will ultimately benefit from the spending cuts and the consequent improvement in Australia's economic outlook. I concede that in saying that there may be a difference between small business and large business. For example, the Business Council of Australia recommended that there be 5 per cent cuts across the board in industry assistance. That may well have suited the Business Council of Australia but it would have been very detrimental to the interests of many small to medium sized businesses, companies which in my view are very important and will perhaps, in the future, become members of the Business Council of Australia, given their current growth rates. I find Mr Boyle's comments quite astounding because it is my view, and that of other intelligent impartial commentators, that the expected easing in interest rate pressures and enhanced prospects for industry will contribute greatly to the future performance of small business. One wonders whether Mr Boyle truly represents the view of small business or whether he is concerned, as I said, to use his organisation as a launching pad for political statements, as a significant number of espousers of lost right wing causes are at the present time. I will be very interested to hear the views of the Small Business Council, which was established as a Commonwealth-State initiative and which is bipartisan in its nature, when I meet with it in June and discuss its impressions of the effect of the statement on small business operators. I certainly had the benefit of its views before the statement was made. I think it is unlikely that it will adopt a similar attitude to that given by Mr Boyle in his statement last night. Senator COLLARD —My question is also addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In light of the Hawke Government's mini-Budget delivered last night, when will housing interest rates fall and by how much? Senator BUTTON —There is some standing order about boring repetition. I do not wish to use it against Senator Collard, but I have been asked that question on a number of occasions and I have declined to answer it. I do so again. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask the Minister whether he has read the speech made by Mr Hayden-- Senator Lewis —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I saw Senator Vallentine come into the chamber earlier today. I realise that this is the first time she has been here for three weeks. Under your priority system, Mr President, I realised that you would give her the call as soon as she leapt to her feet. It seems to me to be grossly unfair to every other senator in this chamber that Senator Vallentine can be away from Australia for three weeks, be arrested in the United States of America and then get the call the first time she comes into the chamber at Question Time. I think you really have to reconsider this decision of yours to give her the call at this stage. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Under the system that is being used, Senator Vallentine is due for a question today because she was not here during the previous week. She was not given the first call. She has been given the fifth call on that side because she is entitled to ask a question today. That rule, by the way, applies to all parties and to Independents. I call Senator Vallentine. Senator VALLENTINE —Thank you, Mr President. Has the Minister read the speech made by Mr Hayden when he presented the Media Peace Awards for 1986, in which he referred to the pervasive influence that secrecy has in fuelling the arms race? Given the reference to the United States National Security Agency operations in Australia in several books, journals and newspapers, such as the Asian Defence Journal, will the Minister explain why, in light of Mr Hayden's comments on secrecy, he still refuses to admit what he knows, the public knows and the Soviets obviously know, that the National Security Agency operates in Australia with our own security and intelligence agencies, and that the NSA will be involved in the latest intelligence operation near Geraldton? Senator GARETH EVANS —In a speech made when presenting the Media Peace Awards on 24 October last year, Mr Hayden did make such a reference about the virtues of the Fourth Estate in the context of the arms race. In order that his remarks be understood in context, I will quote the relevant passage in full. Mr Hayden said: Jerome Weisner, who was President Kennedy's science adviser, made the point recently: `An effective way to build a common security system,' he said, `is to substitute information for weapons.' The longer and more closely the phenomenon we call the arms race is examined, the more obvious becomes the validity of this statement; the more obvious becomes the pervasive influence that secrecy has had and still has in fuelling the arms race. The media therefore has a central role to play in the pursuit and protection of peace. I guess they are sentiments with which we would all agree. As to the second part of Senator Vallentine's question, which actually seeks specific information, I have to say that, in seeking a response from the Government about what is essentially speculation regarding intelligence matters, it has been the long-standing practice of this and previous governments neither to confirm nor to deny speculation of this type. Accordingly, I decline to provide a response. Senator SHORT —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Minister recall that, in the Government's May 1985 economic statement, the Treasurer announced that five surplus migrant centre buildings and associated land would be sold to yield an estimated $16.6m in 1985-86, and that the administration of the defence service home loans scheme would be handed over to the private sector at a saving of $60m in 1985-86 and about $120m in a full year? Is it a fact that neither of these commitments were met in 1985-86 and that indeed the only thing that has yet occurred is the sale of one of the five migrant centre buildings for proceeds of only $630,000? In view of the critical importance to the Government's 1987-88 Budget strategy of the $1,000m assets sales announced last night, I ask whether the Government will give an undertaking that that proposed sale of assets will not suffer the same inglorious fate as those announced in 1985. I also ask whether the $1,000m is a gross or a net figure. If it is a gross figure, what are the Government's estimates of the additional costs involved through the leasing of accommodation and the like? Senator WALSH —Regarding two of the items from the 1985 statement mentioned by Senator Short, to the best of my recollection the facts are as he stated them in that the sale was not completed in 1985-86. However, I recall in the same statement another asset sale, that is, the Belconnen Mall, which was completed-I think, on 1 April 1986-well within time despite attempts by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the former Speaker of the House of Assembly to sabotage the sale. Senator Button —Despite the inability of the previous Government to sell it. Senator WALSH —Yes, and, as Senator Button reminds me, thereby to emulate the incompetence or lack of performance of the previous Government, which made the same decision but never got around to carrying it out. Indeed, it was the first, to use the vernacular, razor gang exercise of 1981, which had been preceded by months of hype from the Fraser Government and the Treasurer of the day about massive cuts in government expenditure and programs. As I recall it, the final result was a list which was supposed to total $360m, most of which never happened. In regard to the items in this year's list, the Government believes that the total value of the assets listed for sale is a good deal more than $1 billion. I will not be more precise than that because obviously it would be very silly for the Government to make known its notional reserve price on a lot of those assets, just in case there is someone in the market-place willing to pay more. We would indeed be failing in our duty to the taxpayers if we failed to receive the maximum price for that sort of reason. The Government believes that in total the assets listed for sale are worth a good deal more than $1 billion, and believes that $1 billion of that total can be achieved within the 1987-88 financial year. Senator SHORT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Am I to take it from the Minister's answer that a calculation is included in last night's figures for the ongoing costs involved through consequential leasing of accommodation for the redevelopment of the Tokyo Chancellery site and the like? Is such a figure included in last night's statement? Senator WALSH —There is-but I am not going to disclose it-an estimate in that bulk total for the sale, or perhaps long term lease, of part of the Tokyo site, along with pencilled-in estimates of what we might expect to get for a number of the other assets. The figure pencilled in for the Tokyo site is net of our remaining accommodation requirements. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I draw the Minister's attention to the announcement in the May economic statement concerning the abolition of unemployment benefits for 16- and 17-year olds. What will be the effect of this decision on the participation of young people in education and training? How will the Government adapt its policies and programs to meet the consequences of this decision? Senator RYAN —I think the first thing to say about this decision is that it is a very constructive step towards providing young people with useful options in their teenage years-education, training, work or some combination of those options. I strongly believe that the step we have taken will ensure that young people move into those three constructive options. The decision should be seen also in conjunction with our Government's record in increasing the participation of young people in education and training. I remind the Senate that already the number of young people participating in years 10 to 12 has increased by 118,000 since our Government came to office-an increase in the retention rate by 40 per cent to a record level of half our young people. The initiatives announced last night provide positive incentives for young people to stay at school, particularly those from low income families who have always tended to leave school before completing a comprehensive secondary education. Education allowances for the first time in the history of this country will relate wholly to the age of the young person regardless of the type of education that he or she is involved in, and will equal on a means tested basis the rate of benefit for young unemployed people of the same age. No Austudy allowance will decrease and the levels of allowance for the majority will increase by a large proportion. For example, rates of assistance have increased from a mere $16.70 a week in 1983 to $50.00 a week for 16- and 17-year olds, and $60.00 a week for the 18- plus age group, in 1988. Similarly, the maximum rate for secondary and tertiary students aged 18 years and over who live away from home or are independent will have increased from $59.45 in 1983 to $91.20 next year. The importance of our commitment to young people is shown by the fact that, in a time of severe economic restraint and even when the savings on the Forward Estimates are taken into account, we will still be spending over $100m more on Austudy assistance in 1987-88 than we have spent in this financial year. In addition, $32.5m will be directed through the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to the support and establishment of training courses. I think in terms of preparing young people for the future needs of the work force, in giving individual young people positive and constructive options, this series of decisions is a historic step forward. Senator MESSNER —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he is aware that one of the factors which the Treasurer used last night to justify his claim that the Government's economic policies were working was: Investment has begun to increase, especially in manufacturing. It is not a fact that, despite a welcome small increase in private business investment for the December quarter of last year, both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the recent Confederation of Australian Industry-Westpac survey predict a fall in real terms in investment in industry for 1987-88? Does the Minister agree with the Treasurer's statement? If not, why is the Government not telling the whole truth about investment in industry? Senator BUTTON —First of all, let me say that this matter came up in the economic statement last night and it was referred to in the context of rising exports and declining imports. That was the context in which the Treasurer addressed this general issue. He was talking particularly about the manufacturing sector, a point which I made in an answer to Senator Chaney earlier today. In fact, manufacturing exports increased by 32 per cent in, I think, the last 10 months. I am not sure of the precise period, but I think it was the 10 months prior to the end of March compared with the previous 10 months. As far as investment is concerned, the last real survey material which Senator Messner referred to in his question showed an 8 per cent real increase in manufacturing investment in the December quarter of 1986. That is a significant increase in investment in manufacturing in Australia. We have had no survey material, I think, since then other than surveys of investment intentions conducted by such bodies as the CAI-Westpac group, which survey intentions and expectations in respect of various industries. In looking at the investment question, it is very important, in regard to some of these surveys and so on, to compare like with like. When looking at the aggregate investment performance in Australia now compared with that of such years as 1981-82, when there was enormous investment in the mining sector, much of it talked up by Ministers of the time-there was an enormous talking up of investment and anticipation in respect of the mining sector-and when we compare the volume and value of the investment at present, we have to consider the fact that there is at present very little investment in the mining and mineral sector, apart from gold, which would in any way provide a comparable figure with the period of 1981-82. It is in that context that the real increases in manufacturing investment have to be seen. I think the figure for the December quarter is quite encouraging and it should not be seen in isolation from a variety of other factors. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. The Reserve Bank of Australia's bulletin of February 1987 shows, on page 9, an increase of $29 billion in private sector debt in the non-finance sector for 1985-86. That is a very large amount of money compared with the $4 billion that the Government has just cut from government expenditure. Is not the Government concerned that, under its policy of absolute deregulation of all money markets, the majority of this $29 billion is likely to go into such things as stock market speculation or other speculative areas-because they are so profitable-and that very little of this amount is likely to find its way into productive investments to create jobs and to improve our export potential? Senator WALSH —A few points should be noted at the outset. The $29 billion increase in private sector debt would include debt which is owed overseas, but it includes very much more than that. As the term indicates, it is the total private sector debt, apart from that of financial institutions, for pretty obvious reasons. The Reserve Bank bulletin shows that aggregate figure as standing presently at $208 billion, up from $179 billion in the year before. I think that figure is in dollars of the day, too, but I am not quite sure of that. There is an indication on the table that the figures going back beyond that time are not strictly comparable. I am not sure why this is the case, but the figure for 1983-84, for example, is $157 billion. That aggregate figure includes, among other things, debt owed on owner occupied housing. The linkage between the increase in that debt within Australia and more money being made available for speculation on the stock market eludes me but I do share Senator Siddons's concern that speculation on the stock market-indeed, speculation anywhere at all-usually produces, in the end, some pretty anti-social outcomes. I do share his concern that we may have moved now into a danger area in the present notional value-or paper value-of shares on the Australian Stock Exchange. But I really do not see how an increase in the debt owed by private citizens and private businesses in Australia makes more money available for indulgence in that sort of activity. Senator WALTERS —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the claim by Mr Simon Crean on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television last night that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has `a commitment from the Government that it will introduce increases in the family allowance'. Is this true? Senator BUTTON —I do not think it is a question of the ACTU having a commitment from the Government, and I doubt very much whether Mr Crean said-- Senator Walters —That was a direct quote. Senator BUTTON —Just let me finish. I doubt very much whether Mr Crean identified it specifically in terms of the family allowance. Senator Walters —That is what he did. Senator BUTTON —If he did, I think he was making a mistake. Senator Walters —Those were the words. Senator BUTTON —Will the honourable senator let me finish? If the honourable senator wants to ask a supplementary question, I have no doubt that the President will allow her to ask one, although in my view that would be a mistake. The PRESIDENT —I might take the Minister's advice. Senator BUTTON —There have been several statements, I believe, by Government Ministers about the concern with low income families and a Government policy response to that matter. That is common knowledge. Senator Walters —That wasn't what I asked. I asked you whether it is true that Mr Crean had got that commitment. Senator BUTTON —If there is a commitment to the ACTU, it is a commitment to everybody; it is a commitment to the community. There is no private commitment to the ACTU. Mr Crean may have stated things in his own chosen way, but I am telling the honourable senator what the reality is. Senator Walters —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The PRESIDENT —I am feeling generous. I call Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr President. Can the Minister tell me what the public commitment is in regard to the family allowance? Senator BUTTON —That is not really a supplementary question. Senator Chaney —Yes, it is. Senator BUTTON —If Senator Chaney and Senator Walters want to have a knitting session, I ask them please to go outside and have one. I wish they would not click their needles at me. The point which I made in the original answer was that there is a commitment by the Government to do something to assist low income families in the Australian community. When that commitment is carried out, the details of it will be announced by the appropriate Minister, the Minister for Social Security. Senator CHILDS: My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Can he advise whether there are any Australian Defence Force personnel currently in Fiji other than naval forces referred to in his statement? In the light of the coup this morning, if there are any forces there, will they be withdrawn? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have some information on that but I cannot find it at the moment. I will put the answer on record at the end of Question Time. Senator JESSOP —I refer the Special Minister of State to the success of the foreign company Genting-Berhard in obtaining a casino licence in Australia in competition with other foreign companies and only one wholly Australian owned company. Is the Genting-Berhard company the same as the one that is established in Malaysia? If so, is the Minister aware that, according to newspaper reports in that country, this company has been involved in prostitution and money lending in association with casino operations in the Cameron highlands and has been involved in kick-backs and other incentive payments to officials during the establishments of its business in those highlands? Does the National Crime Authority take any interest in prospective casino operators from overseas and their previous history? Also, do State governments responsible for issuing casino licences consult with or seek advice from Australian Federal Police authorities who may have a knowledge of the backgrounds of foreign operators seeking to manage casinos in Australia? Senator TATE —I do not have any information to hand concerning the detail of the matters raised by Senator Jessop. Accordingly, I am unable to provide the honourable senator with a response at this time. I also emphasise that it might be unwise to do so, based on speculation in media reports in Malaysia. As for his more general question about the consultation that might take place between State governments and law enforcement authorities, particularly the Commonwealth Government and its law enforcement authorities, I undertake to give such an answer, insofar as I am able to, at the earliest opportunity. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women aware of reports that the decision to means test family allowances will disproportionately affect women and that this decision will neutralise the effects of the tax cuts that have been, and will be, put in place by this Government? Senator RYAN —I have heard some comments along these lines. It is the case that family allowances, as they are paid directly to women, have always been an important source of additional income for women caring for children. However, when the Government is asking all members of the community to share in economic restraint, we consider that in the present circumstances an income test on families with incomes above $50,000 is justified. The decision is consistent with the Government's policy to target assistance to those most in need. To say that women will be disproportionately affected is to overestimate the number of families that will be means tested. Only 10 per cent or 200,000 families across Australia will be affected. Those families are relatively advantaged in the community, earning as they do more than twice the level of average weekly earnings. In addition, by 1 July these families will have gained significant increases in disposable income through the combined effects of our tax cuts. For a single income family with one child-- Senator Walters —That is a single person on $50,000. Senator RYAN —Senator Walters obviously does not want to hear the facts but I believe that all other honourable senators will be interested. Senator Chaney, for example, has raised this matter time and time again. So I point out that for a single income family with one child earning $970 a week, which is just over the point where family allowances begin to taper, the combined effects of the tax cuts under the Hawke Government are $61.98 a week. For a dual income family on incomes of $30,000 and $20,000, the combined tax cuts amount to $39.32 a week. The family allowance that these families begin to lose at these income levels is $5.70 a week, a very small sum when the tax cuts are taken into account. In addition, families with more than one child will have even greater gains with an additional $2,500 a year allowed before family allowance starts to taper. The decision announced by the Treasurer last night overtakes the decision announced in last year's Budget to put a sudden death income test on family allowance for 16- and 17-year-olds where the family income exceeds $39,000 so those families also are in an improved position as a result of last night's budgetary decisions. In conclusion, it is clear that those families that will suffer some reduction or total reduction in family allowance payments will, when we take into account totality of effect of the tax cuts, certainly still come out very much ahead. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Senator Cook —Can you make it sensible? Senator BOSWELL —It will be a very sensible question and I expect a sensible answer. I refer the Minister to a report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the implementation of the offsets program which raised serious questions on the effectiveness and administration of this scheme designed to bring to Australian industry advanced technology and skills. In the light of this report, is the Minister fully satisfied that the obligations of the offsets program will be fully met in the massive $4.3 billion contract for the supply of Australia's new submarines? Senator BUTTON —The Public Accounts Committee report has been drawn to my attention. I have not yet studied it. When I do I will make a response to it. I do not know when that will be-- Senator Boswell —Every time I ask you a question you never have the answer. Why does the Prime Minister treat you like a mushroom? Senator BUTTON —I assure Senator Boswell, without being derogatory to any of the members of that Committee, that the report of the Committee on offsets has not been paramount in my reading in the last couple of days. I would have thought that in the spirit of the honourable senator's question he would have been pleased to hear that I will look at it when I can and give an answer which a person of his intellect deserves. Many of the criticisms made by the Committee are subject to review by my Department, which is responsible for the administration of the civil offsets scheme. A group from my Department and the Department of Defence has been established to look at civil and defence offsets together in the light of the Public Accounts Committee report. I say quite seriously that until that work has been done there is no point in my trying to say that each of these matters can be corrected. Hopefully, I will get a considered report from that committee and then will be able to give a considered answer. I am disappointed that the honourable senator chides me for not taking a responsible and serious approach to my obligations. The other part of the questions relates to any offsets obligations incurred in relation to the submarine project. Again I tell the honourable senator that I am sorry I cannot give an answer. The Government has not decided which consortium will be awarded the submarine contract. When we do decide, these issues will be addressed in the context of that decision. Senator COOK —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations been drawn to a full-page advertisement which was placed by the Queensland Government in the Queensland Times of 7 May regarding the new Queensland industrial legislation? That advertisement asserts that the new Queensland legislation will improve Australia's ability to compete internationally. Is it true that the new legislation will have that effect? Does the Commonwealth Government intend to follow the Queensland example in this area? Senator WALSH —I have seen the advertisements. Indeed, I have a copy of it here. It makes that claim to which Senator Cook and a number of others have referred. It is true that average annual days lost per employee as a result of industrial disputes are higher in Australia than in Japan or West Germany-indeed, a good deal higher. But the Australian figure has improved very substantially since 1983, as we all know, or should know. Japan and West Germany have fundamentally different industrial relations systems. Indeed, in the case of Japan, I think it would be generally agreed that it has a fundamentally different culture, which really makes it not fairly comparable. Against countries with which, on cultural and other grounds, Australia is much more comparable, since 1983 we have had a substantially lower strike rate than the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, Italy and a number of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. I have a table referring to days lost through industrial disputes or per working employee in 14 OECD countries, which I now table. We should not be complacent that we have done considerably better in recent years than those countries to which I have referred. However, this shows that a great deal has been achieved since the accord came into operation in 1983. There is certainly no rational reason to believe that that achievement should be thrown away for the alternative of confrontation, which is very clearly the course upon which the Queensland Government has embarked. The Petersen regime's anti-union campaign and seeking of confrontation does not have anything to do with Australia's international competitiveness-it has a great deal to do with politics and the Petersen regime's desire to get itself re-elected in one way or another; and, more importantly, with the chief of that regime because he thinks it will give some impetus to his flagging campaign to get himself elected to the Federal Parliament. In his wildest flights of fantasy, of course, he sees himself as having an opportunity to do to the rest of Australia what he has done to Queensland, and we have spoken about that often enough. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Hamer. Senator Button-I ask that all further questions be placed on notice. Senator Teague-Mr President, I take a point of order. Senator Hamer was on his feet and I think he had your call before the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In any event, can Question Time be extended in light of the important decisions announced yesterday by the Government? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I did call Senator Hamer. Senator Button-I have no objection to Senator Hamer asking a question but, if the exercise is one in knee flexibility in this chamber rather than an exercise in common sense-- Honourable senators interjecting- Senator Button-Question Time ends at 3 o'clock. The PRESIDENT —Order! I had not noticed that Question Time had ended, in which case I would normally have called Senator Button. I did call Senator Hamer. I will call the honourable senator again to ask the last question. Senator HAMER —Has the Minister for Finance noticed that three Victorian businesses scored stunning trifectas in two sections of the Australian Business magazine's survey of the top 500 Australian companies? Did the Minister note that, under the headings `The Business with the largest losses' and `The Business with the biggest negative cash flow', the first, second and third places were occupied by Victoria's State Insurance Office, Victoria's State Transport Authority and Victoria's Metropolitan Transit Authority? Are all of these businesses State Government instrumentalities? Will the Victorian Labor Government be able to continue such reckless waste and inefficiency after last night's mini-Budget cuts in revenue grants to the States? Senator WALSH —I have not seen the publication to which Senator Hamer refers. The three enterprises that he identified are, to the best of my knowledge, indeed State Government owned. At least two of them are the type of enterprise which it is regarded as quite normal in Australia would lose money, whether they are State Government owned or not. Indeed, no sensible person who has a bit of background information would deny that there are inefficiencies in publicly owned enterprises; nor would anybody who has a bit of information deny that there is a considerable amount of inefficiency in many privately owned enterprises as well. I do not think the linkage-if indeed there is necessarily a link- age-between inefficiency or loss making and public ownership is nearly as strong as some people believe it to be. I do not know whether I can provide any more useful information to Senator Hamer. Nor am I sure whether I was asked this question in my own capacity or in my capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer. If I can think of anything useful to add, I shall do so. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Childs asked me a question earlier today about the number of Australian Defence Forces personnel who are in Fiji. There are currently six such personnel. First of all, there are four consultants: One Navy lieutenant and one Navy chief petty officer, both of whom are with the Royal Fiji Military Forces Maritime Division; one Army major with the survey area; and one Army warrant officer with the rural development unit. In addition to those consultants, there is one officer on exchange, a Royal Australian Navy sub-lieutenant, and one assistant defence attache. The Department of Defence has advised that it is closely monitoring the situation. No decision concerning withdrawal or otherwise of these personnel has been made. While I am on my feet, I shall respond to a couple of interjections that were made today by Senator Kilgariff who wanted to know what the situation was so far as warning Australian travellers to Fiji in the present circumstances was concerned. The situation is this-when Senators Baume and Lewis stop giggling: The Department of Foreign Affairs does not yet propose to issue any formal consular warning because there is no evident threat to Australians at the present time. As I said during the course of the earlier statement, there has not been any sign of breakdown of law and order in Fiji and there are no reports of imminent danger to Australian residents or visitors. During Question Time a number of further cabled reports were passed to me, and that situation does not appear to have changed-at least, on the basis of the information available to me. There are no signs of armed police around Suva or any suggestions of crowd action. I am further advised that there are no military forces at either Suva or Nandi airport, and both of those airports are operating normally. Finally, might I say that the Department of Foreign Affairs has been in touch with Qantas Airways Ltd to ensure that intending travellers are aware of the general situation in Fiji. Obviously, the whole situation is one that we will continue to monitor very closely. If there is any change in the physical environment that I have described, it may be that it will be necessary to give a formal warning. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator GIETZELT —Immediately before Question Time on 11 March, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, referred to my absence in a way that suggested some failure in communication from me to him. I wish to set the record straight. As I indicated in a letter to him on Tuesday, I had arranged with the principal member of the Veterans' Review Board in February last to open the national conference of the Veterans' Review Board in Melbourne, which is charged by Parliament with responsibility to reduce the long and unacceptable delays in the repatriation determining system. The conference was organised to suit me, during what was then to be a non-sitting week. As I also had an invitation to open the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service in Melbourne, I naturally agreed to do both functions on the same trip. When the Australian Legion of Ex-servicemen heard that I was to be in Melbourne, it asked me to open its national conference on the same day, which I did. Subsequent to these earlier arrangements, the Government decided in March to produce a May economic statement, and an additional week's sitting was therefore scheduled. I applied for a pair on 17 March-that is, two months ago-which was approved. My staff attempted to speak to Senator Button mid-Monday morning last but he was not available. They then left my question brief with Senator Button's office before 1.30 p.m. last Monday. The duty roster for the day also showed that I was paired from 2 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. If there was any breakdown in communications, it did not come from either my office or me. I particularly regret the veiled criticism of members of my staff who, of course, are unable to respond for themselves. In conclusion, I believe my staff and I have behaved responsibly in this matter and that I have fully met my obligations both to the Parliament and to the Government. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —by leave-Yesterday in the Senate during the debate on the matter of public importance in relation to the surveillance of Australia's northern coastline, Senator Knowles inferred that I was not effectively representing certain areas of my electorate in Western Australia. Specifically, she referred to a letter that I had received, as had other Western Australian parliamentarians, from the Broome air crew in Western Australia. I quote Senator Knowles, as reported in Hansard: As I mentioned earlier, these people have written to members of parliament asking for assistance for their livelihoods and for their families. Yet a senator from this Parliament, Senator McKiernan, wrote back to those people saying, in effect: `Sorry to hear about your problems, but join a union and they will all be solved'. That was the thrust of a letter from Senator McKiernan. For those who are interested, Senator McKiernan has a very long record with the unions. Therefore, his impartiality is not evident on this problem. Senator Knowles's comments are a gross distortion and misrepresentation of the position in the reply that I directed to Mr Arnott representing the Broome air crew in a letter dated 6 May. Mr Arnott had written to me and to other Western Australian members of parliament outlining some difficulties that he and other members of the air crew were experiencing in negotiating a new award, agreement or contract with the new operators of the coastwatch surveillance system. I read his detailed and very bulky letter and noted that it was an industrial matter. However, I was prepared to offer assistance. I replied by letter, dated 6 May 1987, from which I will quote: I thank you for your letter of the 29th April 1987 in which you detail difficulties you and other aircrew members are experiencing with the new operator of Coast- watch, Amann Aviation. I note from your letter that you are already in contact with my colleagues, Senator Ruth Coleman and Graeme Campbell M.P. I shall liaise with those persons and do whatever is possible to bring this matter to a successful conclusion on your behalf. I note that at no time did you make mention of a Union or that you or any of your fellow workers were members of a Union. Might I suggest that you give this point some consideration. I would further suggest that you may not have suffered many of the worries that you have so far endured had you had union representation. I then asked to be kept informed of developments. The PRESIDENT —I present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. The report deals with the Committee's consideration of the 1986-87 supplementary estimates for the Department of the Senate. The report also outlines the Committee's consideration of the forward estimates for 1987-88 and the implementation of the Senate information technology strategic plan. I commend the report to the Senate. Ordered that the report be printed. The PRESIDENT —I present the report of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings on its inquiry into the provision of sound and vision services in the new Parliament House. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the twenty-second report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator COOK(Western Australia) —I table volume 2 of additional information received by Estimates Committee A. Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.25) —The ninth annual report of the Legal Aid Commission of the Australian Capital Territory is indeed a timely reminder that many Australians-possibly a majority of Australians-cannot afford to pursue justice in issues or individual episodes. This is one reason why legal aid commissions have been established around the nation and why we have such bodies as the Canberra Welfare Rights Centre which is a specialised body operating on the community legal centre model. As legislators we should not be satisfied just with the existence of such bodies and forget about the simplification of procedures, reforms of the law and awareness by the people of their rights. We should not just rely on the existence of legal aid as an excuse for not pursuing actively the decrease in the cost of justice in Australia. When we look at the guidelines for the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Commission we see, for instance, that small claims court matters are excluded, as are class actions unless all individuals in a class qualify under a means test arrangement. Limited funds are available to the Commission and decisions have to be made about the deployment of these funds. During this short presentation I would like to concentrate on the need for real legal reform in the Australian Capital Territory so that the energies of the Legal Aid Commission can be directed to produce greater good for the people of Canberra. For instance, for some years there has been a proposal for a small claims tribunal. This has been toing and froing between the Department of Territories and the Attorney-General's Department. The difference is that the processes within a tribunal would be very much more informal and would not daunt so many people from approaching the law to try to get justice. We have to recognise that, for a lot of people, having to fill in forms which they do not really understand is a real worry. What might have been a matter readily resolved in a conference becomes bogged down in paperwork and unnecessarily jams the court system. The tenancy and public housing matters could be dealt with much more sensibly on an informal basis if we had such a tribunal. These types of tribunals are present in a number of States. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal is recognised as a very good model for providing justice in an effective and inexpensive manner. I believe there is plenty of room for improvement in administrative matters in the Australian Capital Territory and in simplifying the processes of appeal. There is also a need for more educational work in the community about what people's legal rights really are. The Legal Aid Commission and the Welfare Rights Centre are involved in some of these activities, which provide citizens with an understanding of their rights. The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory also provides a free lunch-time advisory service. These are essential steps in demystifying the law for people. Another welcome development is being sponsored for an alternative dispute settlement procedure. That is the possibility of a community mediation service in the Australian Capital Territory. Such a facility is available in New South Wales and has helped there to resolve many disputes where an adversary system might have inflamed these disputes. A matter which I believe needs rapid resolution in the Australian Capital Territory is the appeals system for variation in lease purpose clauses. The whole land planning and lease administration system needs a full judicial inquiry because of a succession of disasters in inner city development. We have a situation where the Supreme Court is the first testing ground for such appeals. This makes it almost impossible for most people to stand up for their rights. The situation is made worse when the Department of Territories and the National Capital Development Commission use their financial muscle to strangle legitimate public disquiet. We saw this with the Town House Motel redevelopment case where the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra Inc. had to withdraw from an excellent case because of lack of funds. The Government sought to recover costs instead of agreeing to test the ordinance on grounds of public interest. I believe that that is most unacceptable bullying. We have seen similar tactics in the Morpath case, where the Minister has appealed against the original decision. The Youth Accommodation Group has raised $7,000 to keep the case alive and only now are there signs that the Attorney-General's Department will provide some aid under the public interest guidelines. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Senator Messner: That the Senate- (a) notes the depressed business investment climate in this country as exemplified by a number of recent surveys published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other private sector organisations, including the Australian Chamber of Manufactures; (b) condemns the Federal Government for this depressed investment environment which is a direct result of the high interest rate policy pursued by the Government, pushing the small business and prime interest rates to record levels; (c) notes the depressing effect which ever-increasing Government taxes and charges, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, are having on the after-tax real rate of return on business investment; and (d) deplores the lack of appreciation by the Government of the anti-business impact of the new legislation on dividend imputation and its interaction with the foreign tax credit system. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.31) —Senator Messner has moved: That the Senate- (a) notes the depressed investment climate in this country as exemplified by a number of recent surveys published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other private sector organisations, including the Australian Chamber of Manufactures. He condemns the Federal Government for this depressed investment environment and the ever increasing taxes and charges. He deplores the anti-business impact of the new dividend imputation and its interaction with the foreign tax credit system. This is the day after the Government's mayday call. The ship of state is foundering on the rocks of a short-sighted, final sell-out of our last remaining assets. Yesterday's Budget has moved us from the prospect of becoming a banana republic to that of becoming a manana republic. Everything is being deferred. Education, social welfare, defence spending and communications are all being deferred. In fact, our whole infrastructure is being deferred. Governing this country is being deferred, and that is really the problem we face. Senator Messner —Can't we defer Hawke and Keating? Senator VIGOR —Mr Keating seems to be down in the bowels of the ship screwing holes in the bilge while Mr Brown is upstairs advertising the place for tourists. Senator Button —Now, now! Senator VIGOR —It is all in the mind, Senator. We will end up with a long string of pot holes in place of a road system. The bicentennial pothole competition is now in process-especially after the cuts in both State facilities and the road funds. The last attack is under way on any type of investment into the future. This is not complementary to what Senator Button is trying to do; his efforts are being sabotaged by his cabinet colleagues. Let us just take a look at one of the measures of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It all started with the advertisement of Priority One: Young Australia. That has become Priority Lost. Our youth is being sacrificed to the treadmills of foreign mill owners. Education is not seen as a national asset but as a personal gift to students who may one day become a threat to our foreign owners if they challenge the foreign control of our technology and innovation. The Government is intent on returning us to a serfdom in which we are completely controlled by foreign investment. The Australian Labor Party has given up its policy ideals. The Government is buying the view that we want serf labour to fulfil the needs of international business. It is allowing the country's economy to be run by people outside this country, by the gnomes of Zurich, by the foreign investment bankers of Wall Street and by the gurus of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is not taking its own advice or following policies which those in the Labor Party set up and nurtured for many many years. In fact, I maintain that we are in a spiral of doom. Yesterday's Budget was very clever because basically it took all the friends of the Labor Party and hurt them or removed things from them. The Budget did no harm at all to people who might change their vote to the ALP. I believe that it is scandalous that the Labor Party has forsaken the people who have stood up for it for so long. I do not think that that will continue. Senator Button —To whom are you referring? Senator VIGOR —I am referring to the students, the working people of this country, the unemployed, the disabled and the women who have been amongst the strongest supporters of the Labor Party and whom the Government has now abandoned to the mercy of large business organisations. This Government believes in corporate welfare instead of social, personal and individual welfare. It is sacrificing people to the economy. In this Budget the Government has tried to get money invested in Australia; it has raised interest rates and those interest rates are harming the ordinary people of this country. They are harming those people who cannot afford to be harmed. The prospects of escape from the general treadmill and the poverty traps have been cut off for most people. Education has been squeezed. Further education has been cut in this mini-Budget so that if people do not get a job immediately they cannot move from one area of work to another, they cannot retrain. The Government's whole operation is moving in the wrong direction. A load has been put on those in the community who are always the hardest hit. Our young people have been put into strait-jackets. The universities, colleges and technical and further education colleges have suffered cutbacks. This has all been done in order to make Australia apparently attractive to foreign investment. I believe that assumption is wrong. We need a planned, stable economy and we need to develop the skills of Australian people in order to operate that economy effectively. Just at the time when Australian industry is calling for more investment in education and retraining, the TAFE scheme has been cut. At the time when we most need investment in skills and technological knowledge in the work force, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the TAFE system and the university system have been hit. I uphold that this Government has no concept of a planned economy. It has no business plan for `Australia Incorporated'. It is running scared because of the large deficits which it has been responsible for developing. It has no investment plans for the future for the Australian people. Its ideas are bankrupt. In the absence of controlled government planning, Australia is at the mercy of foreign investors. It is also at the mercy of absentee media barons who can impose their will on this Government. Business plans are being put upon us by default. This is a reason for sadness. The Government has been indulging in a huge sell-out of Australian assets for some time. It has now stepped up the selling of government assets. This is a one-time operation and the Government is putting this money into the current account to try to make it balance. Senator Button —Do you understand that or not? Do you understand the benefit of the Budget? Senator VIGOR —I understand what is happening. I understand what the Government sees as the benefits of the Budget. I believe that we can balance the books by getting our industries in order, by getting them working effectively, by encouraging investment in industry and in productive capacity, by investing in education, by developing our skills and by making people in Australia want to work for the welfare of `Australia Incorporated' as a whole. I do not understand why the Government is squeezing everybody short-sightedly. Small business is being hit hard and faces great difficulties in meeting the interest rates which the Government is presiding over. The Government does not realise that there is no reason why internal interest rates should match the external interest rates which from time to time may have to be paid to balance the external budget. If we can set up some type of barrier around the economy in the form of a tax on money leaving the country, I believe we can maintain investment in the country by those who care about our productive capacity rather than pander to those who just bring money in for pure speculation and to heat up the stock market. What has been happening is that the type of money that has been attracted to Australia by the Government's program has been the wrong type of money. Senator Messner —Hot money. Senator VIGOR —Probably hot money, as the honourable senator says. The inflows of foreign capital are having an adverse effect on our export prospects and these moneys are not being productively invested. Less than 5 per cent of this foreign money ends up in any form of productive investment. Most of this investment is still of a speculative nature, and is being used to buy up the farm on the cheap. This Government has further encouraged the selling off of Australian resources. It has pulled the teeth from the Foreign Investment Review Board and relaxed nearly all the constraints on foreign takeover of Australian resources, land, industry and development. This it has done in the name of deregulation, which is its latest god. It has kept interest rates high to depress local industry, while allowing a free-for-all in the scramble by foreign investors to buy our industry and resources and to go in for the kill in terms of the total control of our economy. This Government, although it may not even realise it, is serving foreign interests. I believe that it is the enemy of real Australian business, of real Australian workers and of ordinary Australian citizens. On top of the high interest burdens and the resulting problems for exporters and small business, particularly farmers, the Government has failed to manage its own business as badly as it has managed the economy as a whole. It was re-elected on a promise of tax reform, on a platform of deregulation of business. Certainly it has deregulated in favour of foreign investors, foreign banks and foreign media interests, but it has failed completely to cut the red tape that ties up small Australian business at every stage. It is adding, even in this mini-Budget, more red tape for all people. It is bringing in means tests which are totally uneconomic ways of controlling the social distribution of wealth. The Government has failed to come to grips with the tax reform problem because it lost its nerve at the National Taxation Summit. It has failed to grasp the principles of good business management, of conservation of resources and assets, and of maximising profits and minimising costs, principles which are fundamental to any type of business operation. In fact, what it is doing with the resource rent tax it put up the other day is giving a free run to a number of external oil companies. The examples of poor government, poor management of government business, are indeed many. The Government is running down, selling off and giving away quite a large number of our assets. I am not talking about the gardens of the Embassy in Tokyo or about the Paris Embassy. Senator Button —The question is: What are you talking about? You do not know. Senator VIGOR —I am talking about stupid decisions like selling off the government offices in Sydney and Melbourne and the Government having to pay rent on those offices after that. Senator Button —That is not true. Senator VIGOR —What does the Minister intend to do? Senator Button —I am not here to answer questions, but you should not make the allegation because it is untrue. Senator VIGOR —The mini-Budget states that the Government intends to sell them off. Where will the Government put the public servants? Are we to get rid of them too? Maybe that might be a good idea. Senator Button —The allegation Senator Vigor has just made is not true. Senator VIGOR —That the Government will have to pay rent? Senator Button —Yes. Senator VIGOR —That is interesting. I shall be interested to hear eventually the Government's magic scheme, what pot of gold it has at the end of the rainbow to house public servants, because I can see no other explanation in the statement made in the mini-Budget. There are some places where this Budget will hurt business and where it will not help to get good business investment in Australia. The one thing that Australia used to offer was a reasonably high standard of living, with reasonably well-educated people who could carry on technologically and socially desirable projects and could work towards adding more value to the enormous resource of primary materials in both mining and farming products. This Government has missed the opportunity to encourage that type of investment, to get investment into more value-added enterprises. It has been cutting out the infrastructure which allows business to work-the roads, communications, housing, energy and water infrastructure. All those areas are being run down at escalating rates. In my view the mini-Budget is somewhat of a disaster. We shall end up paying more for our transportation as the Government sells airports and promotes ideas such as privatising our national airlines while still keeping on some of the regulations, as has been mooted. I refer also to the way in which the Government is strangling Telecom, which is offering a reasonable communications service for the whole of industry; the way in which it is ripping funds off Australia Post in this Budget; and the way in which it is failing to develop new industries to face the oil crisis which will hit this country fairly soon. We are not investing enough in the area of renew- able energy resources. We were the leaders in solar energy research. We have had some leading projects in liquefaction of fuel gases. We have had leading projects which have just gone overseas in the high-tech area simply because there has not been the support from Australian governments. I refer, for example, to the Sarich fuel injection system. Senator Button —You do not know what you are talking about again. Senator VIGOR —The Government has put some resources into the Sarich orbital engine, but the Minister himself said that it was probably better if the Sarich fuel injection system were developed and produced nearer the points where the large proportion of cars were produced, outside Australia. Senator Button —I did not say that. I said it should be developed here and it would make sense for it to be manufactured near centres with large manufacturing use of the engine. That is a commercial decision. Senator VIGOR —I believe that if we develop things here, we should be using and manufacturing them here. We should use the fact that we have such skills and knowledge to the advantage of Australians, not just to the advantage of a few. At this time Australia's future wealth and development depend on maintaining our growing skills base. All sectors of the economy are calling for increased investment to increase that skills base. But the Government has introduced a student administration charge and has cut the level of funding for technical colleges, which provide retraining in a very effective way within the community. It has cut out the community employment program, under which people were retrained and moved from one area to another in a very effective way. It has not really replaced these schemes with any other effective scheme. Our natural resources are being flogged off under this policy of encouraging foreign investment. Our minerals are being shipped out of Australia to be processed into manufactured goods with a high value-added component in overseas so-called developed economies. We are not using any type of resource diplomacy to make certain that the firms which take these products from our soil actually put more effort into Australia by providing jobs and by using our skilled labour. Our primary produce is being given away, as our farmers struggle to make ends meet in the world trade wars between our major trading partners. The only assets which have not been bought out to a major extent are our individual farms and small businesses. They are the ones that are being squeezed by the overall policies that this Government is operating. The citrus industry and the wine industry have been mercilessly hit by taxation measures which the Democrats oppose, but which were supported by both sides of the House. Currently we are even looking at selling off a number of public institutions. Privatisation has been mooted for a number of our service industries such as Telecom Australia, the airports, our standards laboratories and our materials laboratories. All of these proposals need to be looked at very closely. It is important that this Government, which is devoted to corporate welfare, should also consider the welfare of ordinary Australians. We must ask: Why do we need business investment in Australia? I believe that business investment should not be used as a means of producing good figures in order to make the Government look good to foreign bankers. It is needed so that we can have a better standard of living and so that we can provide better educational opportunities for the people of Australia and welfare for those in our community who are less well-off. If we can be a thriving business that can support these objectives, we are succeeding as a nation. Unfortunately, I believe that we have somewhat lost our way. I believe that somehow we have to get citizens to be more productive. I do not believe that the measures that we have in this mini-Budget are encouraging this, either at the first order or even at the second order. Ordinary Australians are being pursued for more taxes, while huge tax rorts are seen to be operating for business. I refer to the large transfer pricing rorts, the operation of large overseas tax havens and the huge surge of takeover activity and stock market activity which has arisen from the negative gearing concessions given to big business, but denied to ordinary Australians who might own a flat which they are keeping for their retirement. The dividend imputation changes to the tax system represent another looming disaster for the Government. I believe that this is another gift to big business and the multinational corporations which are in a position to exploit the new provisions of the foreign tax credit system. The Government is short-sighted. It is blind to the excesses of its friends-the corporate giants, the takeover merchants and the media barons. It is unthinkingly prepared to accept the advice of the Stone clones in the Treasury and to respond to those who are putting forward economic policies which put economic statistics before people. That is very sad when the treasury bench is inhabited by people who are of a Labor persuasion. The Labor Party has some very good policies. It is extremely important that those policies be considered by government. I urge all senators and the people of Australia to look closely at whether this Government is fulfilling the responsibilities which it had a mandate to fulfil. It was elected on the basis of those policies. I recommend to everybody that they re-examine their voting, that they re-examine what they will do at the next election and see exactly what it is that Labor is offering. I believe that those people-- Senator Button —It will not help you. Senator VIGOR —It may not help me, but it will certainly help the country. I say to Senator Button that the Labor Party and the country are suffering from `new rightis'. The New Right seems to be overcoming even within the Government. Senator Button's Government has accepted the terminology and the forms of words which the New Right put forward. It is displacing the Liberal Party by implementing a number of those types of policies in these budgetary measures which it has put forward in the mini-Budget. I commend Senator Messner's motion to the Senate. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(3.58) —I, too, commend Senator Messner for bringing this motion before the Senate. It is two or three weeks since the debate was adjourned. Therefore, it is worth reiterating the main points of Senator Messner's motion which, in part, reads: (a) notes the depressed investment climate in this country . . . (b) condemns the Federal Government for this depressed investment environment which is a direct result of the high interest rate policy pursued by the Government, pushing the small business and prime interest rates to record levels; (c) notes the depressing effect which ever-increasing Government taxes and charges, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, are having on the after-tax real rate of return on business investment; and (d) deplores the lack of appreciation by the Government of the anti-business impact of the new legislation on dividend imputation and its interaction with the foreign tax credit system. Senator Button —That is not what your new-found ally here says. Senator SHORT —On some points we agree, but not all, much as I admire Senator Vigor's vigorous advocacy in this chamber. The thing that disturbs me, and which I think is a matter of grave concern-I urge the Government to look again at its policies-is that the Government has produced a range of anti-business policies at the very time when the business climate in Australia is deteriorating. The Senate may have noted reports over the past week or so emanating from expert international organisations-I have in mind in particular the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-which have pointed out to the Western world that the economic climate facing industrialised countries and therefore all nations, and the outlook over a year or more ahead, are the worst and gloomiest for decades. I think that is a very serious state of affairs which the Government has not taken into account in the framing of its economic policies. The slow-down in world economic activity has not really hit us as yet, but it is going to do so increasingly over the period ahead. Despite the fact that it has not yet hit us we are witnessing a very rapid slow-down in the rate of growth within Australia. Only last August, eight months or so ago, the Government forecast in its Budget an estimated growth in Australia's gross domestic product in 1986-87 of 2 1/2 per cent, with some strengthening through the year. In the mini-Budget statement brought down last night by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), both he and the Department of Treasury are now saying that growth in the year we are now completing will be down from the 2 1/2 per cent forecast at the time of the last Budget of the order of 1 1/2 per cent. The Government has also largely revised downwards its forecast of growth for 1987-88. The earlier forecasts, and indeed the forecast as recently as last December, only five months ago, when the Government brought down its report on the Forward Estimates, were done on the basis that growth in 1987-88 would be 3 1/2 per cent. It has now revised that figure downwards to 2 1/2 per cent. Given the outcome for this year, which has been a period of declining growth-something like only 1 1/2 per cent-I think there is every probability that the Government's growth forecast of 2 1/2 per cent for 1987-88, even though it has been revised downwards, will again prove to be too high. A statement in the Treasurer's mini-Budget last night which I picked up in passing is the extraordinary assumption, despite the fact that he has severely revised down his growth forecast, and despite the fact that he has increased the inflation estimate for next year relative to the earlier estimates, that unemployment throughout 1987-88 will remain at the 1986-87 level. There would appear to be no way in the world that we could have economic parameters of falling growth and rising inflation, and no increase in unemployment. The prospects for unemployment rising in the year ahead, very sadly, are very strong. As I say, these factors are rising at a time of a declining outlook not only for the world but for Australia, and when business investment, private sector investment, has fallen quite severely in real terms during the period of the Hawke Government. Virtually all the surveys carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other private sector organisations, such as the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, point to a further fall in business investment. There is no doubt at all that the decline in business investment and the deterioration in the business investment climate are due unequivocally to the policies being pursued by the Hawke Government, and particularly the policies which have led to the highest real relative level of interest rates that we have ever had. Interest rates in this country are now four to five times as high as the level of interest rates in some of our major competitor countries. No other country in the Western world has real interest rates at anything like the level that we have. Indeed, in many non-Western countries, some of which are our very important competitors and trading partners, such as Taiwan and Korea, the overall level of inflation and interest rates is far lower than ours. All of these factors-declining business investment; a depressed business investment environment; record interest rates; inflation, which the Government is forecasting will remain high next year, and indeed it has increased its previous estimate of next year's inflation level; and a major increase in taxation on business, with the whole raft of anti-business taxes that have been foisted on the private sector in Australia over the last couple of years by the Hawke Government, such as the capital gains tax, the elimination of negative gearing, the introduction of the fringe benefits tax and the new tax arrangements, including in particular the increase of 6 1/2 per cent in the rate of company income tax from 46 to 49 per cent, which is often neglected in comment-are having a major effect on the business climate and on the cash flow situation of companies and therefore on their ability, let alone their incentive, to invest. I note that the Treasurer this week announced that the tax takes from the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax have already been considerably higher than the Government had initially estimated, and that for the year ahead the level of those tax takes will be very much higher indeed than had earlier been estimated. We are now talking about figures for that raft of new anti-business taxes in excess of $2 billion in the year ahead. As a result of all the factors I have listed, it is no wonder that the private sector is facing the future with very little confidence indeed. Last night's mini-Budget given by the Treasurer-I do not want to pre-empt later debate on it-would certainly have done nothing at all to allay the concern of the private sector about where this country is going. As several commentators, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), myself and others said last night, the $4 billion cut in the prospective Budget deficit is very much a mirrors trick by the Government. It is almost trying to take us on a magic carpet ride. It is trying to make the electorate believe that it is really serious in attempting to get its own economic house in order and to resolve the fundamental problems of the Australian economy. The Government has a $1 billion asset sale as a key plank to getting the Budget arithmetic right, when the experience of not just this Government but also previous governments, including the Fraser Government, has been that the prospect of getting rapid asset sales of the magnitude envisaged at the time of decisions is very difficult indeed. Yet that $1,000m assets sale proposal announced by the Government last night is a key plank of its economic strategy for the year ahead and must at the very best be considered rubbery in the extreme. I was absolutely staggered to hear Senator Button in response to an interjection from Senator Vigor earlier in the debate say that, despite the fact that the Government is going to sell off the Commonwealth centres in Melbourne and Sydney-centres which house thousands of public servants; I am not sure of the exact figure-the Government will not have to pay any rent for the consequent accommodation of those public servants. That is an unbelievable statement- Senator Messner —Trying to do it with mirrors somewhere. Senator SHORT —Yes, trying to do it with mirrors. It is a real pea and thimble trick. I do not think that the Government will fool anyone at all on that because it is simply a nonsensical statement. I would urge the Government to clarify what Senator Button has just said because it is really a quite extraordinary statement. When there is indecision and confusion arising from Government statements of that nature less than 24 hours after the Government has made what it claims is a firm economic statement, no wonder the business investment climate in this country is, at best, confused and is becoming more confused and depressed day by day. But there are other elements of last night's Budget statement which are equally serious for the future of the private sector and the future of business activity. I draw the Senate's attention in particular to the fact that taxation increases of over $400m were announced in last night's mini-Budget, and the Government had the gall to say that those tax increases were in fact expenditure savings. They were no such thing; they were downright tax increases. In particular, I refer to the removal of sales tax and the customs duty exemption that certain Commonwealth Government enterprises had been enjoying. I am not necessarily suggesting that they should have exemption from sales tax and customs duty, but it is an absolute mockery and a deception for the Government to say in a savings statement that those things are savings. They are not savings; they are simply an increase in taxation. Today we have had the release of the April balance of payments figures, which show a blowout again in the balance of payments deficit on current account to a figure just $4m short of a $1 billion deficit-$996m. Senator Messner —That is well up on the previous figure. Senator SHORT —As Senator Messner says, it is indicative of a rising trend. It is certainly $180m up on the deficit in March, which in turn was up about $40m on the February deficit. So the past three months have seen a rising trend in the balance of payments deficit. It is true that these figures can jump around, and indeed the major adjustments to them are made from month to month. The very least that one can say about today's figures is that they certainly bring no joy to us when we consider the fact that the balance of payments position of this country is the worst it has been since the Depression and, unless we get our balance of payments in order, Australia will face in the period ahead major problems of a nature that we have not known for decades, if ever. The whole thrust of government policies should be concerned with correcting that situation. That can be done only if the Government adopts policies which make us more competitive and more productive. Everything that the Government has done in its fiscal policy operations, its monetary policy operations and its wages policy operations over the past two or three years-indeed, since it took office-have worked the other way. I give the Government credit for its work in various areas in trying to restructure the manufacturing industry. The stupid thing-and it is a situation that we have pointed out, particularly to Senator Button, time and time again-is that any sensible industry policies that go towards the desirable restructuring of the Australian private sector, particularly the manufacturing sector, will go for naught if the fiscal, monetary and wages policies that the Government pursues are inconsistent with the sectoral industry policies. That is precisely what is happening in this country. That is precisely the reason that we are not responding to anything like the extent that we should be in terms of the business investment, growth and dynamism we should be enjoying in our economy. I repeat: We are becoming more uncompetitive because of our inflationary situation, our interest rate policy situation, our wages policy situation and our industrial relations situation, which will deteriorate enormously as a result of the package of legislation brought in by the Government in the past 24 hours and following the Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. All those things are working in the wrong way. They are not encouraging incentive, enterprise and investment in this country; they are not encouraging greater competition; and they are not encouraging greater productivity. At the end of the day they are the things which will make this country the place we all want it to be-a country of rising living standards and prosperity for all. Until the Government realises that the whole thrust of the policies which Senator Messner has drawn attention to in his motion today is acting contrary to the desired interests of the nation, we will continue to have the difficulties that we are experiencing in full measure today. I again commend Senator Messner for his motion. I hope that this debate has brought to the Senate a much greater realisation of the enormous problems we will face in this country over the years ahead. Those problems will be resolved only by a fundamental reshaping of the whole tenor of government economic policies in this country. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.18) —in reply-I rise to wind up the debate and exercise my right of reply. This debate has been characterised by two things: First, the remarkable consensus of views of those who believe that the Government is totally on the wrong track in terms of investment policy in this country; and secondly, the absolute, total lack of any debate at all from the Government benches on this matter. There has been no attempt by any Australian Labor Party member-from the front bench or the back bench-to stand up and defend the policies of the Labor Government. One might believe that that is a quite remarkable event because clearly the Australian Democrats, the Liberal Party and the National Party have expressed views in favour of this motion. Clearly no one on the Labor Party side-not even Senator Cooney, who is usually put in the position of having to pinch hit in these situations-has the guts to get up here and talk about the record of this Government in seeking to improve the investment climate of this country. The answer is simply that the investment policies of this Government are totally indefensible. Let us look at some of the comments that have been passing our way from Senator Button. Ever since he took over the portfolio of Industry, Technology and Commerce, which was some four years ago now, we have seen him busily trying to do his best to restructure the Australian industrial scene. He has achieved something. Sometimes it has been at the expense of taxpayers, but nevertheless he has done a great deal to bring about some kind of different direction, especially in the automotive industry and the textile, clothing and footwear industry. That has been acknowledged by honourable senators on this side of the chamber for a long time. We have never failed to make that point. The problem is that poor old Senator Button is being undermined by his Treasurer (Mr Keating), his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the rest of his Cabinet, because he simply does not have control of the economic policies which are being run by this Government. That applies not only to the matter of interest rates and the sorts of competitiveness issues that we have just heard discussed by my colleague Senator Short; it applies also, of course, to the very big question of taxation policy. This Government's tax policy has been an absolute disaster. Notwithstanding that Treasurer Keating has sought to take credit for the changes that have occurred since September 1985, it is quite clear that the Government has had no objective in its ad hoc approach to this matter. I instance just one issue, one which concerns business-the fringe benefits tax. The fringe benefits tax is not about equity; it is not about simplicity or fairness. The law certainly offends on all those grounds. It is about ensuring that extra cost is put on to business. It will simply have the effect that payroll taxes, such as those imposed by the States, have-that of taking away jobs from ordinary people. It takes away the spirit of competitiveness and the ability of business to compete on world markets because it adds significantly to the costs. That is a fact of life. Competitiveness is a dead issue as far as this Government is concerned, simply because everything it does tends to put more and more costs on to business, making it less and less able to compete effectively on the world scene. Senator Short mentioned the Committee of Review into the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which produced the Hancock report. Of course, that report is now an absolutely central part of this Government's approach to industrial relations policy. We have not had time to assess the full impact of that as yet. Senator Robert Ray —It has been out for a year and a half. Senator MESSNER —Well, it was leaked in the newspapers yesterday. Senator Robert Ray —I thought you meant the report. I apologise. Senator MESSNER —I am talking about the legislation. The point is that obviously it will have a significant impact, especially in terms of the way in which this Government apparently intends to attack section 45d and section 45e of the Trade Practices Act. Clearly the Government is out to take away from the trade practices legislation protection for consumers against the unwarranted attacks of trade union members that drive up the costs of goods and services in the the community. Consequently, we can see that that will be another attack on the competitiveness of Australian industry. All this occurs at a time when increasingly we can see the development of the trade war between Japan and America. We can see that there are other pressures from the European Economic Community in terms of its trying to sell goods-perhaps coming close to dumping them-on world markets. We can see that that will end up having very significant effects on Australian industry as the months and years go by. But does the Government concern itself with those questions? No, it just ploughs on, ideologically driven by its own predilections and by its own inner desire to ensure that the trade unions are pacified and, indeed, rewarded in what they deem to be the proper way. Consequently, this legislation is now being brought down to ensure that the trade union movement is lifted out of the civil law arena and put back into the industrial courts where it can make its own rules and where it will not have to answer to the ordinary rules by which Australians in other circumstances are judged. Consequently, all of us will be the poorer. All of those things will have significant effects on the Australian industrial scene and on our ability to compete in world markets. Last night's statement, which was comprehensively dealt with by Senator Short, laid down some of the rubbery directions which this Government intends to take for the next few months. I say `few months' because it is quite obvious that some kinds of changes may well be initiated by the time the Budget rolls around in August. Do honourable senators think that the Government has in mind an election in July? By doing so then the Government could go to the polls and seek a renewal of its mandate at a time when it can somehow stand in the shadow and glow alongside the May mini-Budget without actually having to face up to a full-blown Budget in which it would have to disclose exactly what its tax policies would be. That is something which is exercising the minds of the journalists. I see that Senator Robert Ray is reading the Herald, and indeed the front page of that paper makes that very point. Senator Robert Ray —Which column? Senator MESSNER —Right in the headlines; I can see it from here. I believe it says: `An Early Poll'. Clearly the Government has these things in mind. The point is that there are ulterior motives behind last night's statement. We are getting used to this pattern of things with the current Treasurer. The Government writes in a rubbery May statement ahead of a Budget. Then it comes along with further rubbery figures in the month of August when the Budget is normally brought down. It stumbles along until Christmas in the hope that nobody will take particular note of the monthly accounts that come out. Senator Walsh and Mr Keating get up in the Parliament and tell us `You cannot rely on one month's figures', whether they be for the balance of payments or the Government's deficit for that particular month. They say `You always have to project ahead'; `Look at what we are doing'; and `our policies are so good'. Then, when we get past Christmas and the figures continue to look bad, the Government says `Well, because the dollar is falling we have to take strong action. Put on the tin hats, grab the rifles and head for the trenches', and we are into the banana republic war. Then the Government makes an announcement on banana republic day, which, of course, was yesterday, that the mini-Budget will stabilise everything. Then the Government admits a few mistakes in the figures. The Government says: `The consumer price index, the inflation rate, was far higher than we expected for reasons that we did not know about at the time we did the Budget.'. It says: `The unemployment figures have not gone as well as we expected because things have not turned out in the way that we thought they would'. Then the Government hangs out for the next three or four months until the Budget comes around. That is the pattern for the way the finances of this country have been managed for the past four years-just tripping along from one disaster to the next while the Government seeks to confuse people by numerous statements, many of them contradictory even within the same week. The Government has no clear policy and no clear idea of the direction in which it wishes to take this country. The tax package which was announced in September of 1985 was quite contradictory in so many ways in terms of what it sought to achieve. On the one hand, for instance, the Government said: `We are trying to encourage investment by lowering personal income tax rates, by introducing an imputation system for the company tax system and by getting rid of Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act as it affects private companies'. But, on the other hand, the Government straight away introduced a capital gains tax and a fringe benefits tax alongside it. The fringe benefits tax has just about destroyed the car industry in this country, and the capital gains tax is well on its way to doing that to the rest of private investment in the community. We have in this country people who cannot get rental housing. The rental housing situation in Sydney, for instance, is such that the cost of renting an ordinary three bedroom house has now reached an average level of $267 a week. Rents have climbed by over 30 per cent in the last 18 months and are still going up. Why? It is because people are not investing in low cost housing because of the capital gains tax and the negative gearing taxation principles that have been introduced by this Government. All these things are totally antipathetic to investment. The statistics that come out each quarter demonstrate quite clearly the investment intentions, not only of those who want to invest in the stock market or in other parts of the Australian community but also particularly industry. They are just not doing so. Senator Short told us about interest rates. That is the area of great disaster of this Government. After four years of Labor Government we now have the highest interest rates of all time. There is nothing more destructive of investment than interest rates being as high as they are. Interest rates are running at a level something like three or four times greater than the average for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Is it any wonder that people do not want to invest in this country for any purposes other than the quick buck? All they are seeking to do is put their money in for a short time, make a quick profit and get the money out again. Consequently, this is the reason we are seeing so much money flow in to cover our balance of payments deficit at the moment. But there is no intention of keeping this money in this country to develop it in the long run. Those points were clearly made by speakers on this side in this debate. It is just as well that we are getting dollars into this country one way or another. How else would we possibly be able to cover the enormous deficit that this country has been building up under this Government. The total debt of $100,000m has tripled from around $30,000m when Labor came into power in 1983. We have $100,000m worth of debt. If we are to start to reduce that debt, we have to get long term equity investment into this country in order to promote more productive and competitive export-oriented industries. We need to get out and sell on the world markets, get real money flowing into this country and reduce that enormous debt that this Government has allowed to occur. The situation is quite desperate. Investment is at a very low level. All indications from surveys being undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Westpac organisation indicate that the situation is not getting better-it is tending to get worse. Investment will remain very low while governments tend to impose higher and higher costs on this community through taxes. We saw more evidence of that in the statement last night where another $400m was imposed upon statutory authorities such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post and the airlines. Of course, these charges will flow through into the ordinary costs to the consumer and add to the day-to-day costs of all of us. The same thing has happened with respect to Medicare. Private Medicare costs will go up again as a direct result of last night's mini-Budget, having only just gone up in the last three or four months. All these things will impose heavier costs on the ordinary consumer who, of course, will press for higher increases in wages. This will lead to more and more pressure on business. Eventually it will lead to less incentive for investment, which is the very source of our future job creation opportunities. Senator Vigor —Stagflation. Senator MESSNER —Exactly, Senator Vigor. Investment is not about the present: It is about the future; it is about creating opportunities for jobs; and it is the only way we can create new jobs. This Government has been bumbling along since it came to office in March 1983. It has not reduced the overall rate of unemployment very significantly at all. Indeed, the average time for which a person is now unemployed has risen from around 26 weeks a year to nearly 46 weeks a year. Amongst youth that rate is even higher. About a quarter of our youth are now unemployed almost permanently. That is a disgrace. The only way we will cure those problems is by making sure that industry has incentive to invest and thereby create more jobs in the community. Investment is needed to create more industrial opportunities and to develop, not only in the manufacturing sector but also in the service and tertiary areas, export-oriented industries. Investment should not only be based on the gee-whiz technology which many of us might be intrigued by. It should also be oriented very much towards the introduction of new skills which are being developed in our educational institutions which are very well placed to ensure that the twenty-first century will be rewarding not only for us but for the next generation and the children who will come thereafter. This motion is most important. It draws attention to the fundamental problems of the Australian economy and the fundamental weakness of this Government in addressing those problems. We in the Liberal Party believe that this Government should get off its behind and start to wind back some of the stupid measures that it has introduced in the last three years, particularly such things as the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax which we, upon coming to government, immediately will repeal. We also believe that the Government should be adopting a new approach to the development of a new industrial structure and immediately should seek to get interest rates down as quickly as possible in order to attract new investment into Australian industry. The policies that we have seen implemented in the last few years have been disastrous for Australian industry and job creation. We need a new deal from this Government. As it looks as though we will not get that, our only hope is the election which will come perhaps sooner than later, but presumably by the end of the year. With a new government in power we will have a totally new approach to industrial development. Industrial development and investment are about job creation and providing opportunities for young people in our community. This is something to which this Senate right now should vote to commit itself. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Missen had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert `debate on this Bill be deferred to enable consideration of the reference to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, or such other standing or select committee that is able to handle the inquiry, of the provisions of the Bill and other proposals already made or subsequently brought forward to provide a scheme for the effective assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance payments (whether by order of a court, agreement or otherwise), so that both parents and spouses will pay adequate maintenance from their own resources before reliance is made on pensions or other payments by the Government'. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.37) —I express my thanks to Senator Kilgariff, who drew my attention to the fact that I am speaking in continuation on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1985 which was introduced by Senator Durack. There has been much debate on this Bill in this chamber. This legislation is an attempt to translate moral obligation into statutory expression, and in some circumstances this is difficult to do. If one reads through the debate so far, it becomes apparent that there is great difficulty at times in getting spouses who are separated to contribute properly to their children for whom they have a responsibility. It appears from the debate that the major consideration is that children should be looked after. It is not their fault when spouses separate. What can be done effectively is very much a moot point. The legislation first introduced by Senator Durack was in several parts. As things have progressed the honourable senator has seen the difficulties that could arise and the legislation has been amended. But in the end the question is one of what moral obligations there are upon spouses and how well they adhere to them. It is really a question of the general moral quality of people in the community rather than that of a law that can at times effectively render this tragedy less tragic. I congratulate Senator Durack on having raised time and again the question of how to get people to contribute to the support of their children. The mechanism, of course, is a different matter and his attempt on this occasion, albeit a valiant one, has not been successful. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(4.40) —I wish to confirm the Government's opposition to the Family Law Amendment Bill, a measure which can be seen in one sense to be too late and in another to be very premature. It is too late in the sense that Senator Durack was Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia for quite some time and did not see fit to address the matter during that period. In another sense, however, it is well known to the Opposition and to the Australian Democrats that the Government, on 22 December last year, announced a wide ranging review of the whole system of child maintenance. In fact, our proposal, as announced at the time by the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, covers all aspects of the problems involved in the system. The Government recognised for the first time the need to strike a fairer balance between public and private forms of support to alleviate the poverty faced by many children and sole parent families. We realised that the interests of the taxpayer were important, and we also realised the enormity of the problem. Over 250,000 people are at present on supporting parents benefits, at an annual cost of over $1.5 billion. So to government it is not a minor problem; it is a major one. The Labor Government has responded to that with a comprehensive plan for reform. The plan proposed by the Minister does not go directly to the court process. It does not involve lawyers at every instance, and that to me is one of its major benefits. As the Senate will know, and as the Australian population should know by now, the Government proposes to tackle this problem by direct access to the salaries and the pay slips of non-custodial parents, who have moral, if not financial, obligations in this matter. Even though this proposal, when it was first put forward, met with opposition from supposedly independent groups such as the law profession, when we take account of the fact that the Minister was able to make some compromises, we see that we can now proceed to a system that both accommodates the legal process and, in the first instance, eradicates it. In the first instance, what the Government is attempting to do and anticipates it can do is to recover at least 80 per cent of maintenance payments due to custodial parents through this access to pay slips and pay cheques. This procedure, if put into operation, would work with the least possible cost to the people involved. There would, of course, be a consequent decrease in the income of the lawyers involved in the system; but that is not necessarily a bad thing for the social system we are trying to pursue in this country. As I said, the Government announced this proposal on 22 December last year, and promised to introduce legislation some time this year to implement it. That legislation is not yet available, but we are only five months into 1987 and it is still the Government's intention to introduce it. We have been asked today, therefore, to debate one simplistic, minor response-a response which does not adequately address all of the problems involved in the area and which takes the wrong track towards solving those problems. For that reason, we should reject the Bill at this stage and wait for the Government's comprehensive response. It has also been said in previous debates that this whole question should be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report. As Chairman of that Committee, I make it clear that we have not discussed this matter at committee level. But yesterday the Senate forced upon us an inquiry into the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill 1987, and that will give us enough work for the next couple of months. We also have in process another inquiry into aspects of the taxation system, which will carry the work of the Committee towards the end of this year. Given that it is an election year and that we have in train two inquiries-one official, and one being pursued by Committee members en bloc-I feel it would be totally unfair for anyone to pursue the question of referring this Bill to the Committee. I reiterate the point that I made at the start of my remarks: This Bill represents a response to one particular aspect of a whole series of complex problems involved with child maintenance, child custody, access, and the rights and obligations of custodial and non-custodial parents. To approach that in the way attempted in this Bill, with such provisions as gaol terms for defaulters on maintenance payments-although I gather the Opposition now intends to delete that provision from the legislation-would be to give an isolated response to a very complex problem. For the sake of the good working of this Parliament, I think we should at least defer this legislation or reject it for the moment. If the Opposition needs to pursue these sorts of amendments, they can do so in response to the Government's package. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.46) —We have had a long debate on this Bill, and a number of attempts have been made to bring it to a conclusion. In that time, of course, much water has run under the bridge. In one sense, I suppose I should be pleased that the initiative of introducing the Bill seems to have contributed to the Government's actions on this matter and spurred it along. In fact, somebody suggested that I was a burr under the saddle. I am not sure whether I was pleased with that suggestion. Nevertheless, when I introduced the Bill on 5 December 1985, nothing effective seemed to be being done by the Government in relation to this matter. I think it was Senator Bolkus who chided me for doing nothing in this matter until December 1985, despite the opportunities that I allegedly had as Attorney-General. The fact is that the very dramatic increase in the liability for supporting parents' benefits tended to become apparent only towards the end of the term of the Fraser Government. Certainly, it was gathering pace for some years after the benefits were introduced, and particularly when the Family Law Act started to be widely applied and the offending provisions of that Act, which I have identified in the Bill, were gathering momentum. Certainly, a general review of the Family Law Act was undertaken at that time by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. That Committee reported in, I think, 1980, as a result of which quite detailed legislation was being prepared, and the Committee's recommendations were being processed. That Committee suggested that changes should be made in this area and also in the area of matrimonial property. The latter question was ultimately referred to the Law Reform Commission, which is still considering the matter after about four years. So it is not an area where sudden decisions are or should be made, but certainly after Senator Chaney became Minister for Social Security a lot of work was done by his Department and my Department in an endeavour to achieve some change. Indeed, Senator Chaney, as the then Minister for Social Security, took a very positive step in this direction by insisting on the observance of the Social Security Act in that people who were seeking supporting parents pensions were required to pursue their legal remedies against the non-custodial parent, of course which had been abandoned by the Whitlam Government many years earlier and which unfortunately was not changed until Senator Chaney became the Minister. In the later period of our term of office we were seeking ways and means of changing these provisions of the Family Law Act. We had hoped to have a package, together with adequate maintenance collection arrangements, but we lost office. The new Government, with Senator Gareth Evans as Attorney-General, followed that up by establishing a departmental committee to look at this question of how an adequate maintenance collection agency could be set up. The report of that departmental committee was published in 1984. That gave the Government a blueprint for an adequate maintenance collection agency, and it was my view that we would have amendments to the Family Law Act together with the establishment of such an agency. Again nothing was heard from the Government on this matter. That is why I decided that I would have this private member's Bill drafted and introduce it, which I did in December 1985. At about the time it was introduced-I am not saying that it was because it was introduced-the Government set up another consulting body to look at the question, but that was within the Department of Social Security. Ultimately the report `Child support: A discussion paper on child maintenance' was written by Dr Meredith Edwards, and it became available towards the end of last year. In my second reading speech on this Bill I made it perfectly clear that I did not regard amendments to the Family Law Act as being sufficient to tackle the problem. I have always said that. The comment in this debate misses the point because I have never suggested that these amendments will solve the problem. Clearly, they need to be associated with adequate means of enforcing maintenance. Some of the problems with establishing an agency to enforce maintenance, whatever form it may take, are within the existing provisions of the Family Law Act. They do not make it clear enough that both parents are responsible for the maintenance of children and that priorities should be observed. We cannot have both parents sloughing off those responsibilities on to the taxpayer. Those problems are inherent in the Family Law Act. The Government, through Mr Howe, responded to the paper on child support and the scheme that was advanced by Dr Meredith Edwards on 24 March this year. He set out the Government's response to the discussion paper which was released for public comment in October 1986. He set out the stages in which the Government will proceed in this area, after having indicated its general support for the scheme for the enforcement of maintenance which was advanced by Dr Edwards. On 24 March Mr Howe said: Stage 1 in 1987 will introduce legislation to establish the Child Support Agency to collect child maintenance, and to amend the Family Law Act to assert the priority of child maintenance, to make sure that court orders put the financial position of children ahead of everything except the essential commitments of the parents, and to remove reference to social security eligibility to make clear that child support should not be treated as a `top-up' to social security pensions and benefits. The current system has for too long awarded inadequate levels of child support. The social security system has been burdened with this responsibility. Then he went on about the other stages that are not relevant to this debate. There is the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, telling us that in 1987-we have not seen anything of the legislation yet-the Government would make amendments to the Family Law Act to achieve the very purposes for which I introduced this Bill-to assert the priority of child maintenance, to make sure that court orders put the financial position of children ahead of other commitments and to remove reference to social security eligibility. They are the three things for which this Bill provides. It is very interesting to consider the bona fides of the Government in this matter. The history of this Bill, as I said, is that I introduced it in December 1985 and it was brought on for debate early in 1986. At that time Senator Evans, on behalf of the Government, announced that the Government was opposed to the Bill. He said that it was opposed to the principles that Mr Howe now says he will insert into the Family Law Act. Mr Howe's amendments, I imagine, may be worded differently from this Bill. I would be very happy to negotiate about the wording of the Bill. As a private member I do not have the facilities available for drafting what is fairly technical and difficult legislation. The Government has much better resources. I would be very happy to negotiate in relation to the wording of the legislation, but that is classically what would happen in the Committee debate. The proper course to adopt, I would have thought, is for the Government to support the second reading of the Bill and then for us to talk turkey about the detailed provisions in it. The incredible thing is that Senator Evans, on behalf of the Government, announced over a year ago that the Government would be opposing the Bill; yet it has always been clear that before we can have an adequate and effective system of child maintenance in this country we have to amend the Family Law Act. Mr Howe, speaking on behalf of the Government, now says that that is what it will do. Stage 1 of its program, which has taken it more than four years to develop, will do the very things I have sought to do with this legislation. Yet the Government will now vote against those proposals. Is this because it is in a fit of pique that I brought in legislation and have beaten it well and truly to the draw? It looks like I have introduced my Bill two years before the Government will bring in its legislation. I suppose it believes that it can do everything better than everybody else. I do not know how Mr Howe will explain why his colleagues in the Senate voted against a Bill to do the very things that his Bill, when we see it, will do. Senator Reid —Perhaps they are not serious about the problem. Senator DURACK —They really are not serious about it. Senator Reid is quite right. The history of the Government's attitude to this matter is very revealing. One other historical fact ought to be on the record. When we went out of office I had already introduced into the Senate a fairly extensive Bill to amend the Family Law Act to give effect to a number of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. At that stage we had not finalised the matter in relation to child maintenance and the sharing of property which I mentioned. However, when the legislation was finally brought in, it disappeared with the 1983 election. Senator Evans brought it back later in 1983. In the Senate debate on that legislation I moved an amendment along the lines of this present Bill to remove the requirement of courts to look at the eligibility for social security benefits. Labor senators-to a man and a woman-voted against that amendment. Having received the report of its own departmental committee about how to set up a child maintenance agency, the Government did nothing about it for another 18 months. Finally it got busy at the end of 1985 and appointed Dr Meredith Edwards to look at the matter again. Dr Edwards reported in October 1986. Mr Howe said that the Government would implement that report in March 1987, but we still have not had any action from it. It is very doubtful whether the Government really wants or ever intends to do anything effective about this liability and responsibility of parents adequately to maintain their children. Because of my great concern about this matter I introduced this Bill. At the time I acknowledged that it was not possible for me as a private member to set up such an adequate method of child maintenance enforcement. I included in the Bill a provision which would have facilitated the sanction of imprisonment if people did not pay their maintenance orders. The non-payment of maintenance orders is only one of the problems; the inadequacy or absence of orders are also problems. There is no adequate mechanism under the Family Law Act to make people pay. The section of the Family Law Act which prevents imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance has greatly contributed to the problem. It is not as though many people would be put in gaol or would ever stay there very long. When I practised in this field many years ago I found that the threat of imprisonment and warrants for arrest were usually quite enough to make people pay. The Family Law Act took that sanction away. The only possible proposal I could make as a private member was to restore that power to the courts because it is a power which they would exercise in a very circumspect way. In this debate we have had the spectre of people being thrown into gaol because they cannot afford to pay maintenance. That is quite absurd. Anybody who has had practice in this field will know that it is very difficult indeed to persuade judges to put people into gaol in these circumstances. They would exercise that power only in the case of a most recalcitrant person. The judges would give people time to pay and if the court could be persuaded that these people did not have the means to pay of course they would not be gaoled. That is totally misguided talk and is based on ignorance of how the legal system works. Nevertheless, because of all this furore that was created by a lot of people-not just in this chamber but also outside in comments I received on the Bill-coupled with the fact that at last the Government seemed to be moving on a blueprint for an adequate system of child maintenance in the shape of the Meredith report, I thought that I would remove that provision from the Bill. If this Bill is given a second reading, which seems unlikely, I shall move to delete the clauses about imprisonment or the amendments to the Family Law Act which, themselves, prevent the exercise of that sanction. The fact that the Bill contains these clauses should not be a reason for voting against it. I cannot fathom why the Government still persists in opposing the Bill, especially in light of the statement by the Minister for Social Security that it is now the Government's policy to do exactly the same things that this Bill seeks to do. I hope that enough honourable senators will realise that what I am now proposing is more or less the same, except in detail, as Mr Howe has proposed and that the Bill should be given a second reading. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is: That the amendment be agreed to. Senator Durack —I take a point of order. This amendment was moved by Senator Missen, who is now no longer with us. I do not know whether that makes any difference; perhaps it does not- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —As you still have nine minutes left in which to speak, perhaps it would be better if you continued your speech, rather than taking a point of order. Senator DURACK —I apologise for not having dealt with this matter when I was speaking before. Senator Missen suggested that the debate on this Bill be deferred to enable consideration of a reference to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Senator Reid —That is redundant. Senator DURACK —It does seem to be redundant; we seem to have gone past the point where that would be possible because the debate will be concluded as soon as I sit down. In any event, I would be opposed to that amendment because it seems to be quite unnecessary. The issues are simple and clear enough and do not need a Committee debate. Amendment negatived. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vigor, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Jessop. D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O. Gietzelt, A. T. Hill, R. Black, J. R. Chaney, F. M. Richardson, G. F. Knowles, S. C. McIntosh, G. D. Sheil, G. Button, J. N. Teague, B. C. Tate, M. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth (Senator Bjelke-Petersen did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Matters to be taken into consideration with respect to maintenance). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.15) —by leave-I move amendments Nos (1) and (2): (1) Page 2, clause 3, proposed new subsection 75 (3), lines 16 to 18, leave out ``but shall determine the proceedings as if there were no such eligibility''. (2) Page 2, clause 3, proposed new subsection 75 (4), lines 19 to 20, leave out ``In taking into account a matter referred to in paragraph (2) (e) or (m), the'', insert ``The''. The first amendment deals with what on reflection seemed to be surplus words. The provision says that the Court shall not take into account certain things, and then at the end says: but shall determine the proceedings as if there were no such eligibility. Those words appear to be unnecessary and if they remain in the Bill it could lead to confusion. The second amendment seeks to remove the words: In taking into account a matter referred to in paragraph (2) (e) or (m) . . . That refers to a list of matters which the Court has to take into account. There are, on reflection, other limbs of that provision of the Family Law Act which may be relevant. Sub-section 75 (4) would then read: . . . the Court shall give priority to the needs of a party to the marriage or of a child of the marriage over responsibilities or commitments assumed since the marriage as is just and reasonable . . . I think those words are the only words necessary and these are drafting amendments. Amendments agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 agreed to. Clauses 5 and 6-by leave-taken together. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.17) —Clauses 5 and 6, to which I have circulated amendments, remove a sanction the effect of which is to restore the direct sanction of imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance. It was not a `death penalty' clause, as some honourable senators seemed to think. It simply gave the Court power to imprison if the person failed to pay maintenance. That is what section 107 of the principal Act says and I propose to repeal it. Clause 6 of the Bill is simply a consequential amendment to enable the Court to make rules about the sanction of imprisonment, but that is a matter of detail that it is not necessary to go into. It gives the matter to the Court to work out. Amendments 3 and 4 seek to remove provisions to which I understand everybody in the chamber is opposed; I would be opposed to them in the event of the Government bringing in an adequate agency or method of collecting maintenance. I am happy to remove those provisions and that is the purpose of the amendments. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Strictly speaking, Senator Durack, it is not necessary to move the amendments. The clauses can be voted against when they come up. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.20) —In agreement with the sorts of words that Senator Durack used, the Government definitely opposes clauses 5 and 6. One of the reasons for our particularly strong opposition to the Bill in the first place was that we do not agree that the use of imprisonment to enforce maintenance agreements in this way is appropriate. It is important that these clauses be deleted from the Bill. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.20) —The Australian Democrats had severe problems with this aspect of the original legislation. We have been moved to support the Bill on the basis of this and other amendments. Therefore, we oppose these clauses. Clauses negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Senator Durack)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.22) —I will speak briefly to explain the position. As the Senate knows, the Government opposed the Family Law Amendment Bill being proceeded with. There was a division at the second reading stage which made that clear. Our opposition initially was particularly strong, as I said, in the Committee stage because of our opposition to clauses 5 and 6, but generally we maintain our opposition because the Government has this matter under control. Its own legislation is being prepared. We have had a thorough review of the whole area of child maintenance. This legislation deals with one aspect of it. I indicate our opposition to the Bill, but do not intend to call for a division on the third reading. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, General Business be not further considered this day. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill will amend the National Health Act 1953, the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 and the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the introduction of new recurrent funding arrangements for nursing homes, quality of care standards in nursing homes and improved arrangements for granting capital assistance to non-profit organisations. These measures will improve the quality of care and quality of life provided for aged people and achieve greater efficiency in government funding of nursing homes. Over the last decade, and over the past five years in particular, major criticisms have been made of many aspects of policy and program management in the aged care area, and in particular residential care. There have been two major reports to Parliament by Committees comprising representatives of both sides of politics. One was by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure (the McLeay Report) and the other was by the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes (the Giles Report). There has also been a report by the Auditor-General on an Efficiency Audit of the Commonwealth Administration of Nursing Home Programs. All these made strong comments about the inappropriate mix of services between and within institutional accommodation and home and community care, the unplanned and unco-ordinated approach to residential care provision, the need for significantly tightened control on the growth of nursing homes, and the need to introduce funding arrangements which provide incentives to operators to be efficient and reduce inequities between States. The often inadequate quality of resident care, the need for more consistent inspection and better quality control arrangements and the crucial roles of assessment and rehabilitation were also highlighted in these reports. Against this background, in its February 1983 pre-election policy statement, the Australian Labor Party committed itself to a change in the approach to funding of nursing homes, foreshadowing the introduction of a program grants approach. The Review of Nursing Homes and Hostels, which was tabled by the then Minister for Community Services, Senator Don Grimes, in the Senate on 14 April 1986, brought together the conclusions and recommendations of these previous reports and outlined a blueprint for a staged program of reform of residential care services for aged people. As the first stage of the reform program, the Government made a significant commitment, in the 1986-87 Budget, to begin the process of redistributing resources for the care of aged people away from nursing homes to alternative less-institutionalised forms of residential care and to community care services. This will involve, as a package, additional expenditure of approximately $24m in 1986-87, $80m in 1987-88 and $150m in 1988-89. Implementation of that first stage is now well under way. The main elements include new needs-based planning arrangements linked to capital funding arrangements covering both nursing homes and hostels, with increasing emphasis on the number of hostel places through an expanded capital program; increased resources for home and community care; the development of a Special Services Program to cater for the special needs of frail aged people which cannot satisfactorily be met through standard levels of funding; and the development of co-ordinated assessment processes, including the staged establishment and expansion of assessment teams, to assist aged people and their families to plan the most appropriate care to meet their particular needs. The Government also foreshadowed in the 1986-87 Budget the introduction of new recurrent funding arrangements for nursing homes and arrangements to develop quality of care and life standards in nursing homes. On 31 March 1987, the Minister for Community Services announced the second stage of the Government's program of reform which, with the passage of this Bill, will see the foreshadowed arrangements turned into reality. In developing the proposals to be given effect by this Bill, the Government has acknowledged that the achievement of improved care services for the aged depends on the co-operation and support of the community, the industry and other groups. For this reason, the Commonwealth has undertaken extensive consultations concerning the details of proposed changes with State Governments, the nursing homes and hostels industry, consumer and other welfare groups, and professional and staff organisations. I shall now discuss the two major elements of reform, commencing with the new nursing home recurrent funding arrangements. Briefly, the new nursing home funding arrangements which this Bill will bring into effect involve the phased introduction, from 1 July 1987, of standard daily resident fees and standard Commonwealth benefits to replace the current cost-reimbursement arrangements operating for non-Government nursing homes for aged people. These new funding arrangements will constitute a uniform national system. Special conditions will not be granted to one State which are not available to others. These new arrangements will apply to some 1250 non-Government homes caring for some 60,000 aged residents across Australia-those being private participating homes funded under the National Health Act 1953 (including both for-profit and not-for-profit homes) and not-for-profit homes funded under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974. While ostensibly these groups of homes are funded under two different types of funding arrangements, both are essentially funded on a cost-reimbursement basis. Under the new arrangements the Commonwealth will, in effect, fund a specified level of service of nursing home care on behalf of residents at a predetermined price. It will no longer reimburse proprietors for whatever level of costs has been incurred. In other words, emphasis will be placed on outcomes rather than inputs. This represents a vast improvement over the current arrangements which are unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. First, residents of participating nursing homes can be faced with unexpected fee increases every few months. Many are required to pay amounts significantly above the minimum contribution, even though the standard of care may be no better than that provided in other nursing homes where the residents pay only the minimum contribution. Second, cost savings by efficient nursing home proprietors do not produce increased profits and there is therefore no incentive to operate efficiently. Third, the industry is also subject to an excessive degree of regulation and unwarranted operational rigidities. In order to maintain their financial viability, proprietors need to apply for a fee increase whenever their costs vary and provide detailed documentation in support of their applications. Fourth, the quantum of Commonwealth nursing home benefits is geared to the levels of expenditure incurred by nursing homes. Because costs vary widely between homes and States, this system has led to substantial per capita inequities in benefits paid from one State to another. For example, the maximum benefit paid to ordinary care residents in participating nursing homes varies from $54.60 a day in Victoria to $35.25 a day in Queensland. Fifth, the plethora of different funding, and funding control mechanisms, and their seeming inability to contain the mushrooming cost of nursing home accommodation, have resulted in totally unacceptable and unjustified cost escalations per bed day. In the period 1973-85, for example, the increase in Commonwealth per bed day expenditure was of the order of 606 per cent, compared with a 233 per cent increase in the consumer price index and a 308 per cent movement in average weekly earnings. The cost of nursing home care has clearly risen out of all proportion to other indicators and it is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent unscrupulous proprietors from exploiting the system to increase profits at the expense of residents and taxpayers. The unintended and undesirable consequences of the present funding system are well illustrated by the findings of an analysis done by the Department of Community Services of nursing home operating costs incurred during the 1984-85 financial year. The study concentrated particularly on infrastructure costs-that is, all costs other than those incurred on nursing and personal care staff. This analysis confirmed that there is extraordinary diversity in the nature and quantum of funding approved by the Department around Australia for the provision of infrastructure services-State average infrastructure costs vary by 27 per cent and are 18 per cent higher in Victorian homes than the next highest State, South Australia. The analysis also showed no statistically significant relationships between infrastructure costs and factors which might explain these substantial variations in costs (such as dependency levels, bed capacity, ward size, age of home. Whether the home was free-standing or part of a complex). Even within States, there are large inexplicable cost variations between individual homes. The inescapable conclusion drawn from this analysis is that the substantial variations in infrastructure costs both within and between States are unjustified and that there is little basis for having different levels of infrastructure funding from home to home or State to State. This is not to imply blame on individuals, particular sectors or particular States. Clearly it is the funding system itself that is wrong and requires change. Where the funding arrangement leads to the incurring of unwarranted additional costs, it is the taxpayer and the consumer, in the main, who `pay the piper'. In this particular case, the consumers are frail, elderly people, approximately 80 per cent of whom are in receipt of part or full pensions. The Government cannot ignore that if there is unnecessarily high expenditure on nursing homes for the very small proportion of aged people in nursing homes, this will mean diminished funding available for less intensive accommodation or community-based services for the remainder of the aged population. Clearly, the Government would be negligent if it continued to let costs `mushroom' in the nursing homes area and thwart its objectives of providing aged people with a wider range of care choices to match more closely their individual needs. The new funding arrangements for nursing homes being introduced in this Bill are designed specifically to redress the many problems faced under present arrangements and to achieve greater equity between States and individual nursing homes in the Commonwealth funding of aged care. They will also simplify the administration of the program and eliminate the detailed intrusion by the Commonwealth into everyday decisions of care providers about how to spend their infrastructure resources. This will give providers greater flexibility and incentives to increase efficiency, provided that appropriate care and lifestyle outcomes are achieved for residents. Finally, the new arrangements will provide much-needed control over the growth of Commonwealth nursing home expenditure. As I mentioned earlier, the concept of the new funding arrangements is a simple one of introducing, over five annual steps from 1 July 1987 to 1 July 1991, a system of standard fees and benefits for nursing homes catering exclusively or predominantly for aged people. It is proposed that from 1 July 1987, all nursing home fees will be split into two components-one for all direct nursing and personal care costs, and the other for infrastructure costs (e.g. transport, laundry, food etc) and return on investment. This latter composite infrastructure component is known as the standard aggregated module or SAM and represents about 45 per cent of total average nursing home costs. At this stage, the standard aggregated module will be the only component in respect of which all nursing homes for the aged will begin a gradual transition to a uniform national funding level from 1 July 1987. Until new national uniform staffing standards are agreed with State Governments and, indeed, for some time after they are introduced, current approved nursing and personal care staffing levels will continue to be reflected in fees on a cost-reimbursement basis. The level of SAM is set in the Bill at $27.65 per occupied bed day, for 1987-88. This figure represents the average infrastructure cost for all participating homes for 1984-85 indexed by a weighted average of actual and projected movements in AWE and CPI to give a figure for 1987-88. The Bill also provides for the Minister to either gazette a higher amount or to gazette a formula in accordance with which a higher amount would be ascertained. The formula will provide that in 1988-89 and in subsequent years, the SAM will be indexed by a weighted average of the annual expected movements in the AWE and CPI indices. The index will also take into account the difference between the expected movements in these indices used to determine the previous year's SAM, and the actual movements. The Gazette notice would be subject to Parliamentary disallowance. In response to requests from industry organisations, the Government has agreed to regular reviews of the appropriateness of the level of SAM, based on surveys of industry costs. I should stress, however, that the level of SAM which has been set for 1987-88 is fixed and non-negotiable. It has been reached after extensive analysis by the Department of Community Services of nursing home costings data and represents a level which will result in an equitable redistribution of current levels of income within the participating sector. It will also provide a greater level of income than the average infrastructure cost for homes in the deficit financed sector and put them on the same footing as participating homes. I should stress again that the new funding arrangements represent a transition to a uniform system. Nursing homes with infrastructure costs which are presently either above or below the SAM, will have that component of their fees adjusted in five annual steps to bring them into line with the SAM on a national basis. The 65 per cent of non-government homes which have infrastructure costs below the SAM will receive additional funding over the transition period to assist in improving their quality of care. The 35 per cent of nursing homes which have a level of infrastructure costs above the SAM will need to bring their outlays on such items more into line with costs in the majority of homes. However, the phasing of this transition over five annual steps will allow such adjustment to be undertaken gradually to ensure that disruption to the industry and to nursing home residents is kept to an absolute minimum. For higher cost homes whose residents may prefer, and are prepared to pay for, higher quality and more expensive services, the Government has given in-principle support for the concept of fee exemption. This would involve exempting entire nursing homes or some beds in nursing homes from the standard fee arrangements and allow those particular homes to charge at levels higher than the standard fee arrangements. The Commonwealth benefit for these beds would be reduced in proportion to the extent to which the fee charged exceeded the regulated fee. In return for greater operating freedom under the exemption arrangements, the Government will be looking for an increased acceptance of responsibility by the proprietors of such homes. To this end, the exemption arrangements are likely to involve careful assessment of the suitability of proprietors, including an assessment of the quality of care and quality of life that a home has afforded to residents under the standard fee arrangements. The exemption concept will be developed for introduction as soon as is practicable. The Bill contains formulae for calculating the standard ordinary care fee for each nursing home, and a description of the elements which make up the formulae, including nursing and personal care costs and SAM. The Bill provides for the various elements of the formulae to be determined in accordance with gazetted legislative principles, which are subject to Parliament disallowance. The Bill also requires the standard ordinary care fee for a nursing home to be taken into account when setting a scale of fees which may be changed by a nursing home. Other matters which will be taken into account in setting a scale of fees will be covered in the principles, and it is envisaged that these matters will include arrangements for ensuring accurate cost reimbursement of nursing and personal care staff costs and for phasing out the charging of different scales of fees within the one nursing home. The current system of temporary fee loadings will continue. Existing appeal rights in relation to the determination of a scale of fees based on all 1986-87 costs will be preserved and in future proprietors will continue to be able to request a review of decisions relating to the inclusion of nursing and personal care staffing costs within their scale of fees. Such review requests will be required to be made within 42 days of receipt of advice of a decision in relation to a fee application. The new funding arrangements for nursing homes will provide a greater degree of protection for financially disadvantaged people and will ensure that the group has better access to nursing home care than under existing arrangements. At present, some 80% of residents in all nursing homes are required to pay no more than the minimum resident contribution of 87.5 per cent of the basic pension and rental assistance. This minimum resident contribution will remain at this rate in all nursing homes. The Bill also provides for the Commonwealth to continue to meet the full difference between the approved fees for former deficit-funded nursing homes and the fixed resident contribution relating to those homes which is 87.5 per cent of the basic pension and rental assistance. The residents of other nursing homes pay additional fees of up to $65 per day over and above the minimum resident contribution. By the end of the transition period, the new arrangements will have greatly reduced, for many residents of these homes, the amount to be paid over the minimum resident contribution and will have provided better protection against operating cost increases. Under current arrangements the maximum level of the nursing home benefit is adjusted each November. However, because adjustments to SAM are to be made from 1 July each year, the Commonwealth proposes also to adjust the level of the maximum Commonwealth benefit from the date, commencing this year. The Bill also provides for special administrative arrangements to be introduced which will maintain equity between the way existing and new nursing homes are treated. Under these arrangements, the infrastructure fee component for new nursing homes which received an approval-in-principle before 1 April 1987 and which commence operation between 1 July 1987 and 1 July 1991 will be set under the same transition arrangements to SAM as existing homes. For new homes resulting from approvals-in-principle granted on or after 1 April 1987, the infrastructure fee component for the home or beds will be the SAM. The Bill provides for similar transition provisions in relation to proprietors who rebuild sub-standard nursing homes to improve the living environment and quality of life of residents. This provision applies where approval to rebuild is either granted or sought before 1 July 1987. Another measure is the inclusion in the Bill of a simple mechanism under the National Health Act 1953 for approving the demolition of premises occupied by a nursing home and the reconstruction of those premises on the same site. The Government intends also to introduce a similar mechanism for approving the relocation of existing nursing home beds as soon as possible. I should make it clear, however, that decisions in relation to relocation proposals will continue to involve an assessment of the appropriateness of the proposal in terms of planning and other objectives. The Bill also provides that until 1 July 1988, `approved services' in the former deficit-funded sector provided to persons who are not nursing home residents (i.e. hostel and community residents) will continue to be funded as at present on a cost reimbursement basis. From 1 July 1988, funding for these services will be transferred to the Special Services Program which Senator Grimes announced in the 1986-87 Budget and will provide on a grant basis. This does not mean that nursing home residents will cease to receive therapeutic and rehabilitation services-these types of services will be in the future, and indeed have been for many residents in participating nursing homes in the past, largely provided as part of normal nursing home care. Nursing home residents with extraordinary disabilities may also be entitled to supplementary services under the Special Services Program to meet particularly intensive service needs unable to be met under standard funding arrangements. As I mentioned previously, the new nursing home funding arrangements only apply to nursing homes catering principally for aged people. This Bill provides for the new arrangements to be funded only under the National Health Act 1953, and transfers to that Act the approvals of all nursing homes for aged people approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974. In line with this transfer of all homes for the aged to the National Health Act 1953, the Bill contains transitional provisions to preserve the general rights and entitlements of transferred homes. The Bill also amends the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974, so that it only applies to nursing homes where the majority of residents are disabled people who are less than 70 years of age. This amendment is reflected in a change to the long title of the Act. The existing funding arrangements for the 69 nursing homes throughout Australia which cater principally for the non-aged disabled are to be preserved, pending development of a new system for funding these homes consistent with the principles and objectives of the Disability Services Act 1986. The Bill provides for the 69 non-aged homes to be identified in gazette notices published under the National Health Act 1953 and the amending Act. The Bill also enables a certificate of approval-in-principle for new or additional nursing home beds for non-aged disabled people to be granted under either the National Health Act 1953 or the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974. New bed numbers for these people will not be subject to the statutory growth control arrangements which apply to nursing home beds for the aged, but will be announced by the Minister each year in the Budget context. I turn now to the other component of the new funding arrangements: nursing and personal care costs, and to the issue of standards of life and care in nursing homes. The Minister of Community Services intends, as soon as possible, to introduce uniform national staffing standards based on a resident classification system which reflects different levels of intensity of service need. However, before these uniform national staffing standards are finalised, there will be extensive consultation with service providers, staff and professional bodies and consumer bodies. The new uniform staffing arrangements will incorporate measures to ensure that the new standards will not apply for two years in respect of persons who are resident at the time of introduction. For these residents, the pre-existing approved nursing and personal care staffing levels will continue to apply for that two year transitional period. A significant concession made by the Government in the course of consultations with the industry in relation to the new arrangements, has been the inclusion of payroll tax and workers' compensation insurance costs for all staff in the cost-reimbursed nursing and personal care component of the fee. The Government acknowledges, however, that with the management flexibility introduced under standard grant arrangements, there are increased incentives to cut corners to make profits at the expense of standards of care and the quality of life of nursing home residents. It also acknowledges the criticisms of Parliamentary Reports which have identified serious deficiencies in the quality of care provided in certain nursing homes. To tackle these concerns, the Government is approaching the problem on two fronts. The Government's first task has been to clarify the standards of care to be required in nursing homes. The Commonwealth, in consultation with the States, has now developed new outcome standards relating to quality of care and quality of life for residents in nursing homes and has prepared a document which incorporates extensive contributions from service providers, unions and professional groups, consumer bodies and many others. The amendments included in this Bill will allow the gazettal of these standards for nursing home care under the National Health Act 1953 as the basis against which the care provided in individual nursing homes can be measured. In implementing the new standards, the Government intends to adopt an educative and consultative role. An amount of $600,000 will be provided over 3 years for training packages aimed at directors of nursing homes and hostel supervisors. Where sub-standard care is occurring, Departmental staff will work with nursing homes to ensure that the welfare of residents is protected, and to improve overall standards as quickly as possible. The second task is to introduce effective measures to ensure that the minority of nursing homes which have a consistent record of providing poor quality care and which have shown a disinclination to comply with Commonwealth efforts to improve care standards do not continue to do so. The principal existing sanction currently available to the Commonwealth is to withdraw approval of the nursing home but applying this is difficult because of the immediate need to find alternative care for a large group of frail aged residents if a home is closed. As the current provisions for dealing with cases of sub-standard care have not proven to be flexible enough, the Bill includes two additional powers which the Commonwealth can use to protect the interests of frail elderly residents, where the gazetted standards of care are not complied with. First, the Bill will enable the Minister to ensure that Commonwealth funding is not provided in respect of any new residents admitted to the nursing home which refuses to comply with standards. The withholding of Commonwealth funding in these circumstances is intended to act as a disincentive for proprietors to admit new residents, with the result that, at the very least, no further elderly people will be subjected to the poor quality care being provided in the home. The second power in the Bill will apply only in relation to nursing homes with infrastructure costs which are less than the SAM, and will apply only during the transition period to the new standard funding arrangements. For those homes with infrastructure costs below the SAM, the Commonwealth intends that the additional income gained as the infrastructure cost component of a home's fee is moved upwards to the SAM will be used to improve the quality of care provided, where this is not already at a satisfactory level. Where a home with unsatisfactory care standards receives an increase in infrastructure funding but does not use this additional income to improve care, it would be unjustifiable for that home to receive further increases in funding until the quality of care improves. Accordingly, the Bill gives the Minister the power to withhold increases in infrastructure funding until the home meets the gazetted care standards. Revenue lost would not be made up retrospectively in these cases even where the proprietor subsequently agrees to improve care standards. The two additional powers are designed to indicate to providers that a persistent pattern of poor quality care will result in action being taken to protect nursing home residents. The use of these powers is seen as a more acceptable and workable approach to seeking compliance with the standards required. Because of the desirability of involving industry, State Government, consumer and professional interests in the monitoring of nursing home performance-nursing homes after all are community facilities which are of enormous significance in the care of our frail aged people-the Minister for Community Care Services proposes to establish a peer review mechanism involving these groups to review recommendations to exercise the new powers. Industry and consumer bodies have made the point in consultations regarding the new standards that any review and appeal mechanisms should be speedy and effective and be resourced with appropriately skilled professional and other suitably experienced personnel. Industry bodies have also rejected a remote and legalistic approach to solving the problems which arise when poor care practices are identified and have stressed the need for professional scrutiny in these areas. The Minister for Community Services has heeded those views and proposes to create a Nursing Home Standards Review Panel in each State and Territory. Discussions are to be held with State Governments on the formation of these Panels and it is likely at least one Panel will be established on a pilot basis in the near future. The pilot should serve as a proving ground for this new approach and provide guidance on establishing similar bodies in other States. The Bill also introduces a new mechanism under the National Health Act 1953, in addition to the existing mechanism for the approval of applications for admission to an approved nursing home. This new mechanism will assist the Government in achieving its stated intention that only those who require the level of care available in a nursing home will be admitted to or remain in a nursing home. It has two elements. First, Commonwealth benefits will be payable only in respect of a person who is approved by the Minister as requiring nursing home care. Second, the Minister will have the power to reassess, at any time, a nursing home resident's need for nursing care and to stop payment of Commonwealth benefit in respect of that resident where the Minister determines that the resident no longer needs nursing home care and that other, more appropriate care is available. This second mechanism recognises that a person's condition can change over time and that, for many people, admission to a nursing home need not be a one-way street. As a result of the specialised nursing care and, in some cases, rehabilitation provided in a nursing home, a person's condition (for example, in the case of a stroke) can improve to the point where that level of care is no longer needed. Such a person is likely to find the nursing home environment over-protective and dependency-creating, which could work against any further rehabilitation. Where it is found that a resident no longer requires nursing home care, he or she and any other appropriate people (for example, carers, relatives) will be counselled and given every assistance to find the necessary appropriate accommodation and support services. In addition, the length of time for which the approval of an application for admission to an approved nursing home remains valid will be limited. Where a person is not admitted to a nursing home within a specific period, and still wishes to be approved for admission purposes, that person will be required to have his or her need for nursing home care confirmed. These conditions will apply, in the longer term, to both Government and non-government nursing homes. However, a distinction is drawn in the Bill for the commencement of these measures in the case of Government homes, as negotiations are currently occurring with State Governments to set up the appropriate administrative mechanisms. The Bill will also amend the current mechanism under the National Health Act 1953 for controlling the admission of people to approved nursing homes in emergency situations to ensure that such admissions are not used to subvert the normal admission control system. First, emergency admissions are to be notified as soon as practicable to allow the Minister or his or her delegate to establish that an emergency has occurred. Then an application in accordance with the normal approval process is to be made within three working days, unless special circumstances exist which prevent the deadline from being met. This will ensure that a judgment as to whether the person was in need of nursing home care at the time of the emergency admission can reasonably be formed. Where an application made within the prescribed time period is approved, Commonwealth benefits will be payable from the date of admission. However, where an application is made outside the prescribed period and subsequently approved, Commonwealth benefits will be paid only from the date of approval. The Bill will also make two amendments to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954. The first of these amendments will enable the current value of donated land and other land acquired by an eligible organisation to be used in connection with an approved home under that Act, to be counted as part of the matching funds of the organisation. The second will enable provisions to be included in agreements entered into under the Act under which the Commonwealth may recover the value in real terms of a capital grant where the agreement has been breached. Finally, during the Senate debate on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Act 1986, the then Opposition spokesperson on Community Services moved two amendments to omit ``or otherwise'' from new sub-section 40ad (1ab) and 40ad (1ad) of the National Health Act 1953. The then Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, undertook to seek and find an alternative way of wording these provisions, and on this basis the two amendments were withdrawn. This Bill therefore contains measures to remedy those perceived defects. The new financial arrangements for nursing homes are expected to result in increased expenditure of $3m in 1987/88 and $14m in 1988/89. The other measures in the Bill have no readily quantifiable financial impact, although it is expected that there will be some very small savings in administrative costs. I commend the Bill to the Senate. I present the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That Business of the Senate Order of the Day No. 2 be postponed until the next day of sitting. I do so because the Standing Committee on Financial and Government Operations is not ready, as it had hoped, to report on that matter today. It hopes to do so as soon as Parliament resumes after the week's break. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present the Committee's report on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The Committee's inquiry on this matter relates to only two of the many proposals in this Bill. Those two proposals are for the use of short term redeemable preference shares and the payment of provisional tax by quarterly instalments. The majority of submissions to the Committee, apart from the one by the Commissioner of Taxation, expressed a similar viewpoint about the clauses relating to short term finance arrangements. They claimed that the amendments proposed by the Bill went further than the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of 7 April in two respects: They applied to shares other than redeemable preference shares and they applied to shares issued before the date of the announcement. The Committee agrees with the Australian Taxation Office that it could not be construed from the Treasurer's announcement that the intention of the Government was to limit the forthcoming legislation exclusively to redeemable preference shares so named; rather, the Committee believes that the Government's intention was to highlight a particular concern relating to the abuse of the section 46 rebate and to foreshadow the necessary legislative change in that area. The Committee is naturally concerned that there was a considerable delay between the Treasurer's Press release of 7 April 1986 and the eventual introduction of the Bill. The undesirability of such a delay is acknowledged by the Australian Taxation Office. The Committee believes that it is important that legislation, particularly in relation to tax matters, be introduced at the earliest practicable date after its announcement to ensure that as much certainty as possible is provided to the taxpaying community. However, the Committee also believes that if there is an objectionable exploitation of the taxation system, prompt government action to deal with it is essential and an announcement should not be delayed until the time the legislation is drafted. Even if the objections to the legislation were accepted, the Committee adopts the view that the terms of the Bill are necessary and justifiable to address fully and fairly the mischief indicated in the Press release. The Committee considers that those who sought to rely on a narrow interpretation of the announcement deliberately took a risk that the foreshadowed Bill might not be as complete in its outlawing of the tax avoidance practice as would obviously be necessary. Their attempt to exploit a possible gap did not pay off. The Committee believes that there is also a matter of fairness involved. To amend the Bill to allow exemption for those who may have sought to take advantage of a possible loophole could be seen to be unfair to all those who abided by what they regarded as the clear intention of the policy as announced by the treasurer. It should be noted that submissions objecting to the terms of the Bill were received from only seven firms and a sub-committee of the Law Council of Australia. The Committee did not receive a lot of comment on the question of instalments of provisional tax, although it received perhaps expected criticism from some who saw themselves as being negatively affected by it. But the Committee believes that the Taxation Office and the Bill deal adequately with those who have fluctuating income. In the last chapter of the report the Committee indicates its responses to each of the terms of reference that it was given. It reports: . . . that the provisions of the Bill relating to short-term redeemable shares do not extend beyond a fair and reasonable interpretation of the terms of the announcement of 7 April 1986; That persons will therefore not have their rights retrospectively affected by the passage of the Bill in its present form; That there is therefore no need for the Bill to be amended; That the quarterly payment of provisional tax will not be unduly onerous on provisional taxpayers whose income is subject to fluctuations throughout the year, and therefore there is no need for the Bill to be amended- on that ground either- The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Senate proceed to pass the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.30) —As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I would like to speak briefly to the report at this stage and to thank our Chairman, Senator Coates, for his tabling of the report on the Committee's behalf and for his statement. Although it will be clear to honourable senators when they read the report, I draw to their attention that three of the six members of the Committee in fact dissented from the Committee's report insofar as its application to redeemable preference shares was concerned. In other words, the Committee was divided equally 3:3 on the redeemable preference shares issue. Senator Vanstone, Senator Vigor and I were the signatories to that dissenting report. Senator Vigor also had an additional comment, which he will no doubt speak to, in relation to provisional tax. To us the issue of redeemable preference shares and the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986, so far as they relate to redeemable preference shares, raise two fundamental issues which I think are of great importance in principle to this Parliament. The first one is the issue to which Senator Coates alluded-the delay between the announcement by the Government, in the form of a Press release by the Treasurer, and the bringing into the Parliament of the Bill to give effect to the Treasurer's Press release. In this case we had a delay of 7 1/2 months. That, in today's terms, is not in fact an inordinate delay. The very worrying trend by this Government in respect of the Parliament, and therefore the total community, is the long time that frequently elapses between the announcement by the Government of its intent to legislate and the sighting for the first time of the proposed legislation. We have reached the stage, and it has been commented on by the Finance and Government Operations Committee and by many other committees of the Parliament-here I am sure I speak in a bipartisan sense-where we are very much running the risk of having government and legislation by Press release. That, in my view, is a very dangerous tendency because it has several major implications. The first is that if the legislation that is brought in does not exactly reflect the Press release intent statement the Government will have created a lengthy period of very bad uncertainty for the people who are affected by the particular measure. Secondly, there is the implication that the government of the day regards the Parliament as a body simply, in due course, to rubber stamp what the Executive Government had many months earlier, in this case 7 1/2 months, decreed would be the case. We have seen some notable examples in recent days of people in the community acting on the basis of Government statements of intent rather than on the legislation which has been introduced or which is proposed to be introduced. So this question of governing by Press release, not even by a statement in the Parliament but by a Press release which is issued outside the Parliament, and then having inordinate delays in bringing the legislation in, I think is a matter of the gravest concern. I believe that as parliamentarians we ought to be doing much more than we have been doing to insist that the government of the day-and I say this regardless of which party is in office-bring its legislation in much closer to the announcement of the intent of its proposals. That is a problem, and I think it is a fundamental one that pervades this whole area of government by Press release. The second issue, and the one that in this case is equally worrying, is that in the view of Senator Vanstone, Senator Vigor and me the legislation that was brought in on, I think, 28 November was wider in its application than the Press release that the Treasurer put out on 7 April 1986. In our view the wider net that the legislation encompasses, relative to the Press release, means that there is a significant element of retrospectivity in this legislation, because the legislation backdates to the date of the Treasurer's Press release of 7 April. Indeed, officers of the Australian Taxation Office, who gave evidence-and for that I thank them-to the Committee said: To the extent that the announcement- that is, the 7 April Press release- was not as precise in its terms as the legislation is there has to be acknowledged that there is a degree of retrospectivity. Not only did the three members of the Finance and Government Operations Committee and the officers of the Australian Taxation Office accept and recognise that element of retrospectivity, but so too did the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. When it looked at the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) it also concluded that the relevant clauses were retrospective, and drew the attention of the Senate to this. Senator Coates —That was a general objection. Senator SHORT —Yes, that is true. Senator Coates —It did not deal with the issues that the Committee covered. Senator SHORT —Yes, but they are really the same point. Senator Coates —Merely the fact that it dated from a Press statement. Senator SHORT —I would like to look at that more closely. The honourable senator may be right. Senator Vanstone, Senator Vigor and I agreed with the Government's desire to close undesirable loopholes in the taxation system. There is no issue between us and other members of the Committee in that respect. But what we do find objectionable, and what we cannot agree to, is that this should be done through retrospective legislation. That is what this aspect of the Bill quite unequivocally is. I sympathise with the representatives of the Taxation Office and with the drafters of the legislation that the legislation does not marry up exactly with the Treasurer's Press statement. The fact that it does not is something that the Parliament of this country cannot turn a blind eye to. We must have the drafting of Press statements and the drafting of the legislation, if we are to have them both, in line with one another. If honest people going about their daily commercial or other business in the community are not able to feel confident that what is said in an official Government Press release, by a very senior Minister, particularly someone such as the Treasurer, in advance of legislation coming in, is the case and will be the case when that legislation does come in, how on earth can anyone reasonably go about his or her normal commercial activities? I believe that this Bill gives an example of a fundamental problem in the form of retrospectivity. For those two reasons we have a dissenting report from three of the six senators. I draw that to the attention of the Senator. Obviously we will want to come back to that later. Therefore, I will continue my remarks at a later date. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(5.40) —I wish to answer a couple of issues raised by Senator Short, but I will not delay the Senate too long over them. In terms of principles of government and parliamentary operation, I think that the other view should be put in this chamber in a fairly forthright and, I hope, brief way. Senator Coates —Robust. Senator AULICH —Not robust, as Senator Coates said, but at least in a very simple way so that the people dealing with these sorts of issues understand that the principles behind them are in fact very simple. The first one that I wish to address is the question of the so-called accusation of government by Press release. The one thing that stands out in this Government's record in terms of not only its taxation policy but also in a number of other areas of major reform is the fact that it has not acted in an ad hoc way. It has laid down a manifesto about the way that it wants to operate, the principles that underlie its operation and where it is going. For example, we set down the parameters of the tax debate at the Taxation Summit. We have indicated quite clearly the major reforms that we intend to pursue; and we have indicated quite clearly the parameters of tax reform within which we intend to work. One area that we have made quite clear in our approach to taxation law reform relates to so-called retrospectivity or what I would call due warning. It seems to me that there is a problem in the way that we have been handling tax reform in this country over the past decade or so, and it is simply this: Every reform brought in by a government to close loopholes where there have been particular abuses of taxation legislation has seen sharp operators paying the best accountants and corporate lawyers in the country to rearrange their operations in such a way as to beat those amendments which have been designed to overcome abuses. In this particular case I have to ask the question: Should the advantage in business always go to those people who can afford the best corporate lawyers and to those people who can afford the top accountants who are constantly on retainer to ensure that every loophole in the legislation is taken advantage of prior to amending legislation coming into this place. This is an important matter for a government of this type, simply because we have made very plain what are our basic parameters in relation to tax reform. We have said: `These are the abuses, these are the changes and these are the things that we intend to do'. As a matter of principle, we have clearly let people know literally months in advance about the sorts of things that we intend to do. Of course the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is not governing by Press release; he is simply indicating what will be the major changes. If, for example, businesses wish to take advantage of what they see as loopholes and they wish to hire the best corporate lawyers and accountants to advise them about taking advantage of those loopholes before they are closed, they are quite free to do so. Of course, the only difference is that when their clients are caught I believe they have little right to squeal about the fact that they have tried to get through a loophole only to find it close on them. Senator Boswell —Is that the same with television? Senator AULICH —That would be a problem if, for example, this Government operated like the Fraser Government by bringing in changes to tax law only when it was forced to do so as a result of the clamour from the community at large for a degree of fairness. I can refer to the bottom of the harbour legislation where finally the Treasurer of the day acted when community pressure was so overwhelming that he had to bring in reforms and changes to cut off certain avenues. There was no retrospectivity involved so the sharp accountants and the sharp businesses simply changed their operations to avoid being caught by the trap set by the then Treasurer. We do not intend to be caught in the same sort of syndrome. Very early in the piece we announced our major tax reforms; and we announced the specific areas of intent. Of course, we are not going to be able to put them in the absolute detail required in any particular Bill that comes into this place. The intentions are very clear. In that regard, let us look at something that the Australian Taxation Office has said. I believe that the quotation from the Tax Office, as set out on page 15 of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986, is germane to everything we are discussing today. The report states: The policy from this press release- that is, the policy from the press release put out by the Treasurer of the day- is very clear. The policy is that the government was concerned at the loss of revenue by the misuse of a section 46 rebate and by substituting dividends for interest, that is exactly what this legislation does. Anyone that used shares acquired afterwards is only using a very literal interpretation of those words and ignoring what is a plain policy. That is the point that I wish to make: If one tries to get through a loophole in a Press release, which is after all a statement of principle and of some general intent, as a consumer of credit and as an operator within the business and taxation system one takes pot luck. As I said, there is no point coming into this chamber through various committees and squealing about one's bad luck. The second point that I wish to make-and I have already referred to it to some extent-is that there are general principles surrounding tax legislation, and we believe that they should be propounded openly and with proper warning by the government of the day. For example, does this chamber prefer, as has been the case with past governments, legislation to be prepared in secret by the Australian Taxation Office, rushed through Cabinet and then dumped into Parliament at the last minute without due warning so that every business is then forced to reorder its arrangements without proper warning? Does this Parliament insist that taxation law reform should operate in that way? If this Parliament insists that taxation laws should operate in that way, by all means go out and try and re-elect a Liberal and National party Government, because that is the sort of thing that one will get once again. Such a government will work in tax reform areas only when community pressure becomes so strong that it has to do something about it, albeit reluctantly and, even then, it will botch the job as we saw with the bottom of the harbour legislation. This Government and I support the principle of long advanced warnings for any changes to tax reform. Those people who intend to take advantage of any loopholes that they see in either the original Press announcements or at a later stage when legislation is in draft form or as it comes into Parliament do so knowing that it is on their heads. They have to regard it as a business risk; and their advisers in accountancy firms who are no doubt paid very well to do that will suffer some loss of professional dignity and credibility. That is not the concern of this chamber because, for every company that misused or abused a section 45 rebate, there were thousands of other in the business community who did not because they were aware of the spirit of this legislation. They knew the intent of the legislation and were not prepared to go down the track taken by those who took the risk. If one takes a risk, one can also take a loss. As other honourable senators wish to speak in this debate, I will not go on to talk about provisional tax. I wished to enunciate clearly the Government's principles for tax reform and I do not resile from anything in the report. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.49) —I support the recommendations of the minority report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I think this is a very sad day for democracy because we have heard in the Senate on behalf of the Australian Labor Party not an apology but a blatant explanation of the need for that Party to pursue policies of retrospective taxation. That is something that is anathema to anyone who believes in freedom of the individual and certainly freedom before the law, and they must be rather concerned about what they have just heard from Senator Aulich. Senator Short —It is a denial of the rule of law. Senator WATSON —As Senator Short said so eloquently in his speech, it is a denial of the rule of law. It is not a question of rightness; it is a question of numbers. The Senate put to the Senate Standing Committee the opportunity to evaluate this matter. But, purely on party pragmatism, the Committee has decided to follow this hard line, ignoring the wishes of the Senate and ignoring the need to have certainty before the law. The Committee has indulged itself and acknowledged a need for retrospective legislation. Nothing could be more repugnant to the founders of our Constitution than going backwards on something that has already been said. Senator Aulich has said that the Government will give long advance warnings. It might give an outline, but when this Government governs by Press release and then, in the subsequent legislation, it does not follow that Press release, great uncertainty is created. People who find that they need to change their practices and accounting methods et cetera as a result of changes must be entitled to rely on the original statement that was made. I think it is very underhanded for the Treasurer (Mr Keating) subsequently to add additional clauses to extend the scope of what was to be put into legislation. This is a sad day for the Senate and I hope that this action will not be a precedent for future taxation measures. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.52) —I had not planned to talk today but, having heard Senator Aulich, there are some points that need to be answered. I feel very strongly that we should not let this country be governed by Press release. The Parliament has the ultimate responsibility to make certain that we get fair laws that are fairly introduced. The reason for the dissenting report from Senator Short, Senator Vanstone and me was that we were convinced by all the evidence placed before us that the Press release of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of 7 April 1986 was, in fact, quite specific and quite clear and dealt with redeemable preference shares issued after 7 April 1986. The Treasurer, after issuing this Press release and without making any other announcement to this Parliament, has relied on the goodwill of the Opposition parties in the Senate to pass this legislation. In the past we have accepted that if a Press release was properly worded-if the wording was sensible and understandable-we would agree to the measures described becoming law. In this case we believe that there is a significant difference between the provision of legislation and the announcement in the Press release. That is why we see this legislation as containing an element of retrospectivity. Personally, I abhor the approach that suggests that reputable firms and law societies that have made submissions to us are somehow bad losers in terms of their having had loopholes closed off which they were trying to get their clients through. I believe that they were quite justified in looking at the documentation which was given to them-that Press release-and thinking: `That is what the legislation will be about'. When the legislation came in and it was quite different, they were quite justified in making representations to this Parliament, and I believe that this Parliament and this Senate are quite justified in saying that the Treasurer's first announcement of the extra scope of this legislation over the matters dealt with in the original Press release should date only from the time that that legislation was brought into this Parliament. That is the attitude that I will take towards this legislation and any other legislation that may in future appear before the Senate. I make that undertaking to the people of Australia. I was elected to keep the Government honest, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. I also presented a second dissenting report on the matter of provisional tax. I believe that the proposals for paying provisional tax on a quarterly basis, or in some cases on a biennial basis, will create a very large burden for some small businesses. Also, the threshold for what is described as a small business, which in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) is the payment of $2,000 of provisional tax for the previous year, is far too low. It is nothing. We should have a higher threshold. Senator Coates —It is a lot for all those pensioners who depend on that additional income. Senator VIGOR —If Senator Coates really wants to do something about taxation rorts he should be doing something about transfer pricing and all the negative gearing rorts that are happening within the system. This matter deals with the lifeblood of Australian industry, small business. Basically, I was putting forward that this Bill needs to have a higher threshold limit for those businesses to which it applies. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.57) —I rise because of Senator Aulich's remarks earlier tonight. I notice that he is not in the chamber now. I would like to correct some of the points that he raised in the course of his remarks. Firstly, he sought to say that anybody using any kind of taxation avoidance arrangement should take note of any statement given by the Government and that, no matter what that statement said, there should automatically be a blanket disapproval of any transaction into which that person entered after that date. This raises the whole question of what legislation by Press release is all about. I happen to agree in one particular respect with Senator Aulich. In the case of absolutely blatant and commercially non-real tax avoidance schemes, such as the Curran scheme, which we dealt with in this place some years ago, it is perfectly proper for a government to put on notice any taxpayer who may be engaged in that kind of activity when it advises that it will strike down that kind of transaction. Therefore, in respect of those paper and artificial schemes, I believe it is perfectly proper for a government to put every taxpayer on notice. If taxpayers do take part in any such activity after that date, they are certainly at risk and the Government has a perfect right to legislate against it. However, the general tenor of the statements that have been emerging from the Government in recent times does not suggest that they refer to that particular kind of blatant tax avoidance scheme at all. In fact, the Government has been trying to tighten up what might be regarded as loopholes, which is a totally different situation from that which I have just described. Loopholes certainly provide ways in which people seek to arrange their affairs to save taxation. That is perfectly legal and proper and they are entitled to do so. Senator Coates —Moral? Senator MESSNER —Of course it is moral. If the law is certain and can be relied upon, people have a perfect right to arrange their affairs in accordance with the law. That is perfectly proper. The situation is, however, that if an announcement is made about the details of a change which not only seeks to block the loophole involved in a tax avoidance arrangement but also by, its very nature, catches legitimate transactions, there is a very real difference in the way the Government in its Press release should present its argument. The Government, in the way it has approached this problem, which is the subject of inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, has failed to follow through on the precise nature of the amendments which it set down in its Press release more than a year ago in respect of redeemable preference shares. The Government has sought by virtue of the legislation, when it finally appeared, to extend the law beyond those arrangements which apply to what might be termed redeemable preference shares to a whole raft of other kinds of financial transactions. That was not contemplated in the original Press statement. The Press statement said precisely `redeemable preference shares'. It did not talk about all those other kinds of transactions which are now caught. How could anybody, after reading that Press release on 7 April 1986, have expected to be caught if not specifically engaged in a redeemable preference share arrangement? Senator Short —That Press release was entitled `redeemable preference shares'. Senator MESSNER —Indeed, it was titled `In respect of redeemable preference shares' and obviously was aimed at catching a particular group of transactions operating in that area. I have no problem with the legislation having been brought to the Parliament in that form. None of us on this side would have a concern about that if the Press release spelled out exactly what the law finally turned out to be. But that did not happen. That is the source of the complaint and why I support the minority report of Senator Vigor and Senator Short and Senator Vanstone from the Liberal Party. I believe that they have correctly assessed the position. That point is acknowledged by Mr Nolan in the report-but that was not quoted by Senator Aulich. I will quote from the report. It says: To the extent that the announcement was not as precise in its terms as the legislation is there has to be acknowledged that there is a degree of retrospectivity. So the Australian Taxation Office acknowledged that this is a retrospective amendment in respect of transactions that was not spelled out appropriately in the Press release. Those are the essential points which are raising such anger amongst taxpayers in the community. The government has such a high-handed approach to taxation legislation that it is seeking to write laws as though it has no concern for the individual rights of taxpayers. This is just another example of the kind of problem which this Government is creating not only in the commercial world but for ordinary taxpayers. It is the sort of situation which reminds one of the events leading up to the Boston Tea Party. One does not need to have too big a clientele, in terms of being a senator, to realise the number of complaints about this kind of matter and about the high-handedness which the Taxation Office is currently employing in dealing with taxpayers. It is terribly important that all senators support this minority report from the two Liberal senators and Senator Vigor. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I present the report on the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This fairly small sales tax Bill was referred to the Committee in December last year. The main reason it was referred was that clause 3 of the Bill would insert a new sub-section 5 (1a) in the Act, which is intended to make it clear that, where goods are described in clear terms in an item or sub-item of one of the taxing schedules and might be argued as being also covered by a general description in an item or sub-item in the First Schedule-the exemption Schedule-the goods are not covered by the First Schedule, but by the relevant taxing schedule. The amendment would give legislative effect to the rule of statutory interpretation that provides that a specific item overrides a generally expressed item. In response to the query about the problem of defining the word `specific' and `general', the Australian Taxation Office indicated that parliamentary counsel regarded `specific' as plain English not requiring further definition that was clearer than the word itself. After the hearing that the Committee held, the Second Commissioner, Mr Nolan, advised the Committee that after further thorough consideration he confirmed the view he gave at the Committee's hearing that the proposal should not be amended. He said: Following the Committee's suggestion, we have looked closely at the structure of the clause. In consultation with Parliamentary Counsel we tested out various alternative combinations of words but, in the result, unable to offer anything that, in our view, would better convey the intention of Clause 3 while remaining sufficiently general to cover the range of cases where there could be conflict between the First and other Schedules . . . The review has confirmed us in the opinion that the clause is sound and that its enactment would not lead to any untoward consequences for sales taxpayers. Therefore the Committee recommends that the Senate proceed to pass the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. The amendments proposed in clause 3 should be enacted to ensure that as little doubt as possible exists as to the legislature's intention regarding interpretation of the principal Act. While administration and interpretation of the Act may continue to cause differences over questions of classification, definition and description-and that is inevitable-the Committee believes that the amendment should be passed to confirm that the Taxation Office's interpretation has Parliament's support. The Committee also believes that the Bill should be passed to ensure prompt enactment of clause 4 to amend the existing exemption for the Governor-General, State governors and members of their families and staff. Enactment of the clause will also mean that the sales tax legislation again is consistent with relevant customs and excise legislation. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(6.09) —This report on the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 is similar to the report that we have just debated in the sense that a dissenting view was again expressed by three of the six members of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. The three senators who dissent are Senator Vanstone, Senator Vigor and I. The problems raised in this Bill are, I think, of a less contentious nature than those in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) that we have just debated. Nevertheless, there are at least one or two important issues of principle involved in this Bill to which Senator Vanstone, Senator Vigor and I want to draw the attention of the Senate. For that reason, I draw particular attention to the addendum to the report which gives our views. Firstly, let me say that we have no dis- agreement at all with clause 4 of the Bill, which, as Senator Coates said, would amend the First Schedule of the sales tax law to give the Governor-General, the State Governors and their families and members of staff who are not Australian citizens similar treatment to the rest of the community in relation to importation and liability to sales tax. The matter with which we have dispute relates to clause 3 of the Bill which, as Senator Coates has said, would insert a new sub-section 5 (1a) into the Act, the intention being to make it clear that, where goods are described in clear terms in an item or sub-item of one of the taxing schedules, and might be argued as being also covered by a general description in an item or a sub-item in the First Schedule, which is the exemption schedule, the goods are not covered by the First Schedule but rather by the relevant taxing schedule. In effect, that very tortuous form of wording means that the amendment would give legislative effect to the rule of statutory interpretation that provides that a specific item overrides a generally expressed item. The Commissioner of Taxation put forward several reasons why clause 3 should be included in the Bill. They are listed in our report. They say in summary form that, to use the Commissioner's words, the amendment `would add more elegance' to a particularly complex body of legislation; that it would remove any doubts for practitioners and taxpayers as to the rules of interpretation to be employed by the Australian Taxation Office; and that it would put an end to frivolous and unreasonable claims for exemption. On the other hand, the Committee received several submissions which strongly rejected these assertions and, on the contrary, claimed that the amendment would result in a number of new classification, interpretation and definitional problems; that the amendment would, contrary to the Taxation Office's claim, enact an interpretation that differed from the Taxation Office's previous interpretation; and that it would make the job of self-assessment of liability by sales taxpayers, and those advising them, more uncertain and costly. I think it would be true to say that the Committee-certainly Senator Vanstone, Senator Vigor and I-was not convinced of the strength of the Commissioner's argument without necessarily drawing a judgment on the objections which were raised and which I have just mentioned. The difficulty that we found was the lack of real reason put forward by the Taxation Office for the need for clause 3. Indeed, if I may, I quote briefly from some of the evidence given by officials of the Taxation Office to the Committee: If it were decided not to proceed with the amendment, that would not alter the ATO's approach to administration of the sales tax law. Indeed, that will be the case if the amendment is agreed to. To that extent the amendment is not strictly necessary. That raises an important point of principle. The Government claims and proclaims loudly that it is doing all it can to reduce regulation and additional legislation, to get off the back of businesses in the community, to make the law simpler, and so on and so forth; and the Opposition accepts that as a highly desirable objective. I would therefore argue strongly that, if we are to add still further to the complexity of the law, be it in the area of sales tax or anywhere else, and if we are going to add to the legislative burden facing people there must be a good, strong, well argued and compelling reason for the need for that legislation. Half of the members of the Committee were strongly of the view that no compelling case had been made for the necessity for this amendment. According to the Taxation Office officials, it will not have any effect on the administration of the Act. It will not have any revenue effect one way or the other. Therefore, quite rightly, we would agree with the Taxation Office when it says that it is not strictly necessary. It is about time that this Parliament started saying that enough is enough when legislation is brought into this place that does not add anything other than a whole volume of words and more complexity to an already complex and exceedingly overlegislated nation. It is for that reason, as a matter of principle, that Senator Vanstone, Senator Vigor and I object to clause 3. We see no reason whatsoever for it; and if there is no compelling reason put forward, we do not think it should be accepted. One or two other matters arose in the Committee's consideration. In particular, there was debate on the question of the use of the words `namely' and `including' in the sales tax legislation. As I understand it, sales tax legislation nowadays frequently uses the word `namely' in a way that the Taxation Office would in effect define as `including'-I think I am right in that. It is a very confusing issue, one that needs to be cleared up. The Opposition would not wish to pursue it too much further here, because the Taxation Office has advised the Committee that it will be undertaking a broad review of the complete area of sales tax legislation within the next 12 months. We would assume automatically that that review would catch up with this question of the use of `namely' and `including'. I draw it to the attention of the Senate because, as the legislation currently stands, the situation is rather confused. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the report on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5), which was tabled earlier, and to continue my remarks later. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Is leave granted? Senator Coates —No. I have already moved that motion and it has been debated and disposed of by the Senate, so I do not see any way in which that motion can be moved again at this stage. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If leave is granted by the Senate, Senator Vigor can move that motion and have it agreed to. Senator Coates —I really do not see any point to the matter. The matter has been debated and Senator Vigor has made his contribution on it. I would say in particular that we are talking about reports on Bills, so that there can be future opportunities. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I understand that Senator Vigor's request for leave is purely and simply to put the matter back on the Notice Paper. Senator Coates —It will go back on the Notice Paper in form of the Bill, and at that stage there will be a further opportunity to debate the matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I would simply put the question again. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator VIGOR —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(6.20) —We are debating four Bills-the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986, the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 1987. I will begin my contribution to this second reading debate by addressing some very brief remarks to the first of those Bills, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987. When the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986 in October last year he pointed out that a number of matters were being deferred pending clarification of certain problems. The Government has now brought forward this proposal which includes guidelines for exploration and mining on Aboriginal land. As the Minister has said, the compromises that have been reached may not please everybody. The Australian Democrats remain concerned about certain aspects of the Bill which have been raised with us in our extensive consultations with Aboriginal groups, and we will be pursuing these matters in detail later in the debate and during the Committee stage. I would like to address the bulk of my remarks to the third and fourth Bills. Initially I refer to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill. I remind the Senate that these two bills in this cognate debate come to the Senate as a result of legislation which at first had been proposed in the Victorian Parliament. As a senator from Victoria, I have taken a considerable interest in these Bills, both at the time the originating Bills were proposed in the Victorian Parliament and since the Victorian Government announced its intention to pursue them in the Federal Parliament. Earlier today Senator Zakharov said that the Victorian Legislative Council is just like the Senate, in that the Government of Victoria does not have a majority in that upper House. I suggest that that is only partly true. Certainly it is true that the Victorian Labor Government does not have a majority in its upper House as the Hawke Federal Government does not have a majority in this upper House. There is a significant difference, particularly in relation to Bills such as Aboriginal land rights Bills and Aboriginal heritage Bills which we have before us today, and that is that the Australian Democrats do not have a presence in the Legislative Council of the Victorian Parliament. If we had the balance of power there I believe that we would not be debating these Bills here today. The issue of land rights for two particular Aboriginal communities in Victoria and the issue of Aboriginal heritage in Victoria came before the Victorian Parliament after extensive consultation with the Victorian Aboriginal community. The Australian Democrats have a strong commitment to this type of legislation. As I said, I believe that we would not be debating these Bills today if the similarities between the Victorian upper House and this one were closer in relation to the position of the Australian Democrats. I believe confidently that after the next State election in Victoria there will be a much greater similarity between the two Houses. Specifically in relation to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987, I would say quite categorically that we are appalled at the obstructionist, unjust and spurious so-called State rights position which has been taken by the Victorian division of the Liberal Party of Australia under its Leader, Jeff Kennett, and which led to this Bill having to be dealt with by the Federal Parliament rather than the Victorian Parliament. I clearly recall in January this year reading newspaper reports and listening to radio interviews in which the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, Mr Kennett, beat his breasts and claimed wildly and loudly that he would tour Victoria and get the people of that State to rise up against what he called the injustice of granting inalienable freehold title to the Aboriginal people of Condah and Framlingham. The Victorian divisions of the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia quite simply chose not to understand or accept that to Aboriginal people ownership of land means something different from what it means to most white people. The Kerrup-Jmara people of Condah and the Kirrae Whurrong people of Framlingham, like their sisters and brothers throughout Australia, belong to the land. They do not see land as something to be privately possessed by individuals or real estate agents, to be carved up and sold to the highest bidder to be turned into supermarkets, industrial estates or whatever. The Australian Democrats' principle which guides the formulation of our Aboriginal affairs policy states: To Aboriginal people, the land is their very life. The people and the land are indivisible. The land is the spirit of the people. This view is a far cry from the paternalistic, Anglo-Saxon and market-oriented views held by the Liberals and the Nationals as they expressed it in the context of the Victorian legislation. After a few heady days of waving his hands in the air Jeff Kennett fell flat on his face. The people of Victoria were not deceived and he clearly did not have their support, as he made his whistle-stop tours. Indeed, I believe that most people in Victoria see the absolute justice in returning land now to those from whom it was take in the past. As well, in the 1968 Federal referendum the Australian people voted in favour of giving the Federal government responsibility for Aboriginal issues such as land rights. I understand that more than 90 per cent of the people of Victoria supported this question that was proposed in the referendum. When the impasse in the Victorian Parliament occurred earlier this year my colleague Senator Macklin, the Democrats spokesman on Aboriginal Affairs, and I, as an Australian Democrats senator for Victoria, issued a joint Press release giving our agreement in principle to allowing the speedy passage of the Federal legislation, pending, of course, our examination of the contents of the Bills which we understood would have to be redrafted for passage through the Federal Parliament and noting that the mindless obstructionism of the Victorian Opposition in the Legislative Council clearly showed the need for urgent electoral reform and a Democrat presence in the upper House in that State. From the mid-nineteenth century the Aboriginal people of the Framlingham Forest area witnessed the gradual selling off or leasing of parts of their land. This continued until the 1950s. At Lake Condah the Aboriginal people were dispossessed of their land in a slightly different way, with their reserve officially closing in the early twentieth century and finally being divvied up for soldier settlement after World War II. Now, some three decades later and after some eight years of hard work, consultation and negotiation with bureaucracies, the Government and the wider community, we are finally seeing some justice for the people of Condah and Framlingham-justice which in this case takes the form of returning Aboriginal land to Aboriginal people. Just how much land are we talking about? For Condah it is only some 55 hectares of crown land and for Framlingham it is just over 1,100 hectares. I have been told by some of the Aboriginal women of Condah that prior to colonisation their land covered some 12,000 square kilometres. Those who oppose Aboriginal land rights should be ashamed of their attitude when they hear how the parcel of land has diminished. The scare tactics of opponents of this kind of legislation, who say that the Aboriginal community is likely to take all land away from everybody, are shameful as well. However, while the Australian Democrats support this legislation, we pass on to the Parliament the concern of the Kerrup-Jmara and the Kirrae Whurrong communities that they would have preferred the Federal Government to have introduced, in the case of the land rights legislation, two Bills to cover the two areas of land rather than this one Bill, as was the case in the Victorian Parliament where this action originated. After speaking with members from both Aboriginal communities, we share their view and regret that the Federal Government did not do as the Victorian Government had done, which was to treat the two communities as two distinct communities and provide two distinct pieces of legislation. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(6.30) —I rise, after an exhausting three-week sitting, because this week we have commemorated an important anniversary for Australia and I think that something should be said about it. On 12 May-that is, last Tuesday evening, when Australians were bracing themselves in anticipation of the May economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-a fleet of square riggers, the ships comprising the First Fleet re-enactment squadron, were riding at anchor on the Motherbank off the Isle of Wight. Yesterday, Wednesday 13 May, with the swelling of the morning tide on the Solent the ships hoisted their sails, weighed anchor, caught the breeze and made their stately way past thousands of people lining the Portsmouth foreshores and set their compasses for Teneriffe, the first port of call on the eight-month voyage to Sydney Harbour. As the re-enactment of the First Fleet voyage jibed and beat its way past the Isle of Wight, the ships were reviewed by the Queen from the deck of HMS Sirius, the Royal Navy vessel named after the convoy escort on the original First Fleet. When the review was completed the signal was hoisted on the command ship, `proceed to your intended destination'. Thus the fleet made its way into the English Channel and towards Australia. The original First Fleet over 200 years ago hoisted the same signal and the fleet made its way to what was then known as Botany Bay, the proposed thief colony in New South Wales or what has latterly been called the `fatal shore'. Thus we saw this week the first major event in the celebration of Australia's Bicentennial. Over the remaining months of this year and throughout next year we Australians will celebrate 200 years of European settlement in this country. I would prefer to celebrate the anniversary of Federation in Australia rather than European colonisation of this country, but since we are celebrating the Bicentennial we should also commemorate an anniversary which has been overlooked in the sailing of the First Fleet re-enactment but which has a particular pertinence still for Australia, 200 years after that first sailing. I am indebted to Robert Hughes, author of the timely but frightening book, The Fatal Shore, to be reminded that, when Commander Phillip, later to be Governor Phillip, hoisted the first signal `proceed to your destination' to the original First Fleet, no vessel moved. The naval vessels got under way, but not the transports. No sail filled and no capstan turned on the commercially chartered vessels comprising the first fleet. The reason for the inactivity was that the sailors crewing the commercial ships had walked off the job in an industrial dispute. At the time there were no unions in Britain. The sailors involved were not unionised. Nor could workers combine in legally sanctioned unions in that country for more than half a century after that sailing. The act of the First Fleet sailors was illegal-grossly so-in the Britain of the Agricultural Revolution years, but it was an act of solidarity that could have seen the sailors transported along with the convicts in the hulks that comprised the First Fleet. Certainly, the ringleaders of that walk-off faced the gallows in the ultimate naval execution of mutiny. In other words, the sailors in the First Fleet faced far more hideous and callous penal clauses than even Joh Bjelke-Petersen could conceive of in the recently enacted legislation in Queensland. However, the question that should be asked is: Why did those sailors take that action? That is the sort of question that I hope will be asked in the forthcoming weeks and months when we debate the industrial legislation that was put down in the House of Representatives today by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Ralph Willis. The question that should be asked is: Why do people voluntarily forgo income by going on strike? Why do they inflict upon themselves economic loss? What injustice, real or perceived, drives them to deprive themselves and their families of part or all of their wages? If we debated industrial relations from that point of view we would have an intelligent debate in this country. We should start with the first question: Why? If we did that we would avoid the disgusting perversion of rational debate that now threatens over this legislation that will shortly come to the Senate. The first element of this debate is to paint unions as ogres. That type of debate blames the messenger for the problems, and seeks to claim that if the messenger were removed so would be the problem. But it is inconsistent with the free market thinking of the conservatives, if we use their own terms as the basis of the opening part of this argument. Conservatives argue that there is a right for free enterprise within civilised limits, but what they do not argue is that that right of free enterprise should be conceded to unions. They say that it goes only to companies which, after all, are only a combination of shareholders who have put up the money to finance the companies. Unions are a combination of workers who have put up their labour to make the companies, once financed, operative. The conservatives who espouse free market arguments should not rationally limit that view only to those who put up the money. In the forthcoming industrial relations debate in this country I would like to hear from the conservatives, who argue against unionists, an answer to the following question: Why do they discriminate and not include labour in their free market philosophies? In Australian unions and employers concede the free enterprise notion in favour of regulation by an arbitral authority. In the Willis legislation introduced today the principle was enshrined quite properly that arbitration is the way to go in a civilised, enlightened community. It is a philosophy supported by employers, unionists, governments, and, throughout our history, by the people of Australia in all elections and votes on policies dealing with this matter. Another argument used is a furphy which should be answered in the forthcoming debate, and that is that unions go on strike because union bosses-not the rank and file-require it. In starting this debate it is pertinent to point out that over the last 30 years laws have been enshrined in the statutes requiring unions to register their rules in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The union's rules are not necessarily the rules that unions choose; they are rules that are authorised and registered by the Commission in complying with the principles in the legislation as to what is reasonable, fair and democratic. If there is an accusation against union rules, it should be an accusation against the Commission, not against the unions. If one looks at the record one will see that unions have a democratic structure. Union officials are politicians in that they are regularly elected and in that they need to satisfy their constituents who, after all, pay fees to maintain them in office. Therefore, if one takes the narrow, simplistic view of blaming the officials, the representatives of those in dispute, one is again shooting the messenger. In saying that, I am not saying that everything is always perfect, because this is an imperfect world dealing with human relations. Nevertheless, it is overwhelmingly the case and it is idle to argue otherwise. If people believe that penalties are the way to go and refuse to face the reality of the particular grievances in an industrial dispute, they will face the same problems that the authorities faced when the First Fleet sailors walked off and faced the gallows as the ultimate penal sanction. We have to look at the issue that gave rise to their dispute. In the case of the First Fleet, the sailors had not been paid for nine weeks. The owners of the vessels chartered to the Admiralty to transport the convicts to Australia were private owners. They chartered their vessels at a rate of tonnage and months employed by the Admiralty. They hired and paid the crews, but the dispute was caused by the fact that the crews had not been paid for nine weeks prior to departure. The owners assured the crews that they would be paid when the vessels were at sea. The crews knew from bitter experience that therefore all their services-their rum, tobacco, clothing and the things that they purchased from the ships' stores-would be bought from a monopoly source at inflated prices. They demanded their wages before they left Portsmouth so that they could buy the goods they needed for the long voyage of eight months to Australia at ordinary market rates in the town and not at inflated prices charged by the employers. If we look at the cause of the walk-off of the First Fleet sailors, we would say from this distance of history that objectively they were right. Only those who would argue that workers are commodities and should be traded would take the owners' view from this perspective. Their grievance, however, is a grievance from which we still suffer today. The Senate yesterday debated papers, one of which related to the report of the Arbitration Inspectorate for the period 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986. I commend honourable senators to the speech of Senator Foreman when that paper came before the Senate. That speech was an exemplary dissertation on the reason why an Arbitration Inspectorate exists, which is to police the awards of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, awards which have the force of law in that they arise after proceedings and are given assent by the Commission, which is a statutory body that is independent of government. The speech explained why the Inspectorate polices the Arbitration Act itself. On page 11 of the report of the Arbitration Inspectorate one sees the heading `Award breaches and penalties imposed'. I wish to quote the four points listed in paragraph 38 which refer to the activities of the Inspectorate in recovering moneys outstanding to workers over the past 12 months. The first point states that 28,686 prima facie breaches of Federal awards were detected. The second point indicates that $4,069,949 was paid to 18,251 employees by 4,684 employers in voluntary termination of award breaches. The third point states that, of 79 award breaches involving 11 employers referred for prosecution, one was withdrawn and the remainder were found proven by the courts. I interpolate that there is a perfect prosecution record in the past 12 months by the Inspectorate against employers on complaints received and acted on by the Inspectorate. The final point under that paragraph indicates that penalties totalling $5,420 were imposed by the courts, which also made orders for payments of $7,519. In other words, the industrial position in Australia, as reported upon by the Inspectorate, is a record of industrial lawlessness by employers in not honouring award obligations imposed on them by a fair arbitration system to which they have rights as well as do the unions. The $4m-plus recovered is but the tip of a large iceberg because that figure does not indicate what unions, in direct negotiations with employers, have recovered on behalf of their members. I would assert that the amount recovered by unions vastly outweighs the amount recovered by the Inspectorate. Nor does the figure include amounts that have never been recovered, and will not be recovered, because workers are in a position where they do not resort to the Inspectorate or are intimidated by employers. They are in a weak industrial position or have no unions to represent them. That is the classic case in areas of female employment, youth employment, particularly in fast food outlets, Aboriginal employment and a lot of migrant employment. It highlights the degree of industrial lawlessness by employers-a subject of which we hear little in industrial relations debates today. It is the subject on which the sailors in the First Fleet went on strike in what in feudal England was an illegal act. In the next weeks and months the debate on industrial relations will flow on both chambers of this Parliament from the Bill which has been presented today by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis. Part of that debate will focus-I believe unnecessarily-on the role of sanctions and penalties in industrial relations. Indeed, there are sanctions and penalties in the legislation presented by the Minister in the House of Representatives. But if we debate just that we miss the whole point of how to achieve an industrial relations system which will improve the regulation of relations in the workplace. It is often felt that it is not important to consider why people take action so long as a host of penalties are stored up to deter or coerce them from taking action. Therefore, we never discover whether the reasons for their taking that action are a real injustice or an injustice that can be mediated upon and thus resolved, or something that is not an injustice at all. If we believe in coercion in industrial relations, as does the Queensland Premier and as do Opposition members by their record in respect of the Arbitration Act or the Trade Practices Act, we shall be operating on the basis of the same nineteenth century philosophy as gave rise to the dispute that bedevilled the sailing of the First Fleet. I hope that in the ensuing debate the ghosts of the First Fleet sailors will be honoured in the memory by the conduct of a rational debate which will concentrate on rational issues. It should concentrate on why people in the workplace take the actions they do and on the best way to resolve such matters in a humane and reasonable way for all parties. If that becomes the benchmark of the debate, all the politicians in both Houses of this Parliament will carry out a service for Australia in the Bicentennial year which the victims in the First Fleet did not have carried out for them. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.45) —I thank Senator Cook for his poetic and stirring contribution to the adjournment debate this evening. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.46 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 May. The following paper was tabled: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1). I think it is quite clear that there is within this chamber a range of views about the merits or otherwise of advertising cigarettes and alcohol. The important thing is that those who totally oppose the principle of advertising alcohol and tobacco can nonetheless feel totally comfortable opposing the Democrats' incompetent amendment, because in fact it seeks to do far more than simply to prevent people who are selling alcoholic beverages or goods for smoking from advertising those items. As I said, it goes far beyond that to an unreasonable degree and seeks to intrude and impose a restraint which is inappropriate and bears no relationship to the advertising of alcohol or tobacco products that the Democrats claim they are seeking to prevent. Nonetheless, I think it is reasonable to say that all members of this chamber would expect the Olympic Federation, in making its decisions, to recognise certain social obligations, because it has always acted in that way and always will act in that way, and its charter requires it in effect to act in that way. So on almost every score the Democrats' amendment, which is a grandstanding amendment aimed at creating phoney righteousness, is in fact something that I am certain no honourable senator, apart from the Australian Democrats for a political purpose, would really be seeking to support. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Sanders's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Georges, G. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. (Teller)Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. CArcher, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Aulich, T. MacGibbon, D. JBaume, Michael McKiernan, J. PBolkus, N. Maguire, G. RBoswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Carrick, Sir John Morris, JChilds. B. K. Newman, J. MCoates, J. Parer, W. RColeman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. GCollard, S. J. Ray, RoberColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. (TellerCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, MCooney, B. Robertson, E. ACrowley, R. A. Ryan, S. MDevlin, R. Short, J. RElstob, R. C. Tate, M. CEvans, Gareth Teague, B. CForeman, D. J. Townley, MGietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. EGiles, P. J. Walsh, P. AGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. SHamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. WJessop, D. S. West, S. MJones, G. N. Withers, R. GKilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. The following answers to questions were circulated: Senator Gareth Evans —On 25 March 1987 (Hansard, page 1300) Senator Messner asked me as the Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question without notice: My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer him to an article that appeared in the Times on Sunday of 22 March concerning the reporting of an apparent decision by the Government to introduce a system to award costs in cases heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Has such a decision been made or has the Government reviewed proposals for the introduction of such a system? In particular, will the effect of such a measure be to discourage prospective complaints in seeking to have administrative decisions, particularly in relation to taxation assessments and related matters-I point out that these can be very small as well as somewhat larger-reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? This comes on top of the Government's disgraceful decision to impose a $200 filing fee for all matters heard by the AAT. The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The decision referred to in the Times on Sunday article of 22 March 1987 was a decision the Government took that the unsuccessful party in AAT proceedings should bear the costs of the successful party, except in income maintenance cases. That decision has not been implemented, in view of the decision of the Government that there should be a general review of the procedures of the AAT. The Attorney-General has established a Task Force to conduct the review and it has received a number of submissions concerning the awarding of costs in AAT proceedings. The Government will consider further, after examining the report of the Task Force, what is the most appropriate system for awarding costs in AAT proceedings. Senator Button —On 1 May 1987 (Hansard, page 2188) Senator Brownhill asked me the following question without notice: I draw the Minister's attention to two responses to questions on notice he has provided me on the subject of a bird smuggling attempt which was foiled at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport last September. The Minister may be aware that the two people detained are both prominent in the avicultural industry in Sydney and that their involvement in such activities has upset and angered other aviculturists. Given that the matter is serious, and that the two were caught in the act, why has the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service not completed its inquiries and why has the Director of Public Prosecutions not yet acted? Is the Minister aware that there is very great concern within the avicultural industry that the prosecutions will not proceed, and if in fact they do not proceed that it will provide encouragement for others to attempt to continue their illegal import and export of exotic birds? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I thank the honourable senator for his advice of the concern of the avicultural industry in this matter. I share that concern. The Chief Quarantine Officer, New South Wales, has approved a Prosecution Brief prepared by the Australian Customs Service for alleged offences with the Quarantine Act 1908. That Brief, together with the Brief for offences under the Wildlife Protection (Exports and Imports) Act 1982, are with the Director of Public Prosecutions. The matter of future prosecutions action now rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions.