Tuesday, 2 June 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.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. The petition of the undersigned shows that there is an urgent need for Commonwealth financial assistance for the provision of multicultural public library services. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should take steps to ensure adequate assistance from the Commonwealth Government to public libraries throughout Australia for the provision of materials and services in languages other than English, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in its Report on the National Language policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium 137 and caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 546 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers, about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. (3) Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X ray etc.) (4) Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate. The petition of the undersigned do respectfully showeth that pornographic material relating to children is deleterious to the health and welfare of children and society as a whole. We respectfully urge the Government to ban all child pornography from entering or from being produced in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 1,653 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains a satellite communication dish, that sends to the United States the information, gathered by the ``joint high frequency stations'' in Australia and New Zealand, indicating the position of the Soviet naval ships and submarines. This information from Watsonia is combined with data from satellites and underwater sensors to calculate the location of the Soviet vessels with great accuracy. 2. This would make it possible for the US nuclear naval ships and submarines to destroy all nuclear Soviet naval ships and submarines, while the US nuclear submarines, naval ships and bombers launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. 3. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 4. The ``joint U.S-Australian'' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to the nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the ``joint Australian-U.S'' electronic communications facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Maranoa Electorate respectfully showeth that the Social Security Bill 1987, Schedule 1, page 15, additional amendments of the Social Security Act 1947, part 1, omit- ``Subsection 6 (1) (definition of `de facto spouse'): Insert `and includes a person who, but for a law of a State or Territory prohibiting sexual intercourse between the person and another person by reason only of the age of either person, would be such a person' after `to that other person'.'', Substitute- ``Subsection 6 (1) (definition of `de facto spouse'): Insert `but does not include a person who is living with another person in a relationship prohibited by a law of a State or Territory' after `to that other person'.''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensioners 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 Sir John Carrick (from 10 citizens), Childs (from 147 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 18 citizens), Lewis (from 12 citizens), Macklin (from 46 citizens), Reynolds (from 19 citizens), Richardson (from 17 citizens) and Robertson (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Moreton Island is an invaluable natural resource for Queensland and the world and that mining on Moreton would gravely compromise its unique flora and fauna and its outstanding recreational archaeological and scientific values. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the government to use its proven constitutional powers to halt sand mining on Moreton by supporting the Moreton Island Preservation Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 631 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and Senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that Australia should not host nuclear weapons in its territory or in Australian waters; and that the presence of nuclear armed warships makes a priority target of the ports being visited; and that the safety precautions for handling and deployment of nuclear weapons are inadequate to guarantee safety from accidents; and that the malfunction of the reactor on board a nuclear powered vessel could irradiate a large area of the surrounding environs; Therefore call upon the Australian Government to: prohibit the entry of nuclear weapons to Australia, and to deny access to Australian ports of vessels which are nuclear powered; and to deny access to Australian ports of foreign warships unless an assurance is received that they are not carrying nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 108 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and Senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that Australia should not host nuclear weapons in its territory or in Australian waters; and that the presence of nuclear armed warships makes a priority target of the ports being visited; and that the safety precautions for handling and deployment of nuclear weapons are inadequate to guarantee safety from accidents; and that these warships capable of carrying nuclear weapons will be participating in the 75th Anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy We therefore call upon the Australian Government to: prohibit the entry of nuclear weapons to Australia; and to deny access to Australian ports of foreign warships unless an assurance is received that they are not carrying nuclear weapons; and to require that foreign warships participating in the anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy not be carrying nuclear weapons in Australian territorial waters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 666 citizens). To the Honourable the President and of the Senate and Senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that Australia should not host nuclear weapons in its territory or in Australian waters; and that the presence of nuclear armed warships makes a priority target of the ports being visited; and that the safety precautions for handling and deployment of nuclear weapons are inadequate to guarantee safety from accidents; and that the following warships, all capable of launching nuclear weapons deployed in the British or United States navies, will be visiting Sydney between 29 September to 13 October-HMS Illustrious, HMS Beaver, HMS Fort Grange, HMS Manchester, HMS Amazon, HMS Olmeda, USS Missouri, USS Paul F. Foster, USS Oldendorf; and that these warships capable of carrying nuclear weapons will be participating in the 75th Anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy Therefore call upon the Australian Government to: prohibit the entry of nuclear weapons to Australia; and to deny access to Australian ports of foreign warships unless an assurance is received that they are not carrying nuclear weapons; and to require that foreign warships participating in the anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy not be carrying nuclear weapons in Australian territorial waters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 5,537 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ``X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill: 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under law, 2. Deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. could cause far more damage than they could possible cure. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Senate should: completely reject the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 28 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to his assertion last Friday that he did not know whether his Victorian Labor Senate ticket colleague, John Halfpenny, was responsible for the strikes and bans or the threats of strikes and bans now affecting 30 metal trades employers in Victoria. Does he know that two weeks ago Mr Halfpenny publicly urged metal workers to vote for industrial action if agreement to a second tier wage increase was not forthcoming by last Thursday? Does the Minister also know that by a huge majority-about 25:1-metal workers rejected that approach but Mr Halfpenny's influence was sufficient to carry some area meetings in Victoria, resulting in the strikes, bans and threats to which I have referred in other questions? I remind the Minister that on Friday he cited the return to work by strikers at Port Kembla as justification of his softly, softly approach to industrial relations. Is the Minister aware that the Port Kembla dispute cost the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and Australia between $20m and $30m in direct losses and probably even more in terms of loss of customer confidence? Is the Minister confident that his action in taking what he described on Friday as certain steps in relation to these matters will bring to an early end the Halfpenny-inspired industrial guerrilla warfare in Victoria or is he prepared, as with the Port Kembla dispute, to let the strikes, bans and threats drag on indefinitely? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether my attitude to industrial relations is fairly characterised as `softly, softly' or not. All I know is that this Government's attitude to industrial relations has produced far better results than were ever achieved under the Fraser Government, in which Senator Chaney was a Minister. Industrial disputation in this country has more than halved since this Government came to power. It was not so long ago that even the present Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard, said that if the Liberals were elected to government there could be five years of industrial chaos but that they would solve the problem in that period. That would, of course, be at the expense of numerous industries throughout Australia, adding much more to the losses incurred than the $20m or $30m at Port Kembla. I said all I had to say about the Port Kembla stoppage last week. Hopefully, that is now resolved. From what I hear, I believe it is. Senator Chaney asked me to comment again on matters which he asked me about last week concerning votes in the metal workers union and things like that. I am not familiar with all those details. I queried some of them last week and I will query some of them again, but the substance of them is probably correct. The point of the matter is whether we can, by proper persuasion and negotiation, resolve these issues as quickly as possible or whether we will decide the matter in some other way. The bottom line for Senator Chaney, as the new shadow spokesman on industrial relations, is what he would do about all these things. The implication is that Senator Chaney would have solved the Port Kembla dispute in a couple of days. I do not believe that for a moment. I believe that is the greatest bit of hocus pocus I have ever heard. One has only to look at the record of honourable senators opposite. We can look at what people were saying on the AM program this morning about the period of the Fraser Government. David Hale from Chicago made the comment that the Fraser Government was seen as a government which had great opportunities to do things for this country. It ignored those opportunities and it failed-- Senator Messner —What about the opportunities you have missed since 1983? Senator BUTTON —`Alley Oop' sings out: `What about the opportunities you've missed?'. Of course, every government has difficulties from time to time in terms of economic circumstances and so on. But reading Senator Messner's statements does not give me a great deal of comfort. All he has between himself and disaster is his native intelligence-and that does not endue anybody with a great sense of confidence, let alone the electorate. I will continue, as I said I would last week, to try to influence the course of events in Victoria. Hopefully, that will produce a result as soon as possible. As I said last week, I am concerned about interruptions to industry brought about by industrial pressure. I will do what I can and the Government will do what it can to resolve those pressures. But let us not have the pretence that there is some magic wand in the hand of the Opposition which it would wave, as it did in the past, to produce good results. I do not think that for a moment. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note all the wind that the Minister has given me. I ask him quite simply: Does he agree with the actions of his Senate team colleague, Mr Halfpenny, in respect of those 30 employers who are being held to ransom by the union at Mr Halfpenny's insistance? Senator BUTTON —I answered that question last week, simply by saying: If the due processes of a union such as the metal workers union are not being followed, by Mr Halfpenny or anybody else, in relation to industrial disruption, I deplore that fact. Senator DEVLIN —Can the Minister for Education inform the Senate of the full costs of higher education places in universities or colleges of advanced education? Would the Government consider charging Australian students the full costs of their higher education places? Senator RYAN —The full tuition costs in universities and colleges of advanced education vary according to the course being undertaken. Average annual costs, including a capital component, range from about $5,800 for law and economics courses in the advanced education sector to $24,500 a year for veterinary science courses in universities. The annual cost of a science or engineering course would range from $11,500 to $15,000 a year; so it can be seen that, in the case of university and colleges, the cost of places is high and, in some cases, very high. Quite clearly, it is a cost that average or poor families could never be expected to bear individually and, for that reason, our Government would never consider demanding from an individual student the full cost of a university or college place. To go down that track, the track down which the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, indicated on the John Laws show yesterday that he would travel, would ensure that students from poor backgrounds could never contemplate a university or college education and it would ensure also that even many students from average and middle income families could not contemplate such a huge outlay. Only students from very affluent families would be able to contemplate paying $15,000 or $24,000, or even $8,000, a year. We would not contemplate demanding such a payment from individual students, because of the equity reasons that I have just outlined, and nor would we contemplate a policy that would ensure that our thrust towards having a much better educated and more highly skilled work force would be undermined. Every industry leader and large employer in Australia is asking the Government to ensure that we have education policies that raise the standard of education and training at the school, the higher education and the technical levels. Of course we are doing that, but to embark upon a policy, as John Howard has promised he will do, which would lock most young people in Australia out of education institutions would directly contradict the whole theme of what industry leaders and large employers have been saying, as well as having the dreadful consequences in terms of equity with which we are concerned. It is very clear that the Liberal Party of Australia has given some force to what it is saying. It was not a throwaway line yesterday from Mr Howard. Earlier, Peter Shack announced some sort of an intended policy which would maintain the present number of higher education places and somehow graft on the 390,000 or so public full cost places. It was not made clear as to how it was going to do that, and I do not think that even Mr Shack himself knew the answer. However, John Howard's remarks yesterday were interesting, because they were a contraction of, even a resiling from, what Peter Shack said previously. He said that the Liberal Party will maintain a certain number of free places-not the current number, which would be in the vicinity of 400,000-so even students who currently have a public place in an institution can expect that benefit to be taken away from them in the highly unlikely event of John Howard ever being in a position to implement these decisions. It is quite clear, and I must say that in one sense I welcome the fact, that the Liberal Party has stated what we have known all along to be its policies that any school or mature age student who aspires to a university or college education will have to get several thousands of dollars which, in some cases, is an impossible task. Students currently in the system, who have embarked on these courses, are often under fairly serious economic strain and are being assisted by their families, or they have part time and casual jobs or, in some cases, receive some assistance from the Government by way of Austudy. Those students who are under very stringent financial constraints in maintaining and being able to complete their courses had better ask John Howard what this certain number of places will be and, of those who have a public place in an institution, who will lose such a place and what will be the criteria for deciding who will be able to continue to have a public place and who will have to pay up to $24,000 a year. I think it would be irresponsible in the extreme if the Opposition failed to answer this question. Our Government will continue to do what it has done so effectively in its four years. We will provide growth in higher education and we will ensure that growth is spread regionally throughout the countryside and that it is not just concentrated in the big metropolitan areas. We will ensure that that growth is attuned to the needs of industry, for more people in computing, engineering, business studies and the like, and we will ensure that access to higher education is based on merit and the principles of equity. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance both in his own capacity and as the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Minister agree with Mr Gerry Gutman about the reason the Government turned down his recommendation for a gold tax? I quote from an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald last week under the heading `Post Election Gold Tax Makes Good Sense'. He said that they turned it down `because they were not the sort of things that could be introduced before an election'. Will the Government give a written undertaking, as the Opposition has done, that if returned to office it will not introduce a gold tax? Senator WALSH —I would not place any value on a written or an oral undertaking from the Opposition; anyone who does would have to be wet behind the ears. Look at who is leading the Opposition. The Treasurer who presided over the 1977 election campaign appeared in full page advertisements holding a fistful of fivers. Honourable senators will remember that big hand held up with ten $5 notes clutched between every finger with the Treasurer saying: `Liberals give you tax cuts'. There was a big hand with $300 or $400 in $5 notes. Then what happened? The tax cuts came through on 1 February 1978 but they were whisked away again on 1 July 1978. They lasted for five months. But we saw fistfuls of dollars and it was said: `Liberals give you tax cuts'. And so they did-for five months. That is the sort of Treasurer that the last Liberal Government appointed and now that same fellow who was Treasurer then is the Leader of the Liberal Party. So, whether there is an undertaking in writing or whether it comes from the Leader's mouth, anyone who takes any notice of what the Opposition says is a mug. I have seen nothing that was said by Mr Gutman, but I do remember what Senator Durack said-and I am very glad that he asked me this question. I remember, I believe it was on 10 August 1984-I could check that fairly quickly if honourable senators wished-a report in which Senator Durack was quoted as having said: `Of course, there was no justification for the exemption of the income from gold mining from income tax.' I also recall an article that Senator Chaney wrote that did not go that far. It is ironic, to say the least, that Senator Durack, who has been reported-and has not contradicted that-as saying that there is no justification for an exemption from income tax for income derived from gold mining, has asked this question. Senator Durack says that there should be a tax, but apparently Mr Howard puts in writing that there will not be a tax. Frankly, in a contest between Senator Durack and Mr Howard, I would rather believe Senator Durack. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Finance. Will the Government give a written undertaking that it will not introduce a gold tax if returned to office? Senator WALSH —The Government has made a decision on this issue and the Liberal Party speaks with a forked tongue on this as on so many other matters. Apparently John Howard, the fellow who held out a fistful of fivers and then whisked them away as soon as the election was over, is saying and putting in writing that there will not be a tax but it is still on record that Senator Durack says that there should be a tax. Senator COATES —Has the Special Minister of State seen reports today that indicate that a Tasmanian Liberal Party senator is threatening to stand for the New Nationals in Tasmania? Does such a party actually exist in Tasmania and, if not, will the New Nationals have to register as a party in Tasmania to allow that senator to stand as a candidate for the party? Is it too late to register such a party. Senator TATE —I have seen reports that attribute to Senator Michael Townley an intention in some circumstances of standing for the Joh for Canberra campaign or the New Nationals-whichever title may be ascribed to that political organisation. I understand that such a party does not exist at present in the sense of either having an operational base in Tasmania or being registered there. The only way that Senator Townley will be able to use a party affiliation, as opposed to standing as an Independent, in the coming election is by being endorsed by a political party that is already registered. Although the current National Party of Australia is not registered in Tasmania, it is registered nationally and in each of the mainland States. Senator Townley could be endorsed by the national registered office or any of the State registered offices of the current National Party and stand in Tasmania. Certainly, as I said, without the registration of the New Nationals or the Joh for Canberra party he would be left stranded. For the information of honourable senators-this will be of interest to other States also-I point out that to be eligible for registration a party must be either a parliamentary party or a political party that has a total national membership of at least 500. Applications for party registrations are made to the central office, a State head office, or the Darwin office of the Electoral Commission. The next part of my answer is important. Upon receipt of an application, the Commission publishes in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and major newspapers circulating in each State and Territory a public notice of application for party registration, and invites objections to be lodged within one month. So there is a month for objections to be considered. The Commission may refuse to register a party if the name or abbreviation goes against certain criteria which are listed in the relevant Act. Objections may be made on various grounds, as honourable senators will be aware. However, the important point that I want to make is this: In the period between the issue and the return of the writ for an election all action concerning application for party registration is suspended, including the one month set aside for consideration of objections. Hence, parties must be registered before the issue of the writ. It is quite evident from that that it is far too late for the New Nationals, the Joh for Canberra campaign or any such titled political organisation backing Sir Joh independently of the current National Party to be registered in time to get on the ballot paper as such a political organisation. Senator VIGOR —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Is the Minister aware that there has been a five-fold increase in the backlog of cases before the Immigration Review Panel since June 1985? What steps is the Government taking to reduce the March 1987 backlog of 8,823 cases, accounting for an average processing time of 7.6 months per person? In any review of the immigration procedures will the Government remove the current discrimination in the points tests against those people from non-English speaking backgrounds who have relatives settled and well-established in Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that as at 30 April 1987 the backlog of Immigration Review Panel cases was 9,725. This compares with 1,648 as at 30 June 1985. The average time taken to process the requests for review which were finalised in April 1978 was 7.6 months. On the basis that requests for review to the IRP would be received at an average of 1,000 per month from January 1987 to June 1988, the following steps were planned to reduce the backlog to 4,500 by June next year and also to reduce the processing time for requests for review to the IRP: First, an increase of 100 in staff that are processing requests from 1 July 1987; and secondly, the establishment of IRP panels in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, in addition to those in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, and the appointment of additional IRP chairpersons and members. The Government has had under consideration possible changes to migration decision-making and review arrangements, including changes proposed by the Administrative Review Council in its report No. 25, which was tabled in August last year. Very extensive consultations have been undertaken with community and ethnic groups and law bodies about possible changes. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs invited interested groups to submit their views to him by around the middle of this year. I can assure the Senate that this process will continue after we have been re-elected. As to the last part of Senator Vigor's question, the Government denies straight out that there is any discrimination in the points test. It applies only to applicants in the independent and concessional category, for which the pass mark is 70. Bearing upon the point that Senator Vigor made about people with relatives in Australia, 10 points are awarded for sponsorship by brother, sister or parent, five points for sponsorship by uncle or aunt and a further five points if the sponsor is an Australian citizen. So it will be appreciated against that background, with a total of 70 points being required, that the points that are applicable to relatives in Australia is a relatively marginal part of the total points figure. As such, we see no ground for the suggestion that Senator Vigor has been making. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Minister represen-ting the Treasurer. I refer to the Minister's answer last week to a question I asked regarding a policy document that was alleged to be leaked to the Melbourne Herald. In the Minister's answer he suggested that a broad-based consumption tax, of the kind needed by the Liberal Party if it is to have the slightest chance of balancing its books on its tax and expenditure promises, had been rejected by the Government because, amongst other things, it would have boosted the consumer price index by 6 1/2 per cent. I ask the Minister: Would this increase be a one-off increase, or would it have an ongoing effect? Senator WALSH —I remember the question last week. I said, I think, these words: `No country in the world has ever had a one-off increase in the price level of that magnitude'. The magnitude in question was 6 1/2 per cent. If I can put the record straight, that was correct at the time of the National Taxation Summit in 1985, but it is no longer correct. New Zealand introduced a broadly based consumption tax later in 1985-or it may have been early 1986; I am not sure-which increased the consumer price index by about that amount. New Zealand brought in a VAT-type consumption tax at a rate of 10 per cent. The consequences of that were that New Zealand had an inflation rate in the December quarter of 9 per cent. The annual inflation rate for New Zealand is currently running in excess of 18 per cent compared with a rate of less than 11 per cent when the consumption tax was introduced. So the effect in New Zealand has been a huge and, until now, sustained increase in the rate of inflation. Senator Jones asked me whether such an increase in the price level caused by the introduction of a broad-based consumption tax, or indeed any consumption tax or wholesale sales tax which increased the retail price of goods, would have a one-off or an ongoing effect. The answer to that question essentially depends on whether the higher price levels are locked in to wages outcomes in particular or whether they are not. If a consumption tax were introduced under the sort of wages system, or lack of wages system I should say, which prevailed in Australia in 1981-82 when Mr Howard was Treasurer and the then Liberal Government decided to have a flirtation with collective bargaining and market-determined wages outcomes which led to a wages explosion it is almost certain that inflation would go up to 20 per cent and probably stay there or maybe even continue to accelerate. The experience in the main, however, has been that when a major increase in the price level occurs it gets built in, at least for a time, to the wages-prices spiral and maintains a rate of inflation very much higher than that which prevailed prior to the introduction of such a tax. As I indicated the other day, that was a major reason why the Government decided in 1985 not to proceed with such a tax. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the question I raised last Thursday with regard to the serious implications for Australia of the Bureau of Statistics survey fore- casting on average a 7 per cent drop in investment in manufacturing over 1987-88. I also now refer the Minister to an article by Ross Gittins in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald in which, after detailed analysis of the latest statistics, the writer concludes that, above all else, Australia needs strong growth in manufacturing investment. I quote Mr Gittins: The bad news is that the survey of expected investment shows manufacturing as the sector where the outlook is worst. He further says: This takes all the gilt off the gingerbread, really, because it suggests that we won't be able to go on trading out of our difficulties for much longer. I now ask the Minister: Is the gloomy outlook for manufacturing investment one of the reasons that the Australian Labor Party has suddenly dropped Mr Singleton's `The worst is over' campaign slogan? Senator BUTTON —Anything that Mr Singleton said on television in terms of a campaign slogan is not the Labor Party's campaign slogan. That will be announced in due course. Senator Puplick —The worst is yet to come. Senator BUTTON —The question is: How bad is the worst? Senator Puplick has provoked me by that interjection. The worst, as has been pointed out by a number of foreign exchange commentators in the United States of America and a number of business commentators, would be the dreadful alternative of the election of a Howard-Bjelke-Petersen Government. That would be the worst possible outlook. This Government has made no secret in the last several years that the process of economic recovery and getting ourselves out of the conditions created by policies of past governments would be a medium to long haul. The difficulties in the course of that medium to long haul will be considerable. They will be well managed, however, when this Government is re-elected. I have not read Mr Gittins's article to which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred but, if he is making the point that a lack of improvement in manufacturing investment-I think he was referring more to outlook, as I understand it from reported comments, rather than actual investment-in the future would be a considerable difficulty, I agree with that comment, and I think it is a matter of concern. However, if I might take a piecemeal view of the situation, I have investment figures for particular sectors of manufacturing industry placed before me on a fairly regular basis, and I must say that, in spite of the survey material, they are most encouraging. I refer to industries such as chemicals and plastics, motor vehicles, steel on a continuing basis and some areas of the metal trades. They are the ones that come to mind in respect of which I have seen recent reports which are very encouraging in terms of investment-actual committed investment and foreshadowed investment. To maintain the right environment in which that investment will continue to take place and improve is, I concede, very important. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that information, and I now ask: Would it be possible for him to make publicly known some of that information which he has had placed before him on a regular basis and which might help to dispel some of the concern that undoubtedly exists throughout the economy with regard to this sector? Senator BUTTON —That will be no trouble at all; the honourable senator will hear about it. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Given that the Industrial Relations Bill will not now be considered until the Budget session, what does the Government propose to do about the threat to the Queensland and national economy posed by the Bjelke-Petersen Government's provocative, confrontationist and anti-worker industrial relations legislation? Senator GARETH EVANS —Shortly the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, and I will be jointly announcing that the Commonwealth Government will initiate a High Court of Australia constitutional challenge to the Queensland Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act 1984-87. Proceedings will be commenced as soon as possible-that is expected to be within the next two or three weeks-seeking a declaration by the High Court that the Queensland Act is constitutionally invalid to the extent of its inconsistency with the relevant provisions of existing Commonwealth legislation, including the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. The Government's initiation of these proceedings follows last week's decision to withdraw the Industrial Relations Bill for a further round of consultations. When reintroduced after the election in the Budget session, that Bill will continue to contain explicit provisions overriding intrusive and inappropriate legislation by State governments, including the Queensland Government. The Commonwealth Government has taken the view that, because of the delay necessarily now involved in that legislative process, action is necessary in the interim to minimise the damage that may flow to the national economy from the unhindered operation of the Queensland legislation. The Queensland Premier has made it all too plain that, for reasons of his own perceived political advantage, he is determined to use the Queensland Act to provoke major industrial confrontation at the first available opportunity and that he sees the export coal industry as his likely battleground. The Commonwealth Government wishes to make it equally plain that it will not tolerate the national economy being made hostage in this way. Coal is our top export earner. Last year it generated over $5 billion in export income-that is, around 16 per cent of our total income-and Queensland coal exports alone earned something over $3.2 billion. In the present very dangerously oversupplied world market, with producers in a great many different countries fighting for available contracts, the loss of Queensland exports for any extended period would not only gravely undermine our balance of payments and national economic recovery in the short term but also put at risk the whole long term future of the Australian coal industry. It is considerations of this kind that lie behind the Government's decision which, as I have indicated, will be to initiate, at the earliest possible opportunity, the constitutional challenge to which I have referred. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Earlier in Question Time the Minister sought to distort the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia on tertiary education. The Liberal Party has a policy of allowing students who do not make the quota to enter tertiary institutions under the same conditions as are applicable to foreign students. Will the Minister explain what the Labor Government can offer to more than 20,000 young people a year-and that number is growing-who qualify but are unable to gain entry into a tertiary institution in Australia? Senator RYAN —To begin with, in order to refute the suggestion in Senator Parer's question that I distorted what John Howard, the present Leader of the Liberal Party, said yesterday, I quote from a transcript of his interview with John Laws when he said this-- Senator Teague —Be careful when you are quoting. Senator RYAN —The honourable senator owes me an apology but that is another matter. I will get on to that. John Laws asked: What are you going to do about tertiary education fees? If this quote is wrong I hope Senator Chaney will leap to his feet and contradict what I will now read out from the transcript of what his Leader said. Mr Howard said: We have got a policy on that and that is simply that we will preserve a certain number of free places, via higher educational scholarships. Over and above that we will allow universities to take any number of additional students and charge them if they like, full fees for taking them in. I think that statement is pretty clear. I think honourable senators will also think it is clear, unless Senator Chaney wants to say that a word was left out, that a `not' was left out or something of that nature. Senator Chaney —The Catholic Education Commission accused you of that. Senator RYAN —Be careful about that. An apology will be forthcoming from Senator Teague on that foul misrepresentation. Senator Chaney —I very much doubt it. Senator RYAN —I imagine that it would not be in order for me to point out that if Senator Teague would like to raise that matter with me again in Question Time today, he will get the shock of his life. Senator Chaney —Like Senator Boswell. Senator RYAN —Yes, the Boswell treatment. Senator Chaney wants to distract attention from the seriousness of what has been said by John Howard, that extra higher education for any new places will be paid for at full cost by the students; and that since there has been no commitment to maintaining the existing number of higher education places some students who presently have free places, may find next year that they have to pay $25,000, or $8,000 or $10,000 according to what fee they have. It also been suggested that public places will be allocated by what are called scholarships. Who will allocate them? We know that the Federal Opposition wants to get away from any central planning or policy making. Will States have the right to allocate as many as they want? Senator Teague —They will be allocated on merit. Senator RYAN —John Howard did not say anything about that. Who will allocate them? Will Senator Teague allocate them? That would be interesting. The point is that John Howard has now said that university and college students will be paying full tuition costs, except for that few unnamed numbers who will have scholarships. That is the big news of the day with regard to higher education places. Senator Parer asks what our Government will do about unmet demand. Our Government has an outstanding record in meeting demands. It has about 40,000 extra students enrolled in higher education than when we took office. So the unmet demand, whatever it is, would be at least 40,000 worse if the Liberals had maintained their position in office. We have an extra 40,000 already enrolled; we have had a growth rate of places in the vicinity of 3 per cent amounting to a growth of over 14 per cent during our period in office. So students aspiring to education can be confident that we have a proven track record of increasing the number of places available. We will continue to do that and in the August Budget we will bring down triennial funding. We have volume one available to us which makes recommendations about meeting unmet demands. What students, people aspiring to be students and other persons who are interested, such as industry leaders, employers and the like, will do is look at the Fraser Government's record where in a four-year period it created only 8,000 places. They will also look at our record of creating 40,000 extra enrolments in our four years in office. They will look at the Opposition's promise to introduce tuition fees, which will mean that the unmet demand will vanish overnight because people will no longer demand places if they cost them $25,000 a year. They will contrast that with our record of constant sustained growth. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I have been very patient because in this excitable, pre-election atmosphere one can understand the Minister running away at the mouth. However, the Minister has been on her feet for a long time debating this question. She is now making further gross misrepresentations about Opposition policy positions. She is clearly abusing Question Time for partisan political interests. I submit that she should be called to order and told to sit down. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. There have been a number of lengthy questions and lengthy answers. I remind the Minister that her answer has been particularly long, but she is in order. Senator RYAN —Our Government has an outstanding record of creating growth in the higher education sector. The electorate can make up its mind about which track record it would prefer and have more confidence in. Senator PARER —I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister explain what the Labor Government can offer to more than 20,000 young people who are currently qualified but unable to attend a tertiary institution? At least Liberal Party policy offers those people hope. Senator RYAN —Senator Parer talks about more than 20,000 young people. That is an exaggeration, but I will let that pass. I do not know why he thinks that the many thousands of young people who did not get a place of their choice this year have a burning desire to change that by paying $25,000-or even $12,000 or $8,000-a year. We offer them growth in the system next year. There is still capacity in tertiary institutions. The last time I checked with the Tertiary Education Commission about 10 institutions had places available, but these were places in courses which had not been chosen by the students. Obviously, many of those students prefer to wait and try again for the particular course they wish to follow. There will be growth next year. Others may reconsider their choices and opt to take a place that is currently available or will be available next year. Others may decide to take the higher school certificate, or whatever the qualification of the assessment system they are in, in order to get a higher place. There are choices, there is capacity in the education system and under our Government there will continue to be growth. Senator ELSTOB —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence been drawn to comments made by the Opposition spokesman on defence, the honourable member for McPherson, Mr Peter White, that a Liberal Government might renege on the submarine project? Will the Government proceed to enter contracts for the new submarine project? Do Mr White's comments show that he is unsuited for the Defence portfolio and that the Leader of the Opposition should replace him? Senator MacGibbon —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. That is a gross misstatement of fact. Mr White has never made a statement that the Liberal Party would renege on the contract. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I listened to the question: It seeks information and requests action from the Minister and therefore it is in order. Senator GARETH EVANS —My attention has been drawn to statements from Mr White, which received very wide circulation, to the effect that the Liberals might renege on the submarine project in the unlikely event that they win government on 11 July. I understand that Mr White said that a Liberal government would not necessarily honour the contract for the $4 billion project. I notice that since Mr White made these statements a large Monty Python foot has descended on his head from his Liberal colleagues, particularly those from South Australia who are appalled by his remarks. Mr White has not been heard from since on that or any other matter. By comparison, the Government is fully committed to proceeding with negotiations on the submarine contract. Those negotiations are nearly complete. Any delay now would severely set back the entire project, probably for years, with very serious consequences for the capacity of our defence forces. A further result of such action would be the loss of 600 jobs in South Australia, 800 in New South Wales and 500, on present estimates, in Victoria. In addition it would cause a significant crisis of confidence in Australian industry and the loss of a very valuable transfer of technology. Faced with these realities, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, has stated his own commitment to the submarine contract but he has not yet taken the obvious step of sacking his shadow Minister, Mr White, for his half-baked remarks in seeking to renege on a project which is obviously so vital to Australia's industry, employment and security. I suppose Mr Howard took the view that it was hardly worth the unequal struggle of sacking Mr White when he had those other crazed defence loons running around the country, such as Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the Leader of the National Party, Mr Sinclair, advancing propositions that were just as half-baked. Bjelke-Petersen proposed to abandon submarines altogether and replace them with patrol boats, which indicates a sophistication in defence policy matters which even Senator MacGibbon would acknowledge to be somewhat lacking around the edges. We have also had Mr Sinclair reaffirming his belief that Australia should get a nuclear submarine and the nuclear infrastructure to support it, at the same time indicating that Adelaide was not the preferred site for the submarine project as far as he was concerned and, more generally, South Australia was unsuitable. I conclude by saying that the Opposition's views on this subject, when looked at as a whole and taking account not only of what its spokesmen have said, but also what the other putative members of the future conservative coalition gaggle are saying, demonstrate what a chaotic rabble Opposition members are and how manifestly incompetent they are not only to govern the country as a whole but to manage and defend our security. Senator NEWMAN —I refer the Minister for Education to claims that she has made about the number of student places created under this Government, specifically to her 19 January claim of 36,800, her 25 February claim of 40,000 and her 5 March claim of 48,000. Is it not a fact that Estimates committee figures reveal the true figure to be 32,900-that is approximately 15,000 students less than her claim of 5 March? Is it not a fact that the Minister has been inflating her figures deliberately by including the student places created in 1983 as a result of the Fraser Liberal Government's policies, particularly the policies pursued in the 1982-83 Budget? Senator RYAN —Senator Newman clearly does not understand the method of assessing the number of enrolments in higher education institutions. I suppose that I had better take up a bit of the time of the Senate to explain it to her. Firstly, there is a difference between equivalent full time places and numbers of enrolments. The number of places is lower than the number of enrolments because some places are occupied by more than one student; that is, part time students who do one or two subjects do not take up a full place. Therefore, given that we have a fairly significant part time enrolment in most of our institutions there will always be-- Senator Newman —Not any more. The $250 fees put paid to them. Senator RYAN —It is very difficult when Senator Newman persists with this ignorance. If she would like to have a briefing from officers of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission or read CTEC annual reports, or something of that nature, it would really help her to ask questions that have some point and meaning. The fact is that firstly I am trying to explain to Senator Newman that the number of places always will be lower than the number of enrolments because some of those places are filled by part time students-some do a half time load, some do a single unit study and so forth. There will be several thousand more students enrolled than there are equivalent full time places. That explains the first difficulty that Senator Newman has been labouring under. The second, of course, is that the final census on current enrolments is not yet complete. CTEC has yet to get final enrolment figures from all institutions. Senator Newman would know if she interested herself in these matters that enrolments in some institutions are accepted very late and that students may withdraw at this stage of the year and so on. So the number that would have been available, for example, at the time of Estimates committees would not now be the current number. The current number would be higher-it would certainly be different-because late enrolments would have been accepted, there would have been changes from part time to full time or full time to part time and so on. So the figure is a shifting figure but the current figure is in the vicinity of 40,000 enrolments. It is also the case that some institutions are not entirely accurate in the assessment of their student numbers and put in a later correction. In fact, our funding mechanisms take into account the possibility of variation because we compensate institutions that may have had larger enrolments than they advised us of at the beginning of the year. So there is a shifting figure of the number of students in higher education. I hope that explanation has assisted Senator Newman. What is entirely clear is that in the vicinity of 36,000 new places have been created and in the vicinity of 40,000 extra enrolments. But Senator Newman is very welcome to check the current figures from CTEC, which may vary a little bit. In conclusion, overwhelmingly there has been substantial growth, both in places and in enrolments, under our Government which will demonstrate our commitment to this very important area of government activity. Senator NEWMAN —I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister tell us what reliance we can place on her own Press statements of January, February and March and the figures with which she then tried to mislead the Australian people? Senator RYAN —I do not know how long the Senate wants to be delayed while Senator Newman's deliberate misunderstandings take up the time of the Senate. The reply given in Senate Estimates Committee D to Senator Teague, who questioned the variation between figures, was: The 1986-87 budget estimated that an extra 36,800 equivalent full-time student places will have been created between 1983 and 1987. This is the figure in the press release of 19 January 1987 and is consistent with the information in the 1986-87 Budget Paper No. 1, page 98. The figure of 48,000 in the press release of 5 March 1987 refers to the increase in higher education enrolments between 1982 the last full year of the Fraser Government and 1986. The figure of 40,000 referred to in the press release of 25 February 1987 refers to the increase in higher education student enrolments between 1983 and 1986. The source was CTEC's Selected Statistics for Universities and CAEs. Senator COLSTON —Has the attention of the Special Minister of State been drawn to a claim in today's Brisbane Telegraph, made by the Premier of Queensland, that the Hawke Government, when re-elected, would change the Federal electoral boundaries to entrench itself in office? Has the Premier of Queensland become so muddled in his thinking that he believes that what he can do to electoral boundaries in Queensland can also be done at the Federal level? Is it a fact that the Federal Parliament cannot veto Australian Electoral Commission decisions and cannot direct the Commission in any way? Senator TATE —I have seen reports in today's Brisbane Telegraph to the effect that the Premier of Queensland said that if the Hawke Government won another term it would change the electoral boundaries to entrench itself in office and make it extremely difficult for Opposition parties to gain financial support. They are clearly quite outrageous misrepresentations of the situation obtaining under Federal legislation. The fact is that no Australian government can entrench itself by manipulation of the boundaries. Senator Durack —It is only the Constitution that protects it, not Federal legislation. Senator TATE —Does Senator Durack dispute this? The fact is that, whereas it is quite clear that the Queensland Government has a system of gerrymandered electorates in order to ensure its continued existence against the will of the people, it is not the case at the Federal level. It must be said that when electors in Australia go to the polls on 11 July they will be voting under one of the fairest electoral systems devised. It is a tribute to this Parliament, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and, indeed, the Australian Electoral Commission that that is the case. Australians who go to the polls can do so with utter confidence that there has been no rigging of electoral boundaries in order to sustain one particular political party in power rather than another. When Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen says that the Hawke Government would make it extremely difficult for Opposition parties to gain financial support that is again a slight misrepresentation in that, of course, it is the will of the Parliament that some hurdles be placed in the way of political organisations, parties and candidates seeking political support by way of raising donations. It is not surprising that Sir Joh should be worried about the fact that we do set certain hurdles-mainly to do with disclosure-in the way of those who would support political parties and candidates by way of donation. Already in this chamber the remarks attributed to Sir Robert Sparkes in early March have been looked at from the point of view of demonstrating the utter contempt which the Queensland Nationals have for our democratic electoral processes. He was quoted as saying: If they ever came into power in this parliament they would retrospectively alter the law to ensure that there was no disclosure of those who made donations to political parties. Of course, it is very important and very necessary for Australians to know who those faceless millionaires are who allegedly stand behind Sir Joh's campaign ready to cough up the $25m which he mentioned in Los Angeles as being a very necessary sum for him to build his campaign on, so that we may know who may be purchasing the political influence that can go with anonymous donations. It is the decision of this Parliament that the veil of anonymity be stripped from those who would make those sorts of donations. Insofar as it is the will of this Parliament, I am quite sure that it is also well supported in the Australian electorate. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It follows Senator Elstob's pathetic and misleading attempt to play South Australian politics about the submarine project. Senator Elstob —Mr President, I take a point or order. My question was not pathetic. It is about time that Senator Chaney started speaking the truth. I did not ask a pathetic question and I ask him to withdraw that remark. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, Senator Elstob, but I think you have made your point. Senator CHANEY —My question follows Senator Elstob's pathetic and misleading attempt to play South Australian politics about the submarine project. I ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that both of the final contenders chose South Australia as the contract site, so that there is no question of the project being lost to South Australia? I further ask the Minister whether it is a fact that the Chairman of the Caucus sub-committee on defence manufacturing, Mr Allan Morris, a Labor member from a New South Wales seat, was so concerned by what he found in relation to the evaluation process that he prepared a lengthy submission for Cabinet and he suggested: . . . the Navy be required to reconsider their evaluation process and recommendations and that prior to finalisation of tenders the following occur: (a) Determination of the motor to be used. (b) Determination of the question of the range of the German vessel. (c) Absolute clarification of the noise level of the German vessel. (d) Detailed interpretation of `fixed price' and `performance guarantees', by a department other than Defence, and their likely impact on the cost of the project. In light of these matters raised by the Caucus sub-committee on defence, what consideration has the Government given to these matters and to what extent has it affected the Government's preparedness to enter into the contracts with respect to the submarines? Senator GARETH EVANS —In relation to the first part of Senator Chaney's question, it is my understanding that Adelaide was the preferred choice of both contenders. That fact makes the reaction of the honourable member for McPherson more absurd and the right honour- able member for New England from the Opposition side even more extraordinary. They suggested that it was inappropriate that Adelaide be chosen, or that there were some remaining questions to be answered in relation to the choice of the site. I am sure that honourable senators opposite from South Australia would regard that suggestion as offensive; it is certainly one that Senator Elstob and others, including Mr Hall and members on both sides of the Parliament who have made their position public, would find offensive. It is extraordinary that under those circumstances any further question should be raised about the construction site. In relation to Mr Morris's contribution to the debate on the choice of the final tender, it is the case that Mr Morris prepared on his own behalf, as I understand it, rather than on behalf of any committee, a lengthy submission drawing attention to certain things that he thought needed the further attention of Cabinet before a decision was made. Every matter raised by Mr Morris was dealt with fully by Cabinet and was the subject of very detailed briefing and, in some instances, very thorough questioning by members of Cabinet anxious to assure themselves that the process was complete, satisfactory and beyond reproach in every respect. The Cabinet did so satisfy itself and made a decision that was thoroughly informed, and about which there should be no question as to its acceptance. Given the very complex process of evaluation and the integrity that was brought to that process of evaluation by the Department of Defence, it is quite extraordinary that people who ought to know better are still trying, for political reasons of their own, to bring the exercise into some sort of question. There is no foundation whatsoever for that and the Government's decision will stand. Not only will it stand, but also it is very much in the interests of the national economy and the national security that it should so stand. Senator BLACK —Can the Special Minister of State confirm media reports of today that Mr Michael Gore has been charged with a number of offences arising from investigations by the Australian Federal Police? Senator TATE —I will confine my answer to the information contained in a Press release issued by the Australian Federal Police, which states: Queensland property developer, Mr Michael Graham Gore, of Southport, today appeared in the Southport Magistrate Court on charges over the alleged misrepresentations over sales tax returns. Australian Federal Police officers early this morning questioned Mr Gore at his home. At about 8 a.m. he accompanied them to the local Southport Police station where he was further questioned. He then accompanied the AFP officers at 11 a.m. to the Southport Magistrate's court where he appeared before Magistrate O'Connor. He was charged with seventeen counts of attempting to defraud the Commonwealth and of allegedly making seventeen false representations to the Commonwealth with a view to obtaining a benefit. The charges are under the Commonwealth Crimes Act. It is alleged that the offences relate to the importation from Hong Kong of a number of luxury yachts between 1982 and 1984 for sale in Australia. It is alleged that he made an underpayment of sales tax in excess of $300,000 while he was a director and public officer of Stirling Investments Corporation Pty Ltd. He was released on bail of $50,000 or two sureties of $25,000 each; that he surrender his passport to the Director of Public Prosecutions office in Brisbane; that he not travel overseas without permission; and that he undertake certain restrictions over the disposal of business assets. The charges and arrest follow a lengthy investigation by the Australian Federal Police. That investigation, undertaken in Brisbane, has involved working in co-operation with the Director of Public Prosecutions Office in Brisbane, the Australian Taxation Office and the appropriate authorities in Hong Kong. It would not be appropriate to say more in view of the fact that charges remain to be proved. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-Senator Walsh, in the course of not answering a question that I addressed to Senator Walsh earlier today in Question Time about whether the Government would give an undertaking not to introduce a gold tax in the unlikely event of its being returned to office, alleged that I had advocated a gold tax. I want to make it quite clear that that is not the case; it never has been the case. In a statement that I issued to the media on 15 June 1985, a few days after the Government's White Paper on taxation was published, in addressing a meeting at Esperance, Western Australia, I said: The Government should abandon the White Paper proposal to tax gold . . . The Opposition consistently refused to tax gold when in government and during the last election campaign we gave a commitment not to do so if returned to office. That was the first statement I made in relation to this matter and it was within a few days of the White Paper proposal. I have issued numerous other statements since then until the Government made its own decision some months ago. I do not propose to read from them, but I have made numerous statements to that effect over a considerable period. In those circumstances, Senator Walsh's attempt to fix me with any support for this proposal is quite outrageous. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —by leave-Yesterday in the Senate debate on education Bills Senator Teague made a lengthy claim that I had attempted to misrepresent a letter from the National Catholic Education Commission. He claimed that I had purposely inserted the word `the' before the word `Commonwealth' in the paragraph that states that the NCEC appreciated my understanding of the importance of Commonwealth programs for children in Catholic schools. Two newspapers-the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times-followed up Senator Teague's claim and published a story to that effect and, indeed, sought comment from the Catholic Education Commission. Senator Teague's claim was wrong; I did not insert the word `the' when I read from the letter. It is the case that Hansard transcribed the word `the'. However, the audiotape-- Opposition Senators-Ha, ha. Senator RYAN —Senator Teague is very much in the wrong here and I expect an apology. On listening to the audiotape-which has been done-he will find that I did not insert the word `the'. Hansard will be making a written apology to me this afternoon. I expect the same from Senator Teague. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —I seek leave to make a brief statement on the same matter. Leave granted. Senator TEAGUE —I have heard what the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) said. I based my remarks on her clear statements that appear in Hansard at page 3253 for last Friday. The Minister said: . . . the four-year funding scheme is one of the proudest achievements of our Government. I should emphasise that the National Catholic Education Commission appreciates and commends our commitment to that scheme and it has welcomed and endorsed our policies. That is directly untrue, and the Chairman of the Commission in an article that appeared in the Canberra Times of today's date is quoted as follows: Sir Bernard Callinan agreed that the letter had been misquoted and the meaning had been changed. He said the letter had been written to make a `plea' to the Minister not to reduce the existing funding to catholic schools and was not a statement of political support. Similarly, the Executive Secretary of the Commission, Sister Mary Reardon, based here in Canberra, is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of today's date as follows-and I will read directly from the newspaper article: The Commission's Executive Secretary, Sister Mary Reardon, said it was `regrettable' that Senator Ryan had added the word `the'-- Senator Ryan —I didn't-and please apologise, because you are wrong. Senator TEAGUE —To complete that sentence- because `it then becomes possible for people to interpret it- meaning the letter- in a way that was not intended by the Commission'. I do not apologise to the Minister for Education because her clear statement which I quoted at the outset of my remarks here today shows that she wished to construe in that letter that the National Catholic Education Commission was directly supporting the four-year funding program of the Government-and that is not true-and that she wished to construe that the National Catholic Education Commission supports the Government's policies, and that also is not true. Therefore, no apology is due to this Minister. She needs to apologise to the Senate for misleading the Senate and the public of Australia. Senator Ryan —I am very happy to have a debate about whose policies are most acceptable to the Catholic Education-- Senator Lewis —On a point of order, Mr President: Has Senator Ryan sought leave to speak? The PRESIDENT —Order! I am waiting for Senator Ryan to seek leave. Senator Ryan —I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —Mr President, I will not enter into a full-scale debate. I simply point out that my personal explanation went to the matter whereby Senator Teague claimed, and told the Press, which reported it, and told the Catholic Education Commission, and misled it, that I had inserted a word. I had not. The audio tapes confirm my view, and Hansard will apologise. Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday Senator Reid asked me a question in respect of the Transport Workers Union and Commonwealth car drivers and hire car drivers in the Australian Capital Territory. I am advised that officials of the Transport Workers Union did a membership check of hire car drivers in the Australian Capital Territory last Friday night. Departmental officers were not involved in this action in any way. The Transport Workers Union has advised me that there are no bans on the allocations of work to hire car operators. Contracts are arranged between the Commonwealth and the hire car companies and the union does not influence the proper operation of contracts. The Government's position is that it will continue to utilise the services of hire car contractors when its car with driver service does not have the capacity to handle the work requested. Senator GARETH EVANS —During Question Time Senator Vigor asked me a question about possible or alleged discrimination in the points test as it applies to particular categories of migrants. I thought that the latter part of the answer that I gave was probably incomplete, and I have discovered that it was incomplete as I omitted to refer to a second page of notes in the brief. I think that Senator Vigor deserves a full answer on the question as it is an important one which is of interest to many citizens. Let me add some additional points as follows: The independent and concessional category is an economic category; it is designed to select young, skilled, educated, employable migrants, and employability is assessed against attributes expected by Australian employers. The number of people wishing to migrate is greater than Australia can accept, thus there is a need for a selective system in the interests of getting those people able to make an economic contribution to Australia. Finally, I mention that a recent review by the advisory body of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the National Population Council, has indicated that the points system is meeting its objectives, and while it sees no need to change the points system it will continue to monitor it. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the twenty-third report of the Publications Committee and seek leave to move a motion. Leave granted. Senator ELSTOB —I move: That the report be adopted. This is the last time I shall present a report of the Publications Committee. I would like to thank all honourable senators who have served the Committee. Senator Brian Archer was Chairman of the Committee before I became Chairman. The Publications Committee is spending less now in real terms than it spent 10 years ago. That is quite a credit to the Committee. I would like to mention a few of the people who have given great assistance to the Committee. Mr Ian McNeill was Secretary when I took over as Chairman. He is now Deputy Clerk in the Northern Territory Parliament. I congratulate Ian for the hard work he put into the Committee. Maureen Weekes took over from Ian. She worked terrifically hard. She helped put a report down to reduce further the Committee's cost. Andrea Griffiths has given tremendous support and so has David Nimmo. I pay great tribute to these people. I thank the Committee members for the support they have given me in the years I have been Chairman. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit, dated 2 June 1987. Senator Michael Baume-Mr President, I raise a point of order: You have just tabled an efficiency audit into the Parliament House Construction Authority revealing disgraceful waste, incompetence and inefficiency in that area which supports the conclusions of the Waste Watch Committee. Mr President, does the guillotine mean that although you have tabled the report we cannot discuss it? Senator Gareth Evans-On the point of order: I do not think it is the guillotine motion that affects it. What does effect it is the procedural motion on the routine of business which we passed the other day and which was to the effect that, at least until we finished the legislative program, we would only be dealing with Question Time, in effect, and then with Government Business. It is intended to create some time, if we succeed with the guillotine, to enable matters of this kind to be dealt with and an opportunity to be given for honourable senators to speak to them if time permits on Friday morning. I appreciate that this is a report of some significance. It was snuck in without my knowing about it. It is against the letter of the procedural motion we have already passed. Under those circumstances I think it would be helpful if we had some time on Friday morning for it rather than trying to deal with it now. Senator Michael Baume-Further to the point of order: In that case can I move that the House take note of the paper? The PRESIDENT —No, you would need leave to do that. I tabled the report in accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act. Senator Michael Baume-Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion-- Senator Gareth Evans-Leave is denied now but leave will be granted on Friday morning if we have time. Senator Walters-Whose word is that? Senator Gareth Evans-My word, Senator Walters, and you have it. The PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Debate resumed from 1 June. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.19) —Pursuant to order, I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I do not believe there is a need formally to seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard because the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 has already been dealt with by the Senate and has now been put back on the Notice Paper. I will take this opportunity, if I may, to add to the second reading speech of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) as previously delivered on this Bill and also to make some points, which need to be made now for the record as a prelude to the media debate, which I hope we will get to later this afternoon, about the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987. I foreshadow that during the Committee stage of debate the Government will move the amendments that have been circulated to honourable senators to both the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. With respect to the ownership and control Bill, it is proposed that the 75 per cent population reach rule be reduced to a 60 per cent population reach rule. The Government has agreed to such an amendment to enable this Bill to succeed in its purpose of creating and enhancing the competitive environment in which the commercial television industry can operate and grow. The practical effect of shifting from 75 per cent to 60 per cent is to prevent certain companies currently approaching 60 per cent from having any prescribed interests beyond this level. In doing so, the Government acknowledges concerns in certain quarters that 75 per cent may, in some circumstances, have been more generous than is necessary. The reduced maximum reach should allow more opportunities for some more licensees to develop and participate in programming and production. The substantive purpose of the Bill will remain unaltered. The second source of contention has been that clause in the Bill which limits persons who own licences, in approved markets, to the old two-station rule if there is a multi-channel services permit in relation to that licence. This was a deliberate preference by the Government to encourage aggregation and thus competition in enlarged regional markets. As the Minister has stated, a fundamental tenet of both the broadcasting Bills has been encouragement and enhancement of competitive influences in the commercial television industry. It has been asserted that this provision discriminates against operators who choose MCS. The Government has reviewed this aspect in the context of the wider objective of the Bill. The amendments moved in the Government's name include provisions which will allow a licensee who elects to go MCS in an approved market to acquire further commercial television interests beyond the two-station rule in markets in which he would provide a service in competition with another service. These markets will be: Firstly, mainland metropolitan markets; secondly, approved markets proceeding directly to aggregation; and, thirdly, the Tasmanian market, once a second independent licence is in place. A grandfathering clause has been included, which recognises that a person may possibly have already acquired two licences under the present two-station rule in the expectation that they will be within approved markets in which there will be MCS services provided. These persons will be grandfathered in relation to their interests held on 2 June 1987 and will thus be able to provide MCS services in relation to both licences. Any further expansion of interests by these persons will, however, be confined to interests within competitive markets. None of these amendments affect that part of the equalisation Bill which provides that a person may not have a prescribed interest in two or more commercial television licences in the same approved market. The amendments to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill modify the mechanism for moving to equalisation. After noting various concerns about the mechanism currently provided for in the Bill, we are prepared to modify them in a way which will continue to recognise the Government's primary objective of moving to three competitive commercial television services in regional areas. The Government has always been mindful that the equalisation legislation will entail substantial change to the environment in which the regional television industry has operated. The Government has had to balance these considerations with its fundamental commitment to give the five million regional viewers who currently have access to only one commercial television service a level of service currently enjoyed by metropolitan Australia. The Senate has so far not seen fit to pass the legislation. A source of some contention has been the so-called one in, all in rule, whereby if one licensee in an approved market chooses to go directly to aggregation, then all licensees in the approved market will proceed directly to aggregation. Notwithstanding the Government's preference for aggregated competitive markets, this decision point has been one the Government has deliberately left to the broadcasting industry. The Government, in good faith, has now decided to try to find a way around the apparent impasse that has developed by making a modification to the so-called one in, all in rule. The proposed new formulation is that, if two or more licensees in the approved market give notice to the Minister that they wish to proceed immediately towards aggregation in the approved market, that market will proceed immediately towards aggregation. This will have the effect of replacing the one in, all in rule with a two in, all in rule. The proposed amendment will prevent a situation where two licensees who are eligible for consolidation as specified in the indicative plan will be able to give two separate notices to the Minister for aggregation. This new formulation should meet a major concern of some sections of the industry and of some honourable senators opposite. These modifications will ensure that the competitive elements of the Government's policy are retained and will prevent circumstances whereby licensees operating in MCS mode within approved markets are able to entrench themselves further in a monopolistic situation. These amendments do not affect provisions of the legislation ensuring that a company or person may not have a prescribed interest in two or more commercial television licences in the same approved market. Mr President, as a consequence of these proposed amendments, and of the period now to be devoted to the election, the Government considers it desirable to allow a period of analysis and digestion for interested parties affected by the legislation to review and consider their corporate attitude. We are mindful that these amendments may cause some re-evaluation of intentions. Therefore, the Government proposes to amend the equalisation Bill to provide that it will come into operation 60 days after it receives royal assent. This will have no practical implication for the operation of the Bill but recognises the impact the changes may have on industry. It also recognises the administrative consequences of the electoral process. The opportunity has also been taken to include a technical amendment to enable a company with a grandfathered interest which constitutes a majority interest-that is, a greater than 51 per cent shareholding interest-in another company to make loans to that company without losing its grandfathered status. These proposed amendments do not significantly alter the purpose or the integrity of the Bills. I also take this opportunity to reiterate the Government's commitment to a remote commercial television service-or RCTS-for the eastern States. The Government is disappointed that the two consortia which currently hold the licences in the south-east and north east service areas have not been able at this stage to fulfil their commitment and sign a service contract with Aussat Pty Ltd. However, let me assure the Senate that it remains the Government's firm intention to ensure that an RCTS service will be available to people in all parts of Australia who live in remote areas. Finally, Senator Harradine has raised two matters with the Government. The first is the issue of penalties available to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on breach of program or advertising standards. Senator Harradine correctly notes that the only sanctions able to be imposed are either very severe-cancellation or suspension of a licence-or, arguably, rather mild-namely an admonishment. The Government has considered widening the range of penalties but there are constitutional doubts as to whether a power to impose monetary penalties, for example, could be conferred on the ABT. This matter has been discussed with the Minister for Communications and he has authorised me to undertake that the Government will now seek further legal advice in clarification of this issue, which will be provided to Senator Harradine. Following that step and depending on the advice, the Government will reconsider the matter of appropriate penalties. Secondly, Senator Harradine has drawn attention to the undertaking given by Senator Button, in the debate in this place in 1983 on the passage of the ABC Act. The undertakings related to the complaints process contained in section 82 of the Act. The Minister for Communications informs me that he has recently received advice as to the handling of complaints by the ABC, in particular, complaints which do not fall squarely within section 82. The Government believes that the ABC must have a proper and credible complaint handling procedure. The ABC has been addressing this matter and, as I understand it, a proposal for reform has been recently discussed by the ABC Board. The Government places considerable importance on this matter. It is to be hoped that the ABC brings its consideration of complaints handling reform to an early conclusion. Unless the ABC has public credibility on this issue, it will not be in a good position to resist claims that it should be subject to an external complaints monitor, as applies, for example, to the British Broadcasting Corporation. Mr President, our overriding and pre-eminent objective in this whole package of legislation has been both to lay the framework for a viable competitive commercial television industry and to facilitate the provision of additional commercial services to the five million Australians presently receiving only one. Accordingly, I commend this Bill and the whole package of legislation to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Declaration of Urgency Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(3.30) —I declare the following Bills to be urgent Bills: Media Package Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1987 Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987 Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 May Statement Package Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987 Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987 Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 Customs and Excise Package Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987 Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1987 Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1987 Crime Package Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987 Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987 Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 Miscellaneous Urgent Bills Group (Additional Item) Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 I move: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. Gietzelt, A. T. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reynolds, M. Coleman, R. N. Richardson, G. F. Collard, S. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M. Cook, P. F. S. Sheil, G. Cooney, B. Sibraa, K. W. Crowley, R. A. Siddons, J. R. Devlin, R. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Vallentine, J. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Macklin, M. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Chaney, F. M. Parer, W. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Powell, J. F. Durack, P. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Sanders, N. K. Haines, J. Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. (Teller)Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vigor, D. B. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Button, J. N. Mason, C. V. J. McIntosh, G. D. Vanstone, A. E. (Senator Reid did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(3.40) —I move: That the times allotted for the consideration of the Bills be as follows: Media Package Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986, Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1987, Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987, Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987-for the second reading, four hours; for the Committee stage, 55 minutes; for the remaining stages, five minutes. May Statement Package Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987, Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987, Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987, Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill-for the second reading stage, four hours; for the Committee stage 55 minutes; for the remaining stages, five minutes. Customs and Excise Package Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987, Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987, Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1987, Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987, Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1987, Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1987-for all stages, two hours. Crime Package Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987, Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987, Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987-for all stages, four hours. These Bills will be joined by the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill when the House of Representatives finishes with it. Senator Puplick —Oh! Senator GARETH EVANS —There is a good reason for that, Senator Puplick, so curb your racing hormones. I am sure that you do not want to let crooks out of gaol or for me to tell people that you want to let them out. The motion continues: Miscellaneous Urgent Bills Group (Additional Item) Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987-to be included in time allotted on 28 May 1987 for other Miscellaneous Urgent Bills. And that the Bills be considered together in the groupings listed above. I also move: That the question now put. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Gietzelt, A. T. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Boswell, R. L. D. McKiernan, J. P. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Ray, RobertColeman, R. N. Reynolds, M. Collard, S. J. Richardson, G. F. Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M. Cook, P. F. S. Sheil, G. Cooney, B. Sibraa, K. W. Crowley, R. A. Siddons, J. R. Devlin, R. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Vallentine, J. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Powell, J. F. Durack, P. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Sanders, N. K. Haines, J. Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. (Teller)Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vigor, D. B. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Lewis, A. W. R. Button, J. N. Vanstone, A. E. Robertson, E. A. Chaney, F. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Mason, C. V. J. (Senator Reid did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 23 March and 6 May, on motions: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.45) —The Senate is now about to commence debating the so-called media package comprising the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and five cognate Bills. These Bills are now under a guillotine imposed by the Government and supported by the National Party of Australia. Senator Haines —And three Independents. Senator LEWIS —And three so-called Independents-Senator Georges, Senator Siddons and Senator Vallentine. This guillotine now limits the debate on the second reading to four hours with one hour for the Committee stage. That is disgraceful. It is an indication of what is happening with the whole media package and the nonsense that has gone on in this Parliament in relation to media legislation. These Bills disclose a fundamental difference between the Liberal Party and the Government. The Liberal Party is concerned about people and about providing them, in this case, with decent television services across the nation. The Liberal Party is worried about the small ordinary person out in the sticks or in the suburbs and the sort of television program that person is able to watch. The Government is concerned with getting the support of the owners of television, radio and newspapers-the media barons-for its election purposes. Some years ago the former Premier of New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran, introduced the greatest public bribe this nation has ever seen. Mr Wran bribed two-thirds of the media in his State of New South Wales with certain Lotto arrangements which still continue. The New South Wales right wing of the Australian Labor Party has now brought that tactic to Canberra. Mr Hawke and Mr Keating have adopted it. This must be the second greatest public bribe in this nation's history. These are bribes whereby the funds of taxpayers are being used to enable the Labor Party to get publicity support in its electioneering campaign. Have we not seen aspects and examples of that happening across the nation in recent weeks? For example, some journalists have been writing stories that there are differences within the Liberal Party on this package. The differences are not in the Liberal Party. Mr Duffy the other day acknowledged that the Labor Party had spent over 16 hours in debate on this matter, including six hours debate in Cabinet. After six hours of debate in Cabinet he was rolled and Mr Hawke's and Mr Keating's package was passed. It was then said that the Labor Party was not prepared to change its mind. But today we heard Senator Evans acknowledge that the Labor Party is prepared to change its mind. Is there anyone who doubts that many members of the Labor Party are desperately concerned about this sell-out to the media barons? Of course they are. There is dissent right around the Labor Party, not only within this Parliament but outside around the nation, about this sell-out to media barons to maintain public support in the media, on radio, television and newspapers, that the Labor Party is so desperately seeking. We see that the Government is continuing with its so-called `animals'-its NMLS or National Media Liaison Service media campaign. It has 17 journalists working for Ministers, all involved in trying to sell the Australian Labor Party to the people of Australia in the forthcoming election. This package is simply a bribe to the media barons of this country. It is designed to ensure that they will control national networks right across Australia. Just imagine that! The Labor Party has introduced this package of legislation to ensure that three or four, maybe five, media barons will be able to control the whole of the national networks of television right across Australia. The Government would have us believe that the Liberal Party would deny regional viewers the right to more and better services. That is about as believable as Mr Hawke's statements that there would be no early election. Senator Puplick —And no capital gains tax. Senator LEWIS —And no capital gains tax. This Government is exposed by its Commissioner for the Future, Mr Phillip Adams, who, in his article in the Bulletin of 2 June 1987, said: Over the next couple of years we will see the slow death of State and regional television as the new owners shed staff through dismissals or attrition and, slowly but surely, close down local production. Australian television will increasingly be Sydney television, reticulated by satellite, cable or what-have-you. (Take the situation in Victoria, where Premier John Cain will find it hard to get his head on the screen. Apart from the Victorian version of The 7.30 Report, there's not a local public affairs program left. So people throughout Australia will see endless images of NSW leader Barrie Unsworth, but Burke, Bannon and Gray will be so far off-Broadway as to be invisible. Well, they're not going to like it. And, in the passage of time, local viewers won't like it either.) I thoroughly agree with Mr Adams. I say this to honourable members and senators who travel around the regional areas of Australia campaigning or putting their points of view: Up to this stage, when they have visited a country town they have frequently had the opportunity to appear on that country town's television station. That will not happen within 12 months or so after networking goes right around Australia, because that local country television station will not be providing that sort of local news service. That is absolutely the truth. Senator Boswell —That is completely wrong, Austin. Senator LEWIS —I hear Senator Boswell saying that that is wrong. I guarantee Senator Boswell that, within 12 to 18 months, if he visits Rockhampton he will not get a guernsey on Rockhampton television. If he visits Mount Isa he will not get a guernsey on Mount Isa television. Of course, he may not even be a senator by then so he may not be visiting those areas as one. But, whoever the senators for Queensland are, when they visit the regional areas of Queensland-Maryborough, Darling Downs, Cairns or Mackay-they will all find that what is being shown in those areas is some form of networked program from New South Wales, from Sydney, with perhaps some very small regional service, perhaps some local weather details. Honourable senators will have seen the sorts of weather reports that are provided in the United States of America, where the whole of the nation is covered in about 15 seconds. One is told that it is warm in the north and cold in the south, or vice versa, or whatever the case happens to be. That is about the detail of the weather report one gets in the United States, whereas, as honourable senators know, nowadays we get a decent weather report from our regional television services. We also get a decent regional coverage of what is happening and the news of the day in the area for which a regional service provides coverage. But we will not be getting that once we have networking. Mr Hawke keeps saying-and apparently now Senator Boswell goes along with it-that that will not happen. It is my belief that it will certainly happen. It is also the belief of the people of Melbourne, who have now seen what has happened to Channel 7 in Melbourne. What have the people of Melbourne done with regard to Channel 7 now that it is being networked from Sydney? They have opted out of watching Channel 7 in very large numbers. Channel 7 in Melbourne is now in great trouble because it is simply showing a program networked from Sydney, and the people of Melbourne do not like watching such a program. But, of course, the channel has no alternative to showing networked programs because of the costs which are now involved-thanks, I might say, to this Government's so-called media package. This Government, continuing as usual on its merry way of legislating by way of Press release, issued a Press release on I think 27 November. What happened? The media barons of this country realised immediately what the Government was talking about-that now was the time for them to get in and take advantage of what the Government was talking about to enable them to take over, in an oligopolistic way, the media affairs of this nation. So they moved very quickly and created their monopolies in the various media areas, and now those monopoly media barons are in some difficulty because of the so-called hold-up of the legislation. That situation arose because of the Government's persistence in legislating, as I said, by way of Press release. Industry in this country does not know what to do under this Government, because it keeps issuing these Press releases and, if it is not quick enough to catch them, it subsequently finds, 12 or 18 months later, that the Government is introducing retrospective legislation dating back to the date of the Press release. Industry in this nation needs to keep its eye on the Government's Press releases in order to find out what its legislation might be, or roughly what it might be about, about 18 months later. In marked contrast to the Government's attitude is the Liberal Party's concern for people. Our policies are designed to provide better and more services to regional viewers and, indeed, the widest possible alternatives to metropolitan viewers-to offer them a choice that the media baron networks would not provide. Michelle Grattan recognised what we were on about in comparison with what the Government was on about when she wrote an article published in the Melbourne Age of 13 May. She wrote: What a nice cosy relationship it is between the Government and TV owners! If you doubt it, just listen to those screams of Government outrage at the Liberals' proposal to put a bit more competitive heat on the media barons' feet . . . Mr Duffy's arguments against the Liberal condition for supporting the media legislation-to increase by one the commercial stations in capital cities-have gaping holes. His arguments are wrong. She said further: Mr Duffy says planning decisions of this magnitude should be taken only after consultation with the industry. She then asked: So why did the Government not consult on the cross-media aspect? Anyway, there would be adequate time for consultation before the new licences are due, in two years in Sydney and Melbourne and five years elsewhere. Michelle Grattan went on: Mr Duffy says a fourth commercial channel in Melbourne and Sydney could not fit on the VHF frequency and would have to be on the more inaccessible UHF frequency-the implication being that this would make it unprofitable. But Mr Duffy also says that a new channel would cut into the existing advertising pool, which would reduce all stations' profitability and so their ability to meet the stringent Australian-content provisions. Well, he cannot argue both ways. Even Mr Warren Jones, managing director of Bond Media, admitted that ``in the fullness of time we'll have four stations''. It was the same argument the regional stations have been using against the early full extension of network services into country areas: protect your market as long as you can. Clearly, Michelle Grattan understands what this is all about and she expresses it in that article in particular when she asks: `Does anyone care what the people think?'. The Liberal Party of Australia cares what the people think, even if the media will not allow the Liberal Party's views to be expressed, and clearly they will endeavour to prevent those views from being expressed. One of the arguments that existing metropolitan licensees now put forward is that the entry of a fourth metropolitan licensee would be ruinous. What utter nonsense! That argument is totally flawed because, if it were correct, they would have nothing to fear. In that situation, no financier would take up any additional licence that was offered. But if a licence were offered tomorrow, there would be a 50-deep queue of people trying to get the fourth licence in Melbourne and in Sydney. Who would put at risk the millions of dollars necessary to establish a fourth network if it were not viable, or if he did not get the opportunity to make it viable? Of course an additional licence would be taken up, particularly as we insist on having strict guidelines for Australian content, which involves high costs, and because of the fact that entry would involve competing against an already firmly entrenched network. Even if they had to go into ultra high frequency, it would be a viable proposition in metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney. Indeed, SBS has demonstrated in metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney that UHF is a frequency people are prepared to turn over to and watch. If Perth, which has less than one million viewers, can afford three stations, Sydney and Melbourne, with more than three million viewers, can afford four stations. Under the aggregation proposals the Government says that, if we can get about one million people in a country approved market, three stations can service that area. Again, if three stations can service an approved market in a regional area, one can certainly afford four stations in Sydney and in Melbourne. That is why the Liberal Party states that if the Government will undertake to introduce new television licences in Sydney and Melbourne within the next two years and in other cities around Australia, namely Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart, within the next five years, it will not oppose the legislation. If the Government gives these assurances in a form that is acceptable to us, we will not vote against the legislation. I move the following amendment in respect of the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill: Leave out all words after ``That'', insert: ``the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (1) the calling of applications for: (a) at least one additional commercial television licence for each of Sydney and Melbourne; and (b) at least one additional commercial television licence for each of Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania, and (2) the issue of licences following applications: (a) in the case of Sydney and Melbourne by 1 July 1989; and (b) in the case of Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, and Tasmania, by 1 July 1992''. When one starts to look at the package and the way in which it has been set up by this Government and the Department, one sees artificial barriers right throughout it that reveal the serious flaws that firmly entrench and protect the existing licensees. That is why the media barons moved so quickly. I turn to the 75 per cent reach proposal. I do not really have any serious concern if there are opportunities for new players to get into the market. If there were a 75 per cent reach, I can see that some organisations would be able to be stronger and perhaps therefore would be able to spend more money on the production of local content television. That may be to the advantage of the viewers, but it would only be to the advantage of the viewers if there were competition as a result of the introduction of new players who are able to get in and get out of the market. The only way that they can get in and get out of the market now is by the takeover method. With one organisation paying over $1 billion in order to get into the market, that means that now there can be no competition. One matter is not clarified at all in this legislation. The band II clearance problems mean, in effect, that some viewers in regional areas will receive less television programs under aggregation and equalisation than they are now receiving. Some viewers in country areas now get television services from the major metropolitan stations-in Melbourne or Sydney, or wherever it happens to be-because of the circumstances of their locality, such as terrain, conditions and other factors. Once we move to aggregation, those people will be blocked off and not be able to see the programs which they receive from the major metropolitan network. This applies to a lot of people. Honourable senators who remember the dispute which occurred in Gippsland when it received its television station, in the era when Mr Peter Nixon was the Minister in charge of communications, will recall that there was an enormous uproar because Melbourne stations had been blocked out by a regional station. That will happen under aggregation and much more so, because there will be three stations in the regional area. There is another problem. In effect the Government is saying that there are problems in relation to requiring metropolitan stations to go into the UHF frequency. As a result of this legislation the Government requires WIN4 television at Wollongong to go into the UHF frequency. The Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation recommended that certain actions and steps be taken that might enable WIN4 to avoid having to go into the UHF frequency. The Government has rejected that report. I received a letter dated 1 June 1987 from TWT Limited, Wollongong, which states: We have today received a reply- from the Minister- which, in its second paragraph, makes clear that the Minister has decided to disregard the Senate Select Committee's recommendations. TWT Ltd enclosed a copy of the Minister's response to a request that further consideration be given to this problem. In a paragraph of gobbledegook all the Minister states is: As you know, all of the alternatives were very thoroughly explored before we reached our agreement on WIN's clearance. At that stage, they may have been thoroughly explored in the Minister's view, but once the Senate Select Committee examined the matter it found that there were alternatives that would have enabled WIN4 not to have to move out of the very high frequency. But those suggestions put forward by the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation have been disregarded by the Minister and he is throwing out WIN4's plea. This legislation package contains also a four-year moratorium on pay and cable television, which again simply seeks to protect the existing players allowing them to consolidate without fear of future competition. It denies viewers access to the latest technological advances. A four-year moratorium on the issuing of domestic pay television services is not necessary. The Minister already has the power to issue or not to issue licences as he see fit. Why then is this legislation included in this package? It simply gives the Australian Labor Party, which will be in Opposition after the next election, the opportunity to block removal of the moratorium and thus protect itself and its powerful friends. In effect, this part of the package is designed to protect these media barons in case the Labor Party loses the next election. It will still be in a position to block it, because our Minister would not then have the power to issue a licence. Why else is the provision in the legislation? It is entirely within the discretion of the Minister at the present time. Why is he taking it from his discretion? We say to the Government that unless it is prepared to withdraw the relevant clause relating to a moratorium on the issue of pay television, we intend to vote against the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. I seek from the Minister an undertaking that he will remove that moratorium provision, otherwise it will be necessary for us to vote against that Bill. These Bills, together with the equalisation Bill, are the bench-marks for entrenchment of an oligopoly in the television industry and guidelines for a reduction and the future elimination of regional programs. It is, in a simple phrase, the bribe of the media industry. The Liberal Party in opposition wishes for a more diverse, competitive and innovative range of services with pay and cable television and smaller stations providing specialised services around the nation. This Government has no vision for the media industry. It simply wants to hold back the tide of rapid technological advances. It wants to avoid any competition and to entrench the existing players with whom it has made this deal to the detriment of the people of Australia and their television viewing. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.13) —Honourable senators will know that one of my interests external to this place is to study the history of the reign of King Richard III. He, of course, in August 1485 met a very unfortunate end at Bosworth Field, where he suffered defeat after having been betrayed by the defection of Lord Stanley and his forces from the Yorkist armies. On this occasion I feel even more inclined to sympathise with King Richard III. The field to which we have come is not so much Bosworth as Boswell and the betrayal not so much from Lord Stanley as from Stanley Collard and the party he temporarily leads in this place. However, I shall return to the way in which this package has been cobbled together in due course. The Senate has been forced by guillotine or gag, supported by the National Party of Australia and various Independents, to debate in a restricted time frame six pieces of legislation, three of which, in effect, seek to rewrite the fundamental rules for the broadcasting industry in Australia. The Bills before us are the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill, and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. However, those pieces of legislation are part of an even larger package that this Government has put in place over the last couple of years. That package as a whole includes the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Act 1985; the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Act 1986; the process of the issue of the four regional commercial television services licences; the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986; the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987; the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill; the various reports of the Forward Development Unit of the Department of Communications; the plan for AM-FM conversion; the band II clearance program; the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill; the grandfathering provisions of various pieces of legislation; the promised August package, if this Government is re-elected, of various other amendments; and the fairly underhanded use of the Radiocommunications Act by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) whenever he was unable to sustain the sort of processes that would normally have regulated broadcasting under the principal piece of legislation, the Broadcasting Act itself. These six pieces of legislation are now presented to the Senate for debate, and it is interesting that of the 13 speakers on the list not one member of the Australian Labor Party is prepared to participate in this debate to defend this particularly shabby deal. I do not intend to address my remarks to any of those three pieces of legislation that deal essentially with licences, licence fees or penalties for late payment of fees; they are reasonably uncontroversial pieces of legislation dealing with the mechanics of the licensing process. However, I will say something about each of the three principal pieces of legislation within this package, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986, the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987. I do not believe it is necessary to dwell at very great length on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986. This Bill has been the subject of consideration by the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation on which both Senator Lewis and I had the honour to serve. We made our position perfectly plain on that occasion and on two subsequent occasions there have been debates in this chamber about the television equalisation proposals. Therefore, I propose to say only a few things about that piece of legislation. The first is that the fundamental point taken by the Liberal Party in relation to this Bill is that we do not believe that the process of forced aggregation is, in fact, the correct process to be used in order to extend more television services to viewers in non-metropolitan Australia. We believe, and we have consistently said, that the issue of supplementary licences and in particular the process of what one might refer to as the fast track process for the immediate issue of supplementary licences to existing broadcasters on application would allow for greater diversity and choice of programs in regional Australia. We believe that the supplementary licence system would allow complementary programming to be offered to viewers rather than purely competitive programming and it would therefore give viewers a greater choice in the selection of the television programs they wish to watch. Secondly, we are concerned that the unanimous recommendations of the Senate Select Committee which were supported by such luminaries as Senator Richardson and Senator Ray and which suggested to the Minister for Communications that independent advice should be taken on the questions of band II clearance and the force of conversion of various signals from the VHF to the UHF spectrum have been ignored by the Minister. In fact, the Minister has indicated to the television stations in both Newcastle and Wollongong that, despite the strength of their claims which were advanced before the Senate Select Committee and which were found persuasive by that Committee, nevertheless their conversion programs should be forced, the losers in all this being the viewers of WIN4 in Wollongong and NBN3 in Newcastle, two of the stations that continue to provide exceptionally good programming for their local areas. We have indicated a number of concerns about this piece of legislation and as part of yet another shabby deal in broadcasting legislation the Minister has come to us today and said that all sorts of amendments will be made. The amendments introduced no more than 35 or 40 minutes ago which we are expected to consider and which run to a large number of pages are quite technical in detail and include such matters as inserting a provision that the operation of this legislation shall commence only 60 days after the date of royal assent and various other matters that we are expected to consider and to make judgment about on the run. Undoubtedly, those who have been involved in these underhanded and shabby negotiations, both the political principals and the non-political principals who have been involved in this operation, nevertheless feel that they have managed to stitch together yet another one of these deals and will impose it on the people of Australia. As I have said, I do not propose to speak further about the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 because on two previous occasions I have made my position well and adequately known. I had the opportunity in a dissenting report of the Select Committee to make my criticisms of the legislation, and I stand by all the criticisms I made on that occasion and in subsequent speeches. I now refer to the second significant part of this package; namely, the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. My colleague Senator Lewis has indicated that, in the absence of an assurance from the Minister that steps will not be taken to prevent the issue of licences for pay television services, we will vote against the second reading of this Bill. Nevertheless, there are parts of the Bill which-if it gets to the Committee stage-the Liberal Party will not oppose. The Bill contains several measures. It deals first with amendments to the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946. These are designed to allow the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to participate in research activities within Australia and in international competitive ventures involving the use of satellites. We support and commend the role of the OTC as far as that is concerned. The second part of the Bill deals with the amendment of the Postal Services Act 1975 to allow Australia Post to enter into certain hedging contracts-and the Liberal Party of Australia supports that. A further part of the Bill deals with the amendment of the Telecommunications Act 1975 to allow Telecom to enter into hedging contracts, and we support that. There are two other parts in this legislation. One deals with the amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1983. The purpose of these amendments is to remove from public consultation some of the processes which the Minister has previously been required to enter into in terms of the planning of the radio frequency spectrum and certain other matters concerning the issue of timetables and plans which, under the current legislation, need to be exposed to public scrutiny on more than one occasion. The Government is seeking to remove from the Radiocommunications Act the requirement for public consultation on the second occasion. We will not support that attempt to wind back the right of the public to be involved in consideration of planning matters. The Department of Communications has a pretty feeble record as far as a genuine consultation with interested consumers in the industry is concerned. It is a very cosy, clubby little atmosphere in which Ministers, their departmental officials and certain people in the industry are able to get together to carve up as much of the spectrum and the revenue deriving from the spectrum-which, after all, is a public resource-as desired to their own private benefit. Since it came to office the Government has, of course, been engaged in a whole series of these moves to withdraw the right of the public to participate in the processes of government and government administration. It has made amendments to the Freedom of Information Act in order to restrict access to information; it has made amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to make it more difficult for people to get matters before the Administration Appeals Tribunal, by imposing prohibitive fees in relation to areas such as taxation appeals. Further, the Government has before Parliament a piece of legislation to amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, in order to make appeals dealing with questions of immigration and other civil rights of individuals much more difficult. The Government now comes to us with amendments to the Radiocommunications Act to withdraw from public consultation and from the processes of public involvement yet another area in which it has a cosy club relationship with the participants, to the exclusion of the rights of the general public. The Liberal Party will not support these amendments to the Radio- communications Act and, as Senator Lewis has said, and for the reasons he has given, we will not support the moratorium which is being imposed on the issue of licences for pay television services. The incoming Liberal Government-after the July election-will want to have the capacity to look at and to issue licences without the prohibition that is being inserted by this amendment. The final part of the package to which I wish to refer concerns the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987. This is the piece of legislation put together, as Senator John Button is reported to have so eloquently said in Cabinet, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in order to look after what Senator Button called `the Prime Minister's mates'. Essentially, this legislation is designed to do a number of things but, fundamentally, it is designed to put into the hands of the smallest possible number of operators the greatest possible amount of influence over broadcasting in Australia and over access to sources of information available to the general public through the electronic broadcasting medium. Even at this stage a series of amendments were introduced today by Senator Gareth Evans. This series of amendments go to the re-examination of the penalty provisions, which are to be further looked at by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on the basis of Senator Harradine's request. We now know what the arrangement made with Senator Harradine for his support of the legislation is. Changes are to be made to the provisions regarding multi-channel services. We are expected to digest what they are within this piece of legislation in exactly the same way as we were supposed to digest the changes made in the equalisation legislation to the so-called one in, all in rule. Further, changes are to be made to the potential reach available to broadcasters to bring this down from 75 per cent to 60 per cent. We know, therefore, what price has been paid to secure the adherence of members of the National Party of Australia to this legislation. Once again, because of the gag and the guillotine, we are requested, required and forced to consider this legislation in terms of the impact of the 60 per cent reach. The calculations that people have done about who would be winners and who would be losers if the reach were set at 35 per cent or 43 per cent or at 60 per cent, 75 per cent, or perhaps at 100 per cent, of course cannot be done on the run. This legislation cannot be properly analysed or debated. However, what we do know is that in any of these things there are winners and there are losers, and I want to talk for a few minutes about who are winners and who are losers. The primary winner from this shabby deal is Mr Bond. He is a winner because on the basis of a ministerial Press statement in November last year he decided to break the law. That is what he decided to do. Because he had $1 billion at his disposal, he decided to go out into the market-place and to break the law. He broke the law by acquiring more television stations than he was entitled to under the law as it stood. He spent $1 billion to break the law and he then said to the Government: `I want you now to pass legislation which will ensure the retrospective validation of my illegal purchase'. It may be argued that the purchases, technically, were not illegal because the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal had a capacity to rule on the matter at some stage within six months, or perhaps 12 months, from the date of acquisition. But that does not detract from the fundamental principle of what was done. That was that Mr Bond said: `I will assume that Parliament will pass legislation which will allow me to acquire more than the current law allows me to acquire'. When it was indicated that perhaps the Parliament should not be taken in such a cavalier fashion all sorts of pressures were applied to all sorts of people to ensure the retrospective validation of that stock market activity-possible only because somebody had $1 billion. A small, ordinary, average citizen who, had he fallen foul of the law and gone to the Minister for Communications, to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) or, God help him, to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to ask for some sympathetic consideration of his breach of the law, would have been tossed out on his ear. But if a person has $1 billion and is a mate of the Prime Minister, technically breaking the law does not really matter because he can always come to the Parliament and get it fixed up and, if necessary, he can find, and other people can suddenly find, 400,000 good reasons to help him along his way. This is the same person who yesterday was the subject of a report by the Broadcasting Tribunal in which the Broadcasting Tribunal raised serious questions about the propriety of some of the financial transactions undertaken in relation to a particular defamation case. The Tribunal was unsatisfied about the nature of those transactions. It has renewed certain licences with conditions attached that certain things should be done essentially to preserve the integrity of the independence of the news services broadcast on Queensland television. When Senator Gareth Evans was introducing his amendments to the legislation this afternoon he twice, I think, used the word `integrity'-the `integrity' of the package. Frankly, only somebody who is as good with words as Senator Evans is could have slipped the term `integrity' into the public debate without choking on it. There is no integrity in this package. There is no integrity in what the Government is doing about broadcasting legislation. There is no integrity about the deal which has brought the original legislation before the Parliament. There is no integrity about the deal which has been done to secure its passage here today-a great deal of skill perhaps, but no integrity in the whole operation. That is a clear indication, at least, as to who is the principal winner. But who are the losers in this operation? I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the losers are the viewers of Australia. The losers are the people whom this Government consistently and persistently excludes from its consideration in legislation-ordinary, average Australians who, at the forthcoming Federal election, will have the opportunity to pronounce upon this Government and the way in which this Government has so prejudiced their interests, whether it happens to be their interests as taxpayers, as users of medical services, welfare services or education places, which we have heard a great deal about in Question Time today, or as consumers of broadcasting services. They are simply not big enough, not rich enough, not powerful enough to have been put into the balance by this Government in the consideration of what it intended to do about broadcasting. A whole series of issues ought to be addressed. Time does not permit them to be addressed. Four hours at the second reading stage and one hour in Committee does not permit the Parliament to pay attention to the fine details of what is one of the most complicated statutes the Parliament is now required to administer. As I said on a previous occasion, the Broadcasting Act is getting almost as complicated to follow as the Income Tax Assessment Act. Only if people have the capacity to get some assistance from either the Minister's office or the Department to provide them with an updated, working copy of the legislation do they have the chance to follow the legislation right through because reprints are so far behind. One now has to look at legislation containing 22-odd pages of amendments to try to understand where they fit within the whole ambit of the Broadcasting Act. When one is considering broadcasting in Australia and attempting to come to grips with its dimensions, one also must have regard to the Broadcasting Act, the Overseas Telecommunications Act, the Radiocommunications Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act, all of which are interrelated, in terms of some understanding of government broadcasting policy. We have, therefore, determined on behalf of the Liberal Party a very precise and clear course of action; namely, that the first and most important element of broadcasting policy must be to introduce greater competition and more new players into the market and that the protection of the existing monopolists, whether they be regional monopolists or whether they be part of the national oligopoly which deals with broadcasting, can no longer be sustained. They can no longer claim that simply because they are rich enough, powerful enough or influential enough or because there is a Federal election looming upon us that, given that conjunction of circumstances, they are entitled to expect from this Government the rewriting of the legislation to their benefit and to the exclusion of the public interest which this Parliament is supposed to protect and in which this Parliament has a role in terms of its identification and preservation. The Government has come to us not with clean hands in this matter; it comes to us not with clean hands in terms of the deals done. The Minister for Communications, as a thoroughly honourable and decent man, in his more reflective moments-which I am sure are frequent-and in his more sombre moments, knows full well he ought not to support this legislation, and in his heart he certainly does not support it. He was one of the victims rolled by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in putting together this deal on behalf of their mates-not my term, but Senator John Button's term. Government members have had to cast around for a series of very strange coalitions to put this legislation before us today. They have had to find the formula to unlock the National Party. They have had to find the four hundred thousand and first key that was necessary to break the deadlock on this legislation. They have had to undertake discussions to bring Senator Georges back into the fold. Senator Siddons —Not so. Senator Georges will oppose the legislation. Senator PUPLICK —They have had to undertake discussions to bring Senator Georges back into the fold to get this equalisation legislation restored to the Notice Paper, to get the guillotine through, to get the gag through, to get the declaration of urgency through. They had to do that deal with Senator Georges. They have had to do a deal with Senator Harradine to get his support for the legislation they need. It has been an interesting battle. It has been a stimulating and intellectually challenging battle and, it appears, yet another one on which I have found myself on the lesser end of the equation. Nevertheless, a great deal of skill has been put in by the Government's puppetmasters to the cobbling together of this deal. In terms of the sheer politics of the whole thing I suppose they deserve recognition and congratulations for their political skills-no names, no pack-drill; they know precisely who I mean. They do not, however, deserve the thanks of the people of Australia, because the people of Australia are being betrayed by this whole package. They are being robbed of the opportunity to have real choice. They are being robbed of the opportunity to be presented with real diversity. They are being robbed of the opportunity to be free from the manipulations which will accrue to those who have 60 per cent coverage, because the next step is as plain as one can see-the 60 per cent coverage will last, if this Government is returned, for but a short period until we are told: `Well, really, 60 per cent is almost as good as 100 per cent. Why don't we simply drop the coverage provisions altogether?'. Then this country will have the most awful concentration of power without responsibility-as I said previously, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages-which will go with the reorganisation of the broadcasting system in Australia to the everlasting shame of the Minister and the Government who have enforced it and to the everlasting shame of those who have connived in the shabby package and the shabby deal which the Senate now has before it. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.41) —I rise to support Senator Puplick and to say that the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1986 and this debate will be a monument to the type of pork barrelling that this Government is obviously willing to enter into. The package before us epitomises the failure of the Government to tackle long term communications issues. Any relationship between this legislation and the Australian Labor Party platform which was ratified in Hobart last year is not only purely coincidental but also totally non-existent. The Bill represents the triumph of `Let's look after our mates', as Senator Puplick has said. This has infected the whole of the Government's approach in this area. It is a further episode in Australia's long running soap opera of media policy ad hockery which has been presided over by the Department of Communications. There has been no attempt to come to terms with new technologies. Everything has been patched together in a piecemeal fashion, perhaps because an integrated approach would lay bare the self-serving opportunism which this Government has entered into in coalition with the National Party of Australia. I believe that this could be a most exciting time in the development of the media in Australia. Instead of that, we are basically having to read an obituary for the freedom of the Press in this country. Today this debate is not being reported by media reporters. A large number of reporters have probably been forced out on strike so that it will not be properly covered, because they might have been seen to be on side. The choice of today as a time for them to go out is very apt and seems to fit in with the whole pattern of properly and well-orchestrated government operation. What we have here is a scandal. There is nobody in the Press gallery. Senator Lewis —And it is a non-broadcast day. Senator VIGOR —It is a non-broadcast day. The debate has been brought on with a gag so that nothing will overflow into broadcast day. We are essentially silent even though we are speaking, with no way to get through to the people. Very clever! Eventually it will catch up. We currently have the opportunities to inject real competition into commercial television, to offer viewers qualitative choice, not just more of the same. Today I believe that opportunity will be lost if these Bills are passed. We could have encouraged diversity of media ownership and opened up the broadcasting frequencies to many more veiwpoints. We could have arrived at a national plan for the expansion of all forms of commercial, national and public broadcasting. Instead of this, we have handed over the whole shebang to an oligopoly of friends of the Labor Party and the National Party. Instead of looking forward to the liberating potential of the new technologies, we are being asked to look backwards as the Department of Communications seeks new ways of keeping its head and the heads of all Australians in the sand. The nation deserves much better than a package designed to make the current media owners happy-happy enough to endorse this Government in the coming election. It is frightening; it is terrible that hard-nosed politicians are putting forward such a deal because the moment this deal is passed they will be the people who will be wiped out by it. Surely they well deserve it. They seem to forget that they will no longer be needed once the musical chairs of ownership game stops. The handful of proprietors that the Government wants to keep on side will be in a far stronger position than before to crush it. They have very short memories and very stupid political advisers in taking this stand. It is stupid pork barrelling. It will not always be enough that the Labor Party has shifted so far to the Right that half the Liberals regard it as a conservative party. There is still time, but not much, for it to turn back from the precipice. I address my remarks to some of the people in the Left of the Labor Party. They will give up everything for which they stood if they vote for this Bill today. They will never get another chance because not only will their Party be wiped out as a result, but they will also. There are some useful features of the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, which is another part of this package. The Overseas Telecommunications Commission, the OTC, is indeed given greater scope to provide services in our region. In Australia we certainly have the skills that are needed to be able to provide much better services. Several Pacific island nations have asked for assistance in upgrading their domestic and international telecommunications systems. If we fail to respond positively to that request we will indeed lose a number of business opportunities. We will lose the opportunity of being part of a Pacific economic community. We will also drop in the regard of our neighbours. It is important for Australia to consider itself part of this Pacific economic community. We are being called upon to deliver some of our technical expertise. This is an area of major development and growth, an area in which Australian ingenuity has always been present but not necessarily followed to our advantage. The Government has frequently paid lip-service to the need for greater Australian telecommunications investment, yet, despite the enthusiasm for the findings of the Ergas report, since last August Budget decisions have basically been to grab as much as possible for Consolidated Revenue from all the statutory bodies such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post and OTC. At the same time Telecom particularly has made much noise about purchasing 90 per cent of its equipment in Australia. What has not been publicised is the way that Telecom and Australia Post continue to overlook ideas and technologies developed and controlled in Australia and settle for options which see us as a basic assembly plant for technologies and ideas from overseas. The Australian Democrats are keen to see this restrictive mentality overturned. We want the onus placed on our telecommunications and postal authorities to develop long range plans to enhance Australia's manufacturing and exports. That is why we will be moving later amendments to the communications Bill which are designed to get a fairer deal for Australian suppliers, particularly where they are not offshoots of some multinational concern. We want potential Australian suppliers to have a proper opportunity to tender for the supply of goods and services and the development of technology in this country. When a contract is let to non-Australian suppliers a public statement of the reasons should be forwarded to each unsuccessful Australian supplier and laid before this Parliament. This would help focus our attitude on the enhancement of Australian industry and help the Buy Australian program which is currently just words. Another major arm of the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 gives effect to last September's Cabinet decision that there would be a four-year moratorium on pay television in Australia. In announcing the moratorium the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) said that during the four years there would be a review of the development in the free television industry, the film industry and new technologies. Indeed, we are expecting high definition television to arrive on our doorstep and the advent of optic cables and optic logic will make some difference to the provision of such services. I only hope that the review is not conducted by the Department of Communications, which has proved itself to be totally unsuitable every time imagination has been needed. For instance, last September Estimates Committee C was given papers which indicated the desperate efforts of the Department to find a way of imposing delays without legislative amendments. There were some 43 expressions of interest following publication of draft subscription television guidelines in response to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's satellite program services report. These were put on ice while remote and regional broadcasting issues were examined. Perhaps there was a fear that the Minister would be taken to court for failing to process expressions of interest. I do not know. After all, this happened over the supplementary licences shambles for which the Department also bears great responsibility. Last December the Federal Court of Australia ruled that the Minister for Communications had to make a decision whether to refer NBN3's application for a supplementary licence to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. On 22 January 1987 the Minister dismissed the application on grounds relating to the development of broadcasting services. The Newcastle broadcaster has since sought a detailed statement of reasons, presumably under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. It was quite outrageous that the Minister had not acted on the matter or even sought to make a decision. This is quite typical of the way both the Minister and the Department operate. Honourable senators will recall the quite unlawful attempts by the Minister to interfere with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal when it announced details of its Canberra supplementary licence hearing on 18 February 1986. Although decisions on the two licence applications were announced on 27 October and have withstood litigation, there is no plan to schedule further television licence hearings. Instead, the applicant for an independent television licence-Canberra Telecasters Ltd-spent over $300,000 in good faith only to find that Government policy changed two years after it renewed its commitment to supplementary licences in February 1984. Canberra Telecasters wrote to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in the following terms: We are now expected to throw away our investment because the Government wants to change its mind. It pointed out how unfairly events had turned and stated: If the Government is to change the ground rules mid game, it should do so only if prepared to compensate any injured party. To date it has not even offered to do this. This is in complete contrast to the attitude which is operating with the Bond Corporation Ltd which, as Senator Puplick said, blatantly showed intent to break the law by purchasing more television stations than were allowed under the current regulations on the basis of a Government Press release. If this Bill is passed, its situation may be ratified. In view of all of this, it is important that the Government be even-handed in dealing with matters of this kind. Millions of dollars were wasted by incumbent and potential licensees because the Department of Communications failed to make the supplementary licence scheme work. Its solution was to complain about the complexity of the scheme but not to simplify procedures. The Department has shown the same ineptitude in realising the video and audio entertainment and information services scheme-the VAEIS scheme. For a time it sought to delay the introduction of these services. It has now handed over those services to the same Mr Bond about whom we were talking when dealing with the other media. There is no provision for cross-media ownership between VAEIS and the normal television, radio and newspaper organisations. Mr Bond now has complete control over the VAEIS system. This gentleman, who was willing to break the law and to go to the limits of both the Australian Taxation Office and various pieces of legislation, has been given by the Department the possibility of having a self-regulatory regime. Only now are we seeing what that really means. The Bond group has been allowed to achieve a dominant position without any public oversight at all. The Department advised Estimates Committee C that no ministerial directives or administrative measures are in place in respect of the concentration of VAEIS ownership, the concentration of media influence amongst VAEIS licensees or the fitness and propriety of people to obtain a licence. There are no rules. In other words, there are no rules for ownership of resources which may lead to pay television arrangements in the long term. On top of that, the Department has failed to take a proportion of advertising revenue and has settled for just a small licence fee under the Radiocommunications Act. There are no open, public procedures for the investigation of alleged breaches of the VAEIS guidelines. Nothing has been issued by this Minister. The Minister has totally failed to handle one of the areas of his portfolio. For instance, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation complained about the exclusive broadcasting arrangements which prevented it from televising an Easter Monday Victorian Football League fixture. I asked a question without notice about this matter in May but to date no information has been forthcoming about it. We have real difficulty when new technology is left more or less as a plaything of the owners. The failure to include VAEIS services within the cross- media restrictions is a significant one-it is a defect in the legislation-which ranks alongside the failure to include high definition television, cable television, the distribution of compact discs and various other means of distribution within our system. We should be sorting out our ideas on the degree to which we want ownership of the media to be concentrated and not making adjustments after the horse has bolted. The 60 per cent media ownership that has been thrust upon us today is scandalous. The Australian Labor Party's communications platform makes quite interesting reading. The platform wants the Labor Government to ensure that the new technology serves the best interests of the Australian people. The best way to approach that is to make decisions based on open and public hearings. Unfortunately, this Government has preferred to work behind closed doors in the fashion that the Communications Department has made its own. One of the amendments in this communications legislation, which, together with the Opposition, we will be opposing, cuts down on public accountability in this area. Instead of attending to the interests of viewers, journalists, actors and technicians, the Government has attended to the interests of those who will be buying as much of the media as they are allowed to do because they have the money. The Labor Party platform states: In broadcasting this will involve- (a) diversity in choice of programming; (b) optimum guaranteed levels of Australian content; (c) diversity of media ownership; and (d) programming directed at all sectors of the Australian community. Paragraph (5) of the platform reads: Emphasis must be given to the democratic use of these resources in the public interest, and a reduction in the concentration of their media ownership and control in private hands, both within and between the various forms of media. This goes completely counter to what the Government is doing in this Bill. I am sure that every person who voted for the Labor Party at the last election and who believed that platform will never believe it again. It has just joined the number of lies which this Government has put forward. I have directly quoted the platform, and certainly this Bill goes completely against it. I have already pointed out that the video and audio entertainment and information service licences have no ownership safeguards. They also do not have any Australian content standards with which they must comply. What has happened since the Government's ownership announcement of 27 November 1986? We have had an unprecedented buying and selling spree of media outlets, often at prices which had never been dreamed of only a few months earlier. These prices can only be justified as purchasing a monopoly power. In the process, the Herald and Weekly Times group has been dismembered, so we already have one fewer among the newspaper conglomerates. Channel 7 in Melbourne has lost a lot of its local programming as a result of the Fairfax takeover. Industrial action followed the decision to sack 78 staff without warning. This is just a start. This new legislation, if passed, will herald complete reorganisation within the media industry. The Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association, whose members have borne the brunt of the proposed cutbacks, has put out a Press release with the following points: We note that the full implementation of television networking in Australia will effectively transform Victorian television stations into relay points. The consequent loss of production historically undertaken by Victorian stations will result in massive job losses in television. The film industry, because of its interdependence with television, will be similarly affected as will the extensive range and number of small businesses associated with production in general. The viability of film laboratories, commercial production and theatre set-making establishments is also threatened. That is just one organisation. The ATAEA also pointed out the impact of global networking on production and associated industries in all States, including New South Wales, where our internal empires are starting to centralise. All this activity promotes neither diversity in choice of programming, nor optimum guaranteed levels of Australian content, nor diversity of media ownership, nor programming directed at all sectors of the Australian community. There is not one measure of Labor Party policy that is being fulfilled by this Bill. It should be thrown out by all reasonable and thinking members of the Labor Party. We are heading in quite the opposite direction from that envisaged by the Labor platform. Indeed, points 28, 30, 31 and 32 of the Labor platform also seem to be observed in the breach. They asked a Labor Government first to: . . . require the commercial broadcasting sector to be diverse in programming, ownership and control, with high levels of Australian content and good programming quality. Nothing has been done to promote diversity in programming. In fact, there is room for a fourth commercial television station in the metropolitan area with a specific complementary programming charter. This would give viewers additional choice rather than just more of the same, as proposed by the Opposition's amendment. To this end I move an amendment to the Opposition's second reading amendment in respect of the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill. I move: At end of proposed amendment, add: ``(3) the licences so issued- those are the extra licences the Opposition proposed be issued- to be- (a) for public, community access, educational and multicultural broadcasting, and (b) funded by a levy on the other commercial television stations in those cities and in Tasmania in proportion to the audience reach of each such station''. Naturally, such complementary programming station should also be available in all regional areas, and again this would tend to provide more real freedom of choice. A Labor Government is also, under its policy, to: . . . limit the ownership of radio and television services by media monopoly interests- It is also to: . . . limit the degree of cross-media ownership currently existing in Australia. In relation to the media monopoly interests, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam made the following remarks at a meeting of the Fabian Society in Adelaide on 13 February this year. He said: The transfers we have seen during Parliament's recess could not have occurred anywhere in Northern America or Western Europe. Australia now has as great a variety of media management as eastern Europe. While the gang of four in the Labor Party was sorting out Labor's position on ownership and control of television, the Forward Development Unit in the Department of Communications produced its report on `Ownership and control of commercial television'. In chapter 6 some interesting comments were made: National limits expressed in terms of `population reach' would remove the inequity of the present `two station rule' (which treats a major capital city as the equivalent of a minor regional licence). Such a rule would need to set a maximum population reach. Since further expansion of the existing Sydney plus Melbourne combinations would appear to be politically unacceptable, viable options for a population reach rule are (a) 43 per cent (equivalent to a Sydney plus Melbourne licence); (b) 33 1/3 per cent (equivalent to a Sydney plus Brisbane licence); or (c) 25 per cent (roughly equivalent to a Sydney or Melbourne licence). So that in August 1986 the only viable options were all lower than 43 per cent. But now we are discussing 60 per cent and 75 per cent. In fact, during the long impasse between the Minister for Communications and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the quarrel was over whether anyone could get a ceiling of 43 per cent through this Parliament. The Prime Minister wanted to grandfather the Packer and Murdoch common ownerships and set a limit of 35 per cent for all other owners. On the other hand, the media unions and some sections of the Labor Party were pushing for a 25 per cent ceiling. We are now faced with a Government proposing 75 per cent ownership in the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill. First, it is less than the open slather attributed to the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Nevertheless, it makes a rather odd compromise between 35 per cent and 43 per cent, which were the options then held by the leaders of the Labor Party. It was put forward in the name of deregulation as part of a package in which cross-media ownership restrictions were a vital element. The legislation before us shows that `reregulation' is a more appropriate word. Economic imbalances will mean that the limits will very quickly be reached, no matter what level they are at. If the figure is 75 per cent, there will be three major owners, and essentially under equalisation regional stations are just slaves. Unfortunately, if one does the calculations, 60 per cent does nothing in that regard. The sleight of hand by which the Nationals have accepted the 60 per cent figure is crazy. A figure of 60 per cent is little different from a figure of 75 per cent in effect. A figure of 43 per cent is the first case in which there is a chance of getting five or six major owners when the system has settled down. The same is certainly true of the 35 per cent that was proposed under enormous pressure by my colleague, Senator Powell, who will move an amendment to that effect if the Australian Democrats amendment for 22 per cent fails in the Committee stage. I believe that 22 per cent is the appropriate figure for an Australian commercial television system in which many viable and influential voices can be heard by the Australian people. That 22 per cent would mean that one person could own only one station in Sydney or Melbourne or, at most, two stations in cities such as Brisbane or Adelaide. There would certainly be more job opportunities available if each station was producing something locally. Under this scheme localism will go by the board. This legislation is a monument to pork barrelling and to the total failure of the Labor Party's system of factions in which all factions but one have been completely wiped in a decision which eventually will wipe the whole Party off the face of Australian politics. My word, that will serve Labor members right if they try to pass this Bill. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(5.11) —I rise to speak in the debate on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and related Bills at a time when the definition of politics as the art of the possible has taken on a new meaning. In many ways compromise has become a new art form. The reason why this legislation is before the Senate today bears very close examination. Not so long ago Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister representing the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), suggested that the equalisation legislation would not come into operation until a date 60 days after it had been given the royal assent. Clearly that date is beyond the date of the election-11 July. That does not answer the question of why this legislation needs to be proceeded with at all at this time. Clearly it has been done for base political motives. This legislation is a desperate attempt to somehow appease those in the media who the Government would otherwise be fearful would take a critical view of its handling of the governing of the country and, in particular the running of the economy. That `running scared' approach would not have been possible had it not been for the craven capitulation of our erstwhile colleagues, our former coalition country cousins-members of the National Party of Australia, who have never been long on principle and no doubt have thought that pragmatism was a fairly safe approach to take in most instances in politics. In this instance, I believe that the Nationals have done themselves and the nation a great disservice. It is particularly instructive that today should mark not only the formalisation of this squalid little arrangement, but also the announcement of a decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in relation to the $400,000 payout to the Queensland Premier by the Bond Corporation Ltd. If one examines the basis on which the Tribunal found that there were `major concerns' surrounding the defamation settlement between Mr Bond and the Queensland Premier, one sees that by no stretch of the imagination did proper principles of litigation or proper assessments of the measure of damages of any alleged defamation come into play. The payout was motivated solely by a desire to stay on side with the senior political figure in that State. I regard that as a very disturbing state of affairs. The Tribunal found that Mr Bond made the payment in order to maintain good relations between the Premier and the Bond group as a whole and not necessarily for the benefit of QTQ. One could say that the Tribunal was being conservatively charitable in its assessments because any dispassionate observer would have a high measure of concern that this was certainly not in the interests of the television station. In fact it was counterproductive to the best interests not only of the journalists who are employed by that station and who might otherwise believe that their employer had a favourable predisposition towards the Government, but also to staff, who would be led to believe that they would be ditched or discriminated against if they took up a stance in writing or on video film that was contrary to the interests of the Queensland Premier. In assessing the merits of the payout, perhaps I should note as a starting point that the insurance company that was called upon to indemnify the television station was of the view that the Queensland Premier's claim was unlikely to succeed. Yet we find a damages payout which the Tribunal found was: . . . unusual and probably unprecedented; and higher than would have been reached, but for the perceived needs of the diverse Bonds interests in Queensland and the resulting need for good relations with the Premier. That finding comes despite some desperate attempts by those in Queensland and elsewhere to wheel up advice from senior Queen's Counsel designed to demonstrate that somehow this was a reasonable pay out figure and that it was within the bounds of reasonableness. The Tribunal found quite to the contrary. In that situation I think it is highly significant that we turn to what the Queensland Premier has recently boasted-that the about face that we are seeing today by National Party senators is as a result of the pressure from the Premier and a declaration that he asked them to allow this media package to pass. I regard that as a shameful act. It is quite clear that the Nationals have taken the money in a desperate effort to stay on side with the media which gave them such a good run earlier in the year but which have now realised the moral bankruptcy of the campaign that has been run by the Queensland Premier. They have tried desperately to do this sordid and squalid deal. I believe that that attempt to secure loyalty will fail in the same way that any attempt to appease those with powerful interests in this community deserves to fail. The Liberal Party would have done the community a great disservice if it had taken the view that somehow it ought to try to appease the so-called media barons. I was intrigued by the analogy that my colleague Senator Puplick drew with the battle of Bosworth Field. One could continue that analogy by saying that in this instance the Duke of Gloucester has been displaced by a cluster of barons. It is quite clear that those in control of the media have the apparent ability to exercise an extraordinary degree of influence. I believe that we should not overestimate that degree of influence in the television medium. It is probably quite valid to suggest that those in control of the newspapers have an inordinate influence in the way in which people form political views and in the way political judgments are made in this country. A very interesting starting point in this regard can be seen from some remarks made by Rupert Murdoch in the now notorious interview he gave in the magazine More in 1977 when he said: I think it would be a pity if I grew any bigger in Australia. There are now basically three groups in Australia, and that's too few already. If I were to grow bigger and take over one of the other groups . . . that would be against the public interest. Whilst I am impressed by the frankness of Mr Murdoch's comments, and I do heed his self-inflicted warning that he gave on that occasion, I think that a proper assessment of his remarks demonstrates that what he was saying was simply that the print media have the power to influence and distort. They have the power to shape the political agenda and by editorialising and by news management of all descriptions they have quite a capacity to determine the political agenda. That is not to say that television owners have the same power. Indeed, I believe they do not. One needs to understand what drives the television owners. Apart from the bottom line, I think it is much more a matter of entertainment rather than information. Their basic interest is in attracting as many viewers as possible to watch programs that will not cause them to become agitated, that will not lead to any political, moral or religious conversions, but which will induce them to keep watching. That is done by a variety of programs which I regard as being fairly harmless. It does not do the cerebral functioning of the community much good to be subjected to that quality of material but nonetheless it is a far cry from saying that somehow it is a form of political indoctrination. The big danger which will result from the current arrangements as much as from even an increase in the number of commercial television proprietors is that we are more likely to get pap than propaganda. The danger, in my view, is from blandness not bias. In many ways that should determine our attitude to at least one of the these important pieces of legislation that we are debating this afternoon. The six Bills before the Senate are the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. I want to dispose of all but two of those fairly quickly. Three of them relate to licence renewals, penalties and fines attached to non-renewal. The Communications Legislation Amendment Bill contains, I think, only one controversial aspect from the Liberal Party's point of view; and that is the four-year moratorium it places on the establishment of pay television. We are opposed to that provision. We do not see any logical or proper basis for it. To the extent that the Government persists with clause 19 of the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill, we will oppose it. It is designed not to apply to services available only to non-domestic premises such as video entertainment services which currently are delivered direct to hotels, motels, clubs and licensed premises. In effect, it is to prohibit the Minister from granting a transmitter licence for the purpose of providing pay television to domestic premises. We do not see the need for that and we will oppose it. So that leaves only two pieces of legislation to which I want to direct my remarks this afternoon. Therefore, I go back to the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill which is of vital significance to us all. It is a valid starting point to repeal the 30-year-old two-station rule which has for many years governed the ownership of commercial television. It is recognised on all sides that this rule has outlived its usefulness and that to impose an arbitrary numerical restriction on the number of television stations, irrespective of their size or location, in many ways is to miss the point. It simply is not a valid comparison to treat two small proprietors in regional areas in the same way as one would treat two owners in the same metropolitan capital city. Quite rightly, the Government therefore is proposing that those old arrangements be replaced with new ones. The original proposal was for a 75 per cent audience reach rule and for limits on cross ownership between television and newspapers and between television and radio within the service area of related commercial television licences. As I understand it, that second leg remains intact. We have no quarrel with that. As far as the 75 per cent reach rule is concerned, it is notorious that that was a compromise. Originally, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was gung ho in favour of a 100 per cent audience reach arrangement. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was in favour of the middle course-in the classic mould of consensus for which he is notorious-and the Minister for Communications was taking the conservative position of 35 per cent. What has been served up to us today is a 60 per cent amendment. We oppose that. It is necessary to understand why these figures are not simply numbers and, in the classic sense of politics, why the middle course is not preferable, because a very real element of principle can be obscured by the shabby arrangements that have resulted in this 60 per cent deal being brought before the Senate today. The 60 per cent limitation would allow each of the three network corporations to own stations in four of the five mainland capital cities. The 65 per cent rule would have enabled them to extend their ownership to all five metropolitan markets and a 75 per cent rule would have entitled them to operate in all capital cities, together with a station in at least one regional market. The philosophy that underlies the concept of audience reach is that there are economies of scale that will derive from the ability to provide networking facilities and that rather than having artificial limits placed on the extent of audience reach it makes sense to allow the commercial channels to reorder and rationalise their arrangements so that networking is possible. Some people seem to take fright at the very concept of networking. It has been suggested in some places that somehow the American restrictions on ownership which, I think, run to only about 25 per cent of audience reach but which nonetheless would cover some 60 to 70 million people are preferable because they have networking by affiliation. I do not see the point of the distinction. Once an effective networking arrangement is achieved, the opportunity for blandness and pap is equally there, irrespective of the number of players. One would hope that what is really of major consideration is the ability of others to compete. To impose or have an audience reach limit does not in any way preclude others from entering the market. What should be crucial to the determination of the proper underlying principle is whether there are barriers to entry to the market. As a result of the Government's refusal to accept the Opposition amendment that there should be an additional commercial channel in each of Melbourne and Sydney, it is apparent that it wants artificially to restrict access to the market and impose the most effective of all barriers to entry-and that is an oligopolistic provision. I do not see the justification for it. What is wanted in this community is diversity, competition and contestable markets, with no barriers to entry. What is required is for those who wish to participate to be able to do so, to have equal access to the market-customers or viewers in this instance-and have access to the latest technology. There should be no capital constraints other than the obvious need to raise very substantial amounts of capital in order to be able to afford to buy into the market. There has been no shortage of cheque books in recent months. It is quite clear that if the market justified it, others would be more than willing to take a piece of the action. Therefore, the proper approach to be taken is not to focus so much on the extent of audience reach but rather upon restrictions on access to the market. It is on that basis that the Government has compromised fundamentally and achieved an arrangement which is short term and shortsighted and overlooks that fundamental requirement that there should be ease of access and not effective barriers to entry. But of course what we have is quite the reverse. There has been a lot of hand wringing, soul searching and what I would have thought was dissembling by some media proprietors who have suggested that somehow they have vast interests at stake if this legislation is not passed. I do not for one moment accept the proposition. It is quite clear that despite the flurry of activity that resulted from the Minister's notorious Press release, which generated such a lot of takeover activity, there is still a long way to go before any of the new holders would be in legal breach of the provisions of the legislation. The Broadcasting Tribunal is empowered to grant an extension of the six-month grace period upon application, and it would certainly do so in the present instance. At the moment it is in the process of conducting a preliminary inquiry into the acquisition of Channel 7, Melbourne, by the Fairfax company. We know that there is a very real basis for concern in that regard as a result of the way in which the Fairfax group has moved to put off something like 78 employees and to turn that station into a slave relay station. That will occupy the Tribunal for quite some time and it does not at the moment even have on its agenda inquiries into the takeover of the 9 network by the Bond Corporation or of the 10 network by the Northern Star group. So there is simply no basis for suggesting that there is urgency about the passage of this legislation prior to the election. It would not inconvenience the proprietors one iota if the matter were held over and, indeed, if the matter were not finalised until the new year. It is quite clear that the reason for the excessive urgency in the present instance is somehow to curry favour in the hope that it will be reflected in favourable media comment. I am sure those hopes will be disappointed. I do not regard the other aspect of the legislation as being any more desirable. I turn briefly now to deal with the provisions of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, which is that part of the package which determines the way in which equalisation should be arrived at. It is a laudable aim to give regional Australia the choice and diversity of commercial programming which is presently available to viewers in most capital cities and which will shortly be available in Perth. At the moment there are five million people in regional Australia who have access to only one commercial channel and to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Maybe that is a blessing for which they should be grateful, and they may have cause for profound regret in due course, but at the moment it seems to be somewhat unfair that they are denied that apparent luxury of commercial choice that is available to most of us in Australia. We support equalisation. We believe that additional services should be provided in regional areas comparable to those in the capital cities. But we do not support the process or the means; that is, forced aggregation, whereby existing markets or service areas are combined in order to provide a sufficient population base. It is irrelevant that part of the squalid deal is two in, all in instead of one in, all in; it still involves forced aggregation. We have a great concern for the consequences of that deal on regional viewers and those who believe in localism. One has only to travel in country areas to appreciate the virtue of regional television. Maybe the pace of living is slightly slower, but certainly access to television in regional areas is much greater than it ever is in city areas. It is almost a luxury to travel there and to see the media approaching any community leader for comment. I think in many ways part of the charm of regional areas is that they have the ability to concentrate on local issues. In many ways, of course, that is what keeps people in the country. If they were simply going to have regurgitated to them networked material from Sydney today, Los Angeles tomorrow, they might very quickly start to wonder what it is that makes country life so attractive. I think it is very important that we place a great deal of emphasis on affinity with the local community. I had a submission from the Christian Media Association which suggested to me that the Government's legislation would have the same effect as banning all regional newspapers and imposing a requirement to read only the Sydney Morning Herald. Without reflecting on that particular journal, I think that the analogy is apt, because once one is forced to take a diet that is not of one's choosing one must suffer very much in consumption. The dangers of networking are already apparent in the ways in which viewers are voting with their eyes and with their hands, in the case of Channel 7 in Melbourne. Viewers are deserting the station in droves and making it clear that they will not tolerate a regime imposed from interstate. I have also had communications from Actors Equity of Australia Victorian Division, which is very much concerned that production decisions will be made in Sydney and that there will be a forced migration of quite a number of the creative people in the television production industry. It does not want to see Melbourne become a slave or relay station and one can well understand that concern. It is very valid to suggest that the alternative that we propose, which was, indeed, canvassed as an option by the Department of Communications in its 1985 report on the future options for the development of the communications industry, should be given much more serious consideration. Multi-channel services would allow existing regional operators to provide two extra non-competitive services in their markets and, in many ways, by the issue of supplementary licences, would preserve that local flavour that is so valued in non-urban Australia. The indicative plan, which will specify regional licences, in many ways is dependent upon the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal taking firm action, and I have grave doubts about its ability to bite the bullet. I noted that one of Senator Harradine's concerns was picked up in a half-hearted manner by Senator Gareth Evans. To the extent that there may soon be a greater variety of penalties available to the Tribunal, there may well be an increased ability to ensure compliance not only with indicative plans but also with the actual legislation. At present, however, I do not have great confidence that that will result. One need look no further than yesterday's historic finding by the Tribunal. At the end of the day, despite the Tribunal's very serious concerns and reservations about the conduct of the Queensland Premier, it nonetheless indicated that it would renew the licence in November next year. In my view, if the National Party is driven by the Queensland Premier to maintain the present compromise, the only way in which it can retrieve its integrity in the matter is for its leader to call upon the Queensland Premier to repay every cent of that $400,000 which is clearly, by any judgment, simply a commercially based and not a litigation based payment. The latter is not my comment; that is the comment of the Broadcasting Tribunal. Senator Boswell —Oh, come off the grass, you bloody idiot. It's a reflection on the Premier. Senator ALSTON —I am simply picking up the words of the Tribunal, and I am sure that anyone who has read those remarks could not do other than agree with the inferences that are irresistibly to be drawn from its findings. It is clear that localism is very much at risk and that what will result from the cloned networking arrangements that will follow the Government's decision to proceed with forced aggregation will be very much to the detriment of television viewers in regional areas. Therefore, I believe that the Government is wrong in its approach in this area, as it is philosophically wrong in a policy sense in relation to the 75 per cent reach rule. If there is to be any guarantee that we will have diversity and real competition in the area, the Government must give an undertaking to grant additional licences as soon as possible, but at the moment it is conspicuous by its silence in this area. I do not accept the many conspiracy theories which abound. The sudden departure of Mr Packer from the realm towards the end of last year shows that the best laid plans of such people as Senator Richardson can often go sadly astray. I believe there is a capacity for those in control of television channels to influence or determine; but I do not believe it is anywhere near as great as the capacity of the owners of the private print media to set the agenda in this country. I am concerned, nonetheless, that we have to grapple with what is in many ways a much more difficult question; that is, the extent to which the Tribunal should intervene in setting quality standards. It may well be that legislation to require a much stricter adherence to quality will be required and that by simply expanding the number of players we will not necessarily see any improvement in quality. I say that having returned recently from the United States of America. In New York, if one has cable television one can get something like 60 channels but, nonetheless, one still does not have current affairs programs that in any way match the quality of half a dozen programs in this country. If one puts aside what George Negus might describe as an elitist criticism of programs such as 60 Minutes, the fact is that this program does provide good quality entertainment and a modicum of political stimulation and debate, and it surpasses very much what is available in the United States. Ultimately, I think that we will have to be concerned not only with expanding in a quantitative sense but also with looking seriously at whether there should be minimum quality standards and not be left with a lowest common denominator ratings approach, which I suspect will be the outcome whatever ultimate rationalisation may be achieved in this area. Therefore, I think there are quite a number of reasons why the legislation is unsatisfactory and why we oppose it. I am disappointed that the Government has, with an excess of haste, supped with the devil to the extent that it has. I do not believe that, by simply striking a figure of 60 per cent, they have gone anywhere towards grappling with the real issues that underlie the complexities of the debate in this country. I think that in many ways it is conceded that we are really only at the beginning and not at the end, but it is a very sad day when we are deserted, as we have been, by our National Party colleagues, their fear of electoral retribution having overtaken any commitment to principle that they might have had in this area. The Liberal Party of Australia remains a party of principle. We believe in increased competition, and in preserving the integrity and quality of regional television programming. In the course of this debate we will do our best to ensure that this squalid package does not come into reality. If it does, we will have an opportunity shortly, after 11 July, to readdress that wrong Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(5.41) —Senator Lewis, who led the debate for the Opposition, spent much of his time berating the Senate in general, and me in particular, for supporting the suggestion that the broadcasting Bills be brought on for debate and debated to finality. That I would have thought was the least that this Senate can do. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the community and a large amount of money has been invested by the media owners. I suggest that we should stand up and be counted and let those concerned know where the Parliament, and the Senate in particular, stands on this important matter. I make no apologies-and I am sure that many of my colleagues make no apologies-for saying: `Let's get this matter debated. Let's get those concerned with this vitally important matter to stand up and say how they will vote'. Enormous amounts of money are at stake. Another aspect of this legislation is the freedom of the Press. It could be argued that, when we decide this legislation relating to the broadcasting future of this country, our very democracy is at stake. On 28 April of this year I spoke at great length on my attitude on this series of Bills, and it is not my intention to go over the ground that I covered on that occasion. I made it very clear that I was in favour of many aspects of this legislation. I was in favour of the attempt to have regional television made more competitive and to encompass audiences of about one million people. I think that it is the best compromise that can be arrived at. The National Party of Australia seems to be concerned about the one in all in or the two in all in rule. I am happy to listen to debate on that matter and I am sure that compromise could have been reached in relation to it. I believe that the cross-ownership aspects of the legislation are very important and I support this absolutely. I think it is iniquitous that on the one hand one owner can have up to 60 per cent of the print media audience and on the other hand also own a television station. The aspect about which I, the Liberal Party of Australia, the Australian Democrats and the three Independent senators to whom I have spoken feel very strongly is the 75 per cent audience reach. Australia has the highest concentration of media ownership in the Western world. That is some record. What are we doing? If this legislation passes in its present form, we will concentrate it even further. We have the highest concentration in the world, and we are proposing to concentrate it even further. Sixty per cent of the print media is in the hands of one person, namely Mr Murdoch, and I suggest that that is very dangerous for our democracy. To allow 75 per cent of the electronic media to be in the hands of as few as two owners is nothing short of a disaster. Our democracy depends on the dissemination of opinions respecting minority viewpoints and letting those viewpoints be aired. When I first came to the Parliament in 1980 I was concerned about the power of the media. It was not what was said in Parliament that mattered; it was not necessarily how one voted that mattered; rather, it was a matter of how it was reported. Even with the spread of ownership in the media as it exists at the moment, senators have trouble getting their viewpoints across. If that ownership is further concentrated the power of the media will be enormous, and I suggest that it will be so powerful that not even the Parliament will be prepared to stand up against it. I am very disappointed that there has not been a more concerted opposition to the audience reach aspect of this legislation. I had the opportunity to hear the brilliant speech made by Ian Macphee to the Melbourne Press Club on 22 May. He said, amongst other things: I am confident that the Government will have to go back to debating the merits of 35 per cent or 43 per cent and that nothing greater than 43 per cent will be passed by the Parliament. There is a measure of agreement for having 43 per cent as the upper limit for audience reach. I feel sure that, had there been a concerted attempt, there could have been unanimity with the Opposition on an audience reach of 43 per cent. We are faced with an enormous variety of amendments-I think 20 in all-containing all points of views. Of course, the great danger with that is that divide and conquer will be the order of the day. My position is clear. I am in favour of a 43 per cent audience reach and I will move an amendment along those lines. I will support also any other reasonable amendments on any other aspects of this legislation, but I will not agree to anything above the 43 per cent audience reach. Alternatively, I favour the legislation going to a committee. If we cannot reach agreement at the end of the debate, I believe it is reasonable that the legislation go to a committee and that further investigation take place. I make no apology for the fact-and I notice that Senator Lewis is now in the chamber-that this legislation has been brought on for debate and that all senators have come to the moment of truth; they have to stand up and be counted as to where they stand on this important matter. I seem to recall that Ian Macphee said in a speech to the Press Club that no more important piece of legislation has come before this Parliament since Federation. Senator Lewis —Is that your justification for agreeing to the guillotine? Senator SIDDONS —My justification-and I am sorry that Senator Lewis was not in the chamber when I opened my remarks-was the agreement to debate this piece of legislation to a conclusion in the interests of and in fairness to the media owners in this country and the Australian people. It is important that the uncertainty and the problems which indecision in this vital area have caused be brought to an end. This Senate must make a decision and make clear to all concerned what it will do. I make no apologies for saying: `Let us debate it to a conclusion'. If that requires the guillotine, so be it. There is a lot of legislation to come before this Senate before we rise for the premature election, and it is impossible for me to be in favour of ducking some of the important issues before us. Let us find out what will happen. The point of view has been expressed that a fourth station would solve the problem, but that is not a point of view with which I can agree. The Liberal Party of Australia put forward that view recently as the solution, as a compromise I imagine, for problems of audience reach. It is not a solution that I believe has been thought through. It raises questions of economic viability. Arguments were put that, if it were not economically viable for a fourth broadcaster to apply for a licence, he would not apply. I believe that that is not the way in which the commercial world works. Someone would have a go at applying for and getting a fourth licence and there would be a danger that the standard of television broadcasting could be debased by that approach. I am not in favour of a fourth station. I do not believe that that is the solution to the problem. The problem is, very simply, that we must do something to ensure that there is no further concentration of media ownership-that, and that only, is the issue before us. That is the vital issue, and on that we must make a stand today. In Committee I will move an amendment to amend the legislation so that the reference to 75 per cent audience reach is omitted and 43 per cent inserted in its place. I wish to make just that one simple amendment, and I believe that it should solve the whole problem. That situation would be fair to all concerned and to the media owners, who I believe were genuinely misled by the Government's Press release and perhaps by Liberal comment when that Press release was first made. I believe there is a case that they were misled. Be that as it may, the Parliament finally has to speak on the matter and we cannot have legislation by Press release. The media owners should have realised that the numbers in the Senate were very finely balanced and that nothing is law until it passes this chamber. I commend the very simple amendment to leave out 75 per cent and insert 43 per cent as a compromise. It should receive the support of all honourable senators. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(5.54) —After many years of delay-about eight years, I think-country television viewers should soon be looking forward to a choice of three commercial television services. We are considering the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986; the Radio Licence Fee Amendment Bill 1987; the Television Licence Fee Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987; the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987; the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987; and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. These Bills will permit the introduction of new competitive services to regional areas of Australia. Although this will mean the end of the monopolies that have existed in regional television for about 25 years or more, people in most regional areas want this legislation. It has not been an easy decision for me or for the National Party of Australia to make whereby this debate be brought on, but after a delay of eight years it is time that the matter was debated and finalised. The legislation will vastly change broadcasting and media ownership. We feel that we have taken a sensible attitude to the legislation that reflects the middle ground of opinion. In fact, the National Party's view is very close to the original view of the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, before he was persuaded by his colleagues to change that opinion. There are many contentious elements in the Bill that I would like to address, but I wish to contain my remarks to four of those issues at this time. The Communications Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to amend four Acts in very serious ways. It enables the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to engage in telecommunication activities as well as providing telecommunication carriage in Australia and domestic and international services for foreign countries. It places a four-year moratorium on the introduction of domestic pay television and it enables Australia Post to enter currency hedging and financial futures contracts. It changes a number of administrative arrangements under the Radiocommunications Act. The National Party objects to several elements of this Bill. In relation to OTC, it allows the growth of yet another government body that will be permitted to compete against private bodies in the telecommunications area. There is no reason whatsoever why such activities could not be undertaken by the private sector. At a time when there is so much furore over big government, surely this is not the time to introduce another government funded and operated body. If the National Party were in government, it would propose to sell 49 per cent of OTC shares to the public. The amendment also seeks to place a four-year moratorium on a pay television service, and this is a curious inclusion in legislation that purports to be giving Australians better and wider television services. It seems likely that this is simply a trade-off to sweeten the passage of other parts of the Government's legislation to ensure that current interests in the media industry get their cut. It is even stranger when one considers that the Minister has the power to grant licences as he sees fit. A final aspect of the amendments that the National Party opposes are the proposals that will remove some of the opportunity for the public to make representations regarding the amendments to the proposed standards, spectrum plans or frequency band plans. Currently, there is a two-phase procedure whereby a draft plan is presented on which submissions may be made. A second draft plan is then presented taking into account these submissions. The amendment before the Senate cuts out one of these draft plan stages, thus denying the public a valuable opportunity to make their interests known. This is also strange because, as in relation to the pay television amendment, the Minister has the final decision in such cases and in urgent cases may bypass these procedures. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill is the part of the legislation that proposes equalisation of regional television. We opposed the Government's plan to force a one in all in approach on regional television stations; of course, the Government anticipates agreement to the amendments. We have always preferred the two in all in approach so that the majority of people in the region would have a say rather than one person being able to enact a proposal. The major method that the Bill uses to achieve this is through the aggregation of existing services into larger units. Thus, in most areas operators would be providing services to areas three times the size of their current operations but in competition with other operators with at least one million potential viewers per approved market area. The National Party of Australia is firmly in favour of developments that will give regional operators improved services. Our foremost concern is that regional television continues to be exactly that-that is, that it will have local content and reflect local needs and issues. Aggregation is simply a submission to the city based and dominated networks. To provide their additional services local television stations will have to look towards the networks and, although they may be able to bargain the best rates initially, they are likely to be locked into higher rates. In such a situation it is inevitable that if the regional stations are forced to undertake cost cutting exercises it will be the local content and production that will suffer. The very services, such as local news, weather and advertising, which are so important to and popular with regional viewers, will suffer. Of course, sporting events, children's programs, women's programs and local service programs are terribly important to people who live in the rural and regional areas. The extra commercial television services for regional viewers is a major aim of the National Party. Our major aim is to give better services, to maintain the employment of those in the television industries in the country areas and to make sure that the local content is definitely maintained in those areas. The larger the broadcast area the more difficult it will be for local advertisers to get real value from their television services, and local news and information services have to be properly maintained, as I have already said, if we are adequately to look after the people whom we represent. In my area of Tamworth, for example, the local television station, NEN9, provides a service covering much of inland and coastal northern New South Wales. That station already covers a large area. Of course, advertising relating to Taree or Port Macquarie is scarcely relevant to viewers in Tamworth or Gunnedah. It is easy to appreciate what will happen to local content if the broadcast areas are aggregated in an inconsistent way. It is for this reason that the National Party supports the alternatives-which this Government has ignored. We would support current producers being given additional licences so that they may provide multi-channel services in their current telecast areas. The National Party supports an amendment to the current legislation that would require two stations within a region to want aggregation before it can take place, to which matter I have already referred. That amendment was put in the House of Representatives. Due to the delay in the implementation of this legislation, it seems likely that, unless the National Party had taken the stand that it did today, regional viewers and television operators would not have seen any improvement in their television services in the foreseeable future. That is the reason why I went across and voted with some of the persons on the other side of this chamber earlier in the day. Senator Georges —Oh, be fair. That sounds like an insult. Senator BROWNHILL —I sat next to Senator Georges when I was doing the voting, actually, and seeing that we are getting close to the end of the-- Senator Georges —Was that a reflection? Senator BROWNHILL —No, it is not a reflection on Senator Georges. Senator Georges and I have not voted together on many occasions over the couple of years that I have been in this place. I now refer to the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987. This Bill seeks to replace the current two station rule with a new 75 per cent reach rule based on the population of Australia and the service area for each commercial television licence. It also places limits on cross-media ownership. Effectively, the 75 per cent rule gives the big owners in the Australian media total control. If I am not incorrect, a 75 per cent rule would have meant that some of the media barons of Australia would have been able to control the Australian media in every major city in Australia, and most probably they would have had a regional station as well. The National Party supports the abolition of the very strict two station rule. The two regional stations reach perhaps 8 per cent of the audience in Australia, as compared with two metropolitan stations reaching 43 per cent. We feel that to maintain the status quo with a 43 per cent limit, which is the National Party's preferred option, is by far the most equitable arrangements at present, as Senator Siddons has said. We do not support the cross-media ownership requirements, and if we have 43 per cent, as the National Party suggests, the cross-ownership limits would, in our opinion, be unnecessary. However, in the light of the urgency of the need to resolve the situation in relation to this Bill we do accept at this stage the suggested amendments that have been introduced by the Government-but that is done very reluctantly. I do not think it is as good as what could have been achieved. However, as I said earlier, country viewers have been waiting a long time for additional television channels. If the local content and the local employment can be maintained, if the local businesses can be given a fair go as far as advertising is concerned, and if the media monopolies can be contained to two of the major cities and one other smaller city, I think that we will be doing the right thing by the people of Australia in the application of this Bill being debated here today, following its passing the Senate before the Senate rises for the next election. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(6.09) —I have moved up on the list of speakers for the convenience of another senator who had previously arranged commitments at 6.15 this evening. I intend to speak only briefly on the legislation. I am particularly interested in what the National Party of Australia is doing, and I was particularly interested in Senator Brownhill's contribution, because all the reasons that he gave for the Liberal Party supporting the 60 per cent limit should have led him to support the amendment for a 43 per cent limit. I advocate that the limit ought to be less than that and, in fact, if I were to follow my own opinion on the whole matter I would say that there should be no percentage at all. The Government ought to be required to take another look at what is happening. Senator Brownhill fears the great monopolies in the area which, incidentally, in anticipation of this legislation have spent millions of dollars to acquire their anticipated share. Senator Boswell —No, not at all. Senator GEORGES —One or two of them still have the flexibility, at least, to acquire more stations. My arithmetic may be wrong, but in one case they may still have the ability to acquire one of the proposed aggregations or to pick up stations in various regional areas as part of the extension of their monopoly position. All the things Senator Brownhill fears will come to pass. There will be no emphasis on community interests. Senator Boswell —Why not? Senator GEORGES —For the simple reason that television stations will be concerned with maximising their returns and increasing their advertising on a national basis, not even on a local basis. It is all about the reorganising of the system to make it more efficient and manageable and to take advantage of new technology in order to reduce costs, not for the purpose of providing better programs, but to maximise profits. The amount of money television stations will have to pay in interest to maintain their massive loans will mean that they will further have to maximise their national advertising through regional stations in which they may acquire some interest. National Party members should remember that they have not put regional listeners, their constituents, out of risk. They should have been looking at 43 per cent. I know that they have haggled with the Government. It has been going on in the background, and it rather amuses me. I know that the Nationals have haggled to try to get the Government down further. The Government was prepared to come to 65 per cent. Perhaps the Nationals insisted on 60 per cent, but they did not get down far enough because 60 per cent will still allow manipulation and will disadvantage regional listeners. The whole of this process will diminish the quality of regional stations. The Nationals believe that they may improve, but they will not. They will bring the shabbiness, the over-commercialism and the over-sensationalism of city programs to the regional areas. Regional television stations under present ownership in most places are better than suburban stations because of their community interest and because of their personal ownership which is concerned about the quality of the programs presented. A classical example is the television station in Canberra which has a high community interest content and which has also been able to cherry-pick, as it is termed, good programs from across the spectrum which it then transmits. The station is not interested in maximising profit alone. It is interested in putting back some of that profit into its programs for the benefit of its viewers. The community interest in Canberra will be diminished if the station aggregates because it will find that it has to concern itself with areas which are far too wide. My view is that there ought to be more personal ownership. We ought not to submit these stations to shareholders' needs, especially if those shareholders' needs have been affected by heavy borrowings. The real problem we face is that, in anticipation of the legislation, certain combines have purchased, by way of heavy borrowings, extra shareholdings. I do not quite understand the detail but I understand their overall attempt to position themselves in anticipation of the legislation. What I am worried about is that they must have had some firm knowledge that the legislation was to go through. They must have received some firm understanding from someone high in the Government that this would happen. One begins to suspect that the old boy syndrome might have been at work again. Listening to the debate here today one might also believe that that is true in regard to the National Party. Someone has put pressure on its members. Senator Boswell —No, not at all. Senator GEORGES —I did not come down in the last shower. Fewer people can take advantage of the rearrangements under 60 per cent than under 75 per cent, but one of the players still left in the game is the Bond Corporation. National Party senators opposite should not tell me that the Bond Corporation did not come to some arrangement with the leadership of their Party in order to make certain purchases in Queensland, especially of a television station, or that the State Government Insurance Office, Suncorp, was not encouraged to sell its shares, which it did not want to sell, to allow for the purchase of the television station in Brisbane. National Party senators opposite should not tell me that Suncorp did not sell its shares in Fourex to the Bond Corporation when it did not want to. These are the sorts of background moves that go on in all parties now, including the Australian Labor Party, in which we thought the policies established by its membership would prevail and that there would not be any secret or hidden arrangements. Senator Tate —Like with the Australia Card. Senator GEORGES —We do not need the Australia Card; I have said that before. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! Senator Georges, I would prefer you to contain your remarks to the Bills before the Senate. Senator Tate —I apologise. Senator GEORGES —The Minister has apologised so I will leave the debate on the Australia Card to a later date. It might take place in the electorate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That will be your privilege, Senator Georges. At the moment we are debating broadcasting matters. Senator GEORGES —Never interrupt an aged person on his feet because he loses his train of thought. You want to try it on lawyers occasionally; catch them in full flight and they are lost. I will come back to the subject. Honourable senators should not tell me that there are no hidden arrangements. The Australia Card would not cure the problem at all. A previous speaker questioned a defamation case that was settled for $400,000. I am amused by that. Congratulations-$400,000 tax-free. It cost the Bond Corporation only $200,000 because it was tax deductible for the Corporation. So it cost Bond $200,000 and the beneficiary obtained $400,000. The beneficiary would have received almost $1m, if it were taxable. That is a bit turgid but nevertheless honourable senators get my meaning. There are hidden forces at work here. Senator Brownhill is suggesting that we can prevent all this from occurring by having a figure of 60 per cent. We cannot; with 43 per cent, yes. If Senator Brownhill is worried about the quality of television on regional stations he ought to be looking at 43 per cent, not 60 per cent. Senator Brownhill —We are looking at the 43 per cent. Senator GEORGES —Let us support the 43 per cent. Let us get the 43 per cent through. We could do that quite easily. It is up to honourable senators. If I stay on my feet a while longer they will be able to reconsider the matter when the sitting is suspended. I will display my overall position to the legislation. What concerns me is that the Government, representing the people, from time to time makes licences available-indulgences, as they were termed in the past. They are licences to people to carry out a service to the community. In many cases it is a lucrative service. One never did imagine that television licences would become so lucrative that the profits would run into many millions of dollars. As I think Mr Beale suggested in the other place, perhaps every time we put up a licence we ought to auction it because obviously licences are a right to print substantial sums of money. If they are not a right to print the money they are a means by which one can churn shares by phoney takeover offers or by rearrangements, by insider trading, to make millions on exchanges. I suppose Packer laughed all the way to where he happens to be at present. He made millions out of these transactions. I believe a Labor company to which I belonged did very well indeed out of the sale of a television station which went-- Senator Brownhill —Free enterprise. Senator GEORGES —Free enterprise! That is something that the honourable senator, as a National Party person, would not understand. He belongs to the most ordered, most planned and most socialised part of the community, and he talks about free enterprise-free enterprise for everyone except him. I will return to the facts. The increase over nine months was from $6m to $18m. At that amount, I suppose, people's nerves went-mine went, certainly. What has happened as a result of further progressions? Mr Stokes made an offer for FM-104, which was rating at about the same value as the station to which I was referring, of $15m for a licence which is the people's licence. That is what is happening. Great sums of money are changing hands-millions upon millions-but the programs are not improving, not one scrap. The programs, especially television programs, are getting worse because they are now highly commercialised; they are a way of making money, and viewers just have to cop it. No matter how many extra stations we add, unless we fundamentally change our approach, unless we start to bring back some sort of regulation or some sort of control, the programs will get worse, no matter what is paid, no matter what money is exchanged. It is an obscenity to see the multi-millions of dollars flowing backwards and forwards. What I object to is that, because of some foreknowledge, many millions, even close to billions, of dollars have changed hands in anticipation of this legislation going through. Maybe in a fit of pique I will vote against it. It might be that I would like to frustrate some of these people who have anticipated the decisions of this Parliament. Senator Brownhill —And deny country viewers better television. Senator GEORGES —I will not deny them that. I am on their side. For goodness sake, does not the honourable senator realise that from what I have been saying? If he allows this legislation to go through the people whom he represents will get poorer services. Senator Boswell —They won't. They will get three services instead of one. Senator GEORGES —They would get three services with diminished programs. Some regional stations are not giving a service to their communities. In the area of the honourable senator, in the northern part of Queensland, a Mr Gleeson-he might be a supporter of his; I do not know-runs a television station. He does it very well. He has pulled back some of the money into the television stations. He wrote a letter which must have come in a group of letters to senators, so I do not know whether he knew that he was directing it to me. He supported the aggregation, but I do not think he realised what was likely to happen. I do not think he properly appreciated that he would lose control of the type of programming. He did not really understand that by spreading the aggregation and the community interest so widely there would be a reduction in the quality of the programs. That is what I believe is developing-a reduction, not an improvement. There will be a reduction in the number of people who are engaged, especially locally. Because these services will be transmitted across the wires there will not be as much local content or as much local participation. The interests of rural people will be diminished, not improved. I cannot understand why the honourable senator changed his mind. He could have gone out into the electorate and sold that had he been opposed to aggregation. Senator Boswell —How can you sell the fact that they cannot have three television services? Senator GEORGES —There is a hidden force at work here, and that is what I was saying before. Somebody has got at the honourable senator. Senator Boswell —I take that as a reflection and I call for an apology. Senator GEORGES —I apologise without the honourable senator having to get to his feet. It is a reasonable conclusion to reach, is it not? Senator Boswell —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: Senator Georges just apologised and, in his next breath, attacked me again. I call for another apology. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Senator Georges, Senator Boswell wants you to apologise. Senator GEORGES —I thought I was explaining the apology. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Do you apologise to Senator Boswell? Senator GEORGES —Most certainly. I would not want to irritate Senator Boswell. He has problems in Queensland. I believe the National Party has recalled nominations for the Senate and has also allowed for new nominations. That is the funny part about it. National Party senators must all be at risk because the poor new nominees may be people who support the wets or the dries-I am not quite certain whom they support. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Senator Georges, that is not connected with the Bills that we are discussing. Will you please keep to the Bills? Senator GEORGES —If I am allowed to, I could relate it by saying that the decision which is about to be taken in the Senate and the support that the Nationals will be giving to it are in some way connected with preselection, because those who control the Party in Queensland-- Senator Boswell —Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I just do not know how long I can tolerate these reflections on my integrity. Senator Kilgariff —You are getting agitated. Senator Boswell —I am getting agitated. I am being forced to call continually for apologies from Senator Georges, and he is continually ignoring your rulings, Madam Acting Deputy President. I ask you to call him to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Senator Georges, I do not think you should reflect on Senator Boswell's attitudes. Senator GEORGES —You do it so well, Madam Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Please refrain. Senator GEORGES —I apologise. It is not that I am questioning Senator Boswell's integrity; I am merely questioning the integrity of those who decided to call nominations in such a way that pressure could be applied to him which in some way would affect the decision in this place. That might be questioning the honourable senator's integrity, if he likes to press the point. I suppose I could be forced-- Senator Brownhill —But you are making the point that he should not have let this debate come on and denied the Australian television industry a decision on something. Senator GEORGES —I have ceded to the honourable senator and his remarks will appear in the Hansard because I have acknowledged them. Let me get back to what I was saying before. If National Party senators are interested in the interests of rural viewers they should be supporting 43 per cent ownership. They have not gone down low enough with their arrangement with the Government of 60 per cent. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(8.00) —Tonight we are debating the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986, the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1987, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987 and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I am the second speaker from the National Party of Australia to speak on the Bills. The National Party represents many hundreds of thousands of rural people and people who live in provincial areas, and those people are not able, in comparison with the people in the cities, to receive equality with television. That is the reason why the National Party is supporting this legislation. Let me put it clearly on the record now that I have had no riding instructions from the Premier or anyone else in the time I have been a senator. No one has ever rung me up and told me to accept some shabby deal, as was stated by some honourable senators. The reason the National Party is voting for these Bills is that they will provide equality of television for people who live outside metropolitan areas. In our opinion this legislation is the only way people will receive equal television services. I have been challenged by people in the Liberal Party of Australia-- Senator Walsh —Who? Senator BOSWELL —I do not want to bring up their names. A number of people have said that we have sold out, that we have been involved in a shabby deal. Let me deny that that is the case. The only reason the National Party is voting for this legislation is that it wants the people of rural Australia, the provincial areas of Australia, to be able to turn their television set to three stations. It is all right for people in metropolitan areas who have three commercial stations, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation station and the Special Broadcasting Service station to say: `We know what is good for rural Australia; we know what it should have-it should have one station'. People elect us to represent them in this place and we are representing them here and providing for their needs. Senator Colston —You represent the whole State. Senator BOSWELL —We are representing the whole State. We have spoken probably to every television station owner in Queensland and they have said to us: `For goodness sake, put up this Bill. It is not everything we want but at least we will know where we are going. We have been dithering around in the wilderness for eight years and we want a decision'. Every television station owner has asked us to back the aggregation decision. It is not everything they want but they are prepared to accept it because they want some type of direction, some type of decision on which they can build their plans. I can say quite categorically that every provincial television station in Queensland has asked the National Party to get this legislation on the road and to face our responsibilities. For goodness sake, it has been passed off to committee after committee for eight years. Procrastination will not solve this problem. The National Party is quite happy to support these Bills. I do not get any joy out of voting with the Australian Labor Party. It is not something I look forward to doing but, in the interests of the people we represent, it is essential that we vote for this legislation and that it be passed into law. I raise a number of issues. As I have mentioned before, many television people have come into my office, and probably the office of every senator. I have received an assurance from some people that they will try to double their efforts to give remote eastern Australia a remote television service. I believe that the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, or the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, will make a statement tonight on remote television and I look forward to hearing it. Senator Walsh —It has already been given. Senator BOSWELL —It has not been given. I believe-- Senator Walsh —Senator Evans did it about two hours ago. Senator BOSWELL —That is very good; I could not have been in the chamber. That is very gratifying for the million people who do not receive even one commercial television station and who have to rely on the ABC. Passing this legislation will give people in remote areas of Australia the opportunity to receive not only one ABC television station but also a commercial channel. There has been much debate on aggregation. Some people believe that multi-channel servicing is the way to go. We in the National Party do not agree with that although we have put forward an amendment, which the Government has accepted, that in an aggregated area, or an area that can be aggregated, if two commercial television stations do not want to aggregate they do not have to. We have made the one in all in rule a two in all in rule. I believe that Victorians will go multi-channel. In Queensland all the television stations wish to aggregate. In northern New South Wales they will aggregate; I am not sure about southern New South Wales, it is a matter on which it will have to decide. However, at least it will have the choice either to aggregate or not to aggregate as a result of the amendment the National Party has fought for. I am pleased to say to the people tonight that I believe that aggregation will give a better television service to all-- Senator Georges —It won't, and you know it. Senator BOSWELL —I do not know it and I ask the honourable senator to refrain from interjecting while I am speaking. He attacked me in his speech and I was very tolerant. Senator Georges does not know very much about business although I used to sell him rubbish bins and paint brushes when he had the union co-operative. He always paid his debts too. Senator Georges's speech was a very socialistic speech. If one has an absolute monopoly in a television market, what is the incentive to purchase better programs for the other channel? The answer to that question is that if a person has a monopoly and controls television in one particular zone, everyone who advertises in that television reach zone goes to that person. What incentive is there to bring in more expensive programs on the other channel? Business being what it is, people do the best they can for their shareholders-so the television stations will not take up the more expensive programs. There is no incentive for them to do so. They are controlling the market, and getting 100 per cent of the television advertising dollar in their area. As one who has been involved in business, I do not believe that a multi-channel service will give the comprehensive programs that aggregation will give. Where three people are competing in a market, they will be competing for ratings and will be forced to provide excellent programs. That in turn will provide people in provincial and rural Australia with excellent programs to watch. That should allay the fears of Senator Georges about people not receiving a good television service. We were concerned that small operators in Cairns or in Townsville be able to advertise their products. Before we came to any conclusion on this legislation, we sought assurances that small businesses in rural towns would be catered for. For instance, in an aggregated service to be relayed throughout Queensland, a window would be supplied in the Cairns viewing area and charges to advertisers there would be considerably lower. For local advertising there will be a window in Cairns, another window in Townsville and others down the track. Advertisers will be able to slot in their 30-second spots for local products such as fertilisers, cattle dips or whatever it may be. I was concerned that if aggregation meant that programs were to be viewed across Queensland, small business operators would not be able to afford to get into the television market. However, such advertisers will be catered for through the windows that will be offered by the television broadcasters. We were also concerned about localism. Senator Georges said a great deal about localism and expressed fears that local programs would not be produced. Senator Georges should bear in mind what happened to Channel 7 in Melbourne when it decided to relay all its programs from Sydney to Melbourne. The channel was dumped by the people of Victoria and its ratings went down to about a 5 per cent viewing audience. No station will forgo localism when competing against three other broadcasters in the area. The only way stations will be able to maintain their viewing audience is to offer localism in the area. There will be a Cairns news program, a Townsville news program and a Mackay news program. I would instance the fact that the local Newcastle television station has the highest rating of any station in Newcastle, even though every major television station can reach Newcastle. The local Newcastle station, which has to compete against channels 7, 9 and 10 as well as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, still cleans up the ratings. People want to watch their local channel. Therefore, Senator Georges need have no fears on that score either. To maintain ratings stations must maintain localism. The only way they will maintain ratings is to include local news and shows. I have had experience in the market-place and I know what competition will do. When I cast my vote tonight, even if it is on the other side of the chamber, I shall be seeking to ensure that the people who elect me will receive the same type of television services as do people in the metropolitan area who may be represented by the Liberal Party. I do not normally like to criticise the Liberal Party, but it appears to have adopted a holier than thou attitude. It says `We know what is good for rural people', as though Liberals are the custodians of the morals of Australia. I do not accept that, nor do I accept that we have done any shabby deals with the Labor Party. Senator Georges —Well, you have. Senator BOSWELL —I have not done any shabby deal with the Labor Party. I want to ensure that people in local areas will receive three television channels in common with everybody else in Australia. Not only have I achieved that by voting for this Bill, but also the Minister has given an assurance to the Senate that there will be remote area television. Therefore, I am convinced that we have done the right thing. Some criticisms have been levelled at the figure of 60 per cent-the position we have come to-which is regarded as far too high. It is being said that we are caving in to the media barons. I do not accept that criticism. We also accept the Northern Star group situation, which was a small station that went the other way. Northern Star began as a newspaper, then got a radio licence and, as television developed, the company pulled in a television licence. The television licence, the radio station and the newspaper were owned by many little farmers on the north coast of New South Wales. Those farmers put in $5,000 or $6,000 to buy equity in their own newspaper, their own radio station and their own television station. The organisation grew and then took on the big boys. It bought out Channel 10 in Sydney and Channel 10 in Melbourne. Those channels as well as the Northern Star group are owned by the farming and business communities in northern New South Wales. We represent those people, too. If this legislation does not go through those people will take a tremendous caning on the stock exchange. They are not big business people, but farmers who put in money to support their own community. I say to Senator Georges that, far from being media barons, they are the sorts of people we look for in this country-people who are prepared to put up their money to take a chance and take on the big boys. Senator Georges should be encouraging, not hindering, them. There are probably 6,000 or 7,000 people in northern New South Wales who put up the money to buy those stations. In view of the fact that those people vote for my Party, why should I seek to reduce their savings, pensions and money they look to for their old age by voting against this legislation? I am not prepared to take that step. They have taken a chance and deserve their reward. That is free enterprise and my Party supports it. That is true throughout Australia. The shareholders of these television stations have made their commitment and purchased shares on the stock exchange. They also have to be protected. Much has been made of the figure of 60 per cent, but it is not 60 per cent of the market. I do not know whether Senator Georges understands that. It is a 60 per cent reach. A television station owner can reach 60 per cent of the people, but that does not mean that his television will beam into 60 per cent of the houses because there will be three other owners trying to get into that market as well. A 60 per cent share will mean two major metropolitan stations and perhaps two smaller stations, such as Cairns and Rockhampton. I would have liked to see that percentage a little lower, but we have negotiated an agreement and we will stick with it. We have brought forward amendments which have been picked up by the Government and we will vote for them. It has been said tonight that I have been involved in a squalid deal. That is completely unacceptable and it makes my blood boil. We will go along with the Liberal Party of Australia on most matters, as long as it comes up with sensible propositions. But we will not be led by the nose over the cliff in the interests of unity. For Liberal senators to suggest that I have been involved in a squalid deal is absolutely unacceptable. Senator Walsh —Who said that? Senator BOSWELL —A number of senators have said it, but I will not mention their names. All the fears and worries that I have had about the small business people, about localism and about television stations having an excess of the market have been put to rest as these matters have been fully explained to me. I can accept the decision that we have taken. I am proud to stand up here on behalf of people who live outside the metropolitan area and tell them tonight that we have achieved this on their behalf. They sent us down here to get equality for all Australians-- Senator Walsh —When have you ever lived outside the metropolitan area? Senator BOSWELL —I represent people in rural areas as well as in the metropolitan area. We are egalitarian-- Senator Walsh —You have been a toff all your life! Senator BOSWELL —I have not been a toff all my life. I can stand here tonight and say that we have supported this legislation for people in rural and provincial areas of Australia. Our Party represents everyone, all sections of the community. Today those people have got their money's worth as a result of voting for us. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(8.23) —During his contribution, Senator Boswell said that it worried him a little to be voting with and supporting the Australian Labor Party. It worries us that that is happening. However, after a couple of years of this Parliament, the National Party of Australia had to get something right-it has now and I am delighted to see it. Earlier Senator Puplick referred to `the underhanded and shabby negotiations that have gone on'. He talked about victims being rolled by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). As far as the negotiations concerning this legislation are concerned, I think a few points need to be made. The first, and by far the most important, is that throughout the whole of last year Australia had the opportunity of watching a debate on television during which all the issues were canvassed for a long time. At the end of that 12 months the Minister for Communications, Mr Michael Duffy, produced a statement of the Government's intention on this legislation. Far from the `government by Press release' cry that I have heard, far from claims of the shabbiness of the deal, far from the claim of Senator Puplick that if one had $1 billion and was a mate of the Prime Minister one could come to the Parliament and fix up an attempt to break the law, the truth is that no one has broken the law. The Bond Corporation Ltd did not break the law, Holmes a Court did not break the law, Kerry Stokes did not break the law, Frank Lowy did not break the law. All they did was act on the statement of the Minister after canvassing the options within the industry for a long time. For many years it has been traditional to treat announcements about broadcasting arrangements in the same way as taxation changes. Information on ownership and control of television stations can have a dramatic and significant effect on commercial investment. If people were to get inside information about the Government's thinking or if the Minister were to make a decision, tell a few people and not release it, the inevitable result would be rorts and shabby deals. If just a few people have the right information they can make their investments and they can get the big quid. Far from doing that, the Minister chose to tell the world what he was thinking and what the Government's intentions were. That was the real beginning of this debate. It just happens that some Australian companies decided to act upon it. Some did not, but those who did decide to act broke no law and never attempted to break any law. It is an absolute disgrace to have them accused of doing so in this chamber. All they have done is follow the Minister's announcement, act upon it and make their investments accordingly. That is all we can ask of anyone. Senator Puplick talks about protecting people, seeing how much money they have and how they can come to Parliament and get things fixed up. Some people may want to go back and look at Senator Puplick's report. I suppose that his mates did not have $1 billion; the people he was protecting might have had $10m or $20m. Senator Puplick's report made sure that those who had commercial licences in rural Australia and who had enjoyed monopolies for decades were able to keep them. Senator Puplick's report was all about making sure that each monopoly could stay in place. That is something that this Government was never about from the first minute. It has always been about freeing up rural television just to make sure that there was some competition. If the Liberal Party of Australia is serious when it talks about its commitment to free markets, one wonders why there is such a dramatic commitment to a closed shop and to a monopoly in its approach on this matter. I also noted Senator Puplick's comments about the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal when he said-I find this incredible-that one could not trust Mr Bond because the Broadcasting Tribunal was clearly dissatisfied with him and his corporation. If the Broadcasting Tribunal was dissatisfied with the Bond Corporation it would not have renewed the Queensland licence for as long as it did. Whilst it was true that it made some criticism of Mr Bond, that criticism was pretty light. However, one has to read the decision to note that the Tribunal did not restrict the licence; it granted it for three years. It could have granted it for 12 months. It could have shown dissatisfaction to a great degree but it did not. It renewed the Bond licence in Queensland. I would have thought that the Broadcasting Tribunal, if asked, would give the same opinion that I have just given. As far as deals with other senators are concerned, there was a suggestion from Senator Puplick that the Government made some shabby, underhand deal with Senator Georges. Judging from his contributions by interjection, I suggest that we have done a pretty shabby job on doing a deal because Senator Georges has not been all that forthcoming and fulsome in his support of the Government's position. If we have done some deal with Senator Georges, I am certainly unaware of it-and from all appearances so is Senator Georges. I turn now to one other very good reason for supporting the Government's media legislation. Having listened to Senator Vigor's contribution I am aware that he has opposed it. That would seem to me to be one of the great ringing recommendations for supporting the Government on this occasion. I hope that more and more honourable senators will read the Hansard, note what has happened as far as Senator Vigor is concerned, and turn to us anew. But the most important thing about all the talk of shabby, underhand deals is to get some people in the Liberal Party to say here what they say in the corridors, because the only shabby thing that has happened in this Parliament in the last few weeks, as far as this legislation is concerned, is that a number of Liberal senators, in particular, have had their endorsements threatened for daring to suggest that they did not like the Liberal Party's position and that they wanted to vote with the Nationals and the Labor Party. That has happened with far too many Liberals. That is the once great Liberal Party that cherished the notion that it did not have a rigid caucus system and that if one voted against it, it did not matter. Liberals were allowed to have their own opinion. That position apparently has changed because Liberal senators from all over Australia have been called in to face the wrath of John Howard and Senator Chaney. Having done that, they have caved in, decided that the pressure is too great and they cannot stand the heat in the kitchen-especially when endorsements are important with an election only 5 1/2 weeks away. They have gone to water. I regard that sort of performance as disgraceful. I have always criticised it in my own Party when party heavies have threatened endorsements. That is why I have to be consistent and oppose it on this occasion. But that has been the real disaster for Liberal thinking in recent times. Over the last few weeks the spectacle of Liberal senators being called into their Leader's office to get their threat is pathetic. Still, it is understandable in one sense. If I were presiding over a party which has been as confused as the Liberal Party, when it comes to broadcasting policy, maybe I would have done the same thing. Only a few weeks ago we got a new shadow Minister for Communications, Mr Beale. I can only say that his performance has been extraordinary. I do not mean extraordinarily good; I just mean extraordinary. When we look at the breathtaking changes that he has suggested for the broadcasting industry, we know it is no wonder that he has every media organisation off side. The truth is that he will finish up having every Australian off side. All he can do is bring the industry to its knees to make confusion reign supreme. Let me quote from the Australian of 28 May. Some senior Liberals were so moved for that paper to state: It is understood that . . . Eggleton and . . . Valder want the Liberals to allow the legislation through to prevent having media proprietors offside . . . I have to say to Mr Eggleton and Mr Valder that it is a bit late. I think the damage is done. But an even more auspicious Liberal has commented on this; somebody whom no one would question-Mr Michael Hodgman. Mr Michael Hodgman, of course, is an expert on everything-a bit like Senator Vigor-- Senator Walsh —Oh God, he is not that bad. Senator RICHARDSON —I will take that back. Senator Walsh is right. Mr Hodgman is not that bad. I quote the words from the mouth of Michael Hodgman: It will be a national tragedy if the cross-media ownership provisions are lost. He said it would be a tragedy if we went on to lose the `first real reform in decades'. Senator Boswell can draw comfort in knowing that he was not the only person, along with his National Party colleagues, who wanted to support the Labor Party on this occasion because Michael Hodgman, the National Secretary of the Party, Mr Eggleton, and the National President, Mr Valder, wanted to do so as well. In that context alone could I understand the rather extraordinary, heavy and we can only say blunt instrument that has been used on a number of recalcitrant Liberal Party back bench senators who have had the temerity to suggest that they have their own minds on a matter as crucial as this. Senator Boswell said that he represented not only people who live in the city but also those who live in the country. As a senator, I hope that is what we all do. We represent all the citizens of our States. In representing country citizens resident in New South Wales, it seems to me that there is an overwhelming cry to free them from having the choice of only one commercial station. If this legislation is passed tonight, and I hope it will be, those people will be the real beneficiaries. It will not be the case that the Government, anyone in it or any party, will get some benefit out of this; the reality is that millions of television viewers in rural Australia will get the real benefit-because for the first time they will get a choice of three channels, which will mean some degree of programming that will have to be a damn sight better than what they get now. That is what we have been about. For years this matter has been debated. In all the years of the Fraser Administration there was some debate as to what would be done for rural Australia. As so often happened in the Fraser Administration, the reality was that nothing was done. But now we are at the threshold. We are just about there. We are ready to do it. I will take up one more point about confusion in the Liberal Party. Over the last few weeks-admittedly I have been away serving the people in the United Kingdom but now I have returned from that arduous chore-I have been able to look through the Press to try to determine just what has been going on. I have found that I am as confused as I am sure is the rest of Australia because there is Senator Puplick's alleged wet position of 43 per cent, Mr Macphee's wetter position of 35 per cent and the Beale-Howard dry position of 100 per cent. When I look at those three positions I wonder which one I can believe. Can I believe Senator Puplick, Mr Macphee or Mr Beale and Mr Howard? I have come to the conclusion that I cannot believe any of them. No one can believe a party that has so many different positions on this question. If the Liberals were to have their way they would break down most of the major reforms of broadcasting that we have attempted. I do not think that members of the Liberal Party would have any idea who would be the beneficiaries in the end. I am certain who they would not be. When we finished the exercise of giving one of those four people his way, rural Australians would not benefit at all. They would get nothing, which is all that they have ever received in any event under the Liberal Party. All I can say is that I hope that by the end of the night rural Australians finally will have had a victory. They will have gained a choice in their television viewing and, more to the point, the whole media industry will know where it is headed and what the rules of the game are to be. It can then get on with its business unencumbered with the machinations of a once great party on the way down the tube and, as it goes down, working out who will go down first. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.39) —On 19 April 1956, Mr Davidson, the then Postmaster-General, in his second reading speech on the Broadcasting and Television Bill 1956, said: . . . the conduct of a commercial television service is not to be considered as merely running a business for the sake of profit. Television stations are in a position to exercise a constant and cumulative effect on public taste and standards of conduct, and, because of the influence they can bring to bear on the community, the business interests of licensees must at all times be subordinated to the overriding principle that the possession of a licence is, indeed, as the Royal Commission said, a public trust for the benefit of all members of our society. The Senate tonight is debating a series of Bills-the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. Those Bills comprise a series of complex measures, but the issue appears to have narrowed down-I listened carefully to Senator Siddons's speech-to the question of 43 per cent or 60 per cent. In my view, the question narrows down further to focus on something which has not really been raised in the debate thus far. I believe that what Mr Davidson said is something that we should be considering now when dealing with these Government Bills. The real issue is the question of program content, program standards and program quality. I acknowledge the problems that could arise from concentration of ownership. However, I have yet to be convinced that what the Government is proposing would develop a concentration of interests which would give sole power to one owner. It appears that the practical reality is that there will be at least three major operators, who will seek to extend their audiences to 60 per cent. I am concerned, and have been for a considerable time, about the possibility that the smaller stations may be subjected to what some consider to be the cultural miasma of Sydney and Melbourne. I am concerned about not only the commercial television stations but also the public television station, namely, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. What some consider to be the culture of Sydney and Melbourne, even on the standards of most of the people in Sydney and Melbourne, would be regarded as gutter culture. I believe that we should recall again the words of Mr Davidson, the then Postmaster-General. He clearly considered that the issuing of licences is in fact a devolution of public trust to the licensees for the benefit of all our society. So the question of broadcasting and television program and advertising standards is principally the responsibility of those licensees. The licensees who may take up the options which are provided for in this legislation have that prime responsibility. It is expected of them that they have a television and broadcasting philosophy which will ensure that their stations acknowledge that they have a public trust for the benefit of all members of society. No one can deny the fact that television in our society has a great influence on our culture and on the development of our values. That is an undeniable fact. Indeed, it would be interesting to listen to the broadcasting and television philosophy of those people who will be the main players in this arena. That philosophy has been expressed in certain terms by some of the licensees to the satisfaction of a number of people, including me-in theory. But, of course, it is to the application of those principles that we should now look. It is important that a proper surveillance be undertaken on behalf of society of the activities of the licensees. Under the Broadcasting and Television Act the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has a number of functions. Amongst those functions are the following: (a) to grant, renew, suspend, revoke and accept the surrender of licences; (b) to authorize transactions in relation to licences under section 89a; (c) to grant approvals and give directions under Divisions 2 and 3 of Part IIIb in relation to the ownership and control of licences; (d) by instrument in writing, to determine the standards to be observed by licensees in respect of the broadcasting of programs and in respect of programs to be broadcast; A number of other functions are then listed. Those functions are set out in section 16 in Division 2, Powers and Functions of the Tribunal. One of the difficulties that the Tribunal faces, however, is that by and large it has extremes of powers. That is to say, it has the admonishment power-which is really a rap over the wrist by a feather duster-and the other power, that is, to refuse to renew a licence. Those powers are both extremes. In my view, the Tribunal should, in the interest of the public, have an intermediate power of imposing a penalty commensurate with the breach of program standards as established by the Tribunal. This could entail either a financial penalty by way of a fine or the imposition of a condition on the licence that the broadcaster not accept advertising for a period, whether that be a half a day or a full day. This would probably be accepted by the industry itself. I recognise that the Tribunal may well be minded to attach conditions to licences in between renewal hearings. That might be another way of going about the matter. I raise these matters with the Government and, as has been indicated by Senator Gareth Evans on behalf of the Government, the Government agrees in principle with this proposition. Of course the Government is mindful of the boilermakers case of, I think, 1956, which related to the division of administrative and judicial functions. From my experience in the trade union movement I believe that, if the boilermakers case were rerun in the High Court of Australia, it would not stand up. However, in response to my concern about this matter the Government has indicated that it will undertake an urgent examination of this matter, that it will seek further legal advice and clarification of the issue and that that advice will be provided to me; and following that step, and depending upon the advice, the Government will reconsider the matter of appropriate penalties, that is to say, penalties commensurate with the relevant breach of program standards. Another aspect of concern is the cultural miasma of Sydney and Melbourne, to which I have referred. I am assured that, in pursuing its responsibilities under the legislation relating to adequate and comprehensive programming, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is very much committed to localism. I know that during the debate this question has been raised, but I am confident, given the discussions that I have had and given the current intention of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, that if there are any questions relating to localism, that is an issue that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will take to heart. We should not ignore the fact that there is another system of broadcasting and television in Australia, that is, the public system of broadcasting and television. In a way that system is not under the sort of control and surveillance that applies to the commercial stations. Indeed, it seems that over the years the management of the ABC has acted simply as an excuse maker for either its programmers, or for those people who are responsible for presenting material on the ABC. I ask honourable senators whether they have experienced the same nonchalance that I have and that many Australians have when they make a complaint to the ABC. Senator Siddons —What makes you think the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal or any other bureaucracy can do better? Senator HARRADINE —They would have to do better than the ABC is doing at present because over a period of years all that management has done when complaints have been lodged is mouth what its own program people have said. I will cite an example. Recently I wrote to the ABC concerning a matter that is vital to the community, namely, the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The ABC did a Behind the News program which was beamed into the classrooms of primary school students. My home and office were deluged with calls concerning that program. As a member of parliament and also as the father of an 11-year-old in school and into whose classroom the Behind the News program was beamed, I wrote on 14 April to the Managing Director of the ABC. The fact is that, by its portrayal of the subject and by serious omission, the ABC program lied to its very young audience about sex and about AIDS. The program portrayed sex not as the joyful and intimate personal gift for the transmission of life and love in a committed relationship, but as some sort of merely physical, dangerous and unclean activity for which `a protective rubber condom' is required to make it `safe'. The program purported to address the question of how AIDS is spread, yet it failed to mention the dangers of a promiscuous lifestyle. Was the ABC ignorant of the scientific fact that the major cause of the spread of sexually transmitted AIDS is promiscuity? Where was the abstinence message which is, at least in theory, the main plank of the AIDS public education program? Why were the children not reassured with the simple message that, if they abstain from sex before marriage-in other words, if they do not sleep around-and they marry a like-minded person and are faithful to their spouse, they have no fear of contracting sexually transmitted AIDS? The point is that the ABC censored out that major message. It was the manner in which the ABC took it upon itself to expose the homosexual activity to innocent young children that made many people who contacted me most irate. When I first viewed the program, the significance of this escaped me. I am a member of the Parliamentary Liaison Committee on AIDS but, when one deals constantly with the subject, often one becomes desensitised. Also, I have been concerned that AIDS sufferers, who are mostly homosexuals, be treated as fellow human beings needing the love, care and concern of a compassionate society. But when I reviewed the program I was convinced that, by fair assessment, the ABC conveyed the message that homosexual acts were normal and also that they were no more of an AIDS risk than normal heterosexual acts. Everybody in this chamber knows that that is not accurate. In that respect the ABC lied. A day or two after the program, I rang the ABC and it made a number of points, none of which would stand up to scrutiny. On 1 May I wrote to the ABC Chairman and registered a complaint and only last week I received a letter from the Managing Director of the ABC in which he reiterated the very points made by the Program Manager on the second day after I made my telephone complaint. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my letter dated 1 May. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE Senator Brian Harradine 1 May 1987 Mr D. Hill, Managing Director, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, G.P.O. Box 9994, Sydney, N.S.W. 2001 Dear Mr Hill, My home and office have been deluged with calls concerning the Behind The News programme on A.I.D.S. As a member of Parliament I am writing to you on behalf of the callers. I am also writing to you as a parent of a 11 year old boy into whose classroom the Behind The News programme was beamed direct by the A.B.C. on 14th April. By its portrayal of the subject and serious omission, the A.B.C. programme lied to its very young audience about sex and about A.I.D.S. To these children the programme portrayed sex not as the joyful and intimate personal gift for the transmission of life and love in a committed relationship but as some sort of merely physical, dangerous and unclean activity for which a ``protective rubber condom'' is required to make it ``safe''. The programme purported to address the question ``how is A.I.D.S. spread'' yet failed to mention the dangers of promiscuous life styles. Is the A.B.C. ignorant of the scientific fact that the major cause of the spread of sexually transmitted A.I.D.S. today is promiscuity? Where was the abstinence message which is (at least in theory) the main plank of the A.I.D.S. public education campaign? Why were not the children reassured with the simple message that they have no fear of getting sexually transmitted A.I.D.S. if they abstain from sex before marriage (don't sleep around) and when they marry a like minded person are faithful to their spouse? Why did the A.B.C. choose to censor out that major message? Instead the A.B.C. chose to infer that sex with anyone is ``safe'' provided a condom is used thus cultivating in the minds of the very young an attitude of promiscuity which is the acknowledged major cause of the spread of sexually transmitted A.I.D.S. In passing, was the A.B.C. unaware of the scientific material which has led even Dr Blewett to observe that condoms are not a perfect preventive measure? It was the manner in which the A.B.C. took it upon itself to expose homosexual activity to ``innocent young children'' which made many people who contacted me most irate. I must say that when I first viewed the programme the significance of this escaped me. When one is constantly dealing with a subject one often becomes desensitized. As well I have been concerned that A.I.D.S. sufferers who are mostly homosexuals should be treated as fellow human beings needing the love, care and concern of a compassionate society. When I reviewed the programme I was convinced that by any fair assessment the A.B.C. conveyed the message that homosexual acts were normal and also no more of an A.I.D.S. risk than normal heterosexual acts. It did so both in the script (e.g. ``if the man's sexual partner happens to be another man'') and by the accompanying explicit idealized cartoon depictions of homosexuals. It is incredible that the A.B.C. is ignorant of the scientific fact that ``anal intercourse remains the single most dangerous sexual practice for the contraction of A.I.D.S.''. Surely the A.B.C. is aware of the sad fact that of the 201 known deaths in Australia of sexually transmitted A.I.D.S. 198 were homo-/bi-sexual men. (It is important to note here that as A.I.D.S. spreads through promiscuous behaviour the percentage of heterosexual transmission will significantly increase). In short why didn't the A.B.C. tell its viewers that homosexual sex is abnormal and high risk behaviour. Instead it chose to use A.I.D.S. as an excuse for propagating homosexual acts as being normal. When challenged the A.B.C.'s Dagmar Strauss offered as a defense that ``the A.I.D.S. script was totally value free'' and that ``the A.B.C. does not set out to supply a moral tone''. The A.B.C. constantly makes moral judgements or value inferences about what is right or wrong, good or bad or better or worse about all manner of subjects. But when it comes to a matter which affects the dignity and worth of human life itself the A.B.C. suggests a value free (worth less) approach is called for-having already made its own moral judgement. As to the A.B.C.'s censorship of the major abstinence message Dagmar Strauss claimed lack of time. The Head of Childrens and Education Department, Ms. Henrietta Clarke, said that her Department had made a submission for more money to do some school programmes on human sexuality. Would you please provide me with details of these proposed programmes, their cost and guidelines. I am sure that if the so called ``value free'' approach of the Behind The News A.I.D.S. programme is to be used then the taxpayers money would best be spent elsewhere. Finally on behalf of those who have contacted me, I request that the A.B.C. publicly apologise to the parents of the 9, 10 and 11 year olds who saw the Behind The News' distorted and deceptive programme on A.I.D.S. and that Behind The News itself offer an appropriate disclaimer to the children concerned. I am sending a copy of this letter to all those who have written to me, to my Parliamentary colleagues and to various community leaders and parent groups. Yours sincerely, SENATOR BRIAN HARRADINE Senator HARRADINE —It is quite clear that the ABC is not attending to the complaints that are made to it, but is simply regurgitating what it hears from its programmers and from other people who work for it. There is no direction, leadership or management in the ABC today. I am concerned and a large number of people in Australia are concerned about the question of program standards. I have raised this question with the Government over a number of years; indeed, in 1983 I raised it with Senator Button, the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications. He indicated his dissatisfaction with the situation and said that something would be done unless a proper complaints process was developed by the ABC. The Minister for Communications informs me that he has only recently received advice on the handling of complaints by the ABC, in particular complaints that do not fall squarely within section 82. I have been advised that the Government believes that the ABC must have a proper, credible complaints handling procedure. The ABC has been addressing the matter, and I have been advised by the Government that a proposal for reforms was recently discussed by the ABC Board. I am also advised that the Government places considerable importance on this matter and that it expects the ABC to bring consideration of complaints handling reform to an early conclusion. Significantly, the Government has told me that, unless the ABC has public credibility on this issue, it will not be in a good position to resist claims that it should be subject to an external complaints monitor, as applies, for example, to the British Broadcasting Corporation. I have distributed my letter to the ABC to a broad section of the community. I am at liberty to advise the Senate that a range of leaders within society have expressed to me their concern about the fact that the ABC does not take on board complaints. I have a substantial file-to which it is not appropriate to refer in this debate-which indicates a number of instances where complaints have been made to the ABC but have been treated with what can only be described as contempt. I believe that the people of Australia recognise what Mr Davidson recognised in 1956-that the issue of television licences and the responsibility for television programs is a public trust for the benefit of all members of society. It is my view that this is the issue in which people are interested. I have been concerned about the prospect of a concentration of media ownership, but I have yet to hear an argument that would convince me that a 60 per cent reach would result in that media concentration. If there is such an argument, I have yet to hear it. However, I have heard a substantial number of people in the community refer to the need to ensure that program standards are properly established and enforced. In regard to the establishment of program standards, I am advised that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is ever ready to hear submissions from the public on this matter, whether from individuals or groups in society. I conclude by reading a quote-and I believe many people will recognise its source-which refers to those in the media: Realise the opportunity you have not only to report on evil but to help eliminate it. Realise the responsibility you have not only to report on suffering, but to help alleviate it. Realise the challenge you have not only to report good deeds but to encourage them. Realise your dignity: to be the world's witnesses at events which can influence its destiny; to be the lens through which others focus on reality; to be the lamp which casts light not only into the dark corners of human life but also on to the pathway of the human pilgrimage. I believe that that is the issue to which our attention should be drawn. I am concerned that we are concentrating too much on the question of 43 per cent or 60 per cent. Senator Crichton-Browne —Or 75 per cent. Senator HARRADINE —Or 75 per cent, or whatever ranges between. We are not concentrating enough on the real issue that affects people in Australia-the standard and quality of the programs that they watch in their lounge room. That is what affects people as well as their right to feel that they have adequate recourse to an independent tribunal. I believe that, first, they should complain to the station making positive suggestions but, if they get nowhere, they should feel that they have adequate recourse to some independent authority and that that independent authority is empowered to do something reasonable about the situation. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(9.09) —I rise as the third National Party speaker on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986, the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1987, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987, and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. It is interesting to follow Senator Harradine. I can understand how he believes that broadcasting standards are the real issue we should be discussing. I see only a very tenuous connection between this package of Bills and broadcasting standards, which I think come under other headings. Nevertheless, I want to answer some of the criticisms that have been levelled against the National Party for changing its stance on these Bills. I object to the charges of bribery and corruption that were laid against us in the Senate tonight. Even the three senators who have spoken on the Bills took different attitudes at different times during the development of the legislation. It was not really until the Government came to the negotiating table and decided the three amendments that we are debating tonight that the National Party came to an agreement on the passage of the package, even considering the cross-media ownership provisions with which we do not agree but which are part of the package. It is more important that we see an improvement of services to the rural areas than that we worry about the cross-media ownership provisions at this stage. I want to refute the charges that were made by three of the speakers about bribery and corruption within the Party in relation to the Bills. Certainly, no pressure has been put on me one way or the other. I have been lobbied from all sides on the Bills, but I believe that consideration has been completely impartial from all sections of the National Party. Our concern is for the provision of better service for the rural areas. I suppose that it could be said that the Opposition and the Government have had eight to ten years to formulate proposals that provide better services for the regional areas and, undoubtedly, there are different methods for doing it. Following all the consultation that has taken place over the last couple of years-for example, between the Department of Communications, the regional services, the networks and the remote area television services, the satellite administration people, as well as the Government itself-aggregation and equalisation was the method chosen to provide services to eastern Australia. This is all that it applies to; it does not affect services, say, in the Northern Territory, Western Australia or South Australia. It gives increased and better services to rural areas in eastern Australia, and one cannot argue with that. As time is limited I shall refer to only a few areas of concern. One of those concerns localism and the provision of appropriate local services. I have studied all the issues, and I think that with the competition that will exist between the three commercial stations and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation a denigration of localism will not occur. After all, it has been shown quite clearly that if localism is neglected, whichever station neglects it will lose its audience reach. So I do not see that as being a major problem. Poison pills were referred to. The one in all in rule has been amended by the Government so that there will be a majority decision. Further, the ability of a television proprietor to expand in markets has been taken care of by another amendment. For example, if a smaller television station is being forced to aggregate into a market because two larger stations request it, that smaller station will not be precluded from developing as it will be allowed to expand into other aggregated markets in order to increase its audience reach. In relation to the audience reach provisions, the 60 per cent limit that has been agreed to I think is really the result of a series of horse trading arrangements. It went from 34 per cent to 75 per cent, and some people even wanted 100 per cent, but it looks as though there will not need to be any major dislocations in relation to all those people who have made purchases since the Minister's announcement of what the Government proposed in this legislation. One thing that concerns me about the implementation of these Bills is the enormous expansion of the bureaucracy that will be required in order to administer the provisions. The bureaucracy always likes to see itself expand. With the provision of aggregation, equalisation and all the administration that will be required with the inspections, accreditations, and even the affiliations, an enormous expansion of bureaucracy will occur. I presume that that will be funded by licensing fees from regional stations, and let us hope that it will be revenue negative. However, I find it hard to imagine that such an enormous expense will be revenue negative. The result that we have come up with is only one of the means by which better services can be provided in rural areas. I think the method proposed is the best one that we could come up with at the moment. It is no good letting the industry go on and on in a vacuum with no rules by which to operate. Certainly, the old system was outdated and incapable of providing the expanded services required. Future developments could not be left to occur in a haphazard way. In the very near future an expansion of technology will occur, which I think will render effete much of what we are doing now. I think that a lot of the specialised services-I refer to fibre optics, cable television and the video and audio entertainment and information services scheme-will wind up being bypassed by satellite transmissions, which will bring us into contact with the whole of the rest of the world without the need to have the services that we are proposing now. Nevertheless, there will always be some need for land-based transmission of television services, and at least when these measures are in place the infrastructure will all be there and capable of expanding in whichever way communications services develop in the very near future. I note that we have reached the time for the conclusion of the debate on this package of Bills. At this stage I indicate that the National Party, far from changing its position, has had a changing position throughout the development of the legislation, and we now thank the Government for accommodating us with the amendments that it has made. They have effectively removed the poison pills from the legislation and the National Party is now in the position of being able to support the legislation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted for the second reading stage of these Bills having expired, pursuant to standing order 407b, I put the question: That the amendment moved by Senator Vigor to Senator Lewis's amendment in respect of the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill be agreed to. Amendment negatived. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That Senator Lewis's amendment be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Alston, R. K. R. Macklin, M. J. Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Georges, G. Siddons, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vallentine, J. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D. B. Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Harradine, B. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. McKiernan, J. P. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reynolds, M. Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Mason, C. V. J. Black, J. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Coleman, R. N. (Senator Parer did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment (by Senator Vigor)-by leave-put: Leave out all words after `That', insert: `the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 be now read a second time, and that the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987, the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1987, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 be referred to a select committee for inquiry and report by the first day of sitting in September 1987, and that the composition and powers of the committee be determined by a subsequent resolution'. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vallentine, J. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Powell, J. F. Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Childs, B. K. Puplick, C. J. G. Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Townley, M. Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. West, S. M. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question now is: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator Lewis —I ask that the questions be put separately in relation to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986, the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987. I do not mind in which order they are dealt with, but I would like them to be dealt with separately. Senator Peter Baume —On a point of order, Mr President, I seek your clarification. I thought the motion moved by Senator Vigor was a compound one which included a motion that one of the Bills be read a second time. If that is the case, the Minister will need to seek leave to move the second reading again. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, on the point of order: I am endeavouring to understand what precisely occurred then, but my advice is that that motion of Senator Vigor was in the nature of an amendment. The amendment having been negatived, we now go back to the original motion, or series of motions, each providing for the Bills to be read a second time. We are happy to accept Senator Lewis's proposal that the Bills be voted upon separately, but in each case the parent motion on which we are now voting is that the Bill be now read a second time. All Senator Vigor did was to create a minor diversion which need not interrupt the flow of the main second reading votes. Senator Mason —On a point of order, Mr President, I must support Senator Peter Baume in this matter. When the Minister says such things he would appear to be ignoring the fact that the second reading of this Bill has been defeated. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. According to the advice that I have received, the situation as explained by Senator Gareth Evans is correct. Senator Lewis has now asked that the questions be put separately and therefore the question now is: That the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Harradine, B. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. McKiernan, J. P. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reynolds, M. Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. E. Cook. P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M. Baume, Michael Parer, W. R. Baume, Peter Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vallentine, J. Kilgariff, B. F. Vanstone, A. E. Knowles, S. C. Vigor, D. B. Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S. MacGibbon, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Macklin, M. J. Withers, R. G. Black, J. R. Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N. Messner, A. J. (Senator Durack did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question now is: That the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987 be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Harradine, B. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. McKiernan, J. P. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reynolds, M. Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M. Baume, Michael Parer, W. R. Baume Peter Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vallentine, J. Kilgariff, B. F. Vanstone, A. E. Knowles, S. C. Vigor, D. B. Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S. MacGibbon, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Macklin, M. J. Withers, R. G. Black, J. R. Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N. Messner, A. J. (Senator Durack did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes.) Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 be now read a second time. Senator Lewis —Mr President, I understand the Australian Democrats support the second reading of the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill, and accordingly I will not call for a division. However, I ask it to be noted that the Liberal Party is opposed to this Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1987, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bills be taken separately? There being no objection, it is so ordered. BROADCASTING AMENDMENT BILL 1986 The Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.47) —by leave-On behalf of the Government, I move: (1) Page 1, clause 2, line 7, after ``operation on'' insert ``the sixtieth day after''. (2) Page 8, clause 14, line 41, leave out ``92A'', insert ``91AAA''. (3) Page 14, clause 16, lines 35 to 41, leave out proposed section 94H, insert the following section: `` `94H. (1) An approved market shall be taken: (a) if 2 or more of the licensees in the approved market give notice to the Minister under section 94G that they wish to proceed immediately towards aggregation in the approved market-to be proceeding immediately towards aggregation; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply-to be proceeding towards aggregation via multi-channel services. ``(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), where: (a) 2 or more of the licences in an approved market are specified in the Indicative Plan as being eligible for consolidation with one another; and (b) the licensees of those licences give notices to the Minister under section 94G that they wish to proceed immediately towards aggregation in the approved market; those notices shall be deemed to be a single notice under that section given jointly by those licensees.''. Without going into great detail about the meaning of the amendments, previously it had been proposed that in regional areas if one licensee within a market area decided to become aggregated, all of the other licensees within that market area had to do likewise. The major amendment that I have just moved provides that two of the licensees in that market area must decide to aggregate before it becomes mandatory for the others to do so. That was explained by Senator Gareth Evans at the beginning of the second reading debate. Consequential to that measure, because that change had not previously been anticipated, the amendments also provide for a 60-day period of grace between the passage of the Bill and its effective implementation. On behalf of the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, I will say a number of things about localism, a word which has been much used in this debate. Insofar as programming is concerned, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, previously the Broadcasting Control Board, has sought to foster to the maximum extent possible the broadcasting of programs by licensees, especially regional licensees, which are relevant and valuable to their communities, such as local news and weather and some local sport and current affairs. These matters are important. The Broadcasting Act contains a fundamental requirement that licensees provide `adequate and comprehensive' programming. That obligation can be rendered only in the context of the local needs of communities in the service area associated with a particular licensee. Nothing in the present amending Bills alters the current programming obligations in the Act. Nothing alters the powers and responsibilities of the Tribunal to monitor and enforce those obligations. Having said as much, it is necessary to keep a degree of perspective. Television programming is fantastically expensive. It is not now, nor has it ever been, feasible for regional licensees to afford large amounts of locally originated programming. In fact, the best estimate is that the regional licensees on average have not originated more than 6 per cent of their own programs. Notwithstanding the element of local product which is able to be produced, as I said earlier it is important and ought to survive. If it were otherwise, the Government might have embraced a satellite direct broadcast road to extra services for country areas. We did not take up this option, not least because of those elements of localism that the Government sees to be valuable. Also, I understand that some criticism has been made of the visibility of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal itself, especially outside Sydney and Melbourne. The Minister for Communications informs me that he will contact the Tribunal and request that it advertise the availability of its officers. There is an ABT presence in every State, as I understand it, but it may be that the public is not aware of it. The Government will do what it can to improve this aspect of community access. Before closing, may I say that last night I criticised Senator Harradine for not voting on a particular Bill. I have been given to understand since then that he was in the Minister's office at that time discussing these Bills. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.52) —We have a very limited time for discussion of these important amendments, and I shall be brief. I respond first to the statements by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) which have been read out by Senator Walsh. Frankly, I think that they are a snide attack on regional television stations. The Minister spoke of their presenting only 6 per cent of locally produced programs. The truth is that regional television stations are extremely popular around the nation, particularly when they emphasise local aspects. Local news services rate higher than the Cosby Show and that is the highest rating program in Australia. To suggest that regional television stations are in some way or other not pulling their weight is a snide and unfair attack upon them. I am sure that they will be most disappointed when they read the Minister's comments. I turn to the amendments which have been moved by the Government. Frankly, the amendments are cosmetic in relation to compulsory aggregation for two reasons. Firstly, they still continue the concept of an approved market. That means that regional television licensees are not able to choose the areas into which they wish to move or with which they wish to aggregate. The Government has defined the approved market and left regional television stations with that approved market as defined by the Government. For example, Albury is required to move in with Ballarat and Bendigo in Victoria and is unable to move north into arrangements with New South Wales, if that is its wish. Therefore, to suggest that this change assists in some way or other is a nonsense. In fact, it is still compulsory aggregation. Secondly, one must look at the practical effect of changing the one in all in rule to the two in all in rule. I do not know whether all honourable senators understand this concept, but there are three regional television stations. Up to now the Government had proposed, grossly unfairly, that if one of those stations wanted to aggregate into the approved market, all three would be required to aggregate into that market. Under this amendment, which as I understand it has been instituted as a result of a request of the National Party, if two of those stations want to aggregate then the third will be required to do so. In other words, it will be two in all in instead of one in all in. What will be the practical effect? Let us visualise the position. There are three regional stations in an area. To take the three I mentioned before-Albury Ballarat and Bendigo-they will be watching each other like hawks. As soon as one of them, say Albury, wants to aggregate-and we know that it wants to do so because it has said so-and it enters into a deal with, say, Channel 9 in Melbourne, when aggregation occurs it will be networked to that channel. Ballarat and Bendigo will look at each other and immediately jump to aggregate with one of the stations in Melbourne. They may choose Channel 10 because they will not want to be associated with Channel 7 which has lost such support. To think that any one of the three could wait for some years before they entered into networking is a nonsense from the point of view of sensible businessmen. The result will be that as soon as this legislation is passed, those regional television stations around Australia will be almost obligated to jump into some networking arrangement with one of the metropolitan stations, otherwise someone else will beat them to the punch. They will be falling over one another to enter into networking arrangements. That is exactly our criticism of this legislation, that it is designed to ensure that networking will occur right around Australia to the benefit of the media barons in the capital cities and to the detriment of the regional networks. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.56) —I support Senator Lewis's view, but I shall not repeat his argument. I believe that if this is one of the conditions National Party members put on passing the Government's horrendous legislation, they have sold their birthright and ours for a mess of pottage. The whole process is now very little different from the process which was there before, as Senator Lewis said. It will only delay things slightly while people size up whom they will be associated with or amalgamated with first, and then the aggregation process will take place. I think it is a problem, but we do not intend to divide. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.57) —The Government does not accept Senator Vigor's view. I also wish to rectify an oversight. There is an explanatory memorandum to the Government amendments to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, which I thought Senator Evans had incorporated at the beginning of the second reading debate. I am informed that he did not incorporate or table that memorandum. I wish now to table it. Amendments agreed to. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.58) —I move: Pages 29 and 30, clause 16, proposed section 94zh, line 35 (page 29) to line 8 (page 30), leave out the proposed section. This amendment deals with the aggregation of service areas of existing licences in Tasmania. The Australian Democrats see no reason to be so specific about the Tasmanian situation. We believe that normal procedures should be followed in respect of Tasmania, namely, that the Tribunal should determine which applicant should be available for a new licence for the whole of Tasmania. We believe that the most suitable process is that which exists now without the necessity for the provision in this Bill. Under proposed section 94zh claims are tested by the approval of the existing licensee. That seems a strange situation. The combination of the proposed sections 94zf and 94zg would enable Tasmanians to have two effective State-wide services. Proposed section 94zg would enable the current licensee to have the Hobart and Launceston licences consolidated. It seems a fairly strange situation. Although we know that Tasmania may have some strange properties, we see no reason for this type of difference in the legislation. Therefore, we are seeking to delete proposed section 94zh. Amendment negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. BROADCASTING (OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL) BILL 1987 The Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.01) —by leave-First, I table the explanatory memorandum relevant to the Government amendments to this Bill which I shall move. I move: (1) Page 7, clause 18, lines 1 to 6, leave out paragraph (h), insert the following paragraph: ``(h) by inserting after subsection (6) the following subsections: `(6a) For the purposes of this Division, a newspaper shall be taken to be associated with the service area of a commercial television licence if, and so long as, the name of the newspaper is entered in the Associated Newspaper Register as a newspaper that is associated with the service area of the licence. `(6b) For the purposes of this Division, a commercial television licence shall be taken to be a non-competitive licence if: (a) the licence is in an approved market and an MCS permit is in force in respect of the licence; or (b) the licence is not in an approved market and the service area of the licence is not wholly, or almost wholly, within the service area of another commercial television licence.'; and'' (2) Page 11, clause 22, line 16, leave out ``75%'', insert ``60%''. (3) Page 11, clause 22, lines 22 to 26, leave out proposed subsection 92 (1aa), insert the following subsection: `` `(1aa) A person contravenes this section if, and so long as the person has a prescribed interest in: (a) a commercial television licence (in this subsection called ``licence A'') that is in an approved market and in respect of which an MCS permit is in force; and (b) another commercial television licence (in this subsection called ``licence B'') that is a non-competitive licence; unless: (c) licence B is not in an approved market; and (d) all the person's interests in licence B are interests of one or more of the following kinds: (i) interests in the company holding licence B of which the person became the holder before the day on which the Minister gave notice under section 94j that the approved market referred to in paragraph (a) was proceeding towards aggregation via multi-channel services; (ii) interests in licence B due to other circumstances that came into existence before that day; (iii) interests in the company holding licence B resulting from the allotment or issue, on or after that day, of shares in, or debentures of, a company to a person where: (a) the person, immediately before that day, held shares in, or debentures of, that company; and (b) the person received or receives the shares or debentures so allotted or issued in accordance with rights of a kind enjoyed by the person in common with other holders of shares or debentures of the same class as the shares or debentures that were so held.''. (4) Page 12, clause 22, at the end of the clause add the following subclauses: ``(3) A person shall not be taken to be in contravention of section 92 of the Principal Act (being a contravention by virtue of the operation of subsection 92 (1aa) of the Act) in relation to any licences by reason only of one or more of the following: (a) if the person held any of the licences immediately before 2 June 1987 and the holding of that licence did not, immediately before that day, result in a contravention by that person of section 92 of the Principal Act-the holding by the person of that licence (including that licence as renewed); (b) the holding by the person of interests in any of the companies holding the licences, being interests of which the person became the holder before that day, or other circumstances that came into existence before that day, where: (i) the holding of those interests or the existence of those circumstances did not, immediately before that day, result in a contravention by that person of section 92 of the Principal Act; or (ii) on or after that day action has been taken which, if it has been taken before that day, would have caused the holding of those interests or the existence of those circumstances not to result in such a contravention; (c) the holding by the person of interests in any of the companies holding the licences, being interests resulting from the allotment or issue, on or after that day, of shares in, or debentures of, a company to a person who, immediately before that day, held shares in, or debentures of, that company, where the person received or receives the shares or debentures so allotted or issued in accordance with rights of a kind enjoyed by the person in common with other holders of shares or debentures of the same class as the shares or debentures that were so held. ``(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to a person at any time when the person is the holder of any interest (other than an interest referred to in paragraph (3) (c)) in the company holding any of the licences concerned if the person became the holder of the interest on or after 2 June 1987. ``(5) The operation of subsection (4) is not affected by the fact that, on or after 2 June 1987 and before the person became the holder of the interest, there has been a reduction in the amount of the interest held by the person in the company. ``(6) Subsection (3) ceases to apply in relation to a person if at any time the person has a prescribed interest in 3 or more licences that are in an approved market or approved markets and in respect of which MCS permits are in force.''. (5) Page 12, clause 24, lines 35 to 40, leave out proposed subsection 92c (1aa), insert the following subsection: `` `(1aa) A person contravenes this section if, and so long as, the person: (a) is a director of a company that is in a position to exercise control of a licence that is in an approved market and in respect of which an MCS permit is in force; and (b) is a director of another company that is, or 2 or more other companies that, between them, are, in a position to exercise control of another commercial television licence that is a non-competitive licence; unless; (c) the licence referred to in paragraph (b) is not in an approved market; and (d) the person has continued to hold the directorships from a time before the day on which the Minister gave notice under section 94j that the approved market referred to in paragraph (a) was proceeding towards aggregation via multi-channel services.''. (6) Page 13, clause 24, line 16, leave out ``subsection (1ab)'', insert ``subsections (1aa) and (1ab)''. (7) Page 13, clause 24, at the end of the clause add the following subclauses: ``(2) Where: (a) a person holds directorships the holding of which would, but for this subsection, constitute a contravention of section 92c of the Principal Act by virtue of the operation of subsection (1aa) of that section; and (b) the person has continued to hold the directorships from a time before 2 June 1987; the person shall not be taken to be in contravention of that section by reason only of the holding of the directorships. ``(3) Subsection (2) ceases to apply to a person if at any time the person is a director of 2 or more companies that, between them, are in a position to exercise control of 3 or more licences that are in an approved market or approved markets and in respect of which MCS permits are in force.''. (8) Page 17, clause 27, after proposed subsection 92fad (1) insert the following subsection: `` `(1a) A person who contravenes this section is guilty of a separate offence in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction under this subsection or any subsequent day) during which the contravention continues.''. (9) Page 19, clause 27, after subclause (4) insert the following subclauses: ``(4a) Where: (a) immediately before 28 November 1986, a company (in this subsection called the `holding company') was in a position to exercise significant control over the company (in this subsection called the `licensee company') holding a commercial television licence; and (b) on or after 28 November 1986, the holding company became or becomes the holder of a loan interest in the licensee company; the following provisions have effect: (c) subject to paragraph (d), the loan interest shall be disregarded for the purposes of the application of subsections (3) and (4) in relation to the holding company; (d paragraph (c) does not apply in relation to the holding company if: (i) the holding company ceased or ceases, at any time on or after 28 November 1986, to be in a position to exercise significant control of the licensee company; or (ii) subsection (2) ceased or ceases, at any time on or after 28 November 1986, to apply in relation to the holding company; (e) subject to paragraph (f), if immediately before 28 November 1986, a person, by reason of being in a position to exercise control of the holding company, held an interest in the licensee company, the loan interest shall be disregarded for the purposes of the application of subsections (3) and (4) in relation to the person; (f) paragraph (e) does not apply in relation to the person if: (i) the holding company ceased or ceases, at any time on or after 28 November 1986, to be in a position to exercise significant control of the licensee company; (ii) the person ceased or ceases, at any time on or after 28 November 1986, to be in a position to exercise control of the holding company; or (iii) subsection (2) ceased or ceases, at any time on or after 28 November 1986, to apply in relation to the holding company or in relation to the person. ``(4b) For the purposes of subsection (4a), a company shall be deemed to be in a position to exercise significant control of another company if, had the references in section 92b and 91aac of the Principal Act to 15% been references to 50%, the first company would, in accordance with that section, be deemed to have been in a position to exercise control of the second company.''. I also wish to move a further amendment which should have been included with the other nine which have been circulated. It was an oversight that this amendment was left out. I move: Page 12, clause 24, line 34, leave out ``75%'', insert ``60%''. I wish to refer briefly to this one-line amendment, which is the most important amendment to this Bill. As originally presented, the Bill allowed owners to acquire television stations or transmitters with a reach of up to 75 per cent of the national audience. As Senator Boswell observed earlier in the debate, this does not mean that that owner has 75 per cent of the market; it means that he has a potential for 75 per cent of the market. The amendment cuts that figure back to 60 per cent. That figure is repeated many times throughout the Bill. The other major amendment concerns regional telecasting. As the Bill was originally presented, those regional-- Senator Siddons —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Could I have clarification of whether we are dealing with all the broadcasting Bills together? The CHAIRMAN —We are dealing with the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill and Senator Walsh has, by leave, moved 10 Government amendments. I note that you, Senator Siddons, have an amendment which you may move later if you wish to do so. Senator WALSH —I do not intend to speak for long; so Senator Siddons will have plenty of time to move his amendment. I turn to the second major amendment that I have moved. In the original Bill those operators within a market area who opted for the multichannel services were tied to the two-station rule, unless they already had only one station in which case they were tied to a de facto one-station rule. They could not buy interests in any other television licence throughout the country while they had opted for multichannel services. The amendment means that such operators may buy in other competitive market areas up to the overall limit of 60 per cent. The only other amendment is fairly technical and concerns cases where a parent company has a 50 per cent or greater than 50 per cent interest in a subsidiary which is a licensee. As originally drafted, the Bill required that that parent company could not make loans to the licensee without risking forfeiture of the licence. In its original form the Bill provided that if such a holding or parent company made additional loans to its subsidiary which held a television licence it would lose the protection of the so-called grandfather clause in the legislation. The amendment ensures that such a parent company may lend money to its subsidiary licensee company, but it may not increase its shareholding in such a company. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.07) —Mr Chair-man, although we have agreed to the Government moving all 10 amendments together, could we deal with amendment No. 2, which relates to replacing 75 per cent with 60 per cent, and then amendment No. 10, which does the same thing? The Liberal Party would like to deal with those amendments separately because we will oppose them but not the other eight amendments. I believe that Senator Siddons and Senator Vigor have amendments which also relate to that matter. The Opposition cannot see any sense in reducing the percentage from 75 to 60 or in making any other arrangement. There is no merit in doing so. The Government and the National Party of Australia have taken over this legislation and intend to get it through the Senate. We think it is wrong and we will oppose these two amendments. The other amendments are not unreasonable and we will not oppose them. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee that Government amendments Nos 2 and 10 be considered separately? There being no objection, it is so ordered. The question before the Chair is that amendments Nos 1 and 3 to 9 inclusive be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that Government amendments Nos 2 and 10 be agreed to. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.09) —These amendments allow for a 60 per cent audience reach rather than the originally proposed 75 per cent. I wish to reiterate my previous comments. I think that it is appalling that the Government, with the support of the National Party of Australia, should move such amendments. We already have the greatest concentration of media ownership in the Western world. I and others will oppose these amendments. I feel very sad this evening that I have not been able to convince important members of the Senate that something less than 50 per cent ownership is the least that the Australian people should expect. I will move an amendment in due course to the effect that 43 per cent ownership is a reasonable compromise. If the 60 per cent audience reach amendment is passed the whole ownership of the media will be open to takeovers and unbelievable concentration and we can look to a danger of our democracy being subverted by the owners of the media, who are all-powerful. I can only reiterate that at least to reduce the level of audience reach down to 43 per cent, or some percentage lower than 50 per cent, is the least of the safeguards that we should expect in this day and age of takeovers. We have already seen how many powerful forces in this community are anxious to get control of media outlets. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(10.12) —I also speak in opposition to the amendments and in general to the whole principle of increasing monopolisation of the Australian media. It is very dangerous in a democracy to allow large companies to have control of more and more media outlets. That is exactly the reverse of what should be happening. Information in a democracy is a very important tool. The increasing monopolisation, whether 75 per cent or 60 per cent that we now seem to be facing, is detrimental to a democracy. The right to information is fundamental. I believe that diverse sources of information are required, not further monopolisation. As a representative of what some people like to refer to as a minority group-the peace movement, which is increasing in its numbers and soon to be a majority group; however at this stage it is a minority group-it is very difficult to put points across in the media as it is now. Increasing monopolisation in any shape or form will further disadvantage people who hold views which are not generally accepted by the establishment. That is indeed a retrograde step for the Australian community. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.13) —The Australian Democrats will oppose these amendments. We have an amendment to this clause which suggests a very sensible figure of 22 per cent, instead of the 60 per cent which the Government is proposing. There is a rationale for these figures. It is probably useful, before honourable senators face the vote on the 60 per cent amendments, to just point out some of the rationale. My foreshadowed amendment for 22 per cent is based on granting somebody a licence in one of the major cities of Sydney or Melbourne. That figure corresponds to just above the size of the Sydney market. This means that people cannot control both the large central market and all the regional markets. They cannot control more than the two major cities. They cannot get full control of more than three of the provincial capitals, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart-the BAPH States. The Democrats believe that we should split up the media in the major cities, rather than aggregating elsewhere. This will offer more service and more competition. We believe that if we introduce the 22 per cent figure-and under the legislation there is the ability for people to divest themselves of this power-we will be moving in the right direction. With 60 per cent it will be possible for somebody to control two major cities and pretty well all the regional areas. This is an inordinate amount of power for one group. It is quite possible under those circumstances for the big to get very much bigger because they will have much larger audiences and will be able to get much larger advertising revenue over that area and be able to use their monopolistic power to push out the smaller groups. We are sounding the death knell of independent small broadcasters which are separate from the larger networks. The only way this trend can be reversed would be by making the figure 22 per cent. A Democrat government will reverse this decision. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.16) —As I understand the procedures, the Senate is now confronted with an amendment that we accept 60 per cent audience reach. I take it that if that amendment is passed, it will not be possible for my amendment-- The CHAIRMAN —No, you would be wrong in that, Senator Siddons. Under recently agreed sessional orders, subsequent amendments may be moved. You will be in order to move a different figure after this amendment is passed, if it is passed. I will give you the call if you then wish to move an amendment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.17) —I express my amazement that Senator Vallentine and, I think, Senator Siddons said that they will oppose the amendments, because if these amendments should be defeated and the Bill ultimately passed, as it is pretty clear it will be, there will be 75 per cent audience reach when they say that 60 per cent is too much. Senator Siddons —We are allowed to move an additional amendment. The Chairman has just ruled that. Senator Lewis —Come on Walshie-don't argue with them. They are a small party. Senator WALSH —No, I want to be a perfectly fair and reasonable man, as I always am. I acknowledge that, whether the appropriate ceiling for audience reach is 75 per cent, 60 per cent or 50 per cent, it is a subjective and possibly even an arbitrary judgment. Senator Puplick —`Negotiable' is the term. Senator WALSH —I am prepared to say subjective or even arbitrary. I believe, however, that anybody who tries to put forward a figure as low as 22 per cent is going too far down. What is more important, at least within a pretty substantial range of market reach, is whether there is competition within a market. The thrust of the whole package of Bills which have been moved by the Government is that there will be competition, if not immediately, in the near future, with competition being defined as access to three commercial television licensees as well as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Senator Alston —What is wrong with four? Senator WALSH —In some cities there may not be anything particularly wrong with having four stations. I notice that Mr Beale said last Sunday week, I think it was, that the Opposition did not believe in any regulation at all. I thought that that was an extraordinary thing to say because if there were no regulation at all on the television screen we could have one dominant image with about three shadows behind it with four transmitters transmitting on the same wave length. Which picture of the four coming over on the same wave length would predominate would be determined by the power of the transmitter, the distance from the transmitter and perhaps the local topography to some extent. I thought that that was a pretty extraordinary comment from the Opposition spokesman. But the real point I want to make is that competition is the more important factor, I believe, than the audience reach per se. I have already conceded that whether the audience reach is 75 per cent or 45 per cent is probably not terribly important. But it is important, I believe, that there are a number of operators and, either under the original Bill or with the amendments now proposed by the Government, there is the scope for a number-be it four, five or six; something like that-of major operators in the national television industry to have sufficient resources, strength and so on to be able to go into the production side of television as well as the commercial and broadcasting side. I think the combination of having a number of operators with the size and strength to go into production and of having competition everywhere is really more important than the size of the audience reach per se. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.21) —I was amazed to hear the Minister say-at least, I thought I heard him say it-that if the amendment to provide for 60 per cent of audience reach is defeated the legislation will revert to the 75 per cent audience reach. Senator Walsh —Of course it would. That is what is in the original Bill. Senator SIDDONS —I am sorry. Mr Chairman, I clearly understood from your ruling that, if this amendment were defeated, the Senate would be at liberty to move for another percentage of audience reach. Senator Walsh —Your amendment is not going to be carried. The CHAIRMAN —Just so that there is no misunderstanding, Senator Siddons, the situation is that Senator Walsh has moved an amendment to change the 75 per cent to 60 per cent. If that amendment is passed, other honourable senators are entitled to move a different figure from the 60 per cent if they so wish. If, on the other hand, Senator Walsh's amendment is defeated, the figure of 75 per cent would stand in the Bill as it is now. Senator SIDDONS —Thank you, Mr Chairman. As I understand it, then, it is still open, whether this amendment is passed or defeated, for us to move an additional amendment reducing the percentage audience reach. The CHAIRMAN —That is correct. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.23) —I have suddenly awoken to what is happening. I must admit that the debate had become boring to the point of sending one to a state of a complete lack of appreciation, if I could put it that way. I derived from what Senator Walsh was saying that he really was in agreement with what was going on. I sense some disapproval. Perhaps we ought to ask the Minister whether he supports what is going on. It seems to be that-- Senator Walsh —I said it was a subjective judgment, within a fairly wide range. Senator GEORGES —Yes, it is a very subjective judgment. If it is a subjective judgment that we should move from 75 per cent to 65 per cent to 60 per cent, of course we could argue that it ought to be 43 per cent. Senator Walsh —You could. Senator GEORGES —Yes, we could. It would be of considerable benefit to us if we were to get the honest view of the Minister as to whether he approves-- Senator Walsh —I have told you that. I have said that I don't think that, within a wide range, the audience reach is as important-- Senator Puplick —He has told you that it doesn't matter very much. Senator GEORGES —Well, if it does not matter very much, why do we not get the safe figure of 43 per cent? It seems to me that by adopting the figure of 60 per cent we have not gone far enough downwards. If we were to move to 43 per cent we could frustrate some of the machinations of those who vent the market-place with a considerable amount of money. In this country we have suffered, possibly because of the policies imposed on us, a shift in power to the point that a few people in our society can dictate very much what we do, especially in this area. It would help us if the Minister were to get to his feet and say: `It is subjective and it really doesn't matter'. If the Minister were to say that 43 per cent was acceptable we could proceed to defeat the 60 per cent suggestion and then support the proposition-- Senator Walsh —George, come on! Senator GEORGES —Could we not? It seems to me that somebody somewhere up high, in Rambo style, has made a decision which has now been imposed upon the lot of us, in spite of-- Senator Lewis —We know that. Hawke and Keating decided that a long time ago. That is what it is about. Senator GEORGES —I know. In spite of my differences with the Minister for Finance, I believe that he supports what is in the best interests of the-- Senator Lewis —Duffy got rolled on the 43 per cent. You know that. Senator GEORGES —No. I have a feeling that the Minister has an objection to the advantage that, say, the Bond Corporation would achieve through our deciding on 60 per cent. I think he has a feeling that we ought to adopt the figure of 43 per cent, which would exclude Bond from further manipulating the market. It would be of interest to me if he would be prepared to come clean and say that he supports a figure of 43 per cent. Then we could follow him and make that decision, in spite of what the National Party of Australia wants, or, in fact, what the National Party has been forced to do by those who are close to Bond. I am not suggesting that it is Bjelke-Petersen-far from it! I am not suggesting that Bjelke-Petersen has been in a position to impose upon National Party senators, in particular Senator Collard! Senator Walsh —Why not? Senator GEORGES —It may be that I am becoming more cynical as I get older, but it seems to me that Bjelke-Petersen has been able to impose his will upon National Party senators in this place by postponing, as I said earlier in the piece, their endorsements. It is no use Senator Collard shaking his head, because he is likely to be the victim. Senator Collard —So be it, then. Senator GEORGES —So be it. Senator Lewis —Come on, George. You are not lifting the standard of debate as you suggested you were going to. You are wasting our time. Senator GEORGES —I am sorry, but I thought that Senator Lewis was wasting the time of the chamber by not representing the policy of his Party. As far as I can gather, the policy of Senator Lewis's Party is, on the one hand, 43 per cent, as expounded by Mr Macphee; or on the other hand the open market-place proposition of Mr Beale which says: `We will all go out to the market-place to let everyone have what they want, providing, of course, that we get a price for it'. It is a bit unclear to people such as myself, who still have some sort of vote in this place, what is happening. I get back to the fact that Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, is in a position to advise us what is in the best interests of the country. I suspect that what is in the best interests of the country is not a 60 per cent reach, but 43 per cent. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.29) —I thank Senator Georges for his vote of confidence in my infallibility, but I do not think I am really worthy of it. Just to set the record straight for Senator Georges, in my opinion-and I have already said that in my view opinions on this matter are subjective and maybe even arbitrary-43 per cent is too low. I think anything between 50 per cent and 75 per cent is quite acceptable and that it is a very subjective judgment where one settles between those two figures. The CHAIRMAN —The question is: That Senator Walsh's amendments Nos. 2 and 10 to the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987 be agreed to: The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Harradine, B. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. McKiernan, J. P. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reynolds, M. Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Newman, J. M. Archer, B. R. Parer, W. R. Baume, Michael Powell, J. F. Baume Peter Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K. Georges, G. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Siddons, J. R. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vallentine, J. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E. Knowles, S. C. Vigor, D. B. Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S. MacGibbon, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Macklin, M. J. Withers, R. G. Mason, C. V. J. Black, J. R. Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N. Messner, A. J. (Senator Durack did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Amendments (by Senator Vigor)-by leave-proposed: (1) Page 11, paragraph 22 (1) (a), proposed paragraph 92 (1) (a), line 16, leave out ``75%'', insert ``22%''. (2) Page 12, clause 24, proposed subsection 92c (1), line 34, leave out ``75%'', insert ``22%''. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.35) —In the hope that the Australian Democrats will not call for a division on this matter, I indicate that the Liberal Party of Australia will not support these amendments. Amendments negatived. Amendments (by Senator Siddons)-by leave-proposed: (1) Page 11, paragraph 22 (1) (a), proposed paragraph 92 (1) (a), line 16, leave out ``75%'', insert ``43%''. (2) Page 12, clause 24, proposed subsection 92c (1), line 34, leave out ``75%'', insert ``43%''. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.36) —I indicate again that the Liberal Party of Australia will not support these amendments. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.37) —I indicate that, as Senator Vigor's amendments have not been passed, obviously this Committee was not able to stomach the sort of legislation that would introduce real competition and many players into television ownership in this country. My own view, which has been expressed as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation, is that perhaps a 35 per cent figure might be able to be stomached. I have chosen not to move that amendment and I would have thought that this Parliament could have taken Senator Siddons's amendment on board because, after all, it gives a generous audience reach to any commercial enterprise that would want to be involved in this industry. I believe that, as Senator Vigor's amendments have not been passed, Senator Siddons's amendments ought to be supported by this chamber. It is probably useful, when we ask questions such as that posed by Senator Georges earlier relating to where all this is coming from, to look at the words of the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee of which I was a member. He told this chamber that the reality is that events have overtaken us all. We all know what those events are; they are the takeovers which have taken place, many of them illegally. In this instance this Government and its fellow travellers are not prepared to stand up in the interests of a free and democratic media in this country. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.39) —In case I have not made myself clear, I will again state my position. I have stated that 75 per cent is an outrage and merely places the rights of people, especially those in the television area, in the hands of a few. There was a reduction by negotiation-and what a strange negotiation it must have been to reduce it to 60 per cent-and that is an improvement, nevertheless it does not go far enough. I think I have stated that. My view is that it should be reduced to a reasonable figure, bearing in mind that we wanted to correct matters and to get away from this two-station principle. I have expressed my view that nothing will improve as a result of this legislation and things will get worse, not better, for the viewers. I have a feeling that it might be better if we started all over again. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.40 p.m., in accordance with standing order 407b I put the question: That the amendments moved by Senator Siddons be agreed to. Amendments negatived. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.45) —Pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 37, I move: That so much of standing order 407b be suspended as would prevent the question being put in respect of any amendments circulated by the Australian Democrats or the Opposition, and that such questions be put accordingly. Question resolved in the negative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That the remainder of the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill be agreed to, that the Bill, as amended be agreed to and that the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill, the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) be agreed to. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Harradine, B. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. McKiernan, J. P. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs. B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reynolds, M. Colston, M. A. Robertson, E. A. Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M. Cooney, B. Sheil, G. Crowley, R. A. Sibraa K. W. Devlin, R. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Walsh, P. A. Evans, Gareth West, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Gietzelt, A. T. Alston, R. K. R. Newman, J. M. Archer, B. R. Parer, W. R. Baume, Michael Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vallentine, J. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E. Knowles, S. C. Vigor, D. B. Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S. MacGibbon, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Macklin, M. J. Withers, R. G. Mason, C. V. J. Black, J. R. Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N. Messner, A. J. Richardson, G. F. Baume, Peter (Senator Durack did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987 reported with amendments and Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1987, Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.49) —I raise for the sake of the Senate a matter that Mr Tim Fischer, the honourable member for Farrer, raised in the House of Representatives on 29 May 1987, and I refer to House of Representatives Hansard pages 3654 and 3655, in relation to the actions of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) regarding the ceremony that was held at the Australian War Memorial on 22 May 1986 for the proclamation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. I do this with some concern, but firstly I point out that, as a result of what this Government has done to the Freedom of Information Act, in order to get the material which Mr Fischer was able ultimately to extract from the Department he had to pay $225.20 to get this information out of the bureaucracy. The Australian Labor Party lectured us for seven years about freedom of information. The Liberal-National Party coalition Government introduced the freedom of information legislation. Notwithstanding our having introduced it, we were regularly hammered by people such as Senator Gareth Evans, Senator Grimes and Senator Walsh about freedom of information. Yet the Australian Labor Party gets into office and puts fees on so-called freedom of information such that a member of the House has to pay $225.20 to get this information out of the Department. Senator Michael Baume —I had to pay $400 to get CEP information. Senator LEWIS —Senator Michael Baume had to pay $400-odd. I was placed in the same position in relation to matters to do with my portfolio responsibility and was not able to pay $756 in order to get information to which I believe I was justly entitled, and there can be no doubt that Mr-- Senator Georges —Why didn't you put it on the Notice Paper? Senator LEWIS —What is the good of putting it on the Notice Paper? I point out to Senator Georges that questions never get answered. Questions are answered in absolute gobbledegook instead of providing the information which properly ought to be provided. I really think the Government ought to refund this money to Mr Fischer, considering what he has been able to disclose. That is the first point that I want to make. I now turn to the second point. I very much regret the fact that my old friend in this chamber, Senator Gietzelt, has clearly misled the Senate. Senator Gietzelt and I have been opponents in this Parliament ever since I arrived here 11 years ago. He and I have clashed frequently in the chamber and at committee meetings and all the rest of it. However, all in all somehow or other I have some respect for him, and I know that he is a sincere fellow. But in this case I have to say that somehow or other the Minister did not understand what was going on in his office. That is clear from the material which Mr Fischer laid before the House of Representatives on 29 May. As a result of the information that he was able to obtain under the freedom of information provisions, Mr Fischer was able to indicate that at folio 19 there was a note to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Mr John Bright, which said in part: On Friday, 2 May, I telephoned the Australian War Memorial to discuss the possibility of using some part of it for the ceremony on 22 May. When I arrived, the Director, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, asked to see me about the background to the ceremony and to offer his views. He pointed out that, to date, the memorial had only ever been used for purposes directly related to its activities and he was concerned that the Australian War Memorial could be criticised for being the venue of a political statement. He asked that it be made quite clear that it was the choice of the Minister and the VEA announcement was to highlight benefits to veterans and their dependants. He asked me to pass his thoughts to the Minister, which I did through a meeting with Cynthia Martin later in the day. Cynthia Martin works in the Minister's office, and it is quite clear that if Mr Bright mentioned it to Cynthia Martin, then Cynthia Martin would have mentioned it to the Minister. It may be that the Minister was so busy that he was unable to recall the matter, but there is no doubt that at least his office was advised of it. I do not want to accuse Miss Martin of not having passed on the message to the Minister, but either that happened or the Minister was so advised. In other words, it is quite clear that on Friday, 2 May the then Director of the Australian War Memorial Jim Flemming-since sacked as a result of all this, I might say-had informed the Public Relations and Publicity Officer, Mr John Bright, that he objected to the use of the Memorial for the reasons that I just set out. Mr Fischer went on to say that in a formal letter dated 9 May Mr John Bright wrote to the Director in the following terms: The Minister has now confirmed that he wishes to proceed with the ceremony at that location on Thursday, 22 May at 2.30 p.m. It is very clear that the direction had come from the Minister. From examination of the file, Mr Fischer was able to ascertain that there was a subsequent note at folio 37, which stated: Cynthia Martin confirmed this morning that the Minister has agreed to the arrangements set out in my minute of 6 May. There was also a crucial minute, dated 22 April-that was before all the matters that I have talked about were raised-which noted: The Minister has requested a major launch of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill to coincide with the proclamation on 8 May. He would like a ceremony arranged at the War Memorial. It is clear that the Minister's staff were saying to the Public Relations and Publicity Officer, Mr Bright, that the Minister wanted that function held at the War Memorial. It is clear that that information was passed on to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, who then said that he had some objections to it. Those objections went back to the Minister's office and back came the request from the Minister's office that the Minister had confirmed that that was what he wanted. Yet, all the way along the Minister keeps saying-and let me quote what the Minister told the Senate on 14 November 1986: Never at any time did I direct the Australian War Memorial to perform a function or to make its premises available for the function. It was a decision of the Department to hold the function. It was the decision of the Department that it should be held at the Australian War Memorial. It was then the responsibility of the Department . . . Never at any stage was it a ministerial direction. Further, on 18 November 1986 the Minister said: I know of no occasion when any recommendation was made to me that the ceremony could not be held at the Australian War Memorial. I raise this matter because, clearly, the Minister must respond to these allegations and explain to the Senate whether he acknowledges that in fact the directions were coming from his office. If he wishes to say that he did not know about the directions from his office, the Senate may be able to understand that, but at this stage it is clear from the material discovered by Mr Fischer that the directions were coming from the Minister's office and in the Minister's name. His staff was saying: `This is what the Minister wants'. So, as Mr Fischer says, these statements of the Minister to the Senate sit very unhappily with the material disclosed under the freedom of information provisions. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.59) —I rise tonight to make some urgent and necessary comments on the report of the Commissioner of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Chamberlain Convictions, the Hon. Mr Justice Morling, as a result of some publicity which has occurred since the release of that document this morning. The matter to which I particularly want to refer is the indication that in some way Mr Justice Morling's report has been less than a clearing of the Chamberlain name because Mr Justice Morling has not in fact quashed the convictions against the Chamberlains. Much arises from that point, including the question of what compensation might reasonably be paid to the Chamberlains for their enormous ordeal and the horrendous financial costs they have incurred as a result of the events of the last few years. To put that in proportion one ought to look at Mr Morling's report. On page 8 he states clearly what he saw his role as being: In effect, what I am required to do is to consider the whole of the evidence led before me and, without placing an onus of proof on any party, to decide whether there is a doubt as to the Chamberlains' guilt. Mr Justice Morling very properly at no stage sees any duty on him to quash the conviction against the Chamberlains. That would not be his proper place. That should be done by the Government of the Northern Territory which has, as a result of Mr Justice Morling's report, now a duty and obligation to do so as soon as possible. I turn briefly to the report and the points and conclusions which the Commissioner has made. I have seldom read a document which is a more damning indictment of court proceedings or proceedings in any place against anybody. There is no doubt whatsoever that again and again, like the tolling of a bell, this report-an admirably written, clear report from Mr Justice Morling-demolishes the Crown case in every possible respect and reveals it for the fantastic fantasy it always was. On page 160 of the report, for instance, Mr Justice Morling, after a long, most careful and learned study of all the questions concerning blood in cars and things of that type, comes to this conclusion: If there was any blood present in the car, it was present in only small quantities in the area of the hinge on the passenger seat and beneath. I conclude that none of Mrs Kuhl's tests established that any such blood was Azaria's . . . Thus, if the results- that is, of the tests- are relied upon, they suggest that any blood in the hinge area was shed after 17 August 1980. Whether this be correct or not, the presence of a small quantity of blood in this area would not justify the drawing of any inference adverse to the Chamberlains. On page 235 of the report the Commissioner says: The evidence concerning the soil and plant fragments on the clothing is consistent with the clothed body of the baby being dragged through sand on the dunes east of the camping area and through low vegetation of kinds which grew in that dune country and on the plains between the camping area and the Rock. On the other hand, if the clothing had been merely taken from the car, buried, disinterred and later placed at the Rock by the Chamberlains- that is, the Crown's allegation- one can imagine that it may have picked up some plant material but it is difficult to conceive how it could have collected the quantity and variety of plant material found upon it. On page 315 the Commissioner refers to the `erroneous assumption made by Professor Chaikin that dingoes cannot cut fabric with their teeth and produce tufts'. The Commissioner states: This assumption was not based upon any research work, or any scientific writing. He gave it as the strongest reason for his belief that the jumpsuit severances had been made by human hand and not by a dingo. Professor Chaikin's evidence on this point was of great importance . . . I recall that these are the two points which were raised years ago in this place by a private member's Bill for a commission of inquiry into the Chamberlain case. As I said to the Senate at the time those two points demolished the Crown's case clearly in the mind of any reasonable person. I am glad now that after the enormous effort put in by the Chamberlain innocence committee and many other citizens in this country an inquiry was actually held and that it has come forward and justified those points. On page 319 Mr Justice Morling makes some very good points about the difficulties and inadequacies of so-called forensic science in Australian court proceedings. He says something that I agree with, which is that the National Forensic Science Institute should be established so that the hit and miss methods that have damned this area of so-called evidence in the past can be got rid of and reasonable standards can be adopted. Mr Justice Morling makes the point: Furthermore, the existence of such an Institute would hopefully reduce the need to retain experts from overseas. At page 320 Mr Justice Morling says something else that honourable senators ought to mark, and mark carefully: The Commission is the second inquiry in recent years arising out of doubts as to scientific evidence. The other was the Splatt inquiry conducted into the conviction of Edward Charles Splatt for murder in South Australia. The report of the Royal Commission, Mr Carl Shannon, Q.C. . . . was made in 1984, some two years after the Chamberlain trial. As a result of his report some changes were made to forensic science procedures in South Australia. The fact that two such inquiries have now been held points up the desirability of further consideration of the proposal to set up a national institute. We would be doing less than our duty if we did not encourage that point. At page 330 Mr Justice Morling states clearly: I must now answer the question whether, in the light of all the evidence, there are doubts as to the Chamberlain's guilt. In my opinion, this question must be answered in the affirmative. I do not think any jury could properly convict them on the evidence as it now appears. He states further: I am conscious of the fact that the Chamberlain's, convictions were upheld in the High Court. On the evidence as it appeared at the trial, two of the five members of the Court thought that the convictions were unsafe. I am confident that the appeal would have succeeded if the evidence had been as it now appears. That would have been very difficult in view of the fact that the High Court is an appellate court. Mr Justice Morling's final words in the report are of considerable drama and bear directly on what I am saying. He says: In my opinion, if the evidence before the Commission had been given at the trial, the trial judge would have been obliged to direct the jury to acquit the Chamberlains on the ground that the evidence could not justify their conviction. He can hardly, I would think, go further than that. In the light of those comments, it would be absolutely intolerable for the Northern Territory Government to continue to make statements about pardons and nonsense of that sort. A pardon is not required under the circumstances-it would be a gross injustice. What is required is legislation to be brought in, as soon as possible, by the Northern Territory Government to acquit the Chamberlains, and it should be done with apologies to them, not the sort of comments we heard through the media today from Mr Paul Everingham, who said that he was sorry the Chamberlains ever went to the Northern Territory and that they had cost the Territory $10m. What sort of statement is that to come from a person who claims to have any aspirations in public life? The damage is done to the Chamberlains and it has been done by the same Northern Territory Government of which Mr Paul Everingham was Chief Minister at the time this matter began. I suggest that the lesson of history will be that that same Mr Paul Everingham will have a lot to answer for when all is said and done. I will allow history to be his judge, but be sure it will be his judge-there is no doubt about that. If the Northern Territory does not act promptly, the Australian Democrats will seek action from this Parliament under the undoubted residual powers it has in the Constitution over the Northern Territory, the same powers that justified the drafting of my Bill for a commission of inquiry into the Chamberlain case, to bring forward legislation in this Parliament to quash the Chamberlains' convictions. I shall not be in the Senate myself after Thursday, but my successor, Mr Paul McLean, has undertaken that he will make this one of his first duties if he is elected. If he is not elected, I trust that other honourable senators will have the sense of justice to do that. This is a principle of enormous importance. It was a principle of importance that the innocence committee was espousing when it fought to have a fresh commission hearing. It would have been of tremendous significance-a precedent in the Australian community-if a person who had fresh evidence to be heard were not given that opportunity. Now, as we find, this fresh evidence has convinced the Commission. The same principle applies to the question of whether or not the Chamberlains are now acquitted. We cannot have two courts, one saying they should have been acquitted and the other saying they should not. One or other of those views must prevail. If it does not, and if action is not taken to acquit the Chamberlains, no Australian in future can ever feel safe. We will have established a precedent in this country whereby any member of the public-any man or women-could be brought to trial, convicted and gaoled on false, improper or slovenly prepared evidence, as was the case in this matter, and told at the end of their ordeal: `There is nothing in this for you; there are legal technicalities so that you cannot have this compensation'. I know the law exists. I cannot put myself above it or beyond it, and I have no wish to do so. The situation that, if there is a pardon, the Chamberlains are not legally entitled to a cent of compensation, must not be allowed to stand. It is necessary that from some place or another the conviction be quashed by legislation. If that is not done in the Northern Territory Parliament it ought to be done here. Finally, many issues remain to be resolved following this inquiry. These include the way in which the Northern Territory police carried out the investigation. It would be absolutely appalling if that matter were to be overlooked. It is essential to the conduct of police proceedings that the public have the utmost confidence in the police. This case-whether it be right or wrong, only an investigation can show-aroused deep doubt in the minds of hundreds of thousands of people as to the conduct of the police. It is proper and reasonable that the police concerned in that investigation should now face up to an inquiry of that kind. The other thing that needs looking at is the role now to be played by forensic evidence in any legal proceedings between this time and the establishment of proper standards which we hope might evolve over a period from the institute which I mentioned earlier. It will not happen quickly. The Chamberlains have been exonerated. I am pleased about that in every possible respect, but perhaps of even more importance for the future is that our legal system and our forensic scientists must now stand their trial. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.12) —I refer to a question that I asked yesterday of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who represents the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, about the actions taken against owner-drivers of Canberra hire cars by the Transport Workers Union insisting that they became members of the union. I asked whether the Government condoned it and what steps would be taken. Senator Gietzelt indicated that he had heard the rumours but assured the Senate that neither the Minister nor the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services had any knowledge of it. He said that he would refer the matter to the Minister and see whether he wished to respond. I had hoped to get a response on the matter from the Minister today. I just remind Senator Gietzelt that he was to refer the matter to the relevant Minister and I ask that he give an answer tomorrow. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(11.13) —Senator Lewis raised the question of a freedom of information request by a member in another place concerning matters relating to the Australian War Memorial and the saga with which we are all very familiar. The charging of fees has been done in accordance with the legislation. Insofar as the incident has been revived, I think that is rather unfortunate. I saw Dame Beryl Beaurepaire on television only the other night, full of hope and aspirations for the success of certain extensions to the War Memorial. A new lease of life seems to have possessed those responsible for that great Australian institution. I think the raking over of old coals is not very salutary. I will draw the attention of Senator Gietzelt to the matter raised by Senator Reid and ensure that she gets an answer in a timely fashion. Senator Mason mentioned the Morling Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chamberlain Convictions. It is true that the power at the moment resides in the Parliament of the Northern Territory as to whether the convictions of the Chamberlains-Lindy Chamberlain in particular-in that matter are quashed, but of course this Parliament has a residual power in relation to the Northern Territory, and I am sure that will be kept in mind by all honourable senators on our resumption. It needs to be put on the record, however briefly, that the Australian system of justice owes much to Senator Colin Mason in his very eloquent advocacy of the need for a further inquiry into this matter. His advocacy has borne the fruit of an inquiry which I think justifies the various matters that he raised in the Senate over a long period. It is on occasions when a senator combines a very proper concern for a matter of real anguish to a constituent in a professional yet a compassionate way and it has this sort of result that it ought to be acknowledged. I certainly do so in this chamber. I am sure that, as Senator Mason indicated, others besides the Chamberlains will be judged by history for their role in this matter. In relation to that, I say finally that I too found the comments made by Mr Everingham on the Today program this morning completely intolerable in that they continue to heap blame on the Chamberlains for this whole saga, which is founded on an initial tragedy. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.15 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1484) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 12 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Limited, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Limited, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Territories of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Both employer and employee organisations acknowledge that restrictive work practices include a wide range of work and management practices which, when combined, impact upon the efficiency with which labour and/or capital is used by an organisation. In this respect, the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (PMCI) is no exception. In the context of the extensive restructuring of PMCI over the past few years, however, it is virtually impossible to address and quantify changes in specific work and management practices. (2) See 1 and 4. (3) I am not aware of any specific new restrictive work practices which have come into force in the last year. (4) Recognising that the PMCI work force (including the Executive and Management) has been reduced from around 1300 in 1984 to less than 300, the Government and the PMCI have been continually negotiating with the Union of Christmas Island Workers about complementary changes in work and management practices to ensure productivity has been maintained and improved. The majority of these changes have been documented and now form part of an Industrial Agreement which the parties entered into recently. The Agreement was developed to achieve industrial stability in the mining operation for the next three years. The changes to work and management practices have been so extensive that it is not possible to relate individual work practice changes to specific productivity improvements. (5) I have not been advised of the annual cost of the restrictive work practices as, in the circumstances outlined above, it is not possible to specifically quantify their cost. (Question No. 1655) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: In relation to the power in section 21 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Act 1986, and a similar power contained in section 15 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 relating to the summonsing of witnesses to appear before the Commission, can the Attorney-General please supply the following information for the years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 (est) for each State- (1) What was the amount spent on travel for witnesses to Commission hearings each year. (2) Of this total, how much was spent on airfares. (3) How many witnesses were called before the Commission, and of these, how many required inter and intrastate air travel. (4) What was the total amount spent on accommodation and associated travel expenses for witnesses. (5) What is the minimum notice, in practice, given to an interstate witness when required to appear before the Commission. (6) Is the power to summons witnesses delegated to other officers of the Commission, apart from a member of the Commission as stated in the Act. (7) In practice, what is the sum given to a witness for attendance at Commission hearings. (8) What amount was spent by the Commission for the purpose of reimbursing witnesses for the attendance at Commission hearings. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) The files of the former Human Rights Commission on which the information would appear are not, at present, readily accessible. Some are in boxes held by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and others are in archives. Departmental financial records do not identify travellers as witnesses. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has, nevertheless, conducted such examination as has been possible of relevant files and has advised that, as best it can ascertain, five witnesses were required to appear before the former Commission. This advice is consistent with the recollections of former senior officers of the Commission. The files also indicate that other witnesses appeared before the Commission but it is not apparent whether they were served with Notices to Appear. (5) The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has yet to determine a policy on this issue but a tentative view is at least 2 weeks where possible. (6) No. (7) A policy on this is yet to be determined by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but would be commensurate with the Federal Court scale of witnesses expenses. (8) For the reasons mentioned above, a definite answer is not presently obtainable but inquiries made of former senior officers of the Human Rights Commission indicate that no payments were made to witnesses summonsed before an inquiry.