Thursday, 4 June 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that woodchipping and clearfelling will destroy the Otway forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect the Otway forests for the future and refuse any licence to export woodchips from the Otways. by Senator Vallentine (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of the Victorian Otway forests, and we pray that: The constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant expressions of public concern, eg petitions by the formation of a committee to represent public requests. Chipping: a matter of life or death for the native forests of the Otways. by Senator Vallentine (from 43 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 contain a satellite communications 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 Soviet vessels with great accuracy. 2. This would make it possible for the United States naval ships and submarines to destroy all nuclear Soviet naval ships and submarines, while the United States 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 United States-Australian'' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the ``joint Australian-United States'' 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 assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We the undersigned citizens, call on the Commonwealth Government to introduce a ban on smoking on flights of 90 minutes or less. This ban should be introduced irrespective of the stand-off attitudes adopted by the airlines at present. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap terminates on 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap not be extended beyond October 1986. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Devlin (from 243 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned for the future stability of the Tasmanian forestry industry as a result of continued attempts to disrupt our vital industry. We humbly draw your attention to the continued efforts by the Tasmanian Government and all those persons who derive their livelihood from the State's forestry industry to abide by guidelines established as a result of several Environmental Impact Studies, State regulations and a Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments. Your humble petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to ensure stability of our industry by informing the people of Australia of the moves being taken by the forestry industry in Tasmania to preserve the environment and to farm our forest resources for the mutual benefit of all Australians now and in the future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 24 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/disc 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 Durack (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Boswell (from 23 citizens), Brownhill (from 10 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 17 citizens), Durack (from 12 citizens), Hamer (from 25 citizens) and MacGibbon (from 28 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —On behalf of Senator Gietzelt I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House to be presented to the Senate, namely: The installation of traffic control signals in Parkes at the intersection of Kings Avenue with King George Terrace and Macquarie Street. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (1) commends the work of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, in particular its reports on the export of live sheep from Australia, and dolphins and whales in captivity; (2) looks forward to receiving the Committee's forthcoming report on kangaroos; (3) notes that the work of the Committee will shortly be interrupted by the dissolution of the Senate; and (4) urges the immediate re-establishment of the Committee in the next Parliament. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to Standing Orders, I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name for the next day of sitting, for disallowance of an Australian Capital Territory determination of fees. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Committee has noted that some delegated legislation is presented to Parliament without brief explanatory notes. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has agreed that in future such notes will be provided. The Committee was also concerned about the effects of certain administrative discretions. The Minister has satisfied the Committee that these discretions are not unduly wide. The Committee thanks the Minister for his assistance. Consistent with the Committee's usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Committee's brief exchange of correspondence. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances 4 May 1987 The Hon. Gordon Scholes, M.P. Minister for Territories Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 30 April 1987 the Committee considered the Determination of Fees and Charges made by you on 23 February 1987 under the ACT Health Authority Ordinance 1985. Would you be so good enough to advise the Committee on four matters pertaining to the Determination. Firstly, the Committee's examination of Determinations of this kind would be facilitated if they were sequentially numbered for citation purposes and accompanied by an explanatory statement briefly describing their impact. Having studied the document, it appears to the Committee that it makes only one change in the Determination that it replaces, namely an increase in a fee referred to in Part E of the Schedule where Health Services Hostel charges have been increased. The Committee may have overlooked other important changes. In the absence of a brief explanatory document highlighting changes, such an oversight is possible. The Committee respectfully asks if you would consider identifying future instruments with an easily cited sequential number, and appending to each instrument a brief statement of the changes it has brought about and why they have been made. The documentation which the Committee understands you receive from the Health Authority along with a draft instrument inviting your consideration and signature, could well be quite easily converted into such a helpful document for the benefit of the Committee, the Parliament and the public. Secondly, the Committee noted that the definitions of ``compensable patient'', ``compensable person'' and ``person domiciled in Australia'' are all based on the subjective opinion of an officer. Thus, a ``compensable patient'' is defined as a patient who ``in the opinion of the Deputy General Manager, Hospital Services Division of the Authority has or may have a right to recover from any person by way of compensation or damages the cost of hospital accommodation''. As you may know, the Committee favours the use of objective drafting to the conferral of subjective discretions where this is reasonably possible. Would you be good enough to advise the Committee on whether the objective determination of facts could replace the official discretions. Thirdly, the Committee has noted that the effect of an officer's discretionary determination that a person falls within one of the definitions above is to vary upwards the fees payable by that person. It is not clear to the Committee what happens if an opinion is formed that a person may have a claim for damages and this proves not to be the case or the claim is reduced by reason of for example, contributory negligence. The Committee would appreciate your advice on the implications of these discretions as they now stand, and whether any review, redress or reimbursement procedures currently exist. Finally, the Committee draws your attention to two drafting errors-the word ``where'' should probably appear before ``a person'' in line 2 of paragraph 1 (5) (a); and the word ``as'' should probably appear before ``if'' in line 5. The Committee would very much welcome your comments and advice on the substantive issues raised in this letter. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman MINISTER FOR TERRITORIES Hon. Gordon Scholes, M.P. Member for Corio Senator B. Cooney Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances The Senate Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Cooney Thank you for your letter of 4 May 1987 concerning the Determination of Fees Charges dated 23 February 1987 made by me under the Health Authority Ordinance 1985. In response to your request, future determinations under the Health Authority Ordinance 1985 will be sequentially numbered. The next determination will therefore be entitled as follows: HEALTH AUTHORITY (A.C.T.) DETERMINATION No. 2 of 1987 Explanatory memoranda have not been requested in the past but will be provided, as requested, to the Committee. The only change made by the subject determination was an increase in a fee referred to in Part E of the Schedule where Health Services Hostel charges have been increased. It appears from your letter that the Committee interprets all the administrative discretions to be vested in the Deputy General Manager of the Hospital Services Division. However of the three administrative discretions referred to, one is vested in the Minister for Health. The definition of ``Person Domiciled in Australia'' includes a discretion vested in the Minister for Health to decide whether or not a person is domiciled in Australia. The definition is lifted in its entirety from the Health Insurances Act 1973. The question of domicile is not one which can be resolved by even the most exhaustive definition and it is for this reason that an administrative discretion is required. It would be inconsistent for the Minister for Health to be entitled to exercise a discretion under the Health Insurance Act 1973 but to be denied the exercise of that same discretion under the subject determination. The question of whether a person is, or is not, compensable as a result of an injury cannot be resolved by objective drafting. The final answer on this question has always been left to the courts. Without the discretion vested in the Deputy General Manager of the Authority's Hospital Services Division, a decision on whether a patient was compensable in whole, in part, or not at all would have to wait the outcome of any trial and possibly appeal. It is, therefore, a matter of practical necessity that the question of compensability be determined in the first instance by a subjective administrative decision which is in practice reviewable when the objective decision from the courts becomes available. The effect of the exercise of discretion by the Authority Officer is that when persons have been classified as compensable they are charged for hospitalisation at the highest rate. Should they subsequently be found to be non compensable or partially compensable they are declassified to the appropriate extent and their accounts for hospitalisation varied accordingly. The procedure I have described has operated satisfactorily in all but one case to my knowledge. In that particular case, the third party insurer paid the hospital account which had been charged at the compensable rate. When it appeared the negligence would be apportioned equally between the parties to the accident, the third party insurer indicated that it would recover its ``over payment'' from the plaintiff's damages unless the ``overpayment'' was refunded by the ACT Health Authority. This situation highlighted the fact that the Health Authority was without power in its enabling Ordinance to make such a refund. Accordingly, in a review of the Health Authority Ordinance 1985 which is being undertaken by the Authority, an amendment to remove this anomaly will be given high priority. Should your Committee require any further information on this aspect, the Authority's Legal Director, Mr Guy Probert, would be able to assist you. The drafting errors to which you referred are confirmed. They had been carried forward from previous determinations but will not appear again. I trust this response has addressed your concerns satisfactorily and will enable you to withdraw your notice of motion for disallowance of the Determination in question. Yours sincerely GORDON SCHOLES Senator COONEY —The Thirty-fourth Parliament is about to end. The Committee will be reporting in the usual way to the new Parliament. However, I seek leave to incorporate a short statement briefly summarising for the record the bipartisan role of the Committee. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Since the commencement of the Thirty-fourth Parliament in February 1985, the Committee has examined over 2,000 instruments of delegated legislation. Just under 10 per cent of these were the subject of correspondence between the Committee and Ministers who gave undertakings to amend legislation, either to protect the rights of individuals or to uphold the proprieties of parliamentary government. The Committee's scrutiny directly brought about the disallowance of 2 instruments; one involved a very serious potential trespass on rights of medical privacy and was disallowed with the agreement of the responsible Minister; the other involved a trespass on Parliament's right to exercise proper control over delegated legislation which repealed earlier legislation. The Committee is one of the Australian Parliament's oldest and most respected watchdogs of personal rights and freedoms. With learned legal advice from Professor Douglas Whalan and Professor Dennis Pearce of the Faculty of Law in the Australian National University, the Committee scrutinises each instrument of delegated legislation in the light of four Principles which are the Committee's terms of reference. Thus, the Committee asks itself: is the instrument of delegated legislation in accordance with the statute; does it trespass unduly on personal rights or liberties; does it make the rights and liberties of citizens unduly dependent on administrative discretions that are not subject to judicial and merits review; and does it contain matter more appropriate for a Bill in Parliament. Criteria almost identical to these were suggested by the Senate Select Committee in 1930 and adopted by the Committee in 1932. They have been viewed by the Committee, since its first appointment 55 years ago, as a miniature code of legislative propriety from whose general principles the Committee has creatively extracted and vigorously applied standards and prescriptions for the protection of individual rights that might be affected by delegated legislation. During the 34th Parliament the application and interpretation of its principles has taken the Committee through the task of scrutinising hundreds of routine instruments to the very frontiers of the protection of ordinary people's rights. This progress through the undergrowth of subordinate law to important challenges against the conferral of excessive powers, is recorded in the 6 reports tabled by the Committee during the 34th Parliament. It included successful Committee challenges to: unduly wide powers to search premises and seize documents; conferral of powers to issue telephone search warrants on magistrates and court officials when such remarkable powers should be reserved to superior court judges; insufficiently protective rules permitting extradition to South Africa; the enactment of a wide statutory defence for medical authorities sued for negligence by patients or workers who had contracted Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome from blood transfusions or from working with blood products; powers conferred on the Health Insurance Commission that would have allowed it to transfer to the Department of Social Security computer coded data from which could be deduced the private medical histories of millions of Australians over more than a decade; criminal law provisions which greatly diminished a person's right to trial by jury for certain offences; amendments to a licensing scheme which ignored the need to protect the right to a livelihood by increasing licensing fees 300 fold, from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, before all existing applicants under the old fee structure had been properly dealt with; the continued avoidance of recommendations, made 7 years previously, to provide a right of appeal against certain administrative decisions adversely affecting the benefits of retired people or their dependents; regulatory provisions which inadvertently had the effect of discriminating against non-Christians; the regulatory conferral on certain boards of inquiry of powers to identify and punish contempt, which were greater even than those of a Royal Commission established by an Act of Parliament; the periodic conferral on Government officials of unreviewable discretionary powers, the unreasonable exercise of which could affect business reputations and remove or undermine the right to practice a trade or profession; attempts to create strict liability offences which might impose criminal liability without proof of criminal guilt; attempts to penalise acts or omissions for which no reasonable justification or defence would be permitted; regulatory provisions which failed to ensure that officials exercising power to enter business premises and private property displayed photographic identity cards and proceeded with freely-given consent where appropriate; provisions concerning the treatment of young offenders and children in need of care, where the rights of parents to appeal to a magistrate for the release of a child were inadequate, and where police powers to detain children and take samples of body materials were wider than was necessary; regulations which would have enabled the doctrine of Cabinet secrecy to be used in an inappropriate way to prevent people from obtaining reasons for important licensing decisions affecting businesses and livelihoods; powers to make sub-delegated instruments which would not be subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament; and provisions providing for the parentage of artificially conceived children where the Committee strongly recommended that matters of such sensitivity and significance should, in future, be dealt with in legislation before the Parliament. In all but the last of these matters the Committee's intervention resulted in ministerial agreements to amend delegated legislation in order to protect those rights about which the Committee had resolutely expressed its concern. It should be borne in mind that the Committee encountered all of these issues of personal liberty and parliamentary propriety, not in Bills, but in subordinate legislation. There is, of course, widespread agreement that, because of the heavy responsibilities of Ministers in managing public and political affairs and piloting major legislation through Parliament, subordinate law-making is today, no less than in Lord Hewart's time, departmentally-made law. The Committee, perhaps more than any other Senate Committee, is thus engaged in the oversight of the bureaucracy as a law-maker. The bureaucratic imperative is to organise and manage. The bureaucracy is thus a useful, indeed an essential, vehicle for the national administration of large and sophisticated Government programs and policies. Yet bureaucratic lawmakers can wittingly and unwittingly overlook the problems and predicaments of individuals who may be affected more than marginally by the impersonal, mechanistic and discretionary methods of even the best intentioned bureaucratic organisation. Sometimes though the best of intentions are not always to the fore. Yet subordinate law is real law. Its obligations can be onerous and its penalties are enforceable by law enforcement agencies. Even where full access to Courts and Tribunals is provided for under regulatory lawmaking, the wisdom of Solomon cannot correct the deficiencies of bad laws that reflect insensitivity to the rights of ordinary people. Administrative efficiency is a tarnished goal if to attain it individuals must be treated unjustly through the agency of unjust regulatory laws. Unlike primary legislation which is enacted only after wide publicity, public discussion and Second Reading and Committee debates in two Houses of Parliament, the making of secondary legislation can sometimes involve only the privileged few behind the veil of Departmental confidentiality. Fortunately there is now an increasing tendency for subordinate lawmakers to consult more widely and more publicly before making delegated legislation. This trend is to be welcomed and encouraged. Part of the Committee's support for this process has been its efforts over the past months to ensure that when delegated legislation is tabled in the Parliament there is available to parliamentarians and the community an explanatory statement detailing the purpose and effects of the new rules and describing the consultative processes which have preceded their formulation. The Committee has a responsibility to the Parliament to ensure that the making of subordinate laws reflects adequate public and parliamentary participation. It should be stressed, however, that the Committee itself assiduously avoids questioning the policy or merits of delegated legislation. Its task is one of technical scrutiny in which it examines the justice, the fairness or the propriety of the way in which regulatory measures are determined and imposed. Properly limited by its narrow remit, it does not look for the political acceptability of the policy being pursued. That is the province of the Parliament itself. Rather the Committee looks for wisdom, fairness, justice and restraint in the regulatory procedures to be followed in achieving that policy. The Committee is concerned with the justice and propriety of ways and means. It is because of its avoidance of issues of policy that the Committee has traditionally been such a strong bipartisan force within the Senate. It is a backbench Committee whose members can temporarily set political differences to one side. The Committee's remit thus allows strongly held and shared principles of liberty and propriety to create and underpin that bipartisan spirit which is the source of the Committee's authority in the Chamber and beyond that in the Government and the Public Service. Even though the pressures can occasionally be considerable, no Senator who has served on the Committee has ever been known to betray that bipartisan loyalty to principled scrutiny. Although it is traditionally a Committee with a very stable membership there are in the 34th Parliament a large number of backbench Senators and Ministers who have, at some time, served on the Committee, lived up to its high ideals and who now continue to respect and support its work. In the application of its principles the Committee is in the business of setting standards for delegated lawmaking-standards of prior consultation; standards of clarity in drafting; standards of presentation to Parliament; standards of liberty and propriety. In setting standards the Committee always runs the risk that it will offend those whose standards are lower and less sensitive to the needs of ordinary people and busy parliamentarians. That is a risk that a strong bipartisan scrutiny Committee readily accepts. The Committee acts on the best legal advice it can obtain within the proper, but nevertheless short, time frames with which it scrutinises delegated legislation. It seeks the cooperation and advice of Ministers. However, though it endeavours to proceed to reasonable resolutions of its concerns, it is not for the Committee to make compromises if to do so would leave people prejudiced by or unprotected by legislation provisions in any dispute they might have with the powers of Government. The Committee's role is to scrutinise that which is intimidating in its bulk and complexity. Its method is to express concern and suggest remedies in order to prevent the erosion of rights and liberties. In doing this it is not intimidated even by institutions as powerful as the Government or the Public Service. Fortunately, the problem seldom arises because Ministers making delegated legislation are themselves parliamentarians who are sensitive to the preservation of parliamentary supremacy. This sensitivity is invariably combined with a deep commitment to the protection of personal rights in delegated legislation for which they are responsible to the public and accountable in the Parliament. Finally, in this Chairman's statement summarising the role of the Committee in the 34th Parliament, I pay a sincere tribute to my present colleagues on the Committee, Senators Lewis, Coates, Giles, Vanstone and Withers who have made my membership of the Committee a pleasure, a privilege and the occasion for satisfying parliamentary work. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision to protect the privacy of natural persons, and for related purposes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.05) —I move: That the order of the Senate of 29 April 1987 relating to the introduction of Bills into the Senate after 1 June 1987 not apply to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987. I can say with some confidence that, unlike yesterday, there is not total agreement on this matter, but there is general agreement in the chamber that this Bill be so introduced. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill constitutes, in effect, the Government's major response to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. The Bill is designed to extend existing telecommunications interception powers of the Australian Federal Police in respect of certain Commonwealth narcotic offences to cover a wider category of serious offences; to allow the National Crime Authority to seek the issue of an interception warrant in respect of an offence in relation to which the Authority is conducting a special investigation within the meaning of its Act and other serious offences; and to enable the police force-and in the case of New South Wales, the State Drug Crime Commission-of any State or the Northern Territory to seek the issue of interception warrants in respect of serious offences. It may assist the Senate if I recount the history behind the development of the Bill. At the Special Premiers Conference on Drugs held in April 1985, the Commonwealth agreed to extend to the police forces of the States and Northern Territory interceptions powers in relation to drug trafficking offences. On 4 June 1986, the Attorney-General introduced into the House of Representatives the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986, which was designed to give effect to the Commonwealth's commitment and which also took into account certain recommendations made in the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions-known as the Stewart Royal Commission. When introducing the 1986 Bill, the Attorney-General said that the Government believed that the questions arising from an extension of telecommunications interception powers for law enforcement purposes, including whether such powers should be extended beyond drug offences, called for thorough Parliamentary consideration. For that reason, the Attorney-General moved a resolution to establish a Joint Select Committee to examine and report on the 1986 Bill, with particular emphasis on the question of extending the interception powers to cover serious offences, on the appropriateness of the proposed legislative safeguards and controls and on the feasibility of having a central Commonwealth agency to carry out interceptions for other authorities. The Joint Select Committee examined the Bill and matters relating to the Bill and reported to the Parliament on 20 November 1986. The Committee's report acknowledged that the whole question of telecommunications interception requires a balancing of conflicting interests. Broadly, those interests are the need to provide Australian law enforcement authorities with the important additional tool of interception powers for use in the investigation and prosecution of serious offences, and the need to ensure that the privacy of individuals is protected from unwarranted intrusions. In balancing these interests, the Committee concluded that, whilst there is a requirement for intercepted information to be made available to the National Crime Authority, the New South Wales Drug Crime Commission and the State and Northern Territory Police Forces, the case to extend to those agencies the power to intercept telecommunications in their own right had not been made. Rather, the committee recommended that a telecommunications interception agency be established within the Australian Federal Police to carry out all interceptions for the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority, the New South Wales Drug Crime Commission and the State and Northern Territory Police Forces. The Government accepts this recommendation, which is reflected in the Bill. Under the 1986 Bill, it was proposed to extend telecommunications interception powers to cover `serious trafficking offences'-that is, offences involving narcotic drugs and punishable by imprisonment for life or for a maximum period of seven years or longer. The Committee concluded that there was a case for extending telecommunications interception powers to other serious offences. The Government has developed the proposals made by the Committee, and accordingly, the Bill makes provision for applications for telecommunications interception warrants in relation to two classes of offences. Class 1 offences are defined to mean murder, kidnapping, a narcotics offence punishable as provided by section 235 of the Customs Act 1901 or an offence constituted by conspiring, aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, or being a party to the commission of an offence of these kinds. In addition, an offence in relation to which the National Crime Authority is conducting a special investigation within the meaning of its Act is to be within the first class of offences. Where an agency seeks the issue of a warrant in relation to a class 1 offence, it will be necessary for a judge to be satisfied, not only that information would be obtained that would be likely to assist an investigation, but also that a warrant authorising interception should be issued having regard to the extent to which methods of investigating the offence that do not involve interception have already been used by the agency making the application, and how much such methods would be likely to prejudice the investigation by the agency of the offence, whether because of a delay in obtaining information relevant to the investigation or for any other reason. Class 2 offences are defined in the Bill to include an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a maximum period of seven years or longer which involves: loss of life or serious personal injury, or the serious risk of such loss of life or injury; serious damage to property in circumstances endangering a person's safety; trafficking in narcotic drugs; serious fraud; or serious loss to the revenue of the Commonwealth or a State. in addition, aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, or conspiring in relation to any of the above will also constitute a class 2 offence. In considering whether to issue a warrant in relation to a class 2 offence, a judge will be required to have regard to, in addition to the matters to be considered for class 1 offences, how much the privacy of any person would be likely to be interfered with if an interception warrant were issued; and the gravity of the particular conduct being investigated. In the Government's view, allowing interception warrants to be obtained for these classes of offences will provide an effective tool for law enforcement agencies, and assist in the fight against organised crime. At the same time, the community is assured that telecommunications interception powers will only be used for the more serious criminal offences; and that this particular power will not be used as part of any ordinary criminal investigation. This is a further indication of the Government's recognition of the very important privacy interests involved in the exercise of the telecommunications interception power. As well as extending the range of offences in relation to which law enforcement agencies may seek telecommunications interception warrants, the Bill also amends the provisions currently applying to the grant of warrants by including new provisions enabling interception warrants to be obtained on applications made by telephone, instead of in writing, in urgent circumstances. Generally, warrants will not authorise entry on premises or any interception other than through Telecom. However in special circumstances, where a judge is satisfied that facilitation of an interception by Telecom might unreasonably prejudice an investigation, or that there are technical reasons connected with the operation of the service or the telecommunications system that make it impractical to use Telecom's assistance, a warrant may be granted authorising entry on premises for the purpose of undertaking an interception. Any such entry on premises will be performed by the Australian Federal Police. The Bill also reduces the maximum period of effect of a warrant from the present period of six months to 90 days. The Bill inserts a number of provisions designed to ensure adequate oversight by the Minister of the operations of the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority under the legislation. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Chairman of the National Crime Authority will be required to furnish to the Minister copies of all warrants and instruments revoking warrants. In addition, they will be required to report in writing describing in general terms the use and communication of information obtained under telecommunications interception warrants. These reports, together with reports furnished by the responsible State and Territory Ministers on the operations of relevant State and Territory agencies under the legislation, and a report by the Managing Director of Telecom on actions undertaken by Teleom for the purpose of enabling telecommunications interception warrants to be executed, will form the basis of an annual report to the Parliament by the Minister. This report will provide details of the extent to which telecommunications interception warrants are used and the usefulness of the information obtained under them. In particular, the report will detail the number of applications for warrants; the number of applications granted or refused; the number of renewals of warrants; the offences in relation to which warrants are granted; the number of arrests flowing, in whole or in part, from interceptions; and the number of proceedings commenced, and offences found proven, in which intercepted information is adduced in evidence. The Bill also provides for inspection by the Ombudsman of the records of the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority to ascertain their compliance with the legislation. The Ombudsman may report to the Minister in writing at any time about the results of such an inspection and the Minister may include relevant matters raised in the Ombudsman's report in his or her own annual report to the Parliament. The important matter of regulating the use and communication of intercepted information is at present dealt with in section 7 of the Act. Extensive amendments of the present provisions are necessary as a result of the decision of the High Court in Hilton V. Wells, at page 245 of Volume 58 of the Australian Law Reports, to the effect that the present provisions relating to the use and communication of intercepted information do not cover illegally obtained information and do not make such information inadmissible in any court proceedings. Further, the existing provisions would be inadequate for the purpose of controlling the flow of intercepted information, given that the National Crime Authority, the State Drug Crime Commission and the State and Territory Police Forces are to be able to apply for interception warrants. For this reason, the Bill provides for a new Part VII to be inserted in the legislation, which provides stringent controls on the communication of information lawfully obtained by telecommunications interception, whether obtained on a warrant issued to the Australian Federal Police, National Crime Authority or a State or Territory law enforcement agency. The Bill provides that lawfully intercepted information may be used in evidence in proceedings for the prosecution of an offence, punishable by three years imprisonment or longer; in proceedings for the confiscation or forfeiture of property in connection with the commission of an offence punishable by three years' imprisonment or longer; in certain extradition proceedings; in proceedings of a disciplinary nature against a police officer, whether Federal, State or Territory; or in proceedings for alleged misbehaviour against an officer of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory. In addition, the Bill regulates the circumstances in which intercepted information may be communicated by the law enforcement agency which originally obtained it. If the information relates to the commission of an offence, the agency under whose warrant the information was obtained may communicate the intercepted information to the law enforcement agency responsible for the enforcement of the relevant offence. The Stewart Royal Commission has recommended that the Act should be amended to make it an offence to possess, communicate, divulge or record unlawfully intercepted information. The Government has accepted this recommendation. However, the Government does not accept that such information should be able to be used except for the purpose of establishing a contravention of the Act. Nor does the Government accept that the admissibility of unlawfully intercepted information should be determined by the common law. The Bill provides that unlawfully intercepted information may only be admissible for the purposes of establishing a contravention of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. The Bill amends the present section 7 and includes new provisions dealing separately with the prohibition of unauthorised interceptions, the regulation of the use and communication of intercepted information and the admissibility of such information in evidence in proceedings. The most important effects of the new provisions are as follows: (1) It will continue to be an offence to intercept communications passing over a telecommunications system except under a warrant or as otherwise authorised by the Act; (2) It will be an offence to use, record or communicate to a person or a court or tribunal material obtained in contravention of the Act, except for the purpose of establishing that contravention; (3) It will be an offence to use, record or communicate to a person or a court or tribunal material that has been lawfully obtained, except in accordance with the Act; (4) Communications of lawfully obtained material will be permitted between the Australian Federal Police, State and Territory Police Forces, the National Crime Authority and the State Drug Crime Commission and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, where the material is relevant to their functions; (5) It will be possible to give lawfully obtained information in evidence only in the proceedings specified in proposed section 5b. Information obtained in contravention of the Act will be inadmissible in all proceedings except to establish the contravention. This exclusionary rule is, however, subject to a discretion in the court to admit information where the contravention is due to an insubstantial defect or irregularity in cases where a warrant or purported warrant has been obtained. It is not intended to prejudice proceedings that have been commenced before the legislation comes into operation. Accordingly, the Bill does not prevent intercepted material from being admitted in evidence in proceedings commenced before that date. The State and Territory law enforcement agencies are covered in the new Part VI which the Bill inserts into the Act. Interception powers in relation to serious crimes against State and Territory laws will be made available only to those law enforcement agencies declared by the Attorney-General to be declared authorities. Any declaration will be notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, and laid before each House of Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House, after the making of the declaration. Either House of the Parliament may pass a resolution disallowing any such declaration. A declaration will be made only at the request of the relevant Premier or Chief Minister and if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the State or Territory in question has legislation that provides satisfactory safeguards. These safeguards are substantially similar to those contained in the 1986 Bill and may be found in proposed section 35 of new Part VI. The safeguards will include provisions for reporting on the issue and revocation of warrants to the relevant State or Territory Minister; for the proper maintenance of records by the State or Territory police force; for the regular inspection of those records by an independent authority and for the reporting by that authority on the extent of compliance with statutory requirements; for the destruction of irrelevant records; and for regular reports by the relevant State or Territory Minister to the Commonwealth Minister. The legislative safeguards will be at least as stringent as those that apply in relation to interceptions initiated by members of the Australian Federal Police. In addition, the State or Territory concerned will be required to enter into an agreement to pay the appropriate proportion of the expenses incurred in relation to the establishment of the unit in the Australian Federal Police which will execute interception warrants, the issue of warrants and the carrying out of interceptions on behalf of its police force. The Attorney-General will be empowered to revoke a declaration if requested to do so by the Premier of the relevant State or Territory, if the necessary legislative safeguards are not maintained or if compliance with those safeguards or with the requirements of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act is unsatisfactory. The revocation will be by notice in writing published in the Gazette. By means of these provisions, the Commonwealth will be able to ensure, as far as possible, that there is a continuous monitoring and control at the State or Territory level of day-to-day activities by State or Territory officers. The issue and revocation of warrants, the scope of the authority conferred by warrants, the execution of warrants and the communication of information obtained under warrants will be controlled directly by the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. Under the proposed Part VI, warrants may be issued to the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority and, where declared, the Police Force of a State or Territory and the State Drug Crime Commission by any person who is a judge of a court created by the Parliament and who, on being invited to perform the functions of judge under the legislation, consents to so doing and is declared, by writing, for that purpose by the Minister. Telephone applications may be made by specially approved members of a State or Territory police force, as well as by approved members of the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority, in circumstances of urgency; otherwise a written application supported by an affidavit will be necessary. A warrant will be available to State law enforcement agencies only in respect of a telecommunication service that is situated within the State or Territory concerned and, like warrants issued to the Australian Federal Police and National Crime Authority, will remain in force for a maximum period of 90 days. All interceptions under warrants issued pursuant to the new Part VI will be performed by members of the Australian Federal Police. The Minister will be required to report annually to the Parliament on the numbers of warrants issued, and the use made of information obtained by virtue of those warrants. The annual reports will be based on information received from State and Territory Ministers, from the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority, and from Telecom. Financial Impact Statement The provisions relating to interception powers for State and Territory authorities include a requirement that the States and Territories concerned agree to pay all expenses incurred by Telecom and the Australian Federal Police in carrying out interceptions pursuant to warrants issued to those authorities. As far as the extension of interception powers for the Australian Federal Police and to the National Crime Authority is concerned, there will be financial implications for the Commonwealth. It is impossible to predict with accuracy the amounts likely to be involved. The amount payable in any year will depend upon the number of interceptions carried out. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I table the revised explanatory memorandum for the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Declaration of Urgency Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.08) —I declare the following Bill to be an urgent Bill: Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987. I move: That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Vigor —Under Standing Orders I wish my name to be recorded as voting against this motion. Allotment of Time Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.08) —I move: That the Bill be considered together with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987 and associated Bills, and that the allotment of time be varied from 4 hours for all stages of the Bills to 3 hours for second reading, 55 minutes for Committee stage and 5 minutes for remaining stages. And I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Vigor —Under Standing Orders I ask that my name be recorded as voting against this motion. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.10) —by leave-I move: That unless otherwise ordered, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the routine of business for Friday, 5 June 1987 be as follows: (a) Petitions; (b) Notices of motion; (c) Questions; (d) Formal motions-discovery of formal business; and (e) Presentation of papers. For the information of honourable senators, I just add that it is our hope and expectation that we will finish the legislative program that has been now identified by the time of rising this evening; that we will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow, when petitions and notices of motion will be taken, followed by questions; that we will move then to approximately two hours of debate on papers and ministerial statements and so on that have accumulated during the week and that will be tabled tomorrow, hopefully with agreements being able to be made as to allocations of time for that period; and that by 12 o'clock tomorrow we will be able to move on to valedictories and formalities of that kind. Further, we hope that the Senate will be able to rise at around 1.30 tomorrow. That is the program that it is tentatively hoped will evolve in the course of the day. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.11) —As Senator Gareth Evans has said, no final agreement has been reached about the arrangement for tomorrow. Obviously, the Opposition would want to co-operate with the Government, the Australian Democrats and, indeed, all honourable senators in relation to the allocation of a suitable amount of time for the valedictories to be held tomorrow. A number of honourable senators are retiring. However, I must raise the question as to why the Senate needs to rise at 1.30 p.m. tomorrow when, as far as I am aware, we have all made our arrangements to be here until 3.45 tomorrow afternoon. The Opposition has co-operated-although we have protested about it-in relation to the business of the Senate being proceeded with under guillotine this week. Satisfactory progress has been made to the extent that all the Government's legislation will be completed comfortably this evening. There are still, of course, a number of matters that honourable senators would wish to deal with tomorrow, and not simply the matters that the Government has selected, such as the Chamberlain report or the Fiji statement, both of which are well and truly stale. These matters were the subject of statements several days ago in the House of Representatives. The Press has dealt with them fully and I do not think that the Senate would want to spend much time talking about them tomorrow. But there could be other matters. When all is said and done, private members and Opposition parties have been denied many of their ordinary rights in this place as a result of the Government's guillotine, and we would certainly wish to have some discussions with the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) about the final arrangements for tomorrow, in the hope that we may get some agreement at least about matters of that kind. So I am not prepared on behalf of the Opposition to agree to this particular arrangement. If it is only a tentative suggestion for negotiation, that will be satisfactory. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.13) —I support what Senator Durack said. I had the understanding that on Friday we would be able to do a number of things that we have so far been unable to do because of the application of the guillotine. We have accepted the guillotine to bring some order into the presentation of business and to have Government Business finished by this evening, but tomorrow was to be free. Tomorrow I would like to make a statement on behalf of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare on the position of the Committee, on the progress that it has made and on its recommendations concerning its reconstitution. That will take a little time. Two or three people might like to enter into that debate. Also, I do not want to see again the untidy spectacle of rushing through the words that many of us would like to say about those who are leaving the Senate. On previous occasions we have been able to do that in a hasty 10 minutes. Time to acknowledge the support of staff in this place will be limited because we cannot manage by starting at 9 o'clock tomorrow-and I take it that 9 o'clock is intended-and finishing at 1.30 to do all the things that are necessary at the point of dissolution of the Parliament, especially when the proceedings are broadcast. A number of people like to take advantage of that, especially those who are keen on electioneering before they get out on the the hustings. My view is that-if I could make a suggestion to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans)-there is no reason why we cannot sit through until about 3.30 p.m. tomorrow. I believe that that would be a reasonable arrangement. To my mind, if we sit until only 1.30 p.m. we will not have time to do all the things necessary. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.15) —in reply-I certainly take note of what Senator Durack and Senator Georges have said. There was no intention, in anything I said, to foreclose further discussion about the timetable for tomorrow. I was merely reporting what appeared to be a tentative agreement from the Whips' meeting this morning to make it possible for senators to contemplate their arrangements for tomorrow. There was no intention to set anything in concrete and there is nothing in my motion that does that. Might I indicate for the benefit of Senator Georges that the presentation of papers item that I mentioned would subsume presentation of papers by the Clerk, by the President, by Ministers, and by committee chairmen or spokesmen, as the case might be. Certainly there is no intention to limit opportunities for the presentation of such papers. I hope that it is possible to reach some agreement about the time that will be taken for all these matters so that senators can make arrangements accordingly. It is certainly not my desire, or anyone's desire, to limit the time for valedictories and the niceties that we are occasionally capable of in this place. I hope that during the day the time concerns of people will become clear. One of the purposes of my making my earlier statement was to flush out those concerns so that by the end of today we would have a better idea how much time we need to allocate. Regarding why the suggestion was made that we seek to rise by 1.30, might I just say that the prevailing view among those present at the Whips' meeting this morning was that a long lunch, an early plane-either or both-would be likely to be in the interests of the psychological health of senators at this stage of the session, and given the forthcoming campaign. If that is not the view of senators when they have had further opportunity to discuss this matter, we can adjust our timetable for tomorrow accordingly. Senator Haines —You aren't putting this to a vote now? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am putting the routine business but not the timetable. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-I would like the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, to clarify the matter. I understand that a motion is proposed. Senator Gareth Evans —It doesn't set a time. Senator DURACK —I am not concerned about time; I am concerned about what business may be brought on tomorrow. I understand now that the motion that Senator Evans has moved will, in fact, preclude any business other than the items mentioned being dealt with tomorrow. It is that point on which I would like further negotiations. It would be far better if this motion were not rushed through at this stage and if those negotiations could take place. We have the general drift of what the Government wants. We now have a concession that we do not need to finish at 1.30 p.m., so there is no fixed time, but the Opposition wishes to bring on certain items of business tomorrow, and we would like some opportunity to discuss a suitable timetable-but not any length of time-in relation to that business. I ask the Manager of Government Business in the Senate to adjourn the motion until these discussions can take place and, hopefully, all sides can reach agreement. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-Since it is our desire to reach agreement on this, I am happy to adjourn the debate accordingly to a later hour this day if someone moves for it. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Debate resumed from 3 June, on motions: That the Bills be now read a second time. upon which Senator Puplick had moved by way of amendments: In respect of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987, add: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the uniform general tariff rate of duty on power electronic goods under reference should be further reduced in the medium to long term''. And in respect of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987, add: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the long term tariff rate in respect of processed vegetable products should initially be phased down to 15 per cent rather than 10 per cent as proposed by the Government''. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.21) —When the Senate adjourned last night I was talking about the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1987. The Australian Democrats have taken a very strong stand on uranium mining. We believe that it should not take place in Australia and are particularly against uranium mining in the Kakadu National Park. There is a second aspect to this legislation, to which we particularly object, and that is the exemption of 800 tonnes of uranium exports from Queensland Mines Ltd to Electricite de France, delivery of which was delayed under the 1983 embargo on uranium exports. It was made free of this levy when the Government re-allowed exports to France, of which again the Australian Democrats disapprove. We believe that uranium is a national resource. It seems that it is being mined and sold for little or no payment. We do not approve of the loss of the resource which may in later years be able to be used more effectively than currently when the whole of the uranium industry produces by-products and pollution which we have no way currently of handling effectively, either in the peaceful use of uranium in reactors or its more belligerent use as a primary input to the production of nuclear bombs. The Democrats have a policy of non-export of uranium. Hence, we would like uranium mining stopped. Also we would like the sites of uranium mining completely rehabilitated as much as it is possible now to the state that they were in before the mining process commenced. A trust fund has been set aside to pay for the final clean-up of the mine at the end of its lifetime, and the mining company is responsible for continuing clean-up during its operation. However, this has not been a universal requirement of mining companies and it has not even been a requirement for uranium mining companies. We must ensure that a reasonable sum is laid aside during the mining operation at all sites to ensure that the final clean-up and its costs are included in the on-costs during the operation of a mine and that contributions are made to rehabilitate former uranium mining sites and for research into finding a safe and renewable energy source to replace uranium, coal and other fossil fuels in the future. The Australian Democrats will be moving an amendment to increase the export duty to cover in full the cost of the Supervising Scientist. We estimate that an export levy of $1.60 a kilogram, as proposed by the Government, would be sufficient to cover this cost. This is based on the Government's estimates in the Bill. Basically, we are doubling the Government's proposal of making the levy 80c. We will also be moving to include in the export levy a charge to contribute to a general trust fund-not a particular fund for the clean-up of the Ranger uranium site alone-with moneys in that fund to be directed towards cleaning up former uranium mines and sites as well as towards research into safe, clean and renewable energy resources, which is something that Australia needs very badly. We estimate that a further levy of $2 a kilogram on exported mineral should be invested in such a trust fund, that being a reasonable figure to ensure that the clean-ups are undertaken and also to provide some funds for research into these renewable energy resources. We have estimated this figure, from the amount assessed by the Supervising Scientist at Kakadu, as being required for the final clean-up of the Ranger site. The Australian Democrats had intended just to contribute a speech on the second reading and then to give notice the next day of a private member's Bill to establish this trust fund. The request was to be that a trust fund be established to lend money to finance research into alternative energy resources and to be used eventually for rehabilitation of uranium mining sites. This Bill has been prepared, and I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate a draft of the Bill so that it can be considered by people over the break as a possible Bill for introduction when Parliament resumes. Leave granted. The draft Bill read as follows- A BILL FOR An Act to establish a Trust Fund for the purpose of the rehabilitation of former uranium mining sites, and for related purposes BE IT ENACTED by the Queen, and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Uranium Mining Sites Rehabilitation Trust Fund Act 1987. Commencement 2. This Act shall come into operation, or shall be deemed to have come into operation, as the case requires, immediately after the commencement of section 3a of the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Act 1987. Interpretation 3. In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: ``alternative energy sources'' means sources of energy other than fossil fuels or nuclear fuels; ``Minister'' means the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment; ``Trust Fund'' means the Uranium Mining Sites Rehabilitation Trust Fund established by section 4; ``uranium concentrate'' means natural uranium concentrate (commonly called ``yellowcake'') produced from uranium ore mined at or recovered from a uranium mining site; ``uranium mining site'' means a uranium mining site that is specified in the Schedule. Uranium Mining Sites Rehabilitation Trust Fund 4. (1) An account is hereby established to be known as the Uranium Mining Sites Rehabilitation Trust Fund. (2) The Trust Fund is a Trust Account for the purposes of section 62a of the Audit Act 1901. Payments into Trust Fund 5. (1) There shall be paid into the Trust Fund, from time to time, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, amounts equal to so much of each amount paid to the Commonwealth as duty of Customs in respect of uranium concentrate exported from Australia on or after the date of commencement of this Act as bears to the amount the same proportion as $2.00 per kilogram bears to the rate of duty, expressed in dollars per kilogram, by reference to which the amount was ascertained. (2) There shall be paid into the Trust Fund interest from the investment of money standing to the credit of that Fund. Payments out of Trust Fund 6. (1) There shall be paid out of the Trust Fund from time to time such amounts as the Minister directs to be paid for the purpose of the rehabilitation of former uranium mining sites. (2) There shall be paid out of the Trust Fund such amounts to meet the expenses of administering the Trust Fund as the Minister directs. (3) Amounts that the Minister directs to be paid out of the Trust Fund under subsection (1) or (2) shall be paid in accordance with the direction. Investment of Trust Fund 7. (1) Notwithstanding subsection 62b (1) of the Audit Act 1901, money standing to the credit of the Trust Fund may be invested by the Minister in the provision of finance to companies engaging in, or proposing to engage in, research into, or the development of, alternative energy sources. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, guarantee the repayment to the Trust Fund of money provided in accordance with subsection (1). (3) The Minister shall not give a guarantee under subsection (2) unless each House of the Parliament has passed a resolution approving of the giving of such a guarantee. Report by Minister 8. The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, cause a report setting out details of: (a) the investment of money standing to the credit of the Trust Fund; (b) amounts paid into the Trust Fund; and (c) amounts paid out of the Trust Fund; to be laid before each House of the Parliament. SCHEDULE Section 3 URANIUM MINING SITES Jabiluka Koongarra Nabarlek Ranger Senator Coleman —You aren't coming back as a senator, so there's not much point, is there? Senator VIGOR —Senator Coleman said that I am not coming back as a senator; I gather that she associates with me in this matter. I will be standing for the Senate and I will be back in this place some time, and I believe that will be straight after the next election. I now turn to the second reading amendment, which the Democrats have circulated, in respect of the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1987 and move: At end of motion add ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that an additional duty of $2.00 per kilogram should be imposed on uranium concentrate exported from Australia, the proceeds to be used to establish a Trust Fund the money in which would be lent to finance research into alternative energy sources and which would eventually be expended in the rehabilitation of uranium mining sites.''. I point out that it is extremely important that the Government consider the development of alternative energy resources. The Democrats will also move to delete clause 4 (c), which exempts the 800 tonnes bought by Queensland Mines Ltd and exported to France. The Government's removal of the embargo on export of uranium to France was a disgraceful breaking of an electoral promise, in relation to which the Government continued to pay lip- service almost right up to the day when it announced the reversal of its policy. This shows the type of gall which this Government has and which is shown again in relation to the forthcoming election; the Government declared that it would have an election, right up to the day when it suddenly decided that it was quite essential for the state of the nation to call an election. This Bill highlights yet again the Labor Government's betrayal of Labor principles, the Government's breaking of election promises, this Government's swindling of the birthright of all Australians and its selling of our resources for its own advantage. The whole history of the Ranger mine is one of Labor Government betrayal of all anti-nuclear and anti-uranium principles. I urge anybody who values this type of principle to stand up and be counted. Again, we see people within the Labor Party not willing to stand up and be counted. This Bill pays lip service to the need to preserve the environment of the Ranger uranium mine from contamination by mining operations and goes some way to require private enterprise to bear the responsibility for this cost. The Australian Democrats believe that no enterprise can be adequately costed unless it takes full account of the environmental and community costs that are incurred, as well as the direct production costs involved. These costs must be borne directly from the earnings of the enterprise, unless the community benefit is such that it outweighs some proportion of the other costs. In the case of Ranger, no such community advantage can be demonstrated. The primary resource which is being mined belongs rightfully to the people of Australia and no charge is being made for the loss of that resource. The endangered environment also belongs, firstly, to its legal owners-the Aboriginal people-and, secondly, to the Kakadu region, a national park containing invaluable genetic resources which can be used to increase Australia's genetic pool and which may be endangered by possible accidents and spillages as a result of uranium mining in this area. By limiting the owner's financial responsibility for the environment to only half the costs, the Government is continuing the myth that business is not responsible for its own mess. This myth has led to enormous damage to our universe, our planet and our environment. Damage to our environment ranges from the health risk caused by smogs in cities and economic damage to farms and forests from acid rain caused by inadequate control of smoke stack effluent, to the loss of all water life and the human health risk caused by manufacturing waste and human excrement fouling up lakes and rivers. All of this is a real problem. Industry has to bear that cost. The Australian Democrats' amendment will make certain that the industry bears the cost to repair the earlier damage to our environment as well as the cost of mining uranium in the Ranger park. On a more massive scale, the increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere causing heating of the earth's surface and melting of polar ice caps is threatening to drown much of the inhabited coastal areas of the world. Damage to the ozone layer of our outer atmosphere and increasing contamination of the earth's surface by atomic and nuclear waste is leading to increased radiation hazards for all living animals and plants. It is important that the industries which cause this contamination should bear some part of this responsibility. The reason the Bill proposes that a trust fund be set up is to make certain that that responsibility is taken, that money is available for research and understanding what the problems are before they arise, to try to make certain that they will not irrevocably damage our environment. We should make certain that an area such as Kakadu National Park will not be completely destroyed by human intervention. I urge all honourable senators who care about the environment to support the amendment which I have moved. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.33) —In speaking to the customs legislation, I will briefly touch on a matter mentioned last night by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. I find it quite difficult to come to grips at all with the Government Leader's approach to the Industries Assistance Commission report and the follow through of the legislation. The treatise he put forward in his usual whimsical way was really quite interesting. It would probably have been even more interesting had he delivered it to a meeting of the Fabian Society. He covered at great length subjects such as principle and administrative simplicity and he recited the three-tier arrangements that I think most of us quite plainly have read in the IAC report. He seemed to fail to come to grips with the fact that the potato industry in particular is a very important industry in much of rural Australia. If he were to make that sort of address in the electorates of, say, Macarthur, Ballarat, Barker or Stirling or, of course, Bass and Braddon, I think he would find-- Senator Tate —You missed Lyons. Senator ARCHER —And Lyons. I think he would find that his reception might not be as good as that which he received in this environment. As far as my own State is concerned, this is a 200,000 tonne a year industry and it covers a great number of the rural people who grow potatoes either as their prime occupation or as a subsidiary to their prime occupation. It is a very necessary crop for crop rotation. Anything that will affect the overall farming capacity should be considered very carefully. I do not have to declare an interest, because I do not grow potatoes for processing. I used to, but I do not any longer. I believe that it would have been far better had other members of the Cabinet listened to the recommendation that was put forward by both Senator Button and Mr Kerin on this matter. We should look at this matter on the basis of what will be best, not what will be easiest, and that does not seem to have been a consideration. We know who supported the 15 per cent move in the Cabinet and we certainly disagree with the ultimate decision in which those Ministers were overruled by people who obviously have no knowledge of the industry, of what they are doing, or of the flow-on effect. In government, after 11 July, we will see that the Industries Assistance Commission keeps a close watch on the effects of this legislation, and on that understanding we certainly make it clear to the areas involved that we will ensure that bureaucratic simplicity or tidy scales are not the bases on which the decisions should be made. I do not wish to pursue that matter any further but I would like Senator Button to give consideration to the fact that had he tried a little harder he might have been able to do better for the industries that come under this scheme. Had we had time for a reasonable debate in the Committee stage of the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987 we would have moved an amendment to leave out clause 9 on page 6. This matter has been debated very widely in the community. It is a matter on which there is clearly a considerable difference of opinion, and the costs involved and the methods of operation have been questioned considerably. While we support the amendment relating to the valuation provisions, we have expressed many reservations. Accordingly, had we had the opportunity, we would have moved amendments to the effect that this part of the Bill be deleted. The same thing applies to the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. We would have moved for the deletion on pages 8 and 9 of Part V of the Bill, even though this is the section which refers to fertilisers. There is a very real risk in changing the fertiliser subsidy in that the benefit will be passed on to the final user and will encourage greater use of fertilisers. There has been a lot of discussion on the methods that the Government has chosen. We recommend that the Bill not be opposed but that this section be deleted. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.40) —The package of 10 Bills that the House is debating today covers a wide range of changes to the customs laws. It includes the regulations tightening up the importation of goods, changes to fertiliser subsidies, allowing duty free importation of passionfruit pulp from the Pacific Islands, letting ball point pens and gas barbecues from New Zealand into the country, reintroducing a tariff on citrus foods, changing of duty rates on petroleum products and so on. By and large the National Party supports these Bills and will not oppose them. We support a planned reduction in the levels of tariff which will remove the cost burden on many primary producers who have had to pay, in indirect support, for secondary industry. We shall be supporting the amendments as to the level to be moved by the Liberal Party. The most important of these concerns the vegetable industry where the Government is planning to reduce assistance across the board to an effective level of 10 per cent. The National Party will be supporting the amendments to change the levels of support to 15 per cent rather than 10 per cent. I wish to emphasise that the National Party is opposed to tariffs. It is accepting these cuts in tariff protection on primary products in good faith, but I would point out that every farmer in Australia pays tariff protection to the level of $9,000 a farm to assist the manufacturing industry mainly in the metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne. There is a transfer of funds from the farm into the secondary industries in the capital cities. Therefore, it is with some degree of reluctance that we see tariffs being reduced on primary products. But I suppose we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we are against tariff protection and we are for reducing tariffs on secondary industries, while we are unable to accept changes in tariff protection on primary industries. We feel that there must be an even-handed approach and that tariffs cannot be cut only on primary products. We would expect a cut in tariffs on all secondary industry as well. I wish to comment on the grocery industry and the importation of primary products. One has only to walk down the aisles of supermarkets to see on the shelves strawberry jam from Bulgaria, pears from Israel, asparagus from Taiwan. One wonders why this is happening when Australia, which has such a wonderful climate and good land, has opportunities to grow and market its own products. Yet we find that we are buying imported products to the detriment of our rural producers. The large retailers must take some responsibility. Only the other day in Queensland I saw on television a news item which drew attention to fruit coming in from the United States of America while our own orchardists were unable to find markets for their products. I am concerned when we see supermarkets with a massive monopoly in the retailing areas. Our rural products are being squeezed out-but not only our rural products. A lot of manufacturing is being adversely affected by monopolies in retail areas. I worked actively for 18 years representing factories in Melbourne and Sydney which sold secondary industry products manufactured in Australia and I also had the agency throughout Queensland. As such, I am concerned that the monopoly is not only affecting our farmers and rural producers but also our secondary industries. Only last week I opened the newspaper to see that KR Darling Downs, a very big abattoir in my home State, is going down the chute. If not going bankrupt, certainly it is in severe financial difficulty. These people are finding it hard to market their excellent products that have been around Australia for a number of years because the market has shrunk so much. Who is allowed in the market becomes a question of who offers the best discount. I also read, only the other day, that Mr Rouley, the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Farmers Association, is finding the same problem with all that industry's products such as yoghurt, casein and butter. His answer to the problem of finding markets for the many dairy products is to have one large marketing force that would represent the whole of the dairy industry. Mr Acting Deputy President, I know that you share my concern that we are reducing not only our markets into three or four major retailers but now to combat this force we are going down the other track of bringing all our manufacturing products into one selling organisation. We are facing communism in reverse. We are facing a very narrow retailing sector and a very narrow marketing sector. The number of jobs that will be lost on the way through is tremendous. The solution to Australia's economic problems is to have some type of inquiry to establish just how many jobs are being lost and how many products are being forced off the market by the narrowness of the retail sector. I am concerned that a number of smaller factories and wholesale retailers are suffering. I take as an example the Mitre 10 operation in Queensland. It is a very good operation but a number of stores had to band together to form buying groups to combat the larger retailers. Thus the market has shrunk in the hardware area from 300 or 400 retail outlets. Now factories must go to Mitre 10 or some of the other big wholesale operations and thus compete among the big groups. So manufacturers are forced to deal with just four or five customers. This is certainly shrinking marketing opportunities not only for rural producers but also for manufacturers. The Bill imposes a flat 10 per cent rate of tariff duty on all imports of processed vegetables. Whereas some vegetable products will have their tariff rates increased, the majority will suffer a significant fall. The overall effect will be significantly to lower assistance to the vegetable industry as well as affecting the large quantity of New Zealand vegetables which enter Australia duty free because of the closer economic relations agreement. The vegetable industry estimates the levels of protection and assistance to be around 7 per cent for canned vegetables, 5 per cent for frozen vegetables, 6 per cent for dehydrated potatoes and 12 per cent for tomato paste. These levels are still below average rates of assistance for the manufacturing industry. Under the Labor Government assistance to rural industries has been reduced very significantly whereas assistance to secondary industry has increased. The car industry receives significant government grants and help and the steel industry has received massive government help-at the expense of the rural industry which has lost nearly all the assistance that was given to it. This Bill reduces assistance even further. The point of my argument is that rural industries are losing all government assistance. There is now very little left that can be taken from them. Sections of the vegetable industry are very keen to increase exports. We have to provide them with a stable base to do so. I will be giving the amendment my support. I turn now to the changes in customs duty applicable to petroleum products. The people of Australia will be hearing a lot about petrol prices in the next three or four weeks. I will be reminding them continually that before this Government came to office it promised a reduction in the price of petrol of 3c a litre. But what we have had is a constant increase, indexed quarterly, in the excise on petroleum products. It will be an election plus for the National and Liberal parties when we point out to the people of Australia that the promise of lower petrol prices was another broken promise of the Hawke Government. I will be campaigning continually on this issue. However, in the interests of time-there are many other speakers and we have a guillotine-I will conclude my remarks. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to advise on behalf of the Opposition that we will not be supporting the Australian Democrats' amendments to the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill but that we will be supporting the Bill. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(10.53) —I will be supporting the Australian Democrats' amendments in relation to the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate) Export Duty Amendment Bill. Obviously, more funding is needed to rehabilitate former uranium mines. The Democrats' amendments would see to that. Also more funding is very obviously needed to research alternative energy resources so that Australians do not continue to be tempted to use uranium for energy generation in this country. It is totally unnecessary in Australia and totally unwise on the part of other countries which are presently engaged in the use of uranium for energy production. The nuclear fuel cycle is dangerous at every stage, from the initial mining to the other end of the spectrum where there is still no safe disposal for radioactive leftovers known to humanity. That is despite nearly 40 years of painstaking research on the part of proponents of the industry. I agree with Senator Vigor's comment that the nuclear industry must be accountable for the mess it has made of the environment. It must be made to clean up its operations. Any uranium mining activity Australia continues to be engaged in should be concerned with clean-up operations only and not with going ahead with more uranium mining. We should be talking about minimising the dangers that have already resulted from uranium mining in many places in this country. For that reason I am also very concerned about the exploration licences being handed out to companies such as CRA Ltd, although I know that this is a State government matter. At the moment CRA is conducting a massive exploration program in the Kintyre area of the Ruddall River National Park in Western Australia, and on the land which is highly significant for Aboriginal people. This should not be allowed under any circumstances in a national park, for many reasons, not the least of which is that it will eventually result in pressure being applied to the Federal Government to allow mining to go ahead. Despite the frequent assurances of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) that the Government will stick to its three mines policy-which is itself a difficult, contradictory and hypocritical policy and the reason I am here representing Western Australians on a nuclear free Australia ticket-we must remember that if the Opposition is ever returned to government it will give the go ahead to the uranium mining industry, all the exploration having been done during the term of office of the Australian Labor Party which used to be opposed to uranium mining for very good reasons. Briefly, I will be supporting the Australian Democrats, amendments because I think the industry must be much more accountable than the present Government is seeing that it should be, and also because I believe we should not be encouraging the perpetuation of that industry under any circumstances or in any places whatsoever in Australia. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.56) —The Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill amends the Customs Tariff Act and provides that the export duty on uranium mined in the Alligator Rivers Region in the Northern Territory will be increased from 11c per kilogram to 80c per kilogram-a rise of some 700 per cent. The levy is being increased to finance further the operations of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. This increase from 11c to 80c per kilogram is a very hefty one, and naturally it will slug the uranium companies. This discrimination against the Northern Territory uranium producers imposes higher costs on them while South Australian uranium can be produced at a lower cost. It makes it more difficult for the Northern Territory mines to compete in an already competitive world market. I believe the move is symptomatic of the Federal Government's inability to bring itself to provide incentive to the uranium industry, an industry it should be encouraging. Only recently the media were full of reports that our oil supplies are running out and that we are not finding new sources of oil to replace them. We should be looking at nuclear energy as a potential resource for the future. The Federal Government has taken an irresponsible attitude towards uranium development, which is reflected by its failure to give the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation a charter which includes the development of the nuclear fuel cycle within Australia. I believe that would be very desirable. The left wing of the Australian Labor Party refuses to acknowledge that uranium mining and the development of the nuclear fuel cycle within Australia are critical to Australia's future. I raise just one or two other matters relating to the cost of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. The legislation covering the Supervising Scientist has been in place for several years. I believe that this legislation and the administrative costs of this organisation should be reviewed because there are now too many overlapping authorities in the field of uranium administration. A review would lead to costs being reduced, and as a result there would not need to be extraordinarily hefty increases in charges, such as this increase from 11c to 80c. The Labor Party gag means that time is against us so I make a very brief comment about the rehabilitation of mines. Honourable senators must realise that in the Northern Territory now considerable rehabilitation of uranium mines and other mines is taking place. That is a part of the modern mining of minerals, whether uranium or other minerals. One can look at the rehabilitation of Rum Jungle. I will not go into that at length, because I have done so before. The old practice of mining at Rum Jungle was extremely poor, but what has now been achieved with the rehabilitation at Rum Jungle is indicative of what can be done in the future. There is considerable ongoing rehabilitation of the old bauxite mines at Nhulunbuy, and similarly at the manganese mine at Groote Eylandt. Surely one would have to be very naive to believe that there are no plans to rehabilitate the Ranger mine following the removal of uranium resources. This is the plan that has been agreed to by the Federal Government and the mining authorities in relation to the rehabilitation of Ranger. All in all, I find the legislation very disappointing. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(11.01) —I thank those honourable senators who have contributed to the second reading debate and I do not think that I need reiterate the matters that already have been put so well by Ministers in support of the various Bills in the second reading speeches and, I believe, in the debate last night. In relation to the second reading amendment moved by the Australian Democrats, and I understand it is supported by Senator Vallentine, the Government cannot accept the in principle amendment to the motion for the second reading. Honourable senators will be aware that the proposal is to provide for a fund to conduct research into alternative energy sources and to provide for the rehabilitation of uranium mine sites by imposing an additional duty on uranium concentrate that is exported from Australia. It is unnecessary. The Government is not opposed to the matters that lie behind the concerns expressed in the second reading amendment, but honourable senators will recall that rehabilitation of those former uranium mines, which was dependent on public funding, has now been largely completed. The largest expenditure was at Rum Jungle and that amounted to some $20m. It is not necessary to impose a levy to collect funds for rehabilitation of existing uranium mines because, by law, owners of these mines already are required to rehabilitate their mine sites at the end of the mining. In the case of Ranger, a special rehabilitation trust fund has been established, to which the mine owner is obliged to make contributions and which, together with the bank guarantee, are sufficient to cover the cost of rehabilitating the Ranger Mine site. In the case of Nabarlek, a rehabilitation guarantee has been provided by the company to the Northern Territory Government. In relation to alternative energy sources, the Government already provides substantial funding for research into alternative energy sources through the national energy research development and demonstration program. I am informed that in 1985-86 the Commonwealth approved funding totalling $2.3m for 21 separate research projects relating to renewable energy technology. The funding was provided under the national energy research development and demonstration program. There is no wish on the part of the Government again to repeat the sentiments that lie behind this second reading amendment, but it is believed to be unnecessary in light of the matters that have been brought to the attention of honourable senators. The amendment will not be supported by the Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Is it the wish of honourable senators that questions for the second reading of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987, the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987 and the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1987 be put separately. There being no objection, it is so ordered. The first question is: That the amendment moved by Senator Puplick to the second reading of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill be agreed to. Question put: The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. Macklin, M. J. Archer, B. R. Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Sanders, N. K. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Siddons, J. R. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vallentine, J. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S. MacGibbon, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. 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. Withers, R. G. Robertson, E. A. Lewis, A. W. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Reid, M. E. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. McIntosh, G. D. (Senator Michael Baume did note 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 amendment moved by Senator Puplick to the second reading of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill be agreed to. Question put: The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Siddons, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vallentine, J. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Macklin, M. J. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. (Teller) West, S. M. McKiernan, J. P. Zakharov, A. O. Withers, R. G. Robertson, E. A. Lewis, A. W. R. Colston, M. A. Chaney, F. M. Bolkus, N. Durack, P. D. McIntosh, G. D. (Senator Michael Baume did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the Customs Tariff Validation Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the amendment moved by Senator Vigor to the second reading of the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill, the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Validation Bill, the Customs Tariff Bill, the Customs Tariff (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and the Customs Tariff (Installations at Sea) Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The CHAIRMAN —I should warn the Committee that there is less than two minutes to go before the time for these Bills expires. Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bills be taken together? There being no objection, it is so ordered. The Bills. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.20) —by leave-I move two requests to the Customs Tariff Bill: (1) Page 8, clause 22, line 24, after ``25'', insert ``25A,''. (2) Page 10, after clause 25, insert the following new clause: Increase in rates of duties ``25a. (1) In this section: `goods' does not include crude oil, gasoline, petroleum oils, oils obtained from bituminous minerals, diesel oil, diesel fuel, fuel oil, kerosine or other petroleum products. ``(2) This section applies to a foreign country at a particular time where: (a) the value of the goods (in this subsection called the `foreign goods') produced or manufactured in that country that were imported into Australia during the financial year ending on the preceding 30 June exceeds by at least 3 billion dollars the value of the goods (in this subsection called the `Australian goods') produced or manufactured in Australia that were exported to that country during that financial year; (b) the value of all of the goods referred to in paragraph (a) exceeds 7 billion dollars; (c) the value of the foreign goods is at least 75% greater than the value of the Australian goods; and (d) the Minister is satisfied that the foreign country has, during that financial year, engaged in trading practices that are unfair in relation to the export of the foreign goods or the export to the foreign country or another foreign country of goods produced or manufactured in Australia. ``(3) Where this section applies to a foreign country at a particular time, the Minister shall, as soon as practicable after that time, consult with officials of the Government of that country with a view to ensuring that that country ceases to engage in the unfair trading practices referred to in paragraph (1) (d). ``(4) If, at the end of the period of 12 months commencing at the time referred to in subsection (3), this section applies to the foreign country, the Minister may cause to be published in the Gazette a notice stating that the rates of duties of customs imposed by this Act on goods that are produced or manufactured in that country will be increased under subsection (5) until this section ceases to apply to the foreign country. ``(5) On and after the day on which a notice under subsection (4) is published in relation to a foreign country, the rates of duties of customs imposed by this Act on goods that are produced or manufactured in that country shall be increased by such proportion as the Minister determines in writing from time to time. ``(6) A determination under subsection (5) may set different increases for different classes of goods. ``(7) A reference in this section to a foreign country engaging in trading practices that are unfair includes a reference to: (a) the foreign country subsidising its exports of goods to Australia, or its exports of goods to other countries where those exports compete with goods produced or manufactured in Australia; and (b) discrimination by the foreign country against the importation of goods produced or manufactured in Australia.''. Question put: That the requests (Senator Macklin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Powell, J. F. Alston, R. K. R. Jessop, D. S. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R. Devlin, R. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Teague, B. C. Evans, Gareth Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walters, M. S. Giles, P. J. Watson, J. O. W. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret West, S. M. Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hill, R. Question so resolved in the negative. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the Bills has expired. Motion (by Senator Vigor) negatived. 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. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the amendments that the Australian Democrats were to move. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows- 1987 THE SENATE CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1987 Requests for Amendments to be moved in Committee of the Whole by the Australian Democrats That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Page 2, clause 2, at end of clause, add the following new subclause: ``(15) Section 17 shall come into operation on 1 July 1987.''. (2) Page 3, after clause 16, insert the following new clause: Amendment of Schedule 4 having effect from 1 July 1987 ``17. The Principal Act is amended as set out in Schedule 13.''. (3) Page 45, after Schedule 12, insert the following new Schedule: SCHEDULE 13 Section 17 AMENDMENT HAVING EFFECT FROM 1 JULY 1987 Amendment of Part I of Schedule 4 Omit items 15 and 16, substitute: ``15 Goods, other than goods falling within item 22.03, 22.05, 22.06, 22.07, 22.08, 22.09 or 24.02 of Schedule 3, as prescribed by by-law, being- Free . . (a) goods imported by passengers or members of the crew of ships or aircraft; (b) goods that- (i) at the time at which they are approved for delivery for home consumption, are the property of a person who has arrived in Australia on an international flight within the meaning of section 96b of the Customs Act 1901; and (ii) were purchased by that person in an inwards duty free shop within the meaning of that section; (c) goods, brought into, or sent to, Australia by such members of the Defence Force stationed outside Australia as are prescribed by by-law; (d) goods, imported by members of the forces of Canada, New Zealand or the United Kingdom, (e) passengers' personal effects furniture or household goods 16 Goods, as prescribed by by-law, (not being goods falling within item 15 or item 22.03, 22.05, 22.06, 22.07, 22.08, 22.09 or 24.02 of Schedule 3) imported by passengers or members of the crew of ships or aircraft 20% NZ 20% PNG 20%''. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Remaining stages agreed to. Bills read a third time. Messages received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the following Bills: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 1987 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1987 [1986] Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(11.29) —This package of Bills includes not only the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987, the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 and the Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 but also the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill. I intend to speak primarily to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill and the Proceeds of Crime Bill and my colleague Senator Durack will concern himself with the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987 and the amendments that the Opposition will move in that regard. I refer first to the Proceeds of Crime Bill. In many ways, this type of legislation is well overdue. In the last 10 years Australians have come to realise through the activities of internationally organised crime gangs that there are enormous profits available to those who are prepared to engage in systematic abuse of national and international laws. Certainly the activities of syndicates such as the Mr Asia syndicate demonstrate beyond doubt that the whole fabric of society can be put very much at risk unless measures are taken to deprive criminals of the fruits of their labours. I think one can safely say in relation to traffic in narcotics that even whole countries are at risk. The Cayman Islands and Colombia are two notorious examples where anarchy almost prevails. It is against that background that one has to consider the Proceeds of Crime Bill. The Bill aims, firstly, to permit a court to grant orders for the freezing and confiscation of property used in, or derived from, the commission of an indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth; secondly, to provide for the registration in Territory courts of orders for freezing and confiscation of property made under corresponding State laws and which relate to property located in the Territory; thirdly, to provide for the enforcement of foreign freezing and confiscation orders which relate to property in Australia and in respect of which relevant procedures under the mutual assistance in criminal matters legislation have been complied with; fourthly, to confer on police new powers to facilitate the following of the money trail; and, finally, to create new offences of money laundering and organised fraud. The Opposition in general supports the legislation. However, we seek to move an amendment in respect of the Proceeds of Crime Bill to add at the end of the motion these words: ``, but the Senate notes that the Bill imposes on financial institutions heavy obligations for the retention of records concerning financial transactions, yet no statement from the Business Regulation Review Unit of the cost of such measures has been provided to it. This is one area in which the Government deserves condemnation because this legislation should have been with us some years ago. The immediate origin of the Proceeds of Crime Bill is a draft model Bill which has already been enacted by South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales as a result of a special Premiers Conference on drugs which resulted in agreement by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. However, this Bill goes further than the model Bill in providing powers to permit law enforcement agencies to following the money trail, to create new offences of money laundering and organised fraud and to provide for the statutory forfeiture of property. In those respects I think it is unexceptionable. No one would disagree with the proposition that criminals should be deprived of the fruits of their crime. Not only is it desirable that there be punishment and retribution but also a significant deterrent should operate. It should be made as difficult as possible for criminals, firstly, to obtain sanctuary and, secondly, to live off the proceeds of their crimes. The principle, I suppose, is that fugitives should live in penury. That, in some ways, is what this Bill will set out to achieve. Certainly gaol is no substitute for depriving criminals of the profits of their crimes. It is quite clear that in many ways financial penalties and even incarceration are simply a cost of doing business, and a very modest transaction cost at that. The profits of crime have been identified by a number of royal commissions and inquiries as very easily laundered, and we are all aware of the abuses that have taken place through the telecommunications network which have enabled moneys to be laundered through betting transactions. It is equally clear that it is not difficult to ensure that the proceeds are very quickly injected into legitimate businesses. This Bill will go a long way towards ensuring that where that occurs those businesses can be got at and dismantled. The distortion and intimidation that occurs from the taking over by organised crime of legitimate businesses will be very much curtailed. It is beyond doubt that criminals in business enterprises have unfair advantages over legitimate competitors. The Italian Government's anti-Mafia commission cited three examples. The first was that the setting up of an umbrella of protection within a market in which business operates discourages competition from others. One can well understand the risks of taking on those who have no respect of the law. Secondly, it results in the holding down of wages and a distortion of the operation of the labour market because labour officials are unlikely to visit organised crime controlled firms to check on observance of the law and, quite clearly, the capacity for overbearing conduct is very great. Thirdly, criminal entrepreneurs who have access to financial resources denied to other firms have an enormous capacity to launder the proceeds. Often only a relatively small amount of money is required to set up a criminal transaction which then reaps vast profits which can be ploughed back into an apparently legitimate business. The basis for this type of legislation is clear, and we do not deny for one moment the overwhelming case for comprehensive assets confiscation legislation. However, we express some concern at the time that has elapsed in dealing with what to date have to be regarded as fairly archaic and ineffective provisions. The Bill sets out a complex and sophisticated system for confiscation of property and the safeguarding of the interests of the Commonwealth in the proceeds of crime. It sets out a series of ingenious attempts to lay down rules to guide courts in assessing pecuniary penalties. One would have thought that lawyers will have a field day once again as a whole new body of case law emerges, perhaps with informers and twilight operators being called to give evidence of the street value of drugs, to determine in some manner what is an appropriate pecuniary penalty, not simply in terms of confiscation but in terms of a very real deterrent to others. Whilst the task is, I think, a daunting one for the courts, it is one from which they should not and, I am sure, will not shrink. The clauses of the Bill provide for forfeiture of restrained property, for search and seizure of tainted property and for search warrants, which are dealt with in more detail in the telecommunications interception legislation. The clauses also provide for the making of restraining orders to prevent dealings in property and the tracking down of documents and monetary orders, quite often of a pre-emptive nature. Those who are familiar with Anton Piller orders and Mareva injunctions would appreciate the necessity at times for the courts to make ex parte orders and to grant injunctions that do not apprise the victim of what is intended on the part of the law enforcement authorities. It is very necessary that that should occur, but it is also equally necessary that the rights of innocent third parties should be protected. We are particularly anxious to ensure that legitimate co-partners in businesses which may have some criminal involvement have their rights protected and that they are not subject to the sorts of premature and unfair publicity that attached to the Packer family as a result of the desperate efforts of the National Times to gain publicity in that area. We would want to ensure that persons who claim a legitimate interest in property are not denied every opportunity to pursue those rights, that there are not time limits which will operate to shut them out and that the method and timing of valuations of property will not result in artificially low valuations being placed on property-in particular, the fluctuations on the share market would be a notorious example. One has to be very careful in ensuring that the interests of legitimate business proprietors are protected. The Commonwealth also must be vigilant to ensure that the property rights of others are taken care of. In many ways, rather than simply intervening in a business and seeking to close it down, there may need to be some scheme comparable to a scheme of management which would allow a business to continue to operate. Certainly, where a pre-emptive strike might be necessary, one would have thought the issue should not be pre-judged to the extent that irreparable harm is caused. I think there is a legitimate concern about the wasting of assets and an acknowledgment that once a business is closed down the goodwill may well vanish beyond recall and the capacity to regenerate the business will be very limited. So it is our concern that there should not be an excess of enthusiasm to make up for lost time in this area. There are also some legitimate burdens placed on financial institutions, and I certainly would not quibble with some of the very heavy penalties that are applied by the legislation in respect of, for instance, money laundering, for which the penalty is 20 years imprisonment, a $200,000 fine for individuals and $600,000 for bodies corporate. I think these penalties will act as a very great deterrent. It has always been said in the criminal courts that without fences there would be no thieves, and I think that one has to be very conscious of the fact that, unless there are deterrents along the line, we will not be taking sufficient steps to cut off the offences at source. The creation of an offence of organised fraud is again a very novel and necessary one. The legislation defines organised fraud as acts or omissions that constitute three or more public fraud offences and from which the person derives substantial benefit. Again, very high penalties are imposed but, in the context of the evil that is sought to be cured, I think those penalties are fully justified. The burden on financial institutions is a matter of concern to us, and this is reflected in the amendment we will move. It is not at all clear precisely where the cost burdens will fall. At the moment, financial institutions will be required to disclose details and to retain records of any money transactions in excess of $200. Whilst it can be argued that any increase in that level creates opportunities for rescheduling and restructuring so that a whole series of transactions can be brought under the higher limit, I think it is also fair to say that, if that then catches many thousands of ultimately innocent transactions, the retrieval costs may outweigh the benefits. Therefore, we would want to see much more evidence that such a low limit is justified. I know that the banks have said that they have no major objections to the legislation, but I think that in many ways they are embarrassed by the disclosures that have been made as to how easy it has been for people to operate bank accounts under different names and to deposit enormous cash sums without questions being asked and without the matter being brought to the attention of the authorities by the banking institutions. I suspect that in many ways they are embarrassed to the extent that they are not prepared to complain about what would seem to be a very low level. I might just say in passing that we have no objection to the amendment that the Government will move in respect to the Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987. I turn now to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987. Again I think this legislation is long overdue. It provides a legislative basis for Australia to enter into arrangements with other countries for the purpose of requesting and granting assistance in criminal matters and for assistance to be granted and received in respect of the investigation and prosecution of crime and the recovery of assets, including moneys obtained as a result of crime. At present, the international network to a large extent is informal and haphazard. The Bill seeks to formalise the arrangements that will operate so that it will be much more difficult for countries and individuals to avoid prosecution. This measure will not only apply to Commonwealth countries, where there will be an automatic arrangement, but also will allow a bilateral network of treaties to operate in respect of non-Commonwealth countries. In certain circumstances the Attorney-General will be obliged to refuse assistance to a foreign country. That will be where the offence is judged by Australian authorities to be political or otherwise discriminatory on the grounds of race, sex, religion, nationality or political opinion, or where the granting of the request would prejudice the Australian national interest. In other circumstances, the Attorney will not be so disposed to reject the request of assistance, and one can spell out a number of areas where it would clearly be very necessary to have that ability. One matter that concerns us is that, when an application is made to a magistrate, there will be a discretion to deny legal representation. I confess that, having read the record of the debate that took place in the House of Representatives, I still do not understand the basis for the suggestion by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that this is simply a necessary requirement to accommodate different types of criminal proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. From an Australian point of view, one would have thought that it was a cardinal principle that no person subject to criminal proceedings should be denied the opportunity for legal representation. I would have thought that at the very least a provision should be embodied in the legislation to the effect that a magistrate shall permit legal representation unless it would be inappropriate in the circumstances to do otherwise. So I think that there is a valid concern in that area. I think a number of legitimate criticisms can be made in relation to the Government's approach to organised crime to date. Certainly, at present there is no system for the national collection of criminal statistics to enable the analysis and correlation of factors pertaining to the problem. No attempt has been made to tackle the problem of illegal betting, especially via Telecom Australia. The National Crime Authority still has no power to investigate illegal starting price betting; is still has inadequate powers. The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence still lacks sufficient resources, and the Australian Taxation Officer, as I think we all acknowledge, has been rather tardy and perhaps under-resourced in its investigation of taxation evasion. The Bill goes some way towards making up for lost time, but it does not limit the provision of obtaining assistance otherwise than in accordance with the legislation. Assistance can be given only to foreign countries specified in the regulations. Our concern in respect of the entitlement to legal representation is probably the most significant one. Another provision specifies that the Attorney-General must be satisfied that a prisoner has consented to giving evidence in a foreign country. We take the view that it is unrealistic to expect that prisoners will consent. The Government would seem to acknowledge that but says that is something that has been insisted upon by other countries and that it has simply been a necessary part of the compromise to obtain agreement. That seems to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Nonetheless, we understand why the Government has put in an otherwise unsatisfactory provision. I simply say in conclusion that the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill follows from a whole series of inquiries. It is based on recommendations of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group, the report of which came out several years ago, although concerns in relation to this matter had been expressed some four or five years earlier in the course of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. It is clear that this type of legislation is long overdue. It is certainly our hope that, in conjunction with the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, Australia will shortly have in place a network which will make it much more difficult for criminals to operate in this country or to have assets in this country while operating elsewhere, committing offences which tangentially affect this country. I think it can be said that to date Australia has been very fortunate-perhaps by force of geographic location and by force of what I think is one of the best justice systems in the world-to have been relatively free from the effects of organised crime, but we know that as the global village comes closer it is much more likely that criminals are going to see Australia as affording a convenient opportunity, even one that will simply provide a cloak of legitimacy, for their operations. I will now deal with the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill. There have been many warnings about the need for electronic surveillance through interception. Mr Justice Stewart's Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking report in February 1983 recommended that interception powers be increased and the Premiers Conference, held in April 1985, shared that view. The inquiry into the Age tapes in April 1985 resulted in the setting up of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions. I say in passing that this was done very reluctantly as a result of pressure from the public, the media and the Opposition. Nonetheless, I think the end result was unarguable. It was very necessary to have a much more comprehensive system of access granted to police officers. Mr Justice Stewart, in the course of his inquiry, said that many officers had expressed particular dismay at the state of present legislation which, effectively, excluded State police from access to lawful telephone interceptions. It is a matter of disgrace and regret that the New South Wales Government under the discredited former Premier, Mr Wran, was so tardy in moving in this area but despite all of the obfuscation and procrastination on his part, it ultimately emerged that it was very necessary to have these powers available. The Commission found that the material it had obtained was of considerable value in identifying criminal offences, that it was very useful for criminal intelligence purposes and that the current system for lawful telephone interceptions was both narrow and too cumbersome. Again as a result of references to parliamentary committees and elsewhere, there was a delay of some years before this very serious matter was tackled. A number of recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart have not been picked up by the Government. I say in passing that it would seem-reading between the lines-a matter of concern that State police forces and even State judges should be involved as little as possible. One might understand concern in certain narrow areas but I think that is a reflection across the board on the honesty and efficiency of State law enforcement authorities. I would have thought that any concern could be allayed if those authorities were given extensive powers where the actual request or initiative derives from them. It may not be quite as suitable if the initiative originates at Commonwealth level and they are then in a position in which they are forced to ask for assistance from State authorities in whom they do not have full confidence. However, where State authorities are seized with the necessity for action, I would have thought there is a case for extending the powers both to Federal and State police forces. I do not understand why Supreme Court judges have been left out. They are not able to issue warrants and that would seem to be unnecessarily restrictive. I would have thought that many more Supreme Court judges are much more accessible, in terms of their home and office locations, than are judges of the Federal Court of Australia. As I have said, there are a number of examples of the Government not accepting the recommendations. One which I think is of particular interest is that all interceptions are to take place through the telecommunications interception division of the Australian Federal Police and Telecom Australia. The National Crime Authority identified one example of a delay of 19 days before operations could be set up to conduct a proper telephone intercept. The shadow Attorney-General, Mr Spender, has discovered from discussions with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York that it is possible in the United States for phone taps to be in place in the space of 30 seconds in urgent cases. Not only is the need for speed very necessary but where Telecom, for various reasons, may be incapable, simply reluctant or may have officers who are more impressed with civil liberties considerations than the need to act in accordance with the legal requirements, it is undesirable that the hands of the authorities should be tied in that manner. We certainly take the view that the Government has not gone far enough in granting sufficiently wide powers. We are also concerned that the admissibility of such material should not be determined by common law, as recommended by the Royal Commissioner. Common law has been remarkably flexible in its approach to the discretion that it brings to bear on weighing up the seriousness of the offence, the importance of the material, whether the prejudicial effect would outweigh the probative value. I certainly think it is necessary to have that discretion rather than an arbitrary set of rules imposed under statute. We simply do not understand why that normal approach has not been adopted in this instance. One other matter on which I want to touch relates to clause 64 which has the effect of making admissible, despite illegality, evidence which has been obtained retrospectively. What we are faced with if this clause is accepted is a pre-emptive strike against the High Court of Australia which is currently about to hear a series of pending cases which seek to reargue a decision in Hilton v. Wells in 1985 where it was held that even information illegally obtained was admissible in courts of law. The aim of clause 64 is to take away the prospects of acquittal, which certain citizens would have had under the law as it stood at the time they engaged in the conduct for which they have been prosecuted. That pre-emptive strike would seem to be an intolerable denial of justice. The imposition of retrospective criminal liability is something from which one should shrink in almost every conceivable instance. Simply to jump in and adopt the view that the High Court might have taken in 1985 and not to await the benefit of further reflection and wisdom-in other words the outcome of the Commonwealth v. Jones in particular and a number of other cases in the pipeline-would seem premature in the extreme. We take the view that the High Court should be left to decide the proper interpretation of the existing Act. That section has been criticised by the Law Society of Australia, the President of the Bar Association of New South Wales and the Law Council of Australia. We simply do not understand why the Government is so anxious to give effect to one view of the High Court which is not set in stone and nor should it be. To a substantial extent our concerns are outweighed by the overall merits of the legislation and I would not want to be seen to be carping or cavilling too much. However, I certainly suggest that significant opportunities remain for improving this legislation. Although what is sought to be done is very necessary, some matters need urgent attention. Accordingly, my colleague Senator Durack will move amendments, one of which will lower the threshold in respect of offences that would justify an application being made. In many ways, the argument is over how far interception should extend. I think it can be said that the Government is being unduly cautious in this instance. We take the view that organised criminals are capable of committing even relatively minor offences. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time is about to expire. Do you formally move the amendment you foreshadowed? Senator ALSTON —Yes, I do. There is only one, and that is in respect of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. I move: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate notes that the Bill imposes on financial institutions heavy obligations for the retention of records concerning financial transactions, yet no statement from the Business Regulation Review Unit of the cost of such measures has been provided to it''. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(11.59) —The three substantial Bills in this package are the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987, the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 and, finally, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987. Also in this package are some Bills which are consequential on the above Bills being passed. The package has been made necessary by perception in the community of crime becoming not only more widespread but also, and perhaps more importantly, more sophisticated and spread out across the world. In the old days before technology gave us aeroplanes and communications to the extent that we now have them the commission of a particular crime was very much confined to a particular area and a particular country. Funds can now be transferred in and out of Australia very rapidly. People can go from one country to another in a short time. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the fight against crime should be conducted more and more on an international scale. It is in that context that these Bills come before the Senate. Criticism has been made that the Bills were brought forward in a tardy fashion and that in some ways they are inadequate. I will come to that matter later. But overall, as I understand Senator Alston's remarks, the Opposition supports the substance of the measures. Senator Alston said that the Bills should have been brought on earlier and that even greater powers should have been given to the people who are battling crime. At the same time he took the Government to task for introducing clause 64 in the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill because he claimed that this was retrospective. Of course that was not the Opposition's approach when the Age tapes and related matters came before the Parliament. I simply point out to Senator Alston-although I realise he was not here when those debates took place, and I am sure that he would have taken the view that the Age tapes should not have been made available as evidence to the courts-that many of his colleagues took a different approach to the Age tapes from the one he now takes to clause 64 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill. I wish to correct Senator Alston on one other matter. Clause 64 of that Bill does not, as I understand it, make crime retrospective. There is no suggestion in any way that something that was not a crime prior to the passing of this Bill will now be made a crime. The Bill simply makes available evidence which was illegally obtained and enables it to be used in prosecuting people who are charged with crimes which were crimes before this legislation was introduced and which were crimes when the people concerned allegedly committed them. This raises the question of whether tainted evidence should ever be admitted. It is a bit difficult to argue, on one hand-as Senator Alston apparently argued-that the common law rule should apply to the question of whether evidence that was wrongly or illegally obtained should be admitted and, on the other hand, criticise clause 64. All that clause 64 does is to add to or modify the common law position. My view is that if evidence is illegally obtained it should only be admitted if it can be shown that this is absolutely necessary in terms of the public interest, as defined by the court. While I am on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill there is another point I wish to make which also applies to the other Bills in this package. Of course crime is horrible and it should be eradicated from the community. That has been the approach ever since communities began. At the same time great regard must be paid to the civil rights of the citizens of the community. When we discuss these Bills it would be dangerous for us to fall into the trap of saying that crime must be eradicated at any cost, even if it means convicting people who are, in reality, innocent, or putting cruel pressure upon innocent people and bringing the processes of law to bear against them when this should not occur. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill should not be regarded simply as a measure which gives power to various authorities; it should also be regarded as a measure which protects the privacy and civil liberties of individuals and their ability to move about as free citizens in a free community. It protects those rights as well as arming certain authorities with the ability to fight crime. It must not be forgotten that in fighting crime we often crush those who have not committed a crime but who find themselves placed in suspicious circumstances. Perhaps the most graphic example of how the processes of enforcing the law can go wrong is the current case of the Chamberlains. That is a very salutary example to put forward when we consider these measures which are dedicated to enforcing law and order in the community. In the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill it is interesting to note that the crimes that are available to justify the granting of a warrant are restricted in clause 5 of that Bill, the interpretation clause, which sets out how certain words must be interpreted. It is worth reading those out. The first is `loss of a person's life or serious risk of loss of a person's life'. Others include `serious personal injury or risk of serious personal injury', `serious damage to property in circumstances endangering the safety of a person', `trafficking in narcotic drugs', `serious fraud' or `serious loss of revenue of the Commonwealth or of a State'. That is a very wide ambit within which the authorities can operate because it covers a wide range of crimes. For example, `loss of a person's life' would include negligent or culpable driving, manslaughter and, indeed, domestic crimes in respect of which a good argument can be raised to the effect that their investigation does not justify prejudice to privacy or to the integrity of the telephone system. Nevertheless, it is a matter of balance and on balance those sorts of things have been included. Senator Alston made a point about the fact that the intercept procedures must be conducted through Telecom Australia and the Australian Federal Police. I think that that is a justified approach because this is Federal legislation. It is a power being exercised by the Commonwealth pursuant to the Constitution. The Constitution gives the Commonwealth the ability to make laws in this respect. Given that, it is only proper that the Commonwealth should police the exercise of those powers. Not only will this measure be used against people who have allegedly committed crimes but also it is aimed at protecting the rights and civil liberties of people. This legislation acts both ways. It empowers people to investigate but it also prohibits people going beyond what are considered justifiable limits within which crime authorities should act. Taking that into account, it is proper that the operation of this legislation be policed and overseen by the Federal Police because the Commonwealth has a duty, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, to see that its legislation is not transgressed. Accordingly, it is proper that Federal judges and Federal police should be the ones to look after the Federal law. I turn to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill. This legislation is felt to be necessary as a result of the internationalisation of crime. It has been drawn to my attention by the Commonwealth law officers that Australia is the first Commonwealth country to introduce legislation that will enable the passing between countries of evidence necessary to obtain convictions. The Commonwealth Law Ministers met in Harare in July 1986 and agreed to a Commonwealth mutual assistance scheme. A Bill on this topic has been introduced in Canada recently but has not yet been passed. The Commonwealth law officers in the Attorney-General's Department and other departments have done a great deal of work in preparing this legislation. The legislation has been well thought out and the officers, in preparing these Bills, have performed a mighty task. The legislation will help to stop the perpetration of crime in the community. The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill contains some exceptions as to the areas in which it is applicable. Although Australia will help authorities in another country to obtain information leading to the conviction of somebody who has committed a crime in that country, Australia will not do so if the crime alleged to have been committed by the person is an offence of a political character or an offence that depends on the person's race, sex, religion, nationality or political opinion. In other words, if the offence in respect of which Australia's help is sought has political overtones or is based on considerations of sex, religion, race or nationality, Australia will not give assistance. Again, if it is an offence against what in Australia would be no more than a military law of Australia and not also against an Australian criminal law, Australia will give no assistance. One matter of concern should be mentioned. This legislation can be used to help obtain evidence in this country which may lead to the execution of somebody in a foreign country. That is a matter which I find very worrying indeed. I find it abhorrent, but again it is a matter which, given the balance that has to be struck in this package, remains among the provisions covered by this legislation. Although exceptions are made in respect of some matters, no exception is made relating to crime which in another country is punishable by death. I refer to requests by foreign countries for search and seizure. This too is a grave matter but again, given the internationalisation of crime, it is considered to be necessary. Clause 15 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill says: Where- (a) a proceeding or investigation relating to a criminal matter involving a serious offence has commenced in a foreign country; (b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a thing relevant to the investigation or proceeding is located in Australia; and (c) the foreign country requests the Attorney-General to arrange for the issue of a search warrant under this section in relation to that thing; the Attorney-General may, in his or her discretion, authorise a police officer, in writing, to apply to a Magistrate of the State or Territory in which that thing is believed to be located for the search warrant requested by the foreign country. Once a warrant is granted dramatic results follow. A person, his house and immediate surroundings can be searched. The intention is that this legislation will be used only in very serious matters. It must forever be kept in mind that the Telecommunications (Interception) Act is directed not only towards discovering crime and bringing those who have committed crime to punishment but also at protecting people from the excesses of law enforcement agents which do occur. It is forever to be remembered, when talking of legislation such as this, that that balance must be struck and that, if the balance is to tip in favour of anybody, it should tip towards the individual against whom the state directs its might. I turn to the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which again is a measure worthy of being brought before and passed by this House. It provides that if a person has been convicted of an indictable offence the Director of Public Prosecutions can apply to have the property-and the sort of property is defined-confiscated. It is referred to as `tainted property', and means property which a person has used to commit an offence, or the proceeds of the offence itself. Therefore, if through some fraud a person obtains vast sums of money, or indeed any sum of money, that money is confiscated, and if he or she has used particular instruments to perpetrate the crime those too can be confiscated. It is similar to forfeiture under the old felony rules at common law. It makes sense that a person who profits through his or her ill-doing should not be allowed to retain that profit. It should be borne in mind that, even for a person who has committed a crime, one should seek to ensure that only property connected with the crime is confiscated. The package contains the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which takes from a person convicted of a crime the fruits of it or the instruments used by the person to perpetrate it. There is the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, which enables countries to exchange evidence to be used in the trail of those who have allegedly committed crimes. There is the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill which enables the authorities in certain circumstances to gather intelligence about criminal activities and to obtain convictions. Whenever instruments aimed at fighting crime are discussed one should remember that the people into whose hands those instruments are given have a heavy responsibility laid upon them. Those people must have a consciousness of human dignity and human freedom. They must be aware of the rights of people to go about their business unhampered, not only by their fellows but also by those who are placed in authority and by those whose task it is protect the community from crime and from violence and dishonesty. People are entitled to go about their business assured that the people who are placed in positions of trust and power exercise that trust and power properly. If the community can be assured of that, these Bills and what they purport to do can be accepted as a means of fighting crime. It must be remembered-and I do not say this in a facetious way-the crime has always been and always will be with us. There are two points about that. The fight against crime must be continuous. On the other hand, we must never, in an attempt to overcome it, adopt processes which prejudice justice, freedom and compassion-the characteristics of a decent community. Senator Alston said that the whole of society could be put at risk by the drug problem. That is true. But the whole of society will be put at risk if the measures used to counter crime are too draconian, too insensitive to human dignity and too mechanical in their application. It is not only drugs which are a threat to society but also the many money transactions which flow into and out of the community and round the world. I notice in this context the great work that the honourable member for Hawker, Mr Jacobi, has done in bringing the attention of this Parliament and society generally to the crimes committed in the world of business and finance. In large measure they go unpunished. In raising the issues of financial fraud, business wrongdoing and business rorts he has given this Parliament much to ponder and act upon. I finish by commending the Bills. I understand from what Senator Alston says that the Opposition, with some amendments or objections, will agree to them. No doubt those opposite have to put forward some objections and amendments to justify the time given to the debate. By and large this package, with sensitivity and understanding of the need to preserve the liberties and freedoms of the citizen, will hopefully root out from society those who have committed crimes and bring them to proper punishment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.23) —The complementary pieces of legislation which make up this package on organised crime represent a significant increase in the armoury available. Australia has long suffered from serious deficiencies in its approach to organised crime. It is only in relatively recent times that we have managed to put together a more effective approach than was possible by reliance upon State police forces as the only enforcement agency available to us. The development of the National Crime Authority out of a series of royal commissions was an important step forward in this area. These pieces of legislation add to that movement. As such, they are welcomed not only by people in all political parties but also by all citizens in Australia who understand the dangers that confront our society from organised crime and the necessity for a continued fight in that area. It is extraordinary when one talks about this matter and the need for resources that at the same time people are wandering around saying that money should be cut, that the Budget and taxes should be reduced in such and such a way because we do not need services. These people do not realise that amongst the types of services which would come under severe financial pressure in those circumstances are these types of services to the community, services which support the fabric of the community and make sure that if we cannot eliminate organised crime we can at least take up the fight in such a way that crime is destabilised, so that if we do not win at least it is a drawn game. An exercise whereby we would severely deplete Commonwealth revenues would necessarily detract enormously from this fight. This is one of the areas which would come under severe political pressure to have funding reduced. I say in passing that when we talk blithely about reductions in Commonwealth services it might be worth while sometimes to allude to the services provided by the Commonwealth. The fight against crime is one of the important services that the Commonwealth provides, and it is one of the services for which the Commonwealth will have to increase funding, because some of these Bills, for example the Mutual Assistance and Criminal Matters Bill 1987 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987 which concern the internationalising of co-operation-and I will come to them in a moment-will entail significant costs. These types of operation cannot work effectively without additional resources. The Australian Democrats support this legislation not only for a number of reasons which I will come to but also for the rather consistent reason that in quite a number of debates in the past we have urged a number of these reforms to be included in legislation. I remember on one occasion having to take over from Don Chipp in this chamber because he was ill and moving a series of amendments regarding the money trail and the confiscation of proceeds of crime. We were not successful on that occasion but I am very pleased to see that a far more effective and useful mechanism has been brought forward by the Government in this legislation. We are hopeful that it will be another useful adjunct in this area. When the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduced this package of legislation he said that it represented the implementation of the recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart in his Royal Commission of Inquiry into the activities of the Nugan Hand group, which reported in mid-1985. The need for better mutual assistance legislation had been recommended for quite some time before then. For example, it had been recommended by Mr Costigan almost four years earlier. So this legislation represents a convergence of opinion in Australia and internationally of the best way to deal with this matter. In seeking to combat organised crime it is quite obvious that governments have to have a coherent strategy. Such a plan must include wide-ranging information gathering to identify the activities of organised crime. It must ensure that the resources of the relevant crime enforcement agencies are adequate and it must involve proper co-ordination of all the agencies involved in law enforcement. Of course, over all that there must be a suitable legislative framework. The Democrats have pointed out deficiencies in each of these areas, including the long-standing problem of understaffing in the Australian Federal Police, which is the responsibility of the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate), who is in the chamber at the moment. We are pleased to find that this somewhat overdue package of legislation has now been brought forward. The two Bills dealing with mutual assistance provide the basis for Australia to enter into agreements with other countries whereby we can request and grant assistance in criminal matters, and amend various Commonwealth Acts in this regard. At present, international assistance is available to Australia through Interpol. These Bills also specify the nature and methods by which other countries will be able to obtain assistance from Australia. In contrast, the types of assistance available to Australia from other countries are stated in broad terms only. The details of the reciprocal assistance measures will depend upon domestic legislation in each of those foreign countries. By way of example I point out that obviously the effective method of dealing with drug importation into Australia or into other countries is to know what is coming. If our Customs officials have prior warning effective searches can be done to locate the illegal drugs. Indeed, some of the most recent and spectacular successes of our Customs officials have resulted from the knowledge of such information. The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill will enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to appear and grant indemnities in proceedings under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, repeals provisions in Australian extradition legislation in relation to the taking of evidence for the purpose of criminal proceedings overseas, as those provisions are now in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, and makes provision for entry into and departure from Australia of non-citizens whose presence is required for purposes connected with the Bill. Again, this is an area involving quite considerable costs. The two Bills dealing with the proceeds of crime, the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, address themselves to following the money trail and the confiscation of assets derived from criminal activity. Whilst one may believe that this is a relatively simple matter, once one has read the Bill one realises the complexities one is confronted with in this area-determining whether the proceeds being dealt with are the proceeds of crime or the proceeds of legitimate business activity. If money were stained and identified it might be easier, but that is not the case. Hence following the money trail and the confiscation of assets are relatively complex matters. The Government has proceeded cautiously and effectively in this area with the legislation. The legislation will permit a court to grant orders for the freezing and confiscation of property used in or derived from the commission of an indictable offence against a Commonwealth or Territory law. It provides also for the registration in Territory courts or orders for freezing and confiscation of property made under corresponding State laws and which relate to property located in the Territory. It provides for the enforcement of foreign freezing and confiscation orders which relate to property in Australia and in respect of which the relevant procedures under the mutual assistance legislation have been complied with. It confers on police new powers to facilitate the following of the money trail and to require financial institutions to preserve their records to maintain the money trail. Finally, the Bill creates a range of new offences, particularly with regard to money laundering and organised fraud. The Australian Democrats believe that these provisions will greatly assist the fight against organised crime. The legislation seeks to deal with some very complex and sophisticated problems, as I have already said. Whilst it cannot be seen as a panacea for all of the problems involved in organised crime, it will certainly remedy some of the deficiencies which, in the past, have cried out for solutions. Having made those general remarks, I want to draw attention to some matters of concern in the Bills. In trying to solve the difficult problem of organised crime there is, as Senator Cooney said, a danger of being too draconian in our solutions. We run the risk of ignoring civil rights which we take for granted in our society. The Democrats have some concerns of this nature and, whilst we recognise the need to act firmly in this area, I want to put our concerns on the record and point out that the Democrats will be keeping a careful watch on the operation of the legislation in case amendments to it are needed in future. I refer to the problems perceived by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, particularly in regard to clause 7 (2) and clause 34. Clause 34 is of great concern to us. Here I am at somewhat of a disadvantage because the truncation of debates and the bringing forward of this debate have meant that I have not had access to all the information the relevant Minister has provided to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee by way of response. I understand that the Minister's responses have gone a long way towards satisfying the concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. If that is the case, some of the Democrats' concern will be alleviated, but we do not wish to put aside these matters entirely. Our concerns with the Proceeds of Crime Bill relate particularly to clause 5 which states that for the purposes of the Act conviction includes a person found guilty of an offence but discharged without conviction and a person who absconds in connection with the offence. There are obvious problems in that area. The discharge of a person guilty of an offence without the registration of a conviction if the court believes that is warranted obviously is warranted for a number of reasons. It seems odd that we should have overridden the court's discretion in this way. Likewise, absconding in connection with the offence is loosely worded and could very well pick up people who were not aware of the provision. Whilst there are other provisions in the legislation with regard to this matter, we have some significant concerns. In clause 7 the definition of `serious offence' can probably be most charitably described as pretty loose and, at the worst, as entirely circular. Even if one takes into account subsequent sections of the legislation which seek to clarify this matter, we are still of the view that the definition of `serious offence' needs to be tightened. Later we will seek to move amendments with regard to this matter. Clause 13 is to operate retrospectively. Clause 19 reverses the onus of proof, as does clause 27. Clause 27 also reverses the hearsay rule, in relation to which some significant difficulties could certainly arise in individual cases. In clause 81 the definition of `money laundering' is not much better than the definition of `serious offence'. It is extremely important in legislation of this kind that these definitions be as rigid as possible. We understand and are aware of the difficulties. I wish I were aware of the Minister's response to these difficulties because it might make my present job a little easier. Because we understand that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has withdrawn most of its major concerns we do not intend to move the series of amendments we had intended to move to a whole range of provisions. We have limited our amendments to provisions whose definitional problems we are not satisfied with, even if the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill also presents some significant problems, for example, with regard to the evidentiary certificates referred to in clause 61 (2). The concerns that we have in this matter again are identical to those spelt out in some detail by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Opposition moved amendments to clause 5 and at the moment we are studying that clause. We have some concerns about the Opposition's amendment, but at this stage I flag that we are inclined to support the first amendment of the Opposition and also that we will support subsequent amendments. However, at a later stage, possibly in debate, one of my colleagues will be able to give some further details on a study we are undertaking in regard to clause 1. Unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity to have those amendments for any length of time and, as I say, we wish to study clause 1 in more detail. Some time ago we understood that amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 would be moved and hence there was an opportunity to discuss them in detail. I do not want the impression to be left at the end of my remarks that we are unhappy with these Bills, because the exact opposite is the case: The Australian Democrats express very strong support for this package of legislation. We believe that it will be an effective and useful element. The concerns that I have expressed relate only to detail and, again, I think it is a pity that we will not be able to have the type of detailed debate that we normally have in Committee on these matters so that they can be thrashed out fully. We strongly support the Government and I urge it to continue the legislative process upon which they have started so successfully. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.42) —I, too, support the general thrust of the legislation. However, we expected the introduction of such legislation by this Government some three or four years ago and it has taken a tremendous amount of time to see how serious the Government has been in trying to attack some of the more fundamental areas. As a result of the various royal commissions and inquiries that have been held over the previous few years, a lot of recommendations have been presented. Many of those recommendations have been picked up in one or other of these Bills and, as Senator Macklin said, I would not want there to be any impression that we do not support completely the general thrust of these Bills. Having been involved with the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception I wish to make some comments on that area. I fully appreciate and accept the protection of privacy as being a very important factor in all these discussions. However, we have to balance that against the fact that criminals, and particularly those high-powered, commercial and international criminals, cannot be let off the hook. The attitude in the community towards crime and apprehension generally is getting to the worrying stage. When it comes to making sure that the work that goes into criminal apprehension is not lost, I believe that we have to be more direct in our methods, because we pussyfoot our way with them and we let them get away when there is absolutely no justification for it. Senators are aware of the fact that nationally our police and apprehension services are stretched to the absolute limit. We know that there is a need for more people, for better equipment and for better methods. Passing the laws alone will not provide for the people and it will require additional use of government resources if we are to get the result that should come from legislation of this nature. Accordingly, I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes, and provided further that should a division be called for such division shall be forthwith postponed until a later hour in the day, not being earlier than 2 p.m. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.46) —I would like to raise some problems that exist with the Senate scrutiny provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. There are four main defects of varying degrees of seriousness in section 273 of the Electoral Act; that is, the section that deals with the counting of votes after a Senate election. These concern deferment of surpluses and bulk exclusions and the definition of the transfer value when a candidate is elected and there is a surplus to be distributed. The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1987 said that clause 32 provided for `deferral of the transfer of surpluses where this would not affect the next exclusion'. There was no apparent mechanism for deferral in the legislation. If (13A) had replaced (13) in line 32 on page 21 of the Bill, there would have been a deferral mechanism. It may indeed be important at the end of the scrutiny, and I wonder whether a printing correction has been made since the Bill left this place. No amendment was moved in the House of Representatives to fix the matter up, even though I did alert the Special Minister of State. The second defect is in subsection (13B), which deals with bulk exclusions. The Australian Electoral Commission has picked up a problem area but it has not been able to sort out how to always get the same result as under the current situation. For this subsection to apply, an absolute minimum of nearly two quotas of votes must be exhausted. The two proposed subsections identify a theoretical problem point but then put forward a rather careless way of handling this particular impasse, which may lead to results different from those which exist under the current scrutiny procedures. I take a simple example to illustrate this. The quota is 100 votes and there are two vacancies still to be filled, the continuing candidates and their respective progress totals are as follows: Smith, 64; Lopez, 17; Charles, 16; and Young, 2. The vacancy shortfall is 119 votes-in fact, 36 plus 83. There is no candidate A and Lopez is candidate B. Lopez's notional votes total 35; that is, 17 plus 16 plus 2, which is also less than the leading shortfall of 36 votes under this example. Under the proposed subsection (13A) (c), three candidates could be excluded in bulk. Hence, proposed subsection (13B) comes into operation and leads to the simultaneous exclusion of Charles and Young so that Smith and Lopez are declared elected. However under the current scrutiny arrangement, Young would have been excluded first. His two votes may well both be transferred to Charles, taking her progress total to 18 votes, and in this case Lopez is next to be excluded and Smith and Charles are therefore declared elected. Consequently, it is quite possible for the bulk exclusion procedure to produce a result completely different from that obtained under the current scrutiny procedures. The intention was to use bulk exclusion to expedite the scrutiny without interfering with the outcome of the election. I believe this is part of a really deep problem of lack of attention to principle in the electoral system. There is a relatively straightforward way of dealing with this particular problem. If more than one candidate is to be excluded at the same time in these unusual circumstances, it should be a requirement that the notional votes of the excluded candidate highest in the poll be fewer than those of the unexcluded candidate lowest in the poll. The third defect is in the definition of the transfer value when a candidate achieves a quota on first preferences alone. It may cause unnecessary exhaustion of votes. The transfer value in this case is currently found by dividing the surplus by the number of first preference votes for the candidates elected at the outset of the scrutiny. However, in the elections for the Maltese Parliament, the Irish Dail and the New South Wales Legislative Council, as well as in New South Wales local government elections, the transfers value is found by dividing the surplus by the number of transferable papers with a first preference for the elected candidate, provided that this does not exceed one. Doing this does not slow down the scrutiny. The non-transferable papers remain in the quota of the elected candidate, and as much as possible of their value is used in the election of the candidate and as little as possible is regarded as lost by exhaustion. This respects most of the clearly expressed intentions of the voters and I believe it should be supported. I will give a simple example. Once again, if the quota is 100 votes and Gelbart has 150 first preferences votes of which 15 cannot be further transferred, the definition in section 273 makes the transfer value for all 150 papers 50 over 150-that is, one-third. As a result, five votes-that is, 15, the non-transferable votes, multiplied by one-third-are written off as a loss by exhaustion. The alternative approach involves exactly the same physical work but it distributes the surplus in accordance with what is on the transferable papers, so that the transfer value in that case becomes 50 over 135, or 10 over 27, which is one twenty-seventh higher than the section 273 result. The effect of this is that the 15 non-transferable papers are taken to contribute 15 votes towards the elected candidate's quota, rather than just 10 with a further loss of five by exhaustion. Overall the use of the number of transferable papers as a divisor, instead of the number of first preference votes, allows the voter to get maximum effectiveness from their clearly expressed intentions. I believe altering this in the legislation, which would improve the vote effectiveness, would be a very straightforward matter. It may seem to be somewhat esoteric, but it is extremely important and may result in quite a difference at the end of a large count in the Senate. The fourth defect that we have managed to pinpoint is the general definition of transfer value which may allow some voters in effect to get more than one vote. Because all papers are given equal weighting in the distribution of surpluses where candidates are elected, but not on first preferences alone, it is possible for the transfer value of some papers to rise as a result of those papers helping to elect a particular candidate. This is unprecedented in quota preferential systems and is tantamount to allowing some voters more than one vote. Previously, the transfer value has been taken to be part of a person's vote not yet used in electing candidates. Of course it is decreased when it has helped to elect someone. On page 1061 of the transcript of the inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform into the operation at the 1984 election of the most recent amendments to the Act, an illuminating example is presented by Mr Wright, who is the immediate past President of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia. Senator Archer —Mr Wright? Senator VIGOR —Mr Wright is generally right about electoral matters. In this example the value of the parcel of 5,000 papers rises from 98 votes to 2,091 votes as a result of the parcel helping to elect someone. Quite clearly, those 5,000 voters would be much better off falsifying their real wishes if this enables their papers to rise in value from 98 votes to 2,091 votes at some stage during the scrutiny. The effect of this is to give those 5,000 voters nearly 7,000 votes. Of course the example is calculated to demonstrate this in its extreme, but with this comes the possibility of a startling impact upon the outcome of an election scrutiny in which several candidates remain very much in the running for the last vacancy or vacancies. That is the type of situation that could occur in the next election, with a larger number of smaller parties. It is possible to define transfer values more sensitively to avoid such anomalies. This will certainly have to be done when computer processing of votes comes into effect. We would open up the possibility of people using tactical voting to achieve more than they could in normal circumstances if we left this particular rort in the system. It was not possible under the old last-parcel approach; the limitations of that, however, were exposed in Queensland in the Senate election of 1974. Quite a few basically Labor supporters gave their first preferences to Neville Bonner, on the coalition ticket, and these then were to go on to the Australian Labor Party candidates. Their papers stopped with Neville Bonner. He was third on the ticket. Had he been first, these papers would have been transferred on to the Labor ticket. This was obviously quite an anomaly and was the result of quite a large amount of investigation and outcry at the time of the scrutiny. The current procedure was designed to deal with that particular problem. When one does the calculations, one finds that around 30 per cent of those who put Neville Bonner first would have had to continue with Labor senators for Labor to have won a fifth place. However, if counting had been undertaken with strict rules about transfer values being in proportion to the value at which the papers were received, only 20 per cent would have been required to continue with the Labor ticket. I believe that is quite a difference in this case. The matter of accuracy arose in practice at the New South Wales scrutiny when the Call to Australia votes were totally swamped by the Liberal first preferences and they helped to elect Senator Michael Baume. During the transfer of surpluses, an undervaluation of over 10,000 votes occurred to the Call to Australia votes, and the Liberal papers were overvalued to make up for that. In a close election that may well have made an enormous difference, although it did not affect that particular case directly. I believe that the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) should bring this to the notice of people who are drafting this legislation and are responsible for it. I gave him notice of what I was going to say, and I hope that the Government, whether the Labor Government is returned or another government gets in next time, will take up these matters and try to get us a completely fair system which will give us one vote one value, and a proper way of assessing who should be the representatives of the people of Australia in this Parliament. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(12.59) —I wish to speak today about the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence inquiry into safety procedures relating to nuclear powered and nuclear armed vessels in Australian waters. It is generally known that from 1971 to 1976 a moratorium on the visits of nuclear powered warships into Australian ports was imposed by the McMahon Government. During that time, the Government prepared an environmental impact statement which is classified, that is, unavailable to the public even under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. When nuclear powered warships visits resumed in 1976, the Fraser Government produced a document entitled `Environmental considerations of Visits of Nuclear Powered Warships to Australia'. When this was tabled on 4 June 1976, the then Prime Minister said: The Government is taking these decisions on the basis of international experience with nuclear powered warships . . . He also said, as reported in Hansard of 4 June 1976: Appropriate arrangements concerning environmental safeguards will be applied in consultation with State governments by a group of officials led by officials of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. Such arrangements will be undertaken, as necessary, before visits take place. Such arrangements are not in place 11 years to the day later. Only Western Australia has publicly released a port safety plan; it is inadequate but at least it has done that in relation to the visits of nuclear powered warships. Other States which receive such visits have not completed safety plans. To return to Mr Fraser's statement that the visits were being resumed on the basis of international experience with nuclear powered warships, I wish to inform the Senate and the people of Australia that the international experience to which Mr Fraser referred is flimsy indeed. I have letters here which indicate that there was no written evidence of the international experience to which Mr Fraser referred. In its deliberations the Senate Committee sought a report from Australian Atomic Energy Commission officials who went overseas in 1972 to seek this international experience. The report could not be located. Mr G. K. Greenslade of the AAEC, currently on detachment to assist the Senate Committee inquiry with technical advice, wrote a letter dated 1 April 1987 to Mr D. W. Crancher, one of three AAEC officers who went to France, the United Kingdom and the United States in 1972 to seek overseas expertise on the matter of nuclear powered warships and the safety implications of the visits to Australian ports. The other two members of the delegation were Mr Timbs, in his capacity as Executive Commissioner of the AAEC, and a Mr M. Farrell, who were probably also asked whether they had written a report and, if so, where was that report. What I now read to the Senate is the reply to Mr Greenslade's request from Mr Crancher, dated 23 April 1987: Dear Mr Greenslade, Thank you for your letter of 1.4.87. I well recall the overseas visit you refer to. The circumstances surrounding this visit were rather unusual since, although safety aspects of nuclear propelled warships visits were to be investigated, this was never stated officially. You must not forget that the law in the USA specifically forbade any exchange of technical information on nuclear warships (the McMahon Act). The same embargo held in the UK by virtue of their strong bilateral agreement on nuclear propelled sub. design. Timbs accordingly instructed both Farrell and myself to pursue the matter with great discretion. The official purpose of the visit was then limited to an investigation of overseas policies regarding acceptance of nuclear propelled merchant ships and a study of the status of light-water reactors. I prepared a twenty page unclassified visit report limited to these aspects. We did of course probe nuclear propelled warship safety but in general learned very little due to the prohibition. In London Timbs and I met Reg Farmer, who gave us a probabilistic viewpoint in general terms (all now in BR3019). In the USA Timbs did manage (a rare!) discussion with Rickover, I was not invited, since Rickover considered me too technically qualified (and might ask embarrassing questions). This discussion was written up by Farrell and is on file. I do not consider it very helpful. Timbs then lined up discussions with M. Bourgeois, Director of Reactor Safety, CEA. Farrell and I met Bourgeois, who was responsible for the safety assessment of the French nuclear subs. The French appeared to me to be willing to talk more freely than the USA but only gave us an hour. We learnt a little but not much of significance. None of the warship material was written up, apart from the Rickover discussion; however, Timbs did give Tange and others in Canberra a verbal debriefing. Hope this is of some use. Regards, D. W. Crancher. The essential substance of this letter is that there was no written report relating to nuclear powered warship safety. Information was not forthcoming from the United States Navy. Admiral Rickover refused to see Mr Crancher because he knew too much and might ask embarrassing questions. What discussion did take place with Mr Farrell and Mr Timbs, Mr Crancher says, was not very helpful. He said that none of the warship material was written up; there was only a verbal debriefing by Timbs on his return to Canberra. So what we have is the May 1976 document, `Environmental Considerations of Visits of Nuclear Powered Warships to Australia', presented with great flourish by the then Prime Minister which was concocted without the most basic of evidence from the United States Navy. There was no report to back it up. In other words, the Australian Government was prepared to put millions of Australians and the Australian port environment at risk without bothering to satisfy the most fundamental questions relating to the safety or otherwise of mobile nuclear reactors aboard naval vessels. It asked some questions but when it did not get answers it decided to go ahead anyway. It is a scandal of momentous proportions and highlights yet again the grovelling subservience of successive Australian governments to the United States Government. The interests of the United States Navy are more important to Australian governments-that is, the Fraser Liberal Government and now the Hawke Labor Government-than the welfare and safety of the Australian people and the Australian environment. The people of Australia have a right to know the scant regard in which we are held by our own elected governments. There are many other examples, such as the Menzies Government lending Australia to the British for their atmospheric nuclear testing program. We see subservience over and over again. How embarrassing and how disgraceful. No sovereignty, no independence; and who cares? I do, I care deeply about this country and work hard for its independence and nuclear-free status, and so do an increasing number of concerned Australians. Right now there are eight United States Navy warships ploughing through Australian waters, visiting Australian ports and disgorging United States sailors for their rest and recreation, but worst of all bearing their nuclear weapons and bringing them right into our harbours right now. No safety plans exist to deal with the possibility of accidents to warheads in ports. The only plans which do exist relate to nuclear powered vessels. Up until the terms of this inquiry were laid down there was no admission that there was any danger connected with nuclear weapons on board such warships, but at least that is being considered by this inquiry. I want to return to Mr Crancher's letter. In it he mentions Rickover. It is important that people understand that this United States admiral, called the father of the United States nuclear navy, was a very important figure in the collating of this evidence, which was never written up. He was in the United States Navy for 63 years, but on his retirement in 1982 he had been converted away from that which he had so actively promoted-that is, the nuclear navy. I quote from his testimonial, which says: I'm not proud of the part I played in it. . . . As for nuclear powered ships, I would sink them all. Later, he said: We should outlaw nuclear weapons to start with, then outlaw nuclear reactors too. This is the man who refused to see Mr Crancher of the AAEC because he might ask embarrassing questions. I contend that the premise on which visits of nuclear powered warships to Australia were resumed is a false premise. We do not have access to the necessary information to make an informed judgment on the safety of such port calls because the United States Navy would not in 1972 give adequate information and still will not give adequate information to foreign governments who are expected to host its nuclear warships. Time and time again the Senate inquiry has been stymied because of lack of information from the United States Navy. So much for our equal relationship. That notion is not only nonsense and insulting; it is also dangerous. Whose interests are being served by the visits of the nuclear navies? Not ours, because we are targeted by the Soviets whenever the ships are in port. Right now Sydney is targeted because of the presence there of the United States ship Midway. It is outrageous that the Australian Government allows its people and its ports to be used by any foreign nuclear navy-especially when it does not have basic information on which to make a judgment about the so-called safety of such visits. In conclusion, I want to emphasise that Mr Crancher's letter of 23 April 1987 to Mr Greenslade of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission reveals that there was no documentation of the specific fact finding tour undertaken by AAEC officials in 1972 to back up the 1976 document. Sitting suspended from 1.09 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of a letter from his Victorian Labor Party Senate ticket colleague, Mr John Halfpenny, to Mitsubishi Australia Ltd in which Mr Halfpenny accuses Mitsubishi and two other Japanese shipbuilders of being, in Mr Halfpenny's words, `less than honourable' in the way they allegedly implemented what he describes as an `understanding' about Australian participation in a contract associated with the North West Shelf project? I ask whether the Minister is further aware that in his letter Mr Halfpenny overtly threatened the shipyards with industrial action by saying: I feel no longer obliged to encourage the co-operation of Australian unions and their members. Does the Minister's Department, which was apparently party to the negotiations referred to, agree with Mr Halfpenny's assessment of the Japanese attitude? Indeed, does the Minister agree with it? If he does not agree, will he dissociate the Australian Government from this latest example of his Senate ticket colleague's industrial blackmail tactics? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware of the particular letter to which Senator Chaney referred, although I was, I suppose, generally aware of a course of discussion on which Mr Halfpenny has been embarked now for some months with Japanese firms about the shipbuilding contract associated with the North West Shelf project. It is not an enterprise in which my Department has been other than peripherally involved, to my knowledge. As such, I am not able, even if I were willing, to comment on that part of the question. All I would say, however, about Mr Halfpenny's general role in the North West Shelf project negotiations for the supply of a maximum amount of Australian content and material during the construction phase is that his role in relation to that project-and I have been closely associated with it over the last 2 1/2 years-has been highly constructive and very well regarded by both government and all sectors of involved Australian industry. Mr Halfpenny has been a key member of the national liaison group that was established by myself and Mr Parker, the Western Australian Minister for Minerals and Energy, just over two years ago to bring together the North West Shelf joint venturers, the two Australian governments involved, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its affiliate unions and all the relevant sectors of Australian industry, including in particular heavy engineering, in an attempt to minimise the friction and maximise the amount of Australian content associated with the project. I am pleased to be able to say that the level of 72 per cent Australian content was achieved in the domestic gas phase of that particular project, while the level of the Australian content in the liquefied natural gas project-the export phase of the project-which involved much more sophisticated technology and, as such, could perhaps have been expected to result in a rather lower level of Australian content, has so far produced Australian content of the order of 70 per cent. To the end of April 1987, sub-contracts and procurement orders for the LNG project totalled $1,900m, with 68 per cent of this amount sourced in Australia. I have to say that Mr Halfpenny has been a very constructive influence in achieving that result. While I am unable to comment about the specifics of the particular matters relating to shipbuilding to which Senator Chaney referred, so far as all other aspects of this project, with which I am very familiar, are concerned, my description of Mr Halfpenny's role is as exactly as I have just given it. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's glowing praise for Mr Halfpenny's role in this matter. Is the Minister aware of the threats which have been made by Mr Halfpenny that there will be industrial action against ships which are involved in this project if the people who are being threatened do not comply with what Mr Halfpenny has requested? Does he agree with the use of this sort of industrial blackmail to maximise Australian participation, which seems to be the point for which he is praising Mr Halfpenny? I draw his attention to the use of similar tactics by the Newcastle State dockyards which are a less than honourable part of that institution's traditions. I ask the Minister: Does he approve of the use of that sort of tactic for the purposes for which he is praising Mr Halfpenny? Senator GARETH EVANS —Industrial blackmail has been no part of the armoury of anyone associated with the national liaison group, including Mr Halfpenny and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in achieving the results I have referred to in the construction phase of the LNG project. Senator Chaney —Do you know that or are you just fibbing? Senator GARETH EVANS —I happen to know that that has been the case so far as the on-shore and off-shore construction phase in north-west Australia of the LNG project is concerned, which was the area with which I said I was familiar-not as to every last event obviously, but as to the general ebb and flow. Senator Chaney —What about the ships? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the ships, I said I am not familiar with that aspect. I am certainly not aware of any such threats having been made by Mr Halfpenny, and I do not propose to answer hypothetical questions from Senator Chaney on this matter or on anything else. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the transcript of an interview with the National Director of the Australian Taxpayers Association heard on Tuesday's Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program AM on the subject of income splitting. Has the Government prepared estimates of the costs to revenue if an income splitting proposal were implemented? If so, what is the estimate? Does the Government share Mr Risstrom's doubt about the capacity of a government to realistically fund such a proposal? Senator WALSH —I did hear part of that interview with Mr Risstrom on AM, and I have looked at the transcript of it since. Senator Giles asked me what the cost to revenue of income splitting would be. The estimated cost is $2.85 billion. That is almost $3 billion. The fact that the National Director of the Australian Taxpayers Association was equivocal about the capacity of the Government to fund that sort of proposal does not surprise me. The equivocation was expressed as follows. The interviewer asked Mr Risstrom: Could the Opposition in government realistically fund this sort of proposal: Mr Risstrom replied: I don't think anybody knows until we learn about it . . . And so it went on. I suppose that, compared with the other set of irresponsible fiscal commitments that the Opposition has been throwing around the place, an extra $3 billion hardly matters. It just adds $3 billion to the set of both expenditure and taxation promises which would add $10 billion to the deficit. If we are already up to $10 billion, some people might argue that another $3 billion does not really matter that much, or that it is hardly worth counting. What in fact would happen, I expect, is what happened in 1977-78; that is, during an election campaign the Liberal Party of Australia ran, day after day, full page newspaper advertisements saying: `Liberals give you tax cuts'. There was a large hand with as many $5 notes as could be stuffed between the fingers on that large hand. One could not count them for sure, but there were certainly several hundred dollars in $5 notes in the hand. That was their approach in the election campaign, and on 1 February, yes, there was a new tax schedule. But on 1 July John Howard put the taxes up again. The fistful of fivers lasted for just five months. `Liberals give you tax cuts'-for a little while. Then on 1 July they stuck the tax rates up again to above what they were before. That was a pea and thimble trick presided over by Mr Howard, and I have no doubt that that is what he has in mind again. He has in mind a variant of that dirty little trick that he pulled on the electorate in 1977 and 1978. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I remind the Minister that 10 days ago she admitted that 44,000 Austudy applications were awaiting processing and that students in financial difficulties should contact the Department of Education in their State. Is the Minister aware that students are having terrible trouble getting help because they are being met by either a recorded message or an apparently continually engaged telephone? Is she further aware of a letter in Tuesday's Age newspaper from Mr Bay, the welfare officer at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, which states that the extreme financial pressure on students caused by the Austudy payments delay has more than trebled the amount in student loans paid out by the RMIT this year compared with last year and that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of referrals to agencies such as the Salvation Army for food vouchers? Instead of merely expressing regret at these delays, which are causing such hardship, what positive action will the Minister take to overcome what Mr Bay describes as this administrative `stuff up' by the Hawke Government? Senator RYAN —I have a few things to say about Austudy and its payments. The first thing is that more students than ever before-many more than under the Fraser Government-are already in receipt of Austudy payments. Although there have been some delays, most delays have been substantially overcome. I do not know whether Senator Newman was directing her remarks to a particular office, say, the Victorian office-she quoted a letter in the Age-or the office in her own State. Many thousands of students have received emergency payments of their Austudy entitlements by contacting their local member or my office, so there has been substantial progress in meeting the needs of students in serious difficulties. I find it ironic that Senator Newman will rise to her feet and complain about delays in payment of student assistance when she is a member of a party whose leader, John Howard, has promised that students next year will not just have to worry about late Austudy payments but will have to pay an average of $10,000 a year in fees. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. This sort of gross misrepresentation of the Opposition's policy is quite improper and I will object to it if the Minister persists. It is an absurd thing that Question-- Government senators interjecting- Senator Chaney —Whether or not I have a point of order will never be determined if Senator Evans keeps babbling away, Mr President. My point of order is that the Minister is clearly debating the question. In addition, she is offensively misrepresenting the Opposition's policy position and there is no reason why the Opposition should tolerate that. It is quite disorderly. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I have no power as to how the Minister shall answer a question and I interpret that she is dealing with an area of her responsibility. Senator RYAN —Senator Newman's question referred to the financial circumstances of higher education students. In response, it is quite proper for me to point out that under the policies endorsed by a Liberal government, new higher education students and even some students already in the system would be facing full fees next year. Two days ago I quoted for the enlightenment of the Senate the words of Senator Chaney's leader, John Howard, speaking on the John Laws program. I quoted him precisely and accurately. I said: If Senator Chaney wants to deny that his leader said this or that this is the policy, let him do so. He did not. John Howard has said that under a government of which he would be the Prime Minister, universities and colleges would charge full fees if they so wished for students coming into their institutions and that a certain number of places-he did not say that that would be the present 400,000 places or so that we have funded during the rapid growth under our policies-would be maintained as free places, but that the rest would be subject to full fees. In addition, nobody can challenge my statement that full fees can amount to as much as $25,000 a year for veterinary science students, that the full fee for law students is $6,000 or thereabouts and that the average full fee for a higher education course is $10,000. I say in reply to Senator Newman that, if she is acting on behalf of her student constituents, she should find some answers for them when they ask: `What will happen to us next year when, far from our worries that our Austudy payments might be held up, our real problem might be that we will have to turn around and find $10,000 to pay for our year's study?'. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I recognise that the Minister answered long, but she did not answer the question. I ask whether she is concealing the bungle in her own Department. Is she denying it? Why is there so much need for these emergency payments of which she seems to be so proud? Is that not an admission of defeat by her own Government? How is it that her Department has managed twice to lose an application form from one of my constituents? How is it that Australian students who have already run out of their holiday money and are off welfare benefits still cannot get Austudy money from her Department? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Ryan can answer those parts of the question which were supplementary. There was also another question involved. Senator RYAN —The payment of Austudy is substantially complete as far as higher education students are concerned. Some payments are still outstanding. Some of those late payments were a result of students giving inadequate information. An emergency system for processing students in economically difficult circumstances has been in place and has worked very successfully. If the best Senator Newman can do when a student goes to her with a problem is to get up and make a fuss in the Senate, I would say that her constituent is very badly represented by her. What sensible senators and members are doing-I have invited every member of the Government and the Opposition to do this-is to immediately contact my office or the Department of Education and have the matter resolved. It seems to me that Senator Newman is holding her constituent to ransom so that she can make a phoney fuss in the Senate instead of doing what any decent representative would do, and get the payment for the student. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Finance representing the Treasurer about an amendment to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) that was moved by the Australian Democrats and passed by a majority of the Senate on Monday night. Is it correct that the amendment may have rendered some of the provisional tax arrangements of the tax system unworkable? If so, what action does the Government plan to take about this matter? Senator WALSH —I advised the Senate when that amendment was being debated that if it was carried it would make the Act unworkable because of internal inconsistency plus the fact that the specific clause is functionally inoperable. A minute from the Australian Taxation Office, which I shall table later, states: . . . the amendment cannot be applied in its present form because at the time of its application it depends on there being an actual taxable income from primary production/abnormal income of the year of income, a figure that is not available because, by definition, the year of income would have only just begun at the relevant time; I told the Senate on Monday night that that was the case. Over and above the internal inconsistency, the clause that the Senate put through is itself inoperable. It is, by definition, virtually inoperable. The Senate was told that and ignored it. I think that the amendment was a Vigor special; it was dropped in in about the last half hour of debate and accepted by Senator Vigor's long suffering colleagues among the Australian Democrats, and then somebody showed it to the National Party-it refers to primary producers' tax and exemptions-upon which National Party senators started twitching, jerking and salivating, in the way they usually do when they hear phrases like that. The National Party senators said: `This is good; we will support it'. Then the National Party flea on the Liberal Party tail went along to the Liberal Party and said: `You should vote for this'. Senator Short, who in the Liberal Party has responsibility in the Senate for tax matters, accepted it, even though he was told that it would make the Bill inoperable. This is one of the most irresponsible acts of sabotage that this Senate has yet committed, and that is saying something. Senator Coates asked me what the Government intends to do about it. There is nothing much that we can do about it at this stage because those obstructers, those saboteurs, those mindless maniacs on the other side, still will not accept that the amendment passed by the Senate has to be dropped. Senator Chaney —On a point of order: Is Senator Walsh going for the Treasurer's prize for vulgar abuse, Mr President? Will you let him get away with it? I am sick of this sort of unparliamentary language. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw that comment. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I am happy to do that. The fact remains, however, that because of the irresponsible actions of the Senate on Tuesday night it is impossible-- The PRESIDENT —Order! There is a standing order concerning reflecting on a vote of the Senate. The question was in order because it asked about government action, but I remind the Minister not to reflect on such a vote. Senator WALSH —I withdraw that, Mr President. Senator Short has the distinction of putting out a Press release-his first Press release as shadow Minister for Finance-which said that the payment on the national debt, or public debt interest, amounted to $55 billion in a year. That was his first action as shadow Minister for Finance, to say that public debt interest was $55 billion a year. About the next time he was heard of was when he committed the Liberal Party to voting for this stupid amendment that, I suspect very strongly, originated from Senator Vigor. Senator Gareth Evans —Not only innumerate but illiterate. Senator WALSH —As Senator Gareth Evans reminds me, he is illiterate as well as innumerate. No wonder he got out of Treasury, as I said before. It was probably getting ready to kick him out if that is a fair sample of his competence. I was asked what the Government intends to do about it. We ought to amend it pronto and delete that amendment. Since there is no indication that we can get any co-operation from any of that gaggle of people over the other side, I do not think there is much point in doing that. If the Opposition offers to correct the blunder that it made on Monday or Tuesday night I will certainly see what can be done within the time available to have the Bill fixed up. Failing that, the action proposed is as I forecast on Monday or Tuesday night, and that is that we will be bringing in an amending Bill very early in the Budget session of Parliament. I table the minute provided by the Australian Taxation Office. Senator POWELL —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Communications comment on a report in the Age this morning that the Fairfax group will start legal action against the cross-ownership rules forbidding a media proprietor from owning a television licence and a newspaper which has more than 50 per cent of its distribution within the market to which the television licence applies? Does this mean that Holmes a Court and Fairfax will be able to emulate Murdoch and litigate endlessly to postpone disposing of their illegal media investments? Was this possibility canvassed in the telephone conference, mentioned in today's Australian Financial Review, between Mr Keating, Mr Duffy and the media moguls on Friday night, when presumably Labor Ministers sought and gained the approval of those who stood to benefit most from the media sell-out, before concluding their deal with the Joh Nationals? Does this mean that the Hawke Government need not have bothered legislating to achieve its sell-out of the Australian media to large multinational and domestic corporations since media owners are a law unto themselves? Senator WALSH —It is not surprising that a party which believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden should take off on such flights of fancy as that which was demonstrated in the last part of that question. If I can give a bit of gratuitous advice to the Australian Democrats, I suggest that they pay less attention to the fairies at the bottom of the garden and more attention to important things such as getting taxation legislation right and having a taxation law which is technically operable, instead of coming in here like spoilers and saboteurs, at the behest of Senator Vigor admittedly, and slipping in a one-line amendment that makes a Bill inoperable. I suggest that the Democrats pay a bit more attention to the things that matter and indulge their fantasies a bit less than they normally do. I have not read this morning's Age. I did not even see the report. I will refer the question to Mr Duffy for comment and/or opinion. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister for Education, in her capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, inform the Senate what impact the abolition of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission would have on the administration of the Sex Discrimination Act? Can the Minister comment on the consequences for women seeking redress against sex discrimination? Senator RYAN —As honourable senators will be aware, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is the body vested with the power to deal with complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act, and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is a member of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. If the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission were abolished there would be no authority vested with the power to make determinations under the Sex Discrimination Act. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner would continue to exist until the Sex Discrimination Act was repealed, but there would be limited scope for inquiries. The Sex Discrimination Act, in other words, would be rendered a toothless tiger. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner would be left with an Act to administer and no guarantee of resources. The impact on women would be disastrous as a significant avenue for redress against discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status and pregnancy would be rendered ineffective. Of particular interest to Senator Reynolds is that women in Queensland-also in Tasmania-would be particularly disadvantaged as in those States there is no State legislation to protect women in these ways. It is no surprise that the Opposition is proposing to take this course of action. Women in Australia have been shown all too clearly what sort of priority the official Opposition accords to improving the status of women. Its recent stand on the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill indicates that it is not interested. Senator Chaney —Why do you have to read an answer on that? I thought you knew something about it. Senator RYAN —Senator Chaney likes to interject at this stage. He, of course, was not able to persuade his Leader, John Howard, to maintain any continuity in their attitude on equal employment opportunity. He voted for EEO on one occasion but then, because the Liberals were desperately trying to keep the National Party flea on their tail, they walked across and voted against legislation. Senator McKiernan —Sold out. Senator RYAN —They sold out women and sold out on a piece of legislation that their spokesperson at the time, Senator Peter Baume, had advocated. Then, when they realised that they had gone too far, when they saw that they had lost 10 percentage points in the polls in relation to their support by women, they immediately turned around and voted with us on the next stage of the EEO legislation. It has been a pathetic effort, and it is no wonder that they are now proposing to abolish the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. They would vote to abolish that because that is where their true interests lie. Of course, Senator Walters, a well known opponent of EEO, is trying to interject also. They are very ill-advised in adopting this policy because the Sex Discrimination Act has been an outstanding success, with over 2,000 complaints being resolved satisfactorily to date. It is quite clear that those 2,000 complainants would have been left with no redress whatsoever in the absence of the Act and the Commission. It is the intention of the Opposition, if it can ever get its act together to state an intention, that no women in Australia-of course, it is a particular problem to women in Queensland and Tasmania-would have the protection of the Sex Discrimination Act under the Opposition's current proposals. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for communications. I remind the Minister that, in relation to the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation, about the only unanimous resolution was the recommendation that the Minister appoint an independent consultant about the clearance of band II. The Minister would know that if band II were cleared this would have a significant effect on viewers in Newcastle and Wollongong, as well as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation audiences throughout Australia, as for many of them the signal received would be either completely lost or downgraded. In addition, the cost of these stations moving from band II to UHF would amount to $90m for the viewers, $40m for the Commonwealth and $10m for the commercial broadcasters. In the light of all this, why has the Government notified at least one of the stations involved that the Minister has decided to drop any plans of calling upon a consultant to review this important and expensive change, particularly as the Minister recently said, on 30 March, that he was sympathetic to the idea of engaging a consultant? In addition, the Minister, in relation to extra licences has been quoted as saying: `Any new services would have to be UHF services with all that that implies about the character of competition between that licensee and existing licensees'. Senator WALSH —If Senator Sheil was quoting me at the end of his question, I think I must have been quoting from a note which the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, had supplied to me-but I do not remember saying it. I will check this with Mr Duffy, but on this issue I believe that the licensees have had warning for a very long period, if not since the time when their licences were granted, that they would be required to move out of band II on to UHF. On the matter of the appointment of a consultant, I do not know anything about that. I will obtain a response from the Minister for Communications and ascertain whether in fact he did write to one licensee and his reason for it. Senator Sheil says that he did. This was quite a technical question, of course-apparently much too technical for the shadow spokesman for Communications, who said on the Sunday program, about 11 or 12 days ago, that, effectively, there should be no regulations in relation to broadcasting. If that were to happen, of course, then anyone who wanted to set up a transmitter could do so and just let it rip. The sort of thing that would occur on a television set tuned into a particular channel or frequency would be that there would be one picture with about three shadows behind it, as the four transmitters would be broadcasting on the same frequency. As to which picture was dominant would be related to the power of the transmitter and perhaps to some topographical and geological factors. I think that the shadow Minister for Communications has learnt a bit since then. I believe that Mr Duffy told me that either he or some officers from the Department did take Mr Beale through a bit of a training course on this matter a couple of days ago, and they produced the graphs and charts, and the sorts of things that I have seen before, which make it easier to understand what things can be done in broadcasting throughout the spectrum that is available-as well as those things which cannot be done. However, I will see what the Minister for Communications has to say about the question of a consultant. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the progress-- Senator Haines —Try asking him a question about how to manage business. Senator COOK —He is a very effective manager of business. Can the Minister inform the Senate of progress on the North West Shelf project and about the impact that this project is likely to have on Australia's future balance of payments and our energy security? Senator GARETH EVANS —My only regret, Mr President, is that I have used some of this material earlier in Question Time in answer to a question asked by Senator Chaney. Given the Channel 9 Sunday program last weekend, which some honourable senators may have seen, which raised some question marks about the North West Shelf project, I think it is important to make the point that, notwithstanding some of the problems that do exist with the difficulties that Western Australia is having in absorbing the contracted gas volumes in the domestic phase of this project, the Government and I are extremely confident that the export phase of the project will proceed as planned and that the project will continue to provide significant benefits for both Western Australia and the nation as a whole for a long time to come. It would be well known that the North West Shelf natural gas project is the largest resource project ever to be undertaken in this country, its being some two and a half to three times the size of the Snowy Mountains project. The Government's approach has been to do all that we can in putting together a tax and royalty regime which will make the project effective and, in relation to the announcement that I made earlier today about the crude oil tax review, it may be noticed that the decision to reaffirm existing policy on condensate production and the excise treatment of that was expressly designed to give a further degree of assurance to the North West Shelf project venturers about the viability of that project and to ensure its continued development through to fruition. I have already mentioned the achievements that have been made in this project as far as Australian content is concerned. The other point to mention, apart from the other obvious employment spin-offs that have been associated with that, is that the project will have a number of significant long term benefits for Australia's balance of payments. The substitution of natural gas for petroleum products used by industrial, commercial and residential consumers in Western Australia will reduce our oil import bill for at least the next 20 years. Condensate production will either earn valuable export revenue of up to $1 billion a year at today's prices or, if consumed domestically, reduce our oil import bill during the 1990s by a similar amount. Liquefied natural gas exports are estimated to be worth around $2 billion a year, in 1986-87 dollars, once the plateau level of 5.8 million tonnes a year is reached in 1994. That of course will rival the traditional great earners of foreign exchange in this country, namely, coal, wheat, iron ore and wool. Exports will start generating income in about two years time, with exports being scheduled to commence in October 1989. A project of these dimensions, with its total cost of $12 billion, bringing gas from 3 platforms, 135 kilometres out to sea, and liquefying and exporting some 6 million tonnes of gas per year, using seven specialised tankers, is really a very impressive one on any scale. Undoubtedly, it will encounter its share of problems but, as I said at the outset, I am confident that it will proceed to be an excellent example of Australia's ability to construct and to run such an impressive resource project. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Minister will recall telling the Senate on 14 May that Mr Simon Crean was wrong to say, as he had said on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television on mini-Budget night, that the Australian Council of Trade Unions had a commitment from the Government to increase family allowances. In fact, the Minister said: `There is no private commitment to the ACTU.' Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister will meet an ACTU delegation, led by Mr Bill Kelty, in Canberra tonight in an attempt to keep the unions quiet for the duration of the election campaign, so that strikes such as that which shut down the New South Wales south coast, and guerilla action against metal trades employers in Victoria will be held off until after 11 July? What price is the Government prepared to pay to guarantee industrial peace for the next 5 weeks? Will the Minister tell the people of Australia and the Senate what commitments the Government will give the ACTU at tonight's meetings? Senator BUTTON —I am quite aware of the meeting tonight between the ACTU and Ministers of the Government. This does not surprise me; they take place fairly regularly, just as do meetings between government Ministers and leaders of the business community, for example. That is the pattern of government that we have adopted since we have been in government in this country, and that will continue. There is nothing extraordinary or surprising about this. Senator Baume's question has been fired up by the headline of a newspaper article this morning and I understand that. However, let me say this: When I said what I said on 14 May about private undertakings to the ACTU I meant it. They were not private undertakings; they were public undertakings. This Government has said all along that it intends to introduce a family package in the context of the Budget. Senator Messner —Why didn't you announce it on the thirteenth? Senator BUTTON —Senator Messner may realise that a statement was made on 13 May and it dealt-- Senator Messner —They were initial Budget measures. Senator BUTTON —No. Can the honourable senator tell me what additional government outlays were in the package of 13 May? It has been said all along that the Government would do that in the context of this year's Budget. Senator Messner —Exactly. That is why I am saying: `Why didn't you tell us?'. Senator BUTTON —Look, `Alley Oop', be quiet for just one moment, put away your club and sit back and have a bit of a sleep. Senator Crichton-Browne —You are making it a lot easier. Senator BUTTON —It is no good carrying on with silly interjections. I see that Senator Messner has been joined by his other troglodytic mate. In answer to Senator Baume's question, let me say this: No particular private undertaking was given to the ACTU on this matter; it is a matter which concerns a wide section of the community and it is to those people that we, as a government, make the undertaking and it is to those people we will deliver a family package. Senator Baume, in the other part of his question, sought to imply that the Government was meeting the ACTU to try to hose down a few industrial stoppages around the place. He asked me what price the Government will pay. I will tell him the price it will pay. Ministers in this Government will be working very hard in the next five weeks to keep honourable senators opposite away from the treasury bench because the people of Australia know-- Senator Chaney —You will have to work very hard. Senator BUTTON —We do not mind that at all. The people of Australia know that if honourable members opposite ever got near the treasury bench the level of industrial disputation in this country would go back to what it was in the Fraser days. Under the Liberal Government the level of industrial disputation was twice what it is today. The Opposition's present leader, Mr Howard-he might last until the election-is on record as saying: `We are prepared for five years of industrial warfare in order to try to settle some of these problems'. In saying that no doubt he was inspired by some of the forces outside the Liberal Party who put him up to that statement. That is the price we will pay. We will continue what we have been doing for a long time-improving industrial relations in this country-and we will do it by a process of consultation. We will not do it by the silly methods which the Fraser Government adopted and to which this country can, at its peril, return. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I had asked the Minister what commitments the Government will give the ACTU at tonight's meeting. As he has introduced the newspaper report, I ask him in that context: Will the Minister specifically deny the report that there will be top level talks aimed at neutralising industrial relations during the Federal election campaign? Will he specifically deny the import of the Australian Financial Review report? Senator BUTTON —There are always top level talks on a regular basis between the Government and the ACTU about a variety of matters. The meeting which will take place tonight will be no different at all from any other meeting which is designed to reduce the level of industrial disputation in this country and to improve productivity and industrial relations. Senator ROBERT RAY —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to concern and criticism about apparently poor levels of investment activity occurring in manufacturing industries. Is the Minister able to report on investments which have been committed in particular sectors of manufacturing industry? Will he indicate whether any such details, if available, support the gloomy picture painted by the Opposition parties? Senator BUTTON —This type of question is sometimes called a dorothy dix question and this question is a dorothy dix question because I want to provide an answer to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who asked a thoughtful question about this issue the other day, and to Senator Messner, who asked a thoughtless question about this issue the week before. The picture is not as gloomy as the Opposition would like to paint it. In the March quarter of the national accounts released last week, on 27 May-perhaps that is a little earlier than last week; it is 8 days or so ago-business investment increased at an annual rate of 12.3 per cent in the six months to March. Australian Bureau of Statistics investment expectation figures also released last week show an expected decline in future investment-I think that was one of the points raised in Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question. These expectations were formed prior to the well applauded May economic statement which is expected to lead to declining interest rates. In answer to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question last week, I indicated that I received, as Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, regular reports on investments committed for particular sectors of manufacturing industry. I would be pleased to share some of that information with her. While the reports provide a partial picture of investment activity, nonetheless they are a good indicator of commitments to investment-they are commitments to investment, not shadowy suggestions of better things to come. I will refer to those matters. I identified four or five industry sectors. In the pulp and paper manufacturing industry, investment currently committed is in the order of $200m. In the steel industry the investment currently committed is $324m. At the end of March 1987 the total authorised investment of Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd. was $1.24m and actual investment was $1.1 billion. In the motor vehicle industry-I can specify the companies if the honourable senator wishes-total capital expenditure by vehicle manufacturing companies will exceed $1.5 billion in the years from 1987 to 1989. In the chemicals and plastic industries the committed investment to take place next year is $270m. In the textile, clothing and footwear industry committed investment to take place this year is $44.5m. Those are some examples; I can specify them by companies if Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle wishes. The other point I would like to make is that to my knowledge there are investment plans in those sectors which I think are more than double the figures I have given but, for reasons of commercial confidence, I cannot discuss them in the Senate. Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I think the Minister has overlooked the food processing area. Will he outline future investment plans in that area? Senator BUTTON —I would very much like to outline that investment figure. I gave Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle figures for four or five sample industries. I would not like to outline the figures for food processing today; I would prefer to do that tomorrow. Senator PARER —Mr President, you will be aware that in the next few weeks parliamentary attendants will be engaged in a familiarisation program at the new Parliament House. Are you aware that those attendants will be required to be paid site allowance in addition to their normal salary? Is this site allowance paid to all staff employed by this Parliament who attend the new Parliament House for familiarisation? What is the reason for these extraordinary payments and how extensive are these rorts? Senator SIBRAA —As part of the general staff development and preparation for occupying the new building, all attendants periodically make familiarisation tours of the new Parliament House site. These tours are of about one hour's duration and occur every six months. No site allowance has been sought or is paid for these visits. At present the Parliament has received a claim for a site allowance on behalf of Joint House Department technical services staff engaged in duties on the site-and I assume that those are full time duties. This claim is currently the subject of negotiation. I have been advised that no other employees of the parliamentary departments, including parliamentary security attendants, have made a claim for a site allowance at this stage. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has his attention been drawn to a Press statement emanating from the National Health and Medical Research Council meeting in Hobart two days ago in which the NHMRC supported the establishment of a national body to control all areas of biomedical ethics, including in vitro fertilisation research? I quote from the report: In endorsing the establishment of a national bioethics body, the NHMRC accepted recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Human Embryo Experimentation. Is it a fact that the NHMRC has accepted the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee, which recommended legislation to establish a national body and also recommended legislation making unlawful any destructive non-therapeutic experimentation which frustrated the development of a human embryo? As it is now eight months-- Senator McKiernan —Do you want an extension of time? Senator HARRADINE —I do not have too many questions. As it is now eight months since the Senate Select Committee reported and more than two years since the introduction of my Bill concerning human embryo experimentation, when will the Government make its views clear on this subject? Is it likely to do so before the next election? What is meant by the words in the NHMRC statement `a Health Minister's and Attorneys-General advisory committee? Senator TATE —I have not seen a report of the proceedings or resolutions-if they were formal resolutions as such-or Press releases emanating from the meeting of the National Health and Medical Research Council which was apparently held in Hobart yesterday. However, about three minutes before Question Time my attention was drawn by Senator Harradine to the fact that Australian Associated Press carried some reports purporting to be from that meeting. Insofar as the NHMRC is alleged to have supported the creation of a national body to deal with questions of biomedical ethics in Australia, that would be consistent with accepting a recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on Human Embryo Experimentation in that that Committee did say, basing it in part on the model of the Asche Committee, the report of the Family Law Council and the report of the New South Wales Premier's Women's Advisory Council, that there should be such a national body established of a broadly representative kind, chaired by an eminent lay person and carrying out the task of setting guidelines, monitoring research and indeed approving research protocols. Insofar as the NHMRC claims-in the terms of Senator Harradine's question-to be endorsing one of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee, that would be true. However, as far as I know it would not be true to say that the NHMRC has endorsed other elements of the Senate Committee report. I imagine that, if it were consistent with its previous position, the NHMRC would not be looking to a legislative framework setting down the basic ethical guidelines as recommended by a majority in that report, nor would it be endorsing the actual recommendation of the Committee that destructive experimentation on human embryos not be permitted. On Senator Harradine's question about the relationship between the NHMRC and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Health Ministers Council, I point out that the NHMRC is very low in that hierarchy and nothing that it says could pre-empt the deliberations by those bodies on the material and matters raised by the Senate Committee report. Nor can it pre-empt deliberations by the Government. In answer to the final part of Senator Harradine's question, I have not had an opportunity to consult the Minister, but I doubt very much whether in the election period a matter of such high policy content would be decided, given the normal constraints that apply to governments during the period from the double dissolution onwards. Senator HARRADINE —I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that there is an understanding in this place that the Government will respond to Senate committee reports within three months? Will the Minister agree that even now, as acknowledged by the NHMRC, there is community concern about the rapidly increasing area of biomedical research and that this is a major matter of public importance on which it would be appropriate for the Government to make a determination now? Senator TATE —It would be appropriate for the Government to respond as soon as practicable but the Senate Select Committee itself recognised that this would not be a matter for this Government alone and that the best way forward for Australia-being a country in which the Federal system has at times caused very arbitrary and artificial divisions in the response of various geographical areas to matters which are of equal concern and should be resolved in a uniform way-was by consultation in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Health Ministers Council in order to ensure that we have a national system of accreditation of those institutions which might undertake such experimentation and to ensure a supplementing of those matters which are appropriate for Commonwealth legislation or executive government involvement by equal and complementary legislation or executive action by State governments. Insofar as our Government has been in consultation with State governments, that probably accounts for the time lapse that has occurred. I hope that this will be resolved by the time the next Parliament meets. Senator ARCHER —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the intended proclamation of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act on 1 July 1987 and the publication on that date of a massive list covering artefacts, documents, paintings, relics, craftwork, stamps, coins, exploration equipment and implements, diaries, furniture and other objects which reflect the particular nature of the Australian experience. What steps are in hand for Customs officers to check outgoing passengers to ensure that the provisions of the Act are complied with? What training, if any, has been provided to these officers to assist them in the identification of the items to be listed for 1 July 1987? Senator BUTTON —I do not have the details of that matter and I ask Senator Archer to put his question on notice. I will try to obtain an answer for him by tomorrow. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce received any further information about industrial disputes affecting metal trades companies in Victoria? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I have received further information and I am particularly glad that Senator Chaney is here because I thought that he would like to hear it. Senator Chaney —I have checked it already. I have the information. Senator BUTTON —Of course you have, Senator, but we ought to share these things with the community at large. It was only the day before yesterday when, in a series of questions, Senator Chaney used these words: 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. Senator Chaney —What did it cost them in Port Kembla? Senator BUTTON —It cost them a lot less than it cost them in 1982, when 6,000 workers lost their jobs and the steel industry was left in chaos. I want to take up a couple of issues. In the middle of last week Senator Chaney was referring to 20 companies being subject to industrial action. Later it dropped down to five, and yesterday-- Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. This is again a case of clear misrepresentation of what I said. Senator Gareth Evans —It is not a point of order. Sit down. Senator Chaney —I am being helped again by Senator Evans. Mr President, the Minister has misquoted me, I do not know whether intentionally or accidentally, and I object to that. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. There are other forms open to Senator Chaney. Senator BUTTON —The expression I used was `20 companies being subject to industrial action'. As Senator Chaney goes on in his portfolio-shadow portfolio-he will understand what that expression means. Senator Walters —What a Freudian slip. Senator BUTTON —After what Senator Walters said last night, I am surprised that she mentions the name of Sigmund Freud in this chamber. I hope that he is not obsessing her in any way. Earlier Senator Chaney was asking me about 20 companies being subject to industrial pressure, if you like. Later it became five and yesterday it was one, ANI National Forge. Senator Chaney asked me a question again about that. In respect of each of those questions I said that the Government was doing what it could to bring about a reconciliation of the industrial disputes in those areas. Senator Chaney said that the softly, softly approach, as distinct from the Liberal Party big stick approach from 1975 to 1982, would not work. Yesterday the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union recommended a return to work-- Senator Chaney —I said that all along. Senator BUTTON —No, you did not. Senator Chaney —Twenty-five to one, that is the point I made in my question. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney should get the facts straight. The Victorian Branch of the Metal Workers Union, which Senator Chaney attacked in every question he asked, yesterday recommended a return to work. It also recommended a return to work at National Forge on 26 May. The recommendation of the union for a return to work was rejected by 73 votes to 58 among the employees of ANI. Senator Chaney asked me what I intended to do about this. I said that I would use my best efforts to see that these matters were conciliated, as would the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Today a further meeting took place. Employees have returned to work at ANI National Forge and agreements have been reached between the company and the workers at ANI on restructuring, work practices and efficiency measures as to how they will resolve those issues. The unions and the company together are aiming to develop a package which is acceptable to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I commend that not only to honourable senators but to the people of Australia as an indication of how the so-called softly, softly approach works, as distinct from the approach that Senator Chaney and his colleagues are talking about advocating. Senator RYAN —During Question Time, Senator Newman asked for some specific information on progress in assessing Austudy applications. I am happy to report that as at 1 June this year all applications have been assessed. A total of 230,892 applications has been received, and 170,007, or 82 per cent of the eligible applicants are receiving regular fortnightly payments. Of the remainder, 33,500 are ineligible and 27,384 are awaiting additional information from the applicant. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-This morning there were reports in the newspapers concerning the pre-selection in South Australia. I wish at this stage to make a statement concerning my relationship with the South Australian division of the Australian Democrats. I can no longer remain associated with the South Australian division of the Australian Democrats, which has successively whittled all the principles of democracy which I hold dear. Last night the Council of the Australian Democrats in South Australia decided to ignore the regulations under the South Australian Constitution which would have put me second on the Australian Democrats ticket. I believe that it is extremely important to point out that I have been a member of the Australian Democrats since its inception more than 10 years ago. I have worked as a member of the National Executive and in almost all its administrative policy and political roles, both within South Australia and federally. I believe that during my time in Parliament I have represented the members of that Party effectively. To this end I have stayed in the Party and worked hard within the structure of the Democrats during the last two years, despite a number of differences of principle, which resulted at an earlier stage in Senator Siddons leaving the Party. I feel at this stage that the Party in South Australia has lost its original basis of honesty, tolerance and compassion. This has been replaced by a cynical, political manoeuvring and dealing which resulted in Lance Milne leaving the Party at the time of the last State election- Senator Robert Ray —After he lost pre-selection too. Senator VIGOR —No, he did not lose pre-selection. It resulted in Don Chisholm being replaced from the top of the ticket in South Australia following a factional brawl. Similar types of operations have happened in New South Wales and most recently in Western Australia. I wish to make the announcement to this Senate that I will be standing against Janine Haines in South Australia. The form and method in which I will be standing I hope to announce tomorrow. But I wish to make the point clear to the Senate that I shall continue to work effectively within all the portfolio operations which I am still undertaking until the end of this Parliament. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-It is a sad day for any political party when one of its members makes an announcement such as Senator Vigor has made. It represents another split in the Australian Democrats. It reminds me of the fact that, when this Government was last elected to office, there were four opposition parties in the Senate. Now there are nine. If we could only sit for another week to allow the National Party to have its preselection, probably there would be 10-or maybe 11-parties. It reminds me of the Agatha Christie story Ten Little Niggers. I am not making a racist comment in saying that. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Ten green bottles. Senator BUTTON —Yes, ten green bottles. The continual fragmentation of the Opposition in the Senate is a matter of concern to the Government. We very much regret it, in terms of the statement made by Senator Vigor. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-As the leader of one of the two parties that have not suffered a defection during the present Parliament I share some of the sorrow that has been expressed by Senator Button. I look around this place and see Senator Siddons, who led the charge from the Australian Democrats; Senator Vigor, who has discovered at this rather late stage of his lead into the election that he too has to leave the Democrats; Senator Vallentine, who established the precedent by leaving the Nuclear Disarmament Party before it was really formed; and, of course, Senator Georges. I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) for being one of the two leaders of the Australian Labor Party during my political life who have managed to lose a single member of the Caucus under their jurisdiction. The only other person was Captain Sam Benson-and I see Senator Georges resuming his seat-who managed to win a seat against the endorsed Labor Party candidate when he was ejected from the Labor Party for crossing the floor. Senator Georges may set out to follow that precedent of Captain Sam Benson. I can only say to Senator Georges that if we have to have somebody from the Labor side it may as well be him. I would just like to acknowledge the fact that the Liberal members of parliament have stayed in a tight cohesive group and I thank them for their support and assistance. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-It is an extraordinary development that has occurred in the Senate. I agree with Senator Chaney except for the fact that there has been a defection from his Party, of which perhaps he is not aware. A person who has been prominent, active and a power in this place has indicated that for reasons which he is not prepared to spell out he will not renominate. If Senator Chaney looks at that carefully, he will see it is a defection in a sense. It is very sad that a person should be brought to the point, when he was able if he so wished to carry on in the Party which he has represented so well for so long in this place, of defection. I just want to bring a sobering note into this debate. The person about whom I am speaking, of course, has announced his resignation from this place. His retirement- Senator Chaney —Senator Elstob. Senator GEORGES —No, it is Senator Withers. The difference with Senator Elstob, Senator Coleman and others is that they are retiring for other reasons. They are forced by a variety of rules of the Australian Labor Party or because of circumstances previously announced not to stand again. But that was not the case with Senator Withers. I point out to the Senate and to the Liberal Party the enormity of that decision by a man, who, in his time, was an extremely powerful figure. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I present the tenth report of 1987 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (By-Elections) Bill 1987; Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987; Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1987; and Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CROWLEY —On behalf of the Committee, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 10 dated 3 June 1987. Messages received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the following Bills: Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986. Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986. Australian Institute of Health Bill 1987. Social Security Amendment Bill 1987. Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987. Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. Debate resumed. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.16) —Before the suspension of the sitting I had just commenced making comments on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill. I started by saying that protection of privacy is terribly important. But the attitude in the community towards crime and criminals is something that we really need to take very seriously. I have become more and more concerned in recent times that there always seems to be this folk hero aura about criminals-saying that it is not right to take all means possible to apprehend criminals, that they should be played on gentlemen's rules and that certain ways of apprehending them generally should be excluded. From that flows the fact that police force resources are stretched very tightly. No credit is given to government. People do not know how difficult it can be to apprehend the various miscreants in the community. Telecommunications interception is very much becoming a last resort. The police do not like it. The cost of performing telecommunications interception is a real budget wrecker. But we must take into account that it is effective. It provides good evidence in court and under some circumstances it can save a considerable amount of time. I do not believe that we should give any comfort to criminals. To make them realise that the use of the telephone can be very risky is most useful as far as their apprehension is concerned. We must protect the rights of people. We need to make sure that the methods we use are as up to date and likely to result in apprehension as possible. Simplicity in courts is important. We do not wish to make the process more difficult. In this regard I disagree with Senator Cooney and the Bill before us. They agree that there are certain things we ought to do to make it more difficult to effect an interception. I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. In the course of taking evidence we did not interview one law enforcement agency which supported the proposition in the legislation; that is, that there should be only one office to look after interceptions. There is absolutely no demonstrable advantage in having only one office. The only reason for that provision is to pacify certain of the civil liberties groups, left wing organisations and divisions within the Australian Labor Party. Every law office in the States of Australia, the joint drug forces and the National Crime Authority, in my opinion, should have access to Telecom Australia arrangements and be able to pursue the matter from there. All States preferred to have interceptions under their control. There is a thing amongst police officers that they have a certain territorial imperative, that they do not like sharing information. The more hands information goes through and the more organisations are involved the more likely it is that there will be a loss of security. Crime Legislation The other matter I take issue with is the level of the judges. There is absolutely no reason in the world to believe that a Federal Court judge is superior to a Supreme Court judge for the purposes of the taking of an affidavit. This is a stupid, hairsplitting arrangement. Two of the jurisdictions we are talking about do not even have any Federal Court judges within their boundaries. It is nonsense to make people go elsewhere to try to get the approval of a Federal Court judge. I believe that the problems will be overcome when the Federal Government makes the necessary resources available to the States and gives them the opportunity to accept them if they wish. That would be a far better and simpler solution. There needs to be a complete and satisfactory audit. I can find no fault with that proposition. But there should also be a total ban on the manufacture, import, sale or ownership of bugging devices. This could begin in the Commonwealth area of law enforcement. We could then pursue ways of getting other areas of jurisdiction to follow. There are law enforcement funding problems. I guess that there always will be. We will not be able to provide the desired amount of money to fund the fight against crime to the extent we believe is necessary. But if we are genuine and if we provide adequate protection and adequate safeguards there are no grounds for not solving crime in the most appropriate way. I am reminded regularly by people who are involved in this area that the Australia Card-what a debacle that was-would have been far more obtrusive on people's rights and privacy than the selective telecommunications interception of people on the basis of their being suspected of being involved in a high level of crime. Criminals who doubt the security of their telephones are often forced into the open. That is one of the advantages of telecommunications interception. If they believe that it is possible that their telephones are being intercepted they will go into the open where they are much easier to trace in a variety of ways. I believe that the Bill does not go far enough. It helps the crims. They would be quite happy with the legislation because I think they were expecting it to be further up the track than it is. It does not please those who really want to clean up major crime. The minority report of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception covers the issues. Although the report is a start, we will amend the legislation along the lines I have mentioned when we get back into government next month. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.25) —After the conclusion of the last Parliament in October 1984-I think it was during the election campaign-Mr Costigan presented the final volume of the report of his major investigation of organised crime in Australia. He had already presented a number of interim reports. In Mr Costigan's final report he made further important recommendations about the way in which organised crime should be tackled by governments in Australia, both Federal and State. Mr Costigan recommended that some very major responsibilities be assumed by the Federal Government. During the election campaign the Hawke Government steered away from any significant commitment to implementing the recommendations of Mr Costigan. Nor did it indicate that any sense of urgency was required as a result of the notable investigation over a period of four years by Mr Costigan and his assistants. There were two very significant recommendations in the report. One recommendation was that investigators of organised crime should be able to follow what Mr Costigan called `the money trail'. He described in his reports in great detail what he meant by `the money trail', how the recommendation should be carried out and the methods he had adopted which had proved so fruitful to his investigations. One method was to be able to seize as many documents as possible without warning to the organised criminals and then to follow that up with the computer methods pioneered by the Costigan royal commission. One set of documents could be used to get information from other sources and so on. One would then find out where the proceeds of crime had gone. That could be done only by a series of such operations. Another very important recommendation Mr Costigan made was that there should be uniform drug trafficking laws, both Federal and State, throughout Australia. For some time prior to the report of Mr Costigan and because of the way the Hawke Government had dealt with Mr Costigan, closing up his inquiry as fast as it could in 1984 before he was able to make any proper handover arrangements to the National Crime Authority which took over some of the work he had been doing, we felt that the Hawke Government was not really serious about the pursuit of organised crime. Clearly we were justified in that view. It has taken the Government until the dying days of this Parliament, nearly three years from the time of Mr Costigan's final report-as I have said, the report was released in the middle of the last election campaign in November 1984-to introduce legislation into this Parliament, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987 and, more particularly, the Proceeds of Crime Bill, to give effect to one of the two major recommendations of Mr Costigan. It is not as though Mr Costigan's recommendations were new. There had been many recommendations before to the effect that the only really effective way of deterring or dealing with organised crime was to seize and confiscate the proceeds of those crimes. Other commissioners investigating organised crime had pointed out the inadequacies of Australian law in relation to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime, but Mr Costigan highlighted them because of the very sophisticated methods he developed and the very forthright way he went about tackling the problems he confronted in the great task of his inquiry. There is absolutely no justification for the Government having taken this inordinate length of time to introduce this legislation. There is even less justification for the delay, because the former coalition Fraser Government introduced amendment to the Customs Act which enabled the seizure, the freezing and ultimately the forfeiture of proceeds from drug trafficking. That legislation was pioneered by the Fraser Government, admittedly in relation only to drug trafficking, but that was the serious organised crime about which we were concerned at that time. That legislation was passed by this Parliament and it has been given effect. It was shown to have worked. Of course, Mr Costigan highlighted the much wider issue of organised crime, not just in relation to drug syndicates and drug trafficking, but also in relation to the whole range of organised crime. There were findings of other royal commissioners, there were the findings and recommendations of Mr Costigan and there was the precedent set by the Fraser Government, but it took this Government 2 1/2 years to implement those recommendations. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill widens the powers of telephone tapping in relation to serious criminal activities and, in particular, in the case of organised crime. The principal Act, the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, was known to have been too restrictive in relation to telephone tapping. Again, a precedent was set by the former coalition Government, which for the first time, allowed interceptions of telephones for the purpose of criminal, as opposed to security, investigations. The former Act applied only to security matters. Again, the Fraser Government showed the way and enable interceptions of telephones by the Australian Federal Police for serious narcotic offences when warrants had been obtained. In that case, again the Government had the prece- dent for the use of telephone interceptions in criminal investigations. It was quite clear that the step taken by the Fraser Government as far back as 1979 was to be only the first step but, apart from that precedent, I think recommendations were made at about the time this Government took office. Mr Justice Stewart, in his report on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, indicated the need for wider powers of interception. Ultimately, when the Government was shamed by its delays and negligence into doing something about the New South Wales, or the Age tapes, as they are perhaps better known, and after the Opposition had been calling for this to be done for about a year, the Government gave another commission to Mr Justice Stewart to investigate the Age tapes. About a year ago he reported on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions and mentioned the value that intercepting telephones would have in investigating serious criminal matters generally and not just in relation to drug trafficking. Mr Justice Stewart had available to him, admittedly illegally obtained, the Age tapes, but he was able to analyse the value of that information to the New South Wales police in their investigations of various crimes. About a year ago the Government introduced a Bill to give some effect to Mr Justice Stewart's recommendations. Even then, in June 1986, it did not have the courage of its convictions to proceed with that legislation-indeed, it probably did not have the power to do so-because of the intransigence of many of its back benchers who delayed that Bill, even within the Government. Here we have a situation where the importance of a particular tool of criminal investigation had been clearly spelt out and a precedent had been provided by the Opposition when it was in government. Based on the experience of the Age tapes, there was a report on the most up to date and full investigation of the whole matter by Mr Justice Stewart but, again, there was another delay when the Bill was sent to the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. That Committee has performed most valuable work in bolstering the recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart and, although it reported in November last year, again there was further delay before the Government introduced this legislation. Despite all those delays, the Government still has not got this question right in relation to telephone interceptions. My colleague Senator Alston has already dealt very effectively with the other parts of this package, the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, so I do not intend to deal with them any further, except to emphasise the disgraceful delays that have characterised this Government's whole approach to this question. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill is based on recommendations by Mr Justice Stewart and by the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception but, unfortunately, the Bill still does not pick up a number of important recommendations that were made by Mr Justice Stewart. First, Mr Justice Stewart recommended that the warrant should be issued by judges of either the Federal Court of Australia or the Supreme Courts of the States, but this Bill is limited to warrants being issued by judges of a court created by this Parliament, that is, either a Federal Court or a Family Court of Australia judge, and, apparently, certain judges will be selected for that work. The important fact is that there ought to be ready availability of judges in order that the police may obtain the warrants. It would seem to me, as it did to Mr Justice Stewart, to be good sense that judges of the Supreme Courts of the States or Territories should be available to issue such warrants. The second matter that concerns the Opposition is the failure of the Government to implement fully the recommendation of Mr Justice Stewart that a discretion be given to the judge issuing the warrant to determine whether it is justified in the circumstances of the offence-the gravity of the offence and the other matters that Mr Justice Stewart recommended should be taken into account such as the extent to which privacy may be interfered with and the extent to which the investigation of the crime may be assisted. The two latter matters have been implemented by this legislation, but again the Government has unduly restricted the area of criminal activity that may attract this power of interception of telephones. It has established two different classes. The way it has done it has made it even more complicated. There are differences between the two but, broadly speaking, the power is given only in relation to murder, kidnapping, narcotics offences, or for the purposes of an interception by the National Crime Authority, which would mean in any case of organised crime. The second group comprises offences punishable by imprisonment for at least seven years but involving the loss of life, serious injury, serious risk thereof, serious damage to property, serious fraud and so on. So the power to intercept is confined to this very limited class of cases, despite the recommendation of Mr Justice Stewart that it should be a much wider power exercised at the discretion of the judge. There are very strange anomalies in this respect. The National Crime Authority, which has rightly been given this power to apply for an interception, has a wider brief than the police will have when they are investigating crime, because the police are confined in this more narrow way by this Bill. The Opposition proposes to move an amendment to widen that power and to bring it more into line with the provisions applicable to the National Crime Authority in terms of the nature of offences. That amendment will be dealt with at the Committee stage. Mr Justice Stewart also recommended that, in issuing a warrant, a judge be empowered to authorise in some cases that the interception take place without recourse to Telecom. The State police have mobile units with sophisticated equipment, listening devices and so on, which they use under State powers. The Australian Federal Police also have these facilities. It is a weakness in the legislation that power is not given directly to State police. They have to proceed through Federal Police. But, even having proceeded through the Australian Federal Police to obtain a warrant, the State force will then have to proceed through Telecom, except in very limited circumstances. Yet, as I have said, the facilities are available to the police, as they certainly should be, to make these interceptions themselves. There are very substantial delays on the part of Telecom in these matters. Evidence before the Joint Committee indicated in one case that an intercept sought by the National Crime Authority took 19 days to be set up. Obviously that is quite inadequate when there may be a need for a very speedy use of this particular power. I mention a final matter relating to recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart which have not been taken up by the Government. This matter greatly worries the Opposition and we have a number of amendments concerning it. Mr Justice Stewart's recommendation referred to interceptions which were illegal, in the sense of their being made without the procedures provided under this legislation being followed. Of course, this may involve cases where there was an attempt to follow the procedures, but where for some reason or other there was a failure to do so, thereby making it an illegal interception. Alternatively, it may involve a case of a quite blatant illegality where no attempt whatever was made to follow the law. Of course, that would be a serious offence in itself. In such cases this legislation will render completely inadmissible evidence, which may be of a vital character, concerning serious crime; because the offences for the investigation of which interceptions can be obtained include murder, kidnapping, serious cases of fraud and cases of organised crime. Where important evidence has been obtained illegally-even if it is the only really effective evidence-this Government's legislation makes it inadmissible in a court simply on that basis. Mr Justice Stewart, in his investigation of the New South Wales tapes, has already given clear evidence of how important such evidence is, and was to the police of New South Wales. Its value, even though it is illegal, can be absolutely immense. Mr Justice Stewart recommended that the admissibility of such material be determined by the common law principles. It has been a principle under the common law for a very long time indeed that the mere fact that evidence has been illegally obtained does not prevent it from being used in criminal proceedings. There is good sense in that and, as I said, Mr Justice Stewart's investigations into the New South Wales tapes are a very modern example of the good sense of the common law. Those common law principles apply to many other types of evidence given or sought to be given in criminal trials-evidence that may have nothing to do with the interception of telephones. Evidence may be obtained in the investigation of a crime in many other ways which could be in breach of the law. The admissibility of that evidence-the right to use it in a criminal trial-is determined under common law principles, which largely boils down to a discretion of the judge, who decides, in accordance with various criteria that are all well established, whether or not such evidence should be admitted. That principle has been confirmed on several occasions in recent times by the High Court of Australia in a number of important cases. There really are no doubts of a substantial kind about how the common law works in this area. As I said, it will continue to work according to those principles in respect of other types of illegally obtained evidence. Yet this Bill precludes evidence obtained by illegal intercept being used at all, except in relation to past offences, which I think is wrong. A double mistake is made in this Bill, because the admissibility of past evidence obtained through illegal interceptions is in fact preserved. The application of the legislation will be retrospective in some cases; and that in itself is a further objection to the way the Government has gone about this particular matter. The Opposition will be moving amendments to deal with the two major defects in the Bill. Both defects involve the Government's not following Mr Justice Stewart's recommendations. As I said, there are other weaknesses in the Bill, which I have identified. The minority report of the Joint Select Committee was very critical of the fact that the Government does not trust the State police. That is what it boils down to. It is insisting on the interceptions being made by a unit within the Australian Federal Police and, in the opinion of the Opposition, that is another failure of the Government and a weakness in this Bill. For those reasons, the Opposition will certainly support this measure. It is a measure that, in effect, we pioneered when in government. It is a very sensible proposal to extend the powers in relation to the interception of telecommunications and this is certainly a Bill that moves in a positive way. However, it is moving too late and we will move further amendments to improve it. I have an amendment which I wish to move to the second reading in respect of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987 to give effect to the points I have just made. I move: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for: (1) its delay in introducing the legislation, and (2) its failure to fully implement the recommendations contained in Mr Justice Stewart's Royal Commission report of April 1986 into Alleged Telephone Interceptions''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy (3.52) —I thank the Senate for its obvious support in most quarters for these measures, although one could have been forgiven for thinking, given Senator Durack's speech, that support was offered somewhat grudgingly. Be that as it may, criticisms have been made of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill that require brief response at this stage. Other points can perhaps be picked up in Committee. The suggestion that the Government has been slow to act in introducing this legislation ignores the reality of the problems presented by telephone interception, particularly unlawful interception. This is a very complex matter and it raises important questions of principle which must be very thoroughly talked through and thought about before any government commits itself to a course of action. I note further that the unlawful interceptions in New South Wales which produced the so-called Age tapes manifestly continued for years without action by the Government. One presumes the existence of such activities was known to the Fraser Government, or at least to the police force under its control. Certainly, plenty of people are now claiming, in retrospect at least, that they knew that this activity was occurring. Nothing was done by the Fraser Government about this whole phenomenon. This Government has, of course, moved to respond to that, and has moved in particular to allow State police to obtain the benefits of lawful telephone interception. The criticisms about the report not fully implementing in every last chapter and verse the recommendations of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions I think are equally misconceived. It should be stated at the outset that, notwithstanding that this Government has a great respect for Mr Justice Stewart and his reports, they are not the only matters that the Government has had to take into account in formulating an appropriate legislative response. There is the Australian Law Reform Commission's admirable report on privacy and the report of the Joint Select Committee of this Parliament. It should also be pointed out-and this goes not only to the question of the non-implementation of every last word of the Stewart report but also to the time it has taken for the Government to formulate its response-that the States have been really very tardy in expressing their views on how this whole enterprise should best be carried out. Only two States, Queensland and South Australia, made submissions to the Joint Select Committee, although all police forces commented on the subject. Initially, neither New South Wales nor Victoria would commit themselves to any proposal at all. New South Wales now supports separate State interception, and it had made that clear, but it is not as though we have had the kind of enthusiastic and brisk co-operation from the States that makes for easier legislative preparation. On the contrary, it has been very difficult to get people walking in any kind of marching step at all on this whole matter. As to the specific criticisms about non-implementation of the Stewart recommendations, I point out that most of those criticisms seem to boil down to two matters, first, the notion that State police should be able to intercept independently of the Australian Federal Police. All I can say in regard to this alleged shortfall in the Government's legislative response is that the Joint Select Committee recommended that all interceptions be conducted through the Australian Federal Police. Procedures are now being worked out that are efficient and rapid, and each law enforcement agency will still be responsible for obtaining its own warrants. I note further that the Australian Police Ministers Council has supported the Bill with its variation from the Stewart recommendations in this respect and its variation from the original recommendations of the individual State police forces. The Australian Police Ministers Council has supported the Bill in a resolution passed on 22 May, so I believe that any lingering affection for the purity of the State-based model should be read against those considerations. I am not sure that Mr Justice Stewart himself would necessarily see any difficulties in the kind of practical model that has now evolved. The second criticism in relation to the Stewart recommendations was that the Bill, rather than adopting simply broad tests as to the circumstances in which warrants could be issued, proposes a rather narrower approach of specifying particular classes of offences, spelling them out with some precision and only then having regard to the kinds of general criteria that Mr Justice Stewart articulated. My response to that is simply that the Bill does not ignore the tests referred to in the Stewart report. They are the matters to which a judge must have regard in relation to the two classes of offence under the Bill. However, the Government believes that Parliament should define the offences in respect of which telecommunications interceptions should be available and that such a privacy intrusive technique should be available only in respect of serious offences, that is, cases where the public interest and the prevention and detection of crime clearly outweight the privacy of individuals whose communications are interfered with. I note further that although the tests adopted under the legislation, that is, the definitions of `offence', satisfy the description I have just given it is also the case that the two broad classes of offence for which telecommunications interception warrants may be obtained cover a broad range of criminal behaviour. It should not be thought that there is anything excessively narrowing about the criteria set out in the legislation. No doubt, much more could be said in an extended debate on this Bill, but time is pressing. I believe that I have answered the major criticisms that have been made and I will take up any other criticisms as they arise in Committee. I commend the Bills to the Senate. (Quorum formed) The PRESIDENT —Order! The question is: That the amendment moved by Senator Alston in respect of the Proceeds of Crime Bill be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Sheil, GCollard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Macklin, M. J. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. West, S. M. McKiernan, M. J. Zakharov, A. O. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Durack, P. D. McIntosh, G. D. Messner, A. J. Elstob, R. C. (Senator Michael Baume did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes.) Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question now is: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question now is: That the amendment moved by Senator Durack in respect of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Macklin, M. J. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. West, S. M. McKiernan, J. P. Zakharov, A. O. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Durack, P. D. McIntosh, G. D. Messner, A. J. Elstob, R. C. (Senator Michael Baume did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the following Bills be now read a second time: Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987 and Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There are five Bills before the Committee. The only one to which amendments have been circulated is the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987. Is it the wish of the Committee that that Bill be taken separately and first? There being no objection, it is so ordered. TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 Clauses 1 to 4-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5 (Telecommunications not to be intercepted). Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(4.15) —I move: (1) Page 3, subclause 5 (2), definition of ``class 2 offence'', paragraph (a), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) an offence punishable by not less than 3 years' imprisonment; or''. The current definition, which requires an additional onus on an applicant for telephone interception to satisfy a court that there will not be an invasion of privacy, applies at the moment to class 2 offences, and those offences, essentially, are ones that involve offences punishable by not less than seven years imprisonment. The Opposition's amendment seeks to reduce that term to three years imprisonment and to delete the seven year provision. The effect of this would be, in effect, to reduce the threshold, to make a range of offences accessible to law enforcement authorities, so that where, say, an organised crime figure was perhaps incidentally involved in the commission of what in this terminology could be described as being a lesser offence, nonetheless, telephones could be tapped in order to intercept a call and to obtain information and evidence that would assist in subsequent prosecution. At present, the hands of the authorities are tied very much by the definition of a class 2 offence and, on that basis, it is the view of the Opposition that the legislation is not wide enough and that the Government has shown an excess of caution. In the circumstances, the Opposition deems it necessary to go down the path that we propose. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.17) —The obvious difficulty-which ought to be supremely self-evident to a competent lawyer like Senator Alston-is that an amendment couched in these terms is just far too broadly over-reaching. I understand that over 300 offences under Commonwealth law are punishable by not less than three years imprisonment. As such, there would be potential for warrants to be issued for a vast range of offences, quite outside the limits of what we believe to be community acceptability, and certainly outside what this Government is prepared to contemplate. We are concerned, though, to balance the proper claims of law enforcement against equally legitimate claims of privacy and only to allow privacy to be invaded in a grossly intrusive way, which telephone interception involves, in circumstances where the gravity of the offence is such as to clearly demand it. The National Crime Authority deals only with organised crime, as defined in the National Crime Authority Act. Therefore, we are talking about courses of criminal conduct, not just separate offences, and in those circumstances it is justifiable for these to be a three year threshold. The NCA can only use its intercept power if it has a special reference-and, obviously, references are only granted to the NCA in the context of courses of criminal conduct, which put that in a rather separate category. The seven year threshold does ensure a minimum level of seriousness before the intercept powers can be used elsewhere, and that is the basis on which the provision has been formulated. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(4.18) —We say that there is an inconsistency, because the National Crime Authority does have powers of surveillance in relation to offences punishable by imprisonment of at least three years. In those circumstances there does seem to be an inconsistency in the Bill. If the National Crime Authority can undertake surveillance in relation to relatively lesser offences, it seems anomalous that the hands of the authorities should be tied as they are in the present instance, which means that they would not be able to cover the same ground. We take the view that if the National Crime Authority thinks that it is sufficiently important to undertake surveillance in relation to the hundreds of offences to which Senator Evans has referred there is some likelihood that there will be just as much seriousness and urgency in relationship to intercepts in that area. Amendment negatived. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.19) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 3, subclause 5 (2), proposed definition of ``class 1 offence'', paragraph (c), line 29, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(c) an offence: (i) that involves 2 or more offenders and substantial planning and organization; (ii) that involves, or is of a kind that ordinarily involves, the use of sophisticated methods and techniques; (iii) that is committed, or is of a kind that is ordinarily committed, in conjunction with other offences of a like kind; and (iv) that involves: (a) murder; (b) kidnapping; (c) a serious trafficking offence; or (d) any financial dealing relating to an offence referred to in sub-subparagraph (a), (b) or (c); or''. (2) Page 9, subclause 5 (2), after the proposed definition of ``serious offence'', insert the following new definition: `` `serious trafficking offence' means: (a) a narcotics offence; or (b) any other offence against a law of the Commonwealth, or an offence against a law of a State or Territory, being an offence: (i) that relates to narcotic drugs; and (ii) is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period, or maximum period, of not less than 7 years;''. The Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception inquired into the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill following the last time it was before this chamber. I was a member of that Committee. It brought down a majority report which recommended a particular definition of what was a serious offence and which offences could require telecommunications interception. The Committee recommended that these offences be murder, kidnapping and organised crime associated with a number of offences or conspiracy to commit any of the above offences. The Government has considerably extended the offences beyond what the Committee recommended. My amendments are designed to return the types of offences back to what the Committee recommended. When a considerable amount of work is done by a committee, it is important that consideration be given to that work. I believe that the Government's proposals are far too general. I am pleased that Senator Alston's amendment was defeated because it was even more general. The main point the Committee considered was the invasions of privacy involved in this area. We were very concerned to make certain that serious trafficking offences were properly defined and that the range of offences not be extended to include possibly trivial crimes. I am not suggesting that the crimes the Government has mentioned in the legislation are trivial crimes, but some of them could be stretched to allow telephone interception in almost any situation. This is why I highly recommend that the chamber support my amendments to clause 5, which are basically what the majority of the Committee on Telecommunications Interception recommended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.23) —I can assure Senator Vigor that the Government took the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception recommendation very closely into account when reconsidering the drafting of the definition of offence clause. I personally was involved in that exercise-in the absence of the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, who I think was overseas at the time-and I remember very well wrestling with the kinds of concepts that were in the JSC report and being attracted by some of them compared with the original drafting of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill. However, it became apparent on close scrutiny that the JSC recommendations on the concept of organised crime were not only quite complicated but also distressingly vague and difficult for practical application in the kinds of circumstances in which warrants might often need to be rather rapidly issued. The seriousness of a crime does not necessarily depend on the involvement of two or more persons or substantial planning, sophisticated methods and so on, as referred to by the JSC. That is one useful working definition of organised crime and is helpful for conceptual purposes. It is one that I have used often enough in the past in a previous portfolio, but it is not one that we felt ultimately was very helpful in the rough and tumble real world situations in which one has to have a bit more precision in the statutory definitions. Equally, it was felt that it was important to strike a balance and that, while allowing a reasonably wide range of offences to be subsumed-and certainly serious offences as the community would generally regard them-the range should not be so wide or the language should not be so vague that it was difficult to apply this legislation in practice or only too easy to apply it in a way that would be too overreaching. Those are all of the considerations we sought to balance out. I believe, in short, that we now have the balance right. Certain offences-the so-called class 1 offences-are defined quite precisely. Murder, kidnapping and narcotics offences are defined elsewhere in the legislation as meaning an offence punishable as provided under section 235 of the Customs Act-that is, in the parent legislation. So a narcotics offence is, for the purpose of the operation of this legislation, quite precisely clear and it basically extends only to the more serious of the drug-type offences. It extends to a clearly defined range of drug offences as set out in that legislation. Class 2 offences is the more general category and is drafted in this way because of the difficulty of foreseeing all of the statutory offences-and, indeed, common law ones-that might conceivably be applicable and properly found a warrant. It is in the class 2 context that the particular criteria that Mr Justice Stewart identified have their application. The combination of the Stewart criteria as set out in the legislation and the particular description of the kinds of offences that are here involved-personal injury, serious fraud, serious loss to the revenue, and so on-gives sufficient precision to make the operation of the clause useful in practice but not too privacy invading and thus acceptable in principle. For those reasons, we reject Senator Vigor's amendments and hope that the Committee stays with the drafting of the Bill. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.29) —I wish to speak to the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill 1987, the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill 1987, the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 and the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills 1987. In case there is any doubt as to which Bills I am speaking to, I will start with the egg industry legislation. Two of these Bills deal with the egg industry. The aim of the legislative package is to permit the continuation of a levy on egg producers to fund industry research. The Bills will facilitate the collection from producers of levies which will amount to about $250,000 a year, to be matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth Government. The outgoing hen and research levies will be replaced with a new research levy based on the producer's licensed hen quota. The legislation provides that the research levy be set no higher than 10c per hen per annum. The Council of Egg Producers has recommended an initial levy of 3.25c, and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his second reading speech appeared to have broadly accepted that recommendation. The egg industry in Australia is a $200m a year industry with Australians consuming almost 180 million dozen eggs annually. Egg sales have decreased by about 2 per cent in the last five years, although this has been partly offset by increased sales of manufactured egg products. In response, the egg industry has commissioned a $2m national advertising campaign aimed at increasing egg consumption. This co-ordinated effort represents a welcome change from the fragmentation of State oriented campaigns. Furthermore, our egg producers have begun to look at developing export markets. In September last year the industry was successful in negotiating a $15m contract to supply egg products to Japan. The contract for 8,000 tonnes of separated products from 8 million dozen eggs was won over competition from subsidised products from the European Economic Community and the United States of America. The contract was something of a landmark in export sales, because it represented a profitable return rather than simply the disposal of a surplus from the domestic market. The Opposition strongly supports research, which increases the competitiveness of rural industry. For instance, technological advance has led to greater automation in the feeding, water supply, temperature and lighting of poultry sheds. I reiterate the Liberal Party's support for the Bill and wish it a speedy passage. I turn now to the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 and the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills 1987. The Wool Marketing Bill 1987, which replaces the Wool Industry Act of 1972, will place less reliance on government involvement in the industry in favour of joint responsibility and co-operation on major issues between the Wool Council of Australia and the Australian Wool Corporation. This Bill is being introduced in conjunction with the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills and under the new arrangement the Wool Council will decide on each component of the wool tax after consultation with the Australian Wool Corporation. Under clause 46 the total tax levy will be set by the Wool Council. The short to medium term outlook for the wool industry is very promising, with export sales rising to record levels in the current financial year. Wool sales for 1986-87 are expected to be up 25 per cent in volume on last year. More importantly, the value of those sales is forecast to be up 40 per cent on last financial year. Indicative of this buoyancy was the price activity in early April this year when the market price indicator rose by 51c to 752c a clean kilo-the highest price since the reserve price scheme began in the 1970s. This price was 42 per cent above the 1985-86 indicator and 48 per cent above the reserve. In just four years Australia's sheep numbers have increased to their second highest level ever, from 133 million to 155 million, and the price of greasy wool has risen from 187c a kilo to 450c a kilo. Preliminary estimates indicate that total shorn wool in Australia in 1986-87 will be 808,400 tonnes, an increase of 6.3 per cent on 1985-86. This represents the most wool shorn since 1969-70. Fortunately, this increased production has been more than satisfied by increased demand on world markets. As the Australian wool industry is predominantly an export oriented industry, increased international demand has been a critical factor in improved profitability. A number of factors have contributed to this increased demand. This year has seen a buying spree by China, which increased its purchase of Australian wool by 61 per cent to 42 million kilograms, worth $184m. China has now overtaken Italy and France to become Australia's third largest wool buyer. In addition, Australia's two largest customers, Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, bought larger parcels of our wool, with increases of 25 per cent and 19 per cent respectively. The overseas promotion of wool is conducted by the International Wool Secretariat, a marketing association which is sponsored by the five main wool producing countries in the southern hemisphere. Australia is the major contributor to the IWS, providing approximately 65 per cent of its budget. Although, as I have mentioned earlier, the devaluation has been significant in increasing our sales and competitiveness on world markets, it has also resulted in Australia's contribution to the IWS increasing from $65m in 1982-83 to perhaps $130m this year. However, the devaluation benefit has fallen far short of the sort of increase that was forecast by Mr Keating a couple of years ago. One of the most contentious issues facing the wool industry is the question of the export of merino rams, semen, ewes and embryos. Until now the export of merino rams has been limited to 300 per annum, supplemented by the sale of rams which have an auction price of less than $1,000. Under this program, 1,678 merinos have been exported since 1979, bringing in an annual income of about $1m. The change made last week introduces a maximum of 900 rams by the 1991-92 selling season. The export of merino semen will be allowed but the embargo on the export of merino ewes, embryos and ova will continue. This recommendation has been made in spite of the fact that all the constituent bodies of the Australian Wool Council, except the United Farmers and Stockowners Association, have expressed opposition to any liberalisation of the current quota and have argued for a total ban. According to some sections of the industry, with the use of artificial insemination just 300 Australian rams could get almost one million overseas ewes in lamb in one year. Concern about merino exports has heightened since the entry of Spain into the European Economic Community. This concern has risen because of Spain's potential to substantially increase and improve its merino stocks. As such it could represent a significant threat to our access to the European market, which currently buys one quarter of our total wool clip. Howard Moxham, wool spokesman for the NSW Livestock and Grain Producers Association, has summed up this view. He said: Australia is the premier supplier of high quality apparel wool, a position achieved through 200 years of research and development. If we are to maintain that position it is imperative that the unique genetic superiority now, be retained on Australian shores. Industry technology is highly protected by worldwide patents. We are trying to protect our wool as an industrial patent. To me this seems an eminently reasonable position. If we are to defend our markets we must adopt a more hard-nosed approach to our overseas trade. I understand the view that a greater proliferation of merinos would have a beneficial effect on wool consumption, but this could happen anyway with spirited marketing campaigns from our own country in conjunction with the IWS. Perhaps for too long we have been too complacent, too benevolent even, in distributing freely the fruits of our technological research without adequate compensation. The manufacturing and processing sections of the industry-and I choose to regard the industry as being a total industry which includes production, processing and manufacturing-have expressed concern that, in spite of the very significant parts they play, they have not been afforded adequate consultation or adequate consideration in the new legislation. The information I have is that on 30 October last representatives of the manufacturing sector were advised that the draft Bill had been prepared, and received a two-hour briefing. They were told there would be further consideration as the matter proceeded, but no more detail ever came forward and no further consultations on the issues raised were offered. I was informed that it was in fact the Minister who advised that he would refer back. In March, when it was generally known that the Bill was coming, the matter was raised by the processing sector but its request was declined. The decision of whether the Corporation would be working with or against the processing and manufacturing sector causes concern and I ask the Minister to give some assurances today. Under section 39a of the previous Act the functions of the Corporation include: . . . to such extent as the Minister approves, trading in wool and wool products, acquiring and supplying wool for the purposes of programs of aid by Australia to other countries, and manufacturing, or arranging for the manufacture, of wool products. There is now no need or provision for the Minister to be asked or to give the opportunity to consider such moves as would bear on all sectors of the wool industry. No explanation is given in the new section 11 of the need for the Corporation to form subsidiary companies or whether they would be able to work with existing businesses or to work in opposition to them. The New Zealand experience has been closely followed and there is certainly nothing about it that the Australian processors have seen that attracts them to that sort of operation. I am a solid supporter of all parts of the industry and I recognise the position each plays. Co-operation and working together is essential if we are to consider what is best for Australia-as well as the industry as a whole or in sections. Could or would the Wool Corporation stocks be used, for instance, for the Corporation's own operations or joint ventures without allowing those stocks to go back through the existing system and through the open market? Clearly, there should be greater collaboration between the various sectors. Australia must look at every way to add value to our major products usually sold in bulk. The wool industry is one of our key export industries and debate on this fundamental issue must be vigorous and well considered. In conclusion, on behalf of the Opposition, I support the Wool Marketing Bill. As I have indicated previously, I shall be moving amendments in the Committee stages to certain provisions relating to employment opportunity consistent with the Opposition's views in this matter. In general terms, though, the Opposition will be supporting the Bill and I wish it a speedy passage. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.41) —In this cognate debate on an interesting collection of Bills, I shall be addressing my remarks to three categories of Bills, the two egg industry research Bills, the two wool Bills, the Wool Marketing Bill and the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills, and the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill. This parcel of Bills comprises an unusual collection, and is a challenge to someone who is charged with almost all the portfolio responsibilities in this area. I begin by making some comments on the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill and the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill. The purpose of this legislation is to institute a new method of collecting the hen research levy, given that the current method of applying the levy is due to expire on 30 June this year. The previous legislation also included a levy for equalising losses among producers from the disposal of surplus eggs. Following industry rationalisation, this equalisation is being phased out. The research levy is set at a maximum of 10c per hen per annum but it is expected that the Australian Council of Egg Producers will set an initial levy of between 3c and 4c. I commend the egg producers and the State governments which have been able to reduce surplus egg production by a progressive reduction of hen quotas which limit the number of hens an egg producer is licensed to keep. It demonstrates, as did the actions of the prawn fishing industry, that Australia's rural producers will respond to calls for rationalisation by a process of negotiation, and that the stick which this Government is inclined to use should be complimented by the carrot approach. It is anticipated that the levy will raise $250,000 from egg producers, and that a dollar for dollar matching grant from the Commonwealth will make $500,000 per annum available for research. If the representative body of primary producers, the National Farmers Federation, were interested in using its often-touted multi-million dollar fighting fund to help rural producers rather than satisfying the political ambitions of its leaders, the egg producers might indeed have more money to spend on research, or maybe there would not be need for a levy at all. Whatever we believe might be the best solution to Australia's economic problems, all of us in this chamber can agree that a large part of that economic problem is the decline in Australia's exports relative to imports. In 1982-83 and in 1983-84 some 10 per cent of Australia's egg production was exported. In 1984-85 this proportion dropped to less than 4 per cent and in 1986-87 it is estimated to be 4.9 per cent. I understand that a single egg producer does not have the money or the time to investigate export opportunities in the Asian region, especially in Japan. If the NFF used its money and expertise to explore and establish these markets rather than playing politics with the money it has, it would be performing a real service to egg producers and helping to open up export markets to the Australian economy where every export counts. The Australian egg industry produces 178 million dozen eggs with a value of $200m. The manual produced by the Australian Egg Marketing Council tells us: Growth and profitability in the egg industry is therefore inextricably linked to increases in consumption outside of the transitional shell egg area, that is, the exploitation of opportunities for egg usage in manufactured product form is either the primary component-for example, liquid whole egg, frozen yolk, liquid albumen-or a contributing component, for example, pavlova mixes and crepes. The NFF could be helping to provide the research and establishing contacts which will open up the opportunity of more Australian exports in the liquid whole egg and frozen yolk form instead of engaging in political point scoring. I am also pleased to see that the Australian Egg Marketing Council has encouraged product development beyond the normal shell egg areas, particularly in the area of free range eggs. I again quote from the Egg Council's manual which states: Free-range eggs can command a premium over `standard' eggs, which appeal to that segment of consumers believing that free range eggs are nutritionally, visually and taste-superior. Free-range eggs are already marketed by most of the State Egg Boards and indications are that sales are largely incremental. I believe that there should be investigation of another type of shell egg which is currently not available on the market and which would also command a premium over standard eggs-that is, eggs which are free of the various chemicals and unwelcome additives which are a feature of modern egg production methods. It is clear that Australia produces a surplus of eggs. The question therefore should not be how to maximise production but how to produce the highest quality products. I remind honourable senators that people pay more for a Mercedes car because of the quality they believe they are buying. Australian and foreign consumers who are concerned about what they are eating offer a potential market for the egg producers of Australia. These two Bills in their various aspects are supported by the Australian Democrats as an indication of the way in which an industry can co-operate in its own rationalisation and development. I turn to the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 and the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills. After some years of decline it is pleasing to note that the Australian wool industry is becoming Australia's leading rural export industry, a factor noted only this morning in the Press in relation to the latest Bureau of Agricultural Economics report. In these times concepts such as terms of trade, balance of payments and balance of trade are increasingly part of the jargon that is used to explain our current economic problems. This highlights the fact that our problems are primarily trading, that we are exporting too little and importing too much, and that the increasing value of our exports, be they from primary resources or the manufacturing sector, is a major part of solving our economic problems. In that context the wool industry is one that has weathered the recent downturn in the world demand for commodities. This year it is likely to contribute almost $4 billion of exports to our balance of payments. The Wool Corporation has done a magnificent job. Those who were ideologically blinded by the impulse to privatise and deregulate everything must realise that the Wool Corporation is a prime example of the way government regulation, combined with co-operation from the private industry participants, can be used to iron out fluctuations in world prices, monitor market trends, promote exports and improve the quality of the product. This particular legislation introduces reforms which will increase the indepen- dence and operational flexibility of the Corporation. The changes to financing provisions will enable the Wool Council to determine the apportionment of wool tax to the market support fund, to wool promotion and to the wool research and development fund. The Corporation will be able to borrow up to 50 per cent of the level of its net assets and to appoint commercial auditors. There will be reforms to provide additional powers for the Corporation to achieve greater quality assurance of wool, which has been a major factor in the success of the Australian wool industry. Generally these reforms have been welcomed by the industry and by all political parties. Although our wool industry is doing well at the moment there are problems emerging which will require a corporation that can deal with the modern complex marketing environment for wool. Firstly, wool accounts for only approximately 5 per cent of overall textile use in the world. In those areas where the wool market is relatively strong-menswear, women's wear and knitwear-its share is still declining. Secondly, there are growing numbers of sheep in Australia. This is probably due to an increase in resources away from other farming activity such as cropping. Additional numbers of sheep can result in either increased sales or lower prices. The market solution so often admired by the New Right and its political allies, the Queensland trojan horse Joh Nationals, the Sinclair Nationals or Liberal dries, would simply encourage more wool production to the point where wool prices would have to fall. I am sure that the Nationals of whatever faction will happily forget about the virtues of the pure market system when it comes to the wool industry. There was plenty of evidence of that in the past. I do not blame them for that. It simply means, despite the rhetoric, that they know that regulation of markets can produce superior outcomes in primary industries. They just want everybody else to be subject to market forces, especially the 2 1/2 million Australians-including 800,000 children-who live in poverty. The Nationals want them to be left in poverty because there is no market solution to poverty other than to ignore it. People such as the Joh Nationals and the Liberals who want to deregulate labour markets welcome the pool of desperately poor unemployed because they will provide the cheap slave labour their white shoe friends are clamouring for. There has been enormous prevarication from Opposition parties on one aspect of this legislation. It was very interesting when these Bills were in the other place so shortly after the equal employment opportunity legislation had been opposed by the Liberal Party-and that Party again had failed when it was prepared to ditch its traditional principles of equality to try to woo the National Party and retain the coalition. It was necessary, and welcome I must say, for the Liberal Party to go back to its principles of equality and support the equal opportunity provisions of the Wool Marketing Bill. It was a clear demonstration that when politically suitable at least the current forces at work within the Liberal Party were prepared to ditch those principles for political opportunistic reasons. There has never been a great deal of support from the National Party for equal opportunity provisions. We very strongly support those provisions in this legislation. Explicit legislative provisions have excluded women in particular from equal participation for decades in the paid work force. Examples of specific discriminatory laws are bountiful-the harvester family wage decision goes back as far as that-and include the requirements of married women to forfeit promotions, superannuation and other advantages of permanent employment. The Married Women's Act and the Matrimonial Causes Act belatedly reversed pre-existing legally-imposed discrimination. Women's access to education, trades and professions and income security has always been held back and is still hampered by laws designed to exclude them and protect privileges for men, based on a range of absurd prejudices and fragile male egos. The equal opportunity provisions in this Bill move against those past practices and policies which really were social engineering. It is not enough that we simply wait for time to take its course. Our labour force statistics of occupational, industrial and hierarchical segregation and average weekly earnings of the paid work force on the basis of gender say it all. We believe we have equal opportunity and equal pay, yet women are still excluded from many areas of the paid work force and are clustered in low income and low status areas. Indeed, on average, they earn only about 65 per cent of average male earnings. The advantages of equal employment opportunity are economic. It does not seem enough to most members of this Parliament that they are soundly founded on principles of social justice. It is interesting to note that within the primary industry corporations, which of course were excluded from the central EEO legislation, the record of female participation is not good. We certainly welcome the implementation of those equal opportunity aspects in this legislation. It is time that the contribution of women in rural life and rural industries as a whole was brought into recognition and into the 1980s. One of the most encouraging things I have seen for a long time was an article in the National Times on Sunday last weekend which demonstrated how successful the Australian wool industry is and has been during what really has been a rural crisis. That was a significant article pointing to many specific aspects in which the Australian Wool Corporation has been successful. I have already referred to some matters. The very encouraging thing about this article was that it quite unremarkably related in particular to one property which is run by a woman whose husband had been deceased for 15 years. She continued to run the property because she wished to pass it on to her children-and both her children are female. The article makes no great moment of that but I congratulate the National Times on Sunday for choosing for a feature article a primary producer who is a woman and for not making an absolute fuss about it, but simply making the point that the property was a normal property. It clearly underlines the contribution of women in rural life and rural industries. We very strongly support these aspects of this legislation. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 Consideration resumed. Clauses 6 and 7-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 8 (Insertion of new sections). Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.58) —I move: (3) Page 12, clause 8, proposed subsection 6d (1), proposed definition of ``Judge'', lines 18 and 19, leave out ``a court created by the Parliament'', insert ``the Federal Court of Australia''. The amendment is aimed at making certain that only a limited number of judges have the power to issue the warrants to allow telephone interceptions. The Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception was very concerned about the proliferation of judges allowed to issue these warrants. We believe it should have been restricted to judges of the Federal Court of Australia so we would have some general definition. The Government proposes that any person who is a judge of a court created by the Parliament and who consents and is declared by the Attorney-General to be able to issue warrants should be included. This leaves the whole matter open. I would much prefer to follow the very well argued and properly set out recommendation of the Telecommunications Interception Committee. This is yet another amendment to have the Bill coincide with the recommendations of that Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.00) —The basic problem with confining the power to judges of the Federal Court is that in Tasmania and the Northern Territory there are no judges of the Federal Court there located. However, there are other courts which satisfy the description in the legislation as it now stands. For that very practical reason we believe that the Bill ought to stand as it is. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 9 to 20-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 21 (Addition of new Parts). Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(5.01) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 34, clause 21, proposed section 64, leave out the proposed section. (4) Page 37, clause 21, proposed section 74, leave out `64 or'. We regard amendment No. 3, which is one of a series of amendments, as inextricably linked with the other amendment in relation to the deletion of proposed section 64, amendment No. 4. As I understand it, the amendment is now going to be opposed by the Australian Democrats, whereas they intend to support the other amendment to leave out proposed section 64, amendment No. 4, which states `leave out ``64 or'' ' in clause 21. I will deal with the arguments in favour of the deletion of proposed section 64 and leave it to the Democrats to explain why, at the eleventh hour, they have once again changed their minds. Proposed section 64 has the effect of making admissible, despite illegality, evidence which has been obtained in proceedings already underfoot. In 1985, by a majority of 3:2, the High Court held that the obtainment of information illegally did not involve an implied prohibition on the tender in evidence of that material. Accordingly, in those circumstances the material would be admissible even though illegally obtained. Our concern is that that case, decided by a majority only and by a limited number of judges, is now in effect on appeal. A series of cases is pending before the High Court, the most urgent of which is a matter of the Commonwealth and others v. Jones. As I understand it, that case is likely to come on in a matter of days. This Bill, by including a statutory provision, seeks to pre-empt the finding of the High Court to render it redundant. In fact, the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor has already written to solicitors acting for appellants in proceedings before the Court on the basis that this pre-emptive strike will render those hearings unnecessary. The aim, therefore, of proposed section 64 is to take away the prospects of acquittal which certain citizens would have had under the law as it stood at the time they engaged in the conduct-- Senator Gareth Evans —Totally unmeritorious acquittal. Senator ALSTON —I suppose that every dog is allowed to have his day in court. Whether or not the appellants succeed in the ultimate, we take the view that it is an intolerable denial of justice to say to someone: `You have an appeal underfoot but we are going to take away the very basis of it'. That is retrospective, in our view. It has precisely the same taint and odour of retrospective legislation which would make something that was not criminal at the time of the commission of the act an offence after the event. We say that this provision is tantamount to doing that. Under proposed section 64 persons who might otherwise have been able to secure acquittals will be deprived by statute. In those circumstances we say that it is quite unfair and wrong to persist with such a provision. It is premature at the very least and certainly highly undesirable in terms of the administration of justice. We therefore take the view that the High Court should be left to decide the proper interpretation of the Act. It will, in all probability, be constituted by a full complement of seven judges. We would much prefer that the Court itself made a determination on the existing provisions of the Act rather than the Government, for whatever purpose, serving up a pre-emptive strike of the nature I have described. We are cognisant of the fact that the Law Society of New South Wales, the President of the Bar Association of New South Wales and the Law Council of Australia have all been trenchant in their criticism of this provision. I would have thought that it would have eminently appealed to a jurist of the calibre of Senator Evans. In reversed circumstances, it would be hard to contain him in under half an hour in pointing out the vices of such a course. We do not see any justification whatsoever for opposition to amendments of this nature. We do not see the need for such precipitate action. If the High Court is about to embark upon hearings of these matters we are talking about only a matter of weeks at most. In those circumstances the provision is indefensible in our view. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.08) —Let me endeavour to explain the Government's position. The Government's general policy approach is that illegally obtained telephone intercept evidence should not be admissible. Subsequent provisions of this legislation that we will be debating shortly incorporate that principle unequivocally so far as the future is concerned. So let there be no misunderstanding of our commitment to that view: If evidence is illegally obtained, it ought not to be admissible. We will be arguing with Senator Alston and fighting our way through his crocodile tears again in a moment when we come to that section of the Bill. The particular concern we have which proposed section 64 deals with is rather different. It concerns the prospect that there may have been a very technical defect in a large number of warrants that have been issued under this legislation in the past; that the High Court might, within the next few days, hold that there has been such a technical defect; that the result of that may lead, in turn-unless the effect of that is countered by this legislation-to a number of people now in jail on serious narcotics offences, convicted as a result of such warrant evidence, ultimately securing their release in a rather unmeritorious way; and, moreover, that particular proceedings now pending in relation to warrants issued in the past may be equally overturned as a result of this technical defect. The particular technical defect I am referring to-and I will not take half an hour to describe it-is as follows: There is a case called Hilton v. Wells. It was held by a very narrow majority recently in the High Court that Federal Court judges could issue warrants. Although warrants are not the sorts of things that can normally be issued by judges in their capacity as judges, because the issuing of a warrant is an administrative act, nonetheless under the legislation as it stands the view was taken that Federal Court judges who were being given this responsibility were so-called persona designata, which means that they were not acting in their capacity as judges under the legislation when they issued the warrant but rather as individual people who just happened also to wear another hat as a judge. That was the decision in Hilton v. Wells and that preserved the validity of warrants issued under the parent legislation. However, there was a fiercely contested case. One of the judges in the three-two minority in that case is now the Chief Justice, and he has been involved, perfectly understandably-it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice, I suppose-in seeking a rearguing of that case. The case will be reargued and it is perfectly possible that it will go the other way, producing a situation whereby, on the legislation as it has been drafted in the past, the people issuing the warrants, who happened to wear the hat of Federal Court judges, were not properly able to issue those warrants. It may well be held that the legislation should have been expressed in a different way to make it clear that, in issuing those warrants, they were not acting in their judicial capacity. It is perfectly possible, on the strict questions of law involved, that that case, when it is reargued in the next few days, will go the other way. We are not talking about evidence that was obtained illegally in the sense that there was no warrant at all, or in the sense that there was some grossly excessive abuse of the formal legal authority vested in the officers concerned. Rather, we are talking about warrants that may prove to have been illegally obtained because they were issued by individuals who were not identified at the time by precisely the right bit of statutory incantation. That is the most technical argument possible that will be called in aid. The result of the forthcoming High Court case being decided in that way will not be to release automatically from gaol all those people who have been convicted on that sort of evidence. The result will be to give them the capacity to seek a rehearing in relation to that part of their trial which concerned the admissibility of such evidence in order that another court can determine, in the exercise of the traditional discretion that has been available as a matter of common law to admit illegally obtained evidence, whether in all the circumstances of their particular case it ought to have been admitted anyway. I acknowledge that it is not to be assumed that all the 30 or so people in gaol at the moment, having been convicted of these offences, will be released instantly as a result of the case going that way, but certainly it is the case that their convictions will be put very much at risk for the most technical reason possible. As a matter of good public policy the Federal Government does not believe that that is a good thing. As a result of the legislation being drafted in the way it is in proposed section 64, we believe that that possibility will not arise on the interpretation or construction of that legislation. Proposed section 64 (1) states `. . . a proceeding begun before the commencement of this Part . . .' Because this clause preserves the legality against the background of later clauses which will make it impossible in the future for any evidence obtained illegally to be introduced, and because later clauses do that, proposed section 64 preserves the admissibility of evidence that has been obtained unlawfully in the past in preserving the traditional application of common law rules. That is the way in which it is couched. It was inserted for a different transitional purpose, but we believe that it will have the effect of preserving the validity of those previous convictions in relation to warrants that may prove to have suffered this technical defect. We support the retention of proposed section 64 because it will avoid quite unmeritorious, as we see it, claims being made subsequently in relation to people already convicted and in relation to proceedings presently at foot. I know all the anxieties that this chamber traditionally has had about the retrospective application of clauses and all the anxieties that people have about enabling defendants to take full advantage of every kind of protection that the law affords them. I acknowledge Senator Alston's jibe about the fact that normally I might be thought individually to be wearing a different hat when these sorts of issues arise, but I have tried to explain, as simply as I can, in what I am afraid is a very technical matter, why there is a potentially serious policy problem at foot, why proposed section 64 does the job of avoiding unmeritorious consequences flowing from that, and why, as a result, it ought to be supported. Whether that is enough to persuade Senator Macklin, who has not listened to a word I have said for the last ten minutes, remains to be seen, but at least for the record I hope that it will become clear that this Government is behaving not in any unprincipled way, but in a way that is thoroughly defensible and ought to be supported. Perhaps we can get there by Senator Alston withdrawing his amendment. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(5.16) —I respond to that invitation by saying that, as Senator Gareth Evans chooses to put his case on the ground of high policy, and moral rectitude no doubt, the consequences of supporting our amendment bear examination. One could well understand it if we were faced with the almost inevitable prospect of a mass outbreak of high powered infringements, but that, on Senator Evans's own concession, is not likely to be the case. I would have thought that the High Court of Australia itself would be seized of those possibilities and that it would, directly or otherwise, take them into account in deciding whether or not to overturn the earlier interpretation in Hilton v Wells. Senator Evans concedes that, even if the High Court upholds those appeals, nonetheless the matter then would revert to the common law situation where a discretion would be able to be exercised. If the Committee accepts the description of the technical defects in the issue of the warrants that might then be the subject of scrutiny by a judge, I would have thought that we would have a fair degree of confidence that a judge would be very slow to accede to a request that would have the consequences that Senator Evans purports to fear if this amendment is carried. It seems to me that that is a classic case of the end justifying the means. We should be concerned about the fact that the judge is entrusted with the ultimate decision making, the ultimate discretionary power and the ultimate justice of the matter. I do not fear that the High Court will get it wrong any more than I would fear that a lower court judge would improperly exercise a discretion. If the only basis for not exercising the discretion favourably to the Crown was some defect as technical as that, I was never very successful in my career at the criminal bar, which covered some murder matters, in persuading judges that they should take that narrow view. I think that we should show our confidence in the judiciary, rather than telling them, in effect, that every time we think one body of judges might have got it wrong we will make very sure that their successors, or that even those who constituted the earlier court, do not get a second chance to put it right. Having appointed the Chief Justice, as the Government has done, I would have thought that it would then be sufficiently confident in his judgment to be alive to the consequences to which Senator Evans has adverted and to do what justice requires. But, even if the High Court were to overturn the decision, all is not lost. Again, it seems to come down to whether one has sufficient confidence in the judiciary or whether, if, for instance, section 64 is subsequently proven to contain defects-or section 76, for that matter, which seems to spell out that future irregularities should be disregarded-the Government, if it is still the Government, would still want to step in and patch up the matter. It is an undesirable policy approach to take. If we are talking in terms of what is in the public interest, I think it is highly undesirable to try to take away from the courts those sorts of discretions and judgments which they are much more capable of exercising than is any senator in this chamber. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Alston's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J. Baume, Peter Mason, C. V. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. 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. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Georges, G. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(5.27) —by leave-I move amendments Nos (2) and (5) to (7): (2) Page 33, clause 21, proposed section 63, leave out ``; or (b) give in evidence in a proceeding;''. (5) Pages 37 and 38, clause 21, proposed subsection 75 (2), leave out the proposed subsection. (6) Page 38, clause 21, proposed section 76, leave out the proposed section. (7) Pages 38 and 39, clause 21, proposed section 78, leave out the proposed section. Our principal concerns are that the Bill proposes to remove the common law discretionary powers to exclude evidence obtained illegally, to render such evidence inadmissible and to prescribe a statutory regime. Again, we have sufficient confidence in the common law to take the view that that is undesirable and that there should be a discretion. The statutory provisions are simply unnecessary if that general common law approach is retained. In those circumstances, we say that each of the amendments is justified in retaining that position. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.28) —This is a straight out and simple policy disagreement between the Government and the Opposition. While the Government has normally, I suppose, been prepared to accept the applicability of the common law rule that evidence illegally obtained is admissible, nonetheless subject to judicial discretion, we have taken the view that in this particular context of illegally obtained telephonic interception evidence, the onus really ought to run all the other way and that the statutory provisions should make it clear, as the provisions in the clause do, that such evidence, if illegally obtained, is simply inadmissible-full stop. There are two minor exceptions. The first applies where there is a purely technical defect, an insubstantial error in the actual process involved in securing the issue of the warrant. Provision is made for that. The evidence may nonetheless still be admitted under those circumstances. The other circumstance where such evidence is admissible is for the very limited purpose of proving that the substantive offence of illegally obtaining evidence has itself been committed. That apart, this Government has adopted a very clear policy approach that the intrusiveness of the telephone interception warrant is such that it is so important that the very precise legislative ground rules we have now set down as to the circumstances in which such warrants can be issued be observed and we believe that the language of the admissibility rules should be as it is set out in the Bill. We hope that that view will commend itself to a majority of honourable senators in this place. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(5.30) —Perhaps I should have gone into slightly more detail in terms of the common law distinction, but it seems to me that what Senator Evans is doing is a hangover from the desperate, steadfast approach that he took in resisting the Age tapes inquiry. What the common law has always said is that if the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value there could well be circumstances in which discretion should be exercised adversely, but hard and fast rules that ignore the magnitude of the wrong or the strength of the right seem to us to be arbitrary and unnecessary and, in many instances, unfair perhaps to one or other of the parties. That is not an approach that commends itself to us. I would have thought until now that Senator Evans would have been in favour of equity, justice, fairness and the balance that inevitably must be exercised in considering the use of discretion by a judge. To arbitrarily tie a judge's hands by statutory prescription seems to us to be inviting the very sorts of technical and arbitrary decisions that Senator Evans would otherwise deplore. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.31) —I do not want to unduly prolong this debate, but Senator Alston is showing his common lawyer's slip. It may well be perfectly true that common law is equipped to deal with situations where the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value of the evidence in question, and I do not dispute that, but what I do assert, I believe with a fair amount of accuracy, is that the common law has never had the slightest respect for the value of privacy. There is a long tradition that demonstrates just that. As a result, the common law exercise of the discretion that is here available is simply not apt to enable the courts to grapple with, in the absence of the kind of provisions that we are discussing, the issues of principle which are involved and to which I previously referred. I suspect that this is something on which Senator Alston does not feel desperate passion, being a person with a reasonable civil libertarian record, despite his political affiliations. I will not pursue the case further. Senator Alston has a brief and I have a brief, and perhaps the difference between us is that I believe my brief. Amendments negatived. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.32) —Again I point out a difference between this legislation and the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. I seek leave to move amendments (4) to (9) together. Leave granted. The CHAIRMAN —Before Senator Vigor moves his amendments, I draw his attention to the fact that the debate ends in four minutes. Senator VIGOR —I will not be very long. I move: Pages 26 and 27, clause 21, proposed section 46, line 37 (page 26) to line 31 (page 27), leave out the proposed section. Page 27, clause 21, proposed section 47, line 33, leave out ``or 46''. Page 28, clause 21, proposed paragraph 48 (3) (c), line 14, leave out ``or 46''. Page 29, clause 21, proposed subsection 49 (7), lines 16 and 17, leave out ``or 46 (1) (d), as the case may be''. Page 35, clause 21, proposed subsection 67 (1), line 2, leave out ``A'', insert ``Subject to subsection (3), a''. Page 35, clause 21, after proposed subsection 67 (2), insert the following new subsection: `` `(3) A person who has intercepted a communication under a warrant issued to an agency shall not communicate to an officer of the agency information obtained by the interception other than: (a) the information in order to obtain which the warrant was sought; or (b) information relating to an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period, or maximum period, of at least 3 years.''. This is a very simple proposal. Basically, the Government wants all information obtained from an interception to be provided to the agency that obtained the warrant, and there will be stringent controls on the use of the information at that point. We are very keen to make certain that communication of any legally intercepted information other than that requested by the warrant should be prohibited; unless it relates to an offence that is punishable by imprisonment by three years or longer there should be no exception to this provision. The whole idea is that it would be possible under this scheme for an agency to ask for an interception and say that it wanted to find out about SP bookmaking, which was the example referred to-not that I approve of that at all. That might be the sole area in which it was interested. The agency might convince someone that this area is associated with organised crime, obtain a warrant and perhaps prosecute people for a number of minor offences-offences that are even more minor than the SP bookmaking arrangements. I know that stringent controls are provided, but telecommunications interception could be used for obtaining information that is for intelligence rather than for prosecution purposes. I believe that it could be very intrusive if there were not very stringent requirements on how and what information can be used. That is why I have moved these amendments. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.30) —The Government opposes these amendments. There are reasonable grounds for that opposition that I do not have time to articulate. There are stringent controls on the way in which information that is intercepted can be used. We believe there is an appropriate balance of protection and practical feasibility in the way in which the clauses are drafted at present, and we urge that the clause be accepted. Amendments negatived. Clause 21, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. 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 The Bills. Bills agreed to. Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1987 reported with amendments and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987, Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 and Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.38) —In continuing my remarks and before referring to the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, I would like to place on the record that the Australian Democrats will not support the amendments proposed to the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 by both the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia. The National Party amendments are predictable, as I said earlier, and are concerned in large measure with the equal opportunity provisions of this legislation. The Australian Democrats have been assured by the industry and by representatives of the Australian Wool Corporation that they are satisfied with the equal opportunity provisions in this legislation. Indeed, they have expressed concern that this legislation should not be held up by any actions that they expected would be taken by the Nationals and the Liberals. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order about the statement that the industry was happy with the Bill. It was not happy with those sections. It asked for those sections not to be amended so that the Bill would go through. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Walters, resume your seat. There is no point of order. Senator POWELL —Indeed, it is interesting to see before us today a series of amendments. As I said, the National Party amendments are predictable, but the amendments of the Liberal Party appear to be part of that continuing courting process. The original opposition to the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill having failed in the House of Representatives and the coalition having disintegrated, the political situation being somewhat different today, it appears that we now have a series of amendments which are perhaps designed in some way to get that coalition back together again as we gallop off to our early election. Indeed, the Liberal Party is prepared to water down equal opportunity provisions in this Bill, as it has on past occasions, and use justice for women as a bargaining tool for politically opportunistic reasons. Senator Walters —Point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —What is your point of order, Senator Walters? Senator Walters —My point of order is that the honourable senator is not speaking the truth. We are indeed abiding by the normal procedure that we have undertaken. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, when the Chair stands you should resume your seat immediately. You have been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order. Senator POWELL —This fact will not be lost on the women of Australia, I am sure. It is a matter of concern to the Australian Democrats that there are still a number of primary industry corporations-the Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Dairy Corporation and the Australian Wheat Board-for which we still await this kind of equal employment opportunity legislation, and we will welcome it when it comes before us. I turn now to the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill which will amend the National Health Act 1953 and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 to introduce new financial arrangements for nursing homes for the aged to commence on 1 July 1987 and provide a mechanism for establishing the standards of nursing home care to be provided in nursing homes approved under the National Health Act 1953. It is clear that Australian society is confronting a massive problem in coming to terms with providing care for elderly Australians. We are an aging or greying society, and we can see that when we note that the proportion of persons under 15 years of age has fallen from 35 per cent in 1901 to 23 per cent in 1986 and it is projected to decline to 19 per cent by the year 2021. If we look at the projected growth of various age groups in the Australian population from 1986 to 2021, we discover that the general population will grow by about 6.5 per cent in the next five years whereas the population over the age 74 will grow by 22.2 per cent, that of age 80 and over by 25.3 per cent, and that of age 85 and over by 21.2 per cent. This remarkable growth of the older aged population in the next five years requires immediate attention from the government. The question of cost is important for two reasons: Firstly, as an aging population we will have fewer people in the work force to provide the income and care services needed by an increasing number of aging Australians and, secondly, any large government expenditure item is likely to come under increasing scrutiny by members of the New Right who all believe that Australia's economic problems will be solved simply if the Government spends less. I do not agree with that, but the Hawke Government's May mini-Budget cuts the incomes of the poorest Australians in this tradition which seems to have been established-the unemployed, the young, students and people who rely on social security payments. The Liberals and Nationals have claimed that they can find up to $11 billion worth of cuts. For the 1986-87 financial year the total Commonwealth expenditure on the aged is estimated to be more than $9 1/2 billion-some $8 billion in pensions and some $1 1/2 billion on nursing home, community and home care for the aged. Total Commonwealth outlays are estimated to be approximately $75 billion in 1986-87. Expenditure on the aged represents about 12 per cent of total Commonwealth outlays. As I see it, those who believe that they can find another $6 billion or $7 billion on top of the $4 billion worth of cuts already announced by the Government will have to see how they can cut money to aged Australians. I am horrified that the Government has already cut the meagre incomes of young unemployed Australians. The Australian Democrats will certainly not support cuts to the aged at a time when we obviously must put more resources into caring for the aged. There are currently no uniform standards for the care of the elderly in Australia. Such standards are set by State governments, despite the fact that the Commonwealth provides 80 per cent of funds for services to the aged and the disabled. The nursing homes and hostels legislation which I am addressing at the moment seeks to negotiate, impose and supervise uniform standards throughout Australia in the provision of care and accommodation for the aged by seeking to change the system of Commonwealth Government funding to private nursing homes to give them incentives to contain costs, to implement over time, uniform payments to nursing homes between the States and to simplify the funding mechanism so that the Department of Community Services can use its staff to supervise the quality of outcomes rather than approve individual funds to all the homes in Australia. The need for quality control has been illustrated by a number of reports which outline abysmal conditions in some, although not many, homes. This legislation addresses the areas of new funding arrangements for homes, assessment of needs by teams rather than by the decision of one doctor and the surveillance of the services offered by nursing homes. The aim is to introduce uniform payments and uniform standards of care between States. Although everyone, including the private nursing homes, thinks the aims are admirable, private nursing homes, particularly in Victoria, are upset about the new funding formula that the Government proposes to introduce. From 1 July the Government will introduce in phases a new system of funding to replace the current cost reimbursement arrangements. Furthermore, the system of reimbursement funding which has been in place has allowed a wide variation per capita to be paid between States, varying from $54.60 a day in Victoria to $35.25 a day in Queensland. Naturally any attempt to have uniformity between States would be to the benefit of Queensland and to the detriment of many Victorian nursing homes. Overall we note that 65 per cent of nursing homes in Australia will be better off and 35 per cent, mostly in Victoria and South Australia, will be worse off. Under this legislation, it is proposed that from 1 July this year all nursing home fees will be split into two components-one for all direct nursing and personal care costs and the other for infrastructure costs and return on investment. This latter composite infrastructure component is known as the standard aggregated module, or SAM, and represents about 45 per cent of the average total nursing home costs. The level of SAM is set in the Bill at $27.65 per occupied bed day for the coming financial year. This figure represents the average infrastructure cost for all participating homes in 1984-85, indexed, and the Bill provides for the Minister to gazette either a higher amount or a formula in accordance with which a higher amount will be ascertained. At this stage the standard aggregated module will be the only component in respect of which all nursing homes for the aged will begin a gradual transition to a uniform national funding level from 1 July. Until new national uniform staffing standards are agreed to, State governments and indeed, for some time after they are introduced, current approved nursing and personal care staffing levels will continue to be reflected in fees on a cost reimbursement basis. The formula will provide that in 1988-89 and subsequent years the SAM will be indexed by a weighted average of the annual expected movements in average weekly earnings and the consumer price index. The Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice for any alterations will be subject to parliamentary disallowance. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I undertake to monitor clearly the gazetted notices with a view to protecting people in nursing homes, especially the many nursing homes in Victoria and South Australia which will be financially disadvantaged. If the messages that I have been getting from the private nursing homes in Victoria are right, many nursing home beds might be closed in Victoria, which already has a shortage of nursing home beds. Once the financing arrangements are standardised, the Department will have more resources to supervise the quality of outcomes-that means the quality of care and the quality of life of people in nursing homes. This is a commendable change, but I also have sympathy for the private nursing homes in Victoria which have had their funding reduced and as yet have received no guidelines on how the Department intends to monitor the quality of outcomes. Similarly, there are no guidelines for those homes which might want to take up the option, which is now to be available, of charging more and providing more expensive services. Like all legislation being dealt with this week, the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 is being rushed through because of the Government's decision to hold an early election. This does not mean that I am unaware of the real problems of Victorian nursing homes and those whom they service and of the problems they may experience as a result of this legislation. The Australian Democrats will hold a future Labor government to the commitment made by the Minister for Community Services, Mr Hurford, in a letter written to nursing home residents in Victoria, in which he said: Because the new arrangements are to be introduced very gradually, nursing home staff and residents should find that there is minimal disruption to their normal routine. The end of these arrangements will mean a fairer deal for all nursing home residents and for nursing home proprietors. In relation to the fourth Bill in this package of Bills, that is, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, on which I do not intend to speak but on which Senator Macklin intends to speak if time permits, I point out that the Australian Democrats will be moving some amendments, which are based on the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills report. I foreshadow those amendments at this time. It is hoped that Senator Macklin will have an opportunity during the Committee stage to address the issues covered by those amendments. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(5.51) —I intend to speak briefly on two of the Bills in this package of Bills being considered this afternoon, namely, the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. I certainly do not intend to re-write any of the voluminous reports which over the years have led to this series of amendments being introduced to rationalise in many respects, to bring under much better scrutiny and to produce considerable equity where at present very little exists between States in the nursing home industry. It is very gratifying to find that the Government has taken up almost all of the recommendations of the most recent parliamentary report on private nursing homes and is introducing them in a way which, I believe, will cause the least possible disruption to an industry which should not be disrupted. The very nature of the nursing home industry means that one is dealing with vulnerable and apparently powerless people. Whatever happens it must be explained to them, to the proprietors of the nursing homes and to the workers, who most often are the people in the firing line, as it were. These new measures to be implemented over the next few months involve a new method of funding nursing homes. This is a greatly improved series of measures which will allow for monitoring the quality of care and quality of life standards, the introduction of peer group reviews in each State, and the development of national standards. These are all matters which have been emphasised over the years in one report after the other. I find it rather perturbing that some of the nursing home proprietors in Victoria are finding that, perhaps as a political necessity, they must make as much fuss as possible about these changes-gentle, gradual and incremental as the changes are. It is excessively regrettable that, once again, some of these proprietors have taken it upon themselves to use their patients, their residents, to try to put pressure on the Government and on the unions-without any justification. This Bill was very well explained in the second reading speech provided by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), representing the Minister for Community Services. Everything possible has been said about the Bill during the second reading debate in the House of Representatives. I can see not point at all in rehashing the details of these proposed measures. I would like, though, to emphasise that in Victoria the conventional wisdom has been that operating costs have been so much higher than those in other States and that there have been idiosyncratic reasons for this. However, an independent study by Coopers and Lybrand and W. D. Scott has indicated that there is no apparent justification for Victoria's higher infrastructure costs. I am not challenging the conventional wisdom about the higher ratio of trained nurses to patients or, in many cases, the higher percentage of patients who need more intensive nursing. But as far as this exercise is concerned, we are dealing with infrastructure costs; we are dealing with what in the Bill is referred to as the standard aggregate module which, in the first instance, will be that cost factor which will be yielding to efforts to provide that equity between States which has eluded us until now. During the inquiry undertaken by the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, interestingly enough we received no evidence at all particularly relating to contract arrangements. These are used commonly, it appears, in Victoria for cleaning, laundry and catering and, on examination, it appears that they are exceptionally expensive-in many cases costs for these services are 50 per cent higher than for the other States. It is suggested that if the nursing homes in Victoria involved in contractual arrangements were to re-examine the nature of providing such services, together with their higher administrative costs generally-and we certainly did have evidence about those-their outlays on these infrastructure items would be virtually the same as those in other States. This provides a rather interesting view of the administration of Victorian nursing homes, particularly those that are represented, I understand, by the Private Geriatric Homes Association of Victoria. I recall from my own experience the strenuous efforts that were made in Western Australia during the 1970s and early 1980s to persuade the nursing home proprietors not to change their mode of operation of using contract cleaners and caterers, but to employ workers within the hospitals. In every case the standard of work was higher, the level of commitment of the workers was higher and the costs involved were considerably lower. Claims have also been made that, with the introduction of the proposed arrangements, the standard of care and quality of life will fall. This is totally misrepresenting the facts. The new funding arrangements apply only to infrastructure costs, that is, food, laundry, transport, et cetera. The new grant has been set at a level which will increase total infrastructure funding for two-thirds of all nursing homes in Australia, the exceptions being, as we have been told before, chiefly in Victoria. The proprietors, I hope, will rapidly get used to the idea that they will have much greater flexibility in the way that they manage their infrastructure funds. Funding will not be cut. What will happen is that the level of increase will not be the same as it was in the past. This will be greatly to the advantage of the patients, who will no longer be continually faced with the alarm that can be caused when they have anticipated that their fees are going to be increased several times in a year. Worst of all, claims are being made that the new arrangements will mean that some nursing home owners will incur significant financial losses and that they will be forced to close down, leaving residents with nowhere to go. I have heard that people with relatives in nursing homes are being told to take them home, as there will be no other accommodation available. Once again, in Victoria the conventional wisdom is that there is a shortage of nursing home beds in comparison with the demand that is assumed to exist. The new arrangements will provide considerable opportunities for proprietors to manage their homes far more efficiently and profitably than they do now. The new arrangements will be phased in very slowly, as I have said, to bring about a gradual and equitable redistribution of Commonwealth funding across all nursing homes and to minimise disruption to the nursing home industry and its residents. If there is one thing that came out strongly in every report that has ever been made on nursing homes, it is the vulnerability of the patients, the fact that one is dealing with a very powerless group of people. Patients and their relatives are very easily alarmed and changes must be handled very sensitively. I feel very proud of the fact that our Department of Community Services and our Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) have designed a series of changes in a sensitive fashion so as to provide the least possible alarm and disruption. It needs to be said very firmly that should any nursing home close down or turn out residents on the street, the Department will move quickly to ensure that they are accommodated elsewhere. The Minister has the power under this new legislation to take immediate action to revoke that nursing home's approval. That is the heaviest sanction which exists and proprietors who are making wild and completely irresponsible statements should take very good note of that fact. It has been very clear over the years that although there were a few cases of mismanagement and mistreatment, to the point of severity and to the point where the community would be very perturbed, the Department and State Government structures simply did not exercise the sanctions that would pull irresponsible proprietors into line. Another point that should be made about Victoria is that Commonwealth expenditure in that State for a person aged 70 plus in the aged care area is very high. In 1985-86 Commonwealth expenditure on programs for the aged in Victoria was $334m, which represents $1,128 per person aged 70 plus, compared with $1,110 for New South Wales and $1,011 for Queensland. I should also make it quite clear that nursing home benefits in Victoria were increased in May 1987 to $54.60 a day, a significantly higher rate than applies in any other State. It bears repeating that Australia is well equipped with institutional care for the aged compared with pretty well every other westernised society with which we normally compare ourselves. Even so, only 7 per cent of our population over 70 years of age is in any sort of institutional care. We are a fairly healthy population and I and my colleagues, I am sure, have every intention of continuing that trend. However, we must-the Government is aware of this fact-make provision for the range of care that will be appropriate for people in that age group who are in need of support in one way or another. Something like 1.6 per cent of our total Budget is currently being spent on our population over 70 years of age. I do not complain about this. I believe that a country that looks after its aged is a compassionate society and I hope that Australia comes into that category. I do believe, though, that we should be getting good value for that money and that we should be providing from that significant amount the appropriate care, the adequate care and the care that meets the social, medical and economic requirements of the said population. Very briefly, I will comment on the equal opportunity provisions of the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. This is part of the amazing charade we have had from the Opposition over the last few weeks. First it did not approve of equal opportunity, then it did, and now it seems as though it is not quite sure again. It is worth repeating that, in all our affirmative action legislation over the last year or so, we have endeavoured to produce language which is acceptable and which will be effective. The notion of quotas is not acceptable to many people in the community and we are aware of that. It is not particularly because of that that we look towards the strenuous use of the merit principle, but it certainly has been one of the elements in our thinking. We have developed a modification of the Canadian system of affirmative action. I believe that is accepted very well wherever it is introduced whether it be into the private sector, the tertiary education sector, the Public Service or statutory authorities. The Bill before us refers to the Wool Marketing Board and other such legislation will come up for amendment, as is appropriate, over the early months of the next Hawke Government. The Opposition's amendments leave me very puzzled indeed. From the language used it seems as though there is a case of severe regression in the Opposition to the notion of quotas. They advocate `quantitative measures or aims which may be expressed in numerical terms', referring to the quality of measures and aims, expressed as a general principle, and so on. It is high time the Opposition worked out what its position really is on affirmative action and equal opportunity. If it does not approve of these measures it should continue to say so as Opposition senators did on the Carleton-Walsh Report just a few weeks ago. If it believes in these measures it should work with us and believe that we have the intention to continue to introduce, by legislative measures, by educative measures- Senator Walters —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point or order. The things Senator Giles is saying are quite untrue. Our Party has been completely consistent in its approach to equal opportunity, and the amendments before us today continue that line. They are consistent. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —There is no point of order. Senator GILES —I think there will be ample opportunity for these amendments to be explained and I certainly hope that I am around when that happens, because they leave me very confused. The people of Australia are giving us a very strong vote of confidence because of our measures on equal opportunity. A recent poll has shown that 75 per cent of the Australian population endorses our measures to try to eradicate discrimination in the community on the grounds of sex, race, ethnicity or disability. They are saying to us: `We approve. We believe that this will work and we want you to continue along that track'. This is very comforting for those of us who have worked for a long time to introduce, against quite strenuous opposition, the measures such as those before us today. The Opposition has done itself a great deal of harm, particularly over the last few weeks, with its ambivalence, to say the least, about its attitude towards equal opportunity. We know what the Opposition does not believe in; we are not utterly sure about what it does believe in. I think that it is to the Opposition's advantage-if I might provide a little gratuitous advice-within the next few weeks to get its act together. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.09) —We have just heard an incredible speech from Senator Giles. However, I will deal solely with the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and leave some of my colleagues to answer Senator Giles. The way a government looks after its elderly and sick patients reflects the moral attitude of that government. To date we have certainly seen the way in which this Government looks after the sick. We have 100,000 people on public hospital waiting lists. They are waiting for operations not only which would alleviate their pain and suffering but also are life saving. We are all aware of the Government's socialist ideology that prevents it from introducing a just health scheme. We are all well aware that at the moment the citizens whose priority it is to care for their family know that the only possible way they can do so is by taking out private health insurance. When they do this they know that they are paying twice-once through the levy which this Government forces them to pay and again through private insurance. We all know how terribly important it is for our elderly citizens to have security-security of knowing that there will be a hospital bed available when they need it. At present they are so concerned about not being able to get into public hospitals when they want to that many of them are being forced to insure privately. The Australian Bureau of Statistics health insurance survey shows that 46.05 per cent of married couples with dependent children on less than $126 per week are privately insured. They earn $126 a week, yet they struggle to take out private insurance. That is an indication of what Australian citizens think of this Government's health scheme. Let us look at other ways in which this Government looks after its aged. Again, we all remember Mr Hawke's promises when he told us in his first policy speech that there would have to be some belt tightening. He said: That cannot be done by taking the money out of the weekly pay packets of the pensioners. What happened to that promise? What happened immediately after Mr Hawke made that statement? The assets test was introduced, taking the money out of the pensioners' cheques. What sort of promise was that? Later we had Mr Hawke's next election promise when he said: Specifically we will continue to work towards the goal of raising the basic pension rate to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. What happened to that promise? Pensions were frozen and pensioners had to do without. The increase was delayed. That was the answer to that promise. What the Government has done to the pensioners of Australia is unforgivable. Yesterday I referred to the treatment of war widows by this Government. I also pointed out that this Government's mini-Budget had decided to phase out the B-class widows-those elderly women who, on turning 50 and who have no dependent children, will lose their pension. Indeed, if they have been receiving a pension and their dependent children become independent they can lose their pension when they are only 45 or 46. Under our Government they were entitled to a pension. This Government says `No. If you are over 50-indeed if you are 58-we will retain you and put you back in the work force'. That is what this Government says-that 58-year-old women, who have been at home looking after their children for perhaps 25 years and who have lost all their work force skills, should be retrained. When their husbands die they are no longer entitled to a pension. What a dreadful situation this Government is in. I think that the executive of the Government must have hoodwinked its back benchers because there has been no outcry about this. We have heard Senator Giles telling us today how we are not looking after the women of Australia. This Government has done more to act against the elderly women of Australia than any previous Government could ever do during any term of office. It is a disgrace. The Government must realise that our elderly citizens do not want much-all they want is security. They must be allowed to plan their retirement and old age but this Government has created terrible problems for them. So many of our elderly have been caused untold and unnecessary worry yet these people are less able to look after themselves. Recently in my State an elderly pensioner had her pension cut back without any notification simply because the movement in the share market increased the value of her shares. Can the Minister tell me how an elderly woman can possibly cope with that sort of thing? The case was taken up by the Department and the Department apologised. Senator Robertson —Ha, Ha! Senator WALTERS —Senator Robertson is laughing as though that is not true. It is a completely true statement-the Department apologised and admitted that it had taken the woman's pension without notification. Senator Robertson —So what? They have apologised. Senator WALTERS —Now Senator Robertson says: `So what. They have apologised'. Not all pensioners have the ability to approach their local senator or member of parliament to set the position straight. They are just terrified by it; they do not ring the Department; they do not know how to go about it; the average pensioner does not know how to approach a senator or a member of parliament, nor do they have relatives or children who can take up the matter for them. Fortunately this pensioner did. The whole matter amounts to intimidation and, indeed, is a disgrace. Above all else elderly citizens need security. I believe that it is something to which they are really entitled. They need to know that as they grow older they will be looked after but that when they can no longer look after themselves and have to move from their own home, accommodation will be provided and they will be able to afford it. These are very traumatic decisions for an elderly person to make and that is certainly not understood by this Government. Under the Fraser Government an emphasis was put on increasing home and community care. It is essential that governments understand that elderly people will only want to move out of their own homes as a last resort and only when it is no longer possible for them to look after themselves. The further a government goes in supplying assistance to keep elderly citizens in their homes the happier they will be. The community can do so much-there is the meals on wheels service for example. I have served those meals and know how much elderly citizens appreciate not only the meal but also someone coming into the house because it is probably the only time they see someone in their home. They wanted to delay me and have a chat; they asked me to do little errands for them. That is very important to them. The community can do a great deal. I have been asked just to change a light globe because it was impossible for the elderly person to climb up on a ladder and change it herself. This Government could not care less; it is completely uncaring. But when an elderly person can no longer stay in his or her own home then the automatic step should not be straight into a nursing home. Alternative arrangements should be made to allow people into retirement villages, senior citizens homes or hostels should they wish. Again, under the Fraser Government, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was instrumental in putting an emphasis on building more hostels and houses for the aged. When one realises that it is not only the wish of our aged that they should stay in their own homes as long as possible or be independent in a hostel or aged home, but that the cost to the taxpayer to maintain a person in a hostel is only $80 a week as against $350 a week on average to keep such a person in a nursing home, one can understand how right the Fraser Government was to put the emphasis on expansion in this area. Fortunately, the Government is following that lead but, true to its socialist ideology, it has gone too far. In an effort to control nursing home numbers, it has implemented in this legislation complete control over nursing, nursing homes, the total number of beds, who the patients are, what costs are involved and so on. It will regulate fully the bed numbers, even to the extent that if nursing home authorities want to abolish the home and rebuild they have to seek permission. Again, the Minister will say who will be admitted to a nursing home, how long they should stay and whether they are fit enough to be taken out of a nursing home. He will lay down what the homes will charge, or the benefit paid, for those beds. Indeed, he will lay down everything associated with the administration. All this will be done at a cost in 1988-89 of $14m. That is only half the package; the rest will come later. This Bill applies only to domestic costs-food, laundry, cleaning and an element of profit for the home. The other half, such as the nursing costs, will come later. That matter has been put in the too hard basket and it will be dealt with later. However, again there will be full Government intervention. The Government intends to control all staffing standards in nursing homes. It wants to introduce a new quality of care and of life standard. All these things can be enforced by the Minister because he has the ultimate power by refusing to pay benefits to a home which fails to meet the standards that he sets. It is a matter of great concern that the right of appeal will not be in place by 1 July when these provisions come into force. The Opposition has decided to seek to amend this legislation, and I shall read our amendment: The Minister shall not take action under subsection 45e (2) or (3) of the Principal Act in respect of a nursing home unless the Minister has established a Nursing Home Standards Review Panel in the State or Territory in which the nursing home is located. So if the Minister sets certain standards that should be abided by and decides that that nursing home is not abiding by them, according to the legislation he could then cut off benefits. But the Opposition has an amendment providing that first there must be an appeal provision, a review panel that the industry can approach. I received a letter from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and I have been told that Senator Tate will be giving assurances. I shall read the letter to honourable senators: I am writing to you in regard to the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 which is currently before the Senate. I understand that the Opposition in the Senate proposes to move the following amendment: I have just read that amendment to the House. The letter continues: While I have no objection at all to the spirit of this, I am concerned that the passage of amendments will require the Bill to be returned to the House of Representatives. Here we have the same old situation. Bills are being rushed through this place and Ministers in the other place are saying to the Senate: `We understand that we are doing something wrong. The Bill needs amending, but we do not want to keep the House of Representatives here. We are rushing this legislation through, we definitely want it, we do not want it held up. So I shall give a personal assurance that we will implement the Opposition's amendment in the Budget session'. It is the same old problem year after year while this Government is in office. The Minister continues in his letter: This raises the possibility that passage could be delayed to the Budget sittings, which would seriously delay and disrupt the introduction of major program changes which have been recommended by parliamentary committees. The changes are strongly supported by most sections of the nursing home industry and by the major consumer bodies representing the aged. I shall talk about that later. The Minister gives the following assurance: I am willing to give an undertaking that the new powers will not be exercised in respect of a nursing home until a Review Panel has been established in the State or Territory in which the home is located. This approach would reflect the administrative realities involved in establishing Panels, but at the same time would not inhibit appropriate action being taken in the interests of residents in those States where Panels have been established. The Minister continues: In addition to this I will also give an undertaking to introduce further amendments to the National Health Act 1953 in the Budget Sittings to pick up the amendment that has been proposed by the Opposition. I hope that the assurances that I have given in this letter will mean that the Opposition will not proceed with the amendment at this stage. It is the same old story. The Minister has to give assurances and bad legislation is being passed because the Government wants to get up in a hurry and hold an early election that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised he would not hold. I do not know why I am accepting the Minister's assurance. Because the Democrats have told us that they will support us, we should make the Government act correctly, make the Government bring back the House of Representatives and make the Government delay the election an extra day, if necessary, but pass proper legislation. That is what should be done, but I have agreed to accept the Minister's assurances. I presume that later we shall be given an assurance from the Minister in charge of this Bill that the matter will be amended in the Budget session. If we received that assurance, I suppose we shall have to put up with it. There have been several committee reports on this subject and, once again, the Government's decisions have been hampered by their ideology of socialism because the Government wants full Federal control. The 1982 report of the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee recommended that the Commonwealth should progressively get out of the area and leave the running of these nursing homes to the States, which already have so much input. The report recommended that for the Commonwealth to retain control results only in overlapping in various responsibilities. The States already are the major providers of health care for their citizens. Why should the Commonwealth take over the aged care just because people are getting older? As an Opposition we shall be monitoring the position because we tend to think that the one area of government should take over the lot and that there should not be an overlapping of responsibilities. Indeed, Dr Blewett in February 1983 supported the House of Representatives report and said that there had to be fundamental changes-not piecemeal but fundamental changes. Yet here we have half a package, which will have a piecemeal effect, in respect of nursing home care being rushed through the Parliament prior to this early election. The industry was not given time to examine the matter and adequate consultation did not take place. The industry had only a weekend to consider the Bill before the debate in the House of Representatives took place. I bet the Government is being lobbied hard by the Victorian industry at the moment. I should like to read from a report by the Department of Community Services. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator WALTERS —Prior to the suspension I was saying that I believed that the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation was being rushed through the Parliament by the Government. The Government commissioned a report, which I have in front of me, entitled `The Cost of Nursing Homes and Hostel Care Services' by Coopers and Lybrand, W. D. Scott for the Department of Community Services. The Government asked Coopers and Lybrand to establish the cost patterns and levels which would assist in determining levels of program grants if the Government decided to go down that track of national benefits to nursing homes. The main recommendation says: . . . nursing homes are a mixed group, with a variety of individual characteristics and operating situations which means that they tend to develop individual cost patterns . . . the concept of `equal funding' is thereby complicated. The report states: We are ultimately led to recommend the independent approach because after exhaustive search, we are unable to substantiate that costs as they currently exist in the industry show sufficient consistency for generating standard costs. If the report tells the Government that an independent approach ought to be made and that there is insufficient consistency of industry costs throughout Australia, why will the Government not accept the recommendation? This Government does this sort of thing so often. Bettina Cass in the social welfare areas was commissioned to tell the Government what she thought about family allowances and whether they ought to be means tested. She said very clearly that for horizontal equity purposes the Government must not means test the family allowance. This Government spends I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars commissioning reports then, of course, refuses to take any notice of them. Again I ask: Why the rush? The hospital industry had only the weekend to look at the legislation. The Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) in his letter to me said: The changes are strongly supported by most sections of the nursing home industry and by the major consumer bodies representing the aged. That is not what we on this side of the chamber have heard the industry say. I assure the Minister that not only Victoria but also New South Wales have rejected the legislation. So again I ask: Why the rush? We all become very suspicious when this Government does this sort of thing. As things stand, from 1 July this year nursing homes will be that section of their costs called-a very complicated name-the standard aggregate module, nicknamed SAM, comprising food, laundry, cleaning and all those sorts of domestic costs plus an element of profit and being 45 per cent of the total cost of nursing homes, paid at the average infrastructure cost for all participating homes in 1984-85. It is to be indexed by the weighted average of actual and projected movements in average weekly earnings and the consumer price index. Working out this SAM is a very complicated business. The gist of it is that nursing homes throughout Australia are to be given a certain benefit by the Government-and that will be it. The Government claims that this will advantage 65 per cent of participating and deficit-funded non-government nursing homes by upgrading their fees and will disadvantage only 35 per cent of homes. As the Government has pointed out, these are mainly in Victoria, but there are also some in South Australia. The cost of patient care in nursing homes across Australia varies considerably. The Government argues that because nursing homes can claim increases for fees and benefits on the basis of their actual cost increases, this does not provide any incentive for efficiency. The Government says that under the new system if nursing homes keep their costs under SAM-that is, the average cost of nursing homes-they can earn a larger profit because their profit will be tied to that fee. The Opposition is prepared to monitor the progress of this system to be sure that there are not unexpected anomalies. However, we still believe that the Commonwealth should accept the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, gradually handing over the responsibility for nursing homes to the States. As I have said, it is the States that understand local priorities, issues and needs. All this cannot be understood by big brother in Canberra. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.06) —I wish to speak on behalf of the Opposition on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) for squeezing something out of the scrooge that we call a Treasurer. These poverty traps needed to be fixed but I have to say that election time is a particularly cynical time to be doing so. The fact that the Government has finally come to grips with these poverty traps cannot hide the fact that the changes and cutbacks by this Government in veterans' entitlements over the four years that it has had to do something meaningful for them have been really unjust. I would like to draw attention to just what the Government has been doing for veterans over its four-year stewardship. The first group of cutbacks arose from the May 1985 mini-Budget. In that mini-Budget the travel allowance was reduced by half to a flat rate of 11.6c per kilometre with a reduction in government expenditure totalling $3m. Obviously this particularly affected country veterans, but it did not seem to matter to the Government; it was a question simply of money. In addition, the subsistance allowance, including meals and accommodation, was reduced substantially by half a million dollars. We also know that the eligibility for some categories of service to utilise the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme was terminated. Under the dental scheme there were four categories of treatment which were limited to a maximum of $300 annum. Those changes came under the May 1985 mini-Budget. Then there were changes arising from the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Some of those related to the totally and permanently incapacitated pension. I am very concerned as to what was done. Criteria were tightened up and veterans who suffer further disability after leaving the work force are no longer eligible for TPI pensions. That will not be forgotten by the veterans of this country. Provision was also made for the termination of the dependants' allowance by commutation, albeit on a voluntary basis, and there will be no further increases in that allowance. The repatriation cover was extended to those who served in HMAS Sydney and other support ships between Australia and Vietnam, but still recognition by way of an appropriate award remains unresolved. Then we turn to the 1986 Budget. Once again the veterans felt the hot breath of this Government. War widows and their dependants, as well as service pensioners with their fringe benefits, no longer have access to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. They bitterly resent it. They will not let the Government forget that, come the election. The war widows who also receive an age pension had their social security component frozen at a maximum level of $60.05. An additional Budget decision to apply a reducing permanent maximum level below $60.05 has now been dropped because a successful campaign was launched to redress that injustice. It is interesting to note that the worst excesses of this Government have been overcome only by a concerted attack by the Opposition and the veterans' community. The Government will not listen to the good sense that presumably comes from its own ranks or from its departmental advisers. The situation has to be politically unpalatable before this Government redresses some of its wrongs. Provision was also made in the 1986 Budget for the Government to claim from private health insurance funds where a veteran was insured for the cost of hospital and medical treatment which until then the Government had paid for. There is no longer any compensatory payment towards his private insurance. That is a mean sort of a provision. Only a mean government which did not really understand the veterans' contribution to this nation would make such a provision. Senator Messner —Pusillanimous. Senator NEWMAN —What a lovely word! It describes the situation completely. I thank Senator Messner. Veterans suffered the same six-week deferment from early November of the consumer price index related increases for veterans' pensions. Let us not forget the nit-picking change to the method of veterans and war widows making travelling claims. All of a sudden they found that, having saved their claims over many months to put them all in together, the provision had been changed, which meant, if the claims had not been submitted, that they could claim only for the past three months. I think we may have sorted out that problem after many complaints and representations on behalf of veterans and war widows, but it was another pusillanimous attack on our veteran community. Under the Budget and related legislation, the assets test continues to apply to veterans' service pensions. This has resulted in over 13,000 veterans having their service pensions reduced or cancelled. I am proud to say that my Party remains committed to the abolition of the assets test-lock, stock and barrel. There is no doubt that the most unjust anomaly is the entitlement to totally and permanently incapacitated pensions. A veteran whose health deteriorates the day before he leaves the work force can become entitled to a pension, whereas another who retired the day before will be ineligible. In this category are people who were prisoners of war under the Japanese for many years, but it does not make any difference. Let us not forget that only a fierce campaign stopped the Government succeeding with its 40-year cut-off rule, a cruel decision which would have prevented nearly half a million women from becoming entitled to the war widows' benefit. The veterans will not forget the shameful saga of the Minister and the Australian War Memorial, about which I do not propose to say any more now. However, this all goes to the picture of what this Government has done to the veteran community and what the community will remember when it goes to the polls. That is the record of this Government in veterans' affairs. By contrast, the Liberal Party's objective is to provide veterans and their dependants with the greatest generosity that responsible government can afford. We do not recognise veterans' entitlements as welfare payments. It is important that they are regarded as compensation for war service. We are all very ready to send our servicemen away to fight for us, but governments can be very mean when it comes to compensating veterans for the effects of that service as they get older. This Government should be ashamed of what it is doing to the people who should be entitled to TPI pensions. The Minister tells me quite often that he cares very much for the veterans in this community. I take his word that he does care for them, but he certainly does not seem to have a government that cares for them and he does not seem to get very far with his Government. The increasing number of veterans who have been forced by this Government's mismanagement of the economy into the poverty traps we are sitting about trying to rectify tonight will not give him any thanks for caring but not being effective as a member of a government that has put us in this economic mess from which we have to rescue veterans from their poverty traps. Nor will the returned servicewomen thank the Minister for his good intentions. I remind the Senate of a question a colleague of mine asked the Minister a week or two ago about the plight of returned servicewomen. The Minister said that the matter was going to be the top priority for him, that was at the top of his wish list. Wishes do not help these women. They have waited for 42 years for some recognition of the service they gave to this country on the dirt-floored hospitals at the end of the Kokoda Trail, taking the wounded off the trail and nursing them, regardless of their own state of health. I would have thought that the Minister, who cares so much, he tells me, about these returned service women, and his Government, if it had any heart, would have achieved something for them by now. We have a precedent in the fact that nurses who served in the First World War had to wait 40 years for some sort of recognition of their needs. This country has now waited 42 years for something to be done for the returned servicewomen of the Second World War. It is time they got a fair go. Senator Reid —Hear, hear! Senator NEWMAN —I thank Senator Reid. I am glad to see that somebody cares, even though Senator Tate does not seem to think it is worth worrying about. Obviously, my colleagues on this side of the chamber do. Senator Tate —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I find those words extremely offensive. Senator Newman deliberately did not reply to my interjection which would give some sense to the reader of Hansard as to her remarks about me just then. I reminded her that her husband was in a position in the Cabinet to influence the sorts of decisions she would have liked to have seen made in the many years the Liberal-Country Party was in coalition government after the Second World War. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Newman, obviously the words you used were offensive to the Minister. I ask you to withdraw. Senator NEWMAN —If I offended the Minister, of course I withdraw the words. I draw his attention to the fact that he has had four years to rectify what obviously is a most unsatisfactory situation. Therefore, there is not much point in pointing to deficiencies in previous governments when the Minister has had four years to rectify what he apparently regards as deficiencies. The mote must also be in his own eye. I am very glad that he recognises that there are deficiencies. If he were ever to get back into government, I am sure that he would do something about it but as of 11 July he will no longer have that opportunity. We will have that opportunity, and Senator Tate will then see what we do. Let him just wait and see. The Minister in his second reading speech placed a great deal of emphasis on the increased expenditure in repatriation hospitals and on increased wages bills. That does not wash because we all know, and he should know, that expenditures must continue to rise for the time being with the increased number of veterans in their mid-70s and the number of elderly veterans in need of care which will not peak until about 1992. These increases, which the Minister makes so much of, do not really say much except that we are in the peak of our need. They do not reflect any special generosity on the part of the Government. If the Government were truly generous in this area, the Minister would not have spent the past couple of years trying to foist the domiciliary nursing care of the Department of Veterans' Affairs on to the State departments of health. So far, I am glad to so say, the Minister has not been successful. Once again, as I pointed out earlier, I remind the Senate that veterans' affairs benefits are for compensation for veterans. We expect a very special kind of tender loving care to be given to our veterans who need domiciliary nursing care. The way this Government has mis-managed the health system in this country it is very clear that the State health departments do not have the money or the manpower to provide the sort of domiciliary nursing care that our veterans, at least, are entitled to. Of course, I hope that all citizens could have access to high quality domiciliary nursing care but, if any group of people should take priority in that area, I believe that it is our veterans. At least at the moment the Department of Veterans' Affairs is providing that care. I understand that at least for the past two years the Minister has been trying to get rid of this responsibility and foist it on to the States. If he and his Government were really generous and caring towards veterans, he would not be trying to get rid of this area of responsibility from his Department. On return to government, our first task will be to restore prosperity. That has to come first. Nobody can afford anything when the country is in the mess it is in. But once we have restored prosperity we will remove anomalies as the resources permit. Much will depend on the fine print in the books when we see what an economic mess we have actually inherited. We cannot really tell from the utterances of the current Treasurer (Mr Keating) just what the true state of affairs is. We constantly hear what the interest rates will be and what the economic performance will be, but when it comes to the point it so often falls short of Treasurer's expectations. So, until we see the books of this nation we cannot judge entirely how bad this mess is. Once we know that we will know just what we can afford to do and how quickly we can afford to do it. We do not oppose this Bill, as at least it will assist some of those people who are the victims of this Government's economic mismanagement. For that reason we support it. But I wish now to draw attention to the fact that the Australian Democrats intend to move three amendments to this Bill. I would like to describe the attitude of the Opposition to those amendments. We will not be supporting the amendments moved by the Democrats, due mainly to our reluctance to jeopardise the passage of the legislation for the sake of the veteran community itself. We do not want to delay it. We feel it is important that they get the benefit of the removal of the poverty traps. But the lack of time to consider the amendments has been caused directly by the Government's determination to push through a multitude of legislation at the eleventh hour of this Parliament. We recognise that the amendments which the Democrats will be moving are in line with the concerns expressed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its sixth report some weeks ago insofar as they relate to the personal rights and liberties of the citizen. We also recognise that the Minister has undertaken to bring an amendment forward in the Budget sittings in relation to sub-section 93 (c) (4) if the advice of the Attorney-General is that such an amendment is desirable. We have no wish to support fraudulent applications; nor do we believe that the veterans' rights should be placed in jeopardy through some action of the Parliamentary Draftsman. However, the pressure of time that has been placed on us by the Government in respect of this Bill has meant that we are not entirely satisfied that these particular amendments will not make the work of the prosecution impossible where offences are solely within the knowledge of the defendant. On the other hand, the Senate should be aware that only today the Scrutiny of Bills Committee reported to the Senate in its tenth report on the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987. At page 164 of that report the Committee reported: . . . in future it will, by analogy with the common law defence of mistake of fact, regard as acceptable the imposition of the persuasive onus of proof on the accused in relation to a statutory defence in criminal proceedings where: (a) the matters to be raised by way of defence by the accused are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused; and (b) it would be extremely difficult and costly for the prosecution to be required to negative the defence. In the light of all those considerations, we undertake, when in government, after 11 July, to reconsider these three sections and, after taking advice from the Attorney-General, if it is clear that these amendments are needed, to present them to the Parliament. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(8.24) —I rise to speak on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill and the related Bill, and the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 and its related Bill. I do not think I could add much more to what Senator Newman has just said about the Veterans Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. I agree with what she said. I have already expressed concern about the report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes that was presented just recently and my concern about over-regulation and over-control of private hospitals. Similarly with nursing homes, I think it is very important that governments give attention to the provision of care for those who need it. It is a pity that this Bill has been brought in in such great haste and now has to be pushed through at the end of a parliamentary session. That does not do a great deal of credit to the Government because it will not be able to be debated at the length that it probably should be debated. The Bill basically involves a change in funding arrangements to provide standard daily resident fees and standard Commonwealth benefits to replace currently existing cost reimbursement arrangements for non-government nursing homes for aged people. Of course, the aged people of this country of ours are increasing all the time. They are our forebears and I think we owe them a great deal for what they have done for our country and for the way they have worked hard to make this country what it is, although I must admit that in the last few years this beautiful country of ours has fallen away a bit under the stewardship of the Hawke Labor Government. I suppose that is another story for another debate at another time. I suppose that debate will rage through the Australian community in the next little while. It is a debate which I think we will win. The Australian people have been wanting us to be able to have this debate. But, of course, they are wondering: `Why is this election being held? Why is this election coming on so quickly?'. I return to the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill and the new arrangements which will apply to some 1,250 homes catering for up to 60,000 aged people. As I said, we have to look after the aged people, because we are getting older too, and we want to make sure that when we get to that stage of life and have put a lot of effort into this country of ours, we get looked after in the manner that we would like to see these people looked after at the moment. I think that governments have a very high moral obligation to ensure quality and availability of care for those who need it in their most vulnerable period of life, old age. I want to ensure that private enterprise gets a fair go and that government does not unnecessarily over-regulate industries. I am quite sure that Hansard has recorded all the comments that were made by Senator Walters earlier tonight regarding the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill. I turn now to the package of wool Bills. Because of the restricted time we have available, I would like to direct my remarks to the Wool Marketing Bill. Its purpose is to replace the Wool Industry Act of 1972. Here again I could make reference to the Hawke Labor Government and the way that it has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the Australian people for the last four years. It has completely pulled the wool over their eyes and it has hidden the real effects on the Australian economy of some of their actions. This Bill will provide for major reforms to the Australian Wool Corporation and the export marketing of wool. It is designed principally to improve the operational flexibility of the Corporation in today's modern marketing environment. How much it has changed over the past 20 years. The changes are designed to make the Corporation more responsible for areas such as corporate planning and reporting. The impetus for the changes came from the Government's White Paper `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities' which was published early last year. The wool industry is only one of the industries for which legislation is pending to effect changes to marketing and changed corporate responsibilities. Change for change's sake is not always good, but I think that, with minor amendments, the changes proposed in this Bill will help the industry, and I know that the industry requires it. While the Bill is fundamentally directed at export marketing, it is expected that the benefits will also flow through to the domestic marketing arrangements. Under the new legislation, the Corporation will have either a full time or a part time chairperson. The full time chair will also be a chief executive or, if part time, a managing director. In addition to the chair, the Corporation will have nine directors as opposed to the existing 10. Selection procedures will also be altered with a selection committee established to suggest suitable directors. The Corporation will set and announce the minimum market indicator reserve price which, as we know, was increased recently. In the past, that has been determined by the Minister for Primary Industry. The legislation provides for the compulsory registration of wool classers who class wool that is sold at auction. Under such a scheme, minimum standards will be established and penalties will be imposed if the standards are not met. This is a commendable move which should see problems of dirty wool and bales contaminated with an array of objects-in fact, anything that might have been in the shed at the time of baling-alleviated. If something is found in a bale of wool, the wool classer will be responsible. Some interesting objects including items of clothing have been found in bales of wool over the years, even when the wool gets to Japan. Australia currently enjoys a reputation as the best producer of wool in the world. Therefore, we cannot afford to have that reputation jeopardised by sloppy classing and dirty bales, wool contaminated with daggy or coloured wool, and inconsistent classing. Therefore, the legislation is a good thing. We must always strive for excellence in Australia. Excellence is not a word that is often associated with Australian products and it is rarely applied to the Australian work force. It is commendable that one of Australia's rural industries is attempting to provide that level of excellence. It is to be hoped that other industries follow its example. The whole thrust of the legislation will be to make the Corporation more responsible and more autonomous. All the changes have been proposed in consultation with the Wool Council of Australia. Setting the floor price and the appointment of an auditor will also be undertaken after consultation with the Wool Council. That is good. The Bill is a commendable achievement for the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I believe that the level of consultation he has undertaken in framing the legislation is to be applauded. Therefore it is a great pity that there are clauses in the legislation which totally negate the good work that he has done. I refer of course to the clauses which impose equal employment opportunity conditions on the AWC. They are clauses 41 and 42 which I will discuss more fully in the Committee stage. However, I warn that the National Party of Australia totally oppose these clauses and will be moving amendments to them, time permitting. There is no question of the National Party's support for women in the work force. Women and men should have equal opportunity for promotion on merit. In my Party that has always been the case. To impose artificial requirements on any company is absurd and an insult to women in this country. Professional women in Australia do not need artificially constructed quotas to assist them to move into higher positions. Australian women have the ability, the tenacity and the talent to make it on their own. Legislation which somehow suggests that they need help to get ahead is, in my opinion, offensive. One only has to look at the number of women in this chamber to realise that the role of women in society is much further advanced than it was in the days of our grandfathers and the people about whom I was talking a minute ago in relation to the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill. We now have women heads of our large companies, women heads of government departments, women in the judiciary, women ministers of religion and Ministers in government. One, Senator Ryan, sits opposite. We have a woman Speaker in the other place. She did not need any help to get that position. Because she is in the Australian Labor Party she might have had to have some faction giving her support or not giving her support because the Labor Party has about ten different factions, but I bet she achieved what she has, not because of any female or male connotation. I guarantee that, because the Labor Party thought that in her own right she was the equal of any of the men in the other place. She got the job as the Speaker of the House. Good on her! She did it on her own and she did it because she had the ability. She did not need any legislation to get her into that position. I do not believe therefore that we need special legislation. These ladies are taking and continuing to take their places according to merit. I do not deny that it has not always been so, and I do not deny that there is still a resentment in some areas. We do not live in a perfect world, and legislation cannot always make it so. It is outrageous to think that we need rather complicated, bureaucratic requirements to ensure that the AWC chooses its staff on merit. It has done so in the past, and I have no doubt that it will do so in the future. A number of women are involved in the wool industry, and they are there because they are talented. They got there on merit. If women think that they will get there because of legislation, they will not feel quite so good. They will wonder whether they got there because of merit or because of legislation. As I said, they are there because they are talented, not because they resorted to any legislation. It is a great pity-and I repeat it for the umpteenth time-that the Minister felt the need to include these clauses in an otherwise very sensible piece of legislation. I personally regret this move. The Hawke Government has totally mismanaged the economy. I suppose we will be talking about the Government's mismanagement in the next few weeks on the election trail. The wool industry is one of Australia's most buoyant industries. It is one of this country's biggest success stories. Senator Tate —Particularly in Tasmania. Senator BROWNHILL —Even in Tasmania. Tasmania had its record wool price taken away from it by some of my colleagues, the Gills, from Walcha in northern New South Wales. Unless Tasmania does a fiddle down there, it will be a long time before it gets that record price back, because very fine wool is grown in the northern tablelands. Wool provides $3.1 billion in export income-the second largest export contribution by any industry, and the largest rural contributor. It is a wonderful industry. This year, despite falling incomes, it is anticipated that the national wool clip will be worth around $4 billion. This is truly a remarkable achievement. At a time when the rural industry is facing record levels of debt and debt repayments, adverse seasonal and market factors, and spiralling costs, the wool industry has shown resilience and, indeed, brilliance in adapting to changed economic conditions. It is no coincidence that the history of the wool industry is full of great men-men who were brilliant; in some cases, men who are still brilliant. They are brilliant wool growers, great administrators and, at times, great leaders and innovators. At present the industry owes a great debt to the present Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, David Asimus. He has provided great leadership and guidance to the industry for the past 15 or more years. He has given up much of his personal life to attend meetings all over the world, to argue for a better deal from successive governments for the Australian wool growers. He has promoted his product, our major primary industry product, in forums around the world for many years. He has participated in negotiations at the highest levels. Look at the magnificent job he has done in China. The wool industry is indebted to David Asimus for its present prosperity. There are many others in the industry who I will mention. Ron Hunter, who comes from Moree, was one of the first people to push for a floor price for wool. Mr Bryce Killen was one of the instigators and fathers of the wool industry. I mention also Mr Dick O'Brien, the late Bill Fagen and, of course, Sir William Gunn. They have all played a great part in the wool industry in Australia. As I said, they have all contributed immensely. On the promotion side, the wool industry, because of those men-and many others whom I have not mentioned-has gained enormously. Of course, since those men started things-some of them, as I said, are still working on them-the consumption of wool in Australia has jumped by 53 per cent in the last year. Australia is one of the largest per head consumers of wool in the world. This is a good thing. Wool is a wonderful fibre to wear. I think that many more people should wear it. I had better state, in regard to pecuniary interests, that I do not grow a lot of wool, so I do not really have a pecuniary interest to declare. The wool industry is a wonderful industry. It will continue to be a wonderful industry because of the people associated with it. We are comparatively lucky that Australians are able to buy the highest quality wool and wool products of any country, and our designers, of course, are in great demand throughout the world. The Corporation can take great pride in its promotional activities. It has provided an example for other industries to emulate. Through Australia's involvement with the International Wool Secretariat, wool and wool blend trademarks now have world recognition. Through the assistance provided by the IWS, advances have been made possible in wool technology, quality control, product marketing, design and styling and research and development. In the areas of research and development the wool industry again contributes by actively supporting research programs on a range of issues, such as pasture improvement, sheep breeding, parasite control, improved husbandry techniques and automated shearing. Of course, there are two centres in Australia that are looking at robotic shearing-one in Adelaide and one in Perth in Western Australia. I do not think that we will ever see the shearing of a sheep change from being done by people like-- Senator Jones —Like Mick Young. Senator BROWNHILL —Like Mr Young in the other place. Maybe he should go back to shearing. He might have to go back to shearing after the next election. Maybe Mr Young will have to find his vocation in the shearing sheds after the next election. Senator Jones —I think he has slipped the skin off you. Senator BROWNHILL —He would be too rough, I think. An amount of $2m was provided last year from the Wool Research Trust Fund to research wool harvesting and development. A number of patents have been filed and licences negotiated with a number of manufacturers of shearing gear. Two new shearing hand-pieces were released for sale as a result of the work that has been done in this area. Australia, as I said, is contributing enormously to the wool technology field. Growers, as much as anyone else, need to be applauded for their contribution through levies to this important work. The important thing about the wool industry, of course, is that the people who are growing the wool are putting money back into the industry. Similarly, growers' funds have been used to improve measurement techniques and manufacturing methods. Over $7m was provided during 1985-86 for research into textiles. Nearly $1m was spent on economic research, and over $1m on research into diseases and parasites. Money has been provided for scholarships and funds to universities and colleges for programs associated with the wool industry. The amount that growers provide will be increased through the Wool Tax Bills, which form part of this package, from the present 8 per cent to 10 per cent of the gross value of the annual clip. Therefore, growers take seriously the importance of research, promotion and education. I repeat: This Bill is a good Bill except for the inclusion of the provision requiring people to have equal employment opportunities, which I do not think is necessary in this legislation. In the time remaining to me, the other Bill about which I wish to speak is the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill 1987. Senator Tate —You haven't got chooks, too, have you? Senator BROWNHILL —As a matter of interest, I have some free ranging chooks. They are very good chooks, as I have told Senator Georges, and they are well looked after. The two egg Bills involve increasing the amount of levy collected from the egg industry. This levy is necessary because the Commonwealth hen levy which funded research has been phased out. The levy is imposed annually and collected twice annually. Under the provisions of the Bill the Commonwealth is able to make arrangements with the States, through the State egg boards or corporations, to collect the levy on its behalf. The only thing that worries me a little is that if this Government were returned it would probably want to collect a little more. The method of collection enables the State boards to deduct the levies from receipts of egg sales and from those who sell direct to wholesalers, and egg producers pay direct to the board. To ease the financial burden the levy is paid in two instalments over the year-in January and July. Previously the levy was payable every fortnight, so there will be savings in the twice-yearly collection. The levy was primarily collected for use by State egg boards in equalising the impact on individual producers of losses incurred in disposing of egg surpluses. In recent years the States have reduced surplus production through limiting hen quotas-a step in the right direction. As anyone following the egg industry would know, this measure has been progressing for some time. In 1984 a decision was made to phase out the Commonwealth hen levy with effect from 30 June 1987. Accordingly an alternative mechanism to secure producers' contributions towards research was needed, which is why this legislation is before us tonight. The legislation will secure research funds from the industry and this will be matched by Commonwealth grants. Under the Bill a levy is imposed, based on the quotas of hens the producer holds under licence. A maximum rate of 10c a hen is provided for with an operative level set by regulation, taking into account advice from the Australian Council of Egg Producers. An operative rate of 3c to 4c per hen would provide funds comparable with those currently received. Under clause 12 of the Bill the levy will be discontinued if any State opts out of the quota system. The two Bills involve no additional Commonwealth funding; and that is good for this Government, which is the highest spending and the highest taxing government in Australia's history. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.54) —The Senate is debating a package of Bills, many of which seem to have little relationship to others. The reason for this is so that the Government can guillotine the Bills through the Senate, which it is doing with the support of the Australian Democrats. Those people who would never agree to a guillotine have once again agreed to guillotine through the legislation that the Australian Labor Party requires. Interestingly enough, this was done with the support of Senator Siddons, Senator Georges and Senator Gietzelt. Senator Tate —I should hope he did; Gietzelt is one of ours. Senator LEWIS —I apologise, I meant Senator Vallentine, and also Senator Siddons and Senator Georges, who all supported the guillotine and the gag. I was thinking of Senator Gietzelt because I was about to turn my mind to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, and Senator Gietzelt is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the last days of this Government. One of the differences between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties is that we remember that the assistance that we provided to veterans is compensation, not welfare. I was only a kid at the time, but I remember back to the Second World War, when we told service men and women, who we were sending overseas: `Look, if you are unlucky and cop it you will not have to worry; your wife and kids will be looked after'. Forty years after the end of that war, there is a tendency to forget that. The new generations are a fair age and they may have forgotten it. However, I am sure that, once they are reminded of it, they will say that it was fair enough. Service men and women were told: `The widows and kids will be looked after, and if you are lucky enough to return from the war, you will not need to worry if you have any war injuries because we will look after those also'. That is a solemn contract into which the nation entered with them. We must, of course, comply with that contract to the end of their days. I regret very much that many of those service people are now getting on in years. I understand that their average age is over 65-indeed, about 68. There is still a large number of them, about 400,000, but they are coming to a time in life when they need the sort of assistance that we promised them when they volunteered for overseas service. One thing that is happening as a result, quite frankly, of the economic problems of this country-for which this Government must bear a great deal of responsibility because of its economic mismanagement of the nation, the resultant economic problems and the Government's attempts to reduce its expenditure by squeezing various areas instead of responsibly considering ways that the problems could be overcome-is the squeezing of the medical and nursing professions, which is flowing through to, in particular, the repatriation hospitals. I wish to quote from a letter from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Gietzelt) about the extensive delays for, for example, vascular surgery at the repatriation hospitals at Heidelberg, Victoria. He said: The extensive delays for vascular surgery at RGH Heidelberg have mainly been brought about by the rapidly declining health of an ageing veteran population, combined with the lack of adequate resources to cope with an increasing demand. I repeat the last sentence: . . . lack of adequate resources to cope with an increasing demand. The Minister has kindly provided me with the following table of approximate waiting times for surgery at Heidelberg as of 7 May: Ear, nose and throat, 18 weeks; detailing optical works, 18 weeks; general surgery, 20 weeks; joint repairs and replacements, for example, hip replacements, 20 weeks; other orthopaedic work, 18 weeks; neuro-surgery, 18 weeks; plastics, 29 weeks; urology-very important, I would have thought, with an aging population-40 weeks; vascular surgery, 28 weeks. I suggest that those periods would seem interminable to elderly veterans who may be immobile, in pain or in serious discomfort. The Minister has pointed out that the waiting list relates to the shortage of nurses and the nurses' dispute last year. However, he said that there had been an improvement since the settlement of that dispute and that all the theatres were now fully operational. Yet between 27 April and 7 May this year, according to the Minister's own letters, that routine list grew from 120 to 132 patients. If that rate of growth were to continue, the number on the waiting list would double by the end of this year. The Minister, in his note to me detailing the delays, went on to say: Other factors influencing waiting times include large numbers of patients and shortage of specialists in some areas. In paragraph 4 of that note he said: The Visiting Medical Officers' dispute had no effect on waiting times. Here we seem to be getting close to the truth of the matter. If the visiting medical officers' dispute has had no effect on waiting times, the alternative is obviously simple lack of resources. This is backed up by the information reaching me. Last week an elderly veteran came to see me with an absolute catalogue of complaints about Concord Hospital, and I understand that it is only because of the untiring efforts of a small, overworked and dedicated group of doctors at Greenslopes in Queensland and the admission of many patients to other hospitals, that those hospitals are not facing a similar crisis. The position at Daw Park in South Australia is critical. I heard recently-and this is disgraceful-of an 80-year-old veteran with a broken leg who was turned away from Daw Park because of the continued dispute between the Government and the Australian Medical Association. Senator Tate —Who turned him away? Senator LEWIS —The hospital turned him away because it was unable to deal with him as a result of the dispute with the medical profession. Today my colleague Senator Messner has had a telephone call from a Mr Brace in South Australia, who apparently does not mind his name being mentioned. Mr Brace is a 64-year-old totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner. He is below the average age. He has suffered a stroke and has some soft tissue problem and skin cancer, yet he has been told by the Daw Park Repatriation Hospital that he cannot have treatment until the strike is over. He recently asked for medication and was told by the medical staff that he could not have it and that if he really wanted it he could buy it because, in their words, `you are on a good pension'. He is very angry because he feels that, as a veteran, he is being badly done by. He simply does not feel looked after. He believes that the doctors in South Australia are being greedy and unrealistic. He feels that Daw Park is not being run properly and he criticises the administrative and medical staff. He claims that he is not getting a fair go. I understand his complaints and I have much compassion for him and the many other veterans who are having great difficulty in repatriation hospitals around Australia. It is hard to believe, but I have heard that a 72-year-old veteran has been on a waiting list for 16 months. Another veteran, aged 67, has been placed on the long routine list of vascular surgery, despite having just suffered a debilitating heart attack. The simple fact is that something is wrong. This Government has failed to provide the services needed to cope with the aging veteran population. The Government knew that this would happen. The statistical evidence continues to point out that this aging population will be a very considerable problem over the next decade. There is no doubt that these additional services will be needed. But now, apart from targeting veterans' entitlements in a series of economic measures, as this Government has done, frankly it has simply failed to ensure that the system will be able to cope with the growth in demand for veteran health care. As I have said, the demand will reach a peak in the mid-1990s when, sadly, there will be a fall-off among World War II veterans. The Government is aware that much of this crisis has been created by its problems with and its reluctance to negotiate new contracts for visiting medical officers-nurses and other medical staff-at repatriation hospitals. The truth is that this reluctance to negotiate is connected with the wider problems associated with the explosion in Medicare costs and the inefficient delivery of health services to the general public. I said the other day in the course of a debate that one of the great problems is that the Government offered to the people of Australia that they should opt for public health treatment. That was the Government's promise back in 1983 and repeated in 1984. The Government told people not to worry about private health cover as it would look after them under Medicare and would charge them one per cent-I think it is now 1 1/4 per cent-additional tax to cover their health care. But, having taken that 1 1/4 per cent out of people's income, what the Government failed to do was to provide additional services in the public hospital sector to cope with the massive increase in demand on that sector. The result has been that people around Australia have had to opt out of the public health system, notwithstanding the additional tax that they are paying for that cover, and have had to take out private health insurance so that when they get sick they are able to receive treatment. The Government is fearful of the explosive cost contained within the Medicare service. The Government fears that, if it were to pay the doctors and nurses at the repatriation hospitals the sorts of allowances that they may very well be entitled to-I am not au fait with all the details to be in a position to know whether they are entitled to them-that might flow back into the public hospital system and there would be an explosion in costs that the Government would simply be unable to contain. The Government has been avoiding proper negotiations with the medical staff at repatriation hospitals. I add that this problem already exists in the Australian Capital Territory, where until today, the Government had refused to enter into meaningful negotiations with the doctors in public hospitals, and health care services have been coming to a standstill. I understand that today, at long last, the Government has indicated that it is prepared to negotiate with the Australian Capital Territory doctors in this dispute, at least along the lines on which it is prepared to negotiate with the New South Wales repatriation doctors. I am hopeful that that dispute will at least be deferred in some way or another. Quite frankly, I make a plea to the Australian Capital Territory doctors, and to the repatriation doctors in South Australia, Queensland and other places where strikes or withdrawal of services are taking place, to stop their action. Parliament is about to rise, an election is due and there may well be negotiations which the Government will be able to carry on during the next five weeks or so, but the truth is that as from now this Government is only a caretaker government. It should not be entering into final solutions to these problems. It should be simply entering into tentative settlements so that when we come into government after 11 July we shall be able to enter into proper negotiations with the medical profession. In view of the way in which this Government has messed up this nation's economy, we as the next government may well have great difficulties in meeting the doctors' demands, no matter how valid they may be. This country is in an economic crisis. The first and most important thing that needs to be done is to bring the nation back to a stage where at least our books are balanced. We must get the economy flowing again. We must reduce interest rates and bring down taxation so as to provide some incentive to this country. Once we have established those circumstances, we shall be able to look to resolving some of the problems such as those about which the medical profession is complaining. If we can get this country firing again, we shall be able to do something about them. But this Government has mismanaged the economy; it has screwed it down so that people are unable to make a quid, are unable to get out and be successful in their operations. We all know the way in which this Government has been ripping into small business and taking its hard-earned gains in taxes. The Government has brought this country to a stage where most small businessmen are sick to death of the situation. They will certainly want to throw out this Government on 11 July. Turning back to the veterans, I believe that they are being treated shabbily in having to pay the Medicare levy. I am sure that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is sincere in the concerns he expresses for veterans, but the truth is that the Minister has been unable to get through to the Government the urgency of veterans' demands. While he may be sincere, the Government has taken benefits away from the veterans to whom we all owe a special debt. They are being forced to accept an unfair share of the burden of this Government's mismanagement of the national economy. The Government cannot pass the buck elsewhere. Australians will not accept the proposition that veterans' medical care services should be starved of resources, but the Minister has acknowledged that that is what is happening. I am sure the Minister will not deny that veterans are being placed on long waiting lists for surgery, that admissions are being delayed, and that patients are being discharged prematurely. The Minister admits this in his letters. He also admits that he cannot be of `assistance' to these patients. He says that the long wait has been caused, on his own admission, by a `lack of resources'. I am concerned about the financial burden which the Liberal-National Party coalition government will be facing when we attain government on 11 July and about the great difficulty we will have in overcoming this Government's failure to supply those resources. I ask: Who is responsible? Well, it clearly has to be Mr Keating, for the way he has mismanaged the economy, and his colleague Senator Walsh. They have screwed the departments, the taxpayers and the nation. Yet they have still managed to end up with a great debt. I believe Australia has always been proud of the treatment that it has provided veterans in the past. I repeat that it is quite improper that these mostly elderly veterans of the Second World War should be expected to bear an unfair share of the burden of this Government's economic mismanagement. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.15) —The Wool Marketing Bill proposes some quite wide ranging changes to the present program under the Wool Industry Act 1972. Some of these changes include, for example: The extension of the marketing powers of the Australian Wool Corporation; new provisions for quality control and the requirements that the Australian Wool Corporation prepare corporate plans each year for ensuing five-year periods; new procedures for the selection of the board members of the Corporation; provisions for the Corporation and the Wool Council of Australia to determine minimum reserve prices for wool; and the full vesting of ownership of the Wool Stores in the name of the Australian Wool Corporation. The wool industry is vitally important to Australia, accounting in 1985-86 for 10 per cent of the nation's exports, and earning some $3,100m in export income. In my own state of Tasmania the wool industry has historically played a very significant role, and as a tribute to that, as a bicentenary project, a Tasmanian wool centre is being established in the midlands town of Ross to give recognition to the contribution made to this industry in this area. As many honourable senators will be aware, superfine wool from properties in this region consistently draws world record prices. The wool industry is currently buoyant, with export earnings contributing significantly to the solution of our balance of payments problems. I believe it is widely recognised that much of the credit for the development of this industry, and its progress over recent years, has to go to the Australian Wool Corporation and to the untiring efforts of its membership. However, in these times I believe we cannot afford to be complacent. It has been calculated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that the real price of wool to the producer, taking inflation into account, is in fact lower in 1985-86 than it was in 1974-75. Mr David Asimus, the Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, notes in the 1985-86 annual report that there are no inherent loyalties to wool in the highly competitive international textile fibre markets. Furthermore, the cost of the promotion of wool overseas has increased markedly with the depreciation of the Australian dollar. Most would agree that there is a need to keep pace with this changing and volatile market and, to this end, some of the proposals put forward in the Bill I believe are to be welcomed. In particular I refer to Division 3, clause 74, which relates to quality control. Short cuts in the preparation of the wool clip can only jeopardise Australia's reputation as a supplier of superfine wool. If we are to maintain a competitive edge in the market-place, it is essential that we meet requirements in this area and that we can guarantee a consistent standard to all purchasers. For example, I refer to programs to introduce staple length and staple strength measurements to the auction selling system and the introduction of a code of practice and standards relating to wool clip preparation. Both of these measures are signs that the industry is moving in the right direction. The ability of the Wool Corporation to monitor and control the quality of export wool should give overseas buyers the confidence in the product they require to maintain satisfactory prices. As announced in the May economic statement, the wool industry has suffered a cut in research funding of $5m, and that amount would have gone towards improving the marketability of the product. I believe that such research is important in maintaining the standard expected of our export wool. It should be noted, however, that these proposals relate only to the auction system and do not provide the same measure of control over wool sold through other channels. I do hold some reservations about some of the proposals before us. My principal reservation concerns the extension of the powers of the Australian Wool Corporation to enable its board to form subsidiary companies and to enter into joint ventures. I believe that such proposals contain the foundation for changes within the industry that have the potential to damage many established wool processing and exporting companies. I also believe that we must be quite wary of the possibility of socialisation within the industry which may result from giving statutory marketing authorities such as the Australian Wool Corporation too much power and too big an advantage in the market-place. It is in this area that we should be able to learn a valuable lesson from the New Zealand experience. The New Zealand Wool Board is currently in conflict with the International Wool Textile Association over the extension of the Board's commercial activities. It is therefore probable that similar changes in Australia will occur as a result of this legislation. More specifically, changes in the New Zealand Wool Board's commercial activity have created rifts between the Board and companies involved in the industry. I believe this legislation has the potential to cause these sorts of problems and these sorts of rifts here in Australia. Concern has been registered, for example, that the New Zealand Wool Board is now trading in wool in its own right and has invested, for example, in major scouring and exporting in competition with the rest of the industry. It is felt, I believe rightly, that it is both unfair and totally unacceptable for a government body to engage in commercial and regulatory functions. The proposals at hand pertaining to the Australian wool industry contain no provisions to prevent the Australian Wool Corporation opening up in competition with established companies. The objection here is not to competition per se but to a government statutory organisation having an unfair advantage in the market-place by virtue of its access to and knowledge of regulatory and market developments. The accountability factor also has to be considered. Establishing public companies outside the control of the Parliament means that public scrutiny of the operations of the organisations would be markedly decreased. That would be an unfortunate development. As a result of the implementation of these proposals there would be a decline in public accountability at a time when we should be striving to achieve just the opposite. This is a reflection of a tendency started by this Government to remove more and more items from the scrutiny of the Parliament; in other words, to move them off-Budget and into not properly accountable company or corporate forms. I believe it is the job of the Minister for Primary Industry to foster and develop the Australian wool sector. This proposal means that the Minister will abdicate much of this responsibility under this legislation as compared with the legislation that it supersedes. For example, one could well ask: To whom will the subsidiary companies of the Australian Wool Corporation be accountable? A few years ago there were problems in relation to Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd with the creation of subsidiary companies and the question of accountability arose in that instance. Whilst I understand that there is a need for a degree of what we might term commercial flexibility, I believe this legislation goes far too far down this road towards socialisation. In summary, whilst many of the proposals contained in the Bill will enable the wool industry to secure its foothold in the international market, I believe the provisions relating to the formation of subsidiary companies by the Australian Wool Corporation overstep the mark. We should be aiming to maintain vitality and innovation in industry and to provide cohesion between all sectors. In this way the industry will be best fitted to maintain a favourable position in the international market. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(9.27) —I rise to speak on this scrambled eggs package of Bills which deals with hen quotas, veterans' affairs, nursing homes and hostels, and wool marketing. The three areas I wish to touch upon are nursing homes and hostels, wool marketing, and social security and veterans' affairs. I shall deal firstly with the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. The Bill is merely a cost containment exercise by the Government, which one could have expected after looking at the history of nursing homes legislation and administration in Australia over the last 20 years. I remember that in 1972 the Federal Government decided to help nursing homes and hostels by providing subsidies for their patients. I stormed the country advising nursing homes and hostels not to take the government subsidy because if they did that their whole economy would become dependent upon that subsidy. Once that happens the Government can assume control of those institutions. There is an old proverb that says that anything the Government wishes to control it first subsidises. This is what happened with the nursing homes industry. Once it was subsidised, of course, the Government realised the enormous costs involved in running the homes and hostels so it started an exercise in cost containment. That exercise has been going on for many years in Australia. The way in which the health insurance industry was structured previously meant that there was a flow of patients from their homes to hostels, to specialised care, to nursing homes and then to hospitals. This forced the patients up the ladder and caused a log jam at the high priced end of the system-nursing homes and hostels. All of a sudden the bureaucracy realised this was costing too much and it decided to reverse the flow. This is what we are seeing now; the Government is trying to reverse the flow of patients to nursing homes, hospitals and hostels and to push them back into their own homes. This creates its own log jam, which we are seeing now. The legislation deals with cost containment in many areas. It is not equitable for all of Australia. Nursing homes are funded under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act and the National Health Act. The idea behind this legislation is to gradually force them all into the one area of funding. It is a mechanism of standardising down. Not only that; at the same time as it standardises down nursing care in the public sector, it precludes the private sector from entering the field and taking the load off the back of the Government. Many people in the nursing homes and hostel industry will now be very happy to be removed from the yoke of government. It is the intrusion of government into the industry which has increased the costs no end. On reading this legislation, we see that the Government is requiring a high level of standards at a low level of costs. This has just removed this business from all economic reality. Everybody knows that if one wants a Rolls Royce, one has to pay more; if one wants a Holden, one can pay less; but both will get the person to the destination. It is a pity to see this legislation coming in. It disadvantages certain States, particularly Victoria, which at the moment is up in arms. I remember when this sort of legislation first came in. The Government was trying to work out what sort of subsidy it should give to nursing homes in different States. All the States put in their nursing home costs to work out what the rebate should be under the insurance scheme. In Queensland, for example, the costs of the guilds or other goodwill workers who provided services to nursing homes were not added in, whereas in Victoria they were. So the costs in Victoria seemed a lot higher than in other States. So the subsidy in Victoria was a lot higher than it was in Queensland. The same thing applied in South Australia. Everybody wondered why this should come about. Now the Government is working, over a series of steps, to have the same subsidy apply all over Australia. In Mount Isa, for example, where there are wage loadings different from those in Sydney or Melbourne, how can costs be the same? With this legislation the Government is withdrawing to quite a considerable extent from the funding of nursing homes and hostels. I regard that as a good step, but it is only a good step if the capacity to look after people who want to be looked after privately is unlocked. But the Government is not doing this. It is keeping locks on the private industry, as it is in the whole of the health industry throughout Australia today. It is putting more and more restrictions on the public service, but not unlocking the private service. So there is a glut of people wanting accommodation in public hospitals. A lot of public hospital beds are being closed because of costs. This is happening also in the private area. The Government is deciding how many beds it will license for nursing homes and hostels all around Australia. It is curtailing costs and putting a ceiling on them without unlocking the private sector. This robs many people of the type of care they are entitled to, that they want and are prepared to pay for. I cannot talk on that subject any more because time is running out. I will move on to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. This again is another exercise in the Government cutting expenses. But in this case it is trying to overcome the fraud and other means by which people are getting money out of the veterans and social security area. We cannot oppose that. In fact, we are in favour of stopping that kind of rip-off of the public purse. This Government has opened the floodgates, enabling people to rip off the system. The Government, having found the system was being ripped off, is now trying to close the loopholes. I do not think the Government pays enough respect to those people who are entitled to veterans' pensions and other government assistance. It plays down the whole defence of this country, from the forces that are supposed to defend us, including the reserve forces, right through to the returned servicemen, some of whom are disabled, who are entitled to repatriation and veterans' benefits. Previously, the Government opened up opportunities to rip off the system. It is now closing the doors, for which we are grateful, but it is denigrating the place of veterans in our society. The National Party welcomes the Wool Marketing Bill because of the new structure it provides for the marketing of wool in Australia, which will help the industry no end. What we object to in the Bill is its affirmative action elements pertaining to the employment of women in the industry. Our Party will be recording our dissent from those features, as we did when the recent affirmative action and equal opportunity legislation was introduced here. We do not support that type of modification to behaviour in society. We are very sorry to see that it has been included in the Wool Marketing Bill. National Party senators will record their dissent at the second reading stage of the legislation. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.37) —I wish to speak to the Wool Marketing Bill, which is of great importance to Australian wool growers and to Australia. It should be of interest to all Australians as this year we are likely to benefit from an all-time record $4 billion return from our wool exports. Clearly, this makes the wool industry our second most prominent source of export income, behind only the coal industry, which is earning a shade more than $5 billion. In net terms the foreign exchange obtained by the wool industry probably exceeds that of coal because the wool industry does not repatriate much of its earnings through overseas parent companies and certainly does not have to satisfy the demands of very substantial loans from overseas borrowers. Wool is perhaps the best placed of all farm industries in these difficult times, although grower incomes on average this year across all sheep and wool farms still do not reach the level of the average wage. I pay tribute to all rural producers who are on the receiving end of high costs and high interest rates. It is certainly not very easy for them. My National Party colleagues and I do not feel that it is necessary for the Government to keep putting equal employment opportunity provisions into all its legislation. I have always said that if a woman has ability she can get where she wants to. That is evidenced in our Senate. I believe in equal opportunity but I do not believe in favouring women against men. This could happen if we keep on putting equal employment opportunity provisions into legislation. Those are my thoughts on the matter. Senator Boswell, who is not here this evening, also feels exactly the same way, as does Senator Collard. Senator Sheil, Senator Brownhill and I all want to register the fact that we feel it is quite unnecessary to have an equal employment opportunity provision in this Bill. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.40) —Mr Acting Deputy President, before you call the vote, I want to give an undertaking to the Opposition. The Opposition had proposed to move an amendment to one of the Bills requiring that the Minister not take action against a nursing home under the new powers in the Act until he or she had established a standards review panel in the State or Territory in which the nursing home was located. The Government endorses the spirit of that proposal. However, to avoid the possible delay to the legislation that would ensue from the Opposition's amendment, the Opposition has agreed to the Minister's proposal that it would not proceed with the amendment subject to his giving two undertakings. The Minister has now given these undertakings, which are, first, that no action will be taken under the new powers against a nursing home until a review panel has been established in the State or Territory in which the home is located; and, secondly, that further amendments will be introduced to the National Health Act in the Budget sitting to give effect to the amendment moved by the Opposition. Senator Lewis —I thank the Minister. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of these Bills having expired, I put the question: That the remaining stages of the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill 1987, the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill 1987, the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 and the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills 1987 be agreed to and that the Bills be now passed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the amendments to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 which have been circulated in the name of the Australian Democrats and would have been moved at the Committee stage of this Bill. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows- (1) Page 19, clause 26, proposed subsection 93b (5), line 11, after ``person'' (second occurring), insert ``adduces evidence, which is not rebutted by the prosecution, that the person''. (2) Page 20, clause 26, after proposed subsection 93c (4), insert the following new subsection: `` `(4a) Subsection (4) shall not be taken to deprive a person who may, under that subsection, be found guilty of an offence against subsection 93b (1) or (2) of any defence which the person might have had if the person had been charged with an offence under section 93b rather than with an offence against subsection (1) or (2) of this section.''. (3) Page 23, clause 26, proposed subsection 93d (9), line 5, leave out ``proves'', insert ``adduces evidence, which is not rebutted by the prosecution,''. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the amendments that the National Party of Australia was going to move in Committee of the Whole. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows- (1) Pages 3 and 4, subclause 3 (1), proposed definition of ``equal employment opportunity program'', line 35 (page 3) to line 3 (page 4), leave out the definition. (2) Page 11, paragraph 12 (3) (g), lines 33 and 34, leave out the paragraph. (3) Page 13, paragraph 17 (2) (d), lines 25 and 26, leave out the paragraph. (4) Page 24, clause 41, clause to be opposed. (5) Page 24, clause 42, clause to be opposed. (6) Page 62, paragraph 123 (3) (c), lines 5 and 6, leave out the paragraph. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —by leave-On behalf of the National Party of Australia, I would like to thank the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) for the assurances that have been given tonight. We feel most grateful for the accommodation that has been afforded us. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(9.45) —by leave-I move: That unless otherwise ordered, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the routine of business for Friday, 5 June 1987 be as follows: (a) Petitions (b) Notices of Motion (c) Questions (d) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64, discussion of which shall not exceed 1 hour (e) Ministerial statements (f) Formal motions; discovery of Formal Business (g) Presentation and consideration of papers. Senator Walters —That will take us up till when? Senator GARETH EVANS —With a bit of luck, that will take us up till about 1.30. Senator Reid —What about the valedictories? Senator GARETH EVANS —Oh, sorry, no. The expectation is that we start at 9 o'clock, pursuant to the existing standing orders, with Question Time; that we will have a one-hour matter of public importance or urgency motion after that, which will take us through to 11 o'clock; followed by a ministerial statement, which will take as long as the Minister chooses to take; followed by one hour for the presentation of papers, which will enable discussion of all those papers and statements about which motions have been moved this week-not just those which I am about to table in a moment but things like the Parliament House motion which I moved before. Senator Sheil —Fifty papers! Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, but Senator Sheil will not speak on any of them, will he? After that time expired we would move to the valedictory. If that is finished by 1.30 or whatever, so be it. The idea would be to move continually through and get up at 1.30 or 2.00-however long it takes to do that. I think that that would suit the convenience, expectations and desires of honourable senators all round the chamber. There is no desire to constrain time, but I think that there is a feeling that the sooner we get out of here the better for our mental health. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Sport and Recreation Ministers' Council-summary record of proceedings-fifteenth meeting-Sydney-30 April 1986. 2. Sport and Recreation Ministers' Council-summary record of proceedings-sixteenth meeting-Perth-10 October 1986. 3. Aboriginal Land Commissioner-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to section 61 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. 4. Report by the Department of Territories on the operations of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority-1 July 1985 to 27 February 1986-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. *5. Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chamberlain Convictions-report of the Commissioner The Hon. Mr Justice T. R. Morling-together with the text of a statement by the Northern Territory Attorney-General. 6. 1986 Conference on Disarmament-Geneva, 4 February-25 April and 10 June-29 August 1986-report of the Australian delegation. 7. Canberra Theatre Trust-annual report 1985-86-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to sub-section 63m (3) of the Audit Act 1901. 8. Australian Capital Territory Nominal Defendant-annual report for the year ended 31 December 1986. 9. Cocos (Keeling) Islands-annual report 1986-86. 10. Medical and scientific equipment-Industries Assistance Commission report. 11. Eighteenth meeting of the South Pacific Forum-text of a statement by the Prime Minister-together with the communique of the meeting. 12. Access to administrative review: Stage one-notification of decisions and rights of review-Administrative Review Council report No. 27-together with a letter from the Chairman of the Administrative Review Council to the Attorney-General relating to the report. 13. Review of Customs and excise decisions: Stage three-Anti-dumping and countervailing duty decisions-Administrative Review Council report No. 28 14. Official Establishments Trust annual report 1985-86. 15. International Labour Conference-71st session 1985-Australian delegation report. 16. Skilled workers in Austria, Italy and Yugoslavia-report of the Australian tripartite mission. 17. Feasibility of establishing trade testing facilities in Austria, Italy and Yugoslavia-report of the Australian tripartite mission. 18. Code of conduct for Australian companies with interests in the republic of South Africa-first report of the Administrator-March 1987. 19. Commonwealth programs and policy development for schools 1988-Commonwealth Schools Commission report-pursuant to section 13 of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973. 20. Report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act 1986-pursuant to section 35 of the Student Assistance Act 1986. 21. Australian Canned Fruits Corporation-annual report for the year ended 31 December 1986. 22. A review of the financial performance of the Australian National Line-report of Mr Justice Everett, Q.C., President of the Inter-State Commission. 23. Marine sciences and technologies grants for 1987-Marine Research Allocations Advisory Committee report. 24. Contempt-Law Reform Commission report No. 35-pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. 25. Spent convictions-Law Reform Commission report No. 37-pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. 26. Government response to Senate Standing Committee on National Resources report on the adequacy of quarantine in the Torres Strait area. 27. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-report for 1988-90 triennium, volume 1, parts 1-5-pursuant to sub-section 9 (3) of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977. 28. Australian National University-interim annual report (part 1) 1986-pursuant to sub-section 33 (3) of the Australian National University Act 1946. 29. States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984-report on financial assistance granted to each State in respect of 1985-pursuant to section 91 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984. 30. Commonwealth Teaching Service (Australian Capital Territory technical and further education component-annual report 1986-pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972. 31. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation-annual report 1986-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973. 32. Commonwealth Teaching Service (Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority component-annual report 1986-pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972. 33. Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade-annual report 1984-85 and 1985-86. 34. Remuneration Tribunal-reports and determination-April 1987-pursuant to sub-section 6 (5) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. 35. A case for constitutional recognition of local government-document-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. 36. Barley Research Council-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 38. Operations of the registered Health Insurance Organisations-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 76a (4) of the National Health Act 1953. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I present the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on the adequacy of quarantine in the Torres Strait area and seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows- The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources Report was tabled in the Senate on 16 November 1986. The Committee had previously reported in 1979 more broadly on the adequacy of quarantine. The Torres Strait region covers the area of water north of the Cape York Peninsula to the south-west coast of Papua New Guinea, and the Northern Peninsula reserves of the Cape. The Strait itself is marked by innumerable reefs, cays, and islands, with an estimated population of over 6,000. The area subject to Australian territorial control forms part of the State of Queensland. Animal and plant quarantine activities are carried out by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries on the Commonwealth's behalf. Tasks of a human health and more general quarantine significance are carried out by Commonwealth officers, with regional control exercised through Townsville. These activities rely heavily on islander cooperation. The region poses unique problems and challenges in a quarantine sense. It is a major international shipping route and its proximity to Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya poses particular risks, as both have pests and diseases exotic to Australia. A number of pests not found on the mainland have been identified on the islands themselves. Subsistence cropping, and the presence of both domestic and feral animals on islands exacerbates the risk factor. The detection of citrus canker on Thursday Island in 1984, and black sigotoka, a serious banana disease, following eradication attempts on initial detection in 1981, are but two examples. The Torres Strait Treaty guarantees freedom of movement for traditional inhabitants, and traditional trading arrangements, while acknowledging quarantine importance. Additionally, while the Cape York Peninsula is sparsely populated, its volume of recreational vehicle movement has increased markedly. The Senate Standing Committee report has highlighted the high quarantine risks Australia faces in and through the area, and the challenges these pose for control purposes. While viewing quarantine initiatives in the area as generally sound, the Committee has raised a range of matters it sees as needing particular attention and action. These cover: Arrangements under the Torres Strait Treaty, including frequency of meetings of the Torres Strait Advisory Council, and a review of the Treaty's quarantine-related articles within four years; Review of the adequacy of quarantine resources and ways and means of increasing a quarantine and treaty awareness among islanders; The adequacy of screw-worm fly and Newcastle disease monitoring and control contin- gency arrangements; Review of the adequacy of plant quarantine measures; A range of other issues including control of the movement of live animals and goods; training aimed at appointment of islander quarantine officers; powers to search Australian vessels coming from the protected zone; review of the schedule of items exempt from quarantine; revival of tripartite quarantine meeting arrangements with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea; possible purchase of a larger more seaworthy vessel for quarantine patrols. The Senate has, moreover, stressed the vital need for quarantine measures to be adequate to protect Australia's rural industries, particularly in relation to the level of human and financial resources employed. The Australian quarantine and inspection service-AQIS-was established in October 1986 within the Department of Primary Industry, combining quarantine and inspection responsibilities. Its corporate brief includes review of the relevance, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency of all inspection and quarantine policy operations. The Senate Committee recommendations are being assessed, and as appropriate actioned, in this light. The Queensland Department of Primary Industries is jointly involved in the exercise. Other recent reports such as that by the joint committee of public accounts also have a bearing on the process. Full review of Torres Strait quarantine arrangements thus goes well beyond the specific problem areas highlighted in the Senate Committee report. Issues being addressed, along with the Committee's recommendations, include: Clear delineation of the Torres Strait region for administrative control purposes. This includes the major points of mainland entry and the question of buffer arrangements; Better co-ordination and rationalisation of quarantine control arrangements and staffing resources in the area; An appropriate joint administrative approach by AQIS and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries for control oversight and review, and operational forward planning; Specific and clear instructions and guidelines for all staff, backed up by appropriate training packages; Extension and publicity; The scope for extending and formalising cooperative arrangements with other Commonwealth and State agencies with an involvement in the area; and The involvement of the island co-ordinating council and islanders in quarantine control. Final action on the individual recommendations of the Committee will of course be significantly influenced by the review process. Quarantine is, however, so critical to our welfare, that more immediate action is needed in some areas. The threats we face don't heed review timing. Without prejudicing the review's outcome, action already taken or under way on a number of the issues raised by the Committee can be indicated. The Committee has seen a need for annual meetings of the Torres Strait Joint Advisory Council. The Government supports regular meetings but considers timing should be flexible to cope with pressing issues as they arise. Existing Torres Strait Treaty provisions provide this flexibility. Significantly, a regular quarterly pattern of liaison meetings between Australian and Papua New Guinea officials has been recommenced, under article 18 of the Treaty. These aim at practical cooperation at the local working level on treaty matters, including quarantine. On the recommendation that the Treaty's quarantine provisions should be reviewed within four years, the Government again prefers a more flexible approach. Amendments should be pursued as a need is identified, and not tied to a specific time frame. The Government is keeping a continuous and close watch on the effectiveness and implementation of treaty provisions. The Treaty provides a consultative mechanism on matters of concern. As and when the need for any changes is identified this course will be followed. The Committee has highlighted the need to increase islander community awareness of the Torres Strait Treaty and quarantine. Both Australian and Papua New Guinea authorities are currently working on a comprehensive information program in this light. A variety of information media is involved including printed material, radio broadcasts, video presentations and other extension activities. The involvement of islanders and the use of local languages is planned. Turning to more specific concerns, the Committee's report focuses on the increasing threat to our livestock and poultry industries posed by screw-worm fly, present in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea, and by Newcastle disease, which has in the past occurred in Irian Jaya. The possibility, and practicability, of increased screw-worm fly monitoring in the Torres Strait area is being addressed. In relation to the livestock free zone, construction of the northern stock-proof fence is now complete. Development of management arrangements for the zone, which will be the responsibility of the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, is in hand. This will include a sentinel cattle herd at Bamaga. One of the recommendations was that the adequacy of the CSIRO's sterile screw-worm fly production facility to cope with a screw-worm fly outbreak be assessed. In 1983-84 the Department of Primary Industry assumed funding control responsibilities for the unit, which is located in Papua New Guinea. It is staffed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Equipment has been upgraded to an operational response level by addition of larval rearing equipment and a large capacity irradiator. The possibility of a mass rearing and insect release trial program starting in 1987-88 is being examined. This is an essential component in maintaining the operational response capability of the unit. It would also provide training opportunities in control procedures. Annual activity plans aimed at operational readiness are in train. An emergence facility to hatch flies from irradiated pupae will be tested and placed at Townsville later this year for rapid field deployment should an outbreak occur. In relation to Newcastle disease, Queensland authorities have established a serological and virological monitoring program covering the more vulnerable northern areas. The program includes sentinel flocks on several islands in the Strait. Surveys of plant pests exotic to Australia have been carried out in the Straits. An assessment of the risk of them entering the mainland, the potential economic impact of such entry, and the broader question of whether current plant quarantine controls are adequate, will be addressed as part of the joint review. As indicated earlier, the Committee has also identified a range of issues of more general concern, and mostly of an administrative nature. While these will generally be taken up during the review, Australia has already approached Papua New Guinea and Indonesia for a meeting of the Tripartite Committee on Animal Health and Quarantine. Papua New Guinea has indicated agreement in principle and I understand the matter is under consideration by relevant indonesian departments and agencies. The Minister for Primary Industry has already arranged for the Quarantine Act 1908 to be amended to overcome the anomaly identified in the report that there is no power to search luggage on ships and aircraft coming to Australian ports from the protected zone. As a matter of priority he is investigating the question of more appropriate controls on movement of live animals or goods. Finally, the Committee is commended for its initiative in seeking and conducting its inquiry, and for the thoroughness it has applied to the task. Quite aside from the inquiry's value in identifying and highlighting specific concern areas, it has served to heighten public, and parliamentary, awareness of our vulnerability in a quarantine sense and the critical need for continued vigilance. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —May I suggest, as an appropriate procedure for the 45 minutes before we adjourn tonight, in the absence of any applicable sessional or standing order, that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, work through the papers in sequence and any honourable senator wishing to say something about any of them seek leave to move a motion in relation to the paper and speak accordingly. We have three-quarters of an hour tonight and one hour tomorrow to deal with these papers, plus anything else that was on the record earlier in the week. Senator Ryan —Senators can speak for only five minutes. Senator GARETH EVANS —No. I do not think that there ought to be a time limit applicable. The hope would be that honourable senators would exercise the restraint that is appropriate to the list that has been circulated. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.48) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. With all respect, I begin by congratulating Mr Justice Morling for the lucid, comprehensive and exhaustive review of the evidence which he has brought forward on the matter. I spoke on the adjournment on Tuesday and made a number of points which I do not propose to repeat, other than to say that, as will be well known as one of the people who for many years in this place worked towards gaining a commission of inquiry into the Chamberlain case, I am delighted not only that that inquiry was eventually held but also that the matters which were brought forward by the Innocence Committee, myself and other members of that Committee, including Sir Reginald Sholl and others, were the points which, after the inquiry, were shown to have been the relevant ones. In other words, I and others have always argued that certain points concerning blood in the car and damage to baby Azaria's jumpsuit were crucial in that they demolished the Crown's case. I am delighted to find that, after the calling of 87 additional witnesses, that has been the conclusion of the commissioner. Again I would like to go over this matter. I seek to correct some statements made in the media, which are totally incorrect, that because Mr Justice Morling did not quash the convictions somehow he has pulled his punches on this matter. That is not true. On page 8 of Mr Justice Morling's report he defines his function as merely to see whether there had been in fact a miscarriage of justice. In the very moving and, I think, dramatic final words of his lengthy report he says that if the evidence presented to his commission had been presented to the original trial the judge at that trial would have had no option but to have directed the jury to acquit the Chamberlains of all the charges against them. He could hardly have gone further than that. The question of what happens next is of vital importance not only to the Chamberlains but also to the people of this country because there is a precedent in this matter, just as there was a precedent, in the interests of all Australians, present and future, that if new evidence were found against a convicted person there should be a place in which it should be heard. Now there is a precedent that when a person has been found to be wrongly convicted that person is not left to the wolves. If there is evidence and reason for it, no legal technicality should prevent a complete quashing of the conviction against that person, if that is what the evidence states. Mr Justice Morling surely has made that clear enough. Beyond that, the person is entitled to reasonable compensation not only for the enormous costs that they have incurred. When a person goes through the sort of ordeal that Mr Splatt or the Chamberlains have been through it is enormously expensive. I know that in the Chamberlain case it amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars, much of which was advanced to them by other parties and which they regard as a loan that should be repaid. There is the question of the suffering of a person of no previous ill-repute-the mother of a family who goes on an innocent holiday and finds herself in the long nightmare that the Chamberlains found themselves in. I am delighted to have seen a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he feels that in all compassion and reasonableness compensation should be paid in this case. That, I think, is satisfactory. Beyond that is another point. When I was in Europe last year I noticed that Mrs Chamberlain was known and was the subject of concern about Australia. There were people who knew who Lindy Chamberlain is but do not know who Bob Hawke is. If we muff this up now, if we allow ourselves to say that a pardon is good enough and that no compensation should be paid, we will make ourselves the vehicle of contempt for the whole of this planet. I can think of nothing which would attract the approbrium of sneers and Australia being seen as a really low grade community as a result of that kind of decision. The Northern Territory Government ought to realise that the eyes of the world are on it. Like the Dreyfus case of the 1970s, this has been proven to be a case of the wrongful conviction of innocent people. That is something with which I suggest one should tamper at one's peril. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and through honourable senators I ask the Northern Territory Government, if any influence can be brought upon it, to pass a Bill quickly quashing the Chamberlain convictions and give them that form of compensation which is legally and morally required and which is decently appropriate. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.53) —I support Senator Mason's plea that a request be made-I make it on my behalf-to the Northern Territory Government that it take some action, whatever is necessary, to quash the convictions against Mr and Mrs Chamberlain and to provide them with some reasonable and fair monetary compensation, not that money can ever compensate them for what they have had to suffer, for the travesty of the injustice that has been done to them. I congratulate His Honour Mr Justice T. R. Morling for a most incisive, clear and fascinating report. He certainly has put a massive amount of work into it. The report is clear, lucid and well indexed, and one is able to quickly search out the areas that might have been causing concern. It is an excellent report. I would like to have known what Morling thought about certain aspects of the report which perhaps do not relate directly to the proceedings and to the evidence but relate to some of the peripheral reasons why these prosecutions took place in the manner they did, why the charge of murder in the first place was made against this woman when the Northern Territory did not have the appropriate charge that it should have placed against her, and why the charge of murder was proceeded with instead of withdrawing the case right from the word go. By that I refer to the crime of infanticide which is in existence in all the States-I believe it is now a crime in the Northern Territory, but it was not at the time she was charged. A woman who kills her child within the first 12 months of the child's birth can be charged with infanticide. That charge was not available to the Northern Territory Attorney-General. It did not exist as a criminal offence in the Northern Territory at the time, so Mrs Chamberlain was charged with murder. I would have thought that at that stage, because the Northern Territory laws did not provide for a crime of infanticide, that the Attorney-General should have acknowledged that the correct charge was infanticide and should not have proceeded with the charge of murder. However, that is what happened. For those people who have been listening to the debate and who still have some concern about this poor unfortunate woman, I will read two sections from the report which should make it clear as to what this is all about. Mr Justice Morling states on page 20 of his report: Mrs Chamberlain left the barbecue area carrying Azaria and followed by Aidan. She walked in the direction of her tent with the apparent intention of putting both children to bed. Her account of what then occurred was as follows. She returned to the tent, and placed the baby, who was then asleep, in a bassinet and tucked her under the blankets. The bassinet was at the rear of the tent. Aidan said that he was still hungry so she went to the car and obtained a tin of baked beans. She returned to the tent and then went back to the barbecue area with Aidan. There is no doubt that Mrs Chamberlain did return to the barbecue area accompanied by Aidan and carrying a tin of baked beans. So Mrs Chamberlain got a tin of baked beans from somewhere because the evidence was that she came back to the barbecue area with a tin of baked beans. The report continues. Estimates of the length of time she was absent from the barbecue area varied at the trial from 5-10 minutes. When she returned to the barbecue area she appeared normal and composed. Mr Justice Morling then states: The Crown case was that during this short absence from the barbecue area, Mrs Chamberlain took Azaria from the tent into the car, sat in the front passenger seat and cut the baby's throat. According to the Crown case she must have then stuffed the baby into a camera case. We do not know what happened to the camera that would normally have been in the case, because subsequently an independent person rode in that car that night and did not see any evidence of the blood or the body which was supposedly in the car. So the Crown said that the body must have been in the camera case. It is inconceivable. The Crown was then asked where the blood was that would have been all over the place. The Crown replied that she must have put on a track suit. Senator Mason —Unbelievably bizarre. Senator LEWIS —Yes, unbelievably bizarre. She must have put on a tracksuit. During that five to ten minutes, she took the baby from the tent-she had been seen to take the baby there-put a tracksuit over her dress, took the baby into the car, cut the baby's throat, stuffed the baby into a camera case in such a way that there was no evidence that she had cut the baby's throat to be seen by a person who subsequently got into the motor car and sat in the front passenger seat while it was driven to a motel, and, having driven there, she went back to the tent, took off this tracksuit and then went back to the barbecue area-all in five to ten minutes. Senator Mason —And opened a can of beans. Senator LEWIS —And appeared normal while opening a can of beans. It is absolutely bizarre that this woman has been put through this trial on the basis that this was the Crown case-do not worry about what the defence was. Subsequently, she appeared in that tracksuit. She walked around in the tracksuit when it grew cold at night. She appeared in lighted areas in the tracksuit. No one noticed any blood on the tracksuit. Subsequently, back in Mount Isa, the tracksuit was sent to a drycleaner and someone there thought they might have seen some blood on it. Because of that, it is suggested that that is why she was wearing the tracksuit. Let me turn to what Mr Justice Morling says about this point. He went through the evidence about the tracksuit pants very carefully. I will read into the record his final conclusion in relation to the tracksuit pants: I am far from satisfied that the tracksuit pants were blood stained. Indeed, on the whole of the evidence, I am of the view that the marks on the tracksuit pants were not blood stains. So that is the end of that. It is bizarre to think that this woman has been put through this terrible trial and tribulation which has taken up eight years of her life. Not only did she lose her baby; she was charged with murder and spent a period in goal. Why was she gaoled? Allegedly it was because she was able to kill her baby within five minutes by cutting its throat. As Senator Mason says-I cannot think of a better word-it is a bizarre story. She has gone through all of this trial and tribulation. I congratulate His Honour Mr Justice Morling on bringing down a very fine report. I issue a heartfelt plea to the Government of the Northern Territory now to take some action to provide a proper and fair discharge of this couple's convictions and some reasonable compensation to them in monetary terms. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.02) —I do not wish to speak on the specific recommendations made by His Honour Mr Justice Morling, other than to say that I believe that this particular case is not yet concluded. I think that it would not be helpful to seek to add at this stage to what I think has been clearly expressed by the views of Senator Mason and others as to what might constitute a proper response on the part of the authorities in the Northern Territory. I do believe that there are a couple of points to be made, and I shall make them as briefly as possible. The first is that it is perhaps useful to reflect upon the fact that it is still possible within the Australian judicial system as we know it, and the political system as we know it, for abuses of the processes of law, for outcomes which clearly are believed by people in the community to be unsatisfactory outcomes, to be further tested and not simply concluded in the way in which all of the original proceedings in this case were concluded. I pay particular tribute to those people around Australia who advocated in the most responsible and correct fashion that certain further steps should be taken after this matter had proceeded through all of the mechanisms available under the law of Australia. Senator Mason —Because of the failure of the appellate court to consider new evidence. Senator PUPLICK —With respect, I ask Senator Mason to let me make the point that I am seeking to make on this matter. This is a case on which opinions-apart from those which have been pronounced ad nauseam by the media and authors-have been expressed by coroners, jurors, judges, including judges of the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia, and now by a special royal commissioner and politicians. Throughout the process a number of defects in the way in which the Australian legal system operates have been exposed. At the end of the day, it was necessary to take political action to secure the protection of the rights of an Australian citizen. I was in the process of paying tribute to those-I include Senator Mason, my very old and dear friend William Charles Wentworth and members of the Seventh Day Adventist community in New South Wales and throughout Australia-who worked through the processes available in a free and open democratic society to expose the defects which exist in the Australian legal system and to have those defects constantly brought to the attention of the Parliament and, eventually, to secure some justice in this matter. A number of recommendations which flow from what Mr Justice Morling had to say need attention. Senator Mason has correctly, by way of interjection, identified one of them, namely the artificial restrictions placed by the legal system upon the operation of the legal system and, in particular, the rights of appellate courts to look at new evidence. That matter must be addressed. I do not propose to say anything more than the fact that it must be addressed. I want to take two or three minutes to relate to one other matter and that is the unsatisfactory nature of the way in which scientific evidence is handled and the way in which lay persons are not properly assisted by the existing judicial system to understand scientific evidence presented to them in an adversarial situation. Science, inherently, is not an adversarial matter; it is not a matter of simply putting forward those parts of the scientific evidence that one likes and excluding those parts of it one does not like and then having somebody else do the reverse-that is, presenting his scientific evidence and expecting an adversarial backward and forward contest between sets of allegedly scientific evidence which have to be resolved in the minds not only of people who are expert in the field-I do not mind that-but also people who, because of the nature of the judicial process, are simply not given all the evidence that they ought to have. Mr Justice Morling, in chapter 16 of his report, makes the point forcefully that in criminal cases, where the standard is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it is highly desirable that complex scientific evidence called by either the prosecution or the defence, should be put to a jury in a way which is not essentially adversarial. Stuart Tipple, a solicitor in New South Wales, won a prize in the 1986 Law Week Advance Bank young solicitors' essay competition by writing a paper entitled `Forensic Science: The New Trial by Ordeal'. Mr Tipple, in this excellent prize winning paper, drawing very largely upon the Splatt and Chamberlain trials, exposed quite clearly the way in which conflicting scientific evidence, even when it is brought before the High Court of Australia, nevertheless presents difficulty for people in reconciling and coming to significant conclusions. Increasingly, the sophistication of scientific evidence becomes more and more important in determining the outcome of criminal proceedings. We know that the new techniques that are being introduced for genetic markers and all the rest are making scientific evidence much more complicated and sophisticated yet much more central to the way in which a jury has to reach its verdict. What I believe should be one of the outcomes to which this Parliament could address itself is actually to undertake through one of its Senate or select committees an investigation of the numerous proposals that have been put forward in Australia and throughout the rest of the world for a more effective way of allowing scientific evidence to be assessed before it is presented to a jury-and hopefully to allow scientific evidence to be presented to a jury by somebody who is not one of the contending parties in the proceedings. The British and the Americans have considered the matter in detail and, as a result of Mr Justice Morling's findings, it has been clearly suggested that if we had a very prestigious national forensic laboratory-- Senator Mason —An institute. Senator PUPLICK —Yes, an institute. It does not matter whether it is located in Canberra and it does not matter who pays for it in the long run. It would be an institute that would not be beholden to the defence or to the prosecution; it would not seek to adduce evidence favourable to one side or the other in the conflict, but simply would be responsible for presenting, in a totally neutral way, to a judge, jury, commissioner or whoever the best possible analysis of the scientific issues that have to be raised in these proceedings. I think that that would be a substantial improvement in the whole of the judicial processes in Australia. My point, therefore, is that the Commonwealth Parliament, as a result of this inquiry, could well profitably undertake an inquiry as to whether a national forensic institute should be established and should play the role of the neutral adviser to courts and commissions when scientific evidence is central to proceedings, especially those that affect the rights of ordinary Australian citizens. If anything could be done by this Federal Parliament arising from Mr Justice Morling's report and recommendations, that is one of the undertakings that this Commonwealth Parliament could profitably consider in its next session. Progress on that score may well have been materially significant; just as it was in the Splatt case, so it was in the Chamberlain case. It could be a most worthwhile outcome of what otherwise has been a series of personal, legal, scientific and, in the end, community tragedies. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.19) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I believe that constitutional recognition of local government is a very important step that must be taken some time in the very near future by the Australian Government. Local government is one of the most important areas of government and it has so far been completely dependent for funding upon the State governments. It has always been the first area to be cut in cases of major cuts in funding. More and more the Federal Government has moved social and community services into the care of local government organisations. More and more it has been expecting local government to raise its own funds through higher rates. In New South Wales the rate pegging operation has meant that local government has found itself squeezed between decreasing Federal grants and the inability to raise extra money from constituents in the local government areas, the ratepayers. The Australian Democrats were instrumental, at the Australian Constitutional Convention in Brisbane, in suggesting recognition of local government as an integral part of the operation of Australia's system of government. It is extremely important that this should be followed through. It will require a referendum. I recommend to any government-whatever government is elected at the next election-that it should undertake to carry out such a referendum and endeavour to get a proper constitutional basis that will allow for this very important area of government to stand alone and to stand up against the pressures from both State and Federal funding bodies. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.22) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Tate) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.23) —Tonight I wish to deal with a few things, as briefly as possible. In particular I want to refer to the interesting activities of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party in the southern part of Sydney and into Wollongong. I have here a letter under the compliments slip of Stewart West, MHR, posted in Wollongong with `The Hon. S. J. West MHR' on the envelope. The letter is under the banner of the Australian Labor Party, Cunningham Federal Electorate Council and it starts with the words `Dear Comrade'. It deals with matters that are clearly of a party political nature and is signed not by Mr West, in whose envelope it was sent out and on whose franking machine it was despatched, but by someone called Graham Roberts, Hon. Secretary to the Cunningham Federal Electorate Council. I have here an envelope marked `Senator A. T. Gietzelt', franked at Caringbah on the franking machine of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt. I also have a notice of a Labor women's meeting which was held on 23 May with the theme of `national social justice policy'. It was not in fact sent out by the Minister. His name does not appear on it. It was simply sent out in his envelopes, through his franking machine. Clearly, it is not official parliamentary business. I have a similar letter addressed to someone else in Wollongong from the same organisation. I also have under the compliments slip of Peter Baldwin, MP-we all seem to be dealing with the left wing of the Labor Party tonight-a letter from the Central America Peace Coalition, signed not by Mr Baldwin, advertising a march on Saturday, 9 May, `Stop US intervention in Central America'. Among the people involved in this committee is the Committee in Solidarity with Central America and the Caribbean. We know about that of course. It was one of the Socialist Workers Party fronts that was exposed by the Waste Watch Committee as having received $52,000 under community employment program grants, which I presume was one of the reasons that the program was killed off by the Government as a result of the embarrassment involved in the Waste Watch Committee pointing out where so much of what was supposed to be long term unemployment money was in fact going to support those clearly political bodies. In that context it is interesting to note, as Senator Short did last night, the change in the immigration laws relating to visitors which says: Now mere membership of, or an association with, an organisation which has at any time in the past advocated violence as a means of achieving political goals, will no longer constitute sufficient reason to refuse a visa. I suggest that the objectives of some of these organisations appear to involve a touch of violence, and no doubt people who support them feel comfortable in that environment. I wish now to deal with something entirely different, and that is a serious problem relating to the health care of handicapped children. When Medicare was introduced the Federal Government effectively advised the population that it could give up its private health insurance as Medicare would fulfil all its needs through the public hospital system. As a result, the insured population fell from about 70 per cent to about 50 per cent within six months of the inception of Medicare. Most of these people were the young and healthy of marriageable age and child bearing age. When Medicare was introduced private health funds brought in a pre-existing condition rule which gave no hospital benefits for 12 months to anyone with a pre-existing condition. Immediately a developmentally disabled child is born, it has a pre-existing condition and the parents cannot receive benefit for 12 months. Many parents believe therefore that their position is hopeless as they need time immediately a child is born rather than when 12 months has elapsed. As from 1 March this year, in spite of the highest historical cost increases which occurred over the previous 12 months, hospital rebates were reduced by the health funds after Dr Blewett set the basic hospital rebate rate at $155 for 14 days and $125 thereafter. This is a drop in income of $29 a day after a patient has been in hospital for 14 days, as the previous rebate was $154 a day over the complete period of hospitalisation. A reduction in rebate after 14 days is not unreasonable for surgical patients in hospitals as the average length of stay is two or three days. However, for non-surgical patients 14 days is not even an average length of stay. After a patient has been in hospital for 35 days, a certificate is required under section 3b of the Health Insurance Act to be issued by the attending doctor, indicating that continuing care is needed in hospital. This certificate is sent to the health fund with the hospital claim and the certificate is referred to an acute care advisory committee formed by the Commonwealth Government authority in each State. Prior to January this year no 3b certificate was ever revoked by the ACAC. The Minister had instructed his delegate in New South Wales that no 3b certificate for any child under 16 should be revoked. From January, however, that instruction was apparently withdrawn and the acute care advisory committee has commenced revoking 3b certificates in respect of profoundly and severely developmentally disabled babies and infants. Revocation of the 3b certificate means effectively that the child should not be in hospital. When a certificate is revoked the fund benefit falls to $84 a day and it is absolutely impossible to run any hospital and to give even minimal care and treatment for these babies and infants at that rate of hospital rebate, I am informed by people in the industry. The criteria used for revoking 3b certificates are totally inappropriate for babies and infants who need 24-hour intensive care. I have received complaints from parents of children at at least one hospital in Sydney, and I have been advised by other people that they are also extremely concerned, because there is now a risk that these hospitals, which provide specialised care for very small disabled children, will be forced to close. Of course, this is a matter of major seriousness. I wish to quote from a letter that one of the parents has received from such a hospital. Senator Tate —What is the name of the hospital? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —We can deal with that when we come to it. I was asked by the parent not to reveal the parent's name. In the circumstances, I suppose the hospital's name could be revealed. Senator Tate —Is it a big public hospital or a small private hospital? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —No, it is a specialised hospital called the Allowah Babies Hospital in Dundas. I was being reticent only because I had been asked not to reveal the name of the parent. I am not blaming the hospital for sending the letter, but it states: We refer to Erin's hospitalization at this hospital which is still current and to a copy letter dated 15th April 1987 from the relevant health insurance fund, the MBF, advising you that the acute care certificate (3B Certificate) covering the period 30/1/87 to 31/1/87 was revoked by the Commonwealth Department of Health. There has consequently been a shortfall in payment by the MBF to this hospital for those 2 days in January of $59.15 per day viz. $118.30. The Certificate for 1/1/87 to 30/1/87 was apparently accepted. That claim was sent to the MBF on 9//2/87 and although we had been verbally advised by the Acute Care Advisory Committee (ACAC) that no certificate would be revoked retrospectively, such revocation has taken place, and it took some 2 1/2 months for advice to be sent to you and ourselves. Claims have been submitted for February, March and April, and will be submitted for the current month of May and we must bring to your attention the financial implications of further revocations taking place, which would amount by shortfalls in payment to this hospital of approximately $1,774.50 per month. These implications are, of course, quite horrendous because, as you are aware, Erin suffers from micro- cephaly, profound developmental delay, recurrent fitting, consistent major urinary tract infections, and is a severe problem feeder and severe problem drinker. The letter goes on to state: In view of the discriminatory actions of the Acute Care Advisory Committee it is difficult for us to form any other conclusion than that it is the policy of the Federal and State Governments to ensure closure of this facility which has served the community of New South Wales and beyond for well over 30 years. We have already heard that Eaton's Babies Hospital, the only other hospital in New South Wales which has similar characteristics as Allowah, was forced into closing on the 16th March by the same method. If Allowah is forced into a similar situation, both you, and the New South Wales community in general will lose a much needed and first class resource for such babies and infants. I have here a whole list of statements-I will not go through them-by leading paediatricians and specialists in this area expressing very grave concern and also expressing their confidence in the standard of care that has always been maintained at this hospital. They include the staff specialists at the Prince of Wales Children's Hospital, Gillian Turner; P. G. Procopis, Acting General Superintendent of the Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children; a paediatrician, Dr A. Greenberg of Greenwich, and from Dr David Starte, from the Chatswood Assessment Centre who says: . . . it would be devastating for many families to be stripped of the possibility of such high standard nursing care and intensive developmental therapy, when they need a helping hand. Even the Department of Health, Southern New South Wales Metropolitan region Senior Medical Officer, Elizabeth Wilkinson, has written saying: There is currently no other facility in N.S.W. providing this type or quality of care to this age group. The adequate care of this relatively small number of children is extremely cost effective in that it reduces family stress, secondary breakdown of family units, and breakdown of the mental and physical health of individual family members. Laurel House, a unit of the Cumberland Area Health Service, Dr Vivian Bayl, a paediatrician, and Dr Helen Walsh add their weight. A report from the Review of Acute Care Needs of Developmentally Disabled Children in New South Wales said: The Review Team noted that the care provided by Allowah Babies Hospital was of an exceptionally high standard. So we have here the undeniable proposition that there is a need for this hospital. Only a relatively small number of people are involved. It is a matter of great significance, and I understand there has been consistent pressure brought to bear on the Department on this matter. I understand I am not bringing it to the Department's attention for the first time, and all I do is ask the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) to refer to his colleague this matter of great concern. I also raise in relation to health issues the matter of a gentleman named Mr Fred Goodfellow. Mr Goodfellow stood against me, I might say, as an Australian Democrat candidate in the seat of Macarthur some time ago. Naturally, he lost-unfortunately at the time so did I. He believes he should be eligible for Medicare cover for problems relating to his disability because he was not relevantly compensated under the damages award for future medical expenses. Mr Goodfellow had an aircraft accident in 1979 while in the Royal Australian Navy, and became a paraplegic. He was discharged in 1980, and sued for damages. He was awarded $187,000 because the RAN was found to be 75 per cent at fault, there being 25 per cent contributory negligence. Therefore, the Commonwealth is still liable to compensate him for 25 per cent of expenses relating to his disability. From 1981 onwards he has been continually ill due to an unknown cause, and in December 1984 he broke his leg falling over his wheelchair. On submitting claims to Medicare he truthfully admitted that he had received damages and signed a declaration accordingly. In February 1985 he received a form letter informing him that because of his claim for damages on the Commonwealth he was not entitled to Medicare cover. At that time he was ill with a temperature and was confined to bed with twice daily nursing care. Because of his general poor health and resulting psychological condition he did not seek medical attention due to his inability to meet his medical costs. In July 1985 he suffered complications and was hospitalised for 10 days. The resultant medical accounts are still outstanding. In November 1985, on the strong advice of doctors and nurses, he was admitted to the Royal North Shore Hospital for three months and one week for surgery and recovery involving the removal of infected bone that was causing all the problems. On 4 November 1985 Mr Goodfellow wrote to the Minister for Health requesting that the Minister determine that he was eligible for Medicare cover under the Health Insurance Act. The Minister had all the information to make a decision, but no decision was made. This matter has gone on and on. In May 1986 he had a broken upper right femur, and the doctors' bills are still unpaid. This man is an ex-serviceman, and it is disturbing that on 1 May he sent his last correspondence to the Department of Health asking for acknowledgment of various letters he had written and again asking for a decision with which he could at least agree or attack. He now has medical bills to the tune of $3,000, which he is currently paying off at $150 a month. He claims he pays his Medicare levy through his defence force retirement and death benefits pension yet he is not entitled to a benefit except for conditions that are not in any way related to his disability. I do believe the Government should look at this matter very closely. He has been most unfairly treated, and I request the Government to take action. I turn to the last point I wish to raise. The Senate will be aware that I criticised the use by a Mr John Wright, the Labor candidate for the Federal seat of Gilmore, of facilities in the Australian Taxation Office, where he works, some time ago. I recognise the fact that the Commissioner of Taxation acted promptly and withdrew those facilities from Mr Wright so that he could no longer improperly use government facilities for his election campaign for the Federal seat of Gilmore against Mr John Sharp, the outstandingly effective National Party member for that seat. I am disturbed to see that Mr John Wright, the endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate for Gilmore, is raising in his political activities tax issues relating to individual people. Under the heading `Liberal Treasurer not to pay tax-Wright', Mr Wright said that the Liberal Party National Treasurer, John Elliott, is a wonderful patriot when he wants to move his company's operations overseas in order to escape paying 10c in the dollar tax. The substance of whether Mr Elliott wants to move his companies off-shore does not relate to the heading `Liberal Treasurer not to pay tax'. I would have thought that Mr Wright, being an employee of the Australian Taxation Office, would have been particularly careful about saying anything about anybody in relation to taxation matters. I suggest it would be a much wiser and more reasonable course if he restrained himself from writing misleading headings relating to tax and kept his nose, as a Tax official, out of the tax matters of his political opponents while he is in this particularly delicate position. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(10.41) —I shall not detain the Senate long tonight on a matter which I regard as very important in the wake of the recent tragic deaths of two young jackaroos in Western Australia. I raise another example of young people being placed in extremely vulnerable positions by working on outback stations. My comments have general relevance to young people in all walks of life and in a number of industries around this country who, without the protection of trade unions, would have no bargaining power and in some cases-as in this case-would be left at risk by the actions of irresponsible and uncaring employers. I refer to a young man called Glen Chapman from Lithgow who, with six other young men from New South Wales, was recruited via an advertisement which he answered to work at Wave Hill property in the Northern Territory. This station did not give any indication to those young men as to what conditions they would be working under when they went there, but the young men were keen; they wanted a life in the outback and thought there was some vocation in front of them. After these young men answered the advertisement bus tickets were sent to them and they made their way to Wave Hill station. On arrival there they were told, much to their surprise, that they would be sent further out on the station, camping outdoors for two months in conditions which they later found to be quite unpalatable and extremely tough and rigorous for young people in that occupation for the first time. They brought their own sleeping blankets, but groundsheets were provided. They later found out that the cost of them was deducted from their first pay from Wave Hill station. This young man lasted two weeks on the trail. He objected, not loudly or vociferously, to the conditions that he was working under; he just thought that the life was not for him. He was not exactly a young city greenhorn; he had some experience in manual labour, and he was keen and willing to try a new job. The station accepted him on that basis. In his last week at the station he was allowed to work with a family further out on another part of the station mending fences. The interesting and rather tragic point is that he was told virtually that the station had no responsibility for him after that; once he had worked long enough to pay off his debts he would be allowed to leave. The cost of the groundsheet, stores, food and so on and any other items given to him by the station to protect him from the environment was deducted from his wage. At the end of three weeks he had worked long enough to pay off everything he owed to the station and he decided that he would leave. At that stage the station gave him no assistance whatsoever, not even a lift to the nearest hotel or town. This young man of 18 to 19 was allowed to leave the property and make his way to the nearest pub which was more than 100 kilometres or so away at Top Springs. He arrived at the hotel, having walked and finally hitched a ride with a group of Aborigines. The publican, I believe, was extremely kind and generous to him and arranged for him to find work for about two weeks on a nearby property. This young man was not a slacker or bludger by any means and was not totally without experience in this type of environment back in Lithgow. Of course, there is a long distance between Lithgow and Wave Hill in the Northern Territory. Finally, the young man made his way home. That salutary experience that he had in the outback he communicated to his parents who then wrote to me via the honourable member for Calare, Mr David Simmons, who has a very real interest in employment for young people in country areas. He has been known for a long time as a battler in matters such as this. Mr Simmons contacted me and the letter was written. I am extremely concerned for a number of reasons: First of all, the fact that these young people were not given a clear indication of their responsibilities and the nature of the work they would have to undertake when they arrived at Wave Hill; and secondly, the fact that their wages and conditions were not outlined in any way at all. Once those vulnerable people were on the station they had no alternative but to give up the job, lose money and make their own way back. I raise this matter because of the tragic consequences in a similar situation that occurred in Western Australia where two young jackaroos were found dead on the track when they decided to make their way home and were lost. I mention it because it shows the vulnerability of young people in a number of areas and the importance of having trade unions to protect them. After some discussions last week, today I rang the secretary of the Queensland branch of the Australian Workers Union, Mr Errol Hodder, who is noted for his very broad views about the responsibilities of the trade union movement and who runs a very efficient and effective trade union in that state. That union covers a very large proportion of workers of all kinds in Queensland. Mr Hodder informed me that his union will be taking immediate action to make sure that any young people, regardless of whether they are unionised, who find themselves in this vulnerable situation will be able to get to the nearest phone to ring the union to indicate their plight, ask for advice and make inquiries, for example about their wages and conditions and their rights as ordinary citizens. He has also indicated to me that he believes that special awards should be sought for young jackaroos working in this situation. Those awards exist in some States but there is no award coverage, as I understand it, in Western Australia where those two young people died recently. Mr Hodder intends to insert into the changed award conditions in his State a request that young people be supplied with certain means of communication, such as radio. At this stage we should be looking at making a telephone available. Obviously, there is a problem because some employers in outback areas have total control over their workers, make access to phones very difficult and certainly do not encourage young people working in that environment to make a telephone call to a trade union. I will end on this note: I believe that there may well be other tragedies in the outback and other cases of young people being exploited unless people start to realise that when they send their sons, and in some cases their daughters, into those areas they ought to be looking for the protection of the relevant trade union. The Australian Workers Union has indicated to me that it has 19 centres in Queensland, for example, to which a call can be made and union assistance sought. But it brings home to all of us, the rights, role and responsibilities of trade unions in our community. If young people or vulnerable employees are left to deal directly with employers, on many occasions without a trade union to intervene on their behalf and represent them, these people will be exploited. The strengths are very much in favour of employers in this area. The attacks on the trade union movement that are going on around the country at the moment by the Liberal Party will be shown to be totally false. If the use of the trade union movement is criticised in this country to such an extent that people will no longer have confidence in trade unions and young people, for example, will not go to trade unions for assistance, I believe the Liberal Party will be doing a great disservice in turning people away from what is a very important institution in our society and one on which the lives of some young people may well depend. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(10.15) —Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard to save the time of the Senate. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The subject I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate is one which I have raised on several occasions in recent months. Last year an incident occurred at Sydney Airport resulting in the arrest of two people on charges of attempted bird smuggling. The responsible Minister, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, has attempted to provide me with the answers as best as his Department is able to. I am sorry therefore that, despite my efforts and those of the Minister, the matter is still not resolved. The Minister has informed me that the matter is now before the Director of Public Prosecutions and because of that I do not wish in any way to influence the case or comment directly on it. However there are aspects of the whole situation about which I am concerned. It would appear that a case has been thoroughly prepared for the Director of Public Prosecutions. What I am concerned about is the apparent length of time it is taking in the Director's office for a decision to be made on the matter. I am aware the Director would have a great many cases to handle. However, I am very concerned that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. This is not an offence such as non-payment of parking fines. The question of smuggling-both in and out of Australia-is a very serious crime. It has a great many implications for our wildlife, for the protection of our very important disease free status. Any illegal movements in or out of Australia involving animals puts at risk that vital health status. Attempts to take Australian wildlife out of Australia are very serious crimes. As a result of my work with the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare I have been told many stories of illegal flights in and out of Australia carrying wildlife. Therefore I would hope that the apparent delay within the Director of Public Prosecutions' office is due simply to a backlog of work within that office and not because the Director considers the matter to be of so little significance as not to warrant a high priority. There are a great many people in the community and particularly within industries that involve Australian wildlife that are anxious that any malpractices within their industries be stamped out and penalties imposed that will deter people from resorting to illegal means to obtain or sell their products. As I said I do not wish to prejudice in any way any case currently with the public prosecutor but in fairness to everyone involved in the issue, I would hope that the matter can soon be finalised. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.51) —This afternoon in the Senate I made some comments about the South Australian division of the Australian Democrats and explained my reasons for dissociating myself from that division of the Party. I wish to amplify my comments and incorporate in Hansard the letter I sent to the South Australian division of the Australian Democrats which seems to have been misrepresented in the Press, as evidenced by the Press clippings I have received. I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- The Senate The Secretary South Australian Division, Australian Democrats. 2 June 1987 Dear Sandra, In view of the impending double dissolution of the Parliament which has forced me to an election earlier than my natural term, and according to the Divisional Regulation balloted March 1982 which reads as follows: ``In the event of a double dissolution of a Parliament, any Australian Democrat upper house politician forced to an election shall be placed in the top position on the AD team if they so wish.'', I request that I be placed in one of the two top positions on the South Australian Australian Democrat team of Senate candidates to contest the forthcoming election. Subsequently a further clarifying regulation was passed in a ballot closing 30 July 1982, which stated that ``In the event of a double dissolution of a Parliament where more than one sitting member has been forced to an election the Council be given the right to elect the order on the ticket.'' In accordance with these Regulations and the Rule passed by Council as an Upper House preselection guideline in January 1984, and which is interpreted as a Rule under the Constitution, namely ``In the event of a double dissolution situation, the position on the team of any sitting member/s will be determined by a special meeting of Council called specifically for that purpose.'', I request that the special meeting of Council called for 3 June 1987 do so determine my position on the team according to the Regulations quoted above. I unfortunately cannot attend this meeting as I am required in Canberra where Bills for which I am responsible are to be debated under guillotine. I consider the the chances of gaining a second Senate seat for the Australian Democrats in this coming full-Senate election in South Australia will be greatly enhanced by a ticket with Janine and myself at the top. The preselection for a half-Senate election was held concurrently with the leadership ballot, despite my request that it be deferred until the results of that ballot were known. Once Janine was elected leader, I preferred to not oppose her in preselection for a half-Senate election, but to seek an alternative position where the party could better use me, such as standing in the A.C.T. I bring to the ticket considerable electoral support from community groups complementary to those who have traditionally supported Janine. My portfolio responsibilities in Science and Technology have earned me the personal support of professional engineering and scientific bodies, as well as students and academics; as the only South Australian Senator who is a farmer, I have a strong following in rural areas; as a small business and industry spokesperson I have developed a lot of support amongst the small business community; my work in local government has led to my becoming well-known throughout the state; as the only Senator born in continental Europe I have strong support from the various ethnic communities in the state; I have also earned the respect of environmental and peace groups for my successful representation and achievements in these areas. The practical physical resources of a sitting Senator, as well as my own office facilities, will be invaluable to the party in a campaign. I am able to campaign effectively as as sitting Senator in South Australia while Janine must fulfil her national responsibilities. A speedy decision on this matter will enable us all to get a successful campaign underway without delay. Yours Faithfully DAVID VIGOR Senator VIGOR —Because I was working in the Senate, I wrote to the South Australian division and pointed out its constitutional responsibilities to organise the ticket in South Australia with Janine Haines and me at the top of the ticket. It did not fulfil this constitutional duty. This was the last of a large number of similar problems which had developed within the South Australian division and which initially led to the resignation from the Party of Mr Lance Milne. It later resulted in the forced removal from the top of the South Australian Legislative Council ticket in 1985 of Donald Chisholm by a process of attrition which was quite uncharacteristic of the early days of the Australian Democrats. When the Australian Democrats were founded the Party was based on democratic principles of openness and fair dealing, with honesty, tolerance and compassion as guiding principles. The original Party was made up of people who sought to change Australia and world politics, promote peace and prosperity and to secure the future for forthcoming generations. The Party placed strong emphasis on strength through co-operation and understanding, making the best use of everybody's talents and achieving consensus policies which worked for the good of everyone. In the early days Party members worked together enthusiastically with mutual trust and appreciation to merge together as many different people and parties as possible, aiming to bring to government a working multi-partisan team with effective management and efficient business control of the affairs of the country. That original openness and factual dealing in South Australia have become closed rumour-mongering. The honesty, tolerance and compassion have been replaced with introverted suspicions of anybody who falls mildly outside the expected dedication to a number of fairly narrow views. Instead of representative management there has been a complete inability to separate administration from politics. Where elected candidates did not suit the administrators they were pressured in unpleasant ways to stand down for more suitable people. This type of process has, in fact, also happened in other divisions such as New South Wales, where Liz Kirkby was similarly approached, and in Western Australia where Richard Jeffreys, who was top of the ticket, is no longer top of the ticket. Where policy was not to the liking of the party leaders, attempts were made to prevent democratic discussion and balance. Eventually, official policy that everyone who does not agree should get out made meetings so uncomfortable and unpleasant that people left and control has passed to those who enjoy the unpleasantness, the rumours and the closet decisions. In other words, all these problems of the major political parties are concentrated into a microcosm. This, indeed, is the reason that I feel that there is a need at this stage to look at a new way of approaching politics. That is the reason why I have taken the stand which I have taken and dissociate myself from the South Australian Division and am offering myself as a candidate for the Senate at the next election. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(10.56) —in reply-Senator Vigor elaborated on the reasons for his resignation from the South Australian Division of the Australian Democrats. Senator Brownhill incorporated his speech and I am therefore not aware of its contents. Senator Aulich, speaking on the death of two jackeroos, touched on a quite tragic theme and very neatly turned it to demonstrate not only the utility but very real vital necessity of unions in the defence of employees in vulnerable situations. Senator Michael Baume demonstrated his political ineptitude by concentrating firstly on rather trivial and feeble instances of, as he saw it, misuse of facilities. But he did so preceding what is his major responsibility as the Opposition spokesman on health matters. He spoke then of a children's hospital in New South Wales and the problems of a particular constituent in regard to health treatment. I would have thought that an Opposition spokesman on health matters would have given that matter priority in his remarks on the final adjournment debate for this parliamentary session. But, as we have seen with Senator Michael Baume, who has not asked a question in relation to health all this week, he is very good at Press releases, but when it comes to Question Time or real debate on health issues he has failed miserably. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.58 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1708) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 March 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Education aware of the contents of the `Orientation Week Handbook' produced by the Students' Association of the Australian National University. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the 5-page section on drugs, contained in this publication. (3) Does the Minister accept the view that the material in the booklet, on drugs, would be capable of giving students, particularly first-year students, a false impression as to the dangers involved in drug taking. (4) Are the views expressed in the document consis- tent with the Federal Government's approach to dissemination of information of drugs, through, for example, the `Drug Offensive' campaign. (5) Does the Minister believe that the publication represents a proper and beneficial use of students' money, contributed in the form of the General Services Fee paid by all under-graduate students at the ANU. (6) Does the Minister accept that students at the ANU should have the option of refusing to contribute to such publications, through the provision of the General Services Fee, if so, what steps will the Minister take to see that this option is made available. (7) In what circumstances, if any, would the Minister feel it appropriate to intervene in such publications, in the interest of young people, who might be on the receiving end of inadequate and, indeed, dangerous misinformation. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) I agree that the material is an unacceptable way of providing information to students or anyone about drug using behaviour. It is written in a way which glamorises drug use as an acceptable recreational pursuit and minimises the harmful effects of misuse of drugs. (4) The views expressed on drug use in the `ANU Orientation Handbook' have nothing to do with the efforts being made by all Australian Governments to reduce harmful drug use through the Drug Offensive. Because of the specific need to ensure students are provided with accurate information about drug use, the Commonwealth Department of Health, the Drug Offensive and the Australian Medical Association have prepared the booklet `Your Body-Just the Facts'. Over 180,000 copies were produced for school leavers and tertiary students. The booklet canvasses health issues, including harmful drug use, common health issues, contraception, AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The Australian Medical Association is responsible for the distribution of the booklet. My Department was advised by the Commonwealth Department of Health that a number of copies have been sent to the ANU Health Centre and that more copies are available on request. I have forwarded copies of the booklet to the Honourable Senator and have made copies available to other Senators and members through the Parliamentary Library. (5), (6) and (7) The Australian National University has power under its Act to make statutes on the payment to the University of fees payable in respect of the provision to students of amenities or services that are not of an academic nature and of an organisation of students, or of students and other persons. As the University is an autonomous tertiary education institution under the governance of its Council, this is not a matter which comes directly under my control. However, I have drawn the Honourable Senator's question and my answer to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. (Question No. 1740) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 April 1987: (1) What advertising agencies and public relations consultants have been engaged by the Department for the 1984-85, 1985-86 and the current financial years. (2) What was/is the value of those contracts. (3) On what projects were/are they engaged. (4) What selection criteria were used for their appointment. (5) Who in the Department was/is responsible for formulating the selection criteria and the final selection of the successful agency/consultant. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The advertising agency, Fountain Huie Fish Pty Ltd has been engaged by the Department in the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. No other advertising agency or public relations consultants have been engaged in this period. (2) The agency is remunerated for its production costs and head hour costs following standard Government procedures administered by the Information Co-ordination Branch, Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Payments made to Fountain Huie Fish for the three financial years are as follows: 1984-85-$58,130.00 1985-86-$73,565.54 1986-87-$140,591.38 (3) The projects the agency has been engaged on in the three years are: (a) Plant Quarantine Publicity (b) National Quarantine Publicity (c) `Rural Policy Action' leaflet series (1986-87 only). (4) The selection criteria used were the normal Government procedures for advertising agencies as administered by the Information Co-ordination Branch, Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. (5) Officers of my Department's Public Relations Section, in conjunction with the Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism were responsible for the selection of the agency. (Question No. 1751) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 30 April 1987: (1) How are advertising contracts arranged within the Department of Finance. (2) If they are not arranged with the Department, how are they arranged. (3) If another Department undertakes arrangements for the Department's advertising, what is the procedure and under what guidelines are the contracts made. (4) Are these procedures uniform with arrangements made by other Departments in respect of their advertising contracts. (5) How long have existing arrangements for advertising contracts been in practice. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Advertising arrangements within the Department of Finance consist of: recruitment advertisements placed with the Commonwealth Gazette Officer; and a once per year graduate recruitment advertisement placed directly with a limited number of campus newsletters (2) In general advertising is arranged through Neville Jeffress Australia Pty Ltd, the master agency authorised by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Advertisements inviting expressions of interest for the supply of items not covered by a Commonwealth/State Government contract are arranged through the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services (DOLGAS). (3) The procedure for advertising for the supply of non contract items is: originate a procurement demand, form No. M17 prepare a requisition for supply, form No. 11 forward the procurement demand form to DOLGAS for subsequent gazettal and if required media advertising through the authorised master agency. The guidelines for the foregoing procedure are: Finance Regulation 46/47 Finance Direction 25/23 Finance Circulars 1984/16 and 1985/10 Commonwealth Purchasing Manual Reg. 3.2b Personnel Management Manual Vol. 7 (4) Yes, according to advice provided by DOLGAS. (5) Regulations covering existing arrangements came into effect in November 1982 (Finance Regulation 46/47 refers).